Curse

Teufel Eldritch · Jul 27, 2005, 02:06 AM // 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by IxChel

I think you mean "vengeance" -- and vengeance is never "just". Self defence is just, removing someone from a situation so that they cannot harm others is just; however, actively seeking to hurt others is never just. By "getting even" with one person, he has wronged two others; and has filled the well with poison. His account should be banned.

Omg! omg! omg! I spelled a word incorrectly! The world is doomed!

Anyway... vengeance can indeed be just. Vengeance is nothing more than a persons or persons acting without official sanction, most likely working outside the law, to inflict retribution upon another for a wrong commited. Why it is illegal is not because it is morally wrong but because ppl without the rule of law are prone to make hasty judgements & inflict retribution upon a innocent party.

If I came home to find my family murdered & saw the killer fleeing out the back door I would chase him down & kill him him. Vengeance? You bet! Just? That too!

Now if I came home & found my family murdered & saw the killer run out my back door & thru my neighbors house & then I kill my neighbor thinking he was the killer when he in fact was not that would be vengeance as well but it would not be just.

IxChel · Jul 27, 2005, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly

I partied with one other who was in it only for the bonus and I advertised specifically that I wanted the bonus and the mission. I was also on my first mission with a newly recruited guildmate.

So besides the "leader", he's teaming with someone else who was "only in it for the bonus" and a guild mate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly

I kept shouting out that I am in this for the bonus which I made clear before entering the mission.

Usually when you're in a mission /w a guildmate and someone else who wants to do the bonus, it's not hard to convince the other two people who to follow. You can do the bonus with 2-3 people, and if the leader wanted to rush off and get killed... well, dumb shits do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterQu

Pfft... The two people had just as much a chance to speak up for him, or stop playing. They are guilty by there inaction. They let the leader get away with breaking the agreement.

My guess is that he didn't clearly explain his problems with the current leaderhip to the other two team members. From my reading of the story, he was passive when it mattered, and then aggressive when it is too late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teklord

It's just like I believe if someone were to threaten to take away my God given right to live in this world, then at the same time they forfeit their own.

Even remotely equating this with a death scenario is a red herring; alluding to this extreme is invalid logical argumentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManadartheHealer

Hasty, hasty. This was no elaborate scheme for vengeance; just a simple act of retribution. DrSlugfly has been posting on this site for awhile, and he seems like a fine person. He doesn't whine, doesn't insult, and doesn't flame (to my knowledge

). Let's say what he did WAS wrong. Who the hell are you to judge? And why should such drastic action be taken?

Indeed. I was being unnecessarily argumentative, thanks for correcting me. That said, I find the overall "serves them right" attitude of many posters on this thread quite distrubing.

...

What this individual did is at the very least grounds for dismissal at a good guild; it should be grounds for banning one's account. If you are not going to play in a cooperative manner, disconnect or do your team the favor of dying by yourself... but dragging monsters back into a group for vengeance is simply not acceptable.

warren_kn · Jul 27, 2005, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Fair enough, and the punishment for ruining DrSLUGFly's game by running off and doing the mission...

Should that be instant dismissal as well?

The way I see it the OP ruined the other guy's game in the same way the other guy ruined the OP's, ie he made sure he couldn't achieve what he set out to do.

thaumaturge · Jul 27, 2005, 12:35 PM // 12:35

You said you wanted the mission and the bonus, yet you decide to be an ass and ruin other peoples chance at beating the mission. I can't count the number of times I've been in a mission with the "mission and bonus" criteria, either through mutual decision/lack of time/droppers or other reasons we just did the mission. While communication would have been better, surely you could have just done the mission and gone back to do the bonus with another group? There is no excuse for this behaviour I am glad I am not on your server.

Ashley Twig · Jul 27, 2005, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Wow, some people on this thread must truely be religious showing this "an eye for an eye" attitude.

You ruin my bonus, so I ruin your mission. What a crappy concept!
Like in kindergarden: you destroyed my sandcastle, now I destroy yours. This is my truck, no it's mine.

As the OP posted he wanted both mission and bonus, and when he found out that he could only have one, he acted childish by ruining it all, not only for himself, but also for others.

I agree, that lack of comunication in missions and quests it truely anoying.
When those things happen I usually give an ultimatum, telling people, that if they don't talk to me, I will log out.
At least they have a remote chance to finish the mission, but going to ruin it for them? No way.

Aniewiel · Jul 27, 2005, 01:34 PM // 13:34

I think what I'm most astounded by is the fact that this thread, like a dying fish, is still flopping and thrashing about on the dock.

For the love of the Almighty someone please finish it off!

SOT · Jul 27, 2005, 01:47 PM // 13:47

Call it whatever you want: justice, grief (makes no sense, they grief ME by not contributing to a hard mission by standing around holding their genitals and IGNORING my pleas for assistance), bad gamesmanship, or outright hostility, the only true solution to this problem without having to involve ANET, and ergo waste their dev time, is take NPC robots instead.

I cannot fathom why so many people STILL cannot get that through ther brain. I have played all of the game, all the way up to where I am now, with npc robots. If I can do it, why can't you?

It is not about ego's, or who is doing what, it is about common sense and preventative maintenance. If you do not want to deal with asshats and smartasses and people who will blatantly stand still and ignore you, grab an NPC and leave those fools standing in town begging for the attention they obviously crave.

This whole thing is just avoidable as hell and it has become a crime against reason to even debate such a thing

John Bloodstone · Jul 27, 2005, 02:07 PM // 14:07

Two things that the OP could have done to avoid this situation we are in now:

1)Don't wreak vengeance on people who don't know any better. Just leave.

2)Don't f'ing post about it afterwards. What did you expect?

Aniewiel · Jul 27, 2005, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Slugfly is a good guy and a great contributor to this site. Let's just all agree that he was having a lousy day and made a bad choice. Now...maybe we can move on.

Old Dood · Jul 27, 2005, 02:16 PM // 14:16

So many people living in glass houses willing to cast stones. None of us are perfect. I have to give drSLUGFly credit for being honest.

Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts will.

LathalDraugr · Jul 27, 2005, 02:19 PM // 14:19

The worst part of this is if more people acted like the OP there would be less griefers and less support for it instead of the current attitude of passive encouragement to griefing.

Leaving or doing nothing only encourages the griefer to continue being selfish and ignore the wishes of other players, this way they've learned a lesson. If you ruin other peoples game they ruin yours.

And at the end of the day if you refuse to punish these people and want play the martyr thats fine just don't expect everyone else to adopt your passive endorsement of selfishly and intentionally griefing other players.

John Bloodstone · Jul 27, 2005, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Lathal, it appears that what you are suggesting is that if you are somehow wronged in any way, what you should do is ruin the game for everyone else - guilty or not... you were wronged, you are within your rights to screw everyone else over too, right?

What do you think is going to please a griefer more: somebody trying to get their own back and dragging out the game even more, or everyone leaving him to get on with it on his own? I think I can pretty much guarantee it's the former. Not only that, but intentionally griefing yourself, you're actually contributing to the problem.

Anyway, it's something of a moot point, since the person the OP was referring to WASN'T griefing, he just wasn't paying attention or didn't know any better.

SnowRaven · Jul 27, 2005, 02:40 PM // 14:40

well the ignore list is there for you to use...i had to delete a couple of inactive friends to add more morons to my ignore list lately

Silmor · Jul 27, 2005, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by LathalDraugr

The worst part of this is if more people acted like the OP there would be less griefers and less support for it instead of the current attitude of passive encouragement to griefing.

Leaving or doing nothing only encourages the griefer to continue being selfish and ignore the wishes of other players, this way they've learned a lesson. If you ruin other peoples game they ruin yours.

And at the end of the day if you refuse to punish these people and want play the martyr thats fine just don't expect everyone else to adopt your passive endorsement of selfishly and intentionally griefing other players.

That's the thing. They don't learn a lesson. They just get griefed back, get angry, and according to the logic displayed throughout this thread, are justified to grief back again. It doesn't solve anything, it just promotes griefing even further. "If you ruin other peoples game they ruin yours." - your words, but I agree entirely - it works both ways.

I'm hesitant to use such a harsh example, but it does show the situation very well. Consider Palestinian suicide bombing vs. Israeli retaliatory bombings. Regardless of who started it, each side loses innocent civilians, children, which for them is justification to retaliate. Every time they strike the other side again, the solution to the conflict is further away. Neither side learns a 'lesson', nothing is solved, and people suffer.

Saerden · Jul 27, 2005, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Thats why GW is like real life. Only bother about other people if you cant avoid it or have enough power to controll them.

I personally dont care if someone ruins my mission. Well i am angry, but not at this person, but because i was stupid enough to invite a moron. Its my fault for not brainwashing him and making him an obediant slave, or just ignoring him.

I was doing the borlis pass mission (dont ask, thought that you cant hench without /mo rezzing, oh was i wrong), and joined a team. The leader invited a level 19 warrior and someone else joined, both where looking for bonus only before they joined us. Both of course agreed to do the mission. Who is to blame? Me. I should have left the team the moment they joined. Them asking every 3mins of the mission where the bonus is was no longer needed as clues.

Since most MMO companies have this carebear attitude of "NO griefing, and WE define griefing" its better to ignore other players unless you can trust them.

While some in this community want to grief you by banning your account, i condone it... not that anyone cares though.
But next time, dont trust strangers at all... especially with things like bonus, skill caps, or trades etc.

Sereng Amaranth · Jul 27, 2005, 04:00 PM // 16:00

/thread

hydrak · Jul 27, 2005, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Warrior Dood

So many people living in glass houses willing to cast stones. None of us are perfect. I have to give drSLUGFly credit for being honest.

Yeah, he's honest enough to brag about how he sabotaged a mission and said "it's cool" afterward.

MasterQu · Jul 27, 2005, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Quote:

I personally dont care if someone ruins my mission. Well i am angry, but not at this person, but because i was stupid enough to invite a moron. Its my fault for not brainwashing him and making him an obediant slave, or just ignoring him

So true So true....

LathalDraugr · Jul 27, 2005, 04:58 PM // 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Bloodstone

Lathal, it appears that what you are suggesting is that if you are somehow wronged in any way, what you should do is ruin the game for everyone else - guilty or not... you were wronged, you are within your rights to screw everyone else over too, right?

No. I'm not making absolute generalised statements but in this case what drSLUGfly did was acceptable and reasonable IMO. But I do think if one person can and does screw you and noone stands up or just accepts it you are well within your right to be as selfish towards them as they are towards you. More importantly as A.net does not have any ingame moderators and does nothing except in the very worst cases it's a matter of personal conscience so if you feel justified in retaliating do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Bloodstone

What do you think is going to please a griefer more: somebody trying to get their own back and dragging out the game even more, or everyone leaving him to get on with it on his own? I think I can pretty much guarantee it's the former. Not only that, but intentionally griefing yourself, you're actually contributing to the problem.

It depends on the type of griefer and the circumstances. In this case leaving at the end would have allowed him to get away with it with no personal loss. This way he was punished for what he did. Also is it really a problem that the selfish and the cowardly have to spend an extra 30mins doing the mission again? If they wanted to do only the mission they just have to make sure they take no-one who specifically states they want to do the bonus. They made their choices and suffered the consequences of them. Most sensible moral and ethical systems state that if you commit an immoral/unethical act you have put yourself in a position where other people do not need to be as moral/ethical in dealing with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Bloodstone

Anyway, it's something of a moot point, since the person the OP was referring to WASN'T griefing, he just wasn't paying attention or didn't know any better.

Strip this situation of it's MMORPG (not that GW is one but many players seem to have serious issues with this) trappings and it becomes apparent that what the OP did was perhaps not the turn-the-other-cheek method but was a morally acceptable act while the purely selfish act of the person the OP was complaining about was not, regardless of inane definitions of griefing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silmor

That's the thing. They don't learn a lesson. They just get griefed back, get angry, and according to the logic displayed throughout this thread, are justified to grief back again. It doesn't solve anything, it just promotes griefing even further. "If you ruin other peoples game they ruin yours." - your words, but I agree entirely - it works both ways.

Well first this assumes that what is being done to them is griefing, I would consider it just punishment personally. And be careful when applying "logic" to moral/ethical systems especially other peoples. If the person the OP was complaining about went on to grief someone else or even the OP they would not be justified by "the logic in this thread" as they were the one to choose griefing for selfish gains. Of course the quote works both ways thats the point, the moral of the story being if you don't want griefed then don't initiate griefing and if you get griefed either accept it or punish them depending on your own moral code. The problem is any genralised moral code falls apart in some situation or circumstance but in this specific case the OP was well within his rights moral and otherwise.

JoDiamonds · Jul 27, 2005, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Griefing is taking action to cause other people grief, as a goal in of itself. That's clearly what this is.

Even if everyone agreed that someone "deserved it", that still doesn't make it right.

But now we're getting into ethics and morality, and obviously that's not the point here.