These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Define Carebear

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2012-11-11 03:53:46 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
Some people pretend they don't exist because they cannot be defined.

Others attribute the term to anyone doing something different to them.

A carebear is an attitude and not an action or a person. This is why mining/missions/falcon alts/station sniper/orca dockers/whatever does not magically mean carebear.

What separates a carebear attitude from a reasonable person taking precautions is the belief that you are entitled to "your activity right now". A reasonable person understands its environment and adapts to it while a carebear demands the environment bends to his ideal formed from ignorance, laziness and misinformation.

And this is exactly why PVPers can be just as much a carebear as those they use the derogatory term against.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-11-11 04:34:07 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
A reasonable person understands its environment and adapts to it while a carebear demands the environment bends to his ideal formed from ignorance, laziness and misinformation.


So if your ideal is not "formed from ignorance, laziness and misinformation", you can demand the environment bend to it without being a "carebear".
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#43 - 2012-11-11 04:34:47 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
A carebear is anyone who demands and/or expects to have no risk for their reward or consequences for their actions. PvPers can be as much a carebear as a high sec bear.


I would say that is mostly correct, but missing one element. Even a mission runner can have issues with ninjas and objective thieves (Damsel mission comes to mind), but the difference is made when they would rather demand CCP make changes instead of adapting to prevent these issues.

This is likely the very essence of the carebear, even the PVP carebear and nullbears: demanding changes in game mechanics favorable to them while they themselves want only to do things the way they have done it before or the way they want to, the latter being the most easiest way possible.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#44 - 2012-11-11 04:37:08 UTC
Flurk Hellbron wrote:
Ludi Burek wrote:
Some people pretend they don't exist because they cannot be defined.

Others attribute the term to anyone doing something different to them.

A carebear is an attitude and not an action or a person. This is why mining/missions/falcon alts/station sniper/orca dockers/whatever does not magically mean carebear.

What separates a carebear attitude from a reasonable person taking precautions is the belief that you are entitled to "your activity right now". A reasonable person understands its environment and adapts to it while a carebear demands the environment bends to his ideal formed from ignorance, laziness and misinformation.

This sums it up.................



better than I would have worded it.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
ACE McFACE
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#45 - 2012-11-11 05:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ACE McFACE
Carebear: A player who does makes ISK to spend on ships which make them more ISK (eg: Mining in a Covetor until you can buy a Hulk). Then when they have the most efficient method of gaining ISK they just collect it and spend a tiny portion of it for ammo/mining crystals.

Edit: Spelling

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-11-11 05:56:50 UTC
A risk-averse player in a spaceship game about shooting spaceships.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Bunnie Hop
Bunny Knights
#47 - 2012-11-11 05:57:43 UTC
Yawn, exciting stuff here.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#48 - 2012-11-11 06:10:57 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Real World Example:
If you ask certain people what a [N-word] is, they will say it's a person of color. If you ask a person of color if they're a [N-word], they will tell you no, they're not a [N-word]. Ergo, the [N-word] isn't a noun/object/person. Instead the N-word is the belief that [N-words] exist.


Chris Rock would like a word with you.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-11-11 06:15:31 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
A risk-averse player in a spaceship game about shooting spaceships.


What a game is about is entirely up to the player, but within the genre of the game - a sandbox space game might be about exploration to another player, and about shooting ships to you, but it can't be about any one thing specifically to everyone. That would make for poor intertextuality. See above for the definition applying to attitude instead of specific players. That's the one that makes the most sense, and probably applies. I tend to find that a lot of Goons are risk-averse themselves - every extra ship in the blob reduces risk, and we all know how Goons enjoy a good blob. Does that define you as carebears? Because of your aversion to risk and hence never engaging in combat unless you outnumber and outgun your foes? I don't think it does, but the way you are defining it means it does.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-11-11 06:20:05 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
A risk-averse player in a spaceship game about shooting spaceships.


What a game is about is entirely up to the player, but within the genre of the game - a sandbox space game might be about exploration to another player, and about shooting ships to you, but it can't be about any one thing specifically to everyone. That would make for poor intertextuality. See above for the definition applying to attitude instead of specific players. That's the one that makes the most sense, and probably applies. I tend to find that a lot of Goons are risk-averse themselves - every extra ship in the blob reduces risk, and we all know how Goons enjoy a good blob. Does that define you as carebears? Because of your aversion to risk and hence never engaging in combat unless you outnumber and outgun your foes? I don't think it does, but the way you are defining it means it does.


Not really. If people stopped blowing up other people's ships, it would ruin more aspects of the game than just shooting ships. Goons take as many risks as any other person that isn't risk-averse, people choose to only see the blobs.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-11-11 06:22:23 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
A risk-averse player in a spaceship game about shooting spaceships.


What a game is about is entirely up to the player, but within the genre of the game - a sandbox space game might be about exploration to another player, and about shooting ships to you, but it can't be about any one thing specifically to everyone. That would make for poor intertextuality. See above for the definition applying to attitude instead of specific players. That's the one that makes the most sense, and probably applies. I tend to find that a lot of Goons are risk-averse themselves - every extra ship in the blob reduces risk, and we all know how Goons enjoy a good blob. Does that define you as carebears? Because of your aversion to risk and hence never engaging in combat unless you outnumber and outgun your foes? I don't think it does, but the way you are defining it means it does.


Not really. If people stopped blowing up other people's ships, it would ruin more aspects of the game than just shooting ships. Goons take as many risks as any other person that isn't risk-averse, people choose to only see the blobs.


I'm sure they do, but when you're in a blob you reduce the risk - therefore, you have to be more specific about risk aversion. Hence why I directed you to the post above regarding attitude.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-11-11 06:25:22 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I'm sure they do, but when you're in a blob you reduce the risk - therefore, you have to be more specific about risk aversion. Hence why I directed you to the post above regarding attitude.


Why would we take less people to a fight if the goal is to take over a system? That just wouldn't make any sense.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#53 - 2012-11-11 06:31:20 UTC
I like this thread, it's gotten very philosophical. I just apply the term loosely to whoever I catch doing what I would consider "carebear stuff". You can poke all sorts of holes in my logic or whatever, but in the end it's like pornography, you know it when you see it.

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-11-11 06:37:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I'm sure they do, but when you're in a blob you reduce the risk - therefore, you have to be more specific about risk aversion. Hence why I directed you to the post above regarding attitude.


Why would we take less people to a fight if the goal is to take over a system? That just wouldn't make any sense.


I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm saying that by BEING in a blob you reduce the inherent risk by increasing your firepower and tactical options - increasing survivability and increasing your chances of victory BY reducing the inherent risk. This is, by definition, both risk-reduction and risk-aversion. And we all know Goons don't just blob to take over systems. I'm sure many of you are capable of a 1v1 duel on equal footing, and I'm not saying that the blob is a bad thing. But, by its very nature, it is a tactic used to increase survivability and reduce risk.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2012-11-11 06:45:44 UTC
A care bear in eve is someone that avoids all forums of pvp no matter where they live at in eve.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#56 - 2012-11-11 06:57:52 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I'm sure they do, but when you're in a blob you reduce the risk - therefore, you have to be more specific about risk aversion. Hence why I directed you to the post above regarding attitude.


Why would we take less people to a fight if the goal is to take over a system? That just wouldn't make any sense.


Yeah, seems silly to me too Mallak. Goes along with the "shooting defenseless people is cowardly" reasoning. It's like, okay so shooting barges is cowardly, but shooting someone who out-guns me is obviously stupid, so we're left with this grey area between completely defenseless and equally matched. But then if it's a new player, or their ship was fit without PVP combat in mind, then it's still unfairly picking on "people who can't defend themselves". So, to maintain your ~e-honor~ you must inquire: "Ah, excuse me, if you don't mind, might I have your fit? I am planning on engaging you later without your knowledge or consent and wanted to make sure you can properly defend yourself against me. :)"
Tsun Tsu rolls in his grave!

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#57 - 2012-11-11 06:58:04 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
A carebear is anyone who demands and/or expects to have no risk for their reward or consequences for their actions. PvPers can be as much a carebear as a high sec bear.


More so I think, given their predilection for arranging PvP so they cannot possibly lose. PvPers tend to actively avoid risk; in fact, it is their primary objective by all appearances.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2012-11-11 06:58:05 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
A care bear in eve is someone that avoids all forums of pvp no matter where they live at in eve.


As I've learned over the past few weeks on these forums, it is virtually impossible to avoid all forms of PvP in this game. By this definition, there are no carebears.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-11-11 07:02:07 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I'm sure they do, but when you're in a blob you reduce the risk - therefore, you have to be more specific about risk aversion. Hence why I directed you to the post above regarding attitude.


Why would we take less people to a fight if the goal is to take over a system? That just wouldn't make any sense.


I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm saying that by BEING in a blob you reduce the inherent risk by increasing your firepower and tactical options - increasing survivability and increasing your chances of victory BY reducing the inherent risk. This is, by definition, both risk-reduction and risk-aversion. And we all know Goons don't just blob to take over systems. I'm sure many of you are capable of a 1v1 duel on equal footing, and I'm not saying that the blob is a bad thing. But, by its very nature, it is a tactic used to increase survivability and reduce risk.


Except in EVE there is a counter to blobs. It's just easier for people to complain about them instead of actually countering them.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#60 - 2012-11-11 07:04:15 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Except in EVE there is a counter to blobs. It's just easier for people to complain about them instead of actually countering them.

You must become one with the darkness.

Darkness is blue.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?