enough is enough

[Dondy]

There are a lot of different games being played here.

The griefers seem to be playing a game to get recognition. They want to be noticed, they want to get an emotional reaction. Points and character development probably matter very little to them. I'm thinking what they want is some intense social contact where the person they are playing with affirms their identity.

Then some people are playing purely for dominance. They are trying to win against the people they are playing with. In conflict winners get a rush of dominance hormones and losers get a down from stress hormones. I think this is the game that StewineBeef is playing. He's hoping to get that rush from the feeling that he's proven himself "better" than the other guy.

Some people are playing solo competition, trying to raise their scores and stats and not so much interested in what other people are doing except as a reality check. Is my unarmed combat score of 15 meagre or impressive? How about my constitution of 48? Can I get it up a point? They don't need losers the way StewineBeef's game does.

And some people are playing the greed game of amassing vicarious pixel wealth, which is a version of the solo competition game.

And some people are playing teamwork, the one where they try to get the tide to rise with everybody. They get the feeling of belonging.

My guess is that players like StewineBeef just don't get any game other than the dominance one. They don't get a high from doing things cooperatively. They just can't see the point.

[StewineBeef]

I knew someone would object to this.

I did not say you broke any rules or anything. What I said was that what you admit to doing is immoral and you know it. You can say you "have fun" but I know plenty of ways to stomp on other people to have fun.

"Ill do anything I can to win except for breaking rules. Posing as a female is not breaking rules."

Never said you said I broke rules, just stating that I would win in anyway as long as its in the rules, then stated that what I was doing was well within the rules.

Also to the stomping on peoples toes thing. I ain't destroying everything you ever liked, I ain't breaking hearts (I don't tell the people I do this to I am a male, I just kind of go away). This could still mess with emotions and such, yes. I would not expect someone to take the first hint of a "relationship" as a pure 100% happy ever after thing, that would be the only way I could hurt someone seriously emotionally and that just proves them stupid. Not my problem.

Also I never said I enjoyed doing that to people, I don't enjoy it nor hate it. Just kind of thing I feel like I can do to get that much closer to winning quickly.

I am a live and let live type of person. Do what you want as long as you aren't stepping on anyone's toes. But you are messing with emotions, which is a dangerous thing.

Emotions can be dangerous. However the only way that I could hurt said emotions in the first place if I ran into a stupid person and took me accepting there flirt and throwing one back at them as pure 100% happy ever after thing right off the bat. You know what he learns a lesson. Don't jump to conclusions.

A couple of more things, I didn't bring up the women to imply anything about you, but to show to you how real relationships form on the internet. You can continue to turn a blind eye and say "anything to win!" even if it is just a game and even if it means stomping on some poor kid's emotions, but that will never change what you are actually doing.

OK you have specified what you were doing. Didn't show me anything but just needed some clarification on the matter.(the woman part)

I ain't turning a blind eye , I know what I am doing. I know there is a person on the other end, etc. Also never intended it to change what I was actually doing.

And make no mistake about it, you ARE justifying.

To justify is to say what I am doing is right, except it is wrong, and then give an excuse as to why I am right.
Now where have I said I was right? I even admitted knowing what I was doing to other people was wrong.

I'm going to go one step further to shut this part down by saying what I do is wrong but within the rules. Now what do I have to justify from?
What I am simply doing is explaining my way of thinking.

Only reason I got into this subject is like religion vs atheists. I love to debate/argue and when a popular topic like that comes up I enjoy it. I enjoy debating, I enjoy learning, I enjoy finding those loopholes to bring the other party down. I love it all.

Its like playing mental chess

(I couldnt quote this next part, kept saying I embed 3 quotes within each other but I haven't >.>)

"Also remember this one rule that you cannot break and this goes for real life to. For there to be a winner there must be a loser."
Pure nonsense, BTW. It is true when talking about competition, but it is far from true overall. Ever hear "a rising tide raises all ships?"


Whats the purpose of life? To live. Don't give me this BS about having fun/trying everything/etc. Thats just something you do in your life, that you strive to do. The main purpose in life is to live, this is a fact.

Same with the: "Also remember this one rule that you cannot break and this goes for real life to. For there to be a winner there must be a loser."

Its just one of those things you can't get away with. You can hide it, you can shout it down, you can convince everyone there is around you that its not true. It will always be there. Its just one of those things like the food chain (predator > prey but that predator becomes prey for something else and so on and so forth)

Also a rising tide raises all ships. Ya sorry, ocean itself doesn't rise as a whole. Your going to have ships that do rise with the tide and others that aren't near that area to be affected by it. If your going to talk about one portion of the ocean include the entire thing there. Don't pick it apart and throw one thing at me.

[StewineBeef]

Then some people are playing purely for dominance. They are trying to win against the people they are playing with. In conflict winners get a rush of dominance hormones and losers get a down from stress hormones. I think this is the game that StewineBeef is playing. He's hoping to get that rush from the feeling that he's proven himself "better" than the other guy.

My guess is that players like StewineBeef just don't get any game other than the dominance one. They don't get a high from doing things cooperatively. They just can't see the point.

SWAT 4
System Shock 2 (co-op patch)
RainbowSix: Lockdown (co-op)
Diablo 2
Diablo 1
Starcraft
Rise of Nations

I could go on, most of these games rely on cooperative play. I get a "high" when me playing in a team create a really good plan that succeeds. I get a "high" when one of us saves the entire team. I get a "high" when the entire team makes it except for one person and then we go back to save him just because we got to that point as a team and we want to make it as a team. I get a "high" by just communicating with the team.

Don't give me this BS about one game I play that I use one method of using in a sandbox of a game like this. It can be played many ways but I chose something different. I chose to play it like a racing game, get to the finish line ahead of everyone else for this one game.

Does playing a deathmatch game automatically mean that all players are only in it for "dominance hormones" just can't "see the point"?

Don't try and define people in such strict category's like that, your not doing a good job of it.

[Dondy]

No, there's nothing strict about the few games I suggested people are playing. Some people play all of them in turn or more than one of them even simultaneously. I was trying to simplify my points not make them inflexible. I'm guessing from their posts that some people here keep thinking that griefers are trying to play the same game that they are, only the griefers are getting it wrong, which I don't think is the case. I thought it might be interesting to suggest the wide range of motivations people are bringing to Haven and Hearth

And yes, I agree with you. Many dominance games with winners and losers are team games that require cooperation -but they still require losers. That's what makes them a dominance game. I wasn't saying you are incapable of cooperation or of playing to enable your own partners to also win. But your statement that all games require losers leads me to believe you might not really get anything out of playing games without losers.

Here's an example: playing house. Can you see why there might not be a loser in a game like that?

[Hamel]

Just remember, some emotional teenager who's emotions you stomp on might just be a particularly powerful character. Who might just stomp on your in-game face.

[StewineBeef]

Just remember, some emotional teenager who's emotions you stomp on might just be a particularly powerful character. Who might just stomp on your in-game face.

Thats something I ain't to worried about, if it happens it happens. Plus lets stop using the word "stomp". I ain't stomping on anything, I could turn that on its head and say your stomping on me for flirting with me .

No, there's nothing strict about the few games I suggested people are playing. Some people play all of them in turn or more than one of them even simultaneously. I was trying to simplify my points not make them inflexible. I'm guessing from their posts that some people here keep thinking that griefers are trying to play the same game that they are, only the griefers are getting it wrong, which I don't think is the case. I thought it might be interesting to suggest the wide range of motivations people are bringing to Haven and Hearth

And yes, I agree with you. Many dominance games with winners and losers are team games that require cooperation -but they still require losers. That's what makes them a dominance game. I wasn't saying you are incapable of cooperation or of playing to enable your own partners to also win. But your statement that all games require losers leads me to believe you might not really get anything out of playing games without losers.

Here's an example: playing house. Can you see why there might not be a loser in a game like that?

Going by the rule that life itself consists of winners and losers that would mean everyone is playing the dominance game.
Playing house: Basics --> Ranks of family --> Parents > Children = (Parents = Winners)/(Children = losers) (just because of rank alone with no outside interference)

However these positions can be reversed if look at it in another way, but that still leaves a loser and a winner.

Maybe you guys are misunderstanding the winner/loser thing. Just because your a loser doesn't mean you ain't having fun nor does it mean it is bad for you. Is a famous person a winner because he is rich or is he a loser because s/he has no personal life? Or is the average Joe a winner because he doesn't need to worry about people cracking down on his life or is he a winner because he ain't rich?

Winning and losing can be good and bad from both sides of the fence, regardless of what position you are in.

[kimya]

i dont have a problem with what hes doing. actually, i do think that it shouldnt matter what sex or gender one has (or, to be more precisely, choses to have).
so if one falls for his acting, his/her problem. also, youre judging by double standards if you condemn him for doing any kind of "harm" to the person behind the char, while on the other hand you permakill chars like every day or denounce others in this forum badly.

/edit
also this winner/loser thing hes running is for the birds. what would a winner be in h&h? i couldnt tell.

[StewineBeef]

also, youre judging by double standards if you condemn him for doing any kind of "harm" to the person behind the char, while on the other hand you permakill chars like every day or denounce others in this forum badly.

You're taking away my debaters breathing room . I wanted to at least string this debate/argument out at bit longer.

/edit
also this winner/loser thing hes running is for the birds. what would a winner be in h&h? i couldnt tell.

This comment alone tells me you still don't know what I am talking about. Sure you can play the game whatever way you want but there is still a winner and loser. There are many ways for a person to win in H&H.

Get together the biggest group and have it self-sustaining with everyone covering everyone else's weakness's.
Become the richest hearthling.
Have the highest stats.
Make the most friends.

You can look at however you want to, there will still be a loser somewhere and there will be a winner.

[kimya]

This comment alone tells me you still don't know what I am talking about. Sure you can play the game whatever way you want but there is still a winner and loser. There are many ways for a person to win in H&H.

Get together the biggest group and have it self-sustaining with everyone covering everyone else's weakness's.
Become the richest hearthling.
Have the highest stats.
Make the most friends.

You can look at however you want to, there will still be a loser somewhere and there will be a winner.

well, youre wrong. i know what you mean, its not that hard to understand.

its just not thought out. you said:

Just because your a loser doesn't mean you ain't having fun nor does it mean it is bad for you. Is a famous person a winner because he is rich or is he a loser because s/he has no personal life?

so if being the "loser" does not necessarily mean that your the "loser", its all pointless. same with the winner.
basically it all depends on the point of view. if you see yourself as the winner, fine. go ahead.

ah, and as i dont feel like discussing this further, please dont expect it from me. just wanted to answer, guess thats it
still, this is an interesting thread

[StewineBeef]

I am going to take another approach at this since people are saying I am wrong without forking something over with it.

Someone give me an example that does not have a loser/winner.