xDeityx, on 11 June 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:
If we want to convene a panel to figure out how to solve global warming, do we get a panel of experts or do we grab a random sample of the population? Do we look at the opinions of experts or do we read each and every single opinion of each and every person who has an opinion on global warming?
The reason we rely on experts is time. We can't be asked to look at each and every single opinion of every person who has one. Is it possible that some random person could come up with the perfect solution to global warming? Absolutely. Is it likely that a random person will succeed where experts failed? No.
This is why your point is invalid. Expertise does indeed directly impact your ability to speak intelligently about a topic. If time wasn't a factor then we could afford to be as idealistic as the nay-sayers in this thread, but we live in the real world where we don't have time to listen to every Joe Schmoe with an opinion.
Your point about ethnic groups is so off that it's almost scary. You can't change ethnic groups by being a good person. You can change your Elo by getting better at the game. Using player skill to decide who should be listened to (not even what I'm advocating...you can listen to whoever you please regardless of their Elo but whatever) is much more akin to my example above of listening to experts in a certain field talk about their expertise. If you want to sway public opinion on global warming, go become an expert. Anyone can do it. If you want to sway public opinion on balance, go improve your Elo. Anyone can get better at the game.
No, it isn't. The similarity is in the fact that labels are used to separate and divide people so those with the 'right' label are given more consideration than those with the 'wrong' label.
As for global warming, I don't know what you have been reading but a lot of discussions on that subject I have seen boil down to:
Side A takes Position #1.
Side B takes Position #2.
Each side gets a panel of experts.
Side A's experts validate Position #1.
Side B's experts validate Position #2.
Then each side denounces the experts of the other side.
I will admit though we have gotten off track because of political subjects and that is partly my fault, not intended, I just mentioned it to illustrate what I have said. So I will show it again by a MWO experience I had right on these forums.
I once posted a position in a topic with a civil explanation to back it up in response to someone months ago. The person I responded to gave me an attitude problem back and in his response, he made it clear I was completely at fault for not looking up his profile and seeing he was in Closed BETA while I had never been. This right here is what WILL happen with public ELO showing, we already have the means to see who was in Closed BETA and who was not and there have been other times since I have been here (Oct 2012) where people have used Closed BETA access as a way of beating people down. Some from Closed BETA are not like that but some are.
Now you want ELO to be public, you just add another club for uncivil people to use and the discussion devolves further. I think those of us who are civil can tell who is and who is not, thus we don't need no stinkin' ELO rating or Closed BETA label to tell use who to listen to.
Hell, we already have Political Gamers here too who make things worse.
xDeityx, on 11 June 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:
And I have come to believe that PGI just reacts to the people who complain the most on the forums. I think what you state above is true for most players in the community though. I certainly give more weight to an argument that brings some scientific analysis into the discussion. Really though your above statement is a tautology because a "political style" is basically another way of implying "sleezy" or one of any other negative connotations that we ascribe to politics and politicians.
Political style refers to what I have seen used here, the following Hot Topics illustrate it.
Some may remember the Big LRM discussion from Open BETA. Initially they started as a few subjects, then it was piles of topics all over. Lots of topics may have been people not looking for the right topic to post in but that is also like how protest groups try to form in several areas about something political. At some point, someone slapped Pro-LRM and Anti-LRM labels on people thus degrading the discussion into an uncivil state, labels tend to do that. I even recall one guy who started slapping labels on me when I was in one thread and all it did was agitate, he did it to others too and later admitted the User Name he posted under was not even his main so he hid his main account to cause trouble under a fake.
Despite all the 'Protest Topics' PGI refused to do anything except consolidate everything into 1 topic. That big massive topic kept getting bigger and bigger with the Pro- and Anti- labels being tossed about to beat people over the head (and there was some use of the Closed BETA label too). Despite the growing thread size, PGI kept their stance.
As mentioned, only when someone did the tests to show splash damage did PGI change their position. Sad thing is, some people like the guy I mentioned under the fake account took credit for doing all the work when just the guy who did the tests deserved it.
I also saw this in the ECM discussion. When ECM-Stealth happened, people discussed it, there was some rage posting but I think there was civil discussion. Again though, multiple topics happened like protest groups, PGI held its position then consolidated everything into 1 topic. And again, that topic got bigger and bigger with Pro- and Anti- labels getting used that encouraged uncivil discussion in my view. Proving ECM through screenshots/video I think is a bit harder than proving the LRM splash bug or other things so I figure that is why we have seen ECM counters take longer to come from PGI.
Currently we have the Machine Gun topic, that too like LRM and ECM started as multiple topics (protest groups) yet PGI kept their position while putting it all into 1 topic. For a while, there were people with different views but usually civilly discussed things, I know I posted mine tending to stick by them without demanding others agree with me while some tried to convince me otherwise. Then along came some people, one in particular, who started slapping Pro- and Anti- labels and things went to hell from there. Sad part is, just like with the guy who found the LRM splash bug, there was 1 guy, only ONE, who posted screenshots from using a MG on targets (he convinced me this way the spread was a problem) and I believe that guy was primarily why PGI changed their position and MG changes happened. But I am also convinced, just like that fake account guy from the LRM times, the guys who slapped labels, threatened 'I will put up deadly middle finger posts,' claimed silly stuff like 'Everything is politics,' and other silly nonsense will falsely take credit for PGI's change of position.
My point regarding the discussions on these hot topics:
LRMs
ECM
MGs
along with use of Closed BETA access, there is already among us people using labels to incite, divide, separate and worse agitate other community members, we are in a period where labels and MWO politics are causing problems among us.
Do we really need to add to that ELO rankings? You may have benevolent intentions but like others, I can only see this as causing further separation among people. I am not saying people have to always agree, just the discourse level has been sunk by people using labels and politics already, we don't need another label.
Only in LotRO have I seen something like public ELO rankings not cause problems but there are differences between MWO and LotRO that clearly show why it would not work here. I would describe why but I have to go soon so can only type so much this time.
Gaan Cathal, on 11 June 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:
Small misunderstanding, I'm not saying that's what you want. I'm saying that's what will happen. People who happen to both be arseholes and have high ELO will use the latter fact to shout down, trump, troll and so forth anyone who disagrees with them about anything. Especially if it that person is disagreeing about a game element they rely on to sustain that ELO.
Long story short, you are handing people ammunition to be arseholes with on the internet. They're bad enough without it.
This. 100% this.
Gaan Cathal, on 11 June 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:
This. A fair number of players I believe to be of fairly high ELO (based on who they come up against and my awareness of how good these second parties are) were adamant that missile mechanics were absolutely fine a while ago. The splash damage bug was only shown when someone actually went out, did tests and ran numbers. That didn't take skill at the game. And, to boot, several (presumably, see above) decent ELO players adamantly refused to believe it.
Evidence gathering and number crunching like that is what should get you listened to, not your ELO score.
This too. As I described, I have seen too many times people relying on words to divide including labels, some from politics such as marking people Pro- and Anti- (insert issue here) killing civil discussion. Public ELO rankings I believe will only add to the problem, I could describe why it works in LotRO but not here at a later time unless the silly political posters come along and start labeling people here Pro-Public ELO, Anti-Public ELO and other similar nonsense killing the civil discussion I see happening in this thread.
Political posters rely on words and labels to make their argument along with smears such as 'Ignorant' (seen it used) and similar.
But I believe PGI changes it stance more on Legal/Scientific methods, Science using screenshots/video mainly from in game and Testing Grounds (that doesn't seem to be too broken anymore, like many I believe it was a few months ago but my recent use shows it doesn't look like it) used as evidence in a Legal argument since claiming something is broken in game balance IS A LEGAL ARGUMENT. When claiming something is broken, you are accusing the mechanics of a crime thus making yourself the Prosecution and as is done in Courts, they mention the Prosecution must provide evidence of the crime, nothing being more powerful than screenshots/video. Why else would the Support system at times require us to submit screenshots/video? Because we are human and in our solely worded descriptions we may leave out details that can be seen in screenshots/video.
On a last note this quote from a recent court case nearby has some truth to it:
“Words have power. We know that from our daily lives,” Garcia said. “They can have the power to inspire people to do good. They also have the power to inspire fear and incite others to violence. That’s the central issue and in many ways the only issue in this case.” – Thomas Garcia, September 16, 2011, in the case against Harold “”Hal” Turner, Hartford, CT.
I have seen people here use words in a civil manner but on hot topics too often, I have also seen them used by Political Gamers to cause friction among us thus leading me to get sick of them and even writing an article on my blog site about Political Gamers. When it comes to Game Balance, I believe the following quote is far better.
"A picture is worth a thousand words"
Anyhow, I am off for now. I can post the comparison between LotRO and MWO that further shows why public ELO will not work in my view.
But I also think with how this topic is growing, sometime the Political Gamers will come along with their words or Pro-, Anti-, Ignorant and other labels, threats of 'I will put up deadly middle finger posts,' claims of silly stuff like 'Everything is politics,' and similar ruining this topic.
Been fine for now with all the civility despite different positions.
7
... do not make ELO public.
