125 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Actually, I think the ratio of availability of the flags to the number in-game is very telling. They aren't as popular as other, more immersive cockpit items, so PGI doesn't sell as many. I believe that is more key than any perceived offensiveness.

Exactly what I was getting at. The number of flags is only an indication of their popularity, it provides no indication of whether or not they are offensive. Also since there is few flags, there is little data to collect on whether they are offensive or not. And that's hard data to collect regardless.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

And really, compared to the nature of this game and the report-able content that we frequently encounter, the issue of adding one flag to the mix really is a trivial one. It's a bit like struggling with whether or not to add a bumper sticker to your car when you're having problems with the engine. While each may be important, in their own right, to involved individuals, the issue of the engine will far outweigh that of the decal.

...But, overall, whether or not an additional flag is added will be most likely based on an economic evaluation of whether or not it would sell enough to cover the cost of making it.

And as a part of any economic evaluation would also be an evaluation on whether it would hurt their reputation and good will. If they just want to make a quick buck now, they could sell offensive stuff, but that would hurt them long term.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

I'm not going there with you because that is off the topic. Suffice to say, your definitions are...off...

You brought freedom in as an argument without knowing what that really was. Let me enlighten you a little.
http://en.wikipedia..../Harm_principle

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

When did I advocate anarchy?

You didn't, nor did I say that you did. I was simply offering you a comparison and an alternative if you come to the conclusion that the freedom you speak of is not the one the one you thought it was. There are also other alternatives that might fit more with what you think. You could look them up.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

I'm not sure where you're from, but you don't have a very good handle on the U.S. First Amendment. Again, that's another and separate issue that I do not feel inclined to delve into on this thread.

That's how free speech works in most of the world. Don't know how it has been implemented in the united states, but the first amendment only says that you have free speech, it doesn't define what that is in american. But then you should also remember that this game is international so it's the international terms that should count.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

The sum of it may cause someone to snap? That sounds a bit like you're clutching at straws. Frankly, if you use that as justification, you could pretty much include whatever you like in your argument. That's a bit like the straw man fallacy.

Not really. It's common practice in public relations. And of course, completely removing anything that in any way will offend or annoy is impossible, but you also just need to avoid it reaching critical mass. So every factor removed helps. And while this factor may be small, the effort to remove is even less. Simply don't add more flags.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

I do agree though that the flags probably are not selling well. To me, this is enough justification not to include additional ones.

At least we can agree there.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Yep! You got it!

Overall, I have control over whether or not I am going to allow someone to put me off my game and ruin my day. If I let "the sum of things" make me "snap,: then the fault is mine. Ultimately, people can pick and prod, but it is I who controls whether or not I let such antagonism affect me.

But you didn't get it. You yourself just said that you were always annoyed when a certain thing happened. That contradicts your own argument. You might have the will power to do it, but you still need that will power to do it and it is an effort. And people eventually run out of will power.

[Nightmare1]

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Exactly what I was getting at. The number of flags is only an indication of their popularity, it provides no indication of whether or not they are offensive. Also since there is few flags, there is little data to collect on whether they are offensive or not. And that's hard data to collect regardless.

Correct. In other words, there's no way to prove that either of us is right.

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

And as a part of any economic evaluation would also be an evaluation on whether it would hurt their reputation and good will. If they just want to make a quick buck now, they could sell offensive stuff, but that would hurt them long term.

If that were so, then PGI wouldn't sell flags, skull pumpkins, dream catchers, etc. All of those items offend someone in some way.

For a company in the business of making money, the economic evaluation is centered on whether or not it is profitable. The issue of a single flag will hardly make or break PGI.

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

You brought freedom in as an argument without knowing what that really was. Let me enlighten you a little.
http://en.wikipedia..../Harm_principle

I think this actually supports my argument more than yours: http://en.wikipedia....fense_principle

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

That's how free speech works in most of the world. Don't know how it has been implemented in the united states, but the first amendment only says that you have free speech, it doesn't define what that is in american. But then you should also remember that this game is international so it's the international terms that should count.

In out Constitution, anything undefined is left open to the individual States for definition, so it depends on where you live. Where I am, there is practically an open book. It is quite the mish-mash and results in a pretty well-rounded populace. Offense typically only occurs when agitators (typically involving race) try to antagonize a section of the populace in order to garner support for some personal crusade. That is an age-old problem though and hardly unique.

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Not really. It's common practice in public relations. And of course, completely removing anything that in any way will offend or annoy is impossible, but you also just need to avoid it reaching critical mass. So every factor removed helps. And while this factor may be small, the effort to remove is even less. Simply don't add more flags.

*Shoulder Shrug* Again, a single flag hardly constitutes critical mass. I think you're making minnows into whales here.

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

At least we can agree there.

Savage Wolf, on 03 December 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

But you didn't get it. You yourself just said that you were always annoyed when a certain thing happened. That contradicts your own argument. You might have the will power to do it, but you still need that will power to do it and it is an effort. And people eventually run out of will power.

I simply said that there are things that do irritate me. I also said, that I recognize that playing the game provides a chance to be irritated, so I decide beforehand that I will ignore any such events. As a result, I do not take offense at anything unless there is a targeted, vicious attack against me on a personal level. If that happens, I just calmly screenshot the chat message and report the player; it's still not worth getting worked up over.

Regarding the flags in-game, I don't feel anything emotional on the rare occasions when I see one. I think most people are probably the same. The only place I have ever seen complaints about them has been here on the forums, and those typically only come from a couple of particular individuals, rather than from a widespread representation.

[BlakeAteIt]

I'm actually surprised this thread got moved, with how relev-

Nope, can't do it. Welcome to K-Town!

[Savage Wolf]

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Correct. In other words, there's no way to prove that either of us is right.

Well since that was my original point, I was in fact proven right.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

If that were so, then PGI wouldn't sell flags, skull pumpkins, dream catchers, etc. All of those items offend someone in some way.

For a company in the business of making money, the economic evaluation is centered on whether or not it is profitable. The issue of a single flag will hardly make or break PGI.

Exactly. And reputation and brand is quite important if you want to make a profit. If the customers don't like or trust you, you sell less. And no, this matter will probably not make or break PGI financially, it's not that big. All I'm saying is that when considering the profit to be made one should also consider the price. It's the same that happens when they give away free stuff at events. It has a cost in giving away a product for free, in exchange for good will and reputation.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

I think this actually supports my argument more than yours: http://en.wikipedia....fense_principle

The offense principle does not deny the existence of the harm principle and your claim was that the harm principle wasn't part of liberty. It is. You even tied the harm principle together with inclusion, which isn't actually true, but it works well together with it.
And the offense principle simply adds that psychological or social harm may or may not cause harm. It's less certain here and therefore it would require some agent to judge upon this. In this case that would be PGI's responsibility. But that is time and resource consuming so it's often better to just avoid it altogether.
So no, even the offense principle favors my point.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

In out Constitution, anything undefined is left open to the individual States for definition, so it depends on where you live. Where I am, there is practically an open book. It is quite the mish-mash and results in a pretty well-rounded populace. Offense typically only occurs when agitators (typically involving race) try to antagonize a section of the populace in order to garner support for some personal crusade. That is an age-old problem though and hardly unique.

Well yeah, even my country has a specific law that prevents people from making from public statements with the purpose of agitate hatred towards a single group of race, religion or sexuality. But that it's also a blatently clear violation of free speech and the harm principle that they simply gave it it's own specific law.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

*Shoulder Shrug* Again, a single flag hardly constitutes critical mass. I think you're making minnows into whales here.

No, I think you got the false impression that I think that the flags are a huge problem. I think they are but drops in the ocean, but drops none the less. And a negative one. Being called a noob is also just a drop. Lots of things are just a drop on their own. But the shear volume of drops can make it rain.
So yes, a flag is a very small problem, but a problem none the less. And there is no reason to add something that brings toxicity with it, no matter how small an amount, because it will still be an increase of toxicity.

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

I simply said that there are things that do irritate me. I also said, that I recognize that playing the game provides a chance to be irritated, so I decide beforehand that I will ignore any such events. As a result, I do not take offense at anything unless there is a targeted, vicious attack against me on a personal level. If that happens, I just calmly screenshot the chat message and report the player; it's still not worth getting worked up over.

Regarding the flags in-game, I don't feel anything emotional on the rare occasions when I see one. I think most people are probably the same. The only place I have ever seen complaints about them has been here on the forums, and those typically only come from a couple of particular individuals, rather than from a widespread representation.

Actually most of the people that will quit or stay away from the game because of toxicity is part of the silent majority. So you would hear them complain here or on the forums. When these forums were at their most toxic, you didn't see much complaining either. People simply stayed away.
But luckily these things can be tracked and analysed to some degree and it was probably a drop in forum posters that alerted PGI that something was wrong.
And yet again you confess you need to make an effort to shrug off these annoyances no matter how small they may be. If not you would do so automatically without even having to make the choice. For you the energy required to shrug it off is worth it for the reward of playing. To others, it might not be the case.
And anyone strong enough to endure the forums are a bad baseline for what can be expected of people in the game as a whole. We are strong compared to most.

[Alaskan Nobody]

THIS

IS

KTOWN

[Heffay]

Check your privilege.

[Mike Forst]

There's a lot of words in this thread.

[BlakeAteIt]

(words+care)/posts is too high.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Needs more pants?

[Mike Forst]

I have enough pants

[Nightmare1]

For me, it's become a logic-based discussion puzzle.

...I love those.

Will post back to Savage Wolf later; have other things to handle atm.

[Mike Forst]

What

[BlakeAteIt]

Yeah

[Mike Forst]

Ok

[Zephonarch II]

I posted something on this thread yesterday, and it grows to 4 pages in 1 2 days. Now we have an intrigued PGI IT guy eating popcorn or something curiously reading the comments. Heh ... um... now what do I say...

Are we still suggesting a flag-feature? Or do some of ya want ta go off an talk some world politics again!?

Ugh... what's become of this thread. lol
Here, this thread was supposed to get a flag into the game that doesn't even effect gameplay and then... we ditched that purpose altogether.

It's like these two guys trying to broadcast an in-depth perspective on sports events, and then... they do what they do as usual... ...


...

Edited by Zephonarch II, 04 December 2014 - 04:04 PM.

[Mike Forst]

As a rule I never discuss politics on the internet. It's worked out very well for me thus far.

[Zephonarch II]

Alright. Fair enough. You know everyone on this thread progressively became more like humanoid T-Rexs spam-typing like that^^ hunched down as they continued to war outside of MWO? lol The procrastination effect. K-town.

Edited by Zephonarch II, 04 December 2014 - 04:06 PM.

[Mystere]

Mike Forst, on 04 December 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

As a rule I never discuss politics on the internet. It's worked out very well for me thus far.

In that case, Can I just play a song?

[Mike Forst]

I'm not going to click on that

[Mech42Ace]

Mike Forst, on 05 December 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I'm not going to click on that

Do it! It is a very good song, applies here a lot.

Ironic though it is for a war game's forum though don't you think

Edited by Mech42Ace, 05 December 2014 - 01:20 PM.