This is the end.

[Jerichai]

Snip

And as much as you believe you see it, no, I am not taking things out of context. And it goes back to what you just said to T2teddy: 'Implications, dear sir. Implications.'

Rice states bully and harassment are a natural part of an online environment. And he's not wrong. But I take issue to the notion that because it will likely always exist, there's nothing we should consider doing to address it. I see that notion a lot when it comes to the issue of bullying (not simply limited to gaming). You'll see people talk about wanting to make changes to reduce bullying and harassment, and others fire back that you'll never be able to make it go away completely, so why bother? When I see that attitude, I get frustrated. It's not necessarily about making those negative behaviors go away over night, but holding people to a higher standard so as few as possible have to deal with it.

When Rice says that's the natural state of the community and people have to live with it, I see the implication of why bother trying to do anything to make it better. And I wholeheartedly disagree, because I feel that there's a greater potential when we treat each other with basic, common sense decency. And while I can understand having a heard time having respect for someone who's been blatantly disrespectful towards others, I don't think poor performance in a video game is an appropriate criteria to loosing others respect.

I also see this notion from Rice about what is reasonable to expect from players in a roulette group (based on their role), and how that feeds into the vote kick function. Make no mistake, I do think there are many completely valid uses of a vote kick. But I'm seeing some in this thread equate the OP using ballad incorrectly to him stand in a corner picking his nose during a boss fight. I suspect the OP was probably still attacking, but his damage was being reduced by 15% due to using ballad. Let me tell you, there are so many ways people are likely reducing their potential dps 15% or more in expert roulette. Not knowing your rotation perfectly, not being completely focused on the dungeon (because oh god...I got Neverreap for the 5th day in a row kill me now), etc. Hell, there are many ways that players can reduce OTHER party member's potential DPS by 15% or more. I play a scholar. If I get a tank who can't take a hit or reliably avoid AoEs, my potential dps is dropping. Hell, I've had the rare tank the plummets my dps potential to zero on a number of pulls because they literally can't keep themselves alive long enough for me to get dots up in cleric stance. My point is it's silly to crucify one person when you're probably always grouped with at least someone in your party who is not living up to their full potential.

Which brings up another point. The OP was likely only called out because his mistake was obvious. Anyone can look at the party list and see the ballad buff. Was it a case of something less obvious (like an imperfect rotation), I suspect the OP would probably get through it without a word against him, even if the loss in DPS was similar (I suppose baring someone being obsessive with a parser). To go back to my example with my scholar and tanks, most DPS don't care if the tank is taking more damage than he has to, even if it means my DPS contribution gets lost. As long the tank stays alive and holds enmity, it likely won't phase anyone. So again, my point is that it seems silly to me we get caught up over an obvious (and easily correctable, with constructive feedback) mistake, but ignore everything else.

[AdamFyi]

And as much as you believe you see it, no, I am not taking things out of context.

Again, whether you see that you're going out of context or not, is entirely up to you.

By no means were they promoting harassment. If anything, they were just pointing out inconsistencies with the OP's story. I don't blame them for being skeptical given that this sort of thing has happened multiple times before. In fact, why not just play Foe's Requiem instead? If you believe there is a part in their post which implicates that, please do point it out. I really don't see it.


But, I digress. There wasn't really a point to this topic.

[Jerichai]

Again, whether you see that you're going out of context or not, is entirely up to you.

By no means were they promoting harassment. If anything, they were just pointing out inconsistencies with the OP's story. I don't blame them for being skeptical given that this sort of thing has happened multiple times before. In fact, why not just play Foe's Requiem instead? If you believe there is a part in their post which implicates that, please do point it out. I really don't see it.


But, I digress. There wasn't really a point to this topic.

No they weren't directly promoting harassment. But the general statement of needing a thicker skin to participate in duty roulette to deal with harassment comes with the implication that we as players are absolved of any responsibility to mitigate that behavior and to try and keep the community a generally positive experience for as many players as possible. And I distinctly disagree with that implication. That doesn't mean withholding constructive criticisms, but deliver that criticism in a way that remembers there's a human behind the entity you're critiquing. Not only is acting with respect generally the right way to behave, in my opinion it's the more likely route to get your point across.

Not sure what's so wrong about making that point tbh...