There's a special place in hell for....

[benficakungfu]

Are ppl making analogies between chest farming/real life?

 

 

Proper trolling!

[HelinCarnate]

In the game, by clearing the mobs off the thing, you've already engaged in the equivalent of picking the item up and talking to the salesman about it. The poacher is doing the equivalent of running by and grabbing it out of your hand, rushing to the checkout, and saying "HA HA, not yours until you paid for it, sucker!"

 

No that would be the equivalent of looking at the item but leaving it on the shelf and getting mad at someone who walked by and grabbed it because you were thinking about taking it but didn't actually take it.

[Reno_Tarshil]

why shouldnt I jump a flagged enemy while they are fighting a world boss? you shouldnt have flagged yourself. why shouldnt I need on every drop in a fp/raid? the game allows me to do so. too bad I am the tank/healer and you dont want to have to go back in que. why shouldnt I take my level 60 and kill all the mobs you need for your low level heroic? the game lets me, you should just play smarter. why shouldnt I use taunt to reset the world boss you are fighting? the game allows it and it is a valid tactic.

 

If you act like a scumbag in game, you are most likely one in real life. If being a scumbag is ok with you, accept it and move on.

 

Go ahead and do those things then. No one can be mad at you. I'm not shure what you're trying to argue tho beyond the pointless morality point that doesn't matter in a video game.

[branmakmuffin]

your lack of morals speak for themselves. your behavior towards your fellows is the same in rl or in game. just because you can hide behind a kb and monitor does not change that.

You have failed at your "stealing is not theft" argument, so all you can do is put forth some vague "you must be a terribly immoral person" flag.

 

Here's the real deal: TOR is just a game. No one's kids are going to go without food tonight because someone else "ganked" a security chest the first player thought was "theirs" because "they saw it first." If it gives you some kind of comfort to imagine yourself morally superior on this issue, no one can stop you.

[RoboArthurDayne]

I'm surprised this thread has gone on so long LMAO.

 

If I see you fighting and distracted, I will swoop in and click on that security chest, click on the glowy quest clicky and run away. I will do it because I can and that is the way the game is.

[Qouivandes]

this is never going to be a resolution to this. A thinks Bs actions are a good indication of how they are away from the computer. B thinks As actions about this are just whinny. i am pleasantly pleased, though, that it took a while before the term "man up" was used.

 

while, in the end, this is just a game...courtesy shouldnt be put to the wayside in regards to your fellow gamers, but i guess ive been online long enough to see its peak and now the complete lack of empathy of the modern gamer. thank goodness ive taught my son better manners. this past weekend i got to watch as he showed a new gamer how to play a particular map and didnt just say **** noob...which was on display in the chat channel.

 

im just glad that most of these narcissistic nightmares will, at best, only make to middle management in McDonald's.

[Qouivandes]

you know...the social dynamics are not so dissimilar between off and online life. And i use the word life because some folks spend more time interacting with people online than they do offline. however, the basic mechanics of social discourse between the two are really not that much different. A and B are both people playing a digitized "toon" to have some fun. and after the post i just read, i can see how and why both A and B are on two different camps. their perception of the game is entirely different.

 

however, i really do think some people are so oblivious that to them any action is ok and that the other person should play like them and they would be happier. In the grand scheme of things i think we need folks like this both offline and online as indicators and change our reactions to that of pity more than anger; because they just dont see what they are doing as socially rude. like the folks that will beat you over the head for $5 dollar piece of plastic they can now get for $2. we need these people to gauge the overall health of whatever social setting we are currently. in this case, its a game world where all is a free for all and anything goes.

 

so, overall, thanks. several of you have shown yourselves to be parasites and others shown to be the better person. I have no doubt, really, how many of you operate in other social settings. i guess, basing the fact that the majority of my family are sociopaths, i am the other side of the gauge. the balance. the light side vs the dark side.

 

with that...back to work. see you ingame.

[Distracted]

In the game, by clearing the mobs off the thing, you've already engaged in the equivalent of picking the item up and talking to the salesman about it. The poacher is doing the equivalent of running by and grabbing it out of your hand, rushing to the checkout, and saying "HA HA, not yours until you paid for it, sucker!"

 

The only equivalent to picking up the item is actually picking up the item. The person that ends up getting it is doing the equivalent of picking up an unclaimed item off the shelf.

[Distracted]

If you act like a scumbag in game, you are most likely one in real life. If being a scumbag is ok with you, accept it and move on.

 

No, no this isn't how it works.

[Conundrum-NSA]

No, no this isn't how it works.

 

Right, it works like this:

 

"I want to be a scum bag, but that guy might punch me in the face"

 

"I want to be a scum bag, but that cop might arrest me."

[Qouivandes]

what you do when no one is watching is a better indicator of who you really are; and only you really know that. what dressing you put on for the public is just that--window dressing. online actions, but subject of anonymity, are a good indicator of the type of person you are in regards to the actions you take. Im not talking about "playing" the bad guy which you could be doing, but intentionally acting in a manner that you would normally not do if there was some form of repercussion to that action. Offline there are many. Online there are few. its much easier to let who you are out of the bag online than it is at your grocers.

 

while it would be worse, if you thought for a second that the person you are irritating could come to your house and beat the crap out of you you would most likely not perform that action. i said worse because that would be a lot worse than picking up a chest, but it has happened before.

 

however, thanks, though. so many of you--while a small sampling of the community at large--allow me to gauge how others view their actions; and enables me to better formulate opinions about them.

 

and this is coming from someone who was banned from SWGCraft.com for aggressively defending his stance on various topics, it showed me how much of an *** i was when i got banned even though i just didnt see myself as that ***. I looked around me and realized I had been treating the people around me offline the same way i was treating the people online. it was a cause of reflection on my personal habits which, i believe, is why i take the viewpoint i do on these types of discussions. I was completely oblivious to how much of a ***** i was.

[Distracted]

while it would be worse, if you thought for a second that the person you are irritating could come to your house and beat the crap out of you you would most likely not perform that action.

 

Because tracking someone down over words in a computer game & assaulting them makes you a paragon of virtue, whilst clicking a box that someone looked at in a computer game makes you a horrible person. Right, got it, thanks.

[Qouivandes]

had i not follwed that sentence up with "i said worse because that would be a lot worse than picking up a chest, but it has happened before." you might have something that would make me be more appreciative of your thanks.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Because tracking someone down over words in a computer game & assaulting them makes you a paragon of virtue, whilst clicking a box that someone looked at in a computer game makes you a horrible person. Right, got it, thanks.

 

^ I was just about to type this.

 

It's just game, grow up and move on. Those people who are legit playing the game in an open world setting where everything is "first come, first click" have moved on.

[Distracted]

had i not follwed that sentence up with "i said worse because that would be a lot worse than picking up a chest, but it has happened before." you might have something that would make me be more appreciative of your thanks.

 

The point is one of those things is wrong whilst the other is not only perfectly acceptable, but is also not an indicator of what sort of person these people may be. You & the OP appear to be having great difficulty telling the difference between these.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Right, it works like this:

 

"I want to be a scum bag, but that guy might punch me in the face"

 

"I want to be a scum bag, but that cop might arrest me."

 

Is it against the ToS that we all sign that looting, clicking or tagging items/objectives/npcs next to people who are fighting npcs/objectives/looting?

 

It's not. If it was you might have a case, but you don't, so please drop the "crime" analogies already.

[Distracted]

Consequences don't stop horrible people from doing horrible things. You would think that the last 150 thousand years or so of humanity existing would be a perfect example of this.

[tmwfte]

Because tracking someone down over words in a computer game & assaulting them makes you a paragon of virtue, whilst clicking a box that someone looked at in a computer game makes you a horrible person. Right, got it, thanks.

 

No, actually, I don't think you got it. Despite quoting it, I think you missed the "while it would be worse", thus labelling the person travelling to do physical violence over the video game as decidedly not a "paragon of virtue".

[Qouivandes]

i really think you got lost in the words and just cant see what I am saying; especially since--now two of you--only get out of that paragraph that i implied clicking on a chest is worse than someone going to your house and beating you up. let me try it this way with smaller words and a few letters.

 

1. per A see's a chest and heads over there fighting off the mobs.

2. per B see's a chest and a guy fighting the mobs.

3. per B RAWR CHEST MINE.

4. Per A...***...wow, that was rude. (makes thread).

 

now, to put that another way.

1. per A see's a chest and heads over there fighting off the mobs.

2. per B see's a chest and a guy fighting the mobs.

3. per B RAWR CHEST MINE.

4. Per A..that damn friggin bastard....(uses 1337 hacking skills, tracks down per B and beats them to oblivion.

 

looking both, one could look at the first set of encounters as Per B just being a little rude., but ok A sees that and decides to vent his frustration out on the forums. we have a neat little debate on the merits of Bs actions and how each of us views those actions, etc etc (that means on on and on with varies other variables

 

the second set, wow...per A turned out to be one really big *****, but a knowledgeable ***** who believes he was wronged and goes into a wardance--a native american custom that...oh, go to wiki). per A clearly took things too far and will spend some time in Jail. in contrast, per B is really a great guy...albeit a little rude, but he may apply his actions a little better.

 

while the same action produced two different outcomes of so many that it could have produced and i lack the space and time to go through them, it just boils down to how a person reacts to a given situation and what type of negative reinforcement (if any) that action will produce.

 

in the digitized world, ones actions rarely come with consequences outside of a thread like this and a little childish banter in general. however, and i firmly believe this, we shape any action we perform with how we perceive the world around us. you two obviously see nothing wrong with clicking on a chest while someone is fighting the mobs around it. great for you. And there is absolutely nothing--and my sister and brother have shown this--I can say or do that will ever change your perception because those types of changes come with negative reinforcement which is something you will most likely never receive. ok. i completely respect that about you; its great when one defends their convictions, but I only ask that you not take things out of context or try to look at what i have typed and act like it means something else when it does not.

 

in the end, we are the sum of our life experiences. how we treat others is a reflection on that and i apologize forthe few sarcastic comments above that i am just too lazy to take out at this point.

 

enjoy yourselves; have fun; and see you on the grid.

[Distracted]

Thing is the OP is literally saying that someone who clicked on the box he looked at is a bad person in reality, which is fundamentally false.

[Reno_Tarshil]

i really think you got lost in the words and just cant see what I am saying; especially since--now two of you--only get out of that paragraph that i implied clicking on a chest is worse than someone going to your house and beating you up. let me try it this way with smaller words and a few letters.

 

1. per A see's a chest and heads over there fighting off the mobs.

2. per B see's a chest and a guy fighting the mobs.

3. per B RAWR CHEST MINE.

4. Per A...***...wow, that was rude. (makes thread).

 

now, to put that another way.

1. per A see's a chest and heads over there fighting off the mobs.

2. per B see's a chest and a guy fighting the mobs.

3. per B RAWR CHEST MINE.

4. Per A..that damn friggin bastard....(uses 1337 hacking skills, tracks down per B and beats them to oblivion.

 

looking both, one could look at the first set of encounters as Per B just being a little rude., but ok A sees that and decides to vent his frustration out on the forums. we have a neat little debate on the merits of Bs actions and how each of us views those actions, etc etc (that means on on and on with varies other variables

 

the second set, wow...per A turned out to be one really big *****, but a knowledgeable ***** who believes he was wronged and goes into a wardance--a native american custom that...oh, go to wiki). per A clearly took things too far and will spend some time in Jail. in contrast, per B is really a great guy...albeit a little rude, but he may apply his actions a little better.

 

while the same action produced two different outcomes of so many that it could have produced and i lack the space and time to go through them, it just boils down to how a person reacts to a given situation and what type of negative reinforcement (if any) that action will produce.

 

in the digitized world, ones actions rarely come with consequences outside of a thread like this and a little childish banter in general. however, and i firmly believe this, we shape any action we perform with how we perceive the world around us. you two obviously see nothing wrong with clicking on a chest while someone is fighting the mobs around it. great for you. And there is absolutely nothing--and my sister and brother have shown this--I can say or do that will ever change your perception because those types of changes come with negative reinforcement which is something you will most likely never receive. ok. i completely respect that about you; its great when one defends their convictions, but I only ask that you not take things out of context or try to look at what i have typed and act like it means something else when it does not.

 

in the end, we are the sum of our life experiences. how we treat others is a reflection on that and i apologize forthe few sarcastic comments above that i am just too lazy to take out at this point.

 

enjoy yourselves; have fun; and see you on the grid.

 

I apologize for mis-reading but it doesn't change a thing in both scenarios.

 

Player B did nothing wrong. Player B saw something that hadn't been claimed by anyone yet and claimed it first.

 

Player A can act like he's mad but he can't get mad, because it wasn't his/hers to begin with.

 

There is no morality involved because inside this game it's perfectly okay and there is nothing wrong with it. There's also no crime/theft being committed as I constantly have to re-state, you do not own/possess/lay claim to anything until you: Tag/Loot/Click, other wise it's fair game to anyone who is around.

[asbalana]

Those people who run by you and grab a chest while you are clearing the mobs around it.

 

LOL, don't try to gather lockboxes on Yavin 4.

[ikinai]

...me

[Qouivandes]

so all three of us are in agreement that we see the actions differently (well two of you see it about the same). and at no time did i mention any type of moral obligation because each of us are different in that aspect. i focused on the social mechanics and how we interact with each other in any environment. I also didnt say per B was wrong, but i did imply that he was via words i used so i will concede that to you.. personally, i think its rude of per B to click a chest that someone is obviously fighting to get, but you dont because there is nothing that would prevent you performing the action. i respect that even if i disagree. But, i also believe the lack of empathy and social mechanics in a given situation is another variable that makes us who we are even if you dont see it the way i see it; maybe im just idealistic that way, but so far it has done me well.

 

and to note, i hold no animosity towards anyone in the forums or in game (expcept that pric..er, nevermind)

 

let us end with the immortal words of Judge Whapner, "just be good to each other."

[theSCARAYone]

I knew I didn't care for you, and now I'm starting to see why.

 

I'd forgotten why I blocked him but this reminds me.