Tank dps harrasment

[Awha]

Snip. . .

Was never my intent to insult you by calling you disingenuous. Also you still missing the point, the whole point I have been trying to make is silencing can also be diminishing the magnitude of an event, and not necessarily completely denying it. Now you can say you are not, though by downplaying it with your anecdotal experiences, you sort of are. Also if you felt I insulted you by calling you disingenuous I am sorry, and I do not think you are a bad person. As I have said before at the core we in agreement. I know nothing can be done, and I can see you clearly would like something to happen if it were possible. All I am trying to address is that anecdotal such as yours are what many people use to keep the issue from reaching the boiling point of change to happen. Look at hackers in other games, most players hardly ever run into a hacker while playing, so you run into those players that are dismissive of the claims because from their experience they never saw a hacker so clearly it is a non issue.

So do you see how anecdotal experience can hinder progress, it clearly is not your intent. I would love to come up with ideas, but as I said before I am not smart enough to come up with viable solution, though if this issue does gain enough ground maybe those that have the intelligent required to come up with a viable idea will work on it. Also remember you may not be outright saying it, just remember this silencing can also be diminishing the magnitude of an event, and not necessarily completely denying it. All I am trying to say is say if someone comes across a post regarding parser abuse, and then notices how some people make the claim I have never really seen it, though it does suck when it happens. If it does happen to that person a lot they might feel as if it is their fault, since clearly people are stating that they do not see it happen all that much. For those type of players not sure if it does feel alienating, but if I was in their shoes I would feel alienated. Once again not saying this was your intent or that you are a bad person, just that it is how some could persevere it.

Though you are right this is going nowhere, Once again I am sorry that you feel as if I think you are bad person, or felt as if I insulted you. Was not my intent.

The thing about anecdotes is that they cannot be used as any sort of quantifiable or quantitative evidence; they are already skewed in the fact that they are a personal experience, so emotions are going to get in the way as opposed to if the data presented by either side were cold, hard numbers. They cannot be used as a reliable source of data for either side. So, while they cannot be used as an adequate reason to slow/deny change, they also cannot be used as an adequate reason to prompt swift/sudden change. Because they’re anecdotes. There’s a reason why they are never used in serious research and/or debates.

You are right anecdotes should not have an influence and in a perfect world they do not. Sadly people still use them a base points to help support their claim. Which is why I say it does hinder progress. I mean it would be great if no one used anecdotal evidence, but we all know that is not going to happen. This discuses should be based around does parser abuse happen yes or no. If it does something should be done about it, if not we can ignore it. No one should be using their years experience of never seeing it as a means to formulate an opinion on the subject. Just as I have been trying to avoid using the cases were I have ran into parser abuse since that is moot, the fact of the matter is if we can agree it does happen, and if it does happen shouldn't something be done about it. Or do we have wait till it reaches a boiling point before we enact change. So thanks you were able to articulate what I have been trying to say. Appreciate it.

I mean you do realize you are doing the same exact thing right? You mentioned hearing from your friends their personal experiences so you are using those as a basis to form your opinion that more needs to be done right? So why can you do it but I can't?

After that dropped it, I have done my best to avoid using my own encounters with parser abuse and simply focused on the act of harassment in itself, does it happen yes or no. Most would agree it does happen. Why do you think I was trying to move past how often the issue happens. since that should be a factor only factor should be if it does happen, and if it does happen something should be done, what I do not know. Throughout this whole thing my bases has always been that it does happen and as such shouldn't we do something about it. Since remember you did mention that the amount it does happen is negligible. That is when this turned into a cluster fuck, since we do not have the data to determine if the effect is negligible or not. You are using your personal experience formulate that conclusion. Which I do it do, but I did do my best to leave personal experience out of this and try to tackle it from the perspective of does it happen, not how often happens. Since to get the frequency we would have to gather that data from our own events. I do agree at times I do fail at it.

I'll stop you here because this is an inherently flawed perception and contributes to the "safe space" mentality I mentioned earlier. Say harassment through parse abuse happens 1 out of every 1,000 encounters. You do not take a nuclear approach and treat it as though harassment is wide-spread. Your solutions essentially demand we snuff out even the slightest possibility even in a literal 0.1% example. That leads to the oversensitive mess we're seeing everywhere else, and why you perceive Miste's stance "heartless." She can't win under your scenario because you've created only a single "solution." So... how do we address harassment? You report the person for their behavior, blacklist if you feel it necessary and move on with your life. Call me callous all you fancy but the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. You are going to meet shitty people. Better to learn how to funnel out their nonsense than have us try and shield everyone from everything.

How is offering some base line protection that is not 100% reactive a nuclear approach? The only protection people have at the moment only comes in effect after the deed has been done. So they have already been negatively effected. While I am not sure what they can do, having some line of defense that at the very least offers minimal protection from it happening all together does not seem like a nuclear approach.

The only way to do that would be to mark people as "harassers" and have them banned from entering duty. But, for people who want the story, that means we can't progress because of multiplayer duty if we get marked that way. May as well just ban us from the game (which they already do ban people for harassment by the way). And even then, that's reactive because the only fair way to do it would be to mark someone who has a history of it that way, so people have already been affected. Without a history to go off, you'd just have to assume everyone is a harasser, and therefore you'd have to take out the chat (they did that in PvP btw). But then how do you handle communication in a duty? Instead of getting harassed in-duty, the harassers will just make an alt on the server (unless it's a locked server like Balmung), and use that to harass them over it. It wouldn't stop harassment, just shift where it happens.

I do agree we will never get rid of said behavior all together, and certain elements of the game should not be touched such as DF. Though we can limit the more personal encounters, that are more localized on the server. As someone pointed out opt-in might not work, but if SE and FFLogs could come up with a way to make so your personal data cannot be shown so a player does not have to run the risk of requesting to join a group and they look up their logs only be told GTFO you fucking suck, and issue akin to what the op went through at one point. At the very least people should have some protection from such treatment on the server they are on. Now if a player willingly provides logs and said groups finds them sub-par and berates them then go forth a blacklist / report. Though I do not see any reason why someone who has no clue what FFLogs are should be told when trying to join a group you only did 2k dps in your last run? kill yourself xd. It is an overexertion, just meant to serve as an example. It is not a lot of protection, but is it something and in the end that is all most people are asking for. I have said before I do not want blanket bans or removal of the tool I simply would like some protection in the areas they can offer it without greatly effecting people. If that is considered extreme so be, guess I am extreme.

What I am trying to say is some protection is better then none, and in some cases being asked to provide logs may likely provide enough of a warning telling them not to join said group and look for another. This will not fix DF, and I do not know how to fix that, but it is something.

Though really not my intent to insult anyone, I am a little strange since I do not view a forum as a person more so an idea, so when say callous or disingenuous not referring to you as a person. Pretty sure you can tell language let alone English is not strong suit, though I am trying. So yeah once when I refer to a post made I try my best to avoid using words like you or I. I do fail horribly at it times, so sorry not intent to insult anyone as a person. I articulate it poorly at times.