24 replies to this topic

[Luminis]

Verilligo, on 25 May 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

The actual argument I'm putting forward is that it's not that the system fails the people, it's that the people fail the system.

I don't think these two things - the people and the system - can be divided and considered distinct and independent identities, as the people form the system.

Verilligo, on 25 May 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

But the concepts contained within communism are not inherently bad.

Quite the opposite, from my point of view - they're great in a world where humans are altruistic and egoism isn't a thing (aka, not reality). Being realistically applicable is an inherent factor for any system's viability from my point of view, though; communism depending on someone in charge who's essentially inhuman is an inherent flaw of the system and the reason of its failure(s).

This does stem from my believe that no system - political or otherwise - can exist in complete isolation of reality.

/edit: I just wanted to add that I didn't intend to imply that you are among the people who claim that "if it failed, it wasn't communism". That is just a very regular opinion I've been exposed to by the anti-capitalists that have recently been popping up left, right and centre...

Verilligo, on 25 May 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

But on topic and in response to Tina, does that mean that EVERY instance of bringing up another player's stats, despite those stats being public information, is now being considered a moderation-worthy offense? 'Cuz that's a pretty hefty shift in tone, even if it was intended that way from the outset.

I've seen stat-shaming getting moderated a few times before... I mean, yeah, it can be slung around as insults but my personal opinion is that, in some cases, it has its place. I know some people think that playing the game at least remotely well should be no prerequisite to having a say in, for example, balance discussions, but I do think that a certain proficiency with the game ought to be expected for that - and stats below a certain threshold suggest that that might just not be there...

Edited by Luminis, 25 May 2018 - 11:22 AM.

[Verilligo]

Luminis, on 25 May 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

I don't think these two things - the people and the system - can be divided and considered distinct and independent identities, as the people form the system.

Quite the opposite, from my point of view - they're great in a world where humans are altruistic and egoism isn't a thing (aka, not reality). Being realistically applicable is an inherent factor for any system's viability from my point of view, though; communism depending on someone in charge who's essentially inhuman is an inherent flaw of the system and the reason of its failure(s).

This does stem from my believe that no system - political or otherwise - can exist in complete isolation of reality.

/edit: I just wanted to add that I didn't intend to imply that you are among the people who claim that "if it failed, it wasn't communism". That is just a very regular opinion I've been exposed to by the anti-capitalists that have recently been popping up left, right and centre...

An interesting point of view! I can certainly see where you're coming from and based on those limitations, yeah, the concepts would appear to be failures at the outset. My perspective is somewhat more... open-ended, I guess is the best way of putting it. Your point of view claims that for communism to work, someone would need to be in charge of the equal distribution of resources, with that someone implied to be human, therefore susceptible to corruption. My point of view acknowledges that, therefore adding that the person in charge would need to be not human to at least some degree. Limit the scope of what that entity is in charge of to, say, a handful of resources, and the concept starts becoming somewhat more practical.

I mean I still have to say it's beginning to enter the realm of science fiction, effectively placing a machine (for lack of a better entity) in charge of the distribution of resources. But I feel the more you pare it back based on number and type of resources under consideration, the less fantastical it becomes. It also starts shifting more towards socialism, which is also painted out to be worse than it actually is, but I think the BEST systems account for a mix of the concepts, capitalism certainly included.

And yeah, no worries, I didn't think you were associating me with the extreme anti-capitalists. I just wanted to assure you of it. I do have problems with capitalism, but mostly in regards to lack of regulation. In a PURE capitalist system without controls, you start devolving into a Machiavellian horror. But on the whole, a well-regulated capitalist system works better than the competition. Pun intended.

Luminis, on 25 May 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

I've seen stat-shaming getting moderated a few times before... I mean, yeah, it can be slung around as insults but my personal opinion is that, in some cases, it has its place. I know some people think that playing the game at least remotely well should be no prerequisite to having a say in, for example, balance discussions, but I do think that a certain proficiency with the game ought to be expected for that - and stats below a certain threshold suggest that that might just not be there...

Agreed in full. I'll offer my opinion on plenty of balance issues, but even then I gotta look at my stats, compare them to someone close to the top of the list, and give that opinion while realizing that I probably don't have authoritative experience on many matters. As long as it's not used as a pointed insult, that seems fair to bring up.

[VonBruinwald]

Verilligo, on 25 May 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

I gotta look at my stats, compare them to someone close to the top of the list, and give that opinion while realizing that I probably don't have authoritative experience on many matters. As long as it's not used as a pointed insult, that seems fair to bring up.

The only stat really worth considering is number of games played as it gives a better reference for volume of experiance than any k:d/w:l can. Anything else is catering to powergamers running meta-builds.

As an example:

Ukku (Top of Jarl's list), 2920 games and 94% of them have been in an Assault mech!
Helvite (Rank 29973) has played 5600 with a weight class spread of 25%/23%/22%/29%

Who do you really think is going to have a better viewpoint on the state of balance out of those two?

[BTGbullseye]

VonBruinwald, on 25 May 2018 - 12:48 PM, said:

As an example:

Ukku (Top of Jarl's list), 2920 games and 94% of them have been in an Assault mech!
Helvite (Rank 29973) has played 5600 with a weight class spread of 25%/23%/22%/29%

Who do you really think is going to have a better viewpoint on the state of balance out of those two?

Me, no question.

[Tina Benoit]

The reason these stats shaming discussions have been getting moderated is because it has consistently been used for negative purposes and targeting others, which causes a lot of disruption in threads with unwanted attention, shaming, offending, insulting, using it to argue opinions or even simply picking fights, all of which are against the Code of Conduct and can cause a negative experience for some community members on the forums.
Unless the stat sharing is used in a positive and constructive manner that is not aimed to target/offend anyone in the discussion, it will be moderated.

This thread must now be closed as the question on this topic may only be answered by our Data Controller at privacy@piranhagames.com for any inquiries regarding GDPR.