Should Entrapment be against the EULA?

[Frostbiter]

 

13 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

It's fairy conclusive that publicly reprimanding an individual does not lead to positive behavioral modification. Overwhelmingly, it leads to resentment, anger, divisiveness and future escalation. It reenforces the exact behavior it was intending to ameliorate, eroding any possible successful positive change.

 

Sociologically, in every well structured scientific study, humans have never responded positively to punishment, be it actual or perceived.

 

Positive behavioral change, by and large, does not occur when an individual is in a distressed emotional state. Thus, in private, an individual may not feel attacked, defensive or otherwise unable to process information.

 

 

I never suggested anything of the sort. I don't believe in public shaming.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Frostbiter
Wonky editor

[Twisted Toon]

9 hours ago, EmmySky said:

Again..water off a ducks back.  Offense is most often taken and not given.  Merely refusing to engage and respond to a passive aggressive person removes any weapon they may have.  Nobody dictates how I respond other than myself.  Each poster taking personal responsibility for how they post rather than shifting thw blame like children (but he poked me first) would go a long way in solving so many problems.

One thing I learned long time ago was that any verbal bully (and that's what a passive-aggressive person is in most cases) wants is a reaction from their intended target.

The best way to foil their tactic is to not react. They'll get bored and go somewhere else.

That's one of the reasons why I usually won't respond or engage in a discussion immediately. I try to give myself time to look at the situation rationally and in a calm emotional state.

 

I will admit, I don't always follow that bit of advice. But, those are rare occasions.

[Luminara]

10 hours ago, Solarverse said:

I think a lot of people use the internet in a way that they would not behave in every day life. For an example, in every day life, there can be real life consequences for acting the way that some people do on forums.

 

Within very, very carefully considered limitations.  Laws which prohibit being snide, sassy or passive-aggressively annoying have only been applied in police state societies, such as the USSR during Stalin's control, or China now.  Unjust and oppressive laws which do not exist in any free and democratic nation.

 

That's what you're proposing.  Worse, actually, that's what you're implying that we need more of, because that dystopian hell of thought police is already entrenched in modern online life.  We already have to cautiously moderate our words, phrasing and "tone" to avoid provoking complete strangers, lest we bring the wrath of moderators down on ourselves.  And while we don't have to fear being dragged off to "re-education camps", or executed (yes, it has happened, and continues to happen), the basic concept of behavioral control and conformity through thought police intervention and action is applied in online interaction now.

 

And you suggest more moderation, more thought police control, to exacerbate that.  More censorship.  More temporary and permanent bans.  Punishment for sarcasm, punitive measures for passive-aggressiveness, penalties for contrariness.  Does it end before we're all copying and pasting moderator-supplied and approved responses to one another?  As it's already influencing real life, creating 30+ year old adults with the emotional fortitude of kindergartners who can't function in daily life without nanny cops to defend them from harsh words, criticism or sarcasm, how far does it go before even free nations are overburdened with thought police laws and measures, with broad, sweeping definitions of what is deemed "offensive" or "passive-aggressive" designed to be applicable in such a manner as to ensure that no-one ever suffers from the emotional equivalent of a paper cut?

 

Liberty and freedom of expression are not concepts which can coexist with police states, even if those police states are virtual.  And one person's right not to be offended, if such a right even exists, or should exist, should not impose an unjustly applied lack of rights on another person based on a completely subjective definition of offense.  A line has to exist somewhere, yes, but that line should exist within the framework of freedom, not as a limitation thereof.  Death threats, racial slurs, posting personal information like a real name and address, yes, moderate the hell out of that kind of behavior.  But infringing on the rights of assholes to be assholes, because someone might be offended or "triggered"?  Frankly, even though it means I have to deal with others being assholes to me occasionally, I'd rather watch it all burn to the fucking ground than lose even more freedom and liberty online.

 

To the fucking ground.

[Frostbiter]

43 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Within very, very carefully considered limitations.  Laws which prohibit being snide, sassy or passive-aggressively annoying have only been applied in police state societies, such as the USSR during Stalin's control, or China now.  Unjust and oppressive laws which do not exist in any free and democratic nation.

 

That's what you're proposing.  Worse, actually, that's what you're implying that we need more of, because that dystopian hell of thought police is already entrenched in modern online life.  We already have to cautiously moderate our words, phrasing and "tone" to avoid provoking complete strangers, lest we bring the wrath of moderators down on ourselves.  And while we don't have to fear being dragged off to "re-education camps", or executed (yes, it has happened, and continues to happen), the basic concept of behavioral control and conformity through thought police intervention and action is applied in online interaction now.

 

And you suggest more moderation, more thought police control, to exacerbate that.  More censorship.  More temporary and permanent bans.  Punishment for sarcasm, punitive measures for passive-aggressiveness, penalties for contrariness.  Does it end before we're all copying and pasting moderator-supplied and approved responses to one another?  As it's already influencing real life, creating 30+ year old adults with the emotional fortitude of kindergartners who can't function in daily life without nanny cops to defend them from harsh words, criticism or sarcasm, how far does it go before even free nations are overburdened with thought police laws and measures, with broad, sweeping definitions of what is deemed "offensive" or "passive-aggressive" designed to be applicable in such a manner as to ensure that no-one ever suffers from the emotional equivalent of a paper cut?

 

Liberty and freedom of expression are not concepts which can coexist with police states, even if those police states are virtual.  And one person's right not to be offended, if such a right even exists, or should exist, should not impose an unjustly applied lack of rights on another person based on a completely subjective definition of offense.  A line has to exist somewhere, yes, but that line should exist within the framework of freedom, not as a limitation thereof.  Death threats, racial slurs, posting personal information like a real name and address, yes, moderate the hell out of that kind of behavior.  But infringing on the rights of assholes to be assholes, because someone might be offended or "triggered"?  Frankly, even though it means I have to deal with others being assholes to me occasionally, I'd rather watch it all burn to the fucking ground than lose even more freedom and liberty online.

 

To the fucking ground.

I can certainly get behind and agree with that. I know I'm advocating for people to be nicer to each other here but I am thoroughly against forcing it and any kind of censorship. It's becoming more and more a problem around the world as rights are restricted in favor of protecting people (which is an impossibility for any government or group. They can't really protect you from anything). The UK and the slew of new "hate speech laws" there over the last few years haven't made anything better as far as I can tell. It's just gotten a bunch of ordinary people and some social influencers thrown in jail.

[ShardWarrior]

51 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Within very, very carefully considered limitations.  Laws which prohibit being snide, sassy or passive-aggressively annoying have only been applied in police state societies, such as the USSR during Stalin's control, or China now.  Unjust and oppressive laws which do not exist in any free and democratic nation.

 

That's what you're proposing.  Worse, actually, that's what you're implying that we need more of, because that dystopian hell of thought police is already entrenched in modern online life.  We already have to cautiously moderate our words, phrasing and "tone" to avoid provoking complete strangers, lest we bring the wrath of moderators down on ourselves.  And while we don't have to fear being dragged off to "re-education camps", or executed (yes, it has happened, and continues to happen), the basic concept of behavioral control and conformity through thought police intervention and action is applied in online interaction now.

 

And you suggest more moderation, more thought police control, to exacerbate that.  More censorship.  More temporary and permanent bans.  Punishment for sarcasm, punitive measures for passive-aggressiveness, penalties for contrariness.  Does it end before we're all copying and pasting moderator-supplied and approved responses to one another?  As it's already influencing real life, creating 30+ year old adults with the emotional fortitude of kindergartners who can't function in daily life without nanny cops to defend them from harsh words, criticism or sarcasm, how far does it go before even free nations are overburdened with thought police laws and measures, with broad, sweeping definitions of what is deemed "offensive" or "passive-aggressive" designed to be applicable in such a manner as to ensure that no-one ever suffers from the emotional equivalent of a paper cut?

 

Liberty and freedom of expression are not concepts which can coexist with police states, even if those police states are virtual.  And one person's right not to be offended, if such a right even exists, or should exist, should not impose an unjustly applied lack of rights on another person based on a completely subjective definition of offense.  A line has to exist somewhere, yes, but that line should exist within the framework of freedom, not as a limitation thereof.  Death threats, racial slurs, posting personal information like a real name and address, yes, moderate the hell out of that kind of behavior.  But infringing on the rights of assholes to be assholes, because someone might be offended or "triggered"?  Frankly, even though it means I have to deal with others being assholes to me occasionally, I'd rather watch it all burn to the fucking ground than lose even more freedom and liberty online.

 

To the fucking ground.

If I could upvote this a thousand times, I would. 

[Solarverse]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

 

Within very, very carefully considered limitations.  Laws which prohibit being snide, sassy or passive-aggressively annoying have only been applied in police state societies, such as the USSR during Stalin's control, or China now.  Unjust and oppressive laws which do not exist in any free and democratic nation.

 

That's what you're proposing.  Worse, actually, that's what you're implying that we need more of, because that dystopian hell of thought police is already entrenched in modern online life.  We already have to cautiously moderate our words, phrasing and "tone" to avoid provoking complete strangers, lest we bring the wrath of moderators down on ourselves.  And while we don't have to fear being dragged off to "re-education camps", or executed (yes, it has happened, and continues to happen), the basic concept of behavioral control and conformity through thought police intervention and action is applied in online interaction now.

 

And you suggest more moderation, more thought police control, to exacerbate that.  More censorship.  More temporary and permanent bans.  Punishment for sarcasm, punitive measures for passive-aggressiveness, penalties for contrariness.  Does it end before we're all copying and pasting moderator-supplied and approved responses to one another?  As it's already influencing real life, creating 30+ year old adults with the emotional fortitude of kindergartners who can't function in daily life without nanny cops to defend them from harsh words, criticism or sarcasm, how far does it go before even free nations are overburdened with thought police laws and measures, with broad, sweeping definitions of what is deemed "offensive" or "passive-aggressive" designed to be applicable in such a manner as to ensure that no-one ever suffers from the emotional equivalent of a paper cut?

 

Liberty and freedom of expression are not concepts which can coexist with police states, even if those police states are virtual.  And one person's right not to be offended, if such a right even exists, or should exist, should not impose an unjustly applied lack of rights on another person based on a completely subjective definition of offense.  A line has to exist somewhere, yes, but that line should exist within the framework of freedom, not as a limitation thereof.  Death threats, racial slurs, posting personal information like a real name and address, yes, moderate the hell out of that kind of behavior.  But infringing on the rights of assholes to be assholes, because someone might be offended or "triggered"?  Frankly, even though it means I have to deal with others being assholes to me occasionally, I'd rather watch it all burn to the fucking ground than lose even more freedom and liberty online.

 

To the fucking ground.

I did cover this point in a previous post. You were just way more detailed about it. In other words, you are preaching to the choir here.  😉

[Outrider_01]

Two bits of wisdom about the internet

 

1. Water off a ducks back

2. A Duck's butt hole is water tight

 

Hmmm, I think one of them is applicable.

 

If you are on the internet, you will have encountered trolls by now.  It just keeps getting easier to spot; then requires self restraint.

[Haijinx]

I'm a little confused by all this.

 

There is only minor league Passive Aggressive, or even Aggressive Aggressive stuff on these forums.

 

This is about as low key as active online forums get.

 

 

[Frostbiter]

3 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I'm a little confused by all this.

 

There is only minor league Passive Aggressive, or even Aggressive Aggressive stuff on these forums.

 

This is about as low key as active online forums get.

 

 

I don't see what you see. Even in this thread there have been a few people go out of their way to misconstrue things I've said, even to the point of claiming I've said things I haven't, just to provoke something from me. It didn't do them any good but it's still there.

[EmmySky]

8 minutes ago, Outrider_01 said:

... requires self restraint.

I think this is the main key.  If someone calls me a bitch because I hold differing views, well that is more their problem than mine.  Entrapment requires me to participate and my using a modicum of self control robs them of their trap.  If I care if they get in trouble for calling me names then I am acting just as childish as they are. 

 

Don't respond.

Don't care.

Don't get your feathers ruffled.

Edited May 31, 2020 by EmmySky

[tidge]

9 hours ago, Frostbiter said:

Theres no need to feel sorry for me. I don't really know any clowns. 

 

[Frostbiter]

Just now, tidge said:

 

Lol. Creepy and cool at the same time. Still, can anyone really know someone else?

[tidge]

2 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

Lol. Creepy and cool at the same time. Still, can anyone really know someone else?

 

[Coyote]

22 hours ago, Twisted Toon said:

Unfortunately, not everyone has that accomplished that achievement and gotten the badge for the Responsible Adult Accolade.

 

That's because I went red side and got the Irresponsible Adult Accolade 😄

[Frostbiter]

Heh. Adults are supposed to be some kind of authority but they're just grown ass children instead, with baggage thrown in to boot. 

 

I make no exclusions for myself, either.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Frostbiter

[Omega-202]

2 hours ago, Frostbiter said:

I don't see what you see. Even in this thread there have been a few people go out of their way to misconstrue things I've said, even to the point of claiming I've said things I haven't, just to provoke something from me. It didn't do them any good but it's still there.

I haven't seen a single instance of this in this thread.  And therein lies the issue with the suggested policy.  It is based off of arbitrary perceived slights when there was no intention of provoking anyone.  

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, Frostbiter said:

I don't see what you see. Even in this thread there have been a few people go out of their way to misconstrue things I've said, even to the point of claiming I've said things I haven't, just to provoke something from me. It didn't do them any good but it's still there.

Hmm.  Yeah no.  These are like only one step rougher than the 18th century Brit Lit forums.  

[Frostbiter]

2 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Hmm.  Yeah no.  These are like only one step rougher than the 18th century Brit Lit forums.  

Hmm. Yeah, yeah. I still disagree with you. 

[Frostbiter]

28 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

I haven't seen a single instance of this in this thread.  And therein lies the issue with the suggested policy.  It is based off of arbitrary perceived slights when there was no intention of provoking anyone.  

Please take whatever issues you have with the policy up with whoever put it forth. This is not I, since you seem to need told.

[Omega-202]

1 minute ago, Frostbiter said:

Please take whatever issues you have with the policy up with whoever put it forth. This is not I, since you seem to need told.

I am aware you are not OP, but you're just further illustrating the point.  I am now walking away from this conversation.  

[jubakumbi]

Like @Frostbiter, I signed out of the forums weeks ago, personally with no real intent to sign back into them, I just stop in to see what the current buzz is.

 

Being one of the early villains on this iteration of the forums depending upon your POV, I thought I could add something here.

 

Basically, I am blunt and opinionated. I don't sugar coat, I don't see the point. IMO, if you are old enough and cognizant enough to be on the forum posting, then you are old enough to deal with negative backlash to your opinions and ideas.

 

And that's what I choose to bluntly talk about, the opinions and ideas. I don't always succeed, as my word-smiting is not perfect, nor do I care that much about offending people, because IMO, one does not have the right to not be offended, if nothing offends, then IMO, you are not paying attention.

 

The issue, IME, especially on game forums (dealing with another forum community right now that thinks, like this one, it's community is 'awesome') wherein there is a similar discussion occurring.

 

IME, some people choose to see an opposing view to their ideas, be that view presented with snark or not, well worded, or not, with vitriol, or not, as a personal attack.

IME, many people simply cannot separate the idea to be discussed, vetted, dissected, etc., from themselves. 

I can hate an idea and love the person that presented the idea, it's just that simple.

 

I, personally, exist for the answer to the question of "Why?" and when I ask that of people on these forums, just like other game forums, many get mad at me because they think I am interrogating them and accusing them of something...when I just want to understand how they came to the conclusion/idea/course of action.

The same thing happens to me in real life all the time. 

I have the position I do because I won't stop until I find out "Why?"

 

Lastly, the root of these communication issues, the whole idea of being baited or entrapped, is often IME because one person expects everyone around them act like all the other people in their personal community, not remembering a game like this attracts a wide variety of people from all kinds of communities, where ones persons blunt is another persons snark is another persons insult...

 

I find it's best to read all forum posts in the tone of the 'Leave Brittany Alone' video, it keeps it all in the right context, of just being hot air about a video game, IME.

 

I know we are all real people behind these keyboards, but I also know whole lot of gamer forum posters, IME, simply lack the emotional maturity to discuss things without turning dissent on ideas into personal attacks an losing their cool. 🙂 

[Solarverse]

I think this conversation has ran its course. Everyone has given their opinions and a mutual agreement has been reached. Anyone responding at this point has either skipped the discussion and saying things already covered or they are beating a dead horse.

 

@Jimmy, can we close this thread please?

[Haijinx]

People who are Frank and Blunt should expect a reciprocal reaction to their style.

 

That kind of stands to reason.

[Frostbiter]

As it turns out, I guess passive aggression isn't as constructive as people are claiming. Thanks for playing! 🙂

Edited May 31, 2020 by Frostbiter

[Widower]

31 minutes ago, Solarverse said:

I think this conversation has ran its course. Everyone has given their opinions and a mutual agreement has been reached. Anyone responding at this point has either skipped the discussion and saying things already covered or they are beating a dead horse.

 

@Jimmy, can we close this thread please?

Done. Pleasure doing business with you!