Griefers at the Engineers

Yeh, Carl thought humans were doing a greeeat job, yay us, perfection attained, no more kindness or empathy needed in the world. :)
 
Correct.

In my personal experience, people who assume the worst of other people... well, tend to be the worst people. Typically we assume that everyone functions the same way as we do, and quite often, end up being blatantly wrong. There are few universal truths about human behaviour, and one is that any sane person has the need to justify their own actions to themselves. In the case of selfish people, the typical justification is the "eat or be eaten" kind, an assumption that everyone else would behave the same way, given the chance.
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dichotomy. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I don't need a dictionary. And you're wrong.
The dictionary would beg to differ if you would conflate the words persuade and coerce... I'm only trying to help elucidate your point for you.

Is this the sum total of what it boils down to - you just say "you're wrong" and leave it there?

You might try some kind of discussion to prove to me why I'm wrong?

Traditional thinking, I know. What can I say other than I'm a traditionalist?
 
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dialectic. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
How do you know a tornado isn't evil? I've seen them looking at me.
 
The dictionary would beg to differ if you would conflate the words persuade and coerce... I'm only trying to help elucidate your point for you.

Is this the sum total of what it boils down to - you just say "you're wrong" and leave it there?

You might try some kind of discussion to prove to me why I'm wrong?

Traditional thinking, I know. What can I say other than I'm a traditionalist?
I loathe traditionalist thinking. Beyond that, I've got nothing to prove to you.
 
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dialectic. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
Yes it is possible to assume the worst while still hoping for the best.
However, it is still a person that is assuming the worst and the previous point still stands, whether it is "nurture" or "nature" that you ascribe that to.
Assuming the worst, regardless of whether one hopes for the best or not at the same time is still an indicator of the worst type of person.

The word selfish doesn't come with "negative connotations" either. If it is used to describe a negative behaviour, that is fair game, it is not a connotation that matters, it is explicitly a negative behaviour that is being discussed and the behaviour being negative is the object that should be addressed, not the words used to convey the behaviour.
 
I loathe traditionalist thinking. Beyond that, I've got nothing to prove to you.
Bit disingenuous.
I said prove to me that I'm wrong. Or it didn't happen.
Help me to see, or it isn't able to be seen.

Ergo: you say I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong due to lack of "evidence" that your statement is true.

The traditional part stems from "innocent until proven guilty" or right til proven wrong.

If I'm wrong, then there needs to be evidence for me to hold my hands up and say "fair enough, I was wrong". That's the traditional way, despite your loathing of traditional or otherwise, that won't change.
 
I just called out someone saying they don't care about the consequences of their play on others, said I don't think that's a laudible attitude, everything else is a misunderstanding or extrapolation. I also apologised for getting on my high horse about it. Then Jason starts telling me how to raise my kids. I think you're missing what's happening here mate. Thing is (and I'm surprised they've forgotten this) I'm totally on their side, I think the game should be open only, and agree that the consequences for pressing open are that you might get killed by a better/more prepared player. That's not the issue and never was. I have never been that kind of white knight, you know this. FD needs to do something about the blatant harassment described in the OP though. I prefer seal clubbing to that kind of shenanigan.
You're gonna have to point out where I told you how to raise your kids because I missed that part
 
I agree with this and definitely reflected by my own life experience. Frankly everything I read about playing in Open confirms that it's not for me. I enjoy being mostly left alone. I enjoy moving at my own pace and am happy Solo mode provides that option, although what NPC are doing lurking in deep remote space, I don't know. Perhaps after I've been playing ED as long as some here I'll feel differently, for now I can't imagine why I'd want to harrass or be harassed by bored players while simply docking my ship.

Correct.

In my personal experience, people who assume the worst of other people... well, tend to be the worst people. Typically we assume that everyone functions the same way as we do, and quite often, end up being blatantly wrong. There are few universal truths about human behaviour, and one is that any sane person has the need to justify their own actions to themselves. In the case of selfish people, the typical justification is the "eat or be eaten" kind, an assumption that everyone else would behave the same way, given the chance.
 
Last edited:
I find it sad that the argument of ‘it’s just pixels, it’s just a game’ comes back so often in PvP threads because it’s obvious that the harm lies with losing progress and time, and it’s an easy counter-argument that lacks empathy. Although, yes, I agree CMDRs should know what they’re getting into with Open. Where I empathize is how these people probably simply hoped to have good encounters by going to Open which is reasonable, albeit sadly naïve. ‘Good’ which is in the eye of the beholder, but taking OP’s post, pad harassment is an encounter not many will agree to be good. I agree that humans are inherently, biologically selfish; we’re just elevated monkeys. Although, we're also good and I’d rather keep caring of the harm I can do to other’s time, so yes, in turn I will hope that my time be also respected, and I believe life has its own ways to give back. I also understand there’s a limit to how much you can ‘respect’ other’s time through different game styles, I was just disheartened by how little empathy some posts have.

Bullies often don’t know they’re bullies and it’s also not their intention. They tend to be driven to be perceived as competent, to process information quicker than others and get frustrated when others can’t keep up. To quote author Catherine Mattice Zundel: ‘It makes them nervous. They get anxious about their own ability to appear competent if they have alleged incompetence around them; they lash out.’ That said, our world cruelly needs to teach more about social and emotional intelligence.
Agreed. I call them "pixelmover" and liars at that. No one sane in its mind would be playing games if it's just about moving pixels, NO WAY. If that holds any truth you could call chessplayer "wood pusher" or poker player "card holder" and in all cases you would formally be right but so wrong at the same time.

It IS science. And very good science, at that. Only ideologues reject it as such.
Careful now, what is "IT" here? Remember what you are quoting. Do you really relate this statement to what I've wrote about Richard Dawkins? In which case I'd recommend some opinions about this guy from some more serious experts. He's usually considered the "Erich von Däniken" of Darwin's theory of evolution, but please tell me you know better. :geek:
 
Agreed. I call them "pixelmover" and liars at that. No one sane in its mind would be playing games if it's just about moving pixels, NO WAY. If that holds any truth you could call chessplayer "wood pusher" or poker player "card holder" and in all cases you would formally be right but so wrong at the same time.

LOL...
 
...
You are correct that selfishness is part of human nature, but by the same token we are also social creatures at our core and taking consideration for other people even when it conflicts with our own self-interest is entirely in our makeup as well. That's the whole basis for the concept of social contract.
No he is not correct. It's proven in various officially accepted studies that just a few month old children are usually helpful and in cases where no reward is to be expected. That proves strongly indicates that selfishness is not a native human ability but a result of early conditionings. Meanwhile selfishness has become mainstream and the norm (and the main reason IMO while our western civilizations have meanwhile more in common with cancer than with a sane organism). Selfishness as daily reality? Yes, of course. But as part of human nature this is patently wrong.

Here's a good read for starters, unfortunately in German (couldn't find some quick translation in a trice):
https://band1.dieweltdercommons.de/essays/friederike-habermann-wir-werden-nicht-als-egoisten-geboren/
 
Last edited:
No he is not correct. It's proven in various officially accepted studies that just a few month old children are usually helpful and in cases where no reward is to be expected. That proves strongly indicates that selfishness is not a native human ability but a result of early conditionings. Meanwhile selfishness has become mainstream and the norm. But selfishness being part of human nature is patently wrong.
Far more studies exist, and are accepted as well, that suggest the opposite. The counter studies that you cite are relatively new, and fewer, in comparison. But of course, that's the point I was making...that there is more to human nature than just selfishness and that selflessness IS a real thing. So you're agreeing with me...just taking a much stronger stance on in it than the full body of research supports.

That's the problem with trying to take a stance far to either side of the debate. People ARE selfish but they also ARE altruistic and selfless. Varying people have varying degrees of either trait. Some of it is biological, as there is an evolutionary reason for both traits. In fact, there are theories that suggest that even the fact that some people are more selfish than others is the result of evolution. For society to work, we need both types of people according to these researchers.

In short, you're making the same mistake that he is, but in the opposite direction of the equation. Of course, that's human nature as well....to find things to support one's own view while ignoring everything that counters it.
 
everything that supports my preconceived opinions is absolutely rock solid and everything that doesn't is bunk and I will call it "research" in air quotes and mock the idea of it existing at all
 
Yeh, solo was tacked on as a poor effort at placating those who pledged to the kickstarter on the basis that there would be an offline mode which was subsequently cancelled
I can't tell whether this is deliberately disingenuous or a genuine misunderstanding, but it's wrong either way.

  • On November 6th, 2012, solo online play was pitched as part of the original Kickstarter campaign:
    • "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."

  • Shortly thereafter (the exact date is lost due to an update overwriting it) a clarifying FAQ entry was added, headed How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?:
    • "All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer."

  • On December 11th, 2012, this FAQ was updated to include the newly proposed single player offline mode:
    • "The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."

  • On November 14th, 2014, the cancellation of offline mode was announced in Newsletter 49:
    • "A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."
(emphasis is mine)
Solo predated offline mode by more than a month, and had been part of the design for over two years when offline was cancelled. Solo was never "tacked on."
 
Top Bottom