These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

In simplest terms, what is wrong with EVE

First post
Author
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2014-10-24 15:20:29 UTC
Derrick Miles wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
I don't need to debate people I out rank and who don't have any understanding of the field they are trying to talk about. It only lends their bad argument more credibility.

People you out rank? What world are you living in? I would say we should just agree to disagree but I get the feeling that's never going to happen.

we disagree when i say we disagree and not before, buddy
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2014-10-24 15:20:33 UTC
Derrick Miles wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
I don't need to debate people I out rank and who don't have any understanding of the field they are trying to talk about. It only lends their bad argument more credibility.

People you out rank? What world are you living in? I would say we should just agree to disagree but I get the feeling that's never going to happen.


The same one you do, yes I out rank you you're welcome to Internet detective my LinkedIn page. Maybe ripard teg can help you.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#203 - 2014-10-24 15:21:05 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Emotional_Investments.html


That was a good laugh. Next time try citing something that, you know, doesn't look like it was coded in the 90s.

Your Google-fu is weak.


Yeah cause you know, someone with a PhD in psychology wouldn't know what they're talking about and an anonymous armchair expert such as yourself would Roll


You might be surprised how many people with Ph.D.'s have no idea what they're talking about. Look up the term diploma mill.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2014-10-24 15:24:09 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
You might be surprised how many people with Ph.D.'s have no idea what they're talking about. Look up the term diploma mill.

i like the article i just think the person who linked it only read the title
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#205 - 2014-10-24 15:31:49 UTC
While it may not be a peer review paper, it is certainly reasonable to say that someone with the educational back ground and years experience would know what they are talking about (more so than anyone here) even if just a blog by such an expert. You'd probably have a hard time finding a peer reviewed paper about emotional investments within video games.

The article may be about the benefits of giving and receiving, it does tie it in with emotional investment which does well to shed some light on what it means to be emotionally invested. As a simple act of giving/receiving between you and a stranger would be certainly something some individuals would see as not having anything to do with emotional investment based on their current arguments when the truth of the matter is that it does.

This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#206 - 2014-10-24 15:33:42 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
it is certainly reasonable to say that someone with the educational back ground and years experience would know what they are talking about

that rather depend upon what thy are talking about though
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2014-10-24 15:33:50 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
While it may not be a peer review paper, it is certainly reasonable to say that someone with the educational back ground and years experience would know what they are talking about (more so than anyone here) even if just a blog by such an expert. You'd probably have a hard time finding a peer reviewed paper about emotional investments within video games.

The article may be about the benefits of giving and receiving, it does tie it in with emotional investment which does well to shed some light on what it means to be emotionally invested. As a simple act of giving/receiving between you and a stranger would be certainly something some individuals would see as not having anything to do with emotional investment based on their current arguments when the truth of the matter is that it does.

This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.


Unfortunately it isn't peer review is there for a reason. It also is sourced poorly; so again I gave you a source that is free now go bring us back something interesting.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2014-10-24 15:43:24 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.023

From the abstract that is very relevant to the thread. I ordered it but if any of you have it give us a summary.

E: "Games without frontiers: On the moral and psychological implications of violating taboos within multi-player virtual spaces"

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2014-10-24 15:52:05 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.

the article doesn't say this

and if this line of conversation is only about bloody semantics then i will become very emotional in the thread
Wallace Trucker
State War Academy
Caldari State
#210 - 2014-10-24 15:55:29 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Brochan McLeod wrote:

chances are that if you behave like an oaf ingame ( and even defend it)... you are an oaf IRL... and i DONT mean the PvP mechanics.

^^
difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.

you realise this attitude is why we glory in carebear tears without feeling bad right.


This response concerns me. It seems you believe your pixelized character has a brain of it's own, and you have no control over it's actions. You just sign it on, and he takes off doing it's own thing. The fact is this digital character is a direct reflection of who you are. The digital character in every way is you. He reflects your morals, your thought patterns and processes, right down to your very soul. It is incapable of thinking for itself, or taking actions without YOU telling it what to do.

This is an issue that human society is going to have to deal with in the near future. Are machines, avatars, robots, or any mechanical or virtual thing responsible for their own actions? Or is the human in control of that machine responsible. (If I command my robot to murder my ex-wife...am I responsible if it does kill her?)
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#211 - 2014-10-24 15:57:54 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.

the article doesn't say this

and if this line of conversation is only about bloody semantics then i will become very emotional in the thread

i fear benny you may become very emotional in the thread
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#212 - 2014-10-24 16:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Wallace Trucker wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Brochan McLeod wrote:

chances are that if you behave like an oaf ingame ( and even defend it)... you are an oaf IRL... and i DONT mean the PvP mechanics.

^^
difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.

you realise this attitude is why we glory in carebear tears without feeling bad right.


This response concerns me. It seems you believe your pixelized character has a brain of it's own, and you have no control over it's actions. You just sign it on, and he takes off doing it's own thing. The fact is this digital character is a direct reflection of who you are. The digital character in every way is you. He reflects your morals, your thought patterns and processes, right down to your very soul. It is incapable of thinking for itself, or taking actions without YOU telling it what to do.

This is an issue that human society is going to have to deal with in the near future. Are machines, avatars, robots, or any mechanical or virtual thing responsible for their own actions? Or is the human in control of that machine responsible. (If I command my robot to murder my ex-wife...am I responsible if it does kill her?)

i just played an adventure game where i solved a puzzle involving the only two black characters in the entire trilogy of games

the first black character is an organ-grinder's monkey. the "joke" is that he actually looks like a monkey.

e: let's put "joke" in quote marks to indicate that this isn't very funny at all

after the 'job' becomes available i needed to find a new organ-grinder's monkey, so i forcibly removed the second black character from her boyfriend, tricked her into selling herself into slavery, and earned a commission for my efforts, which was the puzzle's reward

am i a bad person irl
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#213 - 2014-10-24 16:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Wallace Trucker wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Brochan McLeod wrote:

chances are that if you behave like an oaf ingame ( and even defend it)... you are an oaf IRL... and i DONT mean the PvP mechanics.

^^
difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.

you realise this attitude is why we glory in carebear tears without feeling bad right.


This response concerns me. It seems you believe your pixelized character has a brain of it's own, and you have no control over it's actions. You just sign it on, and he takes off doing it's own thing. The fact is this digital character is a direct reflection of who you are. The digital character in every way is you. He reflects your morals, your thought patterns and processes, right down to your very soul. It is incapable of thinking for itself, or taking actions without YOU telling it what to do.

This is an issue that human society is going to have to deal with in the near future. Are machines, avatars, robots, or any mechanical or virtual thing responsible for their own actions? Or is the human in control of that machine responsible. (If I command my robot to murder my ex-wife...am I responsible if it does kill her?)

^^
also has difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.
its a role (really important word that),
its make believe internet spaceship pixels,
it is in no way a reflection of anything other than how i play make believe internet spaceship pixels.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#214 - 2014-10-24 16:03:17 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Emotional_Investments.html


That was a good laugh. Next time try citing something that, you know, doesn't look like it was coded in the 90s.

Your Google-fu is weak.


Yeah cause you know, someone with a PhD in psychology wouldn't know what they're talking about and an anonymous armchair expert such as yourself would Roll


I've known dozens of stupid people with Doctorates. Just saying.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#215 - 2014-10-24 16:06:52 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.

the article doesn't say this

and if this line of conversation is only about bloody semantics then i will become very emotional in the thread

i fear benny you may become very emotional in the thread

i should have known better than to allow myself to become emotionally invested in a forum thread
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#216 - 2014-10-24 16:09:06 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
This is because in order for something to trigger an emotion in you (whether it's joy, happiness, anger, frustration, etc.) , it requires emotional investment.

However, it looks as though people are confused and want to equate emotional investment with emotional attachment.

It's possible to be emotionally invested without becoming emotionally attached.

the article doesn't say this

and if this line of conversation is only about bloody semantics then i will become very emotional in the thread

i fear benny you may become very emotional in the thread

i should have known better than to allow myself to become emotionally invested in a forum thread

you should try becoming a sociopath dude, all the cool kids are doing it.
Wallace Trucker
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2014-10-24 17:05:34 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wallace Trucker wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Brochan McLeod wrote:

chances are that if you behave like an oaf ingame ( and even defend it)... you are an oaf IRL... and i DONT mean the PvP mechanics.

^^
difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.

you realise this attitude is why we glory in carebear tears without feeling bad right.


This response concerns me. It seems you believe your pixelized character has a brain of it's own, and you have no control over it's actions. You just sign it on, and he takes off doing it's own thing. The fact is this digital character is a direct reflection of who you are. The digital character in every way is you. He reflects your morals, your thought patterns and processes, right down to your very soul. It is incapable of thinking for itself, or taking actions without YOU telling it what to do.

This is an issue that human society is going to have to deal with in the near future. Are machines, avatars, robots, or any mechanical or virtual thing responsible for their own actions? Or is the human in control of that machine responsible. (If I command my robot to murder my ex-wife...am I responsible if it does kill her?)

^^
also has difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.
its a role (really important word that),
its make believe internet spaceship pixels,
it is in no way a reflection of anything other than how i play make believe internet spaceship pixels.



just another justification for YOUR actions, or a split personality disorder. You are who you are or playing at being something your not, either way the pixels are under YOUR control and only do what YOU tell them to do. Which hopefully involve a thought process. That should include, is this action I'm about to take right or wrong.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#218 - 2014-10-24 17:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Wallace Trucker wrote:



just another justification for YOUR actions, or a split personality disorder. You are who you are or playing at being something your not,


ah, so your name is really Wallace Trucker. You are really a space ship pilot and the State War Academy is a real school. Otherwise you'd be ....playing at being something you are not.

Quote:

either way the pixels are under YOUR control and only do what YOU tell them to do. Which hopefully involve a thought process. That should include, is this action I'm about to take right or wrong.


Here is a link to right or wrong in EVE Online.


Edit, everyone, read Wallace Trucker's post 3 times, then come back here and post why we're wrong to think some of these folks (who take this stuff to seriously and who apply their real life morality to a video game) are actually crazy.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#219 - 2014-10-24 17:25:21 UTC
Wallace Trucker wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Wallace Trucker wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Brochan McLeod wrote:

chances are that if you behave like an oaf ingame ( and even defend it)... you are an oaf IRL... and i DONT mean the PvP mechanics.

^^
difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.

you realise this attitude is why we glory in carebear tears without feeling bad right.


This response concerns me. It seems you believe your pixelized character has a brain of it's own, and you have no control over it's actions. You just sign it on, and he takes off doing it's own thing. The fact is this digital character is a direct reflection of who you are. The digital character in every way is you. He reflects your morals, your thought patterns and processes, right down to your very soul. It is incapable of thinking for itself, or taking actions without YOU telling it what to do.

This is an issue that human society is going to have to deal with in the near future. Are machines, avatars, robots, or any mechanical or virtual thing responsible for their own actions? Or is the human in control of that machine responsible. (If I command my robot to murder my ex-wife...am I responsible if it does kill her?)

^^
also has difficulty disassociating real world emotional value responses from digital actions.
its a role (really important word that),
its make believe internet spaceship pixels,
it is in no way a reflection of anything other than how i play make believe internet spaceship pixels.



just another justification for YOUR actions, or a split personality disorder. You are who you are or playing at being something your not, either way the pixels are under YOUR control and only do what YOU tell them to do. Which hopefully involve a thought process. That should include, is this action I'm about to take right or wrong.

*pinches nose*

are you familiar with any of these concepts?

Role Play

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary offers a definition of role-playing as "the changing of one's behaviour to fulfill a social role", in the field of psychology, the term is used more loosely in four senses:

To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theatre, or educational setting;

To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role, often involving different genres of practice;
To refer to a wide range of games including role-playing video game, play-by-mail games and more;
To refer specifically to role-playing games.[2]

Acting

Acting is the work of an actor or actress, which is a person in theatre, television, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and, usually, speaking or singing the written text or play.


make believe

Make believe is a loosely structured form of role-playing that generally has no rules except to stay in character, and requires no specific props. It is normally restricted to young, pre-pubescent children, and aside from its straightforward purpose of fun can sometimes also serve the purpose of allowing children to explore adult roles and relationships. Make believe play can reveal a great deal about a child's psychological state, perception of gender roles, home life and interpretation of the world that is around them.

if not , you should probably remedy that.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#220 - 2014-10-24 17:34:20 UTC
Test server best server. Sorry for your loss but make an effort to find like minded people as yourself and you will be much better off.

In all seriousness mistakes on test server cost way less Smile