Tank dps harrasment

[Kohdo]

The people that kick you for not tanking in sword oath are the same people that then log onto the forums to bitch about the long queue times caused by a lack of people wanting to tank.

[akaneakki]

What's funny is I got skalla again on expert and I was warrior. I pulled first set without a healer because he dced, and I never died. I pulled second and third set which are larget set of adds, I didn't die. I solo'ed the boss too actually until a new healer came back. And there is healing required every 3 seconds? LOL. Please give me a break
Just another proof people who plays healers and say they have to heal every 3 second is a big liar.

[StarRosie]

-snip-

Ya know...I had a large post plotted out in my head, filled with rebuttals and all ready to verbally duke it out over this point and while typing it out and thinking on what responses I would get. I started getting all stressed out and wound up. I then asked myself "What's the point?" and I couldn't answer. Wound myself up for something that generally doesn't effect me much and such, over a point that I doubt I could change minds so thoroughly made up about. So...yeah, heck it. I concede, you're right, I'm wrong. Just want to get rid of this stressed feeling. I mean, I still believe in the points I made but...I just don't wanna argue it anymore when the stress from the argument, combined with work stress, starts causing me actual, physical pain in my shoulders and neck. So, yeah. Again, I concede.

I hope you have a nice day and I hope you have fun with the game. Take care.

StarRosie over and out.

[Miste]

You are not even answering the question or focusing the aspect that matters most. Frequency should not even be part of the equation, you still have not answered the question where do you draw the line that it becomes a problem.

Fine you want an answer then I'll answer you. I already told you why I was ignoring your questions, multiple times, but whatever.

I always think harassment is a problem, so that is why I cannot answer you as to "where to draw the line"; harassment should just never happen, but I am being realistic that we cannot ever fully remove harassment from the internet and therefore MMOs as well. Due to my experiences I have formed an opinion that we already have it quite good and I don't know how we could make it better than now so I have nothing to add to debate with you about this.

You continually insult me just because I have an experience and an opinion you don't like so why do you expect me to actually debate with you? That is why I ignore your questions and most of what you reply to me. That should be obvious by now as I have explained this multiple times now in different words.

Still don't you see how telling someone that has gone through such abuse that it has not happened enough for it to be considered a serious enough issue to warrant the issue to be looked further into.

You just don't get it. No where did I say that people cannot ask for the issue to be further looked into. I just have my own personal opinion due to my experiences that we have already have the best we can hope for since it is pipe dream to get rid of harassment on a MMO.

That doesn't stop you from asking for what you want. I've said this before as well. Go for it. Ask for it to be looked into further. I am not stopping you and if anyone came up with a breaking news idea that would solve a lot of human interaction harassment then I would be all ears.

That is why I am focus on the frequency aspect, I am just trying to show you how heartless the comment is when it comes to harassment. I know it is your experience, but it is silly to bring frequency since that means that such abuse has to hit a threshold before it will be taken seriously. Has not happened enough to warrant resources going into further examine why such cases of harassment happen and what we can do to somewhat alleviate the issue.

Instead of coming up with ideas you sit there and insult me because of my experiences and personal opinions and continually ignore the fact I told you I won't listen to anything you say. If you had been less hostile then I would have happily had a nice debate with you, but you constantly throw negative labels and accusations at me, what were you expecting at this point? For me to happily discuss with you? lol

Now the list is: defensive, hostile, silly, undermining, disingenious/lying/pretending, and now heartless.

Gee, you really know a lot about me over text on a forum, your assessment must be accurate even though you have never met me. /sarcasm

But again do continue, I enjoy wondering what you'll label me or accuse me of next. Highly entertaining.

I already do the best I can in-game to defend people if they get harassed in an open chat where I see it and I will also report people who harass. I cannot solve your issue so stop using me as a soapbox to stand on. You can easily post all your opinions and ideas without replying to me and continuing to insult me over and over.

Just because I have my own experiences which give me an opinion about the frequency of parser harassment specifically does not mean that I do not openly denounce harassment of all kinds, because I do denounce all kinds of harassment and I always have. Being realistic though I realize there is only so much that can be done to stop it, even still I am not automatically against ideas that may help alleviate more of it.

The only line of defense people have to such abuse is to get harassed report and black list said player. So the person has to be harassed first for the tools we have in place to take effect

So what other defensive mechanisms can we think of to stop harassment dead before it starts? As an example, you insulted me multiple times thus far and while I don't consider it harassment...what could we have done to preemptively stop those insults from happening before you did it? Got a solution?


PS. In my 4 years of playing this game as a very active player in all types of content, in statics, in PF pugs, in DF, I have not seen a single instance of a player being harassed with a parser. In my opinion this casts doubt on how frequently parser harassment occurs. This makes me believe that there isn't much else to be done to avoid said harassment since removing harassment 100% is a pipe dream. If harassment of any kind happens you use the tools available to you, you blacklist, you report to a GM, and you move on and not associate with those players. We should advocate people be nice to each other of course, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to listen.

This is certainly not an issue Miste can resolve so I don't understand why you keep demanding that from her.

Thank you for helping me out by explaining this, it is too bad they still seem to think that just because I doubt the frequency due to my own experiences I am a terrible person and I should not post those experiences or opinions because they happen to be against their opinions.

[Shurrikhan]

Opt in model would defeat the entire purpose of it and the fact that you aren't aware of that further contributes to my point above about being blissfully ignorant. That just leaves the notion that you feel 'slighted' over something that doesn't even affect you, which hopefully sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me.

While I ultimately don't see a need for opt-in, as one can simply say "this parse is one that's actually representative of what all I can do" and just link that if it somehow came down to it, there's no reason, especially in an official tool, that an opt-in model would break the system. You still publish your own battle log, encounter time, and thereby raid dps, which is likely all that matters to you, but if anyone else wishes to also publish their information, they can choose to do so, or perhaps even contextually automate that decision (opt-in to all parses with these players, and out of any others). Unless you wish to argue that including parse publications that the player is not aware of makes his metrics more authentic or relevantly informative, neither would the purpose be in any way lost by making the publication optional.

:: Just in principle, I hugely dislike the idea of "opt out". It means inconveniencing yourself each and every time, especially if the choice cannot be automated, and still possibly losing the choice by lack of notice or notification. If it's benign enough to be "opt out", it really needn't be optional at all. But if reasonably perceivable, in whomever's eyes, to be in whatever way threatening enough to need to be optional, then it should be opt in, not out. Just my personal preference in these regards.

[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.

[HyoMinPark]

I can literally solo every single boss in current end game dungeons as a tank. I don't need tank stance to survive tank busters that barely hit me for ANYTHING, even in Savage/EX.

While things definitely do not hit that hard in this game, tankbusters do still need at least cooldowns to survive. Tank stance, no. Cooldowns, yes. I fondly recall one of the tanks in my static forgetting to CD for Exfaust’s Thunder III in V4S, dying, and then Exfaust turning around to finish the job on the poor unsuspecting melee. Always amusing when that happens, though.

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. . . .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.. . . .So do you see how anecdotal experience can hinder progress, it clearly is not your 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.

[Miste]

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.

Hyo <3

Thanks for explaining that as well. I was going to mention the problem with that as well, anyway you explained it much better than I could have ^^

My opinions and experiences do not do anything to this topic since they are only anecdotes. SE isn't going to ignore problems just because of my singular personal opinion. So no, I am not hindering progress just by posting my own personal experience or opinion -_-

No one should be using their years experience of never seeing it as a means to formulate an opinion on the subject.

I can have my own opinions on anything I want. Sorry, but you are going to have to deal with that.

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? All of your information in this topic is anecdote as well. So why can you do it but I can't?

[Bourne_Endeavor]

only factor should be if it does happen, and if it does happen something should be done

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 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.

[Paladinleeds]

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.

Yep. I'm going to add that while harassment does suck, taking the thermonuclear option doesn't work out. For example with my stream, I do take the thermonuclear option (and very well known for it on the site I stream at). Viewers are forever walking on eggshells because even the most minor sleight and I will permantly ban them. For even the most minor things like asking how to tip my stream. I am callous and heartless about it. Viewers therefore are scared to interact. Chances are, if you start taking the thermonuclear option, it will put even genuine non-harassing players off because "What if I accidentally make someone feel like they're being harassed?" (even though they aren't harassing). It creates a very slippery slope and one I'm sure SqEx are wont to avoid. I can get away with it on my stream because I'm not trying to rack up lots of viewers, I literally stream just for entertainment value. SqEx on the other hand are a profit-driven business. They can't afford this slippery slope.

Also, Awha can call me callous, heartless, etc, all he wants. Why? Because I already know I am all the things he's called Miste. He'd only be telling me stuff I already know. I'm used to being insulted IRL, so it'll be like water off a duck's back to me.

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.