102 replies to this topic

[Ebonkosh]

This entire post is sad. I swear I feel I waste precious life time reading these forums and find little value in most posts. Where are the mature MMO players of old? Where are the mature Table Top guys that were in TS or Vent that told me what this game was all based on? Did they all die of old age? I been playing this game since pretty much the start and I am seriously thinking the F2P model is not the best. Is sucks in the trolls and people that don't care cause they can just make a new acct and who cares. These little kids and their rage would be solved for the most part by having a credit card linked to the acct and being bannable. Don't get me wrong everyone rages sometimes but the games would all be better and of higher quality if people had to pay to play. We might even get some updates from PGI that actually have content and not one after another new mechs to buy with MC. I have invested to much to stop playing but...the next MMO I play with be sub based for sure. I just can't take the immature kids and Bots and all that comes with F2p Model.


Ebon

[bobF]

Mimic and I just had a heart to heart about the ff incidents in TS, sorry about that buddeh

See, I told you I'm different on TS

[Joseph Mallan]

BadgerWI, on 11 February 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

locked on a locker for 6 hours;

I have heard and seen a lot in my years, but 6 hours in a Locker? During School? And not one kid or teacher/responsible adult heard you?

[BadgerWI]

Basement locker room. Got found by my d line coach. Got played off as razing, boys will be boys. Well as you can tell I'm still little sore about it.

Which brings me to saying sorry I broght that stuff up. Let my emotions get the best of me. I'm a lurker not a poster.

Edited by BadgerWI, 12 February 2015 - 09:26 AM.

[Dauphni]

I'm with Harathan.

More often than not, online trolling is nothing more than bullying, and it's just as real online as offline. People who say "the only one who can make you feel anything is yourself" are flat-out wrong. Normal people have something called empathy, and will feel emotions based on things happening to them or others. In fact, NOT feeling that is pretty much the definition of sociopathy. It's as simple as that.

[Ax2Grind]

Uite Dauphni, on 12 February 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm with Harathan.

More often than not, online trolling is nothing more than bullying, and it's just as real online as offline. People who say "the only one who can make you feel anything is yourself" are flat-out wrong. Normal people have something called empathy, and will feel emotions based on things happening to them or others. In fact, NOT feeling that is pretty much the definition of sociopathy. It's as simple as that.

It's important to recognize that the written word can be easily misconstrued. Most of us look for emotional meaning in text and can easily project feelings that were not even considered by the person typing, and imagine bad intent where there is none. And some emotions are easily taken in different ways. Someone who uses sarcastic humor may be considered to be spiteful by one reader, and entertaining by another...yet those two things are very different.

For example...

**I am very upset at you for being so thoughtless and rude...calling people flat our wrong is clearly showing your disdain for logic...and furthermore you need to quit being such an ass...suggesting that any person who writes something that upsets someone is a sociopath? How stupid are you? The only thing simple about your post is you. I can't believe you would bully people like this.**

In this example I demonstrate being upset by what you wrote. You can of course say that you didn't intend to upset anyone by making your case for empathy...but according to you, you should have known better, known that I would find it upsetting for you to present your argument in such a blunt way, and if you did not then your a Sociopath.

We need to take responsibility for ourselves, and that means both in how we communicate to others and in how we choose to interpret that communication. At the same time though, this form of communication, text, is pretty vague...you may decide to read this post for example in a snarky voice, and that my choice to use reflection and humor is an attack...and there would be nothing I could do about that...even when I clarify and attempt to reassure you that my voice is calm and friendly, and the humor is to keep things light about a topic that may be touchy.

And while all of us may be affected by the communications directed our way, we often have a choice of whether or not to read or listen to it. See something in a forum you don't like? Don't read it. Someone always trolls you, or trolls posts that you read? Use the forum tool to block them and never be upset by them again. Hate seeing GG at the end of a game you lost because your sure the enemy really means "I ate your moms cookies"? Keep All Chat turned off. You may not always have these options to ignore trollish behavior in everyday life, but on the Interwebz and in these forums you most certainly do.

Personal responsibility. It's a good thing.

[Harathan]

Ax2Grind, on 12 February 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

Personal responsibility. It's a good thing.

But as far as I can tell, you're suggesting mainly the ones on the receiving end should be exercising it.

Edited by Harathan, 12 February 2015 - 11:33 AM.

[HARDKOR]

Bob's got a new address.

[dervishx5]

Harathan, on 12 February 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

But as far as I can tell, you're suggesting mainly the ones on the receiving end should be exercising it.

You can only control your own actions.

[Dauphni]

Ax2Grind, I actually agree with a lot of you are trying to convey, but unfortunately you're also misconstruing what I said to make that point. Of course not everyone who upsets people is a sociopath. The majority of people aren't. That was my point.

The people who say things like "only YOU can decide to be offended" or even more simply something like "man up" (with all the connotations that come with it) are the ones advocating sociopathic behaviour as a solution to abuse others throw at them. But that won't work, because most people aren't sociopaths.

And of course, you can tell someone to just walk away, but that also solves nothing. The offending party is no less guilty of the abuse once the target is gone, and it certainly won't prevent it from happening again once the circumstances allow.

It's also good to keep in mind that while the occasional abrasive comment might hurt, that's not necessarily a cause for concern. But once it becomes a recurring pattern, or even systematic, THEN there is a problem.

[3rdworld]

Uite Dauphni, on 12 February 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm with Harathan.

More often than not, online trolling is nothing more than bullying, and it's just as real online as offline. People who say "the only one who can make you feel anything is yourself" are flat-out wrong. Normal people have something called empathy, and will feel emotions based on things happening to them or others. In fact, NOT feeling that is pretty much the definition of sociopathy. It's as simple as that.

There is quite a bit of difference between me caring about what my wife thinks, and caring about what random people on the internet think.


I cannot remember what the term they used in college (been out for a while) but it was something like sphere of influence or something like that.

How close or far do people have to be separated from yourself in order for them to have an emotional impact. IMO anonymous people on the internet fall well outside that boundary for me.

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 February 2015 - 11:49 AM.

[Harathan]

3rdworld, on 12 February 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

How close or far do people have to be separated from yourself in order for them to have an emotional impact. IMO anonymous people on the internet fall well outside that boundary for me.

So it's OK to be a douchebag to someone as long as you don't know them and/or they're not stood next to you?

Huh, interesting.

Not how I was raised, but maybe that's normal where you're from.

[Alaskan Nobody]

3rdworld, on 12 February 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

I cannot remember what the term they used in college (been out for a while) but it was something like sphere of influence or something like that.

There is an old saying that still applies to the world as far as I am concerned.

"When momma aint happy, aint NOBODY happy"

Harathan, on 12 February 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

So it's OK to be a douchebag to someone as long as you don't know them and/or they're not stood next to you?

That is not what he said.

What he said can be interpreted that way - if you stretch it.
(IE: he didn't say no - so he MUST have said yes!)

But that is not what he said.

Thank you for showing that, despite apparently not being raised that way - that you chose to LIVE that way.

[3rdworld]

Harathan, on 12 February 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

So it's OK to be a douchebag to someone as long as you don't know them and/or they're not stood next to you?

Huh, interesting.

Not how I was raised, but maybe that's normal where you're from.

Not exactly what I said, I simply said that I wouldn't be concerned if you thought I was a douche bag.


And commenting that you were de facto raised better than me in a thread about online bullying.......

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 February 2015 - 11:58 AM.

[dervishx5]

[HARDKOR]

Harathan, sometimes you just gotta let stuff go and forgive people so everyone can move on. Continuously talking about reasons to dislike a person is toxic and doesn't improve either the past or the future.

Here, let me buy you a space drink.



And here's a hug for good measure.

[Harathan]

Shar Wolf, on 12 February 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

That is not what he said.

Certainly looks like it to me.

3rdworld, on 12 February 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Not exactly what I said, I simply said that I wouldn't be concerned if you thought I was a douche bag.

And commenting that you were de facto raised better than me in a thread about online bullying.......

It is what you said as far as I can see, but I'll concede that it's not what you meant. Which brings me to the second sentence. I didn't say I was raised better than you; I said I was not raised the way your comment suggested. Another example of meaning not being conveyed accurately by text, I think.

Edited by Harathan, 12 February 2015 - 12:19 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Harathan, on 12 February 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well now you have it from the horses mouth that that is not what he meant.

Which means you now have a choice

Keep insisting that that is what he said

Or

Move on and accept that that is not what was meant.

You are well on the road to the first one already - and only reinforcing my statement about you.
Which I DID say.

Shar Wolf, on 12 February 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Thank you for showing that, despite apparently not being raised that way - that you chose to LIVE that way.

[3rdworld]

Harathan, on 12 February 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Certainly looks like it to me.




It is what you said as far as I can see, but I'll concede that it's not what you meant. Which brings me to the second sentence. I didn't say I was raised better than you; I said I was not raised the way your comment suggested. Another example of meaning not being conveyed accurately by text, I think.

You are taking my comment about anonymous people being unable to effect me emotionally to mean, it is okay to be a douchebag as long as they are anons.

The two are not the same.

But as far as your raising comment, it is a much more linear line of reasoning. Your post believes my position is wrong (which is fine, I again don't really care), at which point you say that my position is against your raising.

So if my position is wrong and is against your raising, than you must be have been raised better than me otherwise I would be unable to hold my position. It is just kind of ironic to make a post against cyber-bullying than to finish it off with an insult, which is what Shar was pointing out as well.

[Harathan]

3rdworld, on 12 February 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

You are taking my comment about anonymous people being unable to effect me emotionally to mean, it is okay to be a douchebag as long as they are anons.

The two are not the same.

But they're not incompatible either. Also, I conceded that what you meant was not how I read it, which is fair enough.

3rdworld, on 12 February 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

But as far as your raising comment, it is a much more linear line of reasoning. Your post believes my position is wrong (which is fine, I again don't really care), at which point you say that my position is against your raising.

So if my position is wrong and is against your raising, than you must be have been raised better than me otherwise I would be unable to hold my position. It is just kind of ironic to make a post against cyber-bullying than to finish it off with an insult, which is what Shar was pointing out as well.

There's a flaw in your interpretation. You keep saying "better" when I specifically did not use that word. "Differently" would be more accurate to my intended meaning. There was no insult intended, I apologise if I did so. I've found that people are raised very differently all over the world, giving different people different core values. Sometimes those core values include aggression toward those not within ones "sphere of influence" as you neatly put it.

Edited by Harathan, 12 February 2015 - 12:50 PM.