Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

PSA: Top 10 annoying things to prepare for in FFXIVFollow

#52 Feb 23 2010 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,537 posts
Quote:
8. Female Lalafell being reffered to as lolifell.


This is the greatest thing I've ever read, ever.
____________________________

Activities:
FFXIV Beta Test
Starcraft II Silver League
#53 Feb 23 2010 at 3:31 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
The English client saw "<player> examines you." in their chat log when someone did a /check. The translation of the Japanese emote was basically, "<player> stares at you intently." It was largely a cultural thing. JP took it as an invasion of privacy and the translation did nothing but exacerbate the situation.

And your argument...that SE could have changed it or added a toggle...is a valid argument. By itself. SE could have changed it, but they didn't and that's all that matters. It's not about what could have been or should have been. It's about the reality of the situation, and the reality is that it was made known to the NA community that the JP found it rude and the NA continued to do it anyway. Some NA listened and had the social acumen to use the /check feature with discretion. Others ignored it. It came down to the same question: are your actions promoting good will or animosity? And all the deflections and all the blame and the denial of responsibility for their own behavior while simultaneously joining in the, "our game's community is so great!" circle jerk did nothing good for the NA community.


Well, now I'm very skeptical about the whole thing. Square is a Japanese company, I would think that they would understand the complaint about the wording. If they didn't accommodate the complaints (I don't know what steps were taken to bring it to SE's attention, though) by changing it, then I don't know what to say. Logic tells me that if a reasonable complaint was brought up by enough people, then they would change it to satisfy their customer base. Perhaps it wasn't as significant a deal among the Japanese as you think? I don't know. But if it was such a big deal, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't change it. But then again, there was the toggle option, right there, if need be.

Quote:
You're dodging. If you know that what you're doing has the potential to make someone else uncomfortable and you do it anyways, you're being a jerk. It's not like not /checking someone is going to keep you from paying your bills or putting food on your table. It's not going to make your children sick or cause your house to burn down. If you think seeing what someone else is wearing justifies putting you at odds with a substantial segment of the community, you might want to rethink your priorities.

It's the same with the sexual innuendo/jokes/emotes. It's immature outside of your own social circle. It's a shining example of social ineptitude to run around being a crass idiot knowing that it could make people uncomfortable and then treating it like somehow your behavior is their fault. You have a choice around your own behavior. You can't choose how people will respond to you but you can apply a modicum of common sense and realize there's a pretty good chance it won't be received well. And again it comes down to the selfish individualism that says, "I do what I want when I want and if if bothers you, tough."

When I'm out in public and a group of young people is being loud and profane and rowdy, it doesn't surprise me. The hope is that someday they'll grow out of it and learn what it really means to be a part of a community. Until then, I just write them off as immature. When adults are out in behavior being loud and profane and rowdy, I write them off as morons.


Eh, I'm dodging? No, I think my stance is pretty clear here. I straight up disagree with this:

Quote:
If you know that what you're doing has the potential to make someone else uncomfortable and you do it anyways, you're being a jerk.


I explained why just a couple posts ago. This issue can't be analyzed on a person-to-person basis. It's the issue of a mini-society. Like I said, no, we don't always move to accommodate a minority that is uncomfortable with something. You say I'm being selfish by not asking before a /check, and I say that others are being selfish by forcing their irrational issue upon the entire community to force a widespread change in the game's social mores, flying in the face of the more obvious, simple solution. Or worse, someone's trying to pick a fight by leaving the /check filter off.

You see it as selfish individualism, I get it. The thing is, I think the same thing can be applied the other way. Each side is trying to exert it's will. The deciding factor should ultimately be logic, not emotion. And I suggested two logical solutions, one of which was already in place: force SE's hand to change the wording of /check, or implement a filter.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#54 Feb 23 2010 at 4:55 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
386 posts
It's been nearly 4 years since I played FFXI, but if I remember correctly, /check could be turned off couldn't it? You click on something in your settings, and you'd never have to know if you're being checked ever again.
____________________________
Kumaro - Deceased
Unicorn Server
Rank 10 Bastok, Rank 7 Windurst
Zilart: Complete
Promathia: Complete
100+3 Alchemy, 50.? Goldsmithing
75 Ranger, 75 Monk, 41 Warrior, 37 Ninja, 37 Thief
Melee Gaiters:O, Melee Hose:O, Melee Gloves:O, Melee Cyclas:O, Melee Crown:O
Melee Set: Complete
#55 Feb 23 2010 at 5:01 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
Nihongoman wrote:
It's been nearly 4 years since I played FFXI, but if I remember correctly, /check could be turned off couldn't it? You click on something in your settings, and you'd never have to know if you're being checked ever again.


Yes, there was a filter that got rid of the "XXXXX examines you" message.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#56 Feb 23 2010 at 8:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
656 posts
Eske, Aure

wassup with the wall of text =_="
____________________________
モスタル


#57 Feb 23 2010 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Eske wrote:
Well, now I'm very skeptical about the whole thing. Square is a Japanese company, I would think that they would understand the complaint about the wording. If they didn't accommodate the complaints (I don't know what steps were taken to bring it to SE's attention, though) by changing it, then I don't know what to say. Logic tells me that if a reasonable complaint was brought up by enough people, then they would change it to satisfy their customer base. Perhaps it wasn't as significant a deal among the Japanese as you think? I don't know. But if it was such a big deal, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't change it. But then again, there was the toggle option, right there, if need be.


This is SE we're talking about. Since when have they ever been quick to address player complaints? And again...you're passing the buck. You want to do what you want to do and if it's creating problems, it's up to someone else to fix it.

Quote:
Eh, I'm dodging? No, I think my stance is pretty clear here.


Ya, you're dodging.

Quote:
I straight up disagree with this:

Quote:
If you know that what you're doing has the potential to make someone else uncomfortable and you do it anyways, you're being a jerk.


I explained why just a couple posts ago. This issue can't be analyzed on a person-to-person basis. It's the issue of a mini-society. Like I said, no, we don't always move to accommodate a minority that is uncomfortable with something. You say I'm being selfish by not asking before a /check, and I say that others are being selfish by forcing their irrational issue upon the entire community to force a widespread change in the game's social mores, flying in the face of the more obvious, simple solution. Or worse, someone's trying to pick a fight by leaving the /check filter off.


More dodging, more passing the buck. The Japanese cultural preference towards privacy is not irrational. And it's just that...a cultural preference. Cultural preferences are usually deep seated. NA were given an opportunity to respect that preference. They chose to ignore it. Then they turned around and labeled the JP as bigots for 'JP only' search comments. Take your pick.
#58 Feb 23 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
stuff about dodging


Seems like your being dismissive of a pretty notable point: if this was such a clear issue, one held by a "significant" portion of the population, why didn't SE address it further?

Anyway, I really don't get it. It seems like you're saying that I'm dodging the hypothetical "fault" here. But I don't think it's an issue where there's blame to be assigned. It's about opposing belief systems, not about people being immoral.

It's not "passing the buck". It's about going to the logical source of the problem. Problem solving 101, not dodging. And that's a solution with a much higher success rate. I think the failure to establish a standard of asking before a /check is proof enough of that. But any company will listen if you get enough people in their ears. I'm seriously doubting how "significant" this population was. All I've ever heard was word of mouth about it, personally.

But I think the issue here might just be that I see this as a two-sided thing, and you see it as a one-sided thing. As in, you feel that the NA population was antagonistic to the Japanese population (though I really only ever heard NA's complaining about it; they kind of adopted the /check phobia and made it their own here on the forums). I think it's antagonistic both ways. Both sides are trying to exert their societal standard on the other. I don't really want to use this language per-say, but accommodation is a sort of submission to another's will.

If you fundamentally disagree with it, then no, I don't believe that you have to do it. But this belief of mine hinges on the fact that there was a filter. The problem was already solved! Why should it persist?

Quote:
The Japanese cultural preference towards privacy is not irrational.


Please don't embellish my statements to make them seem ridiculous. I mean, really.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 11:14am by Eske

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 11:18am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#59 Feb 23 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Default
Eske wrote:
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
stuff about dodging


I really don't get it. It seems like you're saying that I'm dodging the hypothetical "fault" here. But

Seems like your being dismissive of a pretty notable point: if this was such a clear issue, one held by a "significant" portion of the population, why didn't SE address it further?


Oh, I don't know...why did SE leave DRG languishing on the mog house steps of Jeuno for 2 years? Why did SE sit idly by and let RMT fully and completely dominate Ullikummi for six months? Again, this is SE we're talking about.

Quote:
It's not "passing the buck". It's about going to the logical source of the problem. Problem solving 101, not dodging. And that's a much more probable method of solving the problem. I think the failure to establish a standard of asking before a /check is proof enough of that. But any company will listen if you get enough people in their ears. I'm seriously doubting how "significant" this population was. All I've ever heard was word of mouth about it, personally.


You are dodging because you're basing your position on hypotheticals and ignoring the reality. The hypothetical is that it would be less of an issue if the JP had toggled the filter or if SE had stepped in and changed the translation. The reality is that the JP found it a nuisance, it wasn't necessary to /check random people just standing around in <insert hub city here> because you were curious, and that it was brought to the attention of the NA community that it was an action that wasn't appreciated. Those three things are all anyone needed to know. They could have chosen to be decent about it (and some did) or they could have chosen to ignore it (and some did). And then there was the segment of the population that would respond to the JP gear swaps to close the /check pane with /check spam or the oh-so-helpful "{Bomb toss} Hiroshima". And guess who you lump yourself in with when you just do your simple /check?

Quote:
But I think the issue here might just be that I see this as a two-sided thing, and you see it as a one-sided thing. As in, you feel that the NA population was antagonistic to the Japanese population (though I really only ever heard NA's complaining about it; they kind of adopted the /check phobia and made it their own here on the forums). I think it's antagonistic both ways. Both sides are trying to exert their societal standard on the other. I don't really want to use this language per-say, but accommodation is a sort of submission to another's will.


Accommodation is respect. Again, we're not talking about a situation where your choice to accommodate them stood to create a substantial loss for you. If seeing what someone had equipped was so important to you, all anyone ever requested was that you ask first (and respect the answer you were given.)

Quote:
If you fundamentally disagree with it, then no, I don't believe that you have to do it. But this belief of mine hinges on the fact that there was a filter. I mean, the problem was already solved! Why should it persist?


Again..."I do what I want to do and if it bothers you, you fix it."

Quote:
Quote:
The Japanese cultural preference towards privacy is not irrational.


Please don't embellish my statements to make them seem ridiculous. I mean, really.


I didn't embellish anything.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 8:28am by AureliusSir
#60 Feb 23 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
977 posts
******** about someone "staring at you intently" in a video game? If that's someone's biggest problem, they need to get out more.
____________________________
A drink. A drink. A drink.
#61 Feb 23 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
Mostaru wrote:
Eske, Aure

wassup with the wall of text =_="


SE hasn't released any info in ages. I need to occupy myself somehow, heh. And I'm damned sure not going to spend that time getting actual work accomplished. :P

Quote:
Oh, I don't know...why did SE leave DRG languishing on the mog house steps of Jeuno for 2 years? Why did SE sit idly by and let RMT fully and completely dominate Ullikummi for six months? Again, this is SE we're talking about.


DRG I'll give you. God they couldn't have dropped the ball on that one any more. RMT, I dunno. It's a complex problem, one that no company has been able to solve, as far as I can tell. I won't slam them for that problem. Either way, I still stand by my belief that if you get enough people to complain, then things get changed. But it's a moot point, because there was already a /check filter.

Quote:
You are dodging because you're basing your position on hypotheticals and ignoring the reality. The hypothetical is that it would be less of an issue if the JP had toggled the filter or if SE had stepped in and changed the translation. The reality is that the JP found it a nuisance, it wasn't necessary to /check random people just standing around in <insert hub city here> because you were curious, and that it was brought to the attention of the NA community that it was an action that wasn't appreciated. Those three things are all anyone needed to know. They could have chosen to be decent about it (and some did) or they could have chosen to ignore it (and some did). And then there was the segment of the population that would respond to the JP gear swaps to close the /check pane with /check spam or the oh-so-helpful "{Bomb toss} Hiroshima". And guess who you lump yourself in with when you just do your simple /check?


How exactly is me saying that there was a /check filter "basing my position on hypotheticals"? It wasn't hypothetical...it existed. And I'm sure many people used it. One way or the other, the complaints died down, that I know.

I'm obviously not here to defend anyone who makes a vicious racist response to a player that takes issue with /check, so there's really no point in falling back on that crutch each time you state your point. That's another issue entirely, and attempting to lump it in with my point is just an argumentative fallacy.

It doesn't matter to me if it's "absolutely necessary" to /check people. My stance, as I've said before, is to only change my behavior when a rational point is brought up suggesting just that. Because a /check filter existed, there was no rational point. Only antagonism.

Quote:
Accommodation is respect. Again, we're not talking about a situation where your choice to accommodate them stood to create a substantial loss for you. If seeing what someone had equipped was so important to you, all anyone ever requested was that you ask first (and respect the answer you were given.)


Agree to disagree. It's both. And it's not about whether it was a substantial loss to me, because I don't think that to ignore it represents a substantial loss to those who are offended by it. Because, again, there was a filter. I sound like a broken record. Players who were offended by /check actually had less to give up by accommodating others than those who wanted to /check, because they wouldn't have to give up anything!

Quote:
Again..."I do what I want to do and if it bothers you, you fix it."


"I feel the way I feel and if you don't like it, then tough luck, you have to change anyway."

I don't even think that's a logical argument, but it's about as relevant as the words you put in my mouth.

Quote:
I didn't embellish anything.


Re-evaluate that one if you're still not sure why. I said "irrational issue", not "irrational culture". I'm talking about this one situation, not some all-encompassing societal more. If you feel otherwise, then it's just another case of you adding your own subtext to this debate, one that I'm not planning on joining you on.


Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 1:23pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#62 Feb 23 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
See, this is why I prefer to forego the extensive deliberation about social etiquette. It's a long walk through a gray area just to appease some thin-skinned people. In my opinion it does them no favors. Welcome to the internet, etc.

Ideally people are courteous without prejudice. I generally am. On the other hand, **** all of you. You're not even real people. At some time in life one must learn and accept that this is a fundamental and inevitable construct of anonymous sociology. While it's certainly not a bad thing to improve the mean world image by discouraging that kind of behavior, it's also certainly not a good thing to reinforce being a ***** who can't just ignore what amounts to harmless behavior.

Moral of the story-- you should do it, but you shouldn't care about it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#63 Feb 23 2010 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
Plays better than you
*****
11,852 posts

I can't wait to hear the pro-WoW vs anti-WoW pathetic banter.

If there is anything that makes me leave public chat channels, it's WoW talk. You have all the same people no matter what game you're playing. There are some who claim everything in WoW is uber easy and that they had raided *insert current hard-mode raid of the month here* and that they have achieved 2800 arena ratings, and, of course, that it was all easy. Then, you'll have someone saying "I hate WoW graphics it's like a cartoon." And Finally, you'll have some poor soul defending WoW, firing back at anything and everything that anyone says that makes WoW out to be anything less than the perfect world ... Finally, people will retort and tell said player to go play Wow ... UGH. It's SO redundant.

____________________________
Trubbles Stormborn - 25 ARC / 22 CNJ ... 18 FSH / 14 CUL

#64 Feb 23 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
149 posts
More annoying things:
1) **** [Final Fantasy]
2) Conspiracy theories that the **** are sabotaging the auction house.
3) People who can't complete quests without wowhead/thottbot now playing FFXIV.
4) People who complain because FFXIV doesn't have a feature that some other MMO has. (Remember, before FFXI there was really only Ultima and Everquest, now there are THOUSANDS of other MMOs.)
5) People who complain because they are, for the first time, being challenged in an MMO and can't handle it.


Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 2:44pm by Maarg
#65 Feb 23 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
Eske wrote:
How exactly is me saying that there was a /check filter "basing my position on hypotheticals"? It wasn't hypothetical...it existed. And I'm sure many people used it. One way or the other, the complaints died down, that I know.


Again..."I'll do what I want to do and if you don't like it, you fix it."

Quote:
I'm obviously not here to defend anyone who makes a vicious racist response to a player that takes issue with /check, so there's really no point in falling back on that crutch each time you state your point. That's another issue entirely, and attempting to lump it in with my point is just an argumentative fallacy.


You're going to have to read a little closer and put a little more thought into what was said. I didn't lump anything in with your argument...I said that in the eyes of the people you're offending, you get lumped in with the extreme asshats. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You become "Just another @#%^ NA."

Quote:
It doesn't matter to me if it's "absolutely necessary" to /check people. My stance, as I've said before, is to only change my behavior when a rational point is brought up suggesting just that. Because a /check filter existed, there was no rational point. Only antagonism.


Rational point: "That makes me uncomfortable. Please don't do it."

What more do you need?

Quote:
Agree to disagree. It's both. And it's not about whether it was a substantial loss to me, because I don't think that to ignore it represents a substantial loss to those who are offended by it. Because, again, there was a filter. I sound like a broken record. Players who were offended by /check actually had less to give up by accommodating others than those who wanted to /check, because they wouldn't have to give up anything!


It's about the same as telling someone to turn on their chat filter if your vulgar string of profanities bothers them. I'm not averse to the occasional use of four letter words and questionable words used to describe genitalia, but that doesn't mean I want to have some social inept dork's vile spam scrolling up my screen. Again, it's about respect.

Quote:
"I feel the way I feel and if you don't like it, then tough luck, you have to change anyway."


It's a lot harder to change a person's response where deep seated social conventions are involved than it is to curb your urge to examine someone's gear. And yes, "I feel the way I feel and I don't have to change that for you or anyone," is a valid psychological construct.

Quote:
Quote:
I didn't embellish anything.


Re-evaluate that one if you're still not sure why. I said "irrational issue", not "irrational culture". I'm talking about this one situation, not some all-encompassing societal more. If you feel otherwise, then it's just another case of you adding your own subtext to this debate, one that I'm not planning on joining you on.


Hi. The issue stems from a cultural expectation. All they asked for was a measure of respect. The best response for what they got was "JP only". You figure it out. And again, you're obviously free to do what you want to do barring GM intervention, but at the end of the day the hope is that you're enough of a grown-up to accept your part in any conflict that ensues in part or in whole because of your actions.

And this whole debate started over sexual emotes/jokes/whatever. Go figure.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 1:57pm by AureliusSir
#66 Feb 23 2010 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Jordster wrote:

I can't wait to hear the pro-WoW vs anti-WoW pathetic banter.


No don't...nono...don't...don't encourage them, Jord. It's better for everyone that way.
#67 Feb 23 2010 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
**
394 posts
I can't wait for my friends to repeatedly question my sexuality for playing a Japanese game.

Edited, Mar 1st 2010 4:03pm by TraumaFox
#68 Feb 23 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
You're going to have to read a little closer and put a little more thought into what was said. I didn't lump anything in with your argument...I said that in the eyes of the people you're offending, you get lumped in with the extreme asshats. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You become "Just another @#%^ NA."


And that's relevant....how exactly? It's obviously not a fair assessment, so I don't see how it's my problem, at all.

Quote:
Rational point: "That makes me uncomfortable. Please don't do it."


That's a statement, not an explanation. I already know what the explanation is, I heard it a million times back in those old threads. It wasn't based on a rational response, though I think we're in agreement on that. Anyway, the retort: "If it makes you uncomfortable, why don't you use the filter?"

Quote:
It's about the same as telling someone to turn on their chat filter if your vulgar string of profanities bothers them. I'm not averse to the occasional use of four letter words and questionable words used to describe genitalia, but that doesn't mean I want to have some social inept dork's vile spam scrolling up my screen. Again, it's about respect.


That's not comparable, because /check isn't used in the same variety of contexts that profanities can be used in. Cursing can be done for emphasis, for comedy, for intimidation, or just for the **** of it. If you're /checking, you're /checking to achieve the one and only goal that it achieves. There aren't gradients of the function that run the gamut from accepted to unaccepted.

Quote:
It's a lot harder to change a person's response where deep seated social conventions are involved than it is to curb your urge to examine someone's gear. And yes, "I feel the way I feel and I don't have to change that for you or anyone," is a valid psychological construct.


Filter.

Quote:
Hi. The issue stems from a cultural expectation. All they asked for was a measure of respect. The best response for what they had was "JP only". You figure it out. And again, you're obviously free to do what you want to do barring GM intervention, but at the end of the day the hope is that you're enough of a grown-up to accept your part in any conflict that ensues in part or in whole because of your actions.

And this whole debate started over sexual emotes/jokes/whatever. Go figure.


Spare me the condescension, please.

The line is clear: you think it's about respect, I think it's about rational behavior. We're both too stubborn to cross it.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 5:00pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Feb 23 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Eske wrote:
That's a statement, not an explanation. I already know what the explanation is, I heard it a million times back in those old threads. It wasn't based on a rational response, though I think we're in agreement on that. Anyway, the retort: "If it makes you uncomfortable, why don't you use the filter?"


What you don't seem to be understanding is that it doesn't need an explanation. It's a statement followed by a request. You respect it or you don't. If you don't, you run the very serious risk of creating conflict.

Quote:
That's not comparable, because /check isn't used in the same variety of contexts that profanities can be used in. Cursing can be done for emphasis, for comedy, for intimidation, or just for the **** of it. If you're /checking, you're /checking to achieve the one and only goal that it achieves. There aren't gradients of the function that run the gamut from accepted to unaccepted.


Sure there are, but if you can't see them nobody is going to be able to explain them to you, and frankly, based on the amount of dodging and gross unwillingness to acknowledge your part in the conflict your behavior helped to create, I'm not really seeing any point in continuing the debate with you.

Quote:
Spare me the condescension, please.


Does it...bother you? Did you...just ask me to stop?

What to do, what to do...apply your logic or mine...

Hmmm....
#70 Feb 23 2010 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
6,470 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
Eske wrote:
That's a statement, not an explanation. I already know what the explanation is, I heard it a million times back in those old threads. It wasn't based on a rational response, though I think we're in agreement on that. Anyway, the retort: "If it makes you uncomfortable, why don't you use the filter?"


What you don't seem to be understanding is that it doesn't need an explanation. It's a statement followed by a request. You respect it or you don't. If you don't, you run the very serious risk of creating conflict.

Quote:
That's not comparable, because /check isn't used in the same variety of contexts that profanities can be used in. Cursing can be done for emphasis, for comedy, for intimidation, or just for the **** of it. If you're /checking, you're /checking to achieve the one and only goal that it achieves. There aren't gradients of the function that run the gamut from accepted to unaccepted.


Sure there are, but if you can't see them nobody is going to be able to explain them to you, and frankly, based on the amount of dodging and gross unwillingness to acknowledge your part in the conflict your behavior helped to create, I'm not really seeing any point in continuing the debate with you.

Quote:
Spare me the condescension, please.


Does it...bother you? Did you...just ask me to stop?

What to do, what to do...apply your logic or mine...

Hmmm....


My, you got cranky. Well I'll bite. Here's the difference...I can rationally explain exactly how you were being condescending. And I bet, in your heart of hearts, you'll get it, too. But you already admitted to it, anyway, so it's a moot point.

By the way, love how you keep dodging the filter issue. It's only the linchpin of my argument, after all. Care to tackle it?

Edited, Feb 23rd 2010 6:11pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#71 Feb 23 2010 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Eske wrote:
My, you got cranky. Well I'll bite. Here's the difference...I can rationally explain exactly how you were being condescending. And I bet, in your heart of hearts, you'll get it, too. But you already admitted to it, anyway, so it's a moot point.


And the JP could rationally explain within the context of their culture why examining a stranger without asking first was considered rude.

Now you're just inciting to flame. Grow up.
#72 Feb 23 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
Eske wrote:
My, you got cranky. Well I'll bite. Here's the difference...I can rationally explain exactly how you were being condescending. And I bet, in your heart of hearts, you'll get it, too. But you already admitted to it, anyway, so it's a moot point.


And the JP could rationally explain within the context of their culture why examining a stranger without asking first was considered rude.

Now you're just inciting to flame. Grow up.


Clearly this is getting too heated. Look, you're clearly a smart dude, and I'm generally in agreement with you when you post. The difference between our stances is clear, and we're not going to bridge that gap here. Like most debates that run this long, we're just going to have to agree to disagree before this degenerates into a pure flame war. I think at this point we're just going to be repeating ourselves, anyway.

I do respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.

**offers a handshake**
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#73 Feb 23 2010 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
656 posts
Eske vs Aure should be the new thread title
____________________________
モスタル


#74 Feb 24 2010 at 12:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
977 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
Eske wrote:
My, you got cranky. Well I'll bite. Here's the difference...I can rationally explain exactly how you were being condescending. And I bet, in your heart of hearts, you'll get it, too. But you already admitted to it, anyway, so it's a moot point.


And the JP could rationally explain within the context of their culture why examining a stranger without asking first was considered rude.

Now you're just inciting to flame. Grow up.


I'm not sure why you're asking for cultural sensitivity from only one side. Obviously the JP players are aware that in the English version, the context of the /check is not a harmful one.

Imagine an individual coming from a different culture where it is acceptable to walk around naked. You at the same time have a choice to view this person through a filter so he appears fully clothed. Instead of using this filter, or understanding that in his mind his actions are fully acceptable, you shun his culture completely.
____________________________
A drink. A drink. A drink.
#75 Feb 24 2010 at 2:03 AM Rating: Good
Pluelf wrote:
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
Eske wrote:
My, you got cranky. Well I'll bite. Here's the difference...I can rationally explain exactly how you were being condescending. And I bet, in your heart of hearts, you'll get it, too. But you already admitted to it, anyway, so it's a moot point.


And the JP could rationally explain within the context of their culture why examining a stranger without asking first was considered rude.

Now you're just inciting to flame. Grow up.


I'm not sure why you're asking for cultural sensitivity from only one side. Obviously the JP players are aware that in the English version, the context of the /check is not a harmful one.

Imagine an individual coming from a different culture where it is acceptable to walk around naked. You at the same time have a choice to view this person through a filter so he appears fully clothed. Instead of using this filter, or understanding that in his mind his actions are fully acceptable, you shun his culture completely.


Believe it or not, cultural competency is a one way street. Another way to put it would be "taking the high road." Either/or. This debate has been going off and on for (over) five years now. Like I've said, believe what you need to believe...just expect some not so kind words from me if you speak in favor of behaviors that create tension between the different cultures and then turn around and cry that people don't want to play with you any more.
#76 Feb 24 2010 at 5:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
Quote:
NA were given an opportunity to respect that preference. They chose to ignore it. Then they turned around and labeled the JP as bigots for 'JP only' search comments. Take your pick.


I don't think non-Japanese had a choice at all. Most people weren't aware at all of the translation flaw. Only after you get in some kind of incident you might hear about it.



For a long time I even thought the Japanese were the rude ones about the whole thing:

From my point of view I saw this person with great gear and wondered what it was. I checked the person out and what happened? He changed his gear so I got booted out of the menu. So I had to check him again and again and again...


Did this kind of situation provoke the JP-ONLY thing? Probably.
Do I feel that the non-Japanese are responsible? No.
Was I more carefull with using /check after becoming aware of the flaw? Yes.
Do I blame SE? **** yes I do.



Edited, Feb 24th 2010 12:37pm by RedGalka
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#77 Feb 24 2010 at 9:03 AM Rating: Default
*
55 posts
wow u guys really like to "debate" huh.

let me try and add my 2 cents.
if u don't like something, u do 1 of 2 things.
1) speak up about it.
2) walk away.

i guess #1 never got out of the gate, otherwise SE would have done something about it.
so then i guess what u gota do is walk away. if someone checks u and u find it offensive then change ur gears. if they insist then walk away.

btw how does this relate to FFxiv? how do u guys no there will even be a check system?
#78 Feb 24 2010 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
**
566 posts
nirtsbro wrote:
if someone checks u and u find it offensive then change ur gears.



This results in me checking you again.
#79 Feb 24 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
6 posts
1.) WoW banter
2.) People overreacting to minor bugs
3.) Guys who play mithra and claim they are female irl.
4.) People complaining that the game isn't easy
5.) Gil Sellers
6.) Flooding of starting zones
7.) Immature 12 year olds
8.) Complaints on lag
9.) Elitests
10.) Nerds debating over pointless topics *cough* *cough*
____________________________
Recent games played:
Currently: World of Warcraft - Too easy. No competition. No community. 99% of the time I stand in Orgrimmar/Dalaran in a queue to obtain gear that means nothing.
Age of Conan - WoW clone with terrible mechanics with a terrible developer.
Warhammer Online - WoW clone with twists in PvP and no endgame. Was also rushed into the market.
Aion - Bots & gold seller out the rear and a long pointless grind.
FFXIV - Don't fail me like these^ guys.
#80 Feb 24 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
This one has annoyed me the most and will happen again:

Starting the game (few days into it) playing solo doing very nicely so far.
Someone ask to team up and fight much harder mobs and you accept through kindness.
Now your HP is always dangerously lower and xp is more but slower.
The rushed 3rd or 4th fight you have less capacity and die, recover and die again.
This happens now:
After 1 hour of solo xp lost in 20 mins you get "I really got to go now".

This made me solo to lvl 14 on my first month in ffxi.

Same crap will prolly happen in ff14.
____________________________
One day maybe:
ShaolinGate.com
#83 Feb 24 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*
192 posts
Kachi wrote:

Not to say I make a habit of doing those things. I just really have no sympathy for people who allow internet strangers to be accountable for their own comfort when it comes to anything shy of harassing behavior that warrants actual legal action.

Communication is a two partner dance, my friend, and you (not you personally if you don't do these things?) can't get out of your responsibility to be a reasonable participant in society just because you're lazy and want to get away with crap.

But no, you aren't responsible for my comfort -- but when you cross acceptable social boundaries you're going to be held accountable for your actions.

I mean, what, do players think it's unreasonable for someone to say, "Hey, I don't like it when you do that, don't do it to me again" and yet it's reasonable to say "I should be able to say whatever I want and do whatever I want without anybody complaining"? Is that any sort of remotely rational logic?

I expect some BS on the internet and in games. I will ignore it to a degree because there's always going to be ridiculous people practically everywhere you go. I think that's reasonable. When it happens way too often or people go too far, I will call them on their indiscretions. I expect people to live up to a certain level of conduct and don't feel like I have any good reason to put up with stupidity when people are doing it just to try to immaturely get laughs by disrupting the people around them. I sure as **** don't think that's unreasonable.

Eske wrote:
Paraphrase: Japanese people disliking being looked at is irrational when they could just ignore it.


You seem to be being reasonable otherwise, I just wanted to ask why it seems you think you're right in assuming what's rational for people to feel and what isn't? Do you suppose you're in that position to pass that judgment on another person, whom has relatively experienced things differently from you? Let alone if they're from another culture, their entire life experience and possibly thought process being different from your own?

Unless you're a world renowned Social Psychologist or omniscient I have to admit I'm a bit doubtful here.

And ignoring something isn't the same as having it not happen. What if these people -want- to get that message, but only want their friends to be checking their equipment, like maybe that's how it would work in normal Japanese society? Just taking a stab.

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 11:58am by PrinnyFlute

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 12:02pm by PrinnyFlute
____________________________
The Other Castle
#84 Feb 24 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
6,470 posts
PrinnyFlute wrote:


Eske wrote:
Paraphrase: Japanese people disliking being looked at is irrational when they could just ignore it.


You seem to be being reasonable otherwise, I just wanted to ask why it seems you think you're right in assuming what's rational for people to feel and what isn't? Do you suppose you're in that position to pass that judgment on another person, whom has relatively experienced things differently from you? Let alone if they're from another culture, their entire life experience and possibly thought process being different from your own?


Do you believe that people can have both rational and irrational feelings? I do. Yes, I believe this feeling is irrational. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with having irrational feelings. I have plenty myself. Sometimes I too, even ask others to accommodate them. But I only expect that behavior when I don't have a simpler recourse available, and provided it doesn't step on their toes beyond what I perceive to be a reasonable level. There are a few factors involved, which Aur and I have been debating the severity of for a while in relation to /check.

So no, I don't believe that peoples' irrational feelings should always govern the actions of others. Especially not when there are other routes for them to take to solve their problems, ones which have a higher chance of success, ones which attack the problem at its source. That's my stance. I understand your issue with it, I do. But I don't suspect we'll reach an agreement.

That's the last I'm going to weigh in on this one. I don't have the energy for internet wars like I used to. : /

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 1:37pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#85 Feb 24 2010 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
**
566 posts
xPeekABoo wrote:
Has it really come to this? To ask permission to check someones gear? If the JP players get offended turn the filter (ON) and you won't know when you get checked. People are starting to take games way to seriously these days. funniest topic ever.



It was like this almost from NA release. It's not our fault they got the game for a year before us, and we were impressed/curious about the cool-looking gear they were running around in, and low and behold, there's a function in the game where we can find out wtf that stuff is. So we used it, and they got ******* Apparently they thought we were going to jump thru the screen and do stuff with tentacles to them, due to how SE decided to word their end of the /check.

Were they irrational? Yes.

Were we a little too /check-happy at the beginning? Most definitely (At least I was. The first time I saw a KO I was like WTF! and /check the guy 6 or 7 times because he'd change gear and I wanted to see if all those +10's were really there).

Did it need to get turned into a big huge deal? No.

Could they just turn on the filter and go about their lives oblivious to the "intrusion of their privacy"? Certainly. (I don't remember when the /check filter was added, or if it was there from release, I never paid attention to it.)
#86 Feb 24 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Communication is a two partner dance, my friend, and you (not you personally if you don't do these things?) can't get out of your responsibility to be a reasonable participant in society just because you're lazy and want to get away with crap.


But to what extent does a person have a responsibility to be respectful to others on the internet? It begs the question.

Quote:
But no, you aren't responsible for my comfort -- but when you cross acceptable social boundaries you're going to be held accountable for your actions.


It's not about getting away with crap or not being accountable. Some people will be dissatisfied with the reactions they elicit and will seek acceptance of their behavior. I probably would, too, but I understand that the other person likely won't budge. It's fundamentally no different than the conversation we're having right now, only I'm not being a dismissive **** to you (e.g., GTFO ***). At its root, I can accept that you're going to try to hold me socially accountable to my actions even though for me that has absolutely no relevant implication. All it means to me is that you're butthurt and are going to further grief yourself by attempting to hold me accountable in ways that will probably have no effect on me in the same ways that the things I did to you initially would have had no effect on me.

It's a classical sensitization vs. desensitization paradox, or compensatory idealism. It is better to be desensitized on the receiving end, but better to be sensitive on the delivering end. The former compensates for the lapses of the latter and vice versa.

Quote:
I mean, what, do players think it's unreasonable for someone to say, "Hey, I don't like it when you do that, don't do it to me again" and yet it's reasonable to say "I should be able to say whatever I want and do whatever I want without anybody complaining"? Is that any sort of remotely rational logic?


Yeah, that's actually pretty reasonable from the perspective of a desensitized person. "The things other people say and do online don't really affect me, so it shouldn't matter what I say and do. If they aren't desensitized like me, that's their problem. They'll just have to grow a thicker skin."

Of course there are plenty of people with hypocritical sensitivities-- they're sensitive to themselves only. Obviously that's lunacy, although it's also basic human nature, just as its also a basic psychological strategy to employ social cognitive principles to discourage those behaviors.

Quote:
I expect some BS on the internet and in games. I will ignore it to a degree because there's always going to be ridiculous people practically everywhere you go. I think that's reasonable. When it happens way too often or people go too far, I will call them on their indiscretions. I expect people to live up to a certain level of conduct and don't feel like I have any good reason to put up with stupidity when people are doing it just to try to immaturely get laughs by disrupting the people around them. I sure as **** don't think that's unreasonable.


Well, I can give you a good reason: it will spare your health and sanity. However, there's no reason you can't be completely unaffected by "stupid conduct" and still discourage it. Generally that's what I do.

Personally I know that the best thing I can do is be unfazed by internet bullsh*t and simultaneously not be the source of it. However, I don't feel a particularly compelling obligation to adhere to that ideal, so sometimes I just say @#%^ it and @#%^ you. Most likely it will be a very normative human experience for all involved and nobody will be meaningfully traumatized.

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 1:33pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#87goblinpimp, Tarutaru Murder Suspect, Posted: Feb 24 2010 at 3:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A thousand times wow...
#88 Feb 24 2010 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
*
223 posts
Kachi wrote:
But to what extent does a person have a responsibility to be respectful to others on the internet? It begs the question.


It's actually pretty simple. There are rules once you start an MMO that tell you your limitations. If you cross them, then you have broken the contract of responsibility you vowed to abide by while playing the game. End of story. It's just like breaking the NDA. You're not only going to be 'punished' by the person you upset, but you can also be punish by SE.

Quote:
It's a classical sensitization vs. desensitization paradox, or compensatory idealism. It is better to be desensitized on the receiving end, but better to be sensitive on the delivering end. The former compensates for the lapses of the latter and vice versa.

Yeah, that's actually pretty reasonable from the perspective of a desensitized person. "The things other people say and do online don't really affect me, so it shouldn't matter what I say and do. If they aren't desensitized like me, that's their problem. They'll just have to grow a thicker skin."

*snips* it will spare your health and sanity.

*snips* However, I don't feel a particularly compelling obligation to adhere to that ideal, so sometimes I just say @#%^ it and @#%^ you. Most likely it will be a very normative human experience for all involved and nobody will be meaningfully traumatized.


This is definitely one of the worst arguments I have ever read. Some of the points you made may have had some validity, but this right here just ruined your argument. Trying to say that other people around you need to change and become insensitive to "better" these types of situations is complete lunacy. Claiming that human beings need to learn how to suspend feeling and emotion is a pretty sociopathic implication.

It's really not that hard to stop harassing someone when they make it obvious they're not comfortable with it. The people who turn around and say "quit your ************** are the exact people who have insecurity issues with being called out no their ****. They feel an inherent need to defend themselves so they don't feel like bad people because they KNOW it's not socially acceptable. People who do think it is socially acceptable are usually more surprised at hurting people's feelings and apologize.

Instead of saying that the more sensitive, considerate people need to change themselves and learn how to not feel their own feelings, maybe you should realize that there really is no good argument for trying to force any behavior on someone else. Both people can walk away from the situation, it should not have to be the person who is politely asking someone else to stop making them uncomfortable. It can actually traumatize someone greatly to be picked on, even through an MMO, and I'm sure there have been cases of suicide involved with ingame issues such as these. SE has their rules for a reason. People need to learn it's not okay to "do what they want and everyone else can just suck it up" because in the real world, that's how you end up in jail for manslaughter, harassment, libel, etc. People should feel just as safe on the internet and especially a controlled MMO as they would in their own homes.
#89goblinpimp, Tarutaru Murder Suspect, Posted: Feb 24 2010 at 4:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But its NOT the real world!!! and if you feel "unsafe" in FFXIV then wow, wow is all I can say then You have a real issue and you need to contact law enforcement or, You need to call 911 and have then send a waah!-mbulance.
#90 Feb 24 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
*
223 posts
goblinpimp, Tarutaru Murder Suspect wrote:
But its NOT the real world!!! and if you feel "unsafe" in FFXIV then wow, wow is all I can say then You have a real issue and you need to contact law enforcement or, You need to call 911 and have then send a waah!-mbulance.


I never said it was the real world, but there are plenty of people who associate their feelings and friends on FFXI with their real world, daily routines, so it's really not that far fetched to expect there to be rules JUST LIKE in the real world. The videgame may be a videogame, but the people playing it are real, and that is what is important. I also never said I felt unsafe, nor am I "waah'ing". Seriously, grow up. You're one of those inconsiderate people I'm talking about because you're too immature and inconsiderate to realize that people on MMO's have just as much feelings in the game as they do 'irl'.

Quote:
Now yes of course respect should be mutual and should be defined in user agreements. Ok but so what are you going to stop people from just being people? And for the record some people play a game to do just what they cant do in real life. Has this ever occurred to you?


Of course it has occurred to me that shallow, pathetic people hide behind their keyboards and harass others through a digital medium because they have no confidence or self-esteem out in the real world. Does that make me support the idea that they should be able to do malicious things to people on the internet? No. If anything, I think someone should go to their house and give them the slapping around they deserve. Despite what you may want to believe, harassing someone over the internet IS a crime, just like being a pedophile in a chat room IS a crime just as much as being one out on a playground. Just because you think you're safe behind your little computer screen doesn't mean you actually are. It's because of people who want to get away with things over the internet that it is becoming more restricted and harder to access around the world. People like that are ruining it for everyone else who are normal and can interact with each other without resorting to unacceptable actions.

Quote:
Please don't misinterpret me I know what you mean't to say but what came out is different all together.
Bottom line you can always "LOG OFF" If someone is in your face irl you can't can you? click your heals count to 10 or punch someone but please don't over-dramatize a freaking mmo.. its not that serious.


I think you're the one who is misinterpreting me because you're stubbornly trying to make a point that cannot be made. The bottom line is that people should not HAVE to "LOG OFF" just because someone else is being an idiot. I agree that they can be blocked/muted whatever, but that doesn't negate the fact that if someone asks you to stop, you NEED to stop. End of story. They're not being the ******** YOU are if you honestly can't control yourself. If you can't, it's time to get a grip on reality and realize you have issues. No one is over-dramatizing an MMO, people are talking about a recurring problem over the internet: a lack of respect and ability to follow the rules that you agree to. If you expect respect from other people then you should give it to them as well. If you don't expect respect, seek some professional help.
#91 Feb 24 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
*
128 posts
goblinpimp, Tarutaru Murder Suspect wrote:
Quote:
SE has their rules for a reason. People need to learn it's not okay to "do what they want and everyone else can just suck it up" because in the real world, that's how you end up in jail for manslaughter, harassment, libel, etc. People should feel just as safe on the internet and especially a controlled MMO as they would in their own homes.


But its NOT the real world!!! and if you feel "unsafe" in FFXIV then wow, wow is all I can say then You have a real issue and you need to contact law enforcement or, You need to call 911 and have then send a waah!-mbulance.

Now yes of course respect should be mutual and should be defined in user agreements. Ok but so what are you going to stop people from just being people? And for the record some people play a game to do just what they cant do in real life. Has this ever occurred to you?

Please don't misinterpret me I know what you mean't to say but what came out is different all together.
Bottom line you can always "LOG OFF" If someone is in your face irl you can't can you? click your heals count to 10 or punch someone but please don't over-dramatize a freaking mmo.. its not that serious.


First of all, it took a lot longer than it should to read this post because if you're trying to make a legitimate argument, all of the "good points" you may THINK you're bringing up (and trust me, you're not) will be overlooked because you brought them up improperly.

What is someone going to do to stop people from being people? Well I'm pretty sure in the real world, we have law enforcement so all of the idiots and psychopaths who run around thinking they can do whatever they want are stopped from hurting people and/or ruining the lives of innocent bystanders. And in game, we have SE who will hopefully do a good job of issuing punishments to people who don't abide by the rules and think it in their best interest to be complete jerks to people. And if people play this game to "do what they can't in real life," which in the context of your arguments means: "be a complete *******," then what does that really say about them? Oh, it says that they have huge mental issues that they need to sort out because a game is meant to be fun. And if you argue that they get fun out of torturing others, then that again says something about the superiority complex that the predator most likely has.

Yes, you can log out...but you're not supposed to log out of a game because of someone's problems. That's not fair to yourself. There are measures to blacklist/block people, but trust me...I have witnessed people being stalked even when they have attempted all they could to break off communications with their predator.
____________________________
~Twangaz~
Server: Seraph
Tarutaru ~ 75BLM 75RDM 37WHM
#92 Feb 24 2010 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It's actually pretty simple. There are rules once you start an MMO that tell you your limitations. If you cross them, then you have broken the contract of responsibility you vowed to abide by while playing the game. End of story. It's just like breaking the NDA. You're not only going to be 'punished' by the person you upset, but you can also be punish by SE.


In case you haven't been following (which your response generally suggests that you probably haven't been very closely), we are for the most part not talking about those kinds of infractions. We're talking mostly about *********** that is completely permissible within the TOS.

Quote:
This is definitely one of the worst arguments I have ever read.


This is definitely the worst way you could have started your counterargument if you wanted me to take it seriously. What this tells me is that whether or not I'm right or wrong, you are completely incapable of judging an argument on its merit, you have a very transparent bias, and that there is really no point in wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. You'll just be another person who is wrong on the internet.

Quote:
Trying to say that other people around you need to change and become insensitive to "better" these types of situations is complete lunacy.


Really? Because I'm an emotional health professional, and encouraging people to develop resilience and defense mechanisms for their own emotional health is actually one of the defining goals of positive emotional health. But I'll be sure to let my profession know that we're doin it rong because you think it's lunacy. The fact is, you're expressing an unwillingness to account for your own emotional wellbeing, and that is entirely your prerogative as a person. However, YOU are the one who will suffer as a result, and that is not healthy. The more you make other people accountable for your emotional wellbeing, the less likely you are to be an emotionally healthy person. Good advice is to allow others to improve your emotional state whenever possible, and also whenever possible, don't allow them to harm it.

This idea that you should just "feel your feelings" suggests that your initial emotional reaction to a situation is always the right one, and is complete nonsense.

Quote:
that there really is no good argument for trying to force any behavior on someone else.


So there's no good reason for you to try to force people to not act in ways that bother you? Interesting. I'm going to allow you a do over on that one.

Quote:
I'm sure there have been cases of suicide involved with ingame issues such as these.


An hero's are exceedingly rare cases of suicide, and have much more to do with general mental illness and depression than the fact that people on the internet are sometimes ******

Quote:
People should feel just as safe on the internet and especially a controlled MMO as they would in their own homes.


Um, usually when they're on the internet, they ARE in their own homes, right? So yes, they should feel EXACTLY as safe.

You're welcome to think that it's because I'm a stubborn nitwit, but the fact is that I'm just not going to agree with you on this, period. This is just a fair reality check so that you know to what extent you're wasting your breath if you earnestly want to convince me otherwise. I have afforded hundreds of hours of deliberation on the matter, and you don't have anything to say that I haven't already thoroughly considered.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#94 Feb 24 2010 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
223 posts
If not to convince you you are mistaken in your opinion on this matter, then this post will serve to clean up some serious misinterpretations on your part, which I find surprising given you are an "emotional health professional," whatever that implies.

Kachi wrote:
In case you haven't been following (which your response generally suggests that you probably haven't been very closely), we are for the most part not talking about those kinds of infractions. We're talking mostly about *********** that is completely permissible within the TOS.


I actually have been following this argument and am well aware that you are referring to mostly ************ but that does not mean I should refrain from using the examples in my argument just because you don't feel like adding them to the scope of your own. We're also discussing whether or not is really IS permissible based on the TOS that is worded rather loosely.

Quote:
This is definitely the worst way you could have started your counterargument if you wanted me to take it seriously. What this tells me is that whether or not I'm right or wrong, you are completely incapable of judging an argument on its merit, you have a very transparent bias, and that there is really no point in wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. You'll just be another person who is wrong on the internet.


I'm sorry that you are so mistaken by my informing you of the poor quality of your argument, professional or not. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers, but at the end of the day they are still lawyers. There are also good lawyers who make bad arguments. Maybe this was just not your day. I am actually someone who has no problem weighing arguments before I make a definite decision. Yours just happened to be so flawed by my standards that I merely pointed out the issues. Rather than address them, you try to turn this into some personal attack to avoid discussing the issue that is actually at hand. I would definitely want someone to tell me if my argument was awful, and then point out why. Instead of wallowing in my ignorance, like you are telling me you want to do, I prefer to gain as much information as I can. I do have a bias, as everyone does in an argument, but I'm not "just another person who is wrong on the internet." I could easily say the same thing about you, but rather than stoop to such a petty level, I merely pointed out that your argument was terrible, not your point of view or you as a person. But I hope you feel all big and emotionally-health-professional in control and that you are so above being corrected. I am amazed you have gotten this far in life with such a world view.

Quote:
Really? Because I'm an emotional health professional, and encouraging people to develop resilience and defense mechanisms for their own emotional health is actually one of the defining goals of positive emotional health. But I'll be sure to let my profession know that we're doin it rong because you think it's lunacy. The fact is, you're expressing an unwillingness to account for your own emotional wellbeing, and that is entirely your prerogative as a person. However, YOU are the one who will suffer as a result, and that is not healthy. The more you make other people accountable for your emotional wellbeing, the less likely you are to be an emotionally healthy person. Good advice is to allow others to improve your emotional state whenever possible, and also whenever possible, don't allow them to harm it.

This idea that you should just "feel your feelings" suggests that your initial emotional reaction to a situation is always the right one, and is complete nonsense.


The health profession isn't exactly the most praised category for being able to help people with their issues. Depending on what kind you are, exactly, stating that doesn't really give me any insight as to how to interpret this portion of your post. There are plenty of health professionals out there who are idiots, just as I stated earlier, there are idiot lawyers. I love how you somehow also derived from my post that I was pulling these arguments from personal experience. I actually don't have problems with people being rude to me on the internet, I'm simply speaking out for others who I know feel differently because people like you are trying to make them be a certain way so that others can get away with being desstructive. Maybe instead of making people be less sensitive, you should try fixing the people with the actual problems in the first place. But, hey, who am I to tell you how to do your jobs. It's way easier to just tell people to not trust strangers than it is to actually try to prevent people from being murderers, right? I never said that anyone's emotions were right or wrong; it is you who is creating the standard.

Quote:
So there's no good reason for you to try to force people to not act in ways that bother you? Interesting. I'm going to allow you a do over on that one.


No, I'd actually like to leave it exactly where it is. I gave both sides of the argument in my post which you seemed to have skimmed over. I said BOTH people can walk away from the situation, and that it is all too often forced on the one who is being "the *****" instead of the jackass who can't use self control.

Quote:
Um, usually when they're on the internet, they ARE in their own homes, right? So yes, they should feel EXACTLY as safe.

You're welcome to think that it's because I'm a stubborn nitwit, but the fact is that I'm just not going to agree with you on this, period. This is just a fair reality check so that you know to what extent you're wasting your breath if you earnestly want to convince me otherwise. I have afforded hundreds of hours of deliberation on the matter, and you don't have anything to say that I haven't already thoroughly considered.


The internet has been described as a different world and an "escape" by many people on this board. If you are so simple-minded as to believe that it is not a doorway that allows people to have access to the safety of someone else's home, I don't really know how to explain it otherwise. The internet can be dangerous, and being harassed by ***** is considered one of those dangers. So really, let's stop playing semantics when we both know it doesn't get us anywhere. I really don't care if I convince anyone otherwise, as long as people know there is another side to this argument and that people who do agree with me are not alone and should not feel like they are in the wrong and are overly-sensitive just because you say they are. Period. I respect your opinion, but rather than pull this move, which my friends and I refer to as "*****-***," it would have been a much smaller waste of breath if you had actually presented a different/better argument so I could have learned something from all of this other than the fact you turn kids into "emotional shields."
#96 Feb 24 2010 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Kachi wrote:
Really? Because I'm an emotional health professional, and encouraging people to develop resilience and defense mechanisms for their own emotional health is actually one of the defining goals of positive emotional health. But I'll be sure to let my profession know that we're doin it rong because you think it's lunacy. The fact is, you're expressing an unwillingness to account for your own emotional wellbeing, and that is entirely your prerogative as a person. However, YOU are the one who will suffer as a result, and that is not healthy. The more you make other people accountable for your emotional wellbeing, the less likely you are to be an emotionally healthy person. Good advice is to allow others to improve your emotional state whenever possible, and also whenever possible, don't allow them to harm it.


I think your disagreement with Bluefirefly is based around syntax, not concept. I think her point is that you can't force other people to change the way they respond to a given situation. You're talking from the self perspective...she's talking from the 'other people' perspective. Brush away the syntax and it seems like you're both on the same page. I know that bringing about a change in cognitive reasoning for the purpose of helping people see things in a more healthy and beneficial way is largely central to a number of therapeutic forms, but so is respecting an individual's right to self determination. Yes, it would be a benefit if everyone had a thicker skin. Yes, if you can convince someone to try and develop a thicker skin you're probably doing them a favor of sorts. But you can't create an expectation around it. Changing the way people think requires either trust or high explosives. If I tell you that something you're doing is making me uncomfortable and you keep doing it, you damage trust. As right as you may be, as important as your point may be to you, you had a chance to earn trust by collaborating and you blew it (figurative 'you', of course).

That's why I said cultural competency is a one way street. Expecting people to investigate and adapt to my way of thinking based on cultural conditioning is a doomed strategy. It would be nice if it was something we could all count on, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's not. And we've got thousands of years of violent human history to attest to what happens when you've got a group of people on each side of a proverbial battlefield saying, "If you're not going to see things my way, I'm not going to try to see things your way, so let's abandon negotiations and get down to the gory bits."

Quote:
This idea that you should just "feel your feelings" suggests that your initial emotional reaction to a situation is always the right one, and is complete nonsense.


No, it's not. It's a fundamental requirement to developing the kind of self awareness that becomes a tool for positive growth/change. As a mental health professional, I'm sure you're as aware as anyone else how few people actually possess an accurate and healthy sense of self awareness. And the instant you start telling people that they're wrong for the way they feel, you...again...lose trust. Your ability to help them is diminished. Your ability to encourage them to see your point of view is all but destroyed, so either start stockpiling the C-4 or accept the ongoing conflict that develops.
#97 Feb 24 2010 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
xPeekABoo wrote:
Go get laid your too caught up in internet debates and MMO's!!!


Gather around, boys and girls, for today's object lesson:

xPeekABoo - Helps or harms the argument that NA players possess the maturity and insight to resolve conflict.

Discuss.
#98 Feb 24 2010 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
*
55 posts
i can't believe this is still going on.

its one thing if someone stand outside ur window and stares at you or even stalks u in public.
its another thing if someone /checks your AVATAR. btw how the **** can u invade someones privacy by checking their gear in a game anyways?
its not top secret info, its not crossing any boundries, its not doing anything. its not like their checking your bank records, how many tampons you buy a year, what colour your underwear is, its gear, its fake and its just information gathering.
in fact you should be flattered that someone is checking you out, it means you got something they like.
now u guys are going to tell me that staring at the hotty across the street while driving is bad because its invading her privacy right?

its illogical to be offended by something so stupid as this.
in fact i'm offended by everyone who reads this post because in doing so you have invaded my privacy by reading my deepest thoughts and im upset Q.Q
im also offended if u check my profile because thats crossing a boundry.

Edited, Feb 24th 2010 7:49pm by nirtsbro
#99 Feb 24 2010 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
I check everyone, sometimes more than once if they're really cool.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#100 Feb 24 2010 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
No, it's not. It's a fundamental requirement to developing the kind of self awareness that becomes a tool for positive growth/change. As a mental health professional, I'm sure you're as aware as anyone else how few people actually possess an accurate and healthy sense of self awareness. And the instant you start telling people that they're wrong for the way they feel, you...again...lose trust. Your ability to help them is diminished. Your ability to encourage them to see your point of view is all but destroyed, so either start stockpiling the C-4 or accept the ongoing conflict that develops.


I don't have time for this discussion right now, but let's not confuse counseling methods with counseling objectives.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#101 Feb 24 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*
223 posts
AureliusSir the Irrelevant wrote:
xPeekABoo wrote:
Go get laid your too caught up in internet debates and MMO's!!!


Gather around, boys and girls, for today's object lesson:

xPeekABoo - Helps or harms the argument that NA players possess the maturity and insight to resolve conflict.

Discuss.


/clap, my favorite post by you thus far, no sarcasm intended.

I'm studying abroad in South America at the moment and since I just arrived here, I have to stay in my host family's house until I know how to navigate the city on my own to hang out with other students. I assure you, I haven't played an MMO in more than six months, and there is nothing wrong with taking an interest in debates. It is, after all, going to be my profession someday. And don't concern yourself with my *** life, Peek, I promise you I am completely satisfied with where I'm at and as a female have absolutely no trouble "getting laid" despite my tendency to peruse Alla. Thanks for the concern and the flaming though. You really made me feel all self-conscious and whatnot. In my personal experience I have found that the people who make such comments are very unattractive but THINK they are attractive but happen to have an average-looking girlfriend who puts out. Basically, a mediocre *** life. Congrats.

To address the specifically targeting /examine, that's not what I was explicitly trying to defend in my posts. But the Japanese are allowed to have their opinion as much as the next person, and the US is known for being a rather rude country, as can be seen in the quote above by our beloved xPeekABoo.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)