Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Seriphyn on 04 Sep 2013, 11:01
-
Now with less flamebait hopefully (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bOquhnHitU&feature=youtu.be)
-
50% of this video is talking about your previous video getting shitcanned and why you think that was a bad idea.
I have a legitimate question for you here. Why do you think that posting these things in video format is a good idea? I am not entirely clear on your reasoning. I am not sure what the addition of an audio-visual element is doing to aid your arguement.
-
Not as good of a shirt this time. You look like an orange flavored push-pop.
... that came out wrong.
Wait. You said my name. I just heard my name. I'll reply properly in a moment.
Okay, so some people thought I was posting flamebait... or something? I don't know. I pretty blatantly told you I wanted to talk to you on teamspeak. Don't know what's bait about that.
Why do we target one individual? I am not the community, nor do I say what I say because everybody else is saying it. I have very personal reasons to strongly dislike Vea. I also have my reasons to dislike you. I'm not saying what I say because somebody else is telling me I should. I'm saying it because I believe it.
-
Tibby said it just as I was writing it. I had stopped cause I was writing it before I had even started to listen.
Why are you doing this?
But... meh.
Let's lay it out simply.
Humans are social animals. Back to your a or b or c -- you can not say there is either no equal distribution of blame or 'slightly leaned one way or another' because that is in essense "only answer a".
It doesn't matter how complicated a, in fact, is -- it still is only one answer, and the truth of it is in different situations there are always different answers.
As you have pulled this into a more general question and not a "why me" (for the record I want to point out that I knew pretty close to zero about anything going on until you brought it up -- if there is some secret community meetings going on I have missed them. This may open your eyes a little but as you're pointing into some black hole and saying 'the Community' -- which one, exactly? I know of at least 3-4 different ones in EVE who RP who do not interact with one another)
If a person's social behaviors deviate too far out of the norm of a society they will have issues fitting into said society. This applies from highbrow cocktail parties to us sitting around roleplaying highbrow cocktail parties in a spaceship game.
Who's fault is that?
*shrugs*
One can blame the person for deviating, the group for not being accepting of the deviation or all of them for being human, but ultimately just a judgement call could only be made from outside of the group. In the meantime I'm still reeling from this RL 'lore dump' in general.
-
The story is always the same, the supposed 'victims' generally have a habit of repeatedly abusing the group's good graces, demanding attention, seeming to enjoy the drama storms with them at the center, and the always fantastic 'victim card,' which there seem to be unlimited supplies in decks these days.
People don't collectively shit on random people for no reason. 99% of the time, and I'm really scratching my head looking for instances where this isn't the case, the RP 'victim' has done their absolute best effort, repeatedly, to receive any treatment they get.
-
I have a legitimate question for you here. Why do you think that posting these things in video format is a good idea? I am not entirely clear on your reasoning. I am not sure what the addition of an audio-visual element is doing to aid your arguement.
It might not be adding to the argument per se, but textual communication leaves out a lot of information that is conveyed by voice and visual stimuli.
I see and hear someone struggling to sort the issues out between himself and the community here. Maybe Seriphyn is not overly good at it, but that's just one more reason not to cut away two channels of communitcation there. I have the feeling he tries to put in some effort there and I can appreciate that effort.
More than making an argumant, I feel he struggles to express questions, to get into contact on a human(e) level. I can appreciate that, too. I don't see an intention to flame-bait, though I can see why what Seri wrote came off to some as fame-bait.
I agree that this community singles oftentimes individuals out. It is human nature. I agree with Seri that it being human nature doesn't make it right or acceptable, though. Sometimes it's more the fault of the individual sometimes it's more the fault of the community and sometimes of people leading the community and the community following. In most cases it's a a case of communication not working out, of - oftentimes - unfortunate misunderstandings.
That's why I don't like blaming either the community or the individual in question.
-
Name names!
Name naaaaames!
-
You want something out of playing Seriphyn that neither the character, nor the characters, nor people interacting with him are going to give you. Your attempts to squeeze it out of them anyway are, if not actually obsessive, at least irritating to the people you're spending your time with.
I think you'd benefit from being someone else for a while, preferably radically different from Seriphyn-c and Seriphyn-p.
So, burn the character, and piss on the ashes. I've tried it, it's very relaxing.
-
The story is always the same, the supposed 'victims' generally have a habit of repeatedly abusing the group's good graces, demanding attention, seeming to enjoy the drama storms with them at the center, and the always fantastic 'victim card,' which there seem to be unlimited supplies in decks these days.
People don't collectively shit on random people for no reason. 99% of the time, and I'm really scratching my head looking for instances where this isn't the case, the RP 'victim' has done their absolute best effort, repeatedly, to receive any treatment they get.
Well thank you then.
I will stop abusing your good graces and hope you didn't mind my attention whoring all these years. :roll:
People usually have a hard time admitting that something is wrong, until they eventually find themselves in the same situation. That's what I would call privilege.
Attention whoring suddenly becomes more akin to a legitimate complaint that nobody even tries to hear.
And yes, that does rarely happen for no reason. From experience most of the time it's one of those :
- Novice RPer not doing very well and getting stomped by the community.
- Godmodding/Silly RPer getting in the way.
- Different tastes for RP that are not a majority.
- IC/OOC bleedovers.
The last two ones are the ones that have always concerned me the most. Some types of RP are not well received in the community.
But in a strictly IC manner, I have seen countless threads for feedback here on backstage of players that suddenly find their characters "stuck in a corner" because of IC consequences. These are the most common since in a setting like Eve, these consequences are completely magnified and can quickly make a character unplayable or condemned ICly for X or Y reasons. Also, it has happened to pretty much every type of player I have seen, be it the famous one, or the infamous or unliked one.
That way I don't think that RP and IC actions in themselves are the root of the problem. It mostly stems from OOC social interaction that you will find anywhere else, with or without RP. Where it gets complicated is that these issues can arise from IC stuff as well as OOC stuff. Since a lot of people are unable to comply to the almighty golden rule of IC/OOC separation, drama can ensue.
But anyway, victims can arise from anything, and I have already witnessed a certain number of cases where the player was just getting OOC fire just because something he did ICly ruffled some feathers. I have seen it in others, and I have also faced it myself - and laughed it off since the case was mostly isolated, but it becomes trickier when the "aggressor" is "famous" or well placed among a certain circle of friends where you can quickly get a forged reputation quite different for what really is.
I have also seen people literally cast away, either by themselves, or either by the "community" just because they happened to hold different OOC opinions on various things. OOC opinions that were not really irreconcilable and that were, really, like saying "I do not see it that way, but we all share the same passion and similar interests through a video game". It can be anything, really, just too or more people not getting along in the first place, where one of them will have friends ready to jump to his/her rescue and roflstomp the other one. It can also be conflicts of interpretation around RP, or just different ways of imagining the setting. It of course leads to debates or discussions, and then most of the time, one or both players will feel literally threatened by the views of the other one.
So no, that "blaming the victim" syndrome is rather annoying.
-
I like you just fine, Lyn :P
*takes back victim card for someone else*
:)
-
But anyway, victims can arise from anything, and I have already witnessed a certain number of cases where the player was just getting OOC fire just because something he did ICly ruffled some feathers. I have seen it in others, and I have also faced it myself - and laughed it off since the case was mostly isolated, but it becomes trickier when the "aggressor" is "famous" or well placed among a certain circle of friends where you can quickly get a forged reputation quite different for what really is.
I have also seen people literally cast away, either by themselves, or either by the "community" just because they happened to hold different OOC opinions on various things. OOC opinions that were not really irreconcilable and that were, really, like saying "I do not see it that way, but we all share the same passion and similar interests through a video game". It can be anything, really, just too or more people not getting along in the first place, where one of them will have friends ready to jump to his/her rescue and roflstomp the other one. It can also be conflicts of interpretation around RP, or just different ways of imagining the setting. It of course leads to debates or discussions, and then most of the time, one or both players will feel literally threatened by the views of the other one.
So no, that "blaming the victim" syndrome is rather annoying.
It might be annoying to have groups fight each other and popularity contests determine the results of who is right and wrong. It might be annoying to have people blame the losers of those fights, who almost invariably end up beaten down enough to look like a victim. It might be annoying, but that's sociology for you.
We've had this thread before. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5134.msg82940#msg82940)
I think you are tending to use the word "victim" quite honestly and literally. You seem to actually see them as (innocent?) victims, rather than contributors to the situations they've found themselves in. At least, that's what the word implies.
Seriphyn has guts. He's got cahoonas. He's got testicular fortitude. He stands up and says what he believs and doesn't back down from it. This is a good thing, but it also makes him a target for those who fancy themselves his rivals. When somebody confident and intelligent stands up for what they believe in, they are going to find those who disagree, and one of those two sides is going to win the ensuring battle for dominance. In this case, Seriphyn seems to have 'lost'. While I don't agree with some of the posts in his first thread that were kicking him on the ground, I think rushing to his defense ignores the fact that he - as an active and healthy participant of social interactions - willingly stepped into the arena, so to speak.
I don't expect I'll be able to convince you that Seriphyn, as the context of this thread, freely admits that he has made mistakes and fuckups that lead to where he is. Of course, many of us in the 'community' including myself also freely admit that our (or at least my own) reactions are not entirely reasonable or well founded in every case. Again, human nature. Sociology.
Yes, we say things that are unfair, we do things that are unfair. Yes I've attacked Seriphyn, and I've admitted my wrongdoing in that to him and do make an effort to look past it.
Does that mean my dislike of him is unfounded? No.
Does that in turn mean I shouldn't try (or are not trying) to work past it? Not at all.
All this black and white talk is precisely what Seriphyn is trying to get across in his videos as false. We are all at fault for what's going on, because we're all humans with human failings. At least those of us who participate in whatever situation is going on.
-
Back on topic in the case of Seri, I am still struggling to understand what makes everything he explains so quickly censured. Either in the character, or either the player. I have listened to both videos, and read most of his threads. Some sure sound a little like attention-seeking. It surely detracts on the real message.
However, I have heard several critics addressed on various places and am still trying to understand, but eventually fail every time I try.
1) Seriphyn is a womanizer. He was the first time I interacted ICly with him, but since then, I have not seen that for years. Maybe have I missed every single instance of it, it's not like i'm here all the day though. Anyway, how is a womanizer prick worse than a lot of characters around there ? It sounds pretty harmless to me in comparison of the horrendous things one can hear/read at times, coming from perfectly valid characters
2) Seriphyn is egotistical/self entitled. Oh dear, he is far from being the only one. Quite harmless compared to some truly egotistical capsuleers. Heh... Capsuleers.
3) Seri the player can not handle the consequences for the actions of his character. I am not sure that I have seen him complaining that his character is hated. At best, he might have asked for feedback, but again maybe I missed something. Most of the time, it's complaining about the community or OOC issues. All the recent posts that were quickly catacombed were not complaining of the status of Seriphyn the character in Eve. When the player behind asks for that, it seems to me that he is asking for feedback. There is a huge difference in tone between the finger pointing at OOC issues and the community, and the quiet need for feedback for a character that understandably is probably in a hard situation to play without signing a RP death warrant.
-
We've had this thread before. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5134.msg82940#msg82940)
etc
No, that's not what I said. Seri has his wrongs as a player, like most of us. I'm not privy of everything and if I have to repeat it for the 10th time, I have probably missed some things, especially what seems to have ruffled a lot of people off when he started a few years ago. I just happen to think that I have honestly a hard time to understand what is wrong at the time being, now.
And the gripe I have with your view on the matter is that you seem to be perfectly fine with that state of things (as in your link). I hope not that you find yourself someday in the same situation. It would be quite ironic.
-
And the gripe I have with your view on the matter is that you seem to be perfectly fine with that state of things. I hope not that you find yourself someday in the same situation. It would be quite ironic.
I grew up in that situation, Lyn. I was the black sheep of not only school, but my family too. This is how I learned how to survive it. By embracing it. I learned how to fight back and play those social games to win.
Nice try appealing to pathos though.
Also, I edited my post that you quoted a few times. May want to give it another read.
-
That is exactly what I said, you only comforted me further in what I find disgusting, so I will try to answer it most plainly.
Growing up does not mean in my book to actually contribute to the issue by taking part of it, and thus being fine with it. Maybe eventually that's the safest way to survive, of course, and I understand what made you say that though, but I strongly disagree, because i'm a righteous prick that has always been unable to understand the lack of principles and self discipline in most people, and that's my main obnoxious flaw, and doubled by the fact that i'm quite proud of it and wouldn't even like to change it, whatever offered in compensation. So yes, I care too much and sound like an arrogant lecturer.
Anyway, I thought I had a lot to say on the matter but this actually sums it up nicely to my eyes.
tl;dr : the bolded part
Edit : after it hit me just like that, I think I am like Havojeh did before starting to make a fuss in an over-exagerated fashion. Especially since I am using the occasion to point fingers at the moderation, with which I am in deep disagreement atm. I may step back from the discussion and get a breath somewhere, sorry.
-
Seri, can I ask, what is it you want exactly from the community at large (if there is such a thing)? What is the purpose at this?
I know you want your character to be a Byronic Hero, which is great and all, but self-destructive manner and social pariahdom is like the ending arch of the Byronic Hero. It aint for the faint of heart, and becoming a social outcast is part of the role.
I'm kinda outside of all of the drama, hell Im outside of the game really, but I've always gotten the vibe that you get angry for people for not liking people Seri IC, judging that it has to be based on nebulous OOC reasons. Which can get annoying to players who try to base their actions based on IC reasons.
Like, Gottii formed his view of Seri IC when they were in ReAw together. Seri said not two words to him, though he pestered the female members of the corp to the point of distraction. He rarely if ever joined up in any EM combat fleets, though styled himself an elite soldier and a general later in his career, which didnt win him points in a Brutor warrior's worldview. From all of this Gottii took with him a negative view of Seri, if he thought of him at all, pretty much based totally on IC interactions. Being told that my viewpoint its somehow an OOC conspiracy or irrational is, again, kinda irritating.
I guess what Im asking, is, really, what do you want to happen with all of this? What do you want from the community and your character youre not getting?
-
That is exactly what I said, you only comforted me further in what I find disgusting, so I will try to answer it most plainly.
Growing up does not mean in my book to actually contribute to the issue by taking part of it, and thus being fine with it. Maybe eventually that's the safest way to survive, of course, and I understand what made you say that though, but I strongly disagree, because i'm a righteous prick that has always been unable to understand the lack of principles and self discipline in most people, and that's my main obnoxious flaw, and doubled by the fact that i'm quite proud of it and wouldn't even like to change it, whatever offered in compensation. So yes, I care too much and sound like an arrogant lecturer.
Anyway, I thought I had a lot to say on the matter but this actually sums it up nicely to my eyes.
tl;dr : the bolded part
Let me point out that I don't horribly abuse people, or curbstomp them every time I get the chance. If you got to know me, you might be surprised to find I'm not a sociopathic maniac looking to climb over the dead reputations of my defeated foes.
I grew up as the victim of social dynamics because I didn't understand how they work and how to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes. I'm not advocating social lynch mobs and beating sessions. I'm not even advocating the kind of dogpiling we've seen the last few days. I am simply saying that if you don't recognize and learn how to play the social 'game', you're going to get trampled by it. Surely even you agree with that?
I'll point out that you're playing the same social game as I am. Your posts, your actions, your threads. Everything you say, every debate you take part in, every time you try to swing a group of people to your point of view - you're playing it. You're attempting to thrive in the same dog-eat-dog world we're all stuck in. You have your methods, I have mine.
-
I read and watched it all, now I am very sad for a variety of reasons.
To the Community: Whether he asked for it or not things can be said with an aim to help or hurt. I admit I haven't always been innocent in this regard myself. But the level of vitriol leveled against Seri in this and the associated threads troubles me.
To Seri: Remember young man its a game. You have invested a great deal into and to be honest it shows. It doesn't matter if the community is right or wrong, or whether they are being fair or not. I think its reached the point for you that participation may not be healthy. I personally hope you find a way.
-
Let me point out that I don't horribly abuse people, or curbstomp them every time I get the chance.
This is true, people are confusing you with me.
-
Back on topic in the case of Seri, I am still struggling to understand what makes everything he explains so quickly censured. Either in the character, or either the player. I have listened to both videos, and read most of his threads. Some sure sound a little like attention-seeking. It surely detracts on the real message.
However, I have heard several critics addressed on various places and am still trying to understand, but eventually fail every time I try.
1) Seriphyn is a womanizer. He was the first time I interacted ICly with him, but since then, I have not seen that for years. Maybe have I missed every single instance of it, it's not like i'm here all the day though. Anyway, how is a womanizer prick worse than a lot of characters around there ? It sounds pretty harmless to me in comparison of the horrendous things one can hear/read at times, coming from perfectly valid characters
2) Seriphyn is egotistical/self entitled. Oh dear, he is far from being the only one. Quite harmless compared to some truly egotistical capsuleers. Heh... Capsuleers.
3) Seri the player can not handle the consequences for the actions of his character. I am not sure that I have seen him complaining that his character is hated. At best, he might have asked for feedback, but again maybe I missed something. Most of the time, it's complaining about the community or OOC issues. All the recent posts that were quickly catacombed were not complaining of the status of Seriphyn the character in Eve. When the player behind asks for that, it seems to me that he is asking for feedback. There is a huge difference in tone between the finger pointing at OOC issues and the community, and the quiet need for feedback for a character that understandably is probably in a hard situation to play without signing a RP death warrant.
Just on the first one, and I'm speaking from somewhat outdated experience, but I would say that yeah - Seriphyn as a character does hit on female characters. It happened with Jianni once back in the day. The key part of that phrase is that it happened once under particular circumstances. He was rebuked (after much consideration), and they both moved on and had a professional working and social relationship for a long time after that.
So what if he hits on women? People do that. It's normal. It's human.
The fact that the character knew when to back off when in the right state of mind at the end of the day is more a virtue than a detriment. The fact that it happened in the first place, regardless of outcome, is realism at its finest.
I've noticed, since my return, the greater influence of character pressures trying to create some sort of standard for base characterisation and interaction. Things are very easily attacked IC for reasons that make sense more from an OOC standpoint or from simple boredom of a player not wanting to bother with something even though they should maybe be a little concerned about it.
When there are pressures, people react to it. This is just one of the ways in which it is done.
-
No flamebait in this OP that I could see. Good job.
Not going to bother with most of this, but here's the biggest reason Seri-mun still gets shit over Seri being a womanizer: when Seri would get rebuffed, especially after his IC reputation began to precede him, Seri-mun would come out with this woe is me attitude complaining that he couldn't get any play and accusing all sorts of people about hating him unfairly OOC. In the beginning this was almost completely unfounded and over time as the complaining continued a lot of people got tired of trying to offer him actual good advice and/or insight and having his responses range from "you hate meh :(" to "yeah well that's just, like, your opinion man." So yeah, people began disliking the mun as well as the character OR just the mun. His inability over the years to not take IC negative responses as OOC hate has earned him an OOC reputation as a crybaby and an attention seeker with seemingly low self-esteem that is thinly masked by arrogance. This has typically exhibited in just the sort of antics of the last couple of days, now with more YouTube.
If he'd actually take some of the advice offered to him instead of saying it's "the community, not me" I think he'd start to see better results. The difference between him and others who have sought feedback on their toons/RP is that others generally accepted the feedback, made adjustments and benefitted where Seri-mun has ignored everything that he didn't want to hear, continued doing the same things and continued whining about how everyone is out to get him.
Here's to hoping it might be different this time.
I made it through this whole post without cussing, so... shit.
-
Well, as the resident [tongue-in-cheek] sociopathic maniac with no empathy [/tic], let me offer some advice.
Seri, you need to learn to tell people, in your head, to fuck off. I don't mean to their face, I don't mean going around being rude - those things cost you in the long run. Just teach yourself not to care.
Because it is obvious that you do care. Yet, wanting people to like you is a weakness that they will jump on like sharks to bleeding prey. It's an admission that, to you, what you want is less important than what they think. And, trust me, you can't make even half the people happy. Attempting to get sympathy after you've essentially hung up the "free food here" sign is not going to do you any good - it merely gives them time for another run-by and bite.
So, here's what you do. You don't wander up to the RP bar and ask for a seat. You walk up, grab a seat, shove everyone's shit out of your way, and say what you are going to do. Then, when someone whines about it, you murder the ever-loving shit out of their character on the forums, blow up their spaceships (either win for real or spin it), and don't even hint at niceness or mercy. Sell their corpses on the IGS. Be a murderous hobo with a spaceship. And if people get upset in OOC, you simply lean back in your chair, think about all the times they've attacked you, and bullshit them. A little anger goes a long way.
You are a goddamn motherfucking capsuleer. You drive ships the size of mountains through vacuum, spilling screaming bodies into space as your blasters shred hull and armor. Your character is a raving lunatic in a metal can, an engine of death that thinks he has human tendencies. Borrow a little of that for your meatspace thinking, and you'll be a lot better off.
And then, if people don't like your character, you can just shoot them until they do. :-P
...Or you could try figuring out all the things about you that make people unhappy, but that often ends with you trimming out everything that's interesting or unique. So, you know, good luck!
-
Seri, in your own words you chose to play a character who is difficult to like. I've said before, and will again, that you have succeeded most excellently in that attempt. The Byronic Hero... Shall we define that concept?
"He knew himself a villain—but he deem'd
The rest no better than the thing he seem'd;
And scorn'd the best as hypocrites who hid
Those deeds the bolder spirit plainly did.
He knew himself detested, but he knew
The hearts that loath'd him, crouch'd and dreaded too.
Lone, wild, and strange, he stood alike exempt
From all affection and from all contempt."
Even from the most positive interpretation of that, you have a character that many are simply not going to want to be around. Look at some of the words - detested, loathed, villain...
But where you've really gone wrong is that the Byronic Hero is supposed to be exempt from both affection and loathing. He's not supposed to care one way or the other how people who are unimportant to him feel - and my impression is that you've never successfully carried that angle off.
Those are general comments. If I can speak personally for a moment, I've always felt that you set up a character that my own would detest on sight and on principle. You've earned the ire of at least two people that he cherishes and you play a character who could be the Ur-pattern of the Gallente blowhard. All my hate for Seriphyn is OOC - I contacted you OOC to discuss ways that we could interact to modify this and you were supremely disinterested. I've constantly tried to remind you that I hold no OOC grudge - the best intelligence I have on the matter suggests you flat out consider me a liar.
The 'greater community' is largely an illusion. It's a crazy paving of individuals and cliques. Based on your treatment of me as an individual and Seri's irrelevance within the cliques Pieter is active in, how have I short-changed you?
And, once again, the offer is open. If you want to change the dynamic between our characters, drop me an Evemail.
-
If someone comes into a public space filled with strangers and starts shouting about all their first world problems like everyone else needs to care, would it be unfair or poor form if someone eventually says, "Good sir, could you please shut up because everyone here also has their own problems in life," to them?
In much the same way, complaining and whining on the internet is a good way to generate antagonism because everyone still has their own problems except there isn't the same degree of expected politeness as might be said to exist in the real world.
-
That is exactly what I said, you only comforted me further in what I find disgusting, so I will try to answer it most plainly.
Growing up does not mean in my book to actually contribute to the issue by taking part of it, and thus being fine with it. Maybe eventually that's the safest way to survive, of course, and I understand what made you say that though, but I strongly disagree, because i'm a righteous prick that has always been unable to understand the lack of principles and self discipline in most people, and that's my main obnoxious flaw, and doubled by the fact that i'm quite proud of it and wouldn't even like to change it, whatever offered in compensation. So yes, I care too much and sound like an arrogant lecturer.
Anyway, I thought I had a lot to say on the matter but this actually sums it up nicely to my eyes.
tl;dr : the bolded part
Let me point out that I don't horribly abuse people, or curbstomp them every time I get the chance. If you got to know me, you might be surprised to find I'm not a sociopathic maniac looking to climb over the dead reputations of my defeated foes.
I grew up as the victim of social dynamics because I didn't understand how they work and how to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes. I'm not advocating social lynch mobs and beating sessions. I'm not even advocating the kind of dogpiling we've seen the last few days. I am simply saying that if you don't recognize and learn how to play the social 'game', you're going to get trampled by it. Surely even you agree with that?
I'll point out that you're playing the same social game as I am. Your posts, your actions, your threads. Everything you say, every debate you take part in, every time you try to swing a group of people to your point of view - you're playing it. You're attempting to thrive in the same dog-eat-dog world we're all stuck in. You have your methods, I have mine.
I know you are not. As said somewhere else by somebody else individuals in themselves are all nice and mature, especially in this community (one of the best). The real beast is the group, the mob.
Really, I only reacted so vehemently just because of all the crazy answers that dogpiled on this forum. And also because it hints a lot at a greater problem.
And yes, I got to play by the same social rules, but I never hide that I despise them.
Back on topic in the case of Seri, I am still struggling to understand what makes everything he explains so quickly censured. Either in the character, or either the player. I have listened to both videos, and read most of his threads. Some sure sound a little like attention-seeking. It surely detracts on the real message.
However, I have heard several critics addressed on various places and am still trying to understand, but eventually fail every time I try.
1) Seriphyn is a womanizer. He was the first time I interacted ICly with him, but since then, I have not seen that for years. Maybe have I missed every single instance of it, it's not like i'm here all the day though. Anyway, how is a womanizer prick worse than a lot of characters around there ? It sounds pretty harmless to me in comparison of the horrendous things one can hear/read at times, coming from perfectly valid characters
2) Seriphyn is egotistical/self entitled. Oh dear, he is far from being the only one. Quite harmless compared to some truly egotistical capsuleers. Heh... Capsuleers.
3) Seri the player can not handle the consequences for the actions of his character. I am not sure that I have seen him complaining that his character is hated. At best, he might have asked for feedback, but again maybe I missed something. Most of the time, it's complaining about the community or OOC issues. All the recent posts that were quickly catacombed were not complaining of the status of Seriphyn the character in Eve. When the player behind asks for that, it seems to me that he is asking for feedback. There is a huge difference in tone between the finger pointing at OOC issues and the community, and the quiet need for feedback for a character that understandably is probably in a hard situation to play without signing a RP death warrant.
Just on the first one, and I'm speaking from somewhat outdated experience, but I would say that yeah - Seriphyn as a character does hit on female characters. It happened with Jianni once back in the day. The key part of that phrase is that it happened once under particular circumstances. He was rebuked (after much consideration), and they both moved on and had a professional working and social relationship for a long time after that.
So what if he hits on women? People do that. It's normal. It's human.
The fact that the character knew when to back off when in the right state of mind at the end of the day is more a virtue than a detriment. The fact that it happened in the first place, regardless of outcome, is realism at its finest.
I've noticed, since my return, the greater influence of character pressures trying to create some sort of standard for base characterisation and interaction. Things are very easily attacked IC for reasons that make sense more from an OOC standpoint or from simple boredom of a player not wanting to bother with something even though they should maybe be a little concerned about it.
When there are pressures, people react to it. This is just one of the ways in which it is done.
I see but i'm not sure to see what you are refering to in the bolded paragraph (emphasis mine) ?
No flamebait in this OP that I could see. Good job.
Not going to bother with most of this, but here's the biggest reason Seri-mun still gets shit over Seri being a womanizer: when Seri would get rebuffed, especially after his IC reputation began to precede him, Seri-mun would come out with this woe is me attitude complaining that he couldn't get any play and accusing all sorts of people about hating him unfairly OOC. In the beginning this was almost completely unfounded and over time as the complaining continued a lot of people got tired of trying to offer him actual good advice and/or insight and having his responses range from "you hate meh :(" to "yeah well that's just, like, your opinion man." So yeah, people began disliking the mun as well as the character OR just the mun. His inability over the years to not take IC negative responses as OOC hate has earned him an OOC reputation as a crybaby and an attention seeker with seemingly low self-esteem that is thinly masked by arrogance. This has typically exhibited in just the sort of antics of the last couple of days, now with more YouTube.
If he'd actually take some of the advice offered to him instead of saying it's "the community, not me" I think he'd start to see better results. The difference between him and others who have sought feedback on their toons/RP is that others generally accepted the feedback, made adjustments and benefitted where Seri-mun has ignored everything that he didn't want to hear, continued doing the same things and continued whining about how everyone is out to get him.
Here's to hoping it might be different this time.
I made it through this whole post without cussing, so... shit.
I understand, but at first glance I thought Seri reacted like that actually because of the people being assholes with him. You tell me the opposite.
I suspect it is a bit of both in the end.
But that does not really excuse what he has to go through and how people actually can be assholes. vOv
If someone comes into a public space filled with strangers and starts shouting about all their first world problems like everyone else needs to care, would it be unfair or poor form if someone eventually says, "Good sir, could you please shut up because everyone here also has their own problems in life," to them?
In much the same way, complaining and whining on the internet is a good way to generate antagonism because everyone still has their own problems except there isn't the same degree of expected politeness as might be said to exist in the real world.
So, we are all complete strangers to each other our problems do not concern each other at all ?
-
If someone comes into a public space filled with strangers and starts shouting about all their first world problems like everyone else needs to care, would it be unfair or poor form if someone eventually says, "Good sir, could you please shut up because everyone here also has their own problems in life," to them?
In much the same way, complaining and whining on the internet is a good way to generate antagonism because everyone still has their own problems except there isn't the same degree of expected politeness as might be said to exist in the real world.
So, we are all complete strangers to each other our problems do not concern each other at all ?
That's a bit of an exaggeration..
The thing is, once someone's decided they do not like you, for whatever reason - pitching them an impassioned plea or detailed explanation with the real or perceived subtext being "you're wrong for disliking me and my stuff, and here's why" is going to have the exact opposite of the intended effect.
Do it repeatedly while completely ignoring the signs that it's annoying a large part of the people you're trying to reach, and, well, even the normally sane and centered will start seeing you as an irritant, before anything else.
-
Beautiful advice
You...I like you...
But back on topic. While Seri's done some dumb shit, who hasn't? Seriously, who here hasn't whined about the consequences of their actions, RP or otherwise? Yeah Seri does it more, but so do others. Not as often, but repetitively (and no I will not name names, deal with it). However, despite this, Seri gets dog piled. Every time.
What happened to the rules about being polite no matter what? What happened to the requirements of civility being maintained at all times? What happened to the supposed standards held to make this community upstanding and great? What, as soon as one guy pops up and has a bitch and a moan we drop it and dog pile him and tell everyone else not to interact with him to the point he's making gods be damned videos trying to explain shit? Yeah he comes off as a bit nose-in-the-air the first time, but the second time not so much.
The dude is trying. Hard. Yet people still do target him and pull out shit about womanizing and bad behavior. I'm sorry, but telling people secretly not to RP with him, particularly new bloods, is just as fucking bad. This isn't to say Seri is 100% innocent, but how the hell can he start fresh or try again when EVERYONE is keeping RP away from him until he meets criteria x, y, and z? ESPECIALLY when the aforementioned accusations (womanizing, etc) haven't even been observed for...fucking ever it seems. The guy wants to try again, but why does it have to be on someone elses terms? Why does he have to do what others say with his character instead of letting it evolve naturally with his new and (hopefully) more mature and learned OOC outlook?
For fuck's sake people, this is worse than high school drama. Christ. The least that could happen is to not tell everyone behind his back all this bullshit about him to keep him from getting any interaction to let his character grow and change. AT THE LEAST.
@Seri: I STRONGLY urge you to take Vikarion's advice. It's good, solid, and will work for you. Forget validation from everyone else. Who cares what they think. Let your actions speak and be confident about what you do without a damn for other people's thoughts. If they don't like it? Tough. You're having fun and they can't stop you. Go forth, take your lessons learned, and walk tall.
-
So, we are all complete strangers to each other our problems do not concern each other at all ?
No, I'm saying there is a difference between expressing a problem or issue which might garner legitimate concern and continuously expressing trite or inconsequential problems seeking validation or attention from others which might promote antagonistic attitudes from people whose patience for having to deal with trite or inconsequential problems (as they see it) is particularly low.
In such a situation, if enough people experience someone doing so and form the opinion, "Man, I've got my own bloody problems in life and here's this person continuously attention whoring for sympathy with what I think to be pointless crap about their life," then perhaps the issue doesn't lie with them?
In my experience, if you go on the internet with the explicit intent to garner attention or sympathy by just moaning about your problems until people find it nauseating then don't be surprised if you garner negative reactions.
-
On that I agree, but that hardly sounds like your previous analogy...
-
Why is this so hard? There are two ways to interact with people in Eve - through the game mechanics and via channel/forum RP.
You may interact with people ingame in ANY manner that you choose that the game mechanics allow. You may NOT interact with people ingame in ANY manner that the game mechanics do not allow. Vikarion's point that you can always interact with people by violencing their spaceboats is a good one, as efficient violencing of spaceboats speaks for itself and can give one the moral highground.
However there is no means of FORCING someone to interact with your character in forum/channel RP. You have to offer them something that is of perceptible value to them/their character.
This has, perhaps, led to what Silas views as the 'fluffy bunny' state of the RP community, where everyone is friends - but I think that perception ignores the value of a good antagonist. What nobody wants is a boring antagonist or an antagonist that offers nothing of RP value.
The TL&DR version of this is that if you get pleasure out of your character's interaction with others, you have to sell people the idea that interacting with your character will be fun. You probably have to diversify the interaction that your character offers, too. Perhaps if the initial strategy followed had been one of 'I know I've screwed up somehow, how do we fix it?' different advice would have been offered.
Perhaps the community DOES lack taste and sense if they don't like your character, but pointing it out is simply going to entrench the issue! I notice that despite the amount of discussion nobody has actually altered their opinion - the same people speaking in support of Seri then are supporting him now, the same people telling him to do what he wants and stop caring about the opinions of others are still saying that and those who think the physician should heal himself are still pointing THAT out.
-
I don't get the physician bit, but we say what we do in defense of Seri time after time to make a point. It isn't to say that he should force interaction. Giving no fucks and pewing or just going in and RPing your way means literally giving 0 fucks and being super confident. When you're confident in yourself and your actions, in game AND out of game, you'll find yourself acting on instinct fueled by knowledge you've gained over life. Your gut will say do X because your mind processes the possibilities in the background and comes up with X being the best thing for you.
He can't force interaction in RP chats/forums, no one can. But he CAN be more confident and find validation in himself. That begets (slowly) respect from others naturally. People will WANT to interact just to figure out what the hell is going on in his mind. If they harass or threaten him, he still gives 0 fucks and simply kills them.
The point is to be more confident. No one needs validation in a game for RP. Validate yourself and your actions, the rest will follow.
Middle finger to the critics, Seri. Middle finger to the critics.
-
That's simply not true, Anslo. In a shared community you cannot FORCE others to view you in the way you'd prefer. This is at the heart of what I was saying about the difference between enjoying interacting with others as your character or simply enjoying PLAYING your character.
The latter means you can be the space-dick you've always wanted to and not care. The former means you HAVE to engage with others and give them a reason for mirroring.
The advice you are giving Seriphyn would see him simply turning his character up to eleven and wondering why he would then wind up number one on the 'block list' parade.
-
...and I'm not saying he can force it. I stated that plainly. I'm saying if he's confident in himself, people who are of like mind and worth the time to befriend will naturally pop up. He isn't forcing anything, it'll just happen once he stops caring about external validation.
I also said he'd move forward with his lessons learned and a (hopefully) more mature outlook, right in my last post. He should take that, be more confident, don't worry about validation, and continue on. This would, hopefully, work.
But then another problem is people aren't even giving him the chance to grow because everyone's saying 'don't RP with that guy cause blablablablabla.' He can't even BEGIN to grow and restructure himself and his character because he's stonewalled before he even takes one step forward.
I mean for crying out loud the guy took the time to try and make a video far less snarky to express himself, but he STILL gets shat on and basically told 'you won't be accepted unless you do this, this, and this.' Why should he? Why can't you let him evolve on his gods damned own instead of stagnating him? Jeesh.
And when I say 'you,' I don't mean YOU Pieter. Just you in general...my phrasing is weird.
-
On that I agree, but that hardly sounds like your previous analogy...
It probably doesn't because I sought to clarify further as best I could.
Anyway, I'm not trying to imply that it's solely Seriphyn at fault for it, if at all. Honestly, the thought probably came about as to my own thinking regarding my present antipathy towards rp in Eve. I closed the OOC/Summit channel a few weeks ago, and I was wondering why it felt like I was enjoying the game more and what I concluded is that I didn't have to continuously be exposed to the torrent of moaning and complaining in there which generally revolves around, "Oh, everyone hates me. Oh, everyone hates my RP faction. Oh, it's all a CCP conspiracy to ruin my RP. Oh, why does everyone have it better in RP? Oh, CCP ruined my spaceships now I can't undock."
When I realized that my complaining internally to myself about all the tears and whines, really didn't change anything at all. And that the Summit appears to be what is in effect a real-time, in-character version of a youtube comments section where the goal is to express either as much uninformed and ignorant bigotry for shock value, engage in self-aggrandizement, or just complain and whine, which altogether drowns out any actual interesting engagement then the only option to me was to deploy the iron curtain upon it all. At least then, I can be like The Dude and find my zen again (and/or rug).
Nothing much lost on my end I've found in any case and at least it doesn't feel like I have to metaphorically put on the waders to walk in the septic tank just to find RP anymore.
Anyway, that's probably the best advice I can give to you Seriphyn and that is to find what you personally enjoy to do in RP and the people you enjoy doing it with. Don't worry too much what others think about it beyond that.
-
Three pages in, no reply from Seriphyn.
-
Oh, come on, Kat, I only just read it. Not everyone is connected 24/7.
And uhm...this is going to be my contribution to this thread. Sometimes it's a, sometimes b, sometimes c.
I feel inclined to leave this here:
You know what the scariest thing is? To not know your place in this world. To not know why you're here... That's... That's just an awful feeling.
-
Well, whatever else, Seri, I don't dislike you. I don't like you, either, but that's just me. I don't have much time to RP besides on IGS, and my character is diametrically opposed to yours, but I enjoy following threads of your characters. I, personally, hope you keep posting and playing. If nothing else, you provide some entertainment value to me, and, hey, entertaining each other is what Eve is all about, right?
-
[mod]Did a bit of moderating. Given that this is the third thread on this topic, it has so far seemed to be shockingly on-topic and pretty in line with the rules. Let's keep it that way, and being it is the third thread on the topic, if someone can't keep themselves in line, I suggest they not post - because consequences are highly likely.[/mod]
-
Maybe Ollie came a little late on the wrong thread (the only one still within the rules, this one) and did not choose the wisest words.
However it does not mean that I don't agree with him. That's one of the issues. 2 things :
- There is a tendency for players to forget the smallest bit of civility when they can eventually vent their feelings about someone or something that apparently annoys them enough. They can lower themselves to no ends, going so far as trying to literally ruin the gaming experience as well as the social status of someone they irrationally hate (as opposed to rationally dislike), like by telling newcomers... well, things.
- There is a tendency for some mods to conveniently forget the rules, and there is a tendency for mods to cover each other every time that happens. Or else it would not happen on a regular basis with the same individuals.
-
Sometimes you've just got to accept that we're all still primates and that conspiring with each other through collective bitching with your own clique is how you ensure other monkeys get pushed out of the tree and you can eat all their stuff.
Add: Yes, I assume most people bitch and hate about myself and my characters in their own cliques, because it just make things so much simpler when being an antagonist.
That and operating under the principle of, "u jelly of my jackboot #swag m8?" is so much more fun.
-
In this case, 'it's human nature' is not an acceptable excuse. At all.
-
Sometimes this forum's rules protecting privacy of users in addition to the usual social standards are extremely frustrating. There is more going on than the case of someone making an unlikable character and then repeatedly complaining that nobody wants to RP with them to the point nobody wants to listen to it anymore, but only a handful of people can actually come out and spill the details without breaking the rules.
IC, I don't really have any reason to interact with Seriphyn except as necessary. While there might've been murderous intent at one point, these days it's basically, you exist, I can't do anything about it, move along.
OOC, far as I know we get on fine these days. Doesn't mean I listen patiently to every complaint he makes, or refrain from telling him he's full of shit or whatever when I think he's being full of shit, but I'm not being outright hostile.
That said, he's done some shit that makes me, and a number of other people, quite angry, and with good reason. Shit beyond what's been posted in this thread and the previous two, but as I stated at the beginning of the post, can't be discussed openly here without breaking privacy rules even though much of it happened in EVE and not here.
"It's just human nature" is not an excuse here, nor does it explain the actual cause of the problem.
-
My point stands. You're right, and I know, he's done some very dumb shit. That doesn't mean crucifying to the extent we've seen in the past three threads is still warranted. Ignoring him, shrugging him off, whatever, I can understand.
But the level of vitriol that just happened in those threads, was absurd.
-
My point stands. You're right, and I know, he's done some very dumb shit. That doesn't mean crucifying to the extent we've seen in the past three threads is still warranted. Ignoring him, shrugging him off, whatever, I can understand.
But the level of vitriol that just happened in those threads, was absurd.
If you're calling it "very dumb shit" then you are not thinking of the same things I am referring to, because "very dumb shit" doesn't even come close to describing it.
What I'm saying is that no, in fact, it is not absurd or unwarranted. What it is, is inappropriate for posting on Backstage.
-
Sometimes you've just got to accept that we're all still primates and that conspiring with each other through collective bitching with your own clique is how you ensure other monkeys get pushed out of the tree and you can eat all their stuff.
See this goes to the heart of the questions I'm asking you and others who hold this opinion. Why have I just got to accept it? Why do you expect that others will blandly oblige that excuse?
I can't speak authoritatively for anyone else but it's been a fair while since anyone in my family spent all day in trees picking the fleas off each other's backs, avoiding the dangers of larger predators and flinging our excrement at each other for shits and giggles (pun entirely intended). I realise I'm perhaps taking your attempt at pithy metaphor a shade too literally but as I said before I think it's a cop out, an easy way to either shirk responsibility for our own behaviour or ignore it in others with whom we have some form of loyalty to or outright friendship with.
With reference to RP communities in particular what do we get by accepting a system where cliques try to push others "out of the tree"? To me all that seems to accomplish is a smaller group to RP with and subsequent lack of diversity in our RP options. If our only goal is to "eat all (the) stuff" it should be realised that RP is a difficult dish to consume alone.
Add: Yes, I assume most people bitch and hate about myself and my characters in their own cliques, because it just make things so much simpler when being an antagonist.
That's the attitude I adopt in most situations also and not just online.
But here's the thing - have you ever been in the situation Seriphyn alluded to with the quotes in the first post of his first thread where a new player whom he'd never interacted with (on any level) essentially told him they didn't like him and thought he should quit? What was the basis for that? The "lots" they'd heard from "others".
If that was an isolated thing well ... meh. But it's apparently not something that's occurred as a singular incident for Seriphyn. One of the possibilities that suggests is a systematic campaign to poison the opinions of players against Seriphyn independent of any interactions they've had with him as a player or as his character.
And let's face it - it's not like Seriphyn's alone in this type of situation either. Most of us have seen others treated in a similar fashion through the years.
What Seriphyn's player is asking is simple: are we comfortable as a community with that kind of behaviour going on against anyone who wants to involve themselves in RP in this game? The follow-on to that question (which Seriphyn doesn't ask) is that if we're uncomfortable with a random anyone being treated like that what makes it acceptable to use against specific individuals?
Speaking personally, if it exists I'm not comfortable with it. I don't accept it as a facet of human nature that - if we're genuine about supporting a healthy RP community - we can't try to excise from our OOC interactions with others. At the very least it would be easy enough to remember a simple childhood lesson that if we can't say anything good about someone when we're asked maybe it's best to say nothing.
-
I agree with Ollie.
And Morwen, I do know. I just don't demonize in this situation and try to see it from an outside perspective. Despite how I come off, I am not a complete idiot.
He did wrong. Doing wrong to him doesn't make anything better. Might make you feel better, but it doesn't do any good in the long run. Hell look at this thread. That level of acidic hate is/was just not cool. And Ollie is right about Seri not being the only one. Hell I'm sure it's happened with me, I just simply don't give a damn about people's preconceived notions they have before even talking to me.
But still, it happens to others, and they care about it happening. I'm not saying everyone should feel sorry for the guy, but they shouldn't have piled on him like that. More importantly, the staff should have stopped it right out instead of joining the pile.
-
Sometimes this forum's rules protecting privacy of users in addition to the usual social standards are extremely frustrating. There is more going on than the case of someone making an unlikable character and then repeatedly complaining that nobody wants to RP with them to the point nobody wants to listen to it anymore, but only a handful of people can actually come out and spill the details without breaking the rules.
Then do it privately ? If I wanted to convince others of my point of view where sensible "shit" might break the rules, then I would do that instead.
The only thing you managed here was to post an inflammatory answer on the first thread in the middle of similar answers from others, and it did not even went into the detail you refer to...
Disclaimer : privately to involved people, like, you know, the people that do not understand or Seri's defenders, not randomly to newcomers that never asked for it...
And let's face it - it's not like Seriphyn's alone in this type of situation either. Most of us have seen others treated in a similar fashion through the years.
Yep. Had a few things like that when I was offline that got reported to me
[redacted]
Not the worst of these mind you. It's just an example, i'm not going to post the worst.
Most of the time if you start a debate or don't agree with the majority, you greatly increase the chances for people to start waging a popularity war against you, constructing a whole reputation around your OOC persona that most people that do not know you personally will eventually accept as a fact.
-
+1 Lyn.
-
There are certain meta-social rules that govern the interactions between people - I seem to remember having to make this point before in the IC/OOC corp theft thread.
The facts of the matter are that you are never interacting in a vacuum. Reputation doesn't work that way. When you get a reputation for a certain sort of behaviour it can be very difficult to get a reputation for anything else. Seriphyn has a reputation in certain quarters for certain sorts of behaviour - some merely whimsical and some fairly awful.
People ought to know that I don't generally let meta-reputation affect who I RP with. Several of the people I RP with have gotten a reputation for derpery - but I'm a strong believer in taking people as you find them. That said, I DO let meta-reputation colour my expectations of people, because I am human and that's what humans do - some of the people tarred with the derp brush have turned out to be awesome to RP with and some of them, not so much.
I would advise readers to PLEASE just try RPing with some of the people written off by the bittervets as derps. Just keep your head screwed on and don't let them drag your character into situations that you don't think are appropriate.
Sometimes reputation can lag behind a character. If you see a player is trying hard to rehabilitate their character - help out! It's not terribly hard to do so. People sometimes paint their characters into corners and they need help getting out of them. It's easy to sneer and wag your finger at them - but it's not fair. Some players, on the other hand, don't seem to want to be helped. They won't change the behaviour that the community finds awful and wants no part of.
If you find yourself in the position of having a character who is shunned for actual reasons and you don't want to change the reasons - then either own being shunned (as Vikarion and Anslo suggest) or else consider making some sweeping changes, perhaps even a new character.
Nobody is REQUIRED to accomodate your character. It is EVERY RP'ers right to RP in the manner they choose with the players/characters that they choose. Respect that.
-
Also +1 Pieter. Changes must be addressed of course. But those changes must not be stomped on by reputation. If you see one trying to do something and change, don't spread around that they're still unworthy or some crap. If you don't like em, don't interact with em. But don't go telling every god damn new person not to RP with x y or z cause HURRHURR when said person's making a god damn effort. (Disclaimer; not talking about you here Pieter, just in general again. Please don't chin-beat me).
No one's required to RP with anyone. However, that doesn't mean one should prevent RP for that person and interdict it. Especially from individuals who should be curbing that kind of action or behavior, not adding to it.
(Also. Saucy Wench, Eve mail, you check. Nao.)
-
Largely agree with you, Anslo - just thought I would add the thought that I have my doubts about the existence of huge campaigns of propaganda aimed at destroying the reputation of unpopular players.
It's far more likely that players who have had a bad experience 'warn' their friends against interacting with the problem player and that it spreads organically from there.
-
Said warning come from people who have 'weight' however. That is the problem though. These people are established as thought leaders and their word is taken as simple fact by the new comer. In marketing it's a common thing and taken advantage of on the regular.
However, it has its downsides. It works the same way for dealing a blow to an individual or a reputation. Yeah sure, no one can control what people say fully but still. If you don't have something nice to say etc (note, before someone screams hypocrite, i realize i RARELY ever say anything nice. I'm just making a point).
-
I'm not sure why this is unfair? People who invest time and effort into a community naturally come to have more weight than those who don't. That weight does atrophy if it's not maintained, too.
But, and here's the thing, you don't have to be a sheeple. Take warnings about people as warnings, not as instructions to avoid.
Unless they ARE actually instructions to avoid. Pieter is now under orders never to be in the same room as Diana Kim because of past happenings.
-
But she's so god damn huggabl-er yeah evil...yes...
But I see your point. It is, once again, not a majority fault thing. It's an even distribution of fault and 'wtf man.'
....man humans suck :|
-
Largely agree with you, Anslo - just thought I would add the thought that I have my doubts about the existence of huge campaigns of propaganda aimed at destroying the reputation of unpopular players.
It's far more likely that players who have had a bad experience 'warn' their friends against interacting with the problem player and that it spreads organically from there.
Considering the various logs and proofs I have seen over time, I would say that it's more than just warning, but probably less than a fabled "huge campaign of propaganda". There is a bit of both.
-
Can I get a copy over IG mail, Lyn? I'm interested.
-
Largely agree with you, Anslo - just thought I would add the thought that I have my doubts about the existence of huge campaigns of propaganda aimed at destroying the reputation of unpopular players.
It's far more likely that players who have had a bad experience 'warn' their friends against interacting with the problem player and that it spreads organically from there.
Considering the various logs and proofs I have seen over time, I would say that it's more than just warning, but probably less than a fabled "huge campaign of propaganda". There is a bit of both.
Well, sucks if true. I make a point of not listening to those sorts of campaigns - and yet I don't think I've RPed too much with Lyn, either - bit of forum shenannigans but nothing more.
Consider this an official invitation to RP with Pieter.
-
bowm chika bow wow.
.............................................DON'THURTMEDES\o\
-
Can I get a copy over IG mail, Lyn? I'm interested.
Maybe but i'm not sure if doing so will not be like starting to take part to the problem. Maybe I can erase the names though.
And also don't expect too many of them, I have only kept a few that directly concerned me as free ammo just in case...
Largely agree with you, Anslo - just thought I would add the thought that I have my doubts about the existence of huge campaigns of propaganda aimed at destroying the reputation of unpopular players.
It's far more likely that players who have had a bad experience 'warn' their friends against interacting with the problem player and that it spreads organically from there.
Considering the various logs and proofs I have seen over time, I would say that it's more than just warning, but probably less than a fabled "huge campaign of propaganda". There is a bit of both.
Well, sucks if true. I make a point of not listening to those sorts of campaigns - and yet I don't think I've RPed too much with Lyn, either - bit of forum shenannigans but nothing more.
Consider this an official invitation to RP with Pieter.
Oh in my case it's not like Seri, just snipes here and there. I don't especially feel threatened by that.
I meant more in general, I have seen that kind of things done a lot of times on the OOC channel, or other OOC places.
-
I wouldn't be using it as ammo. I just like seeing evidence with my own eyes to confirm things. I'm not interested in plastering it everywhere. I'm just selfish and hoard all the information.
ALL OF IT. AAAAAAAAAAAALL.
-
There are precious few of you who are anywhere near capable of "'giving 0 fucks" regarding other people and their opinions of you and your characters, and this is not a workable strategy for most people finding themselves with difficult community relations. \
The need for social approval and validation from others runs too strong in most of us.
Anyway I think the community as a whole is generally very good about self-policing and squashing excessive derp all by itself. These things generally work themselves out. People are given plenty of chances to figure it out and 'the community' has limited patience.
Oh, I'll add that in my opinion, nearly ALL drama surrounding difficult players is self-inflicted. 100% believe this.
-
So the choice of reaction by the individuals who perceive the action that causes 'drama' aren't at fault for over reacting or misinterpreting the situation and reacting in a manner not really matching the 'drama' causing action?
-
There are precious few of you who are anywhere near capable of "'giving 0 fucks" regarding other people and their opinions of you and your characters, and this is not a workable strategy for most people finding themselves with difficult community relations. \
The need for social approval and validation from others runs too strong in most of us.
Anyway I think the community as a whole is generally very good about self-policing and squashing excessive derp all by itself. These things generally work themselves out. People are given plenty of chances to figure it out and 'the community' has limited patience.
Oh, I'll add that in my opinion, nearly ALL drama surrounding difficult players is self-inflicted. 100% believe this.
Nearly. All the dramaqueens, yeah, probably.
Anyway even if you give 0 fucks as you say, or if you give 200% fucks doesn't change the fact that a destroyed OOC reputation pretty much means social difficulties, be it by your own doing or other's doing, or both.
Also, Seriphyn is guilty. I have proofs of the infamous womanizer he is :
[spoiler]Seriphyn Inhonores > Ardallabier, in Everywhore
[/spoiler]
-
So the choice of reaction by the individuals who perceive the action that causes 'drama' aren't at fault for over reacting or misinterpreting the situation and reacting in a manner not really matching the 'drama' causing action?
Generally not at fault. Individuals over react, groups of people don't all independently overreact.
And like I said groups of people don't randomly choose targets to heap shit on, it's always brought on by the individual in question, and keeps going based on them not getting the message (generally).
-
+1 Silas.
But when I say it, nobody gets it. 8)
-
+1 Silas.
But when I say it, nobody gets it. 8)
You need to -1 on fucks you give :bear:
-
So the choice of reaction by the individuals who perceive the action that causes 'drama' aren't at fault for over reacting or misinterpreting the situation and reacting in a manner not really matching the 'drama' causing action?
Generally not at fault. Individuals over react, groups of people don't all independently overreact.
And like I said groups of people don't randomly choose targets to heap shit on, it's always brought on by the individual in question, and keeps going based on them not getting the message (generally).
You know that this point of view is pretty tyrannical, no ? As long as you adapt and get along with the group whims and never disagree about important matters, you are going to be fine ? And if you don't, you deserved it and brought it on yourself ?
-
You know that this point of view is pretty tyrannical, no ? As long as you adapt and get along with the group whims and never disagree about important matters, you are going to be fine ? And if you don't, you deserved it and brought it on yourself ?
There are two schools of thought on this. Yours is one and the other one says that it's WAY more tyrannical to expect the rest of the community to get along with one individual.
-
Since I love using analogies, instead of the traditional PvP thing, I'm going with a market one:
RPing is selling a product on a social market. If you are selling RP that has little demand, you're not gonna sell it. Advertising helps, but no amount of advertising is going to create a high demand if you're selling defender missiles. People don't need your product.
Worst thing you can for your RP product is sell something different and/or worse than you're advertising on the tin. People will get pissed off if they've invested their precious RP hours into your character, and they don't get back what they expected from their investment. Pissed off people will warn people away from your product. Again, no amount of marketing can compensate for this in the long run. People that get burned by your RP will be 10 times as much likelier to warn other people away from you than people that like your RP product will recommend it to others.
Of course, you can just ignore the community, and can focus purely on selling your brand, and your vision, because it is what you want to sell. In that case, don't whine if people aren't buying it and/or warning other people away from your product. Either don't care about it, and continue, or take the hint, and try to give them a better deal.
If your brand is backed into a corner because you sold a faulty product a few times to many, then yeah, it might not only be necessary to change the recipe, but rebrand your product as well. As Silas said, brands don't become tainted just because a few people don't like you. They become tainted because you repeatedly promise more than you deliver.
It has nothing to do with 'going along with the group' or 'not disagreeing', merely about not delivering what people want or expect from you. People are not 'shunned', others simple refuse to pay good RP money for the product you offer, as would anyone with an ounce of sense.
-
Remind me to never piss some of you people off. Whoa.
Maybe I should re-imagine Ana as a lot less confrontational and opinionated and get on the good side of the "thought leaders"? Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
;)
-
Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
Yes, can the infamous thought leaders step forward and name themselves?
-
I have spent the last couple of days trying to figure out how best to sum up my feelings on this whole thing.
On one hand, I do have some sympathy for Seri...I'm sure I'm not the only one here who went through it, but from around grade 4 to about grade 11, I had next to no friends and was the target of choice to be picked on most of the time in school. It got so bad that in grade nine I almost went ahead with a very stupid choice...fortunately, I failed miserably at the attempt, had an epiphany and went on with my life...it still was hell. So I know what it feels like to be the target of ridicule. Having gone through what I did, I am a firm believer in that regardless of what anyone says, we are social creatures and we crave social interaction, attention, and in fact do care what other people think and say about us. That whole little "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" thing I kept being told...yeah that's a load of crock; broken bones heal, but there is nothing like the power of words when used to harm another person. Physical scars and injuries typically disappear over time, but psychological scars and tarnished reputations tend to stick around much longer than necessary.
In many ways, I have the same attitude Pieter touched on with regards to how I interact with people. I give a person the benefit of the doubt when I first meet/interact with them, regardless of what others might have said about them. Yes, I may be a little more cautious about the interaction if someone I trust told me that the person was a gossip and would blab about our conversation to the world...so I might hold back on revealing more personal details about myself (if OOC or character in IC). I am also a believer in given someone a second chance, but my good graces can and will only extend so far...abuse my trust once, and I'll be upset and a bit more guarded if I have to deal with you again. Do it a second time and do not be surprised if I do not respond or get a little snippy. However, I don't go out of my way to spread rumors or make attacks on that person. I may warn someone I know if I see them falling into the same traps I did, but I go to great pains to explain that what happened to me may not be what is going on, just a friendly heads-up.
The frustration here is...until I am told otherwise, I cannot break a promise made to a friend to keep private on things. It typically takes a lot of effort and work for someone to get me angry; don't know if that's a product of being Canadian or just my personality, but I let most things slide...except for a short list of behaviours and attitudes. I don't jump on bandwagons and I'm not a sheep, so if I'm pissed at someone, it isn't because everyone else is and I feel the need to go with the flow. Having been the victim for several years, I don't play that game.
Does Seri deserve all of this? Oddly, I find that I want to say yes and no...yes in that he made his bed and has to deal with the consequences of his actions, both his character's actions and the player's actions. No...in that perhaps there may have been a far more constructive and helpful approach that all parties could have taken. Personally, airing grievances on forums or the net in general is not the best way to handle a situation. In character, Steff has no reason to ignore Seri...she might be a bit more attentive to things based on IC conversations Steff has had, but she's not going to simple give him the cold shoulder...he hasn't given her reason to. That said, OOC, I am rather put off by the whole thing.
Can the whole thing be fixed? I would like to think so, but from my perspective, it is going to take a lot of work...
-
Sometimes this forum's rules protecting privacy of users in addition to the usual social standards are extremely frustrating. There is more going on than the case of someone making an unlikable character and then repeatedly complaining that nobody wants to RP with them to the point nobody wants to listen to it anymore, but only a handful of people can actually come out and spill the details without breaking the rules.
Then do it privately ? If I wanted to convince others of my point of view where sensible "shit" might break the rules, then I would do that instead.
The only thing you managed here was to post an inflammatory answer on the first thread in the middle of similar answers from others, and it did not even went into the detail you refer to...
[mod]What Morwen is referring to here is the rules that say we cannot discuss, for example, who reports what, who who gets reported for what by whom or when someone is warned or banned (much less why someone is warned or banned) or any of the (limited) personal details we have access to like email/ip/etc. The rules that protect user privacy, in other words, which we take very seriously. The only exceptions are when people bring those things up themselves (for example, saying 'Why was I wanred for x?' publicly, or 'I reported x why did you do anything?' when in fact they didn't.) That means we can't discuss it publicly, privately, or otherwise except among Backstage mods and Admins.[/mod]
Disclaimer : privately to involved people, like, you know, the people that do not understand or Seri's defenders, not randomly to newcomers that never asked for it...
And let's face it - it's not like Seriphyn's alone in this type of situation either. Most of us have seen others treated in a similar fashion through the years.
Yep. Had a few things like that when I was offline that got reported to me
[a regular in OOC] > vov neither does spewing pseudointellectual bullshit, but we've seen how well that works w/ Lyn
Not the worst of these mind you. It's just an example, i'm not going to post the worst.
Most of the time if you start a debate or don't agree with the majority, you greatly increase the chances for people to start waging a popularity war against you, constructing a whole reputation around your OOC persona that most people that do not know you personally will eventually accept as a fact.
[mod]I believe the person you are quoting here was me (though I can't verify that 100% because my HDD died a couple months ago - but it rings a bell pretty strongly and looks like my sort of turn of phrase). As a long time veteran of Eve, I am not under the illusion that anything I say in a public channel is not, in fact, public - including those occasions when I comment on other people and/or their posting here on Backstage (although it does worry me a little bit when that sort of Eve-induced borderline paranoia is vindicated.) Happily, when I am not posting here, the only rules that I have to follow are the ones that live in the venue where I am posting*. That including expressing opinions about posts and even posters here, in reference to their posts (as I am not only an Admin and mod, but a fellow Backstage user!) A thorogh search of OOC/Corp/Soundstage/etc chatlogs would no doubt reveal instances of me saying mean things about many people. I am, when not posting on Backstage, sometimes rather unkind.
All of that being said, I don't have a problem with you posting that here, since the only person insulted is you and the person who posted it is me, and as I said, as many regrettable things as I may have said in public channels, I am (generally) aware that they are public channels and I assume that their content is forever available to all and sundry; however posting quotes (even anonymized) of that nature from other users will quickly get you modded, because it is basically just trolling and baiting the person quoted for a response (particularly when you post something like this without context - although IIRC the context here probably just involves me saying something mean about someone else as well). Also, you may want to clarify what you mean by 'ammo' 'just in case'. You can contact me privately or not at all, or edit your post to clarify, or not, but my first impression on reading that is that you are saying you would publish them to discredit or embarrass people if they did something you disagreed with (that is, blackmail). If that wasn't your intent you may want to make it clear.
*Though when I say that, I mean the rules for Backstage users (because when I bitch about backstage users, it is mostly either in a very general way (someone is in the catacombs fifty times - I feel comfortable calling them in a pain in the ass in a non-Backstage venue without breaching confidentiality) or it is in my capacity as a user ('Morwen is fucking terrible' or 'vov neither does spewing pseudointellectual bullshit, but we've seen how well that works w/ Lyn.')) The rules regarding, for example, discussing reports/warnings/user information/etc. stand wherever I am.
If you believe mods and admins should be compelled adhere to some certain code of behavior when interacting other places (beyond the one set of rules I've mentioned) then that is a topic for Mod discussion. Also, you will noticed I have not commented on your characterization of the quote as part of 'waging a popularity war against you'. That is because I am making this post as a matter of moderation, not to defend or discuss my personal views, expressed outside this forum. However, the temptation to do so is strong, which is why (as I've said) if you decide to post that type of quote from other users, you will very likely get moderated, just like for posting any other type of flamebait (and when I say 'you' I don't just mean Lyn, I mean anyone). I will appreciate it if you also refrain from responding to this post inside the thread - again, feel free to use mod discussion if you have questions or comments.[/mod]
-
Remind me to never piss some of you people off. Whoa.
Maybe I should re-imagine Ana as a lot less confrontational and opinionated and get on the good side of the "thought leaders"? Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
;)
I think my point was that there are no thought leaders at all, and the community is more of a self-regulating organism that fixes things on its own.
Graelyn had a good analogy, though.
-
Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
Yes, can the infamous thought leaders step forward and name themselves?
Clearly I am the Thought Leader! You may call me Her Royal Catjesty, Queen Kat the Fat of France. Meow!
(http://www.maniacworld.com/regal-cat.jpg)
-
Remind me to never piss some of you people off. Whoa.
Maybe I should re-imagine Ana as a lot less confrontational and opinionated and get on the good side of the "thought leaders"? Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
;)
If you can't find these mythical beasts, I like flowers and candy.
+1 Silas.
But when I say it, nobody gets it. 8)
You need to -1 on fucks you give :bear:
Quite right. Unfortunately, if I didn't give at least one I think my utility as an admin/mod for this forum would drop from marginal to none. :oops:
It typically takes a lot of effort and work for someone to get me angry; don't know if that's a product of being Canadian or just my personality,
Canadians invented ice hockey. It must just be your personality. (I fucking LOVE hockey!)
perhaps there may have been a far more constructive and helpful approach that all parties could have taken.
It has been. Repeatedly.
The point is to be more confident. No one needs validation in a game for RP. Validate yourself and your actions, the rest will follow.
Middle finger to the critics, Seri. Middle finger to the critics.
Is it not ironic to say exactly what some of the critics are saying and follow it immediately with advice to ignore the critics?
-
You know that this point of view is pretty tyrannical, no ? As long as you adapt and get along with the group whims and never disagree about important matters, you are going to be fine ? And if you don't, you deserved it and brought it on yourself ?
There are two schools of thought on this. Yours is one and the other one says that it's WAY more tyrannical to expect the rest of the community to get along with one individual.
It's not "mine", I don't subscribe to that. I don't subscribe to both.
I'm criticizing the lack of dialogue on both ways and the lack of manners and basic respect shown again and again by the "community".
-
Lacking the vast flaming of before...
No Seriphyn, I don't think you should bother. That is my honest opinion. The reason being; every time a disagreement like this comes up, it results in nothing but blame being thrown outwards, no assessment of why it happened, and then back to the status quo. There is no point.
-
Remind me to never piss some of you people off. Whoa.
Maybe I should re-imagine Ana as a lot less confrontational and opinionated and get on the good side of the "thought leaders"? Who should I send the candy and flowers to?
;)
I think my point was that there are no thought leaders at all, and the community is more of a self-regulating organism that fixes things on its own.
Graelyn had a good analogy, though.
First, I'm pretty sure - being a biologist - that 'the community' is not an 'organism'. That said, what do you think how the community self-regulates? By all of us just shrugging off problems, because 'it self-regulates'? The way it will self-regulate then is then clear.
A community emerges from individuals interacting and the character of the community is directly dependent on the character of interaction between the individuals. The community does self-regulate by individuals interacting. I could point you to a vast background on papers on social behavior among humans as well as animals. (Social arthropods are one of my specializations.) Systems theory is fundamentally agreeing with this empirical assessment.
So, I honestly think that the assertion that we don't have to reassess how we interact with one another because 'the community is self-regulating' is just a bad excuse if one is unwilling to take critcism - especially if 'the community' might exhibit self-regulating behaviour that consists in shaming people that don't deserve it and flush them out of the community.
Or in other words: Just because something is self-regulating doesn't mean that it's self-regulating in a way that is desirable.
-
the "community" would be improved if people did not give off the impression that OOC channel is their 15£ a month psychotherapist. People give the impression that any negative opinion or consequence of their RP, would result in them becoming suicidal IRL. Maybe it's just a metagame weapon, to try and avoid RP consequences, I don't know. All I know is that, I have no inclination to talk to that person IC or OOC. So.. vOv
-
especially if 'the community' might exhibit self-regulating behaviour that consists in shaming people that don't deserve it and flush them out of the community.
Or in other words: Just because something is self-regulating doesn't mean that it's self-regulating in a way that is desirable.
Your opinion. I'm very confident nearly everyone getting 'slammed' generally asks for it through their repeated behavior. As we keep saying people aren't randomly selected for poor treatment out of thin air by a pack of wolves. The new RPer who shows up to have fun and has a good back and forth with other people does great and makes friends, the one who shows up full of drama and flailing attention-seeking will not.
Individuals can overreact to people and certainly be out of line, 'the community' has a more balanced approach and can spot the derp a mile away. I've got faith in them ;)
-
Your opinion. I'm very confident nearly everyone getting 'slammed' generally asks for it through their repeated behavior. As we keep saying people aren't randomly selected for poor treatment out of thin air by a pack of wolves. The new RPer who shows up to have fun and has a good back and forth with other people does great and makes friends, the one who shows up full of drama and flailing attention-seeking will not.
Individuals can overreact to people and certainly be out of line, 'the community' has a more balanced approach and can spot the derp a mile away. I've got faith in them ;)
Case in point: Foley Jones.
He's new, he sometimes makes mistakes, his character is delightfully outlandish; but more importantly he asks for and takes advice while still keeping his character his own creation. I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't like Foley and encourage him to keep trying. He's a likable sort, and certainly isn't horribly picked on by the community and oppressed. Sure, maybe some things he does IC are a bit strange and we have to politely bop him on the head and say "PF doesn't work that way", but generally speaking he's fitting in well.
I don't recall a new drama seeker off the top of my head. Even if I did, I'm pretty sure mentioning them would be a call-out and against the rules here.
-
I've avoided this so far, but since we seem to have moved into more theoretical (and thus less minefield-ridden) territory... and admittedly in a blatant copy of Steffie... I'll throw out my personal take on communities.
I'll open by saying that I am a loner. I didn't interact with anyone my own age until the age of 12 to any meaningful extent, first went to school at 14, and now at the age of 23, I could probably count the number of IRL friends (as opposed to friendly acquaintances) I've had in single figures. My current IRL friend list (defined as people I semi-regularly see offline, I've met a bunch of you weirdos but you're still online friends by my definition :P) is... one. I'm nowhere near as shy as I once was, but I'm not a social animal.
I'm also virtually bulletproof. I have a lot of layers of armour and only two people in my life have seen my core - most people, even friends, are lucky to get through my shields, let alone to hull. I am very much of the 'no fucks given' type, because a lot of the time, I don't give a damn what people think of me or what I do. I'm quiet, polite and will happily chatter away with people, and most people seem to like me, but I do it just because that's how I was raised, not due to some need for affirmation.
My fiance is rather less bulletproof. We actually had a talk recently about confidence and the ability to handle a new community and new group of people, and even though she is apparently a far more social creature than I, I was surprised to realise that I'm far better at integrating into a new situation (when I decide to make the effort, but that's another story). I actually found it hard to grasp how much anxiety she was describing about simply saying 'hello' to new people.
I've dealt with a number of communities. The gaming group that I was part of before I hooked into the RP crowd here was a bunch of people who I used to play Freelancer with (ironically enough, we were mortal enemies there. Go figure), who were a fairly straightforward bunch. Apart from a couple of vaguely language related snarlups (mostly a Germany-based clan where not all of the members were that good with English, cue misunderstandings and accidental rulebreaking), I don't remember there being any real problems.
But I've also been part of a freeform roleplay community which self-destructed and recreated itself at least three times, each more spectacular than the last and which was largely populated by dramabunnies, a forum-gaming setup that has been witness to a couple of explosive meltdowns, and seen a decent slice of human nature along the way. I never witnessed this mysterious and malevolent entity we call 'the Community' at work, but to be fair, most of the situations were either less cooperative, smaller, or both.
That said, I'm inclined to agree with Silas that in general, if someone gets into bad drama, it's probably their own fault. However, from what I've seen, this community does tend to be pretty unforgiving at times. Whether deservingly so isn't for me to say.
For myself when it comes to Seri, I have to approaches to dealing with people. The vast majority of the time, I take them as they come, totally neutrally. Unless they actively become hostile, I'll be polite and just move on, and I enjoyed the interaction, might make something more of it. If they become hostile, I jettison all fucks and whistle as I get on with life. In a very small minority, I will take a disliking to someone on sight. I've been vindicated in every case that this has happened as to said person being Trouble of some kind.
Seri does not give me said trouble vibe. Everyone does dumb shit sometimes. He's done more than some, fine. I'd still rather interact with him than some other roleplayers I've run into in the past. I've played with a few folks in the RP community here that I've been warned are trouble and haven't had any issues. Quite often they were one-offs, but I have no regrets there.
If I have any point to make here, it's that 'give no fucks' can go both ways sometimes. Otherwise, I'm mostly rambling. Maybe that's all I'm doing. Take from it what you will.
-
especially if 'the community' might exhibit self-regulating behaviour that consists in shaming people that don't deserve it and flush them out of the community.
Or in other words: Just because something is self-regulating doesn't mean that it's self-regulating in a way that is desirable.
Your opinion. I'm very confident nearly everyone getting 'slammed' generally asks for it through their repeated behavior. As we keep saying people aren't randomly selected for poor treatment out of thin air by a pack of wolves. The new RPer who shows up to have fun and has a good back and forth with other people does great and makes friends, the one who shows up full of drama and flailing attention-seeking will not.
Individuals can overreact to people and certainly be out of line, 'the community' has a more balanced approach and can spot the derp a mile away. I've got faith in them ;)
So, just because I'm not quite clear on this, but you think that a community never has to reevaluate how it deals with others? Or do you just mean that this particular community doesn't have to do it? If the latter, I'd be most interested to see what makes this community so special.
If this community handles problems by exhibiting self-regulating behaviour that consists in shaming people that don't deserve it and flush them out of the community, why would it not have to reassess how it handles things?
Or is it that you simply define those that get handled like this as deserving it?
Having grown up in a post-war germany I have little confidence in 'the community' or any 'community' being infallible as the community of the 'German Volk' showed quite clearly how much more balanced it's approach was and how well it spots derp from a mile away.
So, if I see people sitting behind the screen if there have been various threads been catacombed for the opening post being too much of a flamebait and a big number of people in the community responding to it with posts that broke the rules of polite posting and say "Well, everything as it should be, community spotted derp from a mile away and reacted appropriatedly, the community is so balanced in it's approach and did totally not overreact or anything.", it is to me so full of hypocrisy that it's bordering on being rediculous and I can't help to imagine them sitting there quite smugly.
So I really am quite sceptic to the idea that 'the community' can't be out of line, is by necessity more balanced and has the preternatural ability of unfailingly identify derp only as derp if it's truely derp and not merely the community thinking that it's derp - oh and being practically immune to being derpy in it's response as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And no, an anecdote about how the community can be nice doesn't change that.
The very idea that this community should be free from the need to assess and critically reflect how it regulates itself is a theme that I see arise time and again and it's really something that tells me that this community really should reassess at least that part of how it deals with things.
Also, the theme that impolite posting is time and again justified by 'but he deserved it because...' or even 'the source of all problems is...' is another thing that should be reevaluated in my opinion.
I really, deeply agreed with Silver when he recommended rereading the forum rules and especially the rules on polite posting. There is no excuse for impolite posting, nor any justification and it is in the hands of the poster whether they stay polite or impolite. It doesn't matter whether someone 'deserved' an impolite response or not, whether the impolite response is responding to a flamebait or not. If someone posts impolitely, breaking the rules, the fault is with the poster, not anyone else.
Heaping this fault onto someone else, regardless who it is, is something that I consider a failing and if the community does it at large and is reassuring itself in this then it's a failing of the community.
All this really is true independently of how much derp Seriphyn or anyone else who is targeted by those impolite, rule breaking posts actually did commit. It might very well be true that Seri comitted derp past what is acceptable in this community and also past what should be acceptable, but that doesn't excuse anyone from breaking the rules.
It turns situations like the one with Seriphyn into a self-reinforcing downward spiral of derp.
That said, I can understand how those posts came to be and no one is free from failing. I myself post impolitely sometimes. People make mistakes. But at least we should be honest enough to accept that we made the mistakes we made and shouldn't make others into scapegoats for them, regardless of how derpy they behave.
-
If this community handles problems by exhibiting self-regulating behaviour that consists in shaming people that don't deserve it and flush them out of the community, why would it not have to reassess how it handles things?
Two things. This isn't the first time you and other posters have mentioned undeserved shaming. Nobody's going to shame someone that they don't think deserve it. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that if some participants in a community are aware of a particularly bad act or set of acts on the part of an individual and some participants aren't, those aware of the act(s) will be inclined to shame the individual while those who aren't aware are likely to post something along the lines of "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!"
In the end, nobody involved has any moral highground left - not the individual who's behaved so badly, not the shamers of the individual, not the wannabe shamers of the initial shamers. Which makes the self-righteousness of the third group so bloody comical.
-
I just got snipped! You bastards :yar:
Following my own snipped advice though, see :P
Rephrasing a bit:
We would be better served as a group if everyone relaxed a little bit, maybe stopped picking over the smallest details, and allowed things to bother them less instead of everything insulting all the peoples all the times. Spaceship RP is seeerious bisness and all, but maybe remember that it's not.
-
In regard to your second point:
Well, I don't know if you're familiar with how the conditional works, but it's not implying that the antecedent is actually true. My point stands regardless of whether the antecedent is true or not and my point isn't about whether or not it is actually true.
The point is that IF it is true, then one should reassess those ways of 'self-regulation. If the antecedent is not true, then the conditional is logically true regardless of the truth value of the consequent. Which means of course that if the antecedent isn't true, there is no need to reassessment.
To your first point:
Yes, I'm quite sure they think that the ones handing out the shaming did think that the ones shamed deserved it. Thinking that someone deserves something alone doesn't make it true that it is deserved. I hope you acknowledge the distincktion between thinking that somethin is and something being the case. Especially the one that in thinking there can be error.
That said, it's a convenient way to simply define those at the recieving end as invariably deserving of that kind of treatment.
And then there's the point of the rules, Havohej. As I pointed out, it doesn't matter whether anyone deserved to be shamed. Posting that is against the rules shouldn't be done. If you are responding to a post by someone really deserving of being shamed by breaking the rules in your post, then you do something that is outright wrong.
That you, as a moderator stand here and defend your rule-breaking behaviour, while you rather should do quite the opposite behavior is quite sad in my opinion. This includes your defense of saying I'd have no moral high ground. Even if I have no moral high ground, the point I make remains valid. I need no high ground for that.
-
In regard to your second point:
Well, I don't know if you're familiar with how the conditional works, but it's not implying that the antecedent is actually true. My point stands regardless of whether the antecedent is true or not and my point isn't about whether or not it is actually true.
Fair enough.
That you, as a moderator stand here and defend your rule-breaking behaviour, while you rather should do quite the opposite behavior is quite sad in my opinion. This includes your defense of saying I'd have no moral high ground. Even if I have no moral high ground, the point I make remains valid. I need no high ground for that.
My "defense" was no defense at all. I've admitted fault. My "comment" was about self-righteousness and its usual unwarrantedness. Not yours specifically, either - everyone's who's exhibited it in this series of topics and others... usually, it isn't really justified, the self-righteousness, but yet there it is anyway. And I find it funny.
-
Mithra,
Most of us are plenty polite, patient, and easy to get along with in most circumstances.... and I see people continue to give difficult people all sorts of 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances to improve how they interact.
I think the difference Mithra is that a lot of people are perfectly happy being impolite and not treating friendly other players who continue to cause issues and difficulties with lots of other people.
I feel no obligation to hold my tongue or treat somebody nicely in the slightest or with kid gloves if they are having a repeated negative impact on my play experience. Someone else being a jerk doesn't mean I have to be extra nice, or polite, or patient.
-
So, what you're saying is that you give a shit about the rules of this forum - which you agree to by using them - if you feel people deserve your impolitness?
Of course you don't have to be extra nice with them - but you should stay within the rules. If you don't and the community doesn't and everyone if fine with breaking rules in some cases, then something is wrong. Either the community or the rules.
P.S.: Havohej, as far as I can discern you admitted fault in not closing the thread for being a flamebait so far, not though that you have been at fault in your posted reaction to it. As far as I saw your posts it seemed to me that you were firmly on the 'Seriphyn deserved it." side, going as far as to imply that it's really be him who's the 'source' of all those shaming posts.
-
Backstage is not my site so I go with the rules here or I'm removed, pretty straight forward.
The math is that the benefits of posting and interacting with people here for me outweigh making a hill to die for over censorship or any other rule issues.
Were this conversation happening not on backstage it would have a very different tone and language usage, I think that much is obvious.
I'm confused though is your issue with how people are being 'treated' on backstage or in the game?
-
P.S.: Havohej, as far as I can discern you admitted fault in not closing the thread for being a flamebait so far, not though that you have been at fault in your posted reaction to it. As far as I saw your posts it seemed to me that you were firmly on the 'Seriphyn deserved it." side, going as far as to imply that it's really be him who's the 'source' of all those shaming posts.
To my way of thinking, since I went with Option B:) Shitpoast in thread, instead of Option A:) Moderate thread, admitting that I should have gone with option A:) is the same as saying, "I was wrong for taking Option B:)."
Yes, I am firmly on the 'Seriphyn deserved it' side, and can say so without flaming him or anyone else. It's an opinion. I can express it. I can do so within the rules. Fortunately, I'm not the only mod on this board, or I very likely would've banned him in 2010 for stuff done back then.
-
My issue is really with the weird idea that 'the community' is somehow past criticism or the need of self-assessment.
That does include Backstage and here it is clear that there are in fact a couple of things coming up time and again (as I already pointed out) that show that 'the community' isn't always balanced in it's approach and isn't free of derp itself. Honestly, I think the same is true of the community in game.
To me the idea that 'the community' never has to assess and reassess it's own behaviour amounts in my eyes to denying the reality that groups of people, too, are fallible.
The other issue I have is how 'the community was at his throat, so he deserved it' is used as a justification of and excuse for rule breaking behaviour, that can be seen here on Backstage again and again.
Well, sure Havohej, it implies that taking option B was wrong - but only insofar as you should have taken option A, not in sofar as option B being wrong even if you had no obligation to take option A.
-
Two events during the whole debacle stood out, in my perception:
1. Havohej and Morwen fanning the flames with a highly personal and inflammatory attack against Seriphyn, then refusing to further moderate the thread because of a claimed "conflict of interest." I respect the right of moderators to have an opinion of their own, but is it really too much to ask that if something is, in their opinion, bullshit flamebait, that they moderate it instead of personally fanning the flames?
2. Morwen's defense of this by implying Seriphyn deserved his roasting, because of some kind of despicable acts he has committed, but which Morwen can't disclose because of privacy rules. I don't see how any personal failings of Seriphyn excuse misbehaviour in others. I don't see how the privacy rules are especially fair or effective if they allow this kind of "wink, wink, nudge nudge, can't tell you what he's done or to who but it's pretty horrible" kind of behaviour.
I guess it's a general plea for consistency. If Seriphyn is enough of a dick to actually deserve the kind of bullshit that's been heaped on him over the last couple of days, I must ask why he hasn't been simply moderated away or banned to begin with.
Simply put, this is inconsistent bullshit that erodes my trust in the moderation team.
-
My issue is really with the weird idea that 'the community' is somehow past criticism or the need of self-assessment.
That does include Backstage and here it is clear that there are in fact a couple of things coming up time and again (as I already pointed out) that show that 'the community' isn't always balanced in it's approach and isn't free of derp itself. Honestly, I think the same is true of the community in game.
To me the idea that 'the community' never has to assess and reassess it's own behaviour amounts in my eyes to denying the reality that groups of people, too, are fallible.
The other issue I have is how 'the community was at his throat, so he deserved it' is used as a justification of and excuse for rule breaking behaviour, that can be seen here on Backstage again and again.
Well, sure Havohej, it implies that taking option B was wrong - but only insofar as you should have taken option A, not in sofar as option B being wrong even if you had no obligation to take option A.
I think some of you get into hyperbolic exaggerations when you all use terms like 'at his throat' and 'heaps of bullshit' when specifically talking about Seriphyn.
If you make many threads about yourself talking about yourself and inviting comments about yourself and "the community," you absolutely better be ready to receive criticism of a pointed nature and it will not likely be pretty.
If Morwen or Havo started a thread about Seriphyn and then launched into their tirades then that is another story.
Seriphyn started threads about himself, asking opinions about himself, then he should have a reasonable expectation of what will follow.
-
Two events during the whole debacle stood out, in my perception:
1. Havohej and Morwen fanning the flames with a highly personal and inflammatory attack against Seriphyn
I've seen my post called an attack several times. If a poster comes and asks for criticism and advice and receives these in an impolite fashion from someone who doesn't like that poster and has seen the same poster ask for the same feedback and ignore it for years while continuing the IC and OOC behaviours that have led to them having a large number of people dislike them IC and OOC, this is not an 'attack'. It's criticism and advice delivered impolitely. It can be called flaming, sure. Shitpoasting, definitely. An 'attack'? That's a stretch. If you were to read the post I made, you'll see that behind the profanity and open contempt was advice just as sound as what others gave - indeed, oft-repeated by others, Anslol for example. As Silas pointed out, I gave too many fucks and let it get the best of me there.
2. Morwen's defense of this by implying Seriphyn deserved his roasting, because of some kind of despicable acts he has committed, but which Morwen can't disclose because of privacy rules. I don't see how any personal failings of Seriphyn excuse misbehaviour in others. I don't see how the privacy rules are especially fair or effective if they allow this kind of "wink, wink, nudge nudge, can't tell you what he's done or to who but it's pretty horrible" kind of behaviour.
You don't know the failing in question. Yes, it's a weak statement to make. I'm sure we all see how you could see it as a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge," and that's both unfortunate and frustrating. But if you think your trust is eroded now, wait til you see what'd happen to it (and everyone else's, most likely) if MorLag didn't stick to his decision on that point and ignored the rules on privacy.
-
I think some of you get into hyperbolic exaggerations when you all use terms like 'at his throat' and 'heaps of bullshit' when specifically talking about Seriphyn.
If you make many threads about yourself talking about yourself and inviting comments about yourself and "the community," you absolutely better be ready to receive criticism of a pointed nature and it will not likely be pretty.
If Morwen or Havo started a thread about Seriphyn and then launched into their tirades then that is another story.
Seriphyn started threads about himself, asking opinions about himself, then he should have a reasonable expectation of what will follow.
So, you say if I start a post then asking for opinions about myself, or maybe two or three, you'd be perfectly entitled to give that your opinion about me in a way that breaks the rules? I think that even in that case I can expect the responses to stay within the rules, really.
I think it is quite reasonable to expect the responses to stay within the bound of the rules, Silas.
Also, I think, Havohej, that Shiori means Morwen should have said nothing at all on that matter. The bit she said was already a breach of privacy in a way, namely Seriphyns.
-
The privacy being protected isn't Seriphyn's, in this case. It may have been better had Morwen not said anything, but there isn't a rule against referring in general to there being something, as opposed to specifically describing the content of a private conversation - and I think in this case Morwen felt the importance of people knowing that this wasn't solely composed of what was happening on the surface outweighed the awkwardness of 'something happened but I can't tell you exactly what'.
[mod]All that being said, if we could steer the thread a little more on topic, that would be good. Please take this as a gentle nudge, in spite of the scary mod box.[/mod]
-
Point of order, nowhere did I suggest that anything he did was a reason for people to break the rules. It would be nice if people would learn to read and stop putting words in my mouth when they're right there to be seen.
Sometimes this forum's rules protecting privacy of users in addition to the usual social standards are extremely frustrating. There is more going on than the case of someone making an unlikable character and then repeatedly complaining that nobody wants to RP with them to the point nobody wants to listen to it anymore, but only a handful of people can actually come out and spill the details without breaking the rules.
tl;dr: There is more going on than meets the eye. Whether the details in question are from stuff in EVE, this forum, or another service is irrelevant. It would be bad form to spill the details on this forum at best, and against the rules at worst (such as, for example, if it involved records from the admin/mod area of the forum, or PMs exchanged between members here - EVEmails are kinda a grey area and subject to discretion of the mod team, afaik). And as Silver posted while I was putting this together, yes, what he said. Seriphyn-c being a womanizer isn't enough to merit that level of anger and hostility - I was stating for the record that it is far more than that behind it.
The funny thing, of course, is that I never said where the issues were happening, on this forum or elsewhere. Really goes to show how far people will throw their assumptions.
IC, I don't really have any reason to interact with Seriphyn except as necessary. While there might've been murderous intent at one point, these days it's basically, you exist, I can't do anything about it, move along.
OOC, far as I know we get on fine these days. Doesn't mean I listen patiently to every complaint he makes, or refrain from telling him he's full of shit or whatever when I think he's being full of shit, but I'm not being outright hostile.
Pretty simple: IC my characters have no reason nor desire to interact with Seriphyn based on several years of RP. OOC, we talk semi-regularly, and I don't have any reason to sugarcoat my responses to anything he says; nor does he expect me to.
That said, he's done some shit that makes me, and a number of other people, quite angry, and with good reason. Shit beyond what's been posted in this thread and the previous two, but as I stated at the beginning of the post, can't be discussed openly here without breaking privacy rules even though much of it happened in EVE and not here.
People who are angry at Seriphyn and venting vitriol at him are perfectly justified in feeling that way. It does not excuse their actions on this forum, as I said here:
What I'm saying is that no, in fact, it is not absurd or unwarranted. What it is, is inappropriate for posting on Backstage.
I very, very clearly stated that the amount of vitriol and hostility directed at Seriphyn is warranted and justified, and that expressing it in a manner that is inappropriate for Backstage is not.
If you people have questions about the meaning of my words, ask instead of trying to take them apart, re-jigger them around and shove them back in my mouth.
-
Fair points above, all. Although I would still be happier if they did not need to be made in the first place. For what it's worth, I'm not calling for heads on platters, but rather the opposite - for heads to be more firmly attached to people's shoulders.
My own included! So, I'll consider my worries sufficiently aired and let the topic rest.
-
In case it came off the wrong way, I personally thik that we are largely in agreement, Morwen. On whether Seri deserves the ire or not I simply can't know what is the case as I'm not priviledge to the information to make that judgement - and that's the only point where I think we differ.
I also see that Seriphyn's privacy wasn't the one to be protected, here.
-
All sides have had time to consider their actions, have acknowledged culpability as appropriate and there's been quite enough back and forth now that each side has had ample opportunity to express their points and counterpoints. In other words, I think we've beaten this subject to death. Is it possible to try to move forward, to agree to disagree in some cases and treat each other with at least a quantum of respect? To behave ourselves and try to enjoy this forum for the reason it was created?
Honestly anything further is just egoism and wanting to get in the "last word", in my opinion.
-
I'm just afraid that Seri left. Anyone heard from him ?
-
I'm just afraid that Seri left. Anyone heard from him ?
He's probably just busy with Rome total war II and stuff
-
Holy crap, 7 pages.
Damnit.
I backed out for a while with the intention to come back with a clear head and a little refreshment. Someone bothered me on Steam saying people was wondering where I was, so I said I'll post on here saying I'll respond when my head is just a little bit more clearer. However, I did not expect this to hit 7 pages, or rather, I really wasn't thinking about it.
Nonetheless, I committed to it so I will post another when I have a bi
I then just scrolled down a little bit into Topic Summary to see Anabella's post about this topic being done, so fail on my part for leaving it like this. I'm not going to read the forums again for a while, so evegate/PM me any thoughts if anyone did want a follow-up, or simply do not send me anything and I'll get the idea this should be dropped.
Maybe I'll vlog something different, like about the lore rather than community politics, because I like the lore.
-
Two events during the whole debacle stood out, in my perception:
1. Havohej and Morwen fanning the flames with a highly personal and inflammatory attack against Seriphyn
I've seen my post called an attack several times. If a poster comes and asks for criticism and advice and receives these in an impolite fashion from someone who doesn't like that poster and has seen the same poster ask for the same feedback and ignore it for years while continuing the IC and OOC behaviours that have led to them having a large number of people dislike them IC and OOC, this is not an 'attack'. It's criticism and advice delivered impolitely. It can be called flaming, sure. Shitpoasting, definitely. An 'attack'? That's a stretch. If you were to read the post I made, you'll see that behind the profanity and open contempt was advice just as sound as what others gave - indeed, oft-repeated by others, Anslol for example. As Silas pointed out, I gave too many fucks and let it get the best of me there.
Earlier in the thread Havo, you mentioned that Silas had said what you'd been saying all along (more or less) but no one 'got you'. So consider this maybe an answer/explanation for that and not any sort of other critique or accusation.
The way Silas phrases things, in general, is less emotive than you. The message might be the same, it might not be any less 'HTFU' at its core, but its use of language and rhetoric is more convincing because it remains on point and detached.
All of your stuff in the quote there about it not being an 'attack'? That's all semantics. Flaming, shitpoasting? Putting things in an 'impolite fashion'? Delivering commentary with 'open contempt'? More often than not that's going to be seen/defined as an attack.
I think people do get you. They got that you don't like Seriphyn(p). They got that you have your reasons and that you're - rightly so - the sole arbitrator of those reasons. And they got that your advice, while being sound for the specific situation you were suggesting it be used in, was delivered in an inflammatory fashion because of those background things.
Anabella's pretty much right, we've done the topic to death and the best thing is to agree to disagree while maintaining some respect for the other's position.
-
Anabella's pretty much right, we've done the topic to death and the best thing is to agree to disagree while maintaining some respect for the other's position.
(http://www.voraciousrationalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/the_beatings_will_continue_until_morale_improves.jpg)
-
Yet, wanting people to like you is a weakness that they will jump on like sharks to bleeding prey.
As I continue to wander through various threads and wonder at the drama just a few months of downtime accrues...
I'm not sure if you're talking about real world or EVE, but experience in both is that being honest with wanting others to like you works wonderfully. I've never had someone exploit my friendliness nor have they acted as (insert dramatic image)sharks on bleeding prey.(/dramatic image)
Human interaction generally isn’t a warzone where showing weakness is punished.
-
Even in the internet, especially in Eve ?
-
Cliche'd but true: the best way to get people to be interested in you is to be interested in them, too.
What draws the sharks is people trying to look cool and failing, or ones that have the smell of desperation about them.
-
Even in the internet, especially in Eve ?
The ones I've bonded with are not the sharks, the ones I've blocked are, simple as that.
-
I have been playing Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines recently, and something seems somewhat relevant:
"The Jyhad:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between the generations. Elder vampires manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Substitute "Roleplayers" for "vampire", and contemplate the nature of this forum, chatsubo, OOC channel, The IGS, and various other paraphernalia of EVE roleplay.
"EVE RP Community:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between players. Elder roleplayers manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Vampires are noobs in comparison, lol.
-
The alternate paths of mortality for the PnP game were interesting. I wonder if something like that could be developed for capsuleers.
-
I've actually considered creating a char that had adopted a Path of the Beast-like morality.
-
I have been playing Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines recently, and something seems somewhat relevant:
"The Jyhad:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between the generations. Elder vampires manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Substitute "Roleplayers" for "vampire", and contemplate the nature of this forum, chatsubo, OOC channel, The IGS, and various other paraphernalia of EVE roleplay.
"EVE RP Community:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between players. Elder roleplayers manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Vampires are noobs in comparison, lol.
Sleeping antediluvian finds this an amusing post ...
-
Holy freaking crap it's
Saede Jade Constantine.
-
I do still like to follow eve goings on from a discrete distance, call it a particular kink.
-
Can you sign my ship plating?
-
Can you sign my ship plating?
Of course, how about:
"The angels all have guns now
The angels aren't anyone you'd want to pray to
This city eats its young"
Enjoy!
-
No idea what it means but AWESOME.
-
Yet, wanting people to like you is a weakness that they will jump on like sharks to bleeding prey.
As I continue to wander through various threads and wonder at the drama just a few months of downtime accrues...
I'm not sure if you're talking about real world or EVE, but experience in both is that being honest with wanting others to like you works wonderfully. I've never had someone exploit my friendliness nor have they acted as (insert dramatic image)sharks on bleeding prey.(/dramatic image)
Human interaction generally isn’t a warzone where showing weakness is punished.
Want to bet?
Try going a week seeing things as I do, viewing human interactions as essentially social and economic power-plays, group solidarity as an attempt to gain an advantage over other groups, and emotional reactions as attempts to gain leverage over another person via social pressure, and ask yourself if it doesn't make at least as much sense as your own paradigm of the world. Look around at the suffering in the world, and see if people really do care as much as they say they do. My theory is that the reason the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory exists is because people don't think that they have to pay the consequences on the internet.
But, I could be wrong. Absolutely. But if you all are such kind, loving creatures to each other, it sure doesn't look like it. People seem to take joy in excluding others, in shunning, and in being part of the "in" group. I make no judgments, I don't care. Watching this thread, seeing what some people have to say - and what some of them have said elsewhere - I think that it would be rather...treacherous to advise Seriphyn to trust someone here.
Not that I mind treachery. But, really, when someone wants me to faux-finish their cabinets, I want a contract, or I get paid billable time-and-material. If someone wants me to paint their condominium complex, my crew doesn't even drive to the job before I have a signed contract. When it comes to money, business, and, hell, even marriage, we make promises in writing and stipulate penalties. So much for trust, eh?
Everything you want to be true, you need to build yourself, ultimately. No one else has as vested an interest in your success as yourself - and many have an interest in your failure. It isn't that trust is for the weak - it's that trust makes you weak.
-
I have been playing Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines recently, and something seems somewhat relevant:
"The Jyhad:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between the generations. Elder vampires manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Substitute "Roleplayers" for "vampire", and contemplate the nature of this forum, chatsubo, OOC channel, The IGS, and various other paraphernalia of EVE roleplay.
"EVE RP Community:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between players. Elder roleplayers manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Vampires are noobs in comparison, lol.
Well, fuck.
You are awesome for coming up with this.
-
Yet, wanting people to like you is a weakness that they will jump on like sharks to bleeding prey.
As I continue to wander through various threads and wonder at the drama just a few months of downtime accrues...
I'm not sure if you're talking about real world or EVE, but experience in both is that being honest with wanting others to like you works wonderfully. I've never had someone exploit my friendliness nor have they acted as (insert dramatic image)sharks on bleeding prey.(/dramatic image)
Human interaction generally isn’t a warzone where showing weakness is punished.
Want to bet?
How much do you want to wager and what exactly are the terms?
Try going a week seeing things as I do, viewing human interactions as essentially social and economic power-plays, group solidarity as an attempt to gain an advantage over other groups, and emotional reactions as attempts to gain leverage over another person via social pressure, and ask yourself if it doesn't make at least as much sense as your own paradigm of the world. Look around at the suffering in the world, and see if people really do care as much as they say they do.
I could do that, but that would do nothing to support the claim you made and I am refuting.
Like all humans, we can interpret data as we see fit. There are people who see God's plan wherever they look - the good things that happen to them is evidence they've led a good life while the bad things that happen to other people are evidence God is angry at them.
I could spend a week looking at the world through their eyes. Or I could spend a week looking at the world through the eyes of someone who passionately believes Skinner was right and human behavior is largely predefined reactions to various stimuli.
I'm sure it would be fun, but it hardly constitutes evidence that any specific viewpoint is right or wrong.
That leads us to my experience: I'm open about wanting others to like me, but have yet to have people fall on me like hungry sharks.
Have people been falling on me like hungry sharks all along and I just haven't noticed because I'm predisposed to enjoy human interaction? My own belief is that wanting others may be a weakness, but it's one that the vast majority has. Being honest about it is no more dangerous than admitting you'd like a piece of chocolate cake, a nicer car, or to have sex with an attractive actor.
But, I could be wrong. Absolutely. But if you all are such kind, loving creatures to each other, it sure doesn't look like it. People seem to take joy in excluding others, in shunning, and in being part of the "in" group. I make no judgments, I don't care. Watching this thread, seeing what some people have to say - and what some of them have said elsewhere - I think that it would be rather...treacherous to advise Seriphyn to trust someone here.
Not that I mind treachery. But, really, when someone wants me to faux-finish their cabinets, I want a contract, or I get paid billable time-and-material. If someone wants me to paint their condominium complex, my crew doesn't even drive to the job before I have a signed contract. When it comes to money, business, and, hell, even marriage, we make promises in writing and stipulate penalties. So much for trust, eh?
Everything you want to be true, you need to build yourself, ultimately. No one else has as vested an interest in your success as yourself - and many have an interest in your failure. It isn't that trust is for the weak - it's that trust makes you weak.
It’s like you’ve turned real life into your personal Game of Thrones fanfic.
-
Poorly placed trust is a weakness, born of a character flaw that leads you to over-value the amount of responsibility you can give to an individual, putting them in the position of either having to forgo gratification to maintain a trust that is increasingly one-sided, or 'cash out' on that trust to obtain gratification as they believe the bond is about that value.
This may appear cynical, but my opinion differs from Vikarions in that I believe that on some level all relationships are transaction oriented, and that these are in fact the very things that make trust a beneficial and potent social tool when used conscientiously and correctly. Now this may seem as if I am about to go on some self-help style rant, but bear this in mind: conscience and correctness are culturally, socially and environmentally informed. That is to say that they are unique to you, and so this leads to the first issue with trust - we all value it differently.
Some are selfish - they want one-way or as close to one-way transactions as possible. They will trust you to watch the dog so they can go to the cinema, but their reciprocation of that act is unlikely as they view their gratification, even in mundane or spurious terms, as superior to yours. However, said selfish person might value your need to see your bed-ridden grandmother as a high priority due to a previous experience or a concept of empathy that integrates that as important, thus being seemingly out of character in accepting the burden of trust when that situation comes up and you need someone to watch Fido.
On the other extreme, we have the 'go to' trusted individuals. People for whom the cost of the transaction will likely never outweigh what they feel they get out of the social benefits of trust. The act of being trusted rewards them as in itself a contribution to their valuation.
These are very two dimensional archetypes, highlighting only the most simple elements of the transaction based model for trust. We all participate on both levels - that of gratification outside of the transaction and of recognising benefits tat may be had just from the transaction itself. They are presented merely for context, so please do not believe I view people in such black and white terms.
Trust can and will be abused. It is a mechanism, in this case one modelled on the transaction of social benefits (innate or distributed) in return for the temporary suspension of instant gratification that breaking that trust may yield. As with any transaction oriented system it is inherently vulnerable at two key points - the authenticity of the trusted party, and the judgement capabilities of the trustee (plus any support either side may have in socially validating the trusted's status or warning the trustee of poor choices). Willfull abuse of trust WILL happen, and requires authentication of trust. Again, specific methods of authentication will be broken, gamed, and manipulated over time. It is impossible to 100% secure a system without denying all access to it, but keeping your value judgments to yourself is both polite and effective. Telling billy you trust bob more, and worse, telling him on what grounds, is a quick way to make billy start thinking of ways to be as trusted as bob, then screw you to get his own back and make people as trusted as bob a bad prospect for you in the future. Obfuscation of valuation is a key strategy in many security-led institutions, and it is no less important here.
An inability to correctly value an individual's capacity for trust, will in itself cause problems, as such a situation may be seen, in time, as willfully selfish burdening of the trusted with low-reward transactions that are vastly outweighed by the gratification that may be gained by breaking the trust (they get little social capitol, but the rewards of taking 'the loot' are huge by comparison). This could be seen as an innocent form of disrespect - you have put the individual in an awkward position, but this would be victim blaming. The good 'trusted' would notify you of their increasing unease at being used as a service and break the trust in a benign manner - by refusing it. Temptation is unpleasant when it involves social consequences - and as gratifying as the breaching of trust may become, the lead up will be uncomfortable and may lead to resentment from not only the victim, but for the perpetrator towards the victim for 'doing his/her time' during the initial stages.
i have whittered on for an excessive length, but I felt the need to express my opinion on this matter, as I find the cynical interpretation of 'trust? pah there can be no trust' to be damaging and generally untrue as a representation of social transactions in general. When individuals respect the fact that we have individual needs and scales of valuation for gratification of oneself over the gratification that social transactions can bring, we can view what may seem like a cynical system of tit for tat in a more optimistic, informed light. We all have things we want - when we respect one another and trust is used as a two-or-more-party enabler towards reaching our goals, it can be pretty damned good.
Be vigilant, judge harshly, but speak softly. A scammer identified before the fact is just an individual identified with a low valuation of trust over gratification. An individual who genuinely values the gains of taking on the burden of your trust is not a resource or asset, they have tolerances too. Respect thresholds by giving trust accordingly.
-
While I broadly agree, Aelisha, I will raise the fact that there are two kinds of trust - responsibility-trust and intimacy-trust, and I feel you've only really addressed the first.
Responsibility-trust is something that we all, consciously or unconsciously, have to become good at in some way if we're going to get anywhere. The zero-empathy personality may view the connections differently, and may not grasp the two-way nature of them in some variations, but anyone not at the extreme end of the empathy spectrum can at least see the principle at work*. As you say, some people will verge more towards the 'giving' or the 'taking' side of things, but on some level, the exchange of responsibility-trust is part of what allows society to function.
Intimacy-trust is also about exchange, but on an emotional level - and that's a whole different ballgame, because both giving and taking can be hard. Note that by 'intimacy' I don't mean love, sex or anything like that, merely the varying degrees of friendship and acquaintance that we apply to people. Take me, for instance. I was brought up to take responsibility very seriously, so I think I'm pretty good at responsibility-trust. However, I'm dreadful at intimacy-trust. I make friendships fairly easily, but they're very easy-come-easy-go; I lose contact with people and think nothing of it, partially because I don't feel comfortable offering more than a baseline of intimacy-trust. I call it 'wearing masks'; in any given community or circle of people, I'll have a different mask. If I become good friends with someone, I might take a mask off, but there'll still be one below. Thus far I've only trusted two people enough to take all of them off, and I'm marrying one of them.
The reason this is important is that I think there's elements of both coming up here. Intimacy-trust is by necessity going to be an element that needs to be traded when attempting to deal with other people, and a combination of your comfort and skill at doing that, and the basic temperaments of others, can make that a minefield. People have talked about sharks, some have remarked that they've never faced that issue. I think there's definitely an element of self-confidence and self-assuredness here. Despite being the weird loner kid at school, I never had anyone seriously pick on me, simply because I was utterly unfazed by people. (It was also kind of a nice school, but there was that one time I got asked to join a gang... but that's another story.)
To put it another way, and to summarise some of the other thoughts aired here, someone desperate to join a community and seek their approval is throwing a lot of intimacy-trust out there, perhaps more than they realise they're comfortable with. Cue confidence issues, and the less pleasant individuals of said community descending like the aforementioned sharks - who may, in a mirror of responsibility-trust, be zero- or low-empathy individuals.
Just some food for thought.
*I talk about 'zero empathy personalities' in a scientific sense. 'Zero Degrees of Empathy', by Simon Baron-Cohen, provides a very interesting read on the subject, if you feel like poking at the topic.
-
I have been playing Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines recently, and something seems somewhat relevant:
"The Jyhad:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between the generations. Elder vampires manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Substitute "Roleplayers" for "vampire", and contemplate the nature of this forum, chatsubo, OOC channel, The IGS, and various other paraphernalia of EVE roleplay.
"EVE RP Community:
The secret, self-destructive war waged between players. Elder roleplayers manipulate their lesser, using them as pawns in a terrible game whose rules defy comprehension. "
Vampires are noobs in comparison, lol.
I lolled so hard while reading this. Lulu D <3
-
[spoiler]
I lolled so hard while reading this. Lulu D <3
Well, fuck.
You are awesome for coming up with this.
Sleeping antediluvian finds this an amusing post ...
[/spoiler]
:)
Yeah, it was just one of those moment of clarity things, where you see something, and suddenly, a bunch of other things fall into place.
-
Makkal, Aelisha, and Repentance:
I am not entirely sure I can understand what you mean by zero-empathy and non-zero-empathy. I will try to explain my own experience.
I can understand pain. For example, I can hit my thumb with a hammer, or, upon seeing someone else's thumb hit with a hammer, I can imagine what that has felt like when it has happened to me. However, such impressions have zero emotional content for me. I could see a person bleeding, and I will experience no emotional reaction or "connection" to them. I have to speak somewhat theoretically here, as I can't exactly say that I'm sure that I know what a "connection" would be. When someone around me has been injured, my typical responses have ranged from annoyance, to excitement at being able to act in an "emergency situation", that is, to demonstrate my ability to act decisively. Is this zero-empathy? Perhaps, although I note that I often experience my own pain at somewhat of a distance, myself.
I don't really see other people as imaginary objects - at all. I think they are real, living, human beings. Whatever that means, and good luck defining those terms. I simply have great difficulty - no, I find it impossible - to know what it is like to be them, or to know, as in, experientially, what they are feeling. I'm very good at guessing, very, very good, but I still sometimes make mistakes. So, I try to connect intellectually, and I find some people very interesting intellectually. Other people, well, I figure them out fairly quickly and get bored. Is this "zero-empathy"?
After this description, I imagine that most people would not want to trust me. And yet, unless you betray me, I'm one of the most trustworthy people out there. I love keeping personal secrets, and, because I am very good at lying, other people never manage to ferret them out of me. If you met me, you would think that I am a kind, generous, and listening person who is perhaps a bit over-eager, and a bit unsophisticated...a bit rough around the social edges.
On the other hand, I know a person who comes off as an earnest, caring, morally upright, quietly suffering christian woman. She will listen to you, try to relate to your experiences with her own in ways that I simply cannot match, and can talk with you for hours. And yet, she is one of the most sadistic and cruel people I have known. She takes everything you say and uses it to construct the most hurtful and piercing attacks on your self-hood she can. Before I cut off all ties with her, she actually managed to get to me once or twice, by attacking my life goals - virtually the only area I was vulnerable to. She's the only one who ever managed that, and I've been through some seriously messed up shit (or so I'm told).
The thing is, this person has managed to fool not just me, for a while, but hundreds of people. Her churches, her family, hell, her own husband, for decades. I even admire her ruthlessness and perceptiveness in the pursuit of her goals - it resembles my own, save that I love to create things, and she loves to destroy people. But for an accident of birth, there go I, I think. And she has been, I suppose, far more successful at getting close to people to hurt them than I have been. This may be a simple function of interest - I don't particularly find hurting people to be all that interesting - but it does strike me that those who do find hurting people interesting have the most to gain from getting you to trust them. So much for the listening ear, eh?
I knew a couple who gave every impression of being one of the most secure, most loving couples I knew. They were high-school sweethearts, and they had been together for many, many years. They were just zany enough to be fun, just serious enough to be good parents, and just wise enough to be a good choice to talk to. And then, a little after their last child went to college, one of them told the other that they didn't love them anymore, that they wanted a divorce and everything went to shit. I remember this very well because they seemed to me to embody something I didn't have - love - and something that I really would have liked to experience, if only because it seemed to make others so happy. Well, so much for that, and so much for the jilted partner, eh?
Let me also speak to the concept of more business-like relationships. When I was an employee of a firm (I'm now a partner in a finishing company), I remember my boss telling me of an event which made a lasting impression on me: our client had offered some of our employees more money to quit working for us, and to do the job themselves. Technically, this was illegal, since one is supposed to have a license to do our sort of work (and quite reasonably so, since my particular variety of painting involves chemicals that can also function as rocket fuel). Nonetheless, they took the offer, and the client promptly told us and our contract (it often costs more for us to sue than to write off a contract) to fuck off. Then, when our former employees finished their work, the client told them to fuck off as well, because they were operating illegally. And yet, this client was and is considered to be an upstanding member of the community.
...This is why one asks for progress payments, eh?
I have tried to use stories here because I find that they work better. I don't understand how to connect with people myself. I simply can't. Please see why I'm telling these stories.
"But Vikarion," you say, "if you really don't care for others, why are you bothering?". Well, yes, it is true that I have no emotional attachment to any of you. But, see, I would like to be seen as caring, and while I don't particularly care for you, I have no particular hatred for you either. Indeed, I actually find people interesting and want to be around them, so, intellectually, trying to exercise care for others can be in my best interest. Also, I want to be right. And, of course, I'd like to make life harder for the fuckers who have, at times, caused me problems. In terms of game theory, I play straight - tit for tat - and so I am better off if I tip you off to cheaters. I made the choice to play by the (arbitrary) rules a long time ago, and it infuriates me when others think they can do better. Fuck all motherfucking fuckers, to go a bit Tim Minchin, if you will. :P
Ok, that objection dealt with, let's return to the main point: should you trust people?
Well, you have to trust someone, with something, sure. Perhaps I came off a bit strong. I think the three posters I referenced at the top had some good things to say. But, on the other hand, my aggressive caution is not unwarranted.
It truly is the case that those who have the most to gain by getting you to trust them are the least trustworthy. Let us take my case, versus the case of the woman I referenced above. In her case, she has every reason to get you to trust her: she derives much of her enjoyment and self-validation from her ability to hurt others at their core. I've seen her do it repeatedly, and it's the only time she seems really happy. I, on the other hand, am less interested in getting you to trust me, because the only thing I get out of it is a tiny ego boost from managing to uphold some arbitrary rule about integrity - in short, my ability to measure up to a standard. This, to me, is far less rewarding than the sheer orgasmic mental pleasure of creating something interesting or valuable, an activity that I pursue with an obsession that borders on near addiction in my life. As in, I have worked about 38 hours as of this Wednesday night, and already want to go back to work. Therefore, I have no drive to get you to trust me, especially since doing so might involve a certain amount of time in activities I am bored by. But that woman, a person who I have seen ruin entire lives, has every reason on earth to work on you until you embrace her, body and soul. You should be afraid of that kind of person.
Similarly, in business and money affairs, the con artist has more of a reason to get your trust than the honest businessman. To the businessman, you are another account, and you are valuable to the extend that he makes a small margin of profit. Yes, valuable, but not overwhelmingly so. But, to the con artist, you are everything to him - he intends to take you for everything that you are, for all of your money, and you are the full measure to him of everything he can take you for. Right up until he does.
Of course, you have to trust some people. Hell, I trust some people. My best friend is a somewhat overweight, messy, unhealthy intellectually-minded guy who is working on a Ph.d in International Relations or Political Science or some such shit - I can't remember. I've told him more about myself than almost anyone else - not so much because I need to, as because, as introverted and taciturn as he is, he is far more "human" than I am. I get a lot from him, not least his explanations of what "morality" is, which is distinct from my simple adoption of an arbitrary set of ethics.
But please, please, be careful who you trust, and never trust one person with everything. Never give any one person the power to ruin you. Always hold something back, keep something special for yourself. People change, people pretend, and people make mistakes. Keep something back, so that you have something to be, so that, when you are betrayed, you will be able to look them in the eye and truthfully say "you didn't ever have all of me". Keep something back, so that you'll always be just a little mysterious and interesting. Don't ever let the cheaters win.
I hope this has made some sense. I've tried to make it do so.
-luvvies, Vikkie <3
-
<Stuff>
I'll dig out Zero Degrees of Empathy and find a few good definitions for you from there, think you might find it interesting.
Imagine there is a circuit in your brain - the empathy circuit - that determines how much empathy you have. Let's call it the Empathising Mechanism ... we can discern that it has seven likely settings. These are broad bands and we may move around a little within a band from one day to another, due to the transient fluctuations in our empathy. But which band we are in is broadly fixed.
At Level 0, an individual has no empathy at all. In Chapter 3 we meet individuals who are at this level and who wind up in clinics voluntarily seeking a diagnosis, or who have been compulsorily detained (as we say in England, 'at Her Majesty's pleasure') because they have got into trouble with the law, or who have had a diagnosis imposed on them. At level 0 some people become capable of committing crimes, including murder, assault, torture and rape. Fortunately not all people at level 0 do cruel things to others, since others at this level just find relationships very difficult but have no wish to harm others. For others at level 0, even when it is pointed out to them that they have hurt another person, this means nothing to them. They cannot experience remorse or guilt because they just don't understand what another person is feeling. This is the ultimate extreme: zero degrees of empathy.
At Level 1, the person may still be capable of hurting others, but they can reflect on what they have done to some extent and show regret. It's just that, at the time, they can't stop themselves. Clearly, empathy is not having a sufficient brake on their behaviour. For individuals at this level, a part of the brain's empathy circuit 'goes down' that would normally enable them ot inhibit themselves from hurting others, physically. Under certain conditions the person may be able to show a degree of empathy, but if their violent temper is triggered the person may report that their judgement becomes completely clouded, or that they 'see red'. At that moment, other people's feelings are no longer on the radar. What is frightening is how this breakdown in the empathy circuit can leave the individual capable of extreme violence. At the moment of the assault, the urge to attack and destroy may be so overwhelming there are no limits to what the person could do and their victim is at that moment simply an object, to be vanquished or removed.
At Level 2 a person still has major difficulties with empathy, but they have enough to have a glimmering of how another person would feel for this to inhibit any physical aggression. This may not stop them shouting at others, or saying hurtful things to others, but they have enough empathy to realise they have done something wrong when another person's feelings are hurt. However, they typically need the feedback from the person, or from a bystander, to realise that they have overstepped the mark. Anticipating another person's feelings in subtle ways just does not come naturally to them. A person at level 2 therefore blunders through life, saying all the wrong things (eg. 'You've put on weight!') or doing the wrong things (eg. invading another person's 'personal space'). They are constantly getting into trouble for these faux pas, at work or at home, perhaps losing their job of their friends because of it, yet are mystified as to what they doing wrong.
At Level 3 a person knows they have difficulty with empathy and may try to mask or compensate for this, perhaps avoiding jobs or relationships where there are constant demands on their empathy; making the effort to 'pretend to be normal' can be exhausting and stressful. They may avoid others at work because social interaction is so hard, and just keep their head down and do their work in the hope that this doesn't bring them into contact with too many other people. They may realise they just don't understand jokes that everyone else does, that other people's facial expressions are hard to read, and that they are never quite sure what's expected of them. Small talk, chatting and conversation may be a nightmare for someone at this level, because there are no rules for how to do it and it is all so unpredictable. When they get home, the relief (that comes from no longer having to 'fake' being like everyone else) is huge; they just want to be alone, to be themselves.
At Level 4, a person has a 'low-average' amount of empathy. Most of the time their slightly blunted empathy does not affect their everyday behaviour, though people with this level of empathy may feel more comfortable when the conversation shifts to topics other than the emotions. More men than women are at level 4, preferring to solve problems by doing something practical, or offering to fix something technical, rather than prolonged discussions about their feelings. Friendships may be more based on shared activities and interests than emotional intimacy, though are no less enjoyable or weaker because of it.
At Level 5, individuals are marginally above average in empathy, and more woman than men are at this level. Here, friendships may be more based upon emotional intimacy, sharing confidences, mutual support and expressions of compassion. While people at level 5 are not constantly thinking about others' feelings, other people are nevertheless on their radar a lot of the time, such that they are fare mor careful in how they interact at work or at home. They hold back from asserting their opinion, so as not to dominate or intrude. They do not rush to make unilateral decisions so that they can consult and take into account a range of perspectives. They take their time with others even if they have lots of other things to do, because they want to find out (sensitively and indirectly) how the other person is and what's on their mind - information that is better gleaned by chatting around a range of topics, rather than being extracted by direct interrogation.
At Level 6 we meet individuals with remarkable empathy, who are continuously focused on other people's feelings, and go out of their way to check on these and to be supportive. It is as if their empathy circuit is in a state of hyper-arousal, such that other people are never off their radar. Rather than try to describe this type, let me offer you a sketch of one such person:
Hannah is a psychotherapist who has a natural intuition in tuning into how others are feeling. As soon as you walk into her living room, she is already reading your face, your gait, your posture. The first thing she asks you is 'How are you?' but this is no perfunctory platitude. Her intonation - even before you have taken off your coat - suggests an invitation to confide, to disclose, to share. Even if you just answer with a short phrase, your tone of voice to her reveals your inner emotional state and she quickly follows up your answer with 'You sound a bit sad. What's happened to upset you?'
Before you know it, you are opening up to this wonderful listener, who only interjects to offer sounds of comfort and concern, to mirror how you feel, occasionally offering soothing words to boost you and make you feel valued. Hannah is not doing this because it is her job to do it. She is like this with her clients, her friends, and even with people she has only just met. Hannah's friends feel cared for by her, and her friendships are built around sharing confidences and mutual support. She has an unstoppable drive to empathise.
These are very broad strokes - this is a 130 page book just on Level 0, so trying to boil down each set into a paragraph or two is obviously going to miss things. Later on, going into more depth about Level 0, describes four basic archetypes - the Borderline (who has trouble both recognising and reacting to emotions in others), the Psychopath (who may recognise emotions in others, but either does not react or assumes hostility in return and have issues with the idea of consequences), the Narcissist (who simply disregard the feelings of others through some sense of entitlement, skipping the recognition part entirely), and the Autistic (who has difficulty recognising emotions, but will try to react to them). My summaries, I'm probably missing a bunch of key points. As I said, it's a very interesting book if you're into that kind of thing, worth tracking down.
From your remarks, you sound somewhere around Level 3, possibly 2/3. I would probably place myself around the 3/4 divide. The book does actually have the questionnaire that they used to develop the empathy scale - I might post it up, both as a bit of interest and a possible character tool.
-
Too rigid to me, I could place myself at a lot of levels depending on a lot of stuff.
I think that degrees are great as a general rule, but they fail to adress that people can be very full of empathy and yet keep it under a big shell and avoid emotional interaction at all costs. I sometimes feel kind of like that (like lvl 5 or 6) and yet appear to act like someone with a lvl of 3 or 4...
-
think the point was = 'zero empathy' is a mark of one of several very serious clinical condition, not a fancy turn of phrase. ;)
-
I'd like it if someone could address what I said about trust, but in regards to empathy, I can say that I see certain similarities with myself in many of the categories, as Lyn said. However, the "this means nothing to them" phrase resonates pretty strongly with much of my own experience. Making people happy, sad, or whatever has no intrinsic bearing on my emotional state.
That said, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject over the past couple decades, and considering the fact that I think that I will do better in a happy and ordered society, that's the sort of society I want to create. Also, I want other people to treat me well, and the transactional idea (you treat me well, I'll treat you well), along with other economic behaviors, comes relatively natural to me, although there has been a rather extensive amount of trial and error in getting to that conclusion. Of course, this tends to make me loathe cheaters/scammers in the system.
-
Actually Vik, I don't think you lack empathy at all. You might not have it developed to the same extent as people who make use of it in a professional setting but based on some of the answers/scenarios you described I think it's there.
What you seem to lack is sympathy, which is not necessarily a dysfunctional thing.
-
If you have been sad, then you know what it is like to feel sad. Therefore, your ecognize ssandess in others. That's empathy.
Sympathy is 'doing something abut it'.
So +1 Ollie.
-
Making people happy, sad, or whatever has no intrinsic bearing on my emotional state.
I can't help but pity you then. That actually sounds like it really, really sucks.
Seriously, working in a soup kitchen does nothing for your emotional well-being? What about volunteering some of your spaceship time in exchange for the Big Brother program, where you can give a troubled or hapless kid an afternoon of enjoyment and discussion that he might not otherwise get? What about simply holding a door open for an elderly woman as she smiles and thanks you?
Wouldn't these things make you feel good? Even just a bit?
If not, are you a zombie or just totally depressed?
edit;
Sympathy is 'doing something abut it'.
Eh, not exactly. I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy
-
People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well, that's my burden, I guess.
I have an ability or a sickness. I am able to be selectively compassionate - I have the full suite of emotional reactions but if being compassionate puts me or mine in danger then I have the ability to step over someone's bleeding body rather than get involved.
It's not fear that paralyses me from doing what I want - help a hurting human being. It's a conscious triage decision. Sometimes I hate that I do it, but it never changes my reaction.
-
Actually Vik, I don't think you lack empathy at all. You might not have it developed to the same extent as people who make use of it in a professional setting but based on some of the answers/scenarios you described I think it's there.
What you seem to lack is sympathy, which is not necessarily a dysfunctional thing.
It is theorized that there are two kinds of empathy, cognitive and affective. Cognitive empathy is the ability to recognize emotions in others. Affective empathy is the emotional response to them. I have some of the former, probably none of the latter. I can recognize that you are sad, for example, but if I have an emotional response, it will probably be annoyance or irritation. Usually I simply want to fix whatever the problem is and move on. Sometimes I can, more often my friends and family get annoyed with me when I can't demonstrate any long term or deep connection.
If you have been sad, then you know what it is like to feel sad. Therefore, your ecognize ssandess in others. That's empathy.
Sympathy is 'doing something abut it'.
See what I said above. Moreover, I can't entirely relate to other's emotions. I have tried to examine my emotions and reactions more closely over the past few years, having escaped some rather unpleasant circumstances and now having the breathing room to do so. Some things I do not appear to experience.
For example, I don't appear to feel guilt. I can regret doing an action because it has bad consequences for me, or I can fear getting caught, but I have no intrinsic bad feeling for certain actions. I have to use the word "bad feeling", because that's what it has been described to me as. This doesn't mean that I run out and start murdering people - there are many good reasons not to kill people aside from anticipated bad feelings. But I certainly don't feel bad about wanting some people to die, or for taking actions which were "mean" but also legal. This is but one example - for example, I don't ever recall feeling grief. Can I feel angry that someone was taken away from me? Yes, for a few minutes. Can I miss seeing them now and then, because I found them interesting? Yes, absolutely. Do I feel the "deep, enduring sense of loss" that others speak of and demonstrate? No. Never. Not once.
And I sometimes feel emotions with no reason, or, perhaps, odd emotions. Fortunately, I don't think that I experience very strong emotions most (if not all) of the time.
I can't help but pity you then. That actually sounds like it really, really sucks.
Seriously, working in a soup kitchen does nothing for your emotional well-being? What about volunteering some of your spaceship time in exchange for the Big Brother program, where you can give a troubled or hapless kid an afternoon of enjoyment and discussion that he might not otherwise get? What about simply holding a door open for an elderly woman as she smiles and thanks you?
Wouldn't these things make you feel good? Even just a bit?
If not, are you a zombie or just totally depressed?
Of course it does nothing for me. I really don't understand why it would do something for me. There is nothing about feeding soup to bums that would appeal to me. As for the Big Brother program, while I might enjoy discussing things with an intelligent kid, I don't find most kids to be such, and I certainly have more entertaining things to do with my time.
I actually have tried doing things like this, now and then, just because of how others talk about them. The only thing I feel is disappointment, or, if I gave up something I wanted, loss. When I was a teen, as a Christian, I used to do 5-day clubs (like Vacation Bible School) for kids. Honestly, I found it a chore. I've tried visiting nursing homes, giving to the homeless, and many other things. In general, I find it either unpleasant or incredibly boring. In fact, until I understood that others can actually feel a connection with someone else's happiness, I couldn't understand any reason for these actions aside from religious or social duty (you know, the "give to the poor or you'll burn in hell" sort of thing, common at my former church).
And no, I'm not unhappy. Actually, I feel relatively happy and unstressed most of the time. Physically, my work can be stressful, but I don't lose sleep over just about anything, work-related or not.
And I do have my own means of being nice. I really enjoy Kiva loans, for example. I don't care about the people I loan to, I just enjoy the feeling of success and, well, pride I get when a loan is paid back and I can lend again. Sure, it's not all that amazing, but it feels like I made a wise investment decision, and that's very satisfying. So, people in poverty get a leg up, and I get to feel good. Everyone wins. And that, too, makes me feel good, because it means that I found a way to get selfish pleasure out of of a charitable activity. I'm fucking awesome, thank you. :P
I also just like doing occasional random benevolent things simply because I enjoy manipulating people. I especially enjoy manipulating people in constructive ways. In my opinion, any idiot can tear things down, but only a smart or cunning person can build them up. Right now I have a little scheme going with an older, shy Japanese woman who lives a few doors down from me. I think she is lonely, but I can't be sure, because, you know, no empathy. Anyway, after being introduced to her by a third person who hoped I could fix her printer (I couldn't), I decided to start bring her a little something every week. Usually it's something like a small pie, a loaf of zucchini bread, cookies, or whatnot.
I don't really care for her one way or another (actually, sometimes I have to try not to feel a little contempt, an emotion that I find too common in my make-up), and I certainly don't have any designs on her (she's older, as I said), but I find her increasing delighted bewilderment to be tremendously entertaining as she continually tries to assure me that I don't have to bring her stuff while also very much enjoying it and telling me that she likes the presents as well.
I get to feel mischievous, manipulative, and a bit like a tiny benevolent god, and she gets to feel that someone is showing her a little care (even if it's an illusion), and, also, pie.
Is this wrong? Is this right? Honestly, I don't really care. I enjoy it, so I do it, and it hurts no one, so I'm not going to get in trouble.
People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well, that's my burden, I guess.
I have an ability or a sickness. I am able to be selectively compassionate - I have the full suite of emotional reactions but if being compassionate puts me or mine in danger then I have the ability to step over someone's bleeding body rather than get involved.
It's not fear that paralyses me from doing what I want - help a hurting human being. It's a conscious triage decision. Sometimes I hate that I do it, but it never changes my reaction.
I mostly don't like Dexter. Just because I can't connect with others emotionally does not mean that I have some great desire to run around killing people. I also do like Dexter, a little bit, because it is sometimes an interesting show. Yet, just because many reactions are faked, doesn't mean that I'm a homicidal maniac. Seriously.
As to the rest of your post, I think that that is a skill, and a useful one to have. If you have the full suite of emotions, but can set them aside when necessary, then you have the best of both worlds, don't you? Do you work in a trauma or emergency-related occupation, by any chance?
-
It is theorized that there are two kinds of empathy, cognitive and affective. Cognitive empathy is the ability to recognize emotions in others. Affective empathy is the emotional response to them. I have some of the former, probably none of the latter. I can recognize that you are sad, for example, but if I have an emotional response, it will probably be annoyance or irritation. Usually I simply want to fix whatever the problem is and move on. Sometimes I can, more often my friends and family get annoyed with me when I can't demonstrate any long term, deep connection.
While theoretically that's quite correct and fairly well recognised, practically speaking it doesn't really mean too much in this specific context. As I said - and I acknowledge that I'm basing all this on extremely limited data - there's nothing in what describe about yourself that strikes me as too dysfunctional. Your emotional response to the problems of others is annoyance/irritation? That's a normal variation on human interaction. The fact you recognise they're emotional is the empathic part of you - the fact you don't give a shit is your individual nature.
You sound like a practical person who just wants to deal with things they can sort out and move on or away from things they either know they can't fix or things that would require more effort than they're worth to sort out.
Anyway, enough with the pop psych BS let's talk about all the other various types of BS out there :)
-
You sound like a practical person who just wants to deal with things they can sort out and move on or away from things they either know they can't fix or things that would require more effort than they're worth to sort out.
I'm not trying to sound special or badass or something. I'm not, and I despise it when people try. But it's difficult for me to agree with you when so much of what people mean goes over my head. As in, tonight, one friend of mine was torn up about how her kid had gotten into some scissors (they're moving, thus stuff is out and around), and chopped up their (the kid's) hair.
Now, I can say that she is upset. I could hardly not know; she said she was. I don't know why she is upset. I don't know what that sort of upset is like. I don't know what to do about it. I spent basically twenty minutes flailing around trying to figure out how to respond, and finally settled on getting her mind off of it by distracting her. Fortunately, that worked.
I can tell when someone is grieving. Probably. Tell me that someone died, that they loved them, and put a sad expression on their face, and I can say "ok, they are grieving". But I don't know what it's like to grieve. I never have. I can say that I was a little sad as a kid when pets died, because then we no longer had them, but by sad, I mean for ten minutes. So, I can tell you when someone is "grieving", but I don't actually know what that is, aside from a theoretical construct as a sort of long-term sadness. I can experience anger, generally in a sudden, sharp flash, but I've become very good at controlling that, a fact that I am proud of.
This is how I construct most emotional theories for myself. "Loneliness" is sort of like the boredom I feel when there is no one to talk to...but I've never been truly lonely - that is, really longing for company, though I like company. Sadness is difficult. People seem to have a sadness spectrum, I have only one or two variations (mostly when I don't get what I want), which is possibly why I am so rarely sad. I don't know if I love or not - if I do, it's remarkably mercurial. I prefer to base my valuation of people on other qualities about them, like how interesting and smart they are. I can experience lust, I suppose, but it's a distracted, easily ignored sort of thing. I have a general sense of well-being and happiness most of the time, yet many people seem to lack this.
To me, most other people seem to be over-dosing on some sort of hysteria drug. I often have trouble with non-detective/war fiction, because people seem so frustratingly irrational and incompetent. These days, I mostly read non-fiction. Maybe these are just the signs of being exceptionally practical. If so, I like it, and I often wish others were also more "practical".
As for the pop psych, eh, the author of the thread essentially said he got what he wanted, so I assume we can wander where we will.
-
I can actually see a lot of myself in there, Vikarion - a more extreme version, but recognisable. I'm good (or used to be, I've cut back) at listening to other peoples' problems, but that's basically because I'm a nosy bastard. I try to be a nice person in general, but only to the point where it begins to impinge on my happiness - at which point I have to start weighing things up. I'm a firm believer in the principle of enlightened self-interest as a way of setting goals and tasks. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I'd probably throw most of it to charity - but only after I'd worked out what I needed, and just because I don't approve of sitting on useless resources rather than from any particular need to benefit others. I'm also very familiar with the satisfaction from successfully manipulating people.
I do also sometimes have to do reality checks on my emotions. It's a joke between my fiance and me that she goes up to 11, and I go up to 7.5 on the emotion scale. I can hit depression pretty hard at times (usually when stressed), and my temper is a rare but scary thing, but apart from that, it's generally fairly low key.
-
Someone said that sociopathy is actually far more common than is widely assumed - because in order to all 'serial killer' you need a further problem that makes you want to kill people.
Sociopathy doesn't do that. Most Sociopaths are high-functioning - that is, they understand that fitting in with society and contributing actually services their goals FAR more than being a murderous asshat.
-
Someone said that sociopathy is actually far more common than is widely assumed - because in order to all 'serial killer' you need a further problem that makes you want to kill people.
Sociopathy doesn't do that. Most Sociopaths are high-functioning - that is, they understand that fitting in with society and contributing actually services their goals FAR more than being a murderous asshat.
Sociopathy isn't a real medical diagnosis anymore, not since the latest DSMs, at any rate. Now there is a different label: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Well, whatever. Psychological conditions do not seem to be set in concrete, and I don't tend to consider myself mentally disordered or ill. Indeed, using as an objective metric as I can (comparing my predictions about future events and probabilities to the predictions of others) I seem to have a reasonably good grasp of what is going on.
I've taken the PCL-R, and I score high enough on it (28-32, depending on how you want to evaluate certain aspects of my personality) to be considered a sociopath. I don't know if I like the label, and it may not apply, as I tend to be averse to activities I feel to be overly risky. If that's a trait of a "high functioning sociopath", then maybe I am one, and maybe Repentance is too. I can be impulsive and irresponsible, but I've learned to work around that or control myself - for example, I fund my retirement by an automatic withdrawal that it would take too much effort to stop. I tend to be oddly exempt from irresponsibility and impulsive behavior at my job, probably because I enjoy it and really don't want to fuck it up. On the other hand, I forgot about how bald my tires were until one of them popped on me just the other day. It wasn't that I didn't have the money, I just didn't care.
I just tend to be a bit...leery of the label because it implies that I want to ruin lives or kill people. In general, I just want to enjoy myself. Sure, I want to ruin some people's lives, but you might want to ruin them too, if you knew the people I did. Then again, maybe not. And I don't, because society is better for me if everyone doesn't go around trying to get even for every little slight even if I really, really want to sometimes.
I can actually see a lot of myself in there, Vikarion - a more extreme version, but recognisable. I'm good (or used to be, I've cut back) at listening to other peoples' problems, but that's basically because I'm a nosy bastard. I try to be a nice person in general, but only to the point where it begins to impinge on my happiness - at which point I have to start weighing things up. I'm a firm believer in the principle of enlightened self-interest as a way of setting goals and tasks. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I'd probably throw most of it to charity - but only after I'd worked out what I needed, and just because I don't approve of sitting on useless resources rather than from any particular need to benefit others. I'm also very familiar with the satisfaction from successfully manipulating people.
I do also sometimes have to do reality checks on my emotions. It's a joke between my fiance and me that she goes up to 11, and I go up to 7.5 on the emotion scale. I can hit depression pretty hard at times (usually when stressed), and my temper is a rare but scary thing, but apart from that, it's generally fairly low key.
This is a rarity for me - for someone else to say that they see their own self in me. It's a little flattering, in a way.
I am a good listener. I've even become good at pretending to relate, a process which I manage by coming up with situations similar to those described by whoever I am listening to. I actually don't mind that - it's trying to connect with those close to me that is trouble, that is difficult. People farther away, well, you can manage them. It is those closer who I have trouble with, those who want me to be something I don't know how to be. I know something is missing, but I don't know what. Do you find this to be true for you?
I don't know that, if I won the lottery, that I'd give most of the money to charity. I'd probably keep most of it, and live off the interest, willing the principle to space exploration companies after my death. I really like space exploration, and I want humans to get off this planet, if for no other reason than that I think our species should survive. After all, it is my species.
If I were to rate my emotions, I would put myself at a 0, or a 1, out of ten, for most of them, save for anger. Anger is my principle emotion, by which I mean that it is the only emotion I experience in any great or memorable quantity. I think I have come to the point of controlling it well. The only exception I've found to this is the feeling of absolute joy and transcendence I get when creating something or watching spacecraft lift off. That emotion, that feeling of...uplifting and triumph...is the most amazing thing I can feel. If that is how people feel when they love someone else - and I theorize that it is, sorta, then I can understand why they do such stupid things in pursuit of it.
But, Repentance, I am curious. If you are like me, how do you get depressed? What is that like, and why do you feel that way? If you feel low key, is your depression a nagging side effect, or a major emotion?
-
This is a rarity for me - for someone else to say that they see their own self in me. It's a little flattering, in a way.
You're welcome? :P
I am a good listener. I've even become good at pretending to relate, a process which I manage by coming up with situations similar to those described by whoever I am listening to. I actually don't mind that - it's trying to connect with those close to me that is trouble, that is difficult. People farther away, well, you can manage them. It is those closer who I have trouble with, those who want me to be something I don't know how to be. I know something is missing, but I don't know what. Do you find this to be true for you?
Not really. I was an only child and home-educated until 14, with relatively little real contact with people (and almost none of my own age) until about 12. At that point, I just kind of met the world on my own terms. At school I got a reputation for being weird which I thrived upon and was content to live with (or reinforce for my own amusement). I remember being told, when I was a moderator on a forum a few years back, that my robot-like ability to look at a problem coolly and objectively made me the best member of the team. I got cast in the title role of a production of Jack the Ripper at university, and the joke that everyone made was that it was type-casting. I've never had issues with people wanting something more from me than I can offer, because I either don't care, or I know them well enough to be up front about who and what I am, and that's always been enough.
I don't know that, if I won the lottery, that I'd give most of the money to charity. I'd probably keep most of it, and live off the interest, willing the principle to space exploration companies after my death. I really like space exploration, and I want humans to get off this planet, if for no other reason than that I think our species should survive. After all, it is my species.
I can think of worse things to do. And I'd be damned picky about what cause I was supporting. I'm a cynical git about a lot of stuff.
But, Repentance, I am curious. If you are like me, how do you get depressed? What is that like, and why do you feel that way? If you feel low key, is your depression a nagging side effect, or a major emotion?
Depression takes the form of total apathy for me. I wouldn't describe it as an emotion so much as a mental block, that often triggers off something minor (as I said, it almost always happens when I'm stressed for some reason, even if the source of the stress is not said trigger). Suddenly I'll feel unmotivated, question the validity of anything I might want to do, and experience a total shutdown of any willingness to do anything. After a time, I'll rise out of the depths and enter a mellow state where I'll basically do nothing of my own accord, but will usually accept suggestions and instructions without question. Eventually, usually after a few hours, I'll find enough willpower to break the block and return to normal, but it's not fun.
Actually, when I say 'willpower', to an extent I mean 'annoyance'. The thought process effectively amounts to 'I've got better things to do with my life than sit and mope, enough of this shit already'. Certain activities (including cooking, oddly enough) can help accelerate this, and occasionally I'll enter a state that can be best described as manic, presumably from energy overflow. You can tell when this happens because I start speaking in a mock Herr Doktor accent and zipping around the kitchen at speed.
-
This is an interesting discussion.
I worked for a few years at a Forensic Hospital (A polite term I suppose for a facility where those patients are treated for mental illness after having committed a serious indictable offense and sentenced by the State) and I only got the job there after having to complete over a week of psychological/psychometric testing and then a further month of probationary evaluation with the clinical staff prior to being granted full clearance. Taken at face value, some of those tests would have flagged me as exhibiting traits of sociopathy according to the DSM and I was told this. I was still hired because one of the traits I was also believed to possess during my assessments was the emotional control necessary to deal with patients who to varying degrees might be said to possess the qualities of being intelligent and extremely manipulative.
I don't think of things like the DSM as some kind of verdict or judgement upon a person, and I don't think the people who write it think so either. It's a diagnostic tool, but at the end of the day people aren't a maths or physics problem, or that you can just go, this is crazy and this is normal. To do so speaks of great ignorance to me, and a lack of understanding in others. I think I've just come to accept that we're all different, and unless someone presents a clear harm to themselves or others due to their mental state then I do not think it's anyone place to pass judgement upon them or go whip out the pop psychology. Even worse, stigmatize them for it.
If someone feels fine just the way they are, and who they are then that's fine by me. If someone feels unhappy or dissatisfied because they don't think they're, "normal" then I guess the only advice I can offer is that I think we're probably all a little bit fucked up in our own ways whether we like to admit that or not.
-
I think I've just come to accept that we're all different, and unless someone presents a clear harm to themselves or others due to their mental state then I do not think it's anyone place to pass judgement upon them or go whip out the pop psychology.
Being crazy is only a problem when it makes you dysfunctional. That's my take on such questions.
And +1 to 'we're all a little fucked up in our own ways'.
-
Even if we don't start out life with a 'condition' that makes us a little fucked up, life usually conspires to put a crack in us before we're fully adults.
-
I don't think of things like the DSM as some kind of verdict or judgement upon a person, and I don't think the people who write it think so either. It's a diagnostic tool, but at the end of the day people aren't a maths or physics problem, or that you can just go, this is crazy and this is normal. To do so speaks of great ignorance to me, and a lack of understanding in others. I think I've just come to accept that we're all different, and unless someone presents a clear harm to themselves or others due to their mental state then I do not think it's anyone place to pass judgement upon them or go whip out the pop psychology. Even worse, stigmatize them for it.
Eventually, we'll be able to classify via neuroscience what types of brain structure tend to produce the best results for individuals and societies. This may be a long time in coming, and I don't mind that. I did try going to a psychologist once, mostly out of curiosity. No, scratch that, entirely out of curiosity. She almost immediately referred me to a forensic psychologist, at which point I decided satiating my curiosity was not as important as all that. :P I have a friend who believes I should go to one, too, but I tend to think otherwise.
Generally, I'm happy with myself. I want to correct some of the impulsive behavior I have, but I'm not dysfunctional, at least, not any more. Rarely, I do wish that I could really connect to someone, but I sometimes wish I could see ultraviolet light, too. And I'd probably just get bored of them anyway.
Repentance, thanks for your explanations. I do find myself interested in people, for a time. I have to admit that I thought I was going through a depressed stage like that, once, but it turned out that it was just me going to bed at three in the morning every night. Sorry I can't relate. But the manic part seems fun. Do you think you have a mild form of bipolar?
I was "educated" at home as well, at least until I was eighteen. Similarly, I also had a reputation as "weird" for a few years, since I had almost no contact outside of my family until fifteen. Fortunately, I'm a good actor, so it only took me about three or four years to shake that off. Generally, in person I am great at first impressions. I've never been open about my internal reactions to my friends or family. I can fake it well, but sometimes the mask slips, so to speak, and yeah, a robot/borg response goes out. Then I have to go be extra nice.
Something I've learned, incidentally, is that if you want to maintain relationships, you need to be seen as giving back. I can't always manage to convey this emotionally, so I tend to rely on gifts, cookies, or other similar small things. It's work, but I've seen others manage to alienate themselves from those who cared for them (and helped alienate more than a couple of them myself), so it strikes me that maintaining a support structure is a good idea.
What I'm curious about it how you manage to maintain connections if you tell people how you tend to feel. If I were to - hypothetically - tell those close to me that I generally feel nothing for them, then I suspect I would have drastically fewer people close to me. How do those close to you handle it?
EDIT: It strikes me, now, that the answer to the above might be that they genuinely are willing to embrace a non-transaction-al relationship. I have a hell of a lot of trouble even admitting this could exist.
-
Even if we don't start out life with a 'condition' that makes us a little fucked up, life usually conspires to put a crack in us before we're fully adults.
I'm fairly sure that I was this way well before I was an adult. At the very least, I portrayed many of the objective symptoms as a child, even a young child.
One thing that I should add, to the person who spoke of making others happy, and me being miserable, is this: I'm not miserable. I have never been miserable for any length of time. Even when I was getting hit as a child, part of me was defiantly joyful at the fact that I had the power to provoke others.
But I do wish I could feel happy in other's happiness. Why not? It would be a great additional source of happiness. Sure, I feel generally happy, but I would love to be absolutely blissful, and I could manage it, too. Most people are so easy to manipulate into feeling good that I could spend my days riding a wave of other-induced bliss, if I could only fucking feel it! But it's not there, and the most I can do is try to take joy in the feeling of having the power to make others happy (or miserable). Fortunately, that's a pretty good rush right there.
-
Repentance, thanks for your explanations. I do find myself interested in people, for a time. I have to admit that I thought I was going through a depressed stage like that, once, but it turned out that it was just me going to bed at three in the morning every night. Sorry I can't relate. But the manic part seems fun. Do you think you have a mild form of bipolar?
Possible, I suppose. Never thought of it like that.
I was "educated" at home as well, at least until I was eighteen. Similarly, I also had a reputation as "weird" for a few years, since I had almost no contact outside of my family until fifteen. Fortunately, I'm a good actor, so it only took me about three or four years to shake that off. Generally, in person I am great at first impressions.
Ditto. As a rule, I'm an antisocial bastard, but I make an effort to be polite, reasonable and able to hold a conversation - though I'll try and find reasons to move on if said conversation doesn't interest me.
Something I've learned, incidentally, is that if you want to maintain relationships, you need to be seen as giving back. I can't always manage to convey this emotionally, so I tend to rely on gifts, cookies, or other similar small things. It's work, but I've seen others manage to alienate themselves from those who cared for them (and helped alienate more than a couple of them myself), so it strikes me that maintaining a support structure is a good idea.
I think this is the main point of difference between us - generally, I can manage an emotional exchange. Occasionally it'll fluctuate, and I'm extremely selective about who I let close enough to start building that up, but it's the rule rather than the exception beyond that point.
Conversely, anyone not within that circle gets my polite, friendly mask. That includes most of my friends. It's not deceptive or anything, I simply have no real emotions invested there. The relationship is entirely based upon common points of interest, and if those vanish, we'll probably lose contact. It's happened many a time.
-
Your DSM diagnosis is less important overall than your GAF, imo.