171 replies to this topic

[Clownwarlord]

Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

Hum... This thread got created, and I already have so much catching up to do.

Seeing some of the responses here so far has been... interesting to say the least. But I don't think my reasoning/stance was understood.

Before I get to responding, here was my stance:
Griefing is an intentional action(s) with an intent to hinder another player (teammate to be specific, but can sometimes apply to the enemy), rather that player/target actually knows or understands that s/he is being griefed or not.

My examples would be:
- A player that normally gets locks intentionally doesn't only because LRMs are on their team, and they don't wish to support a "potato". (thanks for the quote from the first page. Lets just call people names now?)
- Purposefully breaking a lock as soon as the incoming LRM indicator appears, rather line of sight was lost or not, with the sole intention to hinder their LRM teammate's performance/game play.

This is not saying someone whom normally doesn't get locks not getting locks, or someone who doesn't change the way they they play. I'm talking about people who are intentionally going out of their way to purposefully "sabotage" another player's abilities, to some extent or another.

To be clear, no matter what we say here, I am by no means saying those people are breaking the CoC for the game, as we can't prove their intentions (for the most part) when they break or not get a lock. I'm also not talking about people who don't "hold locks till they die". (I have not and will never ask anyone to hold a lock so I can deal some extra damage. I and my team are each better off with more living teammates, who may be able to get locks later on, if not even help scrape an enemy off my back later. A dead spotter is useless to me.)

PS: Sorry for the late response. Work happened. I'll make responses per page of responses for the moment till I catch up. (If these were already covered, ignore.



I'm not talking about "holding their hands and guiding them through", I'm talking about intentionally taking actions (or inactions in this case) that directly hinders their performance. I'm referring to the intent behind the (in)actions.

And, insulting a player who plays the game differently than you... Not overly cool. At all. Shall I refer to you as a try hard elitist scum now?

PS: You may actually wish to read the definition of "griefing". Unintentional actions is not griefing. Griefing is an intentional action to cause harm or otherwise disturb someone else's game play. Your first example (zoomed in too much and can't see you) is not an act of griefing. It's an act of negligence maybe, but no ill intent was intended (most likely) from the shooter.



Well, so far the debate seems to be swinging each direction, just from the first page. So then, what is your opinion?

And recall, the best way to use LRMs isn't necessarily the way most people use them. (AKA: Stick with the team, and do try to get your own locks and share armor. And... bring backup weapons...) This doesn't mean you should necessarily exclude them and sabotage them.



It's (in my opinion) griefing, but that doesn't mean it's the form that will actually get you in trouble. It also depends upon the intention behind the action (or inaction).

I guess you could relate this to a debate on if someone is hanging off a cliff, and you don't help them when you easily and normally could... Is it murder? That person died do to your intentional inaction. (Example is probably a poor example...)



Sometimes though, it is personal. I had a match once where, I'm not joking, most of my team refused to hold locks because I said I had LRMs. At first I thought they were joking about not holding locks, so I joked back and said "Don't make me get my own locks. You wont like me if I have to get my own locks." I was saying it in jest, but by the end of the match, I had to do exactly that. Funny part is, I actually did best on the team that match (a rare thing). So the joke ended up being on them.

(Mostly because I don't boat, I don't hang back, I get my own locks, and I always bring plenty of back up weapons, if not primary weapons with LRMs being my backup weapons.)



I do hope you are joking... Hence the goofy face?

All depends upon how the LRMs are being used.



The question (I have at least as my portion) is more so:
"Is it griefing to intentionally drop locks or not get locks, counter to what is your normal behavior in game, just to prevent LRM users from using said locks?" (With the presumption that you would, under the same situation without any LRM users on your team, get and hold the locks as a normal part of fighting.)

I'm not referring to the dropping of locks as a natural course of fighting and staying alive. I'm not even referring to not getting a lock you normally wouldn't get because of some reason (it's a snap shot, ECM, you have another target locks you want to track, etc). This is a "playing differently than you normally would, simply because LRMs are there and you go out of your way to not support them at all."

As for how to use LRMs, you wont find me disagreeing with you. I use LRMs normally (okay, almost exclusively) as a support weapon to a larger build. I also agree that LRM users should try to get their own locks. But, if the team helps as they move into direct line of sight, it helps not only the LRM users but also the whole team.



What if... you didn't get locks not out of negligence, but intentionally? That is my question (for the most part).



My argument in this debate at the start was not if it was against the CoC, but if it would be considered a form of griefing. You can provide someone grief, without breaking the CoC.

LRMs are a utility weapon, and that utilty feature can be an advantage if a team/user will let it be. Sometimes, you've got to work with what your team has, not against it. (And no, to repeat, I'm not saying people should die for a lock for an LRM ally. But, it doesn't hurt to get and hold a single lock while you are fighting them, right? Should be a win win situation for the team then.)

As for the situation (which I know happens a lot, as it's happened to me more than I'd like to recall), it's the intentional not getting locks solely to hinder the LRM users on the team. It's an intentional inaction. (Does that make it an action of not doing it then?)



Okay, onto page two of responses!

In response to your response to my previous post.

OK, I understand what you are saying about some one intentionally trying to not get locks to spite some one, but that is impossible if they are trying to play the game the best way to benefit them-self let alone the team or a team member.

I will try and explain; lets say I am piloting my rifleman all energy mech with 2 PPC and 2 Large Lasers. It is nothing special other than it is straight up direct fire. So what it means is I have to see my target to hit it and usually allows me to get a lock on it because I should have a "direct line of sight" because I am "direct fire". So it would make it impossible for me not to at the least of just playing my mech to not have gotten at least one enemy marker to show up just from me seeing the enemy.

So that leaves only one way for me not to get any locks, and that is to not play at all and thus would be grieving because I would have to shut down and do nothing which also is inactivity, grieving, and/or disco/afk.

It basically is damn impossible to not at least see and get one marker per match to show if playing, and on top of that are you sure that a said player was purposely doing this? Because there are other in game abilities that may prevent some one from getting a marker to show. Example of that is ECM but even then it is a stretch to not at least get one marker to show because it would require something like everyone to have ecm, everyone to overlap ECM, and not one to get hit by a ppc.

So answer again is no unless they are afk, inactive, disco, or powered down; and even then is it grieving? Doubt it most likely a bot or afk/disco and then it falls under other aspects of the CoC and not grieving.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

I'm talking about the willful "sabotage" of an ally though intentional inaction. Rather it is pretending to be a lower skilled player than you really are (durrr... How do I get locks?), or otherwise.

I am not referring to dropping locks to duck and hide. Or changing locks because you have a better target or whatever. I'm talking about not getting or dropping locks simply because there is an LRM user you wish not to support, no matter if they are boating, not boating, or whatever.

We get the ******* picture.

And on that quote, i was not talking to you, i was commenting to El Bandito. And nowhere in that comment i did not say that it's unintentional lock breaking.

"Either noob, or griefing" -- Or "*******".

Do you get it now?

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

What else would I call it? It's someone intentionally going out of there way (in my example) with the willful intent to hinder another player's performance. (Rather that player knows it or not.) As for what else you are talking in that first paragraph, I can't understand it past the word sensor. Maybe you should choose better words to use?

I have never once said nor implied that said exampled form of possible griefing would be against the CoC. I'm simply asking, would you consider it as a possible form of griefing? I did not ask "could this action be against the CoC and be a bannable offense?"

But again, what's the point? It could just as easily been categorized as "non-participation". It's like guilt tripping, the part where you're indirectly guilting people.

I'm just saying that choosing to tie it to "griefing" shows ulterior motive, that it's implying that it's breaking CoC.

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Spoiler

Just for some ground rules: https://en.wikipedia...ipedia:Griefing
"Griefing is the act of chronically causing consternation to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay."

Another good article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
"Intentional friendly fire or deliberately performing actions detrimental to other team members' game performance, including wasting or destroying key game elements, colluding with the opposition and giving false information."
"Deliberately blocking shots from a player's own team or blocking a player's view by standing in front of them so they cannot damage the enemy."
"Faking extreme incompetence with the intent of hurting teammates or failing an in-game objective."

Last one, I promise: http://www.urbandict...p?term=griefing
"1. Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game."

Contained inside the spoiler are several different site's across the internet's definition's of "Greifing", as related to video games for the most part.

The key phrasing I'd like to point out is "Purposeful sabotaging your teammates", or "deliberately performing actions detrimental to other team members' game performance", Etc.

Do you know what is terms of agreement? Do you read it? Do you know the part where they describe what they mean? It's that. It's not impossible that one word has so many meanings, that is why on a legal term it's meaning is specified, like what they did with the CoC.

So dictionary definitions, wikipedia definitions are irrelevant. That's like saying "Evolution is just a Theory" as in Evolution is just a "guess", when "theory" has a different meaning in science and academia.

Unless you're talking about what Griefing is BEYOND MWO, PGI has their definitions of Griefing in the CoC, that's what you follow. And if it's beyond MWO, this discussion has no place in MWO.

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

As I addressed in the posts above, but I'll happily repeat it for you, I'm not talking about dropping locks due to the natural course of battle. I'm talking about doing so in a deliberate, willful and intentional manner to hinder the LRM user's performance.

I wasn't challenging the intentded/unintended action/inaction, i was challenging the part that "it wouldn't hurt", that it's "win-win". Are you even reading?

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Q. Was the video intended to progress the conversation? Or was it more or less because I have the Seraphim tags on me?

I suggest you watch it. It's about action/inaction dealie, it should explain it.

Tesunie, on 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

As for this debate/conversation, it actually has evidence to support it, in either direction. Some believe if is not griefing, because no one else would really know if it is griefing (for the most part, in this example). Some believe it is a form of griefing, because one is intentionally playing different with the sole purpose to hinder another player's gameplay.

I still feel there is more evidence suggesting that it is a form of griefing, rather than "well, don't depend on teammates locks then". (Recall, we are not talking about people who never get locks anyway, those who break locks because it is the "natural course of battle", etc. We are specifically talking about those who would normally get locks not getting them intentionally, those would drop locks intentionally, etc when they know LRMs are on their team. Those who change their entire playing behavior simply because they "don't wish to support a potato" (which is really rather insulting to your fellow players to refer to them as such).

Well, i feel that the moon is made of cheese, and that there is evidence suggesting that it is.

And again, we get the picture, you are talking about intently breaking locks to prevent LRM users from sending missiles, we get it.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 January 2017 - 11:16 PM.

[Tesunie]

TLBFestus, on 20 January 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

Sorry, but I don't buy "intentional inaction" framed in such minor ways. I don't buy into it many other ways either.

Reasoning like that is the reason kids get "participation ribbons" these days. Can't have some troll of a kid griefing my kids by intentionally winning the race and lowering their self esteem, so everybody gets a prize!

Many times "doing nothing" to help someone is actually in the best interest of the team as a whole. Rather than trying to rescue someone who meandered off only to get gang banged by 4 other mechs, you save yourself and the team from walking individually into a meatgrinder.

By your argument, not assisting that person because it's not a smart play to lose other mechs in a fruitless attempt at rescue, is griefing for "intentionally not helping through inaction". It's obviously not.

I'm sorry to say, but not even close to the debate/discussion happening here. We aren't talking about "making a decision to not save someone because it would take you down with them anyway (a lose-lose situation)". We are talking about "if a player makes a willful and intentional act (even if through inaction) to intentionally hinder another player's abilities, can that be a form of griefing?"

The example situation presented is "If someone who normally would lock their targets suddenly decide to intentionally not get any locks or to break any locks when they see the 'incoming LRM' notice on their target (AKA: Playing differently than they normally would) just because they know there is/are (a) teammate(s) with LRMs equipped, are they griefing the LRM user through these actions?"


This isn't about "handing participation prizes" or what you were leading up to. We aren't talking about "having to save everyone on your team", because, yes, sometimes you do need to abandon a teammate to their own created fate to better benefit the team as a whole. You aren't going out of your way to hinder that player's abilities, as in your example that player probably placed themselves into said situation.


Now, I'll mention I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. But if you are going to disagree with me, can you at least do so within the scope of the topic? I don't even care if you present a different situation, or create "under this situation, yes, under this one, no" kind of conversation.

PS: "Not assisting that person because it's not a smart play to lose other mechs in a fruitless attempt at rescue, is griefing for "intentionally not helping through inaction'?" is not even close to the argument/discussion, as mentioned above.

Basically, for your situation you describe, I would not call that griefing. It sounds more like risk assessment and looking at the larger field of the battle and for the betterment of the team overall. You assessed the situation, realized trying to help would be futile and costly, and decided to try to help other people instead. You are not intentionally trying to cause any teammate harm nor hindrance. You are also not changing your game play specifically because of what they brought on their mech. These are some of the key differences between our posts.

Like, for example from my situation, if you never normally got locks, and now you have an LRM user on your team, and you still don't get locks, you aren't griefing. You aren't changing your normal play, and you aren't doing anything intentional to hinder their play out of your normal actions you perform when you are in a match. The ill intent is not there.

Where as, in my opinion at least, if someone doesn't get locks intentionally because they know there is an LRM user on their team, and they normally would, I consider it griefing simply because they are changing their normal play habits with the intention to try and hinder the LRM user's gameplay. The intent is there in this situation, even if the LRM user or anyone else never notices it.

[Novakaine]

Only newly baked potatoes asks for locks.
I rather have that clod facing me when I send a stream of lrm's into his face.
And for those of you can't seem to bother to target a mech.
1. You only deny yourself valuable information.
2. You are a serious detriment to your team.
3. And was probably a selfish brat and retain the same trait as an adult.

Edited by Novakaine, 20 January 2017 - 11:42 PM.

[Jesusguy]

Bringing an all light/med deck to FW, Doing <500 damage in FW

[Roadbuster]

My take on this is that you're just hurting yourself if you don't get locks.
You and your team won't see weakened spots and you won't get fire support. That's what LRMs are to me. A source of added damage to bring down dangerous targets more quickly and a tool of supression and distraction.
Not getting locks is just stupid.

On the other side there are LRM boaterd who simply refuse to try and get their own locks. For me that's close to non-participation.
Getting good missile locks is not as easy today as it was in the past. There are more ECM mechs, people have access to Radar Deprivation module and most maps have more cover.
So to be effective as LRM-boat you either have to run from the team to get locks and to be able to hit the opponents, making yourself vulnerable, or you need a spotter. That means teamplay, the thing many players seem to forget or ignore.

So, don't hurt yourself, get locks.

[MacClearly]

Amsro, on 20 January 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

Yeah, Karma will come full circle. Simple to just let it go, or let it be as a wise man once sang.

I was in a match recently where we lost, and I happened to be in my LRM atlas, instantly someone chimed in about my newb lrmer mech and how useless I was. Couldn't help but laugh as the enemy team destroyed our team with LRMS.

I pulled of a 500+ damage match, fair enough for any assault in a loss.

TLDR; people now have preset ideas about what LRM mechs and players represent, regardless of performance or team play.

TLDR2; LRM's are for newb **** players only.

I would almost ask if it was me, but I do not use terms such as noob or anything else an eleven year old might say.

Your name looks familiar so it is possible I have said something along the lines of "oh great an lrm Atlas..." I am not a fan of lrms on them or King Crabs. Don't Stalkers or even Battlemaster's do it better for assaults? Oh well, at least there are a couple things we agree on.

[MacClearly]

TLBFestus, on 20 January 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

Sorry, but I don't buy "intentional inaction" framed in such minor ways. I don't buy into it many other ways either.

Reasoning like that is the reason kids get "participation ribbons" these days. Can't have some troll of a kid griefing my kids by intentionally winning the race and lowering their self esteem, so everybody gets a prize!

Many times "doing nothing" to help someone is actually in the best interest of the team as a whole. Rather than trying to rescue someone who meandered off only to get gang banged by 4 other mechs, you save yourself and the team from walking individually into a meatgrinder.

By your argument, not assisting that person because it's not a smart play to lose other mechs in a fruitless attempt at rescue, is griefing for "intentionally not helping through inaction". It's obviously not.

I have left slow assaults to die. HPG where you can get over run easily from your spawn point comes to mind. Have also gone to get a light off an assault if my build is one that is good for that. Likely we have all heard an assault guy raging over being left behind. Don't think we can stretch that out to being griefing. Have even seen a light ripping up an lrm Atlas and waited for him to finish before I killed the light.... griefing? No. Social engineering maybe.

[MacClearly]

Roadbuster, on 21 January 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

My take on this is that you're just hurting yourself if you don't get locks.
You and your team won't see weakened spots and you won't get fire support. That's what LRMs are to me. A source of added damage to bring down dangerous targets more quickly and a tool of supression and distraction.
Not getting locks is just stupid.

On the other side there are LRM boaterd who simply refuse to try and get their own locks. For me that's close to non-participation.
Getting good missile locks is not as easy today as it was in the past. There are more ECM mechs, people have access to Radar Deprivation module and most maps have more cover.
So to be effective as LRM-boat you either have to run from the team to get locks and to be able to hit the opponents, making yourself vulnerable, or you need a spotter. That means teamplay, the thing many players seem to forget or ignore.

So, don't hurt yourself, get locks.

I have not heard anyone arguing that intentionally not getting locks is smart. Mostly we have been discussing if it meets the criteria of griefing. However I am going to give a situation where I have intentionally not locked on and it made sense. Dual guass. Just yesterday I was on Canyon and I was hitting a Marauder IIC and he had no idea where I was. In that case I didn't lock because I didn't want our lurmer to cause him to go into cover. This was only very briefly and for the rest of the match I locked on as usual. I probably was the best source of locks that game for the couple of guys we had with lrms.

There are also other situational examples but not really the point.

I have been in games where I saw a lurmer who was crying for locks and refusing to leave cover from the back. So I have intentionally not held locks or cycled them quickly in an effort to try and force him to adjust his behaviour. Someone pointed out to me (Tesunie) that my behaviour was basically griefing another player. He made some excellent points so I started this thread (with his permission and interest in being involved) to kind of hash out and explore the whole action vs. inaction argument.

I had also hoped that it would not focus entirely on lurming but I am outta luck there.

Novakaine, on 20 January 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

Only newly baked potatoes asks for locks.
I rather have that clod facing me when I send a stream of lrm's into his face.
And for those of you can't seem to bother to target a mech.
1. You only deny yourself valuable information.
2. You are a serious detriment to your team.
3. And was probably a selfish brat and retain the same trait as an adult.

Am happy to see you weigh in on the matter! Being that you are my favourite lrm pilot. Still chuckling about you telling a guy 'ecm is for pansies' the other day. The guy clearly didn't like you lurming him to death!!!

[Amsro]

MacClearly, on 21 January 2017 - 07:37 AM, said:

I would almost ask if it was me, but I do not use terms such as noob or anything else an eleven year old might say.

Your name looks familiar so it is possible I have said something along the lines of "oh great an lrm Atlas..." I am not a fan of lrms on them or King Crabs. Don't Stalkers or even Battlemaster's do it better for assaults? Oh well, at least there are a couple things we agree on.

Yeah I have only 1 LRM atlas, the second of my Atlas S(L) mechs, can't sell either of the chassis, so one got SRM and the other.... well you guessed it.

Otherwise I have maybe a half dozen LRM mechs out of 170+ mechs. LRM isn't my thing in general, just fun for the lols sometimes. Certainly make lots of C-Bills with any of the LRM mechs.

The one good thing about an Atlas LRM, is you still have tonnage for weapons, I don't stay at the back, I never do, that is where the enemy lights go.

[Tesunie]

Sorry it took me so long to respond here. Been a busy few days for me. (Something called work... )

Clownwarlord, I've condensed your post. This is to save space, not in any manner to alter what you've said or invalidate any of it. (I'm trying not to do mega posts when I don't have to.)

Clownwarlord, on 20 January 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

OK, I understand what you are saying about some one intentionally trying to not get locks to spite some one, but that is impossible if they are trying to play the game the best way to benefit them-self let alone the team or a team member.

...So it would make it impossible for me not to at the least of just playing my mech to not have gotten at least one enemy marker to show up just from me seeing the enemy.

So that leaves only one way for me not to get any locks, and that is to not play at all and thus would be grieving because I would have to shut down and do nothing which also is inactivity, grieving, and/or disco/afk.

...and on top of that are you sure that a said player was purposely doing this? ...

So answer again is no unless they are afk, inactive, disco, or powered down; and even then is it grieving? Doubt it most likely a bot or afk/disco and then it falls under other aspects of the CoC and not grieving.

I'm wondering if you know how the locking system in this game works in it's depth, as in how you can change or even drop locks. You seem to act as though you can't willingly drop a lock in the game and it would be impossible to not get (and hold) a single lock. You actually can. Press R when you have no targets under your reticle (or the same target) and/or no other targets one your screen. If you pick up another lock you can keep going until it cycles through them all, and normally then you will lock nothing.

Remember, for LRMs (in this example), they need a solid lock. So, just changing your locked target can be unhelpful to them, thus meaning it could be the course of combat, or possibly an intentional change for the sole purpose of "not helping an LRM boat coward". So, you can be fully engaged in a battle, and yet "not lock any targets" because you dropped your lock and never decided to press R again. Or, you let the game auto-target for you (it does this on the first enemy that you seem to either shoot at, or stare at "long enough") and you killed that target and never bothered to press R to get another lock (I don't believe the system does this auto-lock again for the rest of the match, but I could be wrong here).

So, for all intents and purposes, a player can actually play the game without intentionally getting any locks (either for a reason, or just because they don't want to/don't know how to).


As far as it's possible relation to griefing, I'm referring to the actual and intentional dropping (or constant changing) of locks to knowingly try their best to not help an LRM user on their team. I'm curious if people consider it a form of griefing, if it is intentionally being done by that person with the intent to hinder the LRM user's performance within the game. (Even if said LRM user is not away of that person's intentions.)

Basically, what is griefing? Is it the direct action as viewed by others, or is it the intent that lies behind the actions of a user rather anyone else knows of it or not?

I see griefing as any intentional and willful act to hinder another players performance, even if said other player is not aware of the intent behind those actions. (AKA: I believe someone can be griefed, without actually knowing someone is griefing them.)

I'm not referring to Griefing as in "is this a bannable offense", as I don't believe not getting locks or dropping locks is a bannable offense, even if it was intended as an act to grief someone. The reason is, it's a lot harder to know the intentions of someone for such an action. It's not as clear of an intent as, say, someone shooting an ally in the back several times. The intent there is a lot more clear, they actively wish to hinder someone's gameplay via damage to their mech.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

We get the ******* picture.

And on that quote, i was not talking to you, i was commenting to El Bandito. And nowhere in that comment i did not say that it's unintentional lock breaking.

"Either noob, or griefing" -- Or "*******".

Do you get it now?

I think something seriously went wrong there. The first sentence of that paragraph was suppose to be a stand alone paragraph, presenting the fact that I've actually had people purposefully do those actions to me directly because I said I had LRMs (and they announced that was their intentions after I said I had some LRMs on my mech). It was not intended to be part of the rest of that paragraph, and the rest was suppose to have a few lines of space between that and my opening to the rest of your post.

That section should have read like this:

Quote

Spoiler

I've seen and heard it happen.



And, for the record before I go on, I'm talking about a willful and intentional not getting of locks or breaking locks (that you otherwise would normally not break) because you see the incoming LRM notification or because you know there is an/are LRM user(s) on your team.

I was going to open up with the second paragraph above, to set down the ground work for the rest of my post in relation to your response to my post, giving a backdrop behind what I was talking about within my example situation.

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

But again, what's the point? It could just as easily been categorized as "non-participation". It's like guilt tripping, the part where you're indirectly guilting people.

I'm just saying that choosing to tie it to "griefing" shows ulterior motive, that it's implying that it's breaking CoC.

I'm not referring to the CoC, I'm asking what are people's individual concept of what constitutes Griefing, and if a specific plausible situation could be a form of griefing. Is it the intent behind the action that can make something griefing or not griefing (something we may not always be able to determine), or is it the action that is griefing no matter the intent behind it?

AKA: Someone shoots an ally in the back with a full alpha at the start of the game. That ally dies from FF of a single alpha. The shooter profusely apologizes and remarks that "they were just clicking into the game" and they didn't mean it. Is this still griefing the team? Can an accident be a form of griefing?

Now, what if said above example, with same statement, was actually someone intentionally shooting said ally in the back at the start of the match, with the intent to kill them "for whatever reason" (maybe they did something last match or whatever). Then, they covered said action up with the excuse "I was just clicking in" (what was once a known bug for those of us who Alt+Tab out of the game while waiting for a match). Are they griefing now because of the intent? Even if no one else is aware that it was intentional and they all believe it was just an accident?

In neither situation (unless intent can be proven), the CoC might have some issue with it, but if it was an uncommon action for that player, than it isn't technically against the CoC as far as being a punishable offense, as it has to be a "Willfully or repeatedly" action, and if no one but the shooter knows the intent...

So, my question is, does the intent behind the action make it griefing, even if it isn't against the rules directly? Even if no one else is even aware of it happening?

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

Do you know what is terms of agreement? Do you read it? Do you know the part where they describe what they mean? It's that. It's not impossible that one word has so many meanings, that is why on a legal term it's meaning is specified, like what they did with the CoC.

So dictionary definitions, wikipedia definitions are irrelevant. That's like saying "Evolution is just a Theory" as in Evolution is just a "guess", when "theory" has a different meaning in science and academia.

Unless you're talking about what Griefing is BEYOND MWO, PGI has their definitions of Griefing in the CoC, that's what you follow. And if it's beyond MWO, this discussion has no place in MWO.

You argue your point with the CoC, seeing if the action is against that to determine if it fits your form of griefing. I'm asking you, would you determine that action as a form of Griefing? If there was no CoC, what would your opinion be on the described situation, if you could tell the intention behind the action? (Lets just say, you are able to read someone's intent like it was written out as a book and their thoughts where open for you to see.)


Oh, and by the way:
- Willfully or repeatedly blocking teammate ‘Mechs or weapon trajectories.
- Willfully or repeatedly assisting the enemy.

Would you consider purposefully not getting a lock (as outside the normal due course of your normal playing habits) as a possible version of "blocking weapon trajectories"? I mean, they can't shoot because there is no lock, just as much as if someone stood in front of their direct fire weapons...

It's also been mentioned in this thread that, because of all the benefits of getting locks on the enemy, not getting locks could even be viewed by some people as "assisting the enemy". By not locking, you deny your allies vital information of the enemy locations, loadouts and even possibly numbers. Forget about any lost damage that may have been able to be dealt from any LRM allies on your team...

So, that is two ways that it could be roughly described as breaking the CoC, which is not my intent with this thread here. My intent behind my question is, could you see it as griefing? (And I might add, MacClearly created the thread, because he wished to discuss the topic more as well as get a concept of what other players thought of it.)

So far, MacClearly I think has had the best counter argument. I may disagree with it, but I can at least understand his perspective and why he feels that way. He's counter statement is, "Me not getting locks doesn't hinder their ability to get their own locks, thus it doesn't actually hinder their game play from my actions". I may disagree with him, but it's a reasonable concept.

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

I wasn't challenging the intentded/unintended action/inaction, i was challenging the part that "it wouldn't hurt", that it's "win-win". Are you even reading?

Getting and holding locks on targets you are fighting is a win-win situation most every time (special situations may occur, of course). It's a win for you as you get loadout and damage information on your target, so you know where to hit and how best to possibly counter their weapons. It also helps your teammates by letting them know where the enemy unit is, his condition, and what he is also carrying as weapons (just like with you). It helps again if there happen to be any LRM users on your team, because now they too may be able to help deal some damage, making the target easier to kill, opening up sections in their armor, and possibly forcing them to move into a bad position.

Of course, there will always be exceptions to things, but on the general average, getting locks is no skin off your nose. It doesn't hurt you to get them, and often is nothing but a good thing. (As other people in this thread have mentioned already.)

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

I suggest you watch it. It's about action/inaction dealie, it should explain it.

The only part about inaction was the boat owner who convinced himself of a belief that the boat would be fine and was in good condition, despite the evidence against it. Then it went into beliefs as a whole. It mentioned some things for most of the video about there being no God (because of unavailable "indisputable" scientific evidence to support his existence) and shouldn't be believed in, but then a small counterargument by someone else that God can be a good belief because of specific conditions related to it. (AKA: Those beliefs didn't hurt anyone else, was decided upon without consequence, etc.)

So, what part of that was relevant? About not getting locks and believing it was helpful to your team and yourself? Despite evidence indicating otherwise, counter to the belief you've made?


I'm a member of the Seraphim, a known Christian unit. We get a lot of "trolls" who wish to shove this into our faces, normally with taunting against our beliefs. Of this, you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I do. This is why I was uncertain as to the reason behind the video, or if I dare say it... The intent behind posting the video in response to me.

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

Well, i feel that the moon is made of cheese, and that there is evidence suggesting that it is.

And again, we get the picture, you are talking about intently breaking locks to prevent LRM users from sending missiles, we get it.

Except for the moon rocks recovered, the photos, the people's testimonies, telescopes, scientific facts...


Funny, if you get it, why are you arguing everything else around it?

[Relixander]

"Griefing" without intent is really just ignorance, stupidity, or laziness. A little perspective can come in handy also.

Intentionally not sharing armor by hiding behind cover to launch missiles is griefing the brawlers and direct fire gunners, if not getting locks griefs missile boats.

If I don't want an opponent to know he has been spotted (you get a flash and audible ping when you have been targeted) am I griefing my team because I don't target him, or am I griefing the opponent by not letting him know he has been spotted.
If I don't play the game, at all, intentionally, I am griefing all the people that want to play. If I play the game, intentionally, I am griefing the people who want it to fail.

Let's use the old pornography paraphrase shall we....

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of actions I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description of griefing, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

OR in other words... What ever "I" don't like is what "I" will call pornography griefing.

Edited by Relixander, 23 January 2017 - 03:47 PM.

[MacClearly]

Relixander, on 23 January 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

"Griefing" without intent is really just ignorance, stupidity, or laziness. A little perspective can come in handy also.

Intentionally not sharing armor by hiding behind cover to launch missiles is griefing the brawlers and direct fire gunners, if not getting locks griefs missile boats.

If I don't want an opponent to know he has been spotted (you get a flash and audible ping when you have been targeted) am I griefing my team because I don't target him, or am I griefing the opponent by not letting him know he has been spotted.
If I don't play the game, at all, intentionally, I am griefing all the people that want to play. If I play the game, intentionally, I am griefing the people who want it to fail.

Let's use the old pornography paraphrase shall we....

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of actions I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description of griefing, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

OR in other words... What ever "I" don't like is what "I" will call pornography griefing.

Very eloquently put. Just like your definition and the one in the example, what really counts at the end of the day is what someone thinks at PGI it is.

[NighthawK1337]

Willful Negligence

Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. [1]

It's a definition used in law. So yeah, not getting locks = negligence, not griefing. I'd put in not armor sharing at the same category.

You can take that to the courts.



[1] source: http://www.glossaryc...negligence.html

Edited by NighthawK1337, 23 January 2017 - 05:14 PM.

[Chados]

I've never felt like people refusing to lock targets is griefing. Typically I'm maneuvering near the front line when I'm packing LRMs anyway and I either will pop a UAV or jumpLRM to get a momentary lock, or I feed on the targets that are being locked. I try not to sit in one place and spam LRM flights, that gets you hunted down.

In my opinion, "griefing" is intentionally damaging someone else's game experience. Intentional teamkilling is the big one. And it takes many forms. The idiot who hoses your armor down while testing his guns on the drop zone. The douchehammer who intentionally shoves you out of the way and legs you because in his mind he is more important than you are. The pinhead who blocks your retreat when you turn a corner into an enemy lance because he wants to cower behind you. I've had this happen with me in a Phoenix Hawk...and the hider was in a Kodiak. I jump-jetted over him and let the enemy have at him-they wanted to shoot at him anyway, not me. I just happened to be in the way. I had this happen in a Victor--that's a *Victor*, folks--and I did the same thing, gosh it's nice to have jump jets and be able to maneuver in the third dimension in times like that. And in that match the person trying tominterpose me between him and the bad guys accused me of griefing when they blew his torsos off instead. Well, do not block me.

And then there's the amateur who, when you're frantically trying to get out of his way when YOU are the one behind him and don't want to block him, who instead unloads a 60-point alpha strike into your IS XL side torso while you're trying to move. And then moans and groans on chat about how bad the team is when we get wiped 12-4. Excuse me, lamebrain, but you removed two PPCs and an AC10 from the field because I couldn't move quite fast enough for you.

That's griefing, not just deciding that you stupidly hate LRMs and therefore can't hold locks. Real LRMishers get our *own* locks.

Edited by Chados, 23 January 2017 - 05:44 PM.

[Kylere]

I love how many people are arguing for their right to be jerks

[Bud Crue]

Kylere, on 23 January 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

I love how many people are arguing for their right to be jerks

Go read the CW forums. It is apparently not a right, but rather an obligation (at least to some).

[Felicitatem Parco]

Chados, this thread is about people who refuse to hold locks because they actively want to deny a resource to their teammates. It's because they dislike LRM users.

That's griefing, right? It's a deliberate attempt to negatively impact someone's game and reduce your own team's chances of victory.

[Relixander]

Kylere, on 23 January 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

I love how many people are arguing for their right to be jerks

EVERYONE has that right!

Sometimes Newton's 3rd law applies though...