|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Why should we tolerate abuse in virtual environments?
Original Article
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
It really shouldn't be part of the game, but unfortunately, as the author of that article points out, it is. The last time I checked, the point of playing a game, online or off, was for enjoyment. Unfortunately though, some people's enjoyment from these games stems from the verbal abuse they dole out regularly. It's really kind of sad that people have to resort to abusing innocent players due to their own boredom (or in a lot of cases, loneliness). The only thing you can really do against them is fight back, which in the end is bringing you down to their level, and is probably what they wanted in the first place.
How ya doing, buddy? If there is evil in this world, it lies within the hearts of mankind.
Last edited by Malahk Angel; May 18, 2007 at 11:59 PM.
|
A lot of the things they speak of in this article is a bit to the Extreme. Talking about things like personal safety and kids growing up with improper values and what not are total BS. First off, I'm sure that parents have a lot more influence in a kid's life then a game, and if not then there you're problem right there. There's no excuse if your kids are growing up thinking that they can act the same way in life as they do in online games. Same thing goes for the violent videogame arguments going on in other camps.
Secondly this "maximum of safety" thing is really far out there that I don't think I need to explain as to why. Lastly this whole thing can be ended right here, "We don't have to take online abuse. I wouldn't put up with it in the real world." well then turn off the damn game if you don't like it so much. And if you don't think that that's fair or right, I think that they'd probably be in the minority on that one. Sure everyone has their challenges in online communities and that, but when you have hundreds of thousands of people interacting with one another what the hell do you think's going to happen? Sure as hell not going to be all PG stuff that's for sure. So if this author has that big of a problem with the situation then be productive and do something about it instead of writing about it because I think most people have a good idea of what online communities are as it is without these extremist's writings. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I really don't feel like you can be victimized in online games unless you're running around pretty clueless and opening yourself up to being taken advantage of. Of course, the only game that I've played extensively in the last 5 years is World of Warcraft -- and there really isn't much about WoW that leave you open to abuse. You can ignore players so that verbal harassment isn't an issue, and you can play on servers where PvP isn't allowed. If you choose to play on a PvP server, you really have no right to complain about enemy players attacking you.
Naturally in any type of game where the intent is, ultimately, competition for the best gear and the most prestige, you're going to have conflict between players in some form, whether it simply be smack talking and epeen contests to actual player versus player fighting (assuming the game mechanics allow it). It sounds like the ideal game for the author of this article would be something more along the lines of The Sims Online or Second Life, where people can interact online without the purpose of competing with one another. But it's hard to say what exactly this person is talking about, because everything is just vague reference with very little information to back up claims. MUDs, while still played by many people, are very archaic in terms of programming and are therefore easily exploitable. Multi-million dollar online MMOs tend to have a little more security in place, and people who manage to find hacks for these games are usually reprimanded with bans, any damage they cause to other players being reversed. So I don't really see an issue there. I understand that there are people who enjoy the social aspect of games more than the competitive aspects, and that's fine. But the ultimate underlying truth is that, no matter how relaxed and casual the playerbase might be, what they're ultimately playing is a game. And I, personally, am hard pressed to think of a game where there aren't winners and losers, whether or not the game has a true "ending." In MMOs, the winners are the players that have managed to climb the social strata and have earned the respect of the community at-large. The "winners" are the people that come away in the end, having fun playing the game however they like. The "losers" are the people who let their guard down, and take the game so seriously as to let it ruin their fun or negatively affect their life. If someone is "raped" in Second Life, they really are taking the game far too seriously, and I would suspect that they need some sort of help in real life. It's not like you hear about rape cases running rampant in that game. All this really seems like the bellyaching of a pseudo-gamer who has yet to realize that, yes, unfortunately the core audience of computer games are teenage to mid-twenties males, who have big egos. Everything is a competition. Your enjoyment of games depends on how you can adapt to the playing environment. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
It's quite a double-edged sword, that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing. You can say whatever you want, but so can everyone else. People are gonna say shit about you, whether you want them to or not. Period. It's a part of life, and if you can't handle it, then you need to stay at home and avoid all human contact forever. Of course, that's not to say that it's okay to be a prick just because you can. In this day and age, people are generally pansies, and let simple words do so much damage to them that you'd think someone just walked up and punched them in the mouth and left with their wallet, but not before pissing on their shoes. I saw something on tv today about some presidential candidate who said that some black man was articulate, meaning it as a compliment, but said black man took it the wrong way, somehow, and got all bent out of shape about it. But that's a different topic for another day.
As for player-killing, most games like that have non-PvP servers you can go to to avoid that sort of thing. People can't complain that they're getting PK'ed if they intentionally play on the PvP servers. While it is truly sad that the general attitude is "too bad, so sad" regarding online games, as long as there's no real penalty higher than account/IP banning, I don't see people's behavior changing any time soon. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Your suggestion to turn off the game is a cop out. That these things are tolerated as the norm is strange, given that they're not in any other environment. I don't think refusing to address them constitutes any kind of solution. Edit: This is rather interesting. If more games had an infraction system, it'd be pretty cool to see griefers stuck in a jail cell for a while. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Skexis; May 19, 2007 at 12:32 AM.
|
Dev: I think that's because XBOX owners tend to be douchebags.
oh yes i did go there. To address Skexis' point (if I'm reading him right): While it would be ideal for many to move away from the sophomoric humor in the gaming community, it's just a really hard thing to do when the core demographic for video games is males from age 14-30 or whatever it is. It's no different than going to a frat party and hearing nothing but guys talk about big tits, bong hits and the latest Dane Cook movie. Unfortunately, it should be so easy to just remove these types of people from a gaming community, but there are always going to be spoilers that go against the conventional norm. I've met some very immature people who are 20+ years older than me while playing online games. So there really is nothing realistic that people can do to eliminate this persona from gaming. It simply is not realistic to constantly police players and watch every single thing they say or do on the offchance that they might offend someone. FELIPE NO
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back.
Last edited by Guru; May 19, 2007 at 12:38 AM.
|
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
Eliminating the person isn't realistic, but I think redressing their behavior is. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
If you take issue with the way people act in video game environments, you'd also likewise be offended by the way people act many highschool/college aged parties. Gaming is a huge business. If companies start banning people from their games because of any possible thing they might say or do that could offend someone else, they stand to lose lots of money. As unfortunate as that may seem...companies are not going to shoot themselves in the foot. It's far easier and much more profitable to provide means for the potentially offended player to protect themselves, usually done by adding text filters, ignore functions, or simply telling these offended players not to use voicechat or not play at all. Because they're not the core audience, and the company doesn't mind brushing them off to keep the cashflow coming in. But saying that we as gamers shouldn't accept this type of attitude is silly. Until there's a significant demographic shift in who plays video games, it's all going to fall on deaf ears. You can't tell boys to play nice when they're just playing with a bunch of other boys that do the same thing. There's nowhere I can't reach.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
I don't really have these problems, pretty well every game has a mute function, so if someone is bugging you that much take the two seconds and mute them. It's the best of both worlds, you don't have to hear them but you can still kill them.
Skexis: To answer your question stuff like that to me in a day of gaming may happen two or three times however I usually only play games along with a couple of friends so all I need to do to shift the power from the moron to myself is a joke degrading them or something and I have the whole game laughing at them, this usually sends them out of the game or at least makes them shut up. I know that this may make me "on their level" at times, however you can only fight a numbskull with something that they understand, and that's usually by competing with them on their level, to rationalize or to take "the high road" is just too much effort and time to waste on each encounter. I'm not advocating my ways for others to use, however you at least know a bit about my experiances and where I'm kind of coming from. And really, are there even intellegent paople playing Halo? lol, jk This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I'm not one of many counter tactics for sexist gamers, however in the group of people that I play frequently with on XBL there are a couple of girl gamers that I play alongside of a lot from Gears of War to Halo 3 and usually people tend to shut up when they start getting their asses handed to them by one of our femfatals or when they find out that these girls have some friends along... perhaps one who's even the host. Trip to Italy anyone? lol
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
When it comes to online interaction, I think it's safe to say the John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory holds some truth behind it.
You give people a barrier of anonymity and they get comfortable, sometimes too comfortable and then you can see some of the real nasty sides of people out there. I've noticed that often the GM's in MMOs like to take a non-interventionist stance on a lot of the negative behavior. More often than not they'll tell you to just put someone on /ignore rather than dealing with the individual. Demographics can't help too. In the case of FPS games, I'd imagine many of the players are males who can be described as being aggressive. If not in the real world then certainly in-game. Those kinds of people can be majorly annoying to those in the game who aren't like that. I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
People will be assholes in online games (or anything really) because they're a username and a voice. That's it. You either get punished, or you continue doing it. Getting banned leads you to going to an alternate server and doing the same shit over again.
People enjoy being assholes. Bottom line. Not only do you play your favorite game, you get to ruin someone's fun online for your own personal enjoyment while playing your favorite game. I don't find many people in online games (most notably FPS) who aren't abusive since they take it way too seriously. How ya doing, buddy? |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? If there is evil in this world, it lies within the hearts of mankind.
|
I guess you weren't around for all the Tetris Attack ZSNES smack talk back in the day, Malahk.
People do enjoy being assholes. And the assholery is overexemplified when you're playing a game that has you killing each other in various ways. If shooting rocket launchers at each others' heads hoping for a "M-M-M-MONSTER KILL KILL KILL" isn't a testosterone pumping circle jerk, then I don't know what is. BEEFSTEAK BEEFSTEAK! Jam it back in, in the dark.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
Make it like the warning system on AIM, so that if a person gets so many warnings within a set period of time, they get jailed. They can't do anything. It doesn't require the intervention of the company, and doesn't leave the messy to-do of having to ban someone. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
But people I know abuse the AIM warning system all the time. How would something similar not be abused in the same fashion?
(I never really understood the AIM warning thing anyway. AIM is a terrible program). How ya doing, buddy?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
Well, it would see abuse, but then at least the question is about building a better mousetrap instead of ignoring the mouse while he's eating your food. Maybe limit a person to one report a day? That way they know they have to make them count.
The point is that this isn't really difficult to come up with solutions for, it's just a matter of someone taking the initiative. Unfortunately that initiative might mean the guy's job if the thing went south on them, so everybody wants to play it safe. You can speculate all day and convince yourself that it won't work because of X, but speculation is as good as you can get when it simply hasn't been tried yet. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
You can likewise speculate all you want about ways to supposedly place some sort of rule and structure in video games that punishes people for the type of people that they are.
But the point of contention is that that type of person is the majority of the gamers in our current society, and until this majority either has a swift and all-encompassing change of heart (highly unlikely) or they're no longer the majority...there's not going to be a single way to remove the competitive and assholic attitude that they represent. A way to warn people in the style of AIM, even with single-use-per-day restrictions would just result in these same, immature gamers forming clans and collectively warn-bombing the same person just to get them banned. And all for what? To get a laugh at the expense of said person, and ruin their day. It's unfortunate that you have to suck it up and grin and bear it...but if you're going to join public games with people that you don't know, that's the risk (and it's mighty risky) that you have to take...at least with the current state of the gamer population climate. But that's not to say that these people aren't unavoidable. Private games, private servers, ignore features and many other options are available to people that either can't handle or don't want to subject themselves to immaturity. I was speaking idiomatically.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
The point I was making is that you can't preempt the whole idea because it might not work. I'm not trying to make guarantees of success, but you seem to be making guarantees of failure.
How ya doing, buddy? |
You are a man of faith, I assume?
I'm skeptical of anything until it has been done successfully. Seeing is believing, and theories of utopia are a dime a dozen. Which is not to say that I don't understand the point in trying. But it's just so highly unlikely that anything would successfully curtail what I consider to be a byproduct of competitive environments such as online video games -- what I call the epeen effect. FELIPE NO
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |