777 replies to this topic

[Evil Goof]

Tesunie, on 10 December 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Correction, you are risking something. You risk your in game income. You risk your PSR rank (if it matters to you). You risk your K/D ratio (if that matters to you). You risk your armor. Your risk your reputation even. You risk FAILURE. You risk DEFEAT. (And some people, fear of failure is a big thing.)

There are risks. Just nothing physical to your health (besides maybe some stress). Just because you wont admit these risks does not mean they do not exist.

I see where you are going and can appreciate your point.

Where our opinions take vastly different forks however is the risk and consequences. Getting into an online shootout has vastly different consequences than getting into an actual shootout. Being able to start over completely unscathed to do it again is a huge deal here.

I also argue that the physical pain of being shot and the fear of that pain and or death is exponentially higher to such a vast degree the comparison of being shot online fictionally does not equate.

So it is not me insisting that they do not exist. Certainly stat fear and other things you mention are real. They just don't add up to either bravery for risking them or cowardess for trying to protect them.

Edited by Evil Goof, 10 December 2016 - 03:42 PM.

[Tesunie]

Evil Goof, on 10 December 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Yes my response to you about riding the line was sarcastic.

I do really appreciate that you would never call this out over comms and despite the clear and obvious differences in opinions we have I respect you saying that you feel being respectful over comms is important. Probably should try and be more like you in the forums all things considered.

Recently someone I know who is a prison guard was ambushed and serverely injured. Another person I know who works as a police officer was shot. This topic has really pushed my buttons more than I should have let it.

Not so much the OP as I know who he is and what he is about and his particular opinion is not important to me. I am more offended and shocked that there seems to be droves of people who think pushing w and having their robot move forward into lasers is brave. I honestly feel the disconnect is insane. Again going back into online behaviour versus reality I think is firmly covered by scholars and don't think that my position of it being inappropriate to call people or behaviour cowardice is wrong.


Please re-read the second quote from me in your post...

You can act like a coward in a game, but be the bravest man in real life.

It's like, you can do something really stupid, but be a literal genius.

We are not calling people cowards, we are saying that playing the game timidly (or cowardly) usually ends up in a lose.

Now, we aren't talking about people pressing forwards with their team, using cover cleverly and getting shots off while remaining as safe as possible while doing so. Nor those that are poking and shooting within the early game. We are addressing those whom hide more than fight, and tend to stay away from the combat. Those whom you see nearly pristine by the end of the match, alone, no where near their team, typically being hunted down by the remainders of the enemy team. Those whom hide behind objects, typically at around 1000m away, contributing very little. Those whom, as soon as they see the enemy and get hit with any amount of damage, up and abandon their teammates to hide behind something. (Reminder, this isn't the concept of taking cover to avoid damage, this is taking cover to avoid the enemy completely.)

We aren't calling them cowards, but that they are being timid. They are acting, at that moment, like a coward. This doesn't mean that they are cowards, but if the label fits the actions...

[Void Angel]

The only mode of argument he knows is sophistry. He's set up a straw man where other people have made outrageous claims, and he's just innocently - and oh! so courageously - standing up for "the men and women in uniform." He'll never run out of arguments to feel righteous about, because he's set up the field such that to agree with him means to accept responsibility for (imaginary) shameful behavior. And if you disagree, well, you're the one equating (cue stirring soundtrack) the sacrifices of our brave men and women in the uniformed services with "getting shot in a video game!" How dare you.

[Tesunie]

Evil Goof, on 10 December 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Where our opinions take vastly different forks however is the risk and consequences. Getting into an online shootout has vastly different consequences than getting into an actual shootout. Being able to start over completely unscathed to do it again is a huge deal here.

Then, but your own definition, what is there to risk? Why is there reason to hide? Why don't people stay with their team, taking the hits that mean so little?

People don't play that way. People conserve their armor/health. They tend to hide, instead of performing some other action.

By your account, then players should have no reason to play timidly. But they do...

[Void Angel]

This is a nearly textbook example of codependency in a relationship. The textbook example is the drunk husband and his longsuffering wife: the husband goes out drinking every night, becoming more and more of a problem until the wife kicks him out; then he cleans up his act, comes back to her repentantly, and she eventually takes him back. He's fine and responsible for a while, but he soon realizes that "it ain't no fun since I quit drankin" and the cycle begins again.

An outside observer wonders why in the world they live their lives in this perpetual toxic spiral, but the truth is that both people are getting things out of the relationship, psychologically: the husband gets to be a party guy, and a repentant sinner; the wife gets to be the virtuously longsuffering wronged woman, and exercise absolute power in the relationship by laying down the law, and then be magnanimous and forgiving when she accepts him back. Both parties get affirmation from their various groups of friends (and enablers) at various points in the cycle. And so the cycle continues, until and unless the unmet needs that would be supplied by a healthier relationship cause a terminal breakdown that shorts out the cycle - or the man wraps his car around a tree.

This is the kind of relationship Goofy would like to have with us on the forums. Don't feed the troll.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Evil Goof, on 10 December 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

Oh that is the road you are going. Well I am not going back over the thread for you. If you are really interested go ahead and look for that yourself.

What I can easily point you towards however is the original post which discribes the game as reinforcing people to play like cowards. Completely reasonable to consider the opposite of this behaviour as being brave. At the very least construed as bravery.

To summarize my point for you, if calling out certain play styles as coward like, what is the implication of trying to teach the opposite style?

Thank you for admitting no-one claimed playing MWO a certain way was brave.

The opposite of cowardice is not bravery, it is simply not showing cowardice.

With that settled...

Great guide Void Angel, two thumbs for you!

[Evil Goof]

Tesunie, on 10 December 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

You can act like a coward in a game, but be the bravest man in real life.

It's like, you can do something really stupid, but be a literal genius.

We are not calling people cowards, we are saying that playing the game timidly (or cowardly) usually ends up in a lose.

Now, we aren't talking about people pressing forwards with their team, using cover cleverly and getting shots off while remaining as safe as possible while doing so. Nor those that are poking and shooting within the early game. We are addressing those whom hide more than fight, and tend to stay away from the combat. Those whom you see nearly pristine by the end of the match, alone, no where near their team, typically being hunted down by the remainders of the enemy team. Those whom hide behind objects, typically at around 1000m away, contributing very little. Those whom, as soon as they see the enemy and get hit with any amount of damage, up and abandon their teammates to hide behind something. (Reminder, this isn't the concept of taking cover to avoid damage, this is taking cover to avoid the enemy completely.)

We aren't calling them cowards, but that they are being timid. They are acting, at that moment, like a coward. This doesn't mean that they are cowards, but if the label fits the actions...

Thank you for your patience and your time explaining your view to me. You have been respectful when admittedly I have not.

If your goal was to calmly try and get me to see your side I think you have been successful. Likely for my own sanity and blood pressure I am going to have to get off of this soap box.

I do believe I know where you are coming from because I am a very aggressive player. It is frustrating to die and end up watching someone in a lurming Atlas behind a rock from their cockpit.

What I am willing to do is admit to my point as perhaps splitting some hairs on the terms of definition. I still firmly believe that it is really offside to call someone playing a video game a coward as personally I think that word should be reserved to perhaps protect its meaning??? Of this I am not sure myself.

[Evil Goof]

Jay Leon Hart, on 10 December 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

Thank you for admitting no-one claimed playing MWO a certain way was brave.

The opposite of cowardice is not bravery, it is simply not showing cowardice.

With that settled...

Great guide Void Angel, two thumbs for you!

Can you quote where I said that...wait never mind that's your game not mine.

So the absence of cowardess is the state of nothing and not bravery... or just normal.

Well here I hope this will help you:
http://opposite-of.com/brave/

Now I think we are settled.

[Void Angel]

While that's true, the error in your argument isn't in claiming that bravery and cowardice are opposites - it's in the wrong definition you've insisted on using throughout. Bravery and cowardice, courage and pain, can and do have a sliding scale of severity. Your knee-jerk association of the word "bravery" with the uniformed services isn't called for by the term - and is no one's problem but your own.

Edited by Void Angel, 10 December 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[Evil Goof]

Void Angel, on 10 December 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

While that's true, the error in your argument isn't in claiming that bravery and cowardice are opposites - it's in the wrong definition you've insisted on using throughout. Bravery and cowardice, courage and pain, can and do have a sliding scale of severity. Your knee-jerk association of the word "bravery" with the uniformed services isn't called for by the term - and is no one's problem but your own.

While I still do not agree with your use of the word coward, I would like to apologise for my conduct and at least admit a couple of things that would be positive moving forward.

First part is that I am sorry for attacking you instead of being calm and rational. Perhaps this might have gone a lot differently.

For the admission part, I honestly think that your guide is strong and has merit to new players and any comments made otherwise were me being overly emotional due to personal circumstance and belief. After one of your rebuttals I actually did go back and read it in its entirety and it certainly fits my playstyle and many of my beliefs in this game.

It was wrong of me to just attack and to make my own assumptions. I freely admit that I spun into a rage and while I may have some point hidden in there somewhere, it certainly was lost due to my own bad conduct. Not sure if you saw me mention it but I have one friend who was just ambushed (he is a prison guard) and he is in serious condition and likely his career is over and life changed. Another person I know was shot doing their job as a police officer.

It is clear to me that these two things are the biggest factor (not that they excuse my poor behaviour) in me throwing logic to the wind and just going off.

Also I think it is clear that this is just my own personal bias and pet peeve and get offended in the manner I have is really my own baggage that I should likely keep to myself.

[Void Angel]

(blink blink) OK. Think no more of it.

[Tesunie]

One may not be a coward, and yet not be brave.

One may not be stupid, but isn't a genius.

You don't have to be in one state or the other, and there are even degrees of state between full up courageous and fearful coward. There is even a state that is neutral, where one is neither brave nor coward.

Also, the term brave and coward don't necessarily describe the person, but can be used to describe an action. Someone can have an action that is stupid, yet not be stupid themselves. Same goes for bravery and cowardice.

Edited by Tesunie, 10 December 2016 - 04:52 PM.

[Tesunie]

IraqiWalker, on 10 December 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

I don't understand how this discussion has lasted this long.

FYI: You are a bit late to the party... (See his last post one page back.)

[Void Angel]

/sigh

[IraqiWalker]

Tesunie, on 10 December 2016 - 08:58 PM, said:

FYI: You are a bit late to the party... (See his last post one page back.)

woops. My b.

I think I finally got fed up, and didn't check the rest of the thread.

EDIT: I'll delete my previous post.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 11 December 2016 - 12:27 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Wtb:a mod to clean up the thread.

[Void Angel]

Nah, it's mostly all past the current page - meaning no one will ever read it who wasn't involved in the conversation. =)

[Cold Darkness]

Evil Goof, on 10 December 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Good luck trying to disprove that however as I am quite sure your pseudo intellectual self is bound to try and do.

wow.

all words used where derived directly from your words used in the quoted post. you may have failed to comprehend that, however, so you are forgiven for that.
also: what is there to disprove? you are correct. no one will be knocking on my door. or did you want me to disprove the rest of your post, which consists of stereotyping?

i have a better idea: why dont you start proving YOUR point? i mean, you are essentially trying to argue that hormones do not exist.

Wintersdark, on 11 December 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Wtb:a mod to clean up the thread.

sorry, didnt bother reading it to the end and failed to notice the end :<

in that case, dont bother answering evilgoof, it wouldnt be fun anymore.

Edited by Cold Darkness, 11 December 2016 - 03:44 PM.

[Void Angel]

You underlined a space up there, too. =D

[Evil Goof]

I noticed that there were a couple of replies on here after my initial apology to Void.

In case anyone has missed it, I was wrong to go off, try and derail and especailly wrong to attack Void Angel with inults and assumptions.

I have deleted a good deal of my posts that were tossing insults and were nonconstructive to Void Angel in efforts to clean up the nonsense in the thread a bit.