Bullying on FFXIV

[Jadi]

Which free speech laws are you referencing? If you're a U.S. Citizen I highly suggest that you take a gander at our founding documents and some of the hearings that have occurred.

Oh yes, they pay sooo much attention to that don't they. rofl.

I want to add here that people understand also that when someone runs around and /laughs at you or something that in the silent public eye they look like an ass and they loose credibility. The attacker always looses in the eye of public opinion next to the peacemaker.

I'd be so lucky to have ppl I don't like do this to me.. it'd give me enormous cache.

[Yves]

Oh yes, they pay sooo much attention to that don't they. rofl.

I want to add here that people understand also that when someone runs around and /laughs at you or something that in the silent public eye they look like an ass and they loose credibility. The attacker always looses in the eye of public opinion next to the peacemaker.

I'd be so lucky to have ppl I don't like do this to me.. it'd give me enormous cache.

1. What does the first line mean? What are you trying to imply? I'm asking because it is unclear.
2. No, this is incorrect. You are talking about stigma and it is a very real sociological concept. Take the McCarthy Trials, for example. Many of those accused of communism never recovered despite the fact that they were clearly innocent. But, because the accusation was made and repeated, people were flagged in society as "red."

FFXI is another fantastic example of stigma. Was the game horrid at launch? Yup. Did it suck for another 8 months? Sure did. But was the game playable and even fairly enjoyable at the time that 1.23a hit? For the most part, yeah. But did we have people frequently posting that the game was "unplayable" and referencing the old market wards? Yeah, we did despite the fact that many of the qualms had been remedied. In fact, there is a post on here from just the other day that committed this!

The point is that stigma is a real thing and once someone is "branded" and the public accepts it the "brand" becomes real. This is what bullying does - it creates a stigma.

[Jadi]

1. What does the first line mean? What are you trying to imply? I'm asking because it is unclear.
2. No, this is incorrect. You are talking about stigma and it is a very real sociological concept. Take the McCarthy Trials, for example. Many of those accused of communism never recovered despite the fact that they were clearly innocent. But, because the accusation was made and repeated, people were flagged in society as "red."

FFXI is another fantastic example of stigma. Was the game horrid at launch? Yup. Did it suck for another 8 months? Sure did. But was the game playable and even fairly enjoyable at the time that 1.23a hit? For the most part, yeah. But did we have people frequently posting that the game was "unplayable" and referencing the old market wards? Yeah, we did despite the fact that many of the qualms had been remedied. In fact, there is a post on here from just the other day that committed this!

The point is that stigma is a real thing and once someone is "branded" and the public accepts it the "brand" becomes real. This is what bullying does - it creates a stigma.

If you think the government gives one shit about the constitution you are sorely mistaken. 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

"Stigma".. lol bullshit.. I've been in the public eye before in my life more than once and I've seen the worst said about me. I speak from experience.. My reaction to hate and threats has always been the opposite of what the attackers intend and it's always blown up in their face. People ask me about this shit privately from time to time.. They say "such and such says this, whats the deal?" I shrug and say, thats what they say isn't it. :-) ..well ya know I can't do much about what they say... but here is what really went down.. as far as I know I've never had anyone not believe me.. ppl seem to know the truth when they hear it.

Slanderous attacks don't work because people don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity by in large.. if you have positive responses to them then it turns around on people like a mirror. Take my word for it. You don't need to fear this kind of thing because it does more harm to the person initiating it. Be confident and know yourself and and you'll be fine.

Some Bully has just trashed your reputation, all because it makes him feel better/important/usefull
This may or may not cause problems for you the next time you are looking for a party

They can't trash your reputation.. because your reputation comes from your own actions. This is just fear getting to you.

[Huginn]

in all seriousness, the whole idea of bullying being touted by the mainstream medium outlets is just ridiculous. and i am disappointed in mankind for willfully eating up the brainwash. this whole attitude toward bullying does not help, it only makes things worse, and we do have scientific studies to prove that, just do a quick search for "anti bullying programs make bullying worse."
You guys are always on a witch hunt, funny thing is, you are also the type to condemn witch hunts that were actually witch hunts.
think for yourselves, you do not need to agree with something just because oprah said you should.

[Aethelinda]

in all seriousness, the whole idea of bullying being touted by the mainstream medium outlets is just ridiculous. and i am disappointed in mankind for willfully eating up the brainwash. this whole attitude toward bullying does not help, it only makes things worse, and we do have scientific studies to prove that, just do a quick search for "anti bullying programs make bullying worse."
You guys are always on a witch hunt, funny thing is, you are also the type to condemn witch hunts that were actually witch hunts.
think for yourselves, you do not need to agree with something just because oprah said you should.

True but here is the thing Huggin. Is not a movement or at least not trying to create one. what I want is to people listen that we got some on the game and sadly they are making the time play of some miserable. By raising awareness is not about going against them but to not feed the troll. Like for example, when someone makes up a story about you and half the server believes it? is really messed up. If we all act together and really judge by ourselves everything would be fine. But many choose to listen to them and believe them. We can ignore them but what about the rest, would they do it? Also about in an MPK situation? Really hard to deal with. You will have to stop , then come back for a while to see if he or she is gone. Why? you pay for this game, why would you let someone ruined your gaming time, you happy moment time? This is why I'm posting. We need to find a better alternative to deal with these problem. Going against them or becoming them is no the solution and def promotes even more bullying. Agree 100%

i am disappointed in mankind for willfully eating up the brainwash.

I hear ya.

[Yves]

Slanderous attacks don't work because people don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity by in large.. if you have positive responses to them then it turns around on people like a mirror. Take my word for it.

Okay, let me explain very simply why this is incorrect.

Your inference is a very basic syllogism when ordered.

C: Slanderous attacks don't work because

P1: people don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity by in large

P2: if you have positive responses to them then it turns around on people like a mirror.

Before ordering we need to break things down. I'm not going to use symbolic logic because the forums don't support the characters.

C: Therefore (because), (slanderous attacks don't work) X
P1: Some (by in large) (people) S are ([those who] don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity) P
P2: If (you have positive responses to them)R then (it turns around on people like a mirror)M

Now that this is broken down we can order it correctly as such:

Some S are P
If R then M
Therefore, X

This is absolutely invalid. Furthermore, it is incoherent. While each premise is true (P2 is debatable but we will assume truth) the conclusion doesn't flow from the premises. Replace the variables with simple terms and you see what I mean.

Some dogs are animals
If this is a cat then it is a tabby
Therefore, dolphins can't walk.

Each premise is true but it doesn't support the conclusion. Even if we filled in the blanks with implied inferences it doesn't work.

Some people are those who do not enjoy negativity
Those who do not enjoy negativity are those who will respond to positive reactions
Thus, some people may respond to positive reactions
If stigma exists then slander cannot be nullified
If slander causes an unexpected positive reaction in people then it will render the slander impotent
Unexpected positive reactions render slander impotent
Therefore, if slander is nullified then stigma cannot exist

Here we have a fleshed out version that flows better. I'm not going to break this one down but it does.

While this flows nicely and is also valid it isn't sound. Why? Well, because you are stating that only "some" ("by in large") will follow this rule. You are admitting the possibility of an alternative response potentially exists. The only way you get this to work is if you state that all people are subject to this rule which is simply not the case.

They can't trash your reputation.. because your reputation comes from your own actions. This is just fear getting to you.

Your reputation is actually how others view you. If someone can alter that perception to others then it can alter your reputation.

All S are P
All P are A
Therefore, all S are A

You can argue that your actions are what drive your reputation but if you do that then you're admitting that a reputation is indeed an outside view and therefore defeating your own argument. And that leaves you arguing a definition which you cannot win.

You may wonder why I took the time to do this. The reason is really simple: your argument is entirely absurd and stating it as fact is absolutely ridiculous (the math doesn't lie) and I believe that there is some responsibility to illustrate it as such when the topic is actually relevant and may have some import. This is the kind of idiotic reasoning that actually makes people dumber.

[Jadi]

Okay, let me explain very simply why this is incorrect.

Your inference is a very basic syllogism when ordered.

C: Slanderous attacks don't work because

P1: people don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity by in large

P2: if you have positive responses to them then it turns around on people like a mirror.

Before ordering we need to break things down. I'm not going to use symbolic logic because the forums don't support the characters.

C: Therefore (because), (slanderous attacks don't work) X
P1: Some (by in large) (people) S are ([those who] don't reciprocate or enjoy negativity) P
P2: If (you have positive responses to them)R then (it turns around on people like a mirror)M

Now that this is broken down we can order it correctly as such:

Some S are P
If R then M
Therefore, X

This is absolutely invalid. Furthermore, it is incoherent. While each premise is true (P2 is debatable but we will assume truth) the conclusion doesn't flow from the premises. Replace the variables with simple terms and you see what I mean.

Some dogs are animals
If this is a cat then it is a tabby
Therefore, dolphins can't walk.

Each premise is true but it doesn't support the conclusion. Even if we filled in the blanks with implied inferences it doesn't work.

Some people are those who do not enjoy negativity
Those who do not enjoy negativity are those who will respond to positive reactions
Thus, some people may respond to positive reactions
If stigma exists then slander cannot be nullified
If slander causes an unexpected positive reaction in people then it will render the slander impotent
Unexpected positive reactions render slander impotent
Therefore, if slander is nullified then stigma cannot exist

Here we have a fleshed out version that flows better. I'm not going to break this one down but it does.

While this flows nicely and is also valid it isn't sound. Why? Well, because you are stating that only "some" ("by in large") will follow this rule. You are admitting the possibility of an alternative response potentially exists. The only way you get this to work is if you state that all people are subject to this rule which is simply not the case.



Your reputation is actually how others view you. If someone can alter that perception to others then it can alter your reputation.

All S are P
All P are A
Therefore, all S are A

You can argue that your actions are what drive your reputation but if you do that then you're admitting that a reputation is indeed an outside view and therefore defeating your own argument. And that leaves you arguing a definition which you cannot win.

You may wonder why I took the time to do this. The reason is really simple: your argument is entirely absurd and stating it as fact is absolutely ridiculous (the math doesn't lie) and I believe that there is some responsibility to illustrate it as such when the topic is actually relevant and may have some import. This is the kind of idiotic reasoning that actually makes people dumber.

You understand that psychiatry is not an absolute science in the same way that physics is right? This is the same with biology. Where as we can say most mammals do not have two heads, occasionally one does. This does not break the laws of biology. This is different than saying sometimes objects on earth fall at 9.80 m/s^2 but hea.. sometimes they just fly off into the corner of the room and turn into mushrooms.. So you can see where your reliance on consistency in this mater is where your argument fails.

Should be As people are attracted to S they are repulsed by the opposite of S being R.

Furthermore I don't believe someone can alter your reputation as by doing so they would affect their own, as theirs declines by talking shit yours will be restored in the eyes of others.

[Yves]

You understand that psychiatry is not an absolute science in the same way that physics is right? This is the same with biology. Where as we can say most mammals do not have two heads, occasionally one does. This does not break the laws of biology. This is different than saying sometimes objects on earth fall at 9.80 m/s^2 but hea.. sometimes they just fly off into the corner of the room and turn into mushrooms.. So you can see where your reliance on consistency in this mater is where your argument fails.

This is philosophy. More specifically Aristotle and Boole...

Seriously, man. Are you really going to try and use argumentum ad hominem? Hey, if you can discount hundreds of years of modern and traditional logic then by all means please reference our conversation and cite me as an inspiration.

Bottom line is this:

1. Your arguments are bogus (fallacious and invalid)
2. Yes, bullying is a real thing
3. Yes, it drives stigma, which is again, a fundamental concept that has been studied for centuries
4. Yes, there needs to be some form of control on the internet and in games
5. No, there are no easy answers
6. The OP has a right to raise the point

P.S. - You're again using fallacious arguments at the end of your post by using an appeal to ignorance. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Jadi]

This is philosophy. More specifically Aristotle and Boole...

Seriously, man. Are you really going to try and use argumentum ad hominem? Hey, if you can discount hundreds of years of modern and traditional logic then by all means please reference our conversation and cite me as an inspiration.

Bottom line is this:

1. Your arguments are bogus (fallacious and invalid)
2. Yes, bullying is a real thing
3. Yes, it drives stigma, which is again, a fundamental concept that has been studied for centuries
4. Yes, there needs to be some form of control on the internet and in games
5. No, there are no easy answers
6. The OP has a right to raise the point

P.S. - You're again using fallacious arguments at the end of your post by using an appeal to ignorance. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think I got ya. ;-) because your abandoning the argument.