Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Rampant]

That is way to reductionist and binary to describe human behavior, sorry. People can be 'untrustworthy' when playing games and trustworthy in a life-threatening situation and the other way around. Pretty much nobody is almost or never trustworthy, it all depends on the context.

What this topic mostly shows is that griefing people in ED is a topic that is very, very important to you.

It isn't too reductionist at all. It wasn't an essay on the human condition. It still remains truth that - in the context of strangers playing a video game - strangers who one will almost certainly never meet except in this one video game world - that if an individual enters into an agreement that is a prerequisite for playing with others in a private group, and that individual reneges in their agreement (with forethought and prior planning) - that the individual in question cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form, in the context of playing that video game with other individuals.
It's a really exceptionally simple concept that I'm struggling to see that it can be "argued with", because, let's face facts, it can't be.

All this talk of military intelligence, pfft, nobody here probably has any clue what they're talking about or any form of first hand experience on which to base that. (It is highly, nee exceptionally likely that I might be the only one here who actually does, so let's not push it here.) Who here thinks it likely that a "double agent" is trusted 100% by the country or organisation that has placed them as a "mole"? That's right. Not entirely trustworthy, even by the side you are working primarily for...

Anyway, that nugget is beside the point. As is the notion that I might seem "upset". Irrelevant. Not at all sanguine to the discussion at hand.

My words describing (dishonest act => untrustworthy individual) are entirely devoid of emotional baggage. Instead, they are factual, honest and are nothing but reasoned logic.

On the topic of "infiltration", I do find it hilariously funny that some tried to focus on that word instead of confronting the main thrust of the point. It's just a word that I found "useful" in potentially getting views into the thread. On the notion of "infiltrating a pub", that's a very poor analogy. Unless the pub in question asks each individual, in person, whether they agree to not knife fight insude the pub, because all the other guests have agreed not to and are therefore not carrying knives or wearing blade-kevlar and the "infiltrator" is going into the pub with both a knife and Kevlar with the premeditated intention to knife as many other guests as is possible. Then, and only then do we have a valid "pub" infiltrator analogy and one that logically results in us all concluding that - that guy was definitely not trustworthy...

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

 

[Ouberos]

Would you go so far as to say that in real life they are perhaps Sociopaths?

 

[Rampant]

Would you go so far as to say that in real life they are perhaps Sociopaths?

Silly question. In real life there indeed are *confirmed* sociopaths. Once you know who they are, then you know not to trust them.

What has that got to do with the discussion?

 

[gribley]

Just when i thought the gap between reality and carebears could not get wider i read this.

Putting such a level of obsession and personal emotional investment in a video game is unhealthy. Oh no a person didnt say the truth and blew up my internet pixels, id better rage and let it warp my mind

 

[Morbad]

Would you go so far as to say that in real life they are perhaps Sociopaths?

I think trying to shoehorn the behavior of real people into convenient categories is uncertain enough with unlimited access to that person. When the only access you have is how they chose to portray a fantasy character in a video game, it's unthinkable.

Practically speaking, it's also irrelevant. Maybe it will make some players feel better if they think those they are blaming are somehow defective, inferior, or unable to help themselves, but it's not going to change what's happening in game.

 

[Chaparral]

Hehehahaha sacrosanct. Does it violate the EULA? If not then all you can do is boot them.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Silly question. In real life there indeed are *confirmed* sociopaths. Once you know who they are, then you know not to trust them.

What has that got to do with the discussion?

The discussion has no clothes.

 

[Old Duck]

The discussion has no clothes.

But it does have every possible benediction known to man.

 

[mossfoot]

I dare say in the real world these people are not such Berks. Sadly hidden anonamusly behind a keyboard knowing people will never recognise them in real life makes them act differently.
Note I am not equating mode invades with psychopaths etc like some do, but I bet a lot would happily use aimbots, wall hacks, ship bots and will happily clog if things go against them esp if they are happy they won't get caught.

Cheaters gonna cheat.

Mainly they remind me of Father Fintan Stack

[video=youtube;uJ6yXkQFzgI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6yXkQFzgI[/video]

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

You seem to not be getting the OP or are being deliberately obtuse.
Choosing a mode is an out of game act. You agree to the rules of the PG by entering and if you break those specific rules. It is nothing to do with warfare.
Look at it this way, you play cards, say poker, there is nothing physically stopping you from using a marked deck or hiding cards... But doing it is an out of game act and "opponent should have paid more attention to the pack and my dealing " is not a viable excuse.

Hogwash, I invoke "shared universe"!

 

[Ouberos]

Silly question. In real life there indeed are *confirmed* sociopaths. Once you know who they are, then you know not to trust them.

What has that got to do with the discussion?

This is the most asinine thing I have read today.

 

[babelfisch]

Are you suggesting that people control their character, rather than their character controls them?

What if their character is a rule breaker? are you suggesting they play as a non-rule breaker?

PS the operative word here is PLAY. It's not RL, it's escapism.

Since joining a PG is an out of game action your argument also justifies cheats. I disagree.

 

[Nadreck]

Hmm. I was wondering when the "snowflake murderhoboes" would start showing up.

To be clear on this: if your idea of fun is to stalk explorers on a community event and blow them up for the lulz (especially when they have travelled a long way and are carrying cartographic data)... yes, you are a sociopath. Absolutely. Undoubtedly. And not just your "character": you, personally, are a sociopath. Glad to clear that up for you.

That doesn't mean you're a real-life serial killer, and perhaps that's where the confusion lies. Schoolyard bullies are sociopaths too. It is also entirely possible that your issue is very "compartmentalised" and you might be a real hero when you're away from your keyboard.

Yet some get upset by being labelled as such (which is something I still find odd) and seem to be "in denial" about it. Cue the usual crying that it's "only a game" and involves just "pixels on a screen" (as if trying to forget that real people are involved). And the victim-blaming ("git gud") and other forms of denial. And around and around we go...

Whether you actually care about being identified as a sociopath is up to you. There is, of course, a very simple solution if you do: stop being a jerk. But if you aren't capable of that, you could at least stop being a snowflake about it.

 

[dognosh]

Players who deliberately infiltrate a no-PvP Private Group - please take note.

Entering into an agreement, as a person, and then going against that agreement, as a person, is an entirely different thing than your "character" might do as a fifth columnist pledging to a power.

The PG agreement is between the *players*, not their "characters", and reneging on your agreement is not an acceptable act for the person to perform.

You enter into the agreement as a person, not the character in the game, so it is not acceptable to call this "fifth column" or be the person's "character as a saboteur".

Your agreement is between people and should be treated as sacrosanct.

There is a world of difference between how your character acts in game, and how you, as a person, act after giving your agreement to a set of rules.

Yours Aye

Mark H

In agreement !!!
But here's a piece of advice for you : Never play Eve Online, you won't last long there
(I was there from near the start of EO,and sold my char a few years ago for a tidy amount)

 

[Deleted member 110222]

In real life there indeed are *confirmed* sociopaths. Once you know who they are, then you know not to trust them.

I suggest you add me to your ignore list then.

 

[sollisb]

It isn't too reductionist at all. It wasn't an essay on the human condition. It still remains truth that - in the context of strangers playing a video game - strangers who one will almost certainly never meet except in this one video game world - that if an individual enters into an agreement that is a prerequisite for playing with others in a private group, and that individual reneges in their agreement (with forethought and prior planning) - that the individual in question cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form, in the context of playing that video game with other individuals.
It's a really exceptionally simple concept that I'm struggling to see that it can be "argued with", because, let's face facts, it can't be.

All this talk of military intelligence, pfft, nobody here probably has any clue what they're talking about or any form of first hand experience on which to base that. (It is highly, nee exceptionally likely that I might be the only one here who actually does, so let's not push it here.) Who here thinks it likely that a "double agent" is trusted 100% by the country or organisation that has placed them as a "mole"? That's right. Not entirely trustworthy, even by the side you are working primarily for...

Anyway, that nugget is beside the point. As is the notion that I might seem "upset". Irrelevant. Not at all sanguine to the discussion at hand.

My words describing (dishonest act => untrustworthy individual) are entirely devoid of emotional baggage. Instead, they are factual, honest and are nothing but reasoned logic.

On the topic of "infiltration", I do find it hilariously funny that some tried to focus on that word instead of confronting the main thrust of the point. It's just a word that I found "useful" in potentially getting views into the thread. On the notion of "infiltrating a pub", that's a very poor analogy. Unless the pub in question asks each individual, in person, whether they agree to not knife fight insude the pub, because all the other guests have agreed not to and are therefore not carrying knives or wearing blade-kevlar and the "infiltrator" is going into the pub with both a knife and Kevlar with the premeditated intention to knife as many other guests as is possible. Then, and only then do we have a valid "pub" infiltrator analogy and one that logically results in us all concluding that - that guy was definitely not trustworthy...

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

9 years Military Police qualify ?

 

[jasonbarron]

9 years Military Police qualify ?

Jack Reacher?

 

[Ian Skippy]

It isn't too reductionist at all. It wasn't an essay on the human condition. It still remains truth that - in the context of strangers playing a video game - strangers who one will almost certainly never meet except in this one video game world - that if an individual enters into an agreement that is a prerequisite for playing with others in a private group, and that individual reneges in their agreement (with forethought and prior planning) - that the individual in question cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form, in the context of playing that video game with other individuals.
It's a really exceptionally simple concept that I'm struggling to see that it can be "argued with", because, let's face facts, it can't be.

All this talk of military intelligence, pfft, nobody here probably has any clue what they're talking about or any form of first hand experience on which to base that. (It is highly, nee exceptionally likely that I might be the only one here who actually does, so let's not push it here.) Who here thinks it likely that a "double agent" is trusted 100% by the country or organisation that has placed them as a "mole"? That's right. Not entirely trustworthy, even by the side you are working primarily for...

Anyway, that nugget is beside the point. As is the notion that I might seem "upset". Irrelevant. Not at all sanguine to the discussion at hand.

My words describing (dishonest act => untrustworthy individual) are entirely devoid of emotional baggage. Instead, they are factual, honest and are nothing but reasoned logic.

On the topic of "infiltration", I do find it hilariously funny that some tried to focus on that word instead of confronting the main thrust of the point. It's just a word that I found "useful" in potentially getting views into the thread. On the notion of "infiltrating a pub", that's a very poor analogy. Unless the pub in question asks each individual, in person, whether they agree to not knife fight insude the pub, because all the other guests have agreed not to and are therefore not carrying knives or wearing blade-kevlar and the "infiltrator" is going into the pub with both a knife and Kevlar with the premeditated intention to knife as many other guests as is possible. Then, and only then do we have a valid "pub" infiltrator analogy and one that logically results in us all concluding that - that guy was definitely not trustworthy...

Slàinte Mhath

Mark H

That is a lot of words to say:"if you shoot atvsomeone in a game when you promised not to, you can never ever thrust them with anything."

To which, as a trained clinical neuropsychologist with experience with patients with sociopathy, my expert response would be: lol.

To you games may be 'sacrosanct'. Let me assure you: to the average human that is a bizarre notion.

 

[sollisb]

Jack Reacher?

hahaha,laffing here.. No... Love his character tho! But starting to get a bit tedious in the latest books.

 

[sollisb]

That is a lot of words to say:"if you shoot atvsomeone in a game when you promised not to, you can never ever thrust them with anything."

To which, as a trained clinical neuropsychologist with experience with patients with sociopathy, my expert response would be: lol.

To you games may be 'sacrosanct'. Let me assure you: to the average human that is a bizarre notion.

Actually an interesting comment. I know for me, ex-army etc etc, someone breaks my trust, I never trust them again. In relation to gaming, I'd think someone that goes out of their way to mine salt from players they can easily beat, to be indicative of their personality. But that's just me and my experience.