A sain person will keep whats inevitably, inevitable.
Frontier want us to fight, each other, in Open.
Last edited:
- Status
A sain person will keep whats inevitably, inevitable.
Frontier want us to fight, each other, in Open.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
A little salt is a dangerous thing,
drink deep from the Pierian spring of P&V.
drink deep from the Pierian spring of P&V.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
This place needs more Haidt.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
(I know, I know, it says American... It's on your side of the pond too...)
I'd say that's about the size of it.
It really is funny how when those games already exist elsewhere, some insist on making one that isn't use the same mechanics as the others.
We can't have a "different" game, after all. Because that's somehow "unfair".
Why not just go ahead and make two separate game ecosystems instead, one competitive and the other not competitive? That's really the only inherent difference in what people differ on in almost every one of these conversations. Some people want to compete with each other- and others want to cooperate with each other. Seems to make more logical sense than trying to make almost every game out there use the exact same mechanics just with differing environments.
I'd completely favor "getting rid of the modes" if we had two menu choices- one for competitive players - the other for cooperative players... but since that's not going to happen, the modes are here to stay and some will just have to accept that... just as some have to accept we don't have those two choices now.
Essentially, Frontier created the perfect situation because no one gets everything they really want, but everyone gets a bit of something they want. Everyone's unhappy! Yay!
This place needs more Haidt.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
(I know, I know, it says American... It's on your side of the pond too...)
Well the beech will still stand, the fire likely burning....south of Denmark.
Every thing else is out of my reach, alas.
S!
Topics like this always bring to mind the famous line from the inestimable Gene Hackman in Unforgiven, where he plays the ruthless Sheriff Little Bill questioning William Munny's confederate Ned who they captured and are holding in a cell. During the questioning, Ned cries out protesting his "innocence" and Little Bill snarls back: "Innocent of what?"
I'll see if I can scrounge up a meme somewhere. Also, this:
I'll see if I can scrounge up a meme somewhere. Also, this:
I'm going to say no.
Repeatedly attacking the same player without reason, that's when it crosses into the territory of harassment.
Would very much depend on the conditions though.
Let's say you are the attacker, and you see someone in the system, you say "This system is in lockdown, leave or be attacked". Then attack, that is not harassment. It might be a weaksauce roleplay excuse for PvP, but hey, that's not the question. If they keep coming back, then i still don't see it as harassment.
However, let's say there are other people flying in the system. If you are attacking them as well, that's fine. If you are not, and only attacking that one player, then its definitely in the realm of targetted harassment. (again, there might be exclusions, for example, powerplay alliegance).
Repeatedly attacking the same player without reason, that's when it crosses into the territory of harassment.
Would very much depend on the conditions though.
Let's say you are the attacker, and you see someone in the system, you say "This system is in lockdown, leave or be attacked". Then attack, that is not harassment. It might be a weaksauce roleplay excuse for PvP, but hey, that's not the question. If they keep coming back, then i still don't see it as harassment.
However, let's say there are other people flying in the system. If you are attacking them as well, that's fine. If you are not, and only attacking that one player, then its definitely in the realm of targetted harassment. (again, there might be exclusions, for example, powerplay alliegance).
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
So let me get the straight.
You want people to have a reason to be attacked. But not force people to fight over objectives.
You call it harassment if they die over and over again when they have the modes option.
And if you blockade a system and they use a mode to still complete their goal against you. That kind of removes the reason right?
Who does that leave left? The people that do get blown up for no reason.
Im really trying to understand you guys.
You want reasons, but you also want to leave the options available that remove the reasons.
This is called having your cake and eating it too!
You guys do realize thats why combat logging is bad right? Or do you guys still think its because griefers want to see a pretty explosion and give someone a hard time?
I still feel the legal definition covers it.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
"the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands."
systematic/continued, unwanted, annoying.
Looks good to me. Systematic & continued are within the control of the antagonist, unwanted & annoying are not. This addresses both the 'don't be a ' and 'grow up' sides of the argument.
Freedom of speech?
You may want to read about how we all get rid of each other.
No one has power over you.
Be a victim.
Choice is yours.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
That's my line thanks.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I'm a helper, but fair point.
to be fair, it should have been rolled into an Open/Solo debate thread ages ago
Topic or not topic.
That's the question.
That's the question.
- Status