Research on Griefing - a few excerpts

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Not to go too far off topic, but how would you encourage folks to fly in Open?

By publishing a dedicated MP game and not a mixup of modes that don't really satisfy any player group fully.

 

[Rampant]

OK here you finally have conceded it might not be Griefing.
Also we agree that the simplest solution is using the speed limit instead of waiting for complex coding

I do concede that in a very, very, very minuscule number of occasions - station ramming *prior to docking* - MAY not be griefing. You do know yourself, if you are honest, that this would be a number lower than 1%, though.
You also need to concede that it is still an EXPLOIT. This was never an intended mechanic. It is a mistake by FDev to have coded this in such a way that allows this behaviour. You also need to be honest in accepting that truth.
So we now have 100% of time = exploit, and 99%+ = actual intended griefing.

Also maybe not put words in my mouth that speed limit is simplest "solution". It may well be "Simple", but by no means has the speed limit been a "Solution", because even you admit that you can use it as an exploit, meanwhile, the same identical characters and their friends still employ station ramming as a means to grief both before, and now after the introduction of the speed limit - so you need to acknowledge that it hasn't "solved" anything at all.

So basically, Sandro is suggesting (like he once suggested adding bonuses to playing in Open lol) that criminal behavior will meet bad karma. Meaning, he's basically assuming it's not an exploit and it's not EULA violating harassment since the player will meet in-game consequences only, no ban, no nothing.

No, you misunderstand. Karma is not for "criminal" behaviour. Karma is for undesirable and exploitative play. Ramming in stations is not "criminal" and does not accrue fines or bounties, but, in future, the intent was at the time of Sandro posting - to accumulate bad Karma for station ramming. Combat logging is likewise not "criminal" behaviour.

Either this was an honest mistake likening exploitative behaviour to criminality, in which case please acknowledge, or it was a deliberate attempt as misdirection, in which case, naughty, naughty Eve - you've been rumbled for having an agenda.

Again, station ramming, *is* in fact, considered to be an exploit, otherwise it wouldn't be amongst the targeted behaviours for bad Karma. Would it now?
Seriously, it really doesn't take a genius to conclude that station ramming is an unintended mechanic, and therefore an exploit, but, hey, if you use it yourself, then perhaps continue to refuse to accept the truth, just because...

Yeah as I've said in previous comments, suicide station ramming can mostly be considered Griefing, specially when reincident. Then I've provided examples of exceptional situations in which it's not necessarily Griefing (countering a CG, for example). What we're lacking in ED Open mode, besides proper C&P, is reasons to fly in Open… real roleplay/progression/objective/asset reasons to risk your ships in Open which would change the mind focus from "I'm being griefed" to "I'm facing risks because of rewards".

Granted, these wouldn't make a considerable part of the community suddenly join Open because those guys enjoy the loneliness of space, the sightseeing, the exploring, or just don't enjoy the multi-player aspect of the game, or selectively enjoy the co-op aspect of it. And that's cool. But many other players would take the effort of learning to protect themselves in Open, many others would stop the griefing nonsense, others would come back into the game, and player retention would improve, with reasons.

Countering a CG by ramming is still an exploit. Perhaps I repeat myself?


I'm actually surprised that you have written it on the internet that you view mode choice as "cool", I hadn't figured you for one who accepted that, so credit where credit is due [up] that you can see past the mode system, and have more of a circumspect view that if there were no Solo or PG modes, that players would either not buy the game in the first place, or just not play it after experiencing the mechanic of Open and realising it isn't a fun or rewarding mode for them personally to invest their leisure time.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[TheSynopticVision]

See, here's the problem Synoptic (at least for me) - The way that you express yourself when making a point is insulting and dismissive. It goes beyond the obvious insult of "moron" that you seem so fond of using. It's in your insistence that for those of us who disagree with you, we must play your game of intellectual superiority in order for our counterpoint to have any kind of value. You literally said, earlier in the thread, that the only proper response to your well-researched OP would be an equally well researched response, supported by opposing studies and documents.

If we refuse to play that game, then you counter with accusations like "You don't have the tools to understand", and "You're a moron and an irrational human being". No, what we are (besides being a bunch of 40 year-old men who have somehow managed to make it through life this far without having to ask people like you for instructions)... what we are is a bunch of folks who play a spaceship video game. And that's what you are too. Go ahead and let it soak in.

(Now, would you like to crack open some brews and shoot the poo about why griefers do what they do?)

Fine let's wrap it up then, since also Jenner seems to grow restless.

Just consider this: "the way you express yourself when making a point is insulting and dismissive". I don't think this is the case, but others might feel differently, I realise and apologize (because, impressions notwithstanding, I am not an A-h.ole). But tell me: how about the dozens of people in-forum who complain about griefers and who are met with: memes about salt, jokes about thargoids carebear variant, accusations of being autistic forumdads, and so on and so forth. That's OK I suppose?

I simply ask (perhaps forcefully) that people play the "game" of offering reasons for their opinions, and I am considered dismissive and insulting.

Others play the game of literally insulting other people, and making fun of their opinions, and are considered funny.


Bye.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Fine let's wrap it up then, since also Jenner seems to grow restless.

Just consider this: "the way you express yourself when making a point is insulting and dismissive". I don't think this is the case, but others might feel differently, I realise and apologize (because, impressions notwithstanding, I am not an A-h.ole). But tell me: how about the dozens of people in-forum who complain about griefers and who are met with: memes about salt, jokes about thargoids carebear variant, accusations of being autistic forumdads, and so on and so forth. That's OK I suppose?

I simply ask (perhaps forcefully) that people play the "game" of offering reasons for their opinions, and I am considered dismissive and insulting.

Others play the game of literally insulting other people, and making fun of their opinions, and are considered funny.


Bye.

Well, you have to admit, there were some pretty creative zingers

 

[Goose4291]

Fine let's wrap it up then, since also Jenner seems to grow restless.

Just consider this: "the way you express yourself when making a point is insulting and dismissive". I don't think this is the case, but others might feel differently, I realise and apologize (because, impressions notwithstanding, I am not an A-h.ole). But tell me: how about the dozens of people in-forum who complain about griefers and who are met with: memes about salt, jokes about thargoids carebear variant, accusations of being autistic forumdads, and so on and so forth. That's OK I suppose?

I simply ask (perhaps forcefully) that people play the "game" of offering reasons for their opinions, and I am considered dismissive and insulting.

Others play the game of literally insulting other people, and making fun of their opinions, and are considered funny.


Bye.

Okay. I was going to write a reply, but I'll save it for your next pseudo-intellectual pop psychology thread.

Tatty-bye

 

[cmdr underhill]

*snip...
So basically, Sandro is suggesting (like he once suggested adding bonuses to playing in Open lol) that criminal behavior will meet bad karma. Meaning, he's basically assuming it's not an exploit and it's not EULA violating harassment since the player will meet in-game consequences only, no ban, no nothing.

That's an artificial claim that you are putting in Sandro's mouth. The EULA has a section (12.4 if you care) saying "if we don't enforce, that's not an endorsement", also the Code of Conduct states players "caught cheating or taking advantage of any exploits or bugs will be penalise and could face a game ban." (emphasis mine, spelling in original ).

How much hay has been made on the idea of in-game consequences vs shadow-banning everyone (potentially because of bugs)? Would you prefer FD be ban-happy?

To be fair, Rampant: do you really think c-logging is viewed as less of an exploit?? I think the only reason c-logging isn't already dealt with in much harsher ways is because of the risk from spotty internet connectivity. That Frontier has no control over.

 

[Rampant]

To be fair, Rampant: do you really think c-logging is viewed as less of an exploit?? I think the only reason c-logging isn't already dealt with in much harsher ways is because of the risk from spotty internet connectivity. That Frontier has no control over.

I will refrain from personal comment, all that I noted from Sandro's post - and he is usually *very* careful with his wording and language - at the time of his posting it was suggested that "occasional" ramming would accrue Bad Karma, while "occasional" disgraceful exit would not accrue Bad Karma.

I would understand from this that it is difficult - or impossible - to ascertain whether a disconnect was intentional.
I would also logically ascertain from this that station ramming is definitively an exploit. Perhaps not griefing, per se, but definitively a behaviour that FDev do not want in the game.

Would you agree with that analysis? It appears cut 'n' dry to me, from what Sandro wrote... People wanted "PROOF" - and I oblige quoting Sandro's previous public comments.
(Irrespective of your personal view of combat logging - which is for another thread.)

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[cmdr underhill]

I will refrain from personal comment, all that I noted from Sandro's post - and he is usually *very* careful with his wording and language - at the time of his posting it was suggested that "occasional" ramming would accrue Bad Karma, while "occasional" disgraceful exit would not accrue Bad Karma.

I would understand from this that it is difficult - or impossible - to ascertain whether a disconnect was intentional.
I would also logically ascertain from this that station ramming is definitively an exploit. Perhaps not griefing, per se, but definitively a behaviour that FDev do not want in the game.

Would you agree with that analysis? It appears cut 'n' dry to me, from what Sandro wrote... People wanted "PROOF" - and I oblige quoting Sandro's previous public comments.
(Irrespective of your personal view of combat logging - which is for another thread.)

Cheerz

Mark H

Yes, that is a fair analysis. I would've worded your original statement differently, that is all.

Happy Holidays everyone!

 

[Deleted member 115407]

To be fair, Rampant: do you really think c-logging is viewed as less of an exploit?? I think the only reason c-logging isn't already dealt with in much harsher ways is because of the risk from spotty internet connectivity. That Frontier has no control over.

I would venture it has a lot to do with available time and resources.

All of this accounting and log checking sounds like a really good idea until the requests start to queue up. Hence the tossing around of the Karma idea... automate the task if possible.

 

[Rampant]

Yes, that is a fair analysis. I would've worded your original statement differently, that is all.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Cool - we appear to have reached an accord.

Slainte

 

[cmdr underhill]

Cool - we appear to have reached an accord.

Slainte

Poo flinging averted!


....easy enough, wasn't it?

 

[Rampant]

Poo flinging averted!


....easy enough, wasn't it?

God I hate that. Gimme a reasoned discussion any day. With beer/red wine/whisky on the side [yesnod]

 

[Rampant]

God I hate that. Gimme a reasoned discussion any day. With beer/red wine/whisky on the side [yesnod]

Although having said that - it does require a reasonable individual to discuss reasonably - so take a tonne-dose of rep, get yersel' a drinky and raise yer glass with me [zazderovia]

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Does the OP and the papers all state the same definition?

Not at all, from the first link:

The term ‘troll’ appears to have originated from a method of fishing, where an individual would fish by trailing a baited line behind a boat. However, many Internet users often use the description of being a ‘troll’ as a mythological creature that hides under bridges, waiting for an opportunity to pounce (Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler and Barab, 2002).

Arguably, trolling appears to be a variably
defined concept, with multiple definitions
existing.

So from the get go the OP is already conflating griefing and trolling, at least the the latter of which has several definitions, just based on the first paper.


Here's the pdf btw: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25950/1/221474_PubSub2968_Griffiths.pdf

I have guests in town so won't be able to get on here as much as normal, but will do my best to keep up.

 

[jasonbarron]

Not at all, from the first link:





So from the get go the OP is already conflating griefing and trolling, at least the the latter of which has several definitions, just based on the first paper.


Here's the pdf btw: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25950/1/221474_PubSub2968_Griffiths.pdf

I have guests in town so won't be able to get on here as much as normal, but will do my best to keep up.

Since you've been away, please allow me to summarize what you've missed: anyone who disagrees with the OP's analysis is a despicable moronic enemy of education that will no doubt perish to the black plague for lack of vaccinations.

 

[Goose4291]

Since you've been away, please allow me to summarize what you've missed: anyone who disagrees with the OP's analysis is a despicable moronic enemy of education that will no doubt perish to the black plague for lack of vaccinations.

You forgot the part where our knuckles are scraped and bloody from dragging them around on the deck while we're going about doing our uneducated menial manual labour jobs.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Here's another one



1) The OP in this thread offers NO DEFINITION.

Precisely the problem, there are multiple.
Perhaps only sources that use the SAME definition should be used?
Perhaps?
Because otherwise you are talking about different "things".

As I say it in plain english words, the definition I quote above comes from my September post, which was yes about griefing too, but tackling the issue from a completely different angle. There I was addressing the arguments used by griefers to defend themselves ("It's called Elite DANGEROUS" and "I'm just blowing your pixels"). In this post I simply highlight the fact that psychological research into griefing is an actual thing, not something made up by "salty carebears" (faulty? perhaps. But it still exist. Show me the published studies that conclude that "carebears" are delusional and we can talk about that too). So the science I "wave around" (funny that to bring some evidence to the table becomes "waving science around") are the papers I quote in this thread. What definition of griefing do they use? Probably every paper uses a slightly different one, but it's a phenomenon sufficiently well-recognized that a common denominator can be found.

So what?
It's DIFFERENT "things", by your own words.
There is a lot of research that is based on nothing but navel gazing.
Published means jack.
See this article:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Conceptual/240344

"It's published!!!" means nothing.

This is borderline incoherent, but OK. There is nothing "nebulous" about my definition, nor does is it an example of a fallacy.

I said I can parse it out.

You are all over the place.
You just wrote there is no single definition.
It's demonstrably shifting, ie nebulous.
That is plain as day, with all due respect.
You cannot honestly use shifting goalposts.
That's just the first problem here.


Seems you have no interest in discussing this honestly.

I suspected as much.

And no, I'm not simply some guy who argues on the internet.
I'm a licensed professional.
So it's my professional/ethical duty to argue about evidence with colleagues.

I don't really need to address the rest of your logical fallacies do I?
You haven't even gotten off the ground yet.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

This is actually a bald faced lie.

The OP in this thread offers NO DEFINITION.

I was going to let it slide, but for the gentle readers out there I figured I should not.

Lying in capslock no less?

Tsk tsk...

 

[jasonbarron]

Bob, I like the cut of your jib. You make a sound case, and I think you have the right of it. I'm not a licensed professional like you, more of a gifted amateur really, but I aspire to be more like you in the future

 

[Deleted member 115407]

You forgot the part where our knuckles are scraped and bloody from dragging them around on the deck while we're going about doing our uneducated menial manual labour jobs.

https://image.shutterstock.com/z/st...op-and-bucket-cleaning-equipment-53232718.jpg

That's pretty close, Goose, but he's missing the wild-eyed look of terror and bewilderment at an existence whose intricacies are beyond his simple grasp.