Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yep.

And surely you're not suggesting military subterfuge is constrained to warfare, or even war times?

It happens during peace as well.

007 ring a bell?

You mean that fictional character? Yeah, that rings a bell. What an . And I wasn't saying that, the link said that. So take it up with whoever posted the link

But I have noticed the gist of the thread went from: lying to get into a private group is an act of the player vs another player, instead of a character in the game vs another character, into psychopath country. And I don't like bats.

Getting into a private group under false pretenses is being a pillock as a person. While in game actions can be attributed to just playing a game. That's as far as I'm willing to go with this.

 

[Aashenfox]

You mean that fictional character? Yeah, that rings a bell. What an . And I wasn't saying that, the link said that. So take it up with whoever posted the link

But I have noticed the gist of the thread went from: lying to get into a private group is an act of the player vs another player, instead of a character in the game vs another character, into psychopath country. And I don't like bats.

Getting into a private group under false pretenses is being a pillock as a person. While in game actions can be attributed to just playing a game. That's as far as I'm willing to go with this.

Ah, I see we haven't progressed past page 1.

This, by the way.

 

[mossfoot]

Getting into a private group under false pretenses is being a pillock as a person. While in game actions can be attributed to just playing a game. That's as far as I'm willing to go with this.

Pretty much all that needs to be said.

 

[Rampant]

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.

Go ahead and select an interpretation that suits you. It still doesn't change the facts as described and previously notated as "no interpretation changes facts."

Allow me to quantify.

Since we are on a forum *dedicated* to a video game... And since we will (almost) certainly never have any contact or interaction with each other outside of this video game.... I would've expected it to be pretty bloody obvious that I was posting exclusively about the video game and our personal interactions through that video game with strangers who we will otherwise never meet.

Any player who gives their agreement to behave within the guidelines given to them *PRIOR* to being given acces to any *PRIVATE* Group in this video game, while they never intended to abide by the agreement from the outset, and prior to them seeking access to that particular group... agreements they have proactively sought, intending to break their word prior to seeking the group - that set of circumstances renders that player a premeditated liar. Fact. In the context of our interactions as *people* those individuals are *demonstrably* premeditated liars and cannot therefore be trusted. I'm not talking about those person's "characters", but the actual individuals themselves.

With your professional training, you'll probably accept that this confirmed tendency to make premeditated lies *might" extend in their interactions with other people beyond this video game, but on that we (the royal we = the forum and game population) couldn't really care less.

Even if you're trying to say that those confirmed liars could easily be compartmentalised to be liars solely within the context of their interactions in this single video game and absolutely nowhere else - including in other video games and in other impersonal forums - that *still* doesn't make their actions anything other than lies between people outside of the game itself and *still* doesn't change a lie into anything other than a lie.

I can keep explaining this at your leisure.

Finally, I don't think I've made any "judgements". I think I've just stuck to appropriate accurate real and accepted labelling that describes a person's actions. Shall we keep it confined to that?

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Screemonster]

Amazed at the people acting like the victim because they're not wanted in a private social activity.

If people are eager to have private gatherings that don't include you, maybe consider there's a reason why you're not invited.

 

[Rampant]

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.

You're trying to extend what I said and construct a straw man argument.

Is it dto difficult for you to understand that an agreement between individuals - which is entered into by one individual who fully intends not to abide by that agreement prior to even applying into that agreement - this behaviour demonstrates that the individual concerned is not trustworthy. I'm stating a fact. That is all.

It isn't the "game" being sacrosanct to me that is the topic here, it is the agreement between players prior to entering into the game.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

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

it is interesting. I know a lot of people think that videogames are somehow not really a "valid" entertainment medium and so probably think being a berk in them is ok..... and if you do that is your view and you are entitled to it..... and whilst i also think OP may be going a little bit far, i am wondering would you be ok playing cards for instance with someone you know will happily play dishonestly?. Personally I would rather not play with cheats in any games and that includes videogames.

Think of the time put into elite which can be lost just due to 1 idiot who chose to break the rules say 6 months into this event....

Her is another example... say me and you decided to break the record of a "Domino Rally" (google if you do not know what that is) I use this example as this is something else which can take many months of design, prep and organisational time but then 10 mins from being finished I decided to smash it up for lolz complete with a "funny" youtube video. After all it IS only a hobby/game.. that may not make me untrustworthy in life or death issues, but i would suggest you would not ever want to see me again in a social setting and would reflect poorly on me.

I think you need to forget about it being "videogame" and more look at whether or not cheating or (out of game character lying) just to spoil someones hobby is something that should be accepted or not.

 

[Ian Skippy]

it is interesting. I know a lot of people think that videogames are somehow not really a "valid" entertainment medium and so probably think being a berk in them is ok..... and if you do that is your view and you are entitled to it..... and whilst i also think OP may be going a little bit far, i am wondering would you be ok playing cards for instance with someone you know will happily play dishonestly?. Personally I would rather not play with cheats in any games and that includes videogames.

Think of the time put into elite which can be lost just due to 1 idiot who chose to break the rules say 6 months into this event....

Her is another example... say me and you decided to break the record of a "Domino Rally" (google if you do not know what that is) I use this example as this is something else which can take many months of design, prep and organisational time but then 10 mins from being finished I decided to smash it up for lolz complete with a "funny" youtube video. After all it IS only a hobby/game.. that may not make me untrustworthy in life or death issues, but i would suggest you would not ever want to see me again in a social setting and would reflect poorly on me.

I think you need to forget about it being "videogame" and more look at whether or not cheating or (out of game character lying) just to spoil someones hobby is something that should be accepted or not.

All I am saying is that OPs claim that someone lying in a game can never ever be trusted with anything is absurd. That doesnt mean I find it 'ok' to so, but OP needs to be less hysterical about it.

 

[Stigbob]

Amazed at the people acting like the victim because they're not wanted in a private social activity.

If people are eager to have private gatherings that don't include you, maybe consider there's a reason why you're not invited.

This.

 

[babelfisch]

All I am saying is that OPs claim that someone lying in a game can never ever be trusted with anything is absurd. That doesnt mean I find it 'ok' to so, but OP needs to be less hysterical about it.

OP is absolutely calm, nothing hysterical about it. Here is a tip (it's a very valuable tip so treat it with care!):

Whenever you find yourself in disagreement with someone, check which voice you are attributing to him when you read his posts. If the voice in your head sounds like Eddie Murphy, try reading his posts in the voice of Morgan Freeman. It helps.

 

[Rampant]

Might it be that given how much work i have on a daily baisis, stress of deadlines and often 12 hour days i just wanna switch off and act like an out of character madman on a video game safe im the knowlege that as it has no link to real life it is harmless.

To me the people who get enraged about rule abiding ingame interactions and start bringing irl into it are the unballanced and unhealthy ones. Chill out guys and realise that your feelings being ouchied do not equate to other players being irl bad

Read the specifics. Are you the type to make agreements to other players before joining their PG with the sole intention to disregard your agreement before you even made it? If not, then carry on with your game in Open. That isn't what this thread is about.

This thread is about players who enter a PG having already decided to join the PG with the prior and sole intention of not sticking to their agreement, with forethought and planning. Those players are indisputably not to be trusted. That isn't opinion, that's the meaning of the definition.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Old Duck]

Yours Aye

Mark H

You've already used that goodbye. It's too early to start recycling. What do you think this is, NPC comm texts?

"This thread is the top 1% of all threads."

"The thread is in the nest."

"I'm going to boil this thread up."

"Looks like this thread will go hungry tonight."

"I'm going to write a song about this thread when I get back!"

 

[Werewolf13]

WOW!

One could write a paper about this thread.

A classic conflict between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Continue, please. This is fascinating (this one never imagined that the level of erudition amongst ED players was this high).

 

[dognosh]

Everyone lies.

Famous quote by Dr. Gregory House

 

[mossfoot]

Famous quote by Dr. Gregory House

And Commander Jeffery Sinclair of Babylon 5

 

[Stigbob]

WOW!

One could write a paper about this thread.

A classic conflict between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Continue, please. This is fascinating (this one never imagined that the level of erudition amongst ED players was this high).

I've always found the "why won't they play with me, force them" subtext much more interesting.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

You're trying to extend what I said and construct a straw man argument.

Is it dto difficult for you to understand that an agreement between individuals - which is entered into by one individual who fully intends not to abide by that agreement prior to even applying into that agreement - this behaviour demonstrates that the individual concerned is not trustworthy. I'm stating a fact. That is all.

It isn't the "game" being sacrosanct to me that is the topic here, it is the agreement between players prior to entering into the game.

Suggesting dishonesty in one context implies UN-trustworthiness in all contexts is patently silly.

To wit: Lawyers.

 

[dognosh]

And Commander Jeffery Sinclair of Babylon 5

The only anomaly was Zathras, he never lied...

 

[Hellakitty]

It's a video game. People kill each other in video games all the time. If having your pretend spaceship blown up by another pretend spaceship bothers you so much you feel the need to pontificate from some level of faux-superiority, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate a few things.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You're trying to extend what I said and construct a straw man argument.

I am only saying that your opinion is ridiculous. And I say that without emotion. It is just a pure fact, and I can state that because I am really amazing at making observations. My skills are huge. The best. No emotion, no emotion, you are the emotion. That is a fact.