Bullying on FFXIV

[Aethelinda]

Kinda intriguing Jadi. Really didn't know. But then I really don't thing it was a bad timing then. Very coincidental lol ^^

[indira]

bullys online are LOL, i wish smart asses would say it to my face all you can do is ignore it.

also a reason some people go postal and kill the bully if they know who it is. the other person might be crazy so people need to watch it, who knows what can happen.

[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.

[PinkiePie]

I want to know how many people in this thread have relics, probably why they're getting bullied.

[Aethelinda]

I want to know how many people in this thread have relics, probably why they're getting bullied.

I want to know what does that prove? That you need to have more time in your hands to be able to play and thus get respect as a human. Wow, says a lot from you. Let me assume you are under 18 and avoid some extra comments.

[Searious]

Blacklist doesn't stop someone and his friends from following you spamming /laugh at you.
Blacklist doesn't stop someone from getting his buddies to send horribly rude things to you.
Blacklist doesn't stop someone from spreading lies or bad things about you.
Blacklist doesn't stop someone from MPKing you.
Blacklist only works when or after being bullied and even then it only stops messages and it goes far beyond that.

I've been bullied a little in this game and it's not pleasant and it generally hurts your feelings even if you do blacklist them. I think that's the part you may not be getting, the emotional part of being cyber bullied. The major fix would be just to have a GM service that actually DOES something other than delete forum posts and tell people that they are "investigating the issue" even if it was simply light punishment. Not everyone has thick skin and people do have feelings on the other side of the computer monitor. Though, some other suggestions here are completely bad and unwarranted.

All of this sounds like a minor annoyance at best. Compared to real bullying it doesn't seem like a big deal.

When I was in highschool I saw real bullying. People physically assaulting people. Taking their money..their bus passes. Taking thier food during lunch or knocking it on the floor for no reason. Throwing stuff at them during class. Ripping their clothes or book bags for fun. Or dumping the contents of their bookbags in the trash. Breaking their belongings. All that in addition to the "emotional" stuff like name calling. All this was pre Columbine when telling the teachers didn't help much. I used to see people go through that everyday and it's not like a game where you can just log off.

You really thing someone spamming /laugh really compares to that?

[Catapult]

Ah, this thread is depressing. Not because it's a "lost cause"or anything similar (which I think it isn't), but because I can relate to the OP.

I've been bullied in the past, I've witnessed bullying in the past, and neither has been a pleasant experience.

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do to a bully is bite back. Things just get further riled up and it gets more dramatic.
In the case of the forums, that means instead hitting the "report" button, which can be found in the bottom left hand corner of every post. I've used it a few times myself and it has always seemed to pay off better than witnessing others reach to the alternatives.