Curse

Inde · Sep 01, 2008, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Drama is such a huge threat to the stability of any competitive guild, and I can fully understand any team that doesn't want to take the risk of female players - and it is a risk, even if it's debatable in size. You might disagree, but then I'd have to ask if you've played GW at a competitive level. While I certainly don't know every female player, every one that I've been in a guild with has sparked drama, without exception. I know some that have not, in other guilds, so I can't make any serious blanket statements, but that's my experience, and it's the experience that motivates players to stereotype.

I have to laugh so hard Avarre. Considering that based on my experience, maybe even stereotype of men, MMOG's are the male version of soap operas.

Avarre · Sep 01, 2008, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I have to laugh so hard Avarre. Considering that based on my experience, maybe even stereotype of men, MMOG's are the male version of soap operas.

You should have seen our guild Less Crying Is Key [kThx]. The amount of drama the nine brave men of that guild caused was ridiculous. We had people on medication, screaming, guild forum flame wars, everything. It was great.

That said, the guild broke up more from contrasting personalities rather than a single person. My guilds that have had drama problems involving girls (oddly... that makes all of them except kThx) have had said single person at the center of the events. I can understand drama being started over gameplay concepts (disagreements in playstyle, organization, etc) as a general fact of team play, but the whole NUKE 'not going to play because you changed the cape' event is one that sticks in my head.

Lady Lozza · Sep 01, 2008, 05:42 AM // 05:42

There is a difference between being cautious and calling someone out on something.

I'll cross the street late at night if I'm not comfortable walking past a stranger who is bigger and pressumably stronger than I am. But I'm hardly going to call the police if they haven't done anything wrong.

In everything bar picking up a random in HA to make up numbers, I will give players a chance to prove whether or not they are complete idiots. If they overly aggressive about a bad build that is ass enough for me.

In HA only when picking up a random will I drop a player with a bad bar, wrong bar, or someone who strikes me as though they have no idea what they are doing. It just isn't worth the time or effort to coach a single player.

But for players new to GvG, or a new group of HA players (guildies) taking the time to explain and share and wait for people to prove themselves works for me.

I suppose I'm more relaxed than others and I don't feel that overwhelming need to "win" that others do. I don't let one bad experience ruin things for me and I keep in mind that some things are statistically more likely or less likely to happen - so I don't get overly excited when these things happen.

It's not unrealistic or impractical to take this view. Been working just fine for me for a very long time.

Kashrlyyk · Sep 01, 2008, 07:38 AM // 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

imho:

"Nice one, Linsey…really nice. Did you ever play Super Princess Peach? Peach goes out and saves Mario’s ass in that one! Also, how many times have we seen the tough, assertive side of peach in the Paper Mario series?! Linsey, I don’t know you very well, but you seem to be hurting your cause, more than helping. Thanks to Matt for the heads up."

Lindsey's comments regarding Princess Peach shows you that she's so much under the influence of the gamming community is gear towards male syndrome, by making the princess peach comment she thinks that makes her tough. you don't have to be male to be tough, you just have to be you what ever you do where ever you are. much like the Marlo's comment about teaching girls to think a certain way, its f**k up

Just be yourself!

I agree with you. It was a really stupid comment from her.

Shadow Kurd · Sep 01, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_...irls_and_Games
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:...urdock/Journal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linsey Murdock

I so totally did NOT say that and now all kinds of people are super pissed at me for it lol. If it wasn't for the fact that the entire "article" is full of laughably bad misquotes from all the panelists, I might be pissed. Everyone needs to go out there and let people know that I hella didn't say that and the writer was just putting words into my mouth. Ridiculous. Oh and of course all kinds of people from work have teased the crap out of me for it. /rolleyes I may never live this down. *sigh* -

Linsey talk 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

or maybe she didnt say it.

pumpkin pie · Sep 01, 2008, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Okay, so she did not say it, has she ask kotaku to take down the offending, slandering article?

You should, Ms Murdock. so people, *ahem*, like me, don't think your weird for saying that.

Sorry, Ms Murdock, for not seeing that people might put words to spice up their article if you infact did not say it.

Burst Cancel · Sep 01, 2008, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Lozza

There is a difference between being cautious and calling someone out on something.

I'll cross the street late at night if I'm not comfortable walking past a stranger who is bigger and pressumably stronger than I am. But I'm hardly going to call the police if they haven't done anything wrong.

There is a difference, but that difference doesn't have to do with bias. Clearly, if you're uncomfortable walking past that person you've already made certain assumptions about them that may or may not have any merit. That stranger could be the nicest person in the world, but you've already pegged them as potentially dangerous based on inconclusive evidence. Consider: would you act differently if they were female vs. male? Old vs. young? Dressed like a businessman vs. homeless man? Bias exists whether you call the police or not.

If the words "bias" and "stereotype" bother you, try "heuristic" instead.

Lonesamurai · Sep 01, 2008, 03:25 PM // 15:25

wow... linsey's pissed

slowerpoke · Sep 01, 2008, 03:55 PM // 15:55

the flikr feed has been updated with alot of pics from PAx

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenanet/

i wonder if Regina appears in any of them

Fril Estelin · Sep 01, 2008, 04:37 PM // 16:37

3-year GW panel, 3 women, 3 men

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenanet/2816447455/

GG Anet

Lady Raenef · Sep 01, 2008, 05:34 PM // 17:34

Wow such huge friggin' radars on their screens. My radar is about 1/4 the size of that which is still plenty visible for me to see everything. Jeez. Charr Statue owns. I want that in my living room.

Bryant Again · Sep 01, 2008, 05:41 PM // 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

3-year GW panel, 3 women, 3 men

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenanet/2816447455/

GG Anet

<3 Katy Hargrove : D

DreamRunner · Sep 01, 2008, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't have time to get to know everyone I see. If I see a guy in a wifebeater and baggy jeans hanging off their ass, I'm going to make certain assumptions about him before anyone moves or opens their mouths. Sure, these assumptions could be totally wrong - but until I actually meet such an exception, there's really no reason or evidence compelling me to change my assumptions.. ... Being unbiased might be great to talk about, but it's impractical and frankly fails to reflect reality.

I agree and this is problem. The problem being is that we are told how to represent ourselves with what we wear. You just made that clear, but there is also a double standard in saying that, since I could argue if a women was wearing a short skirt, then she is RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO. She may not be of course, but my point isn't so much that we don't represent ourselves in a fashion sense but we shouldn't try to describe ourselves and others with materialistic means, either its fashion, music or so forth.

Its unbiased because EVERYTHING we see is a sigh or representations. The short skirt example as before, people could see it as skimpy, revealing maybe as far as disgusting, but some can see it as fashionable.

Burst Cancel · Sep 01, 2008, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Don't get stuck on the clothing analogy. My point is that people use heuristics to make decisions and produce solutions when formal or statistical solutions are impractical. I may not be able to prove, for instance, that all women suck at games, but if every woman I meet sucks at games it really doesn't matter whether I can prove it or not - my heuristic (i.e., "rule of thumb") will be that all women suck at games.

We apply similar heuristics to PuGs and wammos. The overwhelming majority of PuGs I've ever played in were terribad; ergo, my assumption is that PuGs are terribad. Sure, I might run into an exception every once in a while - but that's why they're called exceptions. My heuristic remains useful as long as it generally reflects my experience. These sorts of assumptions and snap-judgments are applied willy-nilly all over the place, so I fail to see why their effects on "female gamers" is worth emphasis over any other stereotyped group.

Lady Lozza · Sep 01, 2008, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Statistically people are attacked in certain areas/suburbs more than others. Statistically certain types of people are more likely to be petty criminals than others. A lot of bias, even dare I say stereo types, are based on statistics.

You can't tell that a girl is a slut because she is wearing a short skirt - people don't do research on these things. I will agree that a lot of people do use heuristics where statistics are impractical or unavailable, but no doubt much of this is based on hollywood and media portraying girls in short skirts as sluts rather than personal experience.

Why do I believe it MAY be prevalent in the case of girl gamers? PUGS are more common than girl gamers. So you in 3 years of GW, even more of gaming one will have experienced enough PUGS to make a general assessment on the average level of a PUG. However if the rate of girl gamers is as low as 5% then in a similar time period, and given that some characters may be the same players, one is unlikely to have experienced enough girl gamers to make a similar general assessment.

Whether or not you trust statistics more than experience, or experience over statistics doesn't matter. The fact still remains that with a low percentage of girl gamers, it should be unsurprising that there are fewer "top girl gamers".
Yet people seem to see this as conclusive evidence that girls make poor gamers. I'll say once again, if 1% of players are "top" players, and there are 10,000 players, and only 5% of those players are girls, then the total number of "top" players who are likely to be girls is a grand total of 1.

Having fewer top players who are female does not mean the female gender is incapable of playing at top level, it is merely a reflection of the fact that fewer girls play.

Regarding the topic and the panel, more research is needed before people run this topic again. I'm sure there are better things to talk about than how few girls are in games and hypothesising why that is the case.

Remember, "think pink" is not the answer.

Burst Cancel · Sep 01, 2008, 11:52 PM // 23:52

You managed to miss the whole point of social heuristics: that people either cannot or do not consider statistical relevance. I'm pretty damn sure that I haven't PuGed enough to have sampled a statistically relevant portion of the total player base - but my opinion of PuGs stands until my experience says otherwise. I've probably played with fewer than 300 different players since GW was released. Maybe 10% of these 300 weren't complete morons. Similarly, maybe a quarter of the people who post on Gurus use more than ten brain cells when posting. Based on this small, unrepresentative sample, I therefore assume that the vast majority of people who play GW are idiots. As long as I don't encounter a significant number of exceptions, this assumption stands - whether my sample is statistically relevant or not. That's the nature of heuristics.

Obviously, any stereotyped group is fighting a battle (often a losing one) against common perception. I think we've all met teenage boys with a better head on their shoulders than some adults - but as long as they're few enough in number to be written off as exceptions, perceptions about teenage boys and their behaviors aren't going to change. And that's the bottom line, really.

Of course, heuristics can be (and should be) improved as more data is available. In particular, you can take into account additional factors. Maybe one day you notice that women over the age of 40 aren't as bad at games as their younger counterparts. Or maybe something about the way they talk correlates with how well they play. Or maybe women that prefer warriors are generally better than women that prefer rangers. Random examples, but I think you get the point. We do the same thing in social interactions too; that young man might be dressed like a hooligan, but if he speaks like a college math professor your assumptions about him probably change pretty quickly. These new assumptions might still be wrong, but either way it's one more piece of data.

Chthon · Sep 02, 2008, 01:32 AM // 01:32

@Burst: it's not even the case that a heuristic needs to have high predictive value to be useful. It just needs to predict high-value cases. If your "that guy looks like a mugger" heuristic has a 90% false-positive rate, but still correctly detects all the muggers you encounter, then it's doing its job -- you're not getting mugged -- and you'd be acting rationally to continue its use.

draxynnic · Sep 02, 2008, 02:21 AM // 02:21

That's pretty much what I was going to say, Cthon. In the case of the potential mugger, he may be the nicest person in the world, but unless you're in the habit of striking up conversations with random people you pass on the footpath, all that matters is that he isn't a mugger.

Heck, let's say 9/10 people who look like muggers aren't, just to pluck a figure out of my head. Those 9/10 times, you lose nothing bar the extra effort required to cross the road - and if it was a road you were going to cross at some time anyway, you lose nothing by engaging in the avoidance strategy. If that means that one out of ten times you don't get mugged - or at least get a warning when the mugger follows you across the street - it's worth it.

On the other hand, this is an example where interaction ranges from "none" to "really bad". Ingame, the range is more along the lines of "bad" to "really good", so engaging in an avoidance strategy can actually prove to cost you - although you may never know the cost.

Avarre · Sep 02, 2008, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Raenef

Wow such huge friggin' radars on their screens. My radar is about 1/4 the size of that which is still plenty visible for me to see everything. Jeez. Charr Statue owns. I want that in my living room.

Increasing the radar size is a common tactic to help players keep an eye on their positioning. However, radars of that size is clearly a form of compensation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

correction: it does make a different that you can see clearer where everyone within the radar is. it does not make a different in terms of see more things beyond.

Basically that. If you can clearly see where people are, you can make sure you're in the right place a little easier.

pumpkin pie · Sep 02, 2008, 04:47 AM // 04:47

how do you all know that the players you pug-ged with were female players or male palyers ?? did you ask all of them eveytime you get into a pug group?

Radar Size
I think you can resize your radar to any size you want, but it does not make a different, why? because it still only show you the same amount of "content" meaning its an enlarge version of the same small radar without you seeing anything further then your anyone else if the were looking at a radar standing in the same position as yourself. (a bit confusing , sorry)

correction: it does make a different that you can see clearer where everyone within the radar is. it does not make a different in terms of see more things beyond.

PS: whoever you hire to make the charr statue, lol think twice before you use them again, its just wrong. its a statue of something but definitely not a charr.