I couldn't resist...

[Dipps]

Also, if you do something bad just because it is easier to feel the sense of accomplishment in the end faster, well the sense will also go away faster, where as if you do something longer that is worth while, the feeling of accomplishment will also last longer, so, your choice in this case is:

* Do something quickly and get a quick sense of accomplishment which results in something bad overall

* Do something worth while and get a longer sense of accomplishment which results in something good overall

 

This is debatable to say at most. I do agree, to some extent, with the last segment.

Doing something worthwile gives you a big reward. It's not the only way to get a big accomplishment upon finishing a task, though. The happy feeling of ending a big project also distributes when finishing a difficult task (nevermind its length) and when you successfully keep up with a repetitive and exhausting action for longer periods of time (your mind resists the process). A thing that greatly decreases a reward's intensity, though, is the absence of fresh view on the process. The reason we generally don't laugh at a joke twice is because our brain already analyzed the joke, and it doesn't have much left to dissect in its search for "humour". A fitting contest or a new perspective can get another laugh out of you, as you find something else to work on. This is why you can't keep up surviving in Don't Starve forever, because even if it is after two hundred or two thousand hours, at some point, the reward will just be not enough to fulfill the grinding process you went through, losing interest in the generic gameplay.

 

This is also why me and the fellow psychomaniac you mentioned in your previous post, these days, hugely rely on pvp. Because we dried out the survival part so much, playing basic parts of it (as gaining resources) feels braindead. We already know what to do, and we probably do it in a short amount of time, but it feels like you gain nothing doing it. PVP, on the other hand, takes up a bunch of concentration. It's a competitive game, so obviously you have to keep up with the current metas or you are crushed and you always want to maximize your productivity against toptiers (kind of hard to do always, as don't starve is based on RNG). It could always use improvement, and right now PVP isn't really fair (because of wicker's fairybook), but it remains fun nonetheless.

 

Now I want to discuss the first paragraph, and the theme of this topic. While I do believe effortless griefing is despiteful, it doesn't have to do with gaining any self-accomplishment overall (dopamine does that), but rather, as Arcita nicely described it, it is to gain social attention and to leave an expression on people, which reflects back to you in a happy state (secreting doses of serotonin). Because of human's nature to want to gain more excitement, most people that are into griefing won't stop at just burning bases to get a small sense of happiness, but they will also raid the whole server and get some kills, to get a full accomplishment. This can turn into sports, what we call PvP. It's not friendly PvP, but it exists nevertheless. And we can't do much about it.

[XirmiX]

This is debatable to say at most. I do agree, to some extent, with the last segment.

Doing something worthwile gives you a big reward. It's not the only way to get a big accomplishment upon finishing a task, though. The happy feeling of ending a big project also distributes when finishing a difficult task (nevermind its length) and when you successfully keep up with a repetitive and exhausting action for longer periods of time (your mind resists the process). A thing that greatly decreases a reward's intensity, though, is the absence of fresh view on the process. The reason we generally don't laugh at a joke twice is because our brain already analyzed the joke, and it doesn't have much left to dissect in its search for "humour". A fitting contest or a new perspective can get another laugh out of you, as you find something else to work on. This is why you can't keep up surviving in Don't Starve forever, because even if it is after two hundred or two thousand hours, at some point, the reward will just be not enough to fulfill the grinding process you went through, losing interest in the generic gameplay.

This is also why me and the fellow psychomaniac you mentioned in your previous post, these days, hugely rely on pvp. Because we dried out the survival part so much, playing basic parts of it (as gaining resources) feels braindead. We already know what to do, and we probably do it in a short amount of time, but it feels like you gain nothing doing it. PVP, on the other hand, takes up a bunch of concentration. It's a competitive game, so obviously you have to keep up with the current metas or you are crushed and you always want to maximize your productivity against toptiers (kind of hard to do always, as don't starve is based on RNG). It could always use improvement, and right now PVP isn't really fair (because of wicker's fairybook), but it remains fun nonetheless.

Now I want to discuss the first paragraph, and the theme of this topic. While I do believe effortless griefing is despiteful, it doesn't have to do with gaining any self-accomplishment overall (dopamine does that), but rather, as Arcita nicely described it, it is to gain social attention and to leave an expression on people, which reflects back to you in a happy state (secreting doses of serotonin). Because of human's nature to want to gain more excitement, most people that are into griefing won't stop at just burning bases to get a small sense of happiness, but they will also raid the whole server and get some kills, to get a full accomplishment. This can turn into sports, what we call PvP. It's not friendly PvP, but it exists nevertheless. And we can't do much about it.

Ok, I agree with that, but say you kill a person for the first time and feel good about it just because it's your first time doing so, that kind of does beg the question whether you might be psychopathic. The big difference in games and reality is that in games, there's not too much of an effect for society; it's indirect. However it does show you to have a very bad attitude towards other people if you simply do a bad thing while people are trying to organise within the game. I myself don't much like promotion of competition between people. It gives a bad impression by making people wanting to be superior to others. If organised gameplay where people tend to shoot each other as players, there isn't really any competition say if you play with friends. It ia often agreed on to being a thing there just for fun of everyone involved and participating is what really makes it fun. But when people strive in a competition against each other to show themselves to be superior, that is where the negative ego arrises from. Hence why I've recently grow a dislike to games that cause mass competition, or if I do end up playing such games, I play them to gain some skill or just for fun and not for the sake of showing off and making the players who lose seem lowest of the low.

[Dipps]

Ok, I agree with that, but say you kill a person for the first time and feel good about it just because it's your first time doing so, that kind of does beg the question whether you might be psychopathic. The big difference in games and reality is that in games, there's not too much of an effect for society; it's indirect. However it does show you to have a very bad attitude towards other people if you simply do a bad thing while people are trying to organise within the game. I myself don't much like promotion of competition between people. It gives a bad impression by making people wanting to be superior to others. If organised gameplay where people tend to shoot each other as players, there isn't really any competition say if you play with friends. It ia often agreed on to being a thing there just for fun of everyone involved and participating is what really makes it fun. But when people strive in a competition against each other to show themselves to be superior, that is where the negative ego arrises from. Hence why I've recently grow a dislike to games that cause mass competition, or if I do end up playing such games, I play them to gain some skill or just for fun and not for the sake of showing off and making the players who lose seem lowest of the low.

 

Impulsive and agressive behavior is not uncommon in competitive gaming comunities, but when you think about it, it's not the competition alone that risks to trigger someone engaged in these activities a pathological behavior, but rather the fact that lots of individuals become antisocial when put in front of a lonely display for lots of hours periodically.

 

Competitivity has this disadvantage, it enhaces impulsive behaviors, and sometimes, it left uncheck, it gradually leads to social conflicts or worse (cognitive biases such as illusory superiority or dunningkrugger). If you learn or know how to control it, on the other hand, it grows you up and makes you train hard for the things you want to perform.

 

There are lots of psychological factors to consider, making it a very unfitting argument to debate over a videogame topic - and as well, neither of us have PhD, so it probably wouldn't make that good of a debate to start with. So I'm going to stop here.

 

Think about what you are saying before calling other people psychopatics, though, because a superficial analyze just won't do it. You have to mine through a lot of data and person's emotions, thing that is particulary hard to make a standpoint out of if you consider the anonimity that internet offers, making it comfortable to lie or to hide things you couldn't in real life (such as body language).

[AmyStupid]

I imagine it was fun because deep down many people get off on be being c*nts.  You obviously are one of them. They just don't do it in real life because they know they will get curb stomped. Anonymously in a game they will not. They can be c*nts all they want with little to no retaliation or recourse from the affected parties. The internet shows us much about human behavior that can't be observed in real life due the c*nts can't be c*nts quite so easily with impunity.

[XirmiX]

You also have the people that go: "Waht do you watn me to do????!"

You answer them: "We need wood, here's an axe and a shovel."

Then they follow you around like a satellite after chopping one tree.

"Les go chop wood." "No, you go, I'm going to hunt spiders." "Ok, les go for spaders."

We go for spiders.

I kill 3 spiders, he goes and hits the nest, gets rekt. I revive them.

"I hope you learned something. Now go chop wood, we need the wood."

Goes back, hits the nest, and dies again. Disconnects.

I'm going to write a book: "How to follow instructions: the movie: the game: the book".

And that's the story of why leadership doesn't work. Le end :3

[ImDaMisterL]

And that's the story of why leadership doesn't work. Le end :3

And that's the story of why kids, non-english speakers and dumb people shouldn't play cooperative online games. The end.

[XirmiX]

And that's the story of why kids, non-english speakers and dumb people shouldn't play cooperative online games. The end.

So prejudice... yet so true.

[RalphKastro]

@Arcita,Everything that guy sad. Also, Because it's Wrong, and you know it's wrong. We all love to have a guilty moment of "F*K THE ÜBER-ICH" 

[XirmiX]

I realized how important a leader is to a group. A person to constantly remind you how important your work is. A person to appraise you, to aspire you, to guide instruction to you when you just joined the server. Without a leader, people will be rebels. I have seen many anarchies fail in the public servers. This is why I took the role for sometime to be that leader. From my experience, you had to talk a lot. sacrifice your resources for your group. Constantly give commands to people, as vague as possible so the don't just stand in the camp dong nothing.

A leader steers the fate of that group.Since resource management should always be kept in check by one person , tell people what the camp needs. More ice for flingomatic? Ask someone to mine ice. More monster meat? ... People will generally volunteer to perform these tasks just to get the privilege to use the camp. If no one says a thing, then the camp will always be stale. More potatoes, less production, less food.

PS.

from experience:

I learned how to spot griefers quickly. I know labelling is a bad thing but you just know that point where a innocent person goes berserk.

Wrong. There's a big difference between being a guide and a leader. A guide shows you things of a certain aspect, be it life or otherwise, but whatever you choose to do is up to you; you're not required to do things the way the guide gives you. Leader, on the other hand gives out orders, where the disobedience of such are backed up with a threat or a punishment. When it comes to leadership, the person in charge is ought to always get their way and everyone else under the leader, suppose his subjects are below him and do things according to the interrests of the person in charge. Leaders often do certain things for the people they rule over but not because they care about their subjects, but most commonly due to preserving the trust of the subjects in the leader so that they would not come to the realization of their own subbordination.

In Don't Starve, most of the time, in co-operative games, people do not ask the host what they want them to do. I myself when join as a client rely mostly on myself, but when I do need help, I do not submit to the host as his or her subject, but merely ask for help from any player in the game, be it host or not, whoever can provide help at the time and is closer so that aid can be given after a smaller amount of time, which could potentially save some player's lives in the game.

Such type of co-operation is called anarcho socialism. You can refute it as much as you like, but the fact is that majority of the players working co-operatively use this sort of system; the means of production (resources around the world and often in bases) are owned by and used by the players collectivly. Certain items can be however be considered personal property, such as a weapon like a weather pain, in which case only then you need to ask the player who owns it if they can use it/borrow it. Structures such as machines, tents, firepits, drying racks, crockpots, ice boxes and especially farms are mainly owned by the players as a whole as well. Sometimes you could declaire a certain chest to be your own which none should use as it is your made comodity, but what you could not do is make a certain area which you do not use to be your own and yours only. For instance, say a graveyard biome; I use some part of it, but not all of it, so declaring the whole biome to be owned by me would not make it legitemately mine to own.

I kind of went off topic here, but to get back to the point; when it comes to, say relations between a newbie and an experienced player, the experienced player can give advice for the newbie in order to git gud at the game, however the newbie isn't required to do as the experienced player says so, even if the advice is pretty darn good. If for example I ask in general to the rest of the players "what do we need?" I am not submitting myself to anyone's rule, but merely wondering whether there is anything that we as a collective need that could benefit us all in the long run or somewhat, or if someone is in need of a particular something. By doing this I am not in the acceptance of someone telling me what to do; so say somebody told me to "get grass because I said so" I could get grass, but not because they told me to, or I could not get grass and perhaps tell them "do it you and don't go and boss others around". I guarantee you, I would never, in the set of mind I am in now would I ever say "I'll go get grass, leader!" merely because I was ordered to. If each person takes a job to do that would benefit them as well as the rest of the people, that would work much better than having a leader who instructs or more like dictates others what to gather. Following orders is not only proven to be overall catastrophic historically but in this game's case it is boring, annoying and very unhelpful in the long run to be dictated in DS by another player.

[DarkXero]

@XirmiX, if you could be any more dense, a black hole would have formed and consumed the earth.

[RalphKastro]

@XirmiX,Let's not? whatever philosophical and political matters you guys have to discuss, this is not the place. XirmiX, please accept that people are "wrong" once in a while, and leave these discussions for the adequate place. We have derailed too many threads with this nonsense.

[Flare2V]

I like these threads.

[ConeyKrab]

Oh sweet, another one of these?

 

Xirmix, have you heard of Ayn Rand? I think you'd have some fun with that stuff...

[XirmiX]

@DarkXero and @RalphKastro even though I did come to mentioning the name for which the way of organising things in DST is most commonly done in the game by players (Either way, jst because it's a political idea does not mean that it doesn't apply to the game. Which it does and in my post which you highly refuted I explained how it is referencing it). I was not pushing my political idea here. I was saying what is with how people most commonly do things in DST and pointing out the wrong points about leadership, whivh is true to be, for most players boring, annoying and may be even unhelpful if you're the one who is being told what to do. Telling how is does not mean I'm saying how it should be, and I did not.

What I find very suspicious is the fact that you complained about what I said here when mentioning anarcho socialism, but not when I was talking about capitalism and land ownership in the Totem pole land ownership topic (or whatever it was called). I feel that, and suspect that even if me or anyone else speaks something about other political ideas but not pushing them, but instead refferencing them to the game or about how government is good (like xXTheGentlemanScientistXx once talked about how government could solve all the problems and not to to say anythkng contrary if it included anarchism; none except me actually argued with that or pointed out to not talk about that), then that's just fine.

If I am not pushing my political idea but merely referencing it to the game, what is your problem? Are you just so anti-anarchy you get depressed by even reading the word in your own head?

So BipedalBear can talk about leadership and how it supposedly is good (which has everything to do with political ideas) whilst I can't even disprove him/her (sorry, idk) by merely referencing how most players actually organise in DST because aparently in this community word "anarchy" or anything going in that direction is apmething forbidden. How pathetic and quite hipocritical! But lets not get off topic and tell other people to not write something, just because you have a distaste to it, even though it is referrencial to the game and the topic. You have the right to make your point of view, I have the right to disprove your point. That's part of the nature of discussions. If I or anyone else pushes their beliefs or ideas, then may be that can be arguable, but in the post you showed distaste in so much, I clearly was not doing that. Since when is it bad to say how things are?

I like these threads.

No. No you don't.

[FTR]

We are a deeply social species. The most essential part of a human is to be entrenched in a complex reward system for the comprehension and indulgence of social interaction. What that means is that we need to have some sort of effect on other people, and others will inevitably have profound effects on us. We see this even when people attack inanimate objects out of rage; they do so in a mental framework of anthropomorphization; it won't do to attack a rock without attributing to it human attributes so that we can cause pain. 

 

It's wonderful to love and be loved, but the cost is a lot of time and effort. It's much easier to affect people by pouring negativity into them. People naturally are much more likely to direct their attention and respond to negativity. Want to immediately get someone's attention? Insult them. Now they are focused on you. You aroused an acute emotional response that revolves around you. You did it. You are the center, the owner of power and control in this moment, and it's delicious. 

 

tl;dr "I am lonely loser and I finally want attention of others." That's somewhat same thing what bullies do in schools, or troubled teens which decide to start gun massacre in one of america schools because their life sucks and no one cares or.. kids which throw tantrum to get their parents attention until they get their candy or game hackers which love to ruin people games and immediately become in the center of attention (hate) when they appear.

 

Therefore there should be no mercy for griefers because people like this represent worst attributes in both, virtual and real life and can only spread toxicity and negativity.

[Dipps]

@XirmiX, I suggest you stop forcing samples of other users behalf in your argumentative replies, elaborating these actions fits more status feeds and this area, whereas in topics of these kinds you should put ideas forward for consideration rather than being constantly oppositionist.

[Johnny5isAlive]

@XirmiX, can I post my projecting thing again...? I think this is far past that... we are projecting projections out of projectors.. ima just hide in the corner until it's over... 

[XirmiX]

@XirmiX, I suggest you stop forcing samples of other users behalf in your argumentative replies, elaborating these actions fits more status feeds and this area, whereas in topics of these kinds you should put ideas forward for consideration rather than being constantly oppositionist.

I am not constantly oppositionist. If I disagree with something, I write a reply as to why I disagree on it. Here, I did not disagree with what the other person said about leadership just because I hate leadership, but I was referencing it to how it applies in the game and how it does not work well in the game.

How many times do I need to tell you that I did not write here what I wrote for purposes of spreading some sort of propaganda but to explain why I disagree with that person in terms of the game.

And I don't care if you just don't want to hear about it. If it's relevant, I will make a post about it and you know for a fact that what I wrote is relevant. How about instead of complaining to me about how you hate what I write even though what I write is relevant, and the obly reason why you don't want me to write what I wrote is your mere distaste on anarchism being merely referenced, you instead make a solid reasonable argument to try and disprove my point or if you don't have that, then don't reply.

I'm not here to tell yoy what you want to hear. I'm here, in this topic to respond and discuss things to a point where they are relevant. Now how about you stop leading us off-topic pls and stay on topic?

@XirmiX, can I post my projecting thing again...? I think this is far past that... we are projecting projections out of projectors.. ima just hide in the corner until it's over...

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about, but can we please saty on topic?

[ohhaithere]

Let's speak about anarcho capitalism and bring Lysander Spooner since we are here. I got my response so we might as well speak about something else.

[Dave0522]

@ ohhaithere - Those shrooms went bad. Your madness is justified.

[RalphKastro]

I don't really care anymore about what is happening in this thread, but I just want to yell something at some of you I quickly read a couple posts back(too lazy to find who they were): CORRELATION=/=CAUSATION. Stop arguing on what causes the other based only in conjecture and show me the data.

[XirmiX]

Let's speak about anarcho capitalism and bring Lysander Spooner since we are here. I got my response so we might as well speak about something else.

Emm...

...

...

Or may be close the thread instead since you got your answer? Well, I'm boggled... Though one thing to note, I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist; I'm anarcho socialist.

...

...

[ImDaMisterL]

@XirmiX, We went from trolling to freaking POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS ONCE AGAIN!

 

I'm starting to think this is a special ability of yours. Turn a topic, no matter how un-related to politics, into a political discussion.

 

*claps*

 

I'm out of here.

[XirmiX]

@XirmiX, We went from trolling to freaking POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS ONCE AGAIN!

 

I'm starting to think this is a special ability of yours. Turn a topic, no matter how un-related to politics, into a political discussion.

 

*claps*

 

I'm out of here.

I didn't mean to do that ;-;

[ImDaMisterL]

@XirmiX, Congrats, you have no control of your super power.

We're doomed.