Vidya games, hugboxes, the self and materialism.

[Siva]

They don't really sound related, but hear me out.

Video games, especially in online multiplayer, are ways to experience your facets of being that you don't normally get to experience. Fun alone is an example of this, for the most part, life isn't fun -- there aren't obvious rules and constrictions to understand and live by, things are less 'black and white'. So when put in a situation where the objective is clear, and the means are self-evident, would it not be the case that you can express yourself completely? For example, in DotA, a game I figure we all have experience with: calling your teammates shitters is sometimes par for the course. There are clear options as to how to play the game at any given stage. You are losing? Then you play safely -- jungle, farm nearby, ward defensively, etcetera. When a teammate is not doing this, then you may or may not call them a shitter. Whether this is the absolute of your feelings toward that individual is irrelevant, and to be frank whether you are constructive about it or not is also irrelevant because they have some experience with the game -- and if they don't, then you don't, and matchmaking does not pair you with new guys.

Now, when the person is called a shitter, the usual reaction is to cry about it. This happens a lot, and because of the nature of DotA (time invested, skill required, teamplay needs) it can become a very tense situation. This goes on at the highest levels (ctrl+f 'I can't') so it isn't just a matter of it being a 'pub situation', when people are doing badly, things get heated.

So should we pander to tears? There is no example at any time in history of this 'bettering humanity'. If you have a child, and your child does wrong -- say, kicks another child at school. He comes home, you already have heard from the teacher who witnessed it, and you confront him or her about it. They eventually cry, because they are being disciplined and lack the emotional stability to deal with things that threaten their state of being -- they are young. They say to you: 'I only kicked him because he was being mean to my friend.' Do you then tell him that because they had a reason, it is significant enough to allow for violence? To allow for ignorance? To allow for their tears? Obviously you don't. Your message back to him or her will be soothing, because they are young; but you needn't tell them that one's own emotions allow for any means necessary to be used in response.

So the response then; to the kicking. What should he have done? Logically this is where our minds go-- however is the question not irrelevant? Is the answer not self evident? 'Anything rational is better than that.'

This is a situation dealing with a negative reaction to a negative stimulus, but what about when things are less opaque, and the reaction looks positive?

Back to DotA, then. I have called you a shitter because after dying three times in your lane, you have come to my lane, forced us to initiate a fight we could not take, and now we are all dead. Am I automatically the bad guy because I used bad language after you brought about an inevitably bad situation? Yes, to a degree. Are you worse?

I would argue yes. Because you don't seek to learn -- without being directly prompted (I tell you how to play), you do not figure it out for yourself, and ignore all words I have to say that can be construed as purely negative. You, in this hypothetical, cannot think outside the box, and because it's a game, the box is laughably small.

These all seem like small things, but they are indicative of the way society is going.

The Islamic State terrorises the middle east. Many people are quick to shock, calling for every kind of action under the sun -- is this not just a matter of alleviating guilt? 'They are doing bad things. I don't like bad things. I want X to stop the bad things from happening.' Because reality exists objectively (and if you think otherwise you are a dirty solipsist and should get out of my thread) there would have to be an objectively best solution, or at least, in Plato's terms, the form of an objective solution -- and all of our correct solutions would revolve around that, looking aesthetically different, but functionally the same.

So then why when I look at twitter and type in 'Islamic State' do I get 'bomb them into oblivion' 'join them' 'hold talks with them' 'hold talks without them' as solutions? Why are we so blind to the objective? Shouldn't it be a matter more of where we bomb exactly, or when we join exactly, or who we invite to our talks/the talks exactly as to where we differ?

Can I come back to the DotA situation?

You are now the entirety of the 'helpless' middle east. I am the Islamic State. And by way of me capturing and torturing parts of you, I have called you a shitter.

You have two or three choices. You can either capture and torture me back, but I definitely will continue torturing you if you even begin to try my own tactics against me. Or you can look at yourself, analyse your components (the ideologies of your people, the systems in place that affect people, how much chicken costs on fridays) and try to change so I don't torture you anymore, or you can do both. Often both is necessary, and when dealing with something as dramatic as what I am talking about in this paragraph, then perhaps this is one of those times.

Well, what if you changed? Became a better player? Would I still call you a shitter when you fuck up? Probably not, but it's arguable and context sensitive. But it can be said that I would have less reason to do so, which is why you would have more reason to tell me exactly how and when to go and fuck myself. I.E, do both, because now you are in a position to take the moral high ground.

So what am I getting at here?

There are clearly individuals, game developers themselves included, who want to take away my ability to tell you exactly how shit you are, in whatever terms I like. It crept in. At first in some games I could only call you a shitter if I didn't use the word 'shit'. Then I couldn't even play with you if I had said the word 'shit'. Now? I can be barred from playing some games if I tell you that you are shit, no matter what terms I use. They are bringing about a hugbox, where nobody seems to be objectively bad because you actually just can't say so.

Isn't this going to make games worse?

So what about fat shaming or whatever, then? If some individuals have their way, I won't be able to tell you exactly how dumb you are for putting on so much weight, if you actually care about your life. What do I know anyway? I smoke, don't I? Aren't I committing the same crime? Well, to come back to the caring about your life thing -- I see my body as an animal that must constantly be dealt with. Whether it dies or not by way of smoking isn't too relevant to me, I can bear the pain of lung cancer because I see smoking as worth it. And if you say that to me when I call you a dumbass fat bastard, then I will indeed look the fool.

But what if I can never call you a fat bastard?

Won't you just get fatter? Without the reminder in the back of your head-- however positively or negatively it is framed, won't you eventually die of your own fatness? Will you ever take it into your own hands as to dealing with your fat?

Who knows. But from history (I'm going to write this after the next sentence. Scroll down to see it. I am also going to make it as controversial a point as possible.) this shows that no, that isn't the case at all.

Have I even gotten at the points 'the self' or 'materialism' here? Decide for yourself, and we'll discuss it. Sometimes I think it's better to entice one to read between the lines.

So back to my point about history. What about dem jews? Hitler tried to kill all of them, and he damn near succeeded. Why, though? I've never actually heard anybody ask why he did it beyond citing reasons as to just exactly how crazy he was. Does craziness arise from nothing? I will tell you this, it is written in the Talmud that Jews are to look upon us, 'the goy' as cattle. (http://rense.com/general86/talmd.htm -- ctrl+f 'On the house') Jews subscribe to the Talmud, same way Christians subscribe to the Bible. Are we to accept their ideology if it is based in someone hating us, because of some 'inalienable right' to believe whatever you want? Are we to tolerate it? Well apparently, the answer is yes. Because if I ask a Jew why I am cattle in a manner that is reflective of how strongly I may feel about it, I.E I call you a jew shitter if you believe in that, then I am branded as anti-semetic, because clearly I don't remember how many Jews died in the holocaust, or how 'hard' it is to deal with being constantly oppressed in today's society, because if I'm straight, white, and male, I clearly am so much more privileged that I must actually acquiesce to your thinking, simply because I actually cannot understand it.

Although I'm not straight, white and male, if you are, I dare you to test your privilege. Walk into the ghetto and shout the N word around some of our lovely black youth. They will demonstrate exactly how privileged you are.

[Siva]

wow it did not seem that long when i wrote it

[James]

People need to harden up in general.

The Islamic State comparisons in general kind of threw me off guard though, obviously a route is to stop the violence (which sounds ambiguous) but there's so many ways and possibilities to do it alongside the amount of consequences. There's no objective method in that regard.

[Psychotic]

It goes both ways.

People need to understand the mistake they've made to know when to deal with it. Some people are slower than others in this regard and in some cases we'll adhere to those people first (this is what matchmaking aims to do), but I agree if they'd been told numerous times they really do need to harden the fuck up.

But context is key. Calling a player a tosser rather than trying to first teach him the mistake is wrong, but getting frustrated and calling him one after you've already told him once or twice is, at least to me, justifiable. Pointless in the long run though, because if someone doesn't want to take heed the first time then calling them an asshole isn't likely going to do fuck all.

[Siva]

@James

There's no objective method because we seek subjective understandings, no?

@Psychotic

Wasn't really talking about calling someone a shitter. It kind of just represents 'the inevitable' here. People are going to be mean, and there's not much to be said for it, it's kind of meaningless

[synthetic]

*Some* people are going to be mean, if you want to be the one then you bear the responsibility for the feedback you get. Doesn't mean one has to be mean or that its even sensible approach.

Like, I had someone almost wipe a 18man raid the other day. Im a very emotional person, not to say neurotic, but I just told him "lets not do that again okay:)". They all understood that I was pissed off, but nobody got called a shitter and nobody got kicked from the team. In the end of the day, it causes much less negative feelings for the raidforce (or team, or any individual) even if someone screwed over. Even when a person has no part in the incident, say your other team mate who did everything right but died just like you because of the "shitter", such verbal attack will cause much more negativity even for those that weren't on the receiving end. And if that wouldnt've worked, it represents a problem that you can solve by means that are instantly and directly effective.

We had also a backup plan in place in case any advice were to fall on deaf ears: our healer was not going to heal him if he went "yolo" again. He'd die fast, we'd all be aware of the said player and use our caution, and as a result while wed be number weaker we'd be in a shape that allows us to continue with no particular delay.

Since I am silently in 'bomb them into oblivion' camp, I wouldn't call it mean rather than swift solution to a problem that nobody (with impact mass) seems to want to solve. And try calling a religious radical a shitter, or call his god one. Yeah..

edit: boards seem fairly dead, think wherever i post itll count as necro hehe

[Psychotic]

Your method of dealing with the problem was pretty similar to mine, particularly during Wrath of the Lich King raiding.

Listen to me or die. That simple.

Either you listen to me, follow instructions and we do the fight without too many issues, or I get all the healers to stop healing you. Or I just kick you because fuck it.

I am a reasonable man, but I am not a patient one. I won't generally call anyone out personally, nor will I rage at the top of my lungs, because neither of those actually help in the long run, but I won't help one bad egg ruin the rest of the bunch.

I demand respect not by screaming at someone but by simply not putting up with their bullshit. All that requires is following through on my promises, and in a video all that means is I kick you from the group. It's not that hard. We're all expendable here.

[synthetic]

It can also work the other way around: when the team leader is the "shitter". I had a situation where another guild was leading allied raid and wasn't interested in explaining its tricks to new raiders, going more or less "yolo" when I suggested that it might be called for. Sure enough, someone wiped, and more went "oh, I didn't know that" when the tactics were finally mentioned, by someone else. Last time I want to be in a raid led by american emo kids.

When doing something together, anything and anywhere, it is vital to have a good grasp of the capabilities of the people involved, or lack thereof. Usually with a few words you can explain the basics to anything, provided that the person is actually interested - and I mean interested, not listening, as a person can listen but without interest it'll go out from the other ear. Prospect of gruesome death might provoke some degree of interest, though.

[Psychotic]

To be frank, I don't think what either of us does to those who do not listen is being a "shitter".

I don't have time to sit and baby someone through life. If I ask if anyone knows the fight and nobody answers I assume everyone knows. If I explain the fight and ask if anyone needs more help and nobody answers I assume everyone knows.

There's only so many times you can repeat the same information to the same person.

[synthetic]

Oh absolutely, but there is a huge difference in blindly assuming that everybody does know how to behave/operate (if we're to bring it out of gaming context as well) or making an attempt to assess people's skills and pre-emptively address certain repeat issues. Since we all have some form of rudimentary memory I'd imagine some faces stick to mind and you pretty much know who to cover what topics with and who *should* already know the harder stuff.

[Clancy Stein]

The whole idea that there is a way people are expected to behave and that it is empirically objectively correct is a bit nazi to me.

The concept of culture AND individuality hinges on the variations of experience and adapted perspectives, skills, values and associations.

The conflicts between these methods is the sort of competition of ideology that is inevitable and therefore could be seen healthy and constructive. A forceful measure of adherence, on the other hand, is a censure.

That tyrannical oppression over the rights and expressions of individuals are what all societies debate in aesthetically different contexts, but ultimately the closest humanity can come to arriving at an objective or near objective compromise would be the Non Aggression Principle: acknowledging the sovereign rights of free individuals to live independently to their own choices and devise and prosecute commensurately actions which have trespassed that right for others.

That's the simplest form of universal justice I can imagine.

[Siva]

The whole idea that there is a way people are expected to behave and that it is empirically objectively correct is a bit nazi to me.

The concept of culture AND individuality hinges on the variations of experience and adapted perspectives, skills, values and associations.

The conflicts between these methods is the sort of competition of ideology that is inevitable and therefore could be seen healthy and constructive. A forceful measure of adherence, on the other hand, is a censure.

That tyrannical oppression over the rights and expressions of individuals are what all societies debate in aesthetically different contexts, but ultimately the closest humanity can come to arriving at an objective or near objective compromise would be the Non Aggression Principle: acknowledging the sovereign rights of free individuals to live independently to their own choices and devise and prosecute commensurately actions which have trespassed that right for others.

That's the simplest form of universal justice I can imagine.

Well spoken.

Communo-socio-anarchism.