Poll: I'm not as good as you, and that should be ok

[Luminous_Umbra]

Here's the thing about online multiplayer (where you play alongside other players): Your performance affects their experience. And even in games where there's nothing like rank or any kind of incentive for doing well or punishment for doing poorly, your performance still uses up their time, time which might very well be quite limited.

Is it rude? Yes

Is it understandable? Also yes.

Of course, there will always be those that take it too far etc etc, but the point still stands.

While this is true, this raises another issue - how does a new player get experience and learn the game if everyone is expecting excellence from the getgo? I've never tried to get into LoL or Dota because there seems to be no way to learn the game/s without running the gauntlet of extreme hostility that characterizes those communities.

Personally, I pretty much avoid online multiplayer games unless it is co-op PVE (eg. WoW raiding) or solo play (eg. Street Fighter). I just can't be bothered dealing with drama, so I mostly just stick to single player games.

I don't know where you're getting "expecting excellence" from. To be honest, I'd be for players getting put into teams with an approximate range of skill.

EX: Splatoon. In ranked matches, you get placed with players not just of your rank, but those slightly higher and lower. So a B+ is put with A- and a B and so on. And that allows the lowered ranked players to learn, whilst still being close enough that they still contribute a fair amount.

And while this doesn't work for every game, it would certainly help for those it would work with. Also, good tutorials would help a lot.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

If people want to act like free expression isn't valid or that people can't have differing ethical choices then I don't have to tolerate them and thats ok!

Well except as I pointed out thoroughly, you're not defending free expression. You're demanding extra rights if you want to give people a right to spaces on private property.

If their ethical choice is to be intolerant for the lulz, again, what justification do you have for demanding they receive tolerance in retu

Also I wasn't just speaking of games.

Well that's great for you, but who are you arguing against then? I don't believe I ever called for removing them from their homes or anything. Nor has anyone else I've seen.

So where are these people supposed to go? some groups that try and provide them spaces to be themselves get harassed and pressured.

What, you want them free from the free expression you want them to be able to express?

No matter how you want to say I'm asking for more does not change that I'm saying they have the right to exist and to express themselves. Thats not asking for more.

Well only if you leave out the bit where you are saying they have a right to spaces like those. The logical consequences of that is that such a place must exist for them, whether anyone wants to give it to them or not.

And you are asking that they don't receive consequences for being jerks. Sorry, no one has that right nor should they because that would infringe on the rights of others to react as they want.

I find you not caring about these people a sign of a callous and biased nature.

Well that would mean something to me if you could actually provide a satisfactory response to my argument about reciprocation. They don't seem to care about me, how is it callous to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned it's just me not being a chump.

Just because someone is a jerk does not mean they automatically deserve less regard as a human being.

They get their basic human rights. They just get the same lack of consideration they give. Why in the world should someone give them more than they are willing to give?

You do not know their circumstances and your judgment of them makes you no better than the people you decry.

Already covered that. This is the same nonsense I see on the worst parts of tumblr. Their circumstances don't justify being jerks. At best they make it more forgiveable. But if they don't work to be better then they don't deserve forgiveness.

But quite frankly if they can be jerks for no reason, I can show the same lack of compassion right back at them. And I'll be better still because I did it on more than a whim. Punching someone that punches you doesn't make you just as bad. That's a bit too simplistic. Reasons matter.

Not showing someone any compassion because they are a jerk to you is fine. Being a jerk to someone because you had a bad day is not. It is a best understandable, but not alright or to be encouraged.

People have the right to free express in a public space. So your argument about there being no such place is invalid. Otherwise you are equivocating the points I made about online spaces with the points I made about expression in general.

Are you going to ignore where I explicitly allowed for public spaces? Like explicitly mentioned them?

And I'm just keeping it to what people said and not you making counterarguments to what no one ever said.

As far as the meat eating argument goes it is valid. Your counter to that was the same reasoning used to tell abolitionists to not bother disrupting peoples property rights.

No it wasn't XD

I never argued the validity of being offended at meat eating. And you're no abolitionist, you were arguing that we should reciprocate your tolerance of it by tolerating something else entirely.

I'm saying you don't get to decide on your own that it's a reasonable exchange XD

You just went "X offends me and I tolerate it so you should tolerate Y!" It's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow.

If you wish to keep being dismissive of valid points by being glib, that's up to you. Let me know when you wish to engage in a discussion with a bit of charity.
Not once did I argue against private property.

To demand a right for them to have a space is to demand that someone provides it, no?

I argue against the basic principle of the matter. People tell others what to do with their private property all the time. They don't need to heed it but it can affect their business. You can exclude people and suppress their free speech in private venues. This does not mean their free speech wasn't trounced, only that it wasn't legally squelched. Like the difference between de facto and de jure.

It means none of their rights were trounced. They had no right to free expression there. At least not without the consequence of being dispelled.

You've also failed to elaborate on what actual harm this causes I realized.

It's ok- you don't seem to tolerate anyone having any ethical view other than your own.

Blatantly untrue. I simply see no reason to refrain from denying them a place to be jerks via legal means.

Your statement is ridiculously far reaching. I tolerate them to a degree. I don't shoot them or anything. And I tolerate plenty of ethical differences. I just don't have to be nice about all of them. Some I am. But you argue to be a jerk to me, well it's just rather unbelievable you'd expect me to be nice I'm return XD

Must be a nice privilege to have.

There's that word again, with no elaboration.

If you cannot tolerate someone having a different view than you, even one you may find repugnant, then you follow a fascist philosophy.

That's nice. But I can tolerate it. You seem to view the world a bit too black and white. I don't have to tolerate all different views to the maximum degree. I'm not killing anyone, I'm not asking for anyone to be jailed. Clearly I tolerate it to some degree. And other views I tolerate more even if I disagree. And some, like Nazism, I'd tolerate less.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

So it seems you don't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of intolerance.

Just tossing around the words tolerance and intolerance really doesn't make for a real argument. I mean my response to this point can be summarized as... "So?" What's tthe actual argument in that?

"It clears the room of unpleasant people. It seems perhaps you don't get the point. I don't care if they're nice. I care if I don't have to deal with their BS. And forcing them to be nice accomplishes that. So it gets exactly what I want." So long as youg et what you want, doesn't matter who is inconvenienced so long as you judge them to be the wrong type of people.

No that's an inaccurate summary. If someone is a jerk to me then I don't give them any concern. I let them deal with their own problems. See, if you want others to show concern you kind of have to ttreat them with a basic sort of respect. If you don't then you can hardly expect much back.

So if I find you an unpleasant and intolerable person then I should be able to force you to behave in a way you disagree with in hopes you go away or "shape up?"

That's not what I said though.

I'm arguing that I shouldn't be expected to shoe concern to those who show me none. You're just glossing over your reasons and just saying 'Well what if I find you offensive!' Well sorry but 'offensive' wasn't the reason I gave.

What if you were told you could not be rude to anyone even if you thought them horrendous? People on a private forum may have the right to ask you to do that but it still sucks if they do and feels like a violation to some.

... The irony is there are such rules in place here. So clearly I find that acceptable on a private forum since I'm here posting on this forum.

"Guess they better act better if they want to be treated better."
That seems to be a callous and shallow comment.

It isn't. It's a great way to avoid being taken advantage of.

Very offensive to people who do not always have control over such things and offensive to those who care for those people.

I've already said it can be forgiveable if they have no such control. Problem is you are saying they shouldn't even try to change or refrain from it. Or even just arguing for people with a mental disorder.

i honestly find your tone to be hostile and rude enough to warrant a complaint if you were gaming with me.

And? This would be relevant if I ever said each individual should get to judge what crosses the line. I didn't.

The only flaw you are pointing out is with each individual deciding what's rude themselves. Thankfully I never argued for that so...!

I would find your attitude toxic and disruptive. Should I request to have anyone that speaks as you do banned and say get over it? Or do I tolerate views that I don't like and grow up?

Quite frankly I think you're making it up on the spot.

But anyways, no I think there are reasonable things to find rude and unreasonable things.

Forcing someone to be nice is force and wrong.

No it isn't. And there are ways that don't involve actual force. Playing with words isn't convincing.

Trying to make the world all good is an evil action. If you believe in good and evil.

Again, no it isn't evil. Making declarations is unconvincing.

If you don't believe in free will then you acknowledge it is cruel to judge others based on factors they cannot control.

No...? How exactly does that logically follow?

"No one said they should never communicate. "

Me- " People should have the right to a space where they can verbally express themselves as they want."

"Why the hell should they have such a right?"
So if they have no right to a space to verbally express themselves then where can they express themselves.

You're missing the bit where they can communicate in a more polite fashion. Thus they can communicate just not in any fashion they please.

Seems you you contradicted themselves.

Or you're conflating communicating at all with communicating in whatever fashion they want. Not exactly the same thing.

Just because they don't have an obligation to provide you a space does not mean that you are not effectively depriving them of their right of free expression.

Well they never had a right to express themselves however they wanted on private property in the first place.

Just because you play with the roles of public and private in a way to legally deprive others of liberties you find distasteful does not mean you did not deprive them of those liberties.

Right, I didn't deprive them of those liberties because they never had those liberties as you believe them to exist in the first place.

so you think rude people shouldn't be allowed to game?

If they can't contain themselves and refuse to play amongst just friends or single player games... sure!

If you don't believe in free will then why are you judging them for something that isn't their fault?

Because my idea of how things work is a biiiit more complicated than that strawman.

I find plenty of things offensive that other people don't. I think Christmas is a horribly offensive cultural appropriation of a properly pagan holiday. If I imposed my views of offensiveness on others that would just be ludicrous. If you impose the views of the majority then you engage in oppression of the minority.
There is no perfect answer or good stance but the wrong stance is thinking you are always right.

I don't really care what you find offensive. I never said there should be some free for all banning things any single person may find offensive. I'm not all or nothing on offensiveness. I prefer rational judgement and distinguishing.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You can deprive people of public rights through private means btw.

Sure. But in this case they still retain the rights to say whatever they want in public.

Not shooting someone is not tolerating them thats not being a homicidal monster.

It's a certain level of tolerance.

If they don;t have a place to express themselves then they are in fact deprived of free expression, de facto is not de jure.

They have public spaces. Or their own homes.

I wasn't specifying private property. That was one case in my argument. Rest of argument seems based on this misinterpretation so not bothering to address the rest. We will likely not find common ground. I think we find each other's views distasteful I guess. Good thing you're free to express them as you wish, however much I may or may not be offended by them.

Well the thing is who are you even arguing against when it comes to public property? Not me apparently. Or anyone else I see here.

Your last sentence would make more of an impact if I said the problem was any and all possible offense.

Do not tell me I'm not an abolitionist. That is offensive and untrue. You do NOT know my views on abolition. You are patently wrong if you think I am not against ending slavery and wish it to be ended in all forms.n I'm sorry you're not able to get the meat eating example. If you keep confusing my private property argument I have little hope we will see eye to eye on mass murder of animals being offensive. We all must tolerate things we find offensive and I have every bit as much right o voice my offense as you have to yours.

In the context of this argument, the comparison doesn't fit. You're talking about an exchange of tolerating two wildly different things. That's not exactly the position of an abolitionist. You're not making some stand for anti-meat eating here. That would put you in an abolitionist position (not that I'd agree exactly) but this is like an abolitionist telling someone they need to tolerate a completely different view of the abolitionist's! If anything you just tried to use it as some kind of political token.

I don't have to tolerate *everything* I find offensive.

guess you don't engage in rhetorical charity and it is hard to reciprocate with charity of my own if you won;t engage in basic niceties of discussion instead of the methods of bickering. Feel free to put in your last word if your ego necessitates. We both do not seem to be seeing the essence of each other's arguments. Or we just think the other does not have a valid viewpoint. Expecting to be tolerated is not the same as expecting someone to be nice. If you think punching and shooting other people are acceptable I cannot continue this.

I'm not sure which part you are saying I'm not displaying rhetorical charity in.

I consider hurling verbal abuse at someone not being tolerant. Not sure how it's supposed to fit with tolerance.

I also never said punching or shooting people was acceptable. At least at random. Self-defense sure.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Here's the thing about online multiplayer (where you play alongside other players): Your performance affects their experience. And even in games where there's nothing like rank or any kind of incentive for doing well or punishment for doing poorly, your performance still uses up their time, time which might very well be quite limited.

Is it rude? Yes

Is it understandable? Also yes.

Of course, there will always be those that take it too far etc etc, but the point still stands.

While this is true, this raises another issue - how does a new player get experience and learn the game if everyone is expecting excellence from the getgo? I've never tried to get into LoL or Dota because there seems to be no way to learn the game/s without running the gauntlet of extreme hostility that characterizes those communities.

Personally, I pretty much avoid online multiplayer games unless it is co-op PVE (eg. WoW raiding) or solo play (eg. Street Fighter). I just can't be bothered dealing with drama, so I mostly just stick to single player games.

I don't know where you're getting "expecting excellence" from. To be honest, I'd be for players getting put into teams with an approximate range of skill.

EX: Splatoon. In ranked matches, you get placed with players not just of your rank, but those slightly higher and lower. So a B+ is put with A- and a B and so on. And that allows the lowered ranked players to learn, whilst still being close enough that they still contribute a fair amount.

And while this doesn't work for every game, it would certainly help for those it would work with. Also, good tutorials would help a lot.

The expectation of excellence comes from the fact that the vast majority of players think of themselves as leet MLG tier players and everyone else is trash; basically the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

I agree that systems that matchmaker players of similar skill is very important to facilitating a competitive experience, and that well designed tutorials can go along way to alleviating these issues, but I also think that there should be some measure of player behaviour regulation, even if it's just separating the abusive jackasses into their own group where they can abuse each other at their leisure without bothering the rational mature people.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Look, i'm deep in my national LoL scene. I cast games, organize Lans and hosts booths at expos - and yet i can hardly play the game myself anymore unless at least 2 friends are in the same game.

People on the internet will flame and rage because the E-Peen and virtual scores are to important. There's sadly no way around it except not giving in to the flaming and always keep a clam mind. Mute them and keep playing, try to play with friends and if nothing helps go play some singleplayer games.

I don't see this changing anytime soon, because it's a global problem with shitty behaviour on the internet in general. It's literally "deal with it".