there's a lot of sensitive people in this game

[Inflorescence]

I have been playing this game for over a year now, like many people on these forums, and I have never been kicked from a party.

Why? Because I know how to play games with other people without forgetting social etiquette.

Things you could have done to make the situation better:

1.) Not communicated with a single word. In almost every situation, one-word questions/commands/requests are rude and abrasive. In fact, there is a word for it: "curt." Wait for the pull to be over, and then engage in polite conversation.

2.) Not told someone how to play their role for your own convenience. There is a line between being a senior player mentor, and being a know-it-all overbearing jerk. The line is hard to find sometimes, but a good place to start is usually when everyone is dead. And the line is certainly far before "Holy?"

3.) Played the game without trying to micromanage your party. It kind of goes hand in hand with the last point, but your philosophy on what your role is within the team is totally skewed. You're not the Tactician Supervisor that is going to get fired from your job if your General Manager doesn't like how long your runs are taking. Some runs are going to take longer than others, but as long as you make it through (heck, even if you don't), everything is going to be okay.

You acted selfishly in a team-based activity. I wouldn't kick you out in their situation, but I certainly would hope that we wouldn't party together again. "This is the internet" and "I could have been worse if I wanted to" are also terrible excuses for anything. You weren't polite, and certainly weren't being the "protagonist" you seem to be trying to portray yourself as.

[Ladyaceous]

post #50

You're forgetting shorthand is considered standard and acceptable in online communications by any modern society. I'm not saying it's literary genius, but you'd have to be in a unique situation to even be typing in a forum or playing a game like this and not understand that.

You can't assume he was being "curt" based off of what he said and the media you are referencing. If he actually spoke like that in real life, then maybe.

In your example #2, you say he was telling someone how to actually play, but he was actually asking a question. And no, the line was not "far before "holy?""

In example #3 you say he failed to micromanage his party, when in fact he made an emotionless suggestion that was met with him being removed from the party. So, can't really manage anything then.

Then in conclusion, you say he acted selfishly in a team based activity. How do you possibly know this based off of what they said in the original post? It's impossible to ascertain that from what the op said happened. YOU believe he is making himself out to be the victim. Please read what people say from now on before judging them and calling them names. Give people some credit.

[Inflorescence]

You're forgetting shorthand is considered standard and acceptable in online communications by any modern society. I'm not saying it's literary genius, but you'd have to be in a unique situation to even be typing in a forum or playing a game like this and not understand that.

You can't assume he was being "curt" based off of what he said and the media you are referencing. If he actually spoke like that in real life, then maybe.

Saying "holy?" is not shorthand. But if you're going to argue semantics and say that it is, it's certainly not a shorthand that is standard and acceptable. If it were standard, all shouts in Mor Dhona, all communication in CT, etc. would consist of emotionally vague one-word loaded questions.

I would agree with you that there is a standard and acceptable shorthand, such as "LF1M MNK/NIN for FCoB static," "pulling," or even "ballad plz," but this is not that.

In your example #2, you say he was telling someone how to actually play, but he was actually asking a question. And no, the line was not "far before "holy?""

No, the implication of the message was, "Your job is to Holy right now, and being that you're not, I'm getting upset."

The existence of a question mark doesn't turn everything into an innocent question; if your boss comes to your desk and says, "Could you get me those numbers by the end of the day?" they're not actually asking you a question. The more directly applicable example is if it's 20 minutes until the end of the day, and your boss comes back and says, "Are you ever going to get me those numbers?" He's still not asking you a question; he's giving you a command. And he's getting upset.

In example #3 you say he failed to micromanage his party, when in fact he made an emotionless suggestion that was met with him being removed from the party. So, can't really manage anything then.

What I said was that he was trying to micromanage his party, when it wasn't his place to do so. I did get a little too abstract in that point, though, so it didn't come across as clear as it should have.

But the suggestion certainly wasn't emotionless, unless you consider it emotionless in the sense that he didn't find it worth the time to clarify the connotation he was saying "holy?" in. So any reaction that he would have received would have been on him, because he thought the right course of action was to respond with an emotionally vague one-word loaded question.

Then in conclusion, you say he acted selfishly in a team based activity. How do you possibly know this based off of what they said in the original post? It's impossible to ascertain that from what the op said happened. YOU believe he is making himself out to be the victim. Please read what people say from now on before judging them and calling them names. Give people some credit.

The selfish action was trying to tell the WHM to Holy, because he wanted the run to go faster. Instead of playing the game with everyone and allowing everyone to fulfill their roles how they saw fit, he wanted the run to go his way.

Like everyone else here, I have been in groups with many tanks who couldn't hold aggro, with DPS who consistently stand in AoEs, and with Healers who make me feel like I'm doing my job alone. But that's the nature of the beast; you put yourself in a social situation, and you have to deal with people who don't see the world, or their roles in a party, the same way you do. And there are many variables that determine what the polite way to handle the situation should be; you're on the right track if your party doesn't kick you. (And from what it sounds, he re-queued, then they left, then he laughed about it with the people who replaced them)

The last thing that someone who isn't making themselves out to be the victim would do is go on the forums and make a thread about how they're a jerk who deserved to get kicked from a party.

[Ladyaceous]

... if you're going to argue semantics...

How ironic. The op clearly outlines what they meant by what they said. You however, have decided to interpret what they said yourself. Your accusations are as follows:

In fact, there is a word for it: "curt."

Not told someone how to play their role for your own convenience. There is a line between being a senior player mentor, and being a know-it-all overbearing jerk.

You acted selfishly in a team-based activity...snip... You weren't polite, and certainly weren't being the "protagonist" you seem to be trying to portray yourself as.

No, the implication of the message was, "Your job is to Holy right now, and being that you're not, I'm getting upset." .

because he thought the right course of action was to respond with an emotionally vague one-word loaded question.

The selfish action was trying to tell the WHM to Holy, because he wanted the run to go faster. Instead of playing the game with everyone and allowing everyone to fulfill their roles how they saw fit, he wanted the run to go his way.

I mean geez. I agree people should be more polite online, BUT, that also includes people not reading into things and making assumptions about every little thing.

You say you have all this experience in mmos (which I have to assume is true), but yet you cannot even give someone the benefit of the doubt over something like this?? To me that displays a lack of experience.

If the op and you were in my party and they said what they said and you decided to make all these accusations, you would've been kicked for harassment by insulting my team and disrupting the duty by being overly dramatic and making baseless accusations you cannot verify.

You assume too much.

[Inflorescence]

How ironic. The op clearly outlines what they meant by what they said. You however, have decided to interpret what they said yourself. Your accusations are as follows:

I mean geez. I agree people should be more polite online, BUT, that also includes people not reading into things and making assumptions about every little thing.

You say you have all this experience in mmos (which I have to assume is true), but yet you cannot even give someone the benefit of the doubt over something like this?? To me that displays a lack of experience.

If the op and you were in my party and they said what they said and you decided to make all these accusations, you would've been kicked for harassment by insulting my team and disrupting the duty by being overly dramatic and making baseless accusations you cannot verify.

You assume too much.

Quick sidenote: I'm not claiming to have "all this experience in mmos," just FFXIV. The reason behind the claim was only to illustrate that I've been in many DF groups (virtually none with my FC), and have seen far less issues with my groups than Chris has had.

The semantics I was referring to were only in regards to the word "shorthand," not the main point of discussion. Otherwise, the issue at hand has been etiquette, not semantics at all.

I wouldn't argue with you that I am making assumptions about the situation and accusations against Chris, just as everyone who came here (including you) that didn't come just to weigh in on the "should healers DPS" debate. I spent two lengthy posts defending my accusations (against you defending yours), but my assumptions were mostly left out of the conversation; the only action that I held against Chris so far was the "holy?" that he brought up in the OP. In fact, my case is essentially rooted in taking him at his word that he didn't say anything else; if he had said more things to clarify the friendly manner he is trying to make it seem like he was speaking in, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because he wouldn't have been kicked.

My assumptions actually are that the only word in the run wasn't "holy," because the only other sentence Chris mentioned was "they didn't like my attitude," and this doesn't look like a common situation:

>Chris: holy?
>Tank: I don't like your attitude.
>Healer: I don't like your attitude, either.
>Chris has been dismissed from the party.

Which, according to Chris, were literally the only words spoken. Unless Tank and Healer spent a few extra lines talking about just how much they didn't like his attitude, while he sat quietly taking the punishment. And while he's so quiet in game, he is very vocal on the forums about the issues of FC mates partying with non-FC members. But trust him, he never said a word beyond holy.

Then there's the issue of this post:

i have literally been told the opposite from most healers i've met and played with. even the healer that replaced them when i joined in progress said they weren't doing their full duties as a healer.

either way healer dps or no kicking somebody for saying "holy?" once it's stupid and if you believe otherwise i hope i never get a run with you

Which could absolutely mean that he joined a different party in progress, but the post does say that it's the tank and healer that got replaced.

The fact of the matter is, however, that no matter how much of that is true or untrue, it doesn't matter, because I'm not defending the decision to vote kick him. My position is one of working with people that you don't enjoy playing with, because that is simply how you deal with people in general. So if we were in a party, and I was presented with a "holy?" I would just explain why I wasn't Holy-ing, because there would have been a reason. And his disregard for the fact that I do know that Holy exists, and I am not using it, and there might be a reason for that, would leave me a little perturbed at him overstepping his boundaries.

[Ladyaceous]

...The semantics I was referring to were only in regards to the word "shorthand," not the main point of discussion. Otherwise, the issue at hand has been etiquette, not semantics at all.

I wouldn't argue with you that I am making assumptions about the situation and accusations against Chris, just as everyone who came here (including you) that didn't come just to weigh in on the "should healers DPS" debate....snip....

And that's why I said "how ironic". I know what you were referring to. "Shorthand" is what it's commonly referred to, maybe it's just my circle. No one refers to it as an imperative. Doesn't matter you got the point.

The problem I have with you is that you are the one arguing semantics (the meaning of language) which is really what this is all about. Let's take a look at what the op said (unedited original post btw):

got kicked out of a lost city duty run for simply saying "holy?" to a healer. tank pulled everything before the steps, i popped mantra then played foe's but they stood there even when nobody needed healing. didn't say anything, figured maybe they weren't comfortable with using holy or cleric stance with a group of enemies at 50-75%. they got lower though, nobody needed any healing and still nothing so i wrote "holy?" and that was it. nothing more and nothing less. tank and healer were in an fc together and booted me because "they didn't like my attitude" lol. not the first time something like this has happened either to me or to randoms and friends. this really needs to stop. it's the internet, if you're going to be that sensitive here you might as well stay in a bubble because somebody that actually wants to be mean will make it their job to annoy you or hurt your feelings which you make very easy.

This is the "semantical" post you made:

post #50

It is you who is trying to redefine what the op said. It is you who is trying to determine the actual meaning of their words. They clearly tell you what they meant. There is no reason to engage in semantics, which you are guilty of.

And as far as "my semantics", there are no semantics. Shorthand is what I and others call it. If there's a better word for "shorttalk" then I'll call it that. Pretty sure no one thinks I'm trying to redefine anything.

*edit

God...I really hate hearing "semantics" "hyperbole" and "ad hominem" anymore. Such trendy words now.