Greedy Goblin

Sunday, September 26, 2010

I'm not lucky

I joined to a /trade PuG for the weekly to Ignis. While I was summing the others, I've seen this:

After we went in, I noticed that half raid is missing:
  • 1: "i went to hol rofl"
  • 2: "i followd u XD"
  • 3: "ffs a fkn horde gankd me"
  • 4-5: simply AFK
Out of the 5 inside, 2 figured that it's the best way to clear trash is by riding a bike. On the top of that, every single sentence was started by "lol" (or "ffs") and/or finished by some emoticon. After one of the ex-AFK guys (still in Ironforge) suggested "lets do Unbroken m8s", I left them. On the way out I was thinking about how lucky I am that I can leave without losing my chance to play. I can come back with a guild team or if they are saved this week (as they most probably are, according to the screenshot) I can simply ignore that 5 frosts and can go to HMs instead. This terrible pug reminded me of the times when I had no other options to raid than suffering this filth.

Then I figured out that it has nothing to do with luck. I am not here because some /roll placed me to this guild. I'm here because I worked for it. The others are here because they were actively seeking such guild. I do not depend on luck. No one does.

48 comments:

Townes said...

I wonder where this reference to other players as "filth" arose. I have seen it in other places, though not before this past half year or so, and it still shocks me.

Why? Because I am a student of history. Killing people, particularly notable in the case of genocides, starts by dehumanizing the "other" group. It is a necessity and it is universal before the killing begins. Once they are characterized as subhuman vermin, as "filth", it is easier to kill them. Historians have been noting this at least since Holocaust studies began over a half century ago.

I'm not worried that WoW players are going to kill each other in real life. I shouldn't be surprised that such language is used; it can probably be produced easily in a social psychology experiment as long as there are two defined groups in competition.

It distresses me, personally, because it reminds me of the history of genocide. But the gaming world is not going to change because of my personal sensibilities.

I just wish the good gamers saw the bad players as bad players, or annoying players, or immature people who type "lol" a lot, or people who aren't doing their job in a raid, people who are grossly taking advantage of a raid group by being AFK. Morons, slackers, these terms are rude but are not dehumanizing. "Filth"? I can't relate to that way of thinking.

Gevlon said...

@Townes: This is the point. I want them out. I want to expel them from the gaming circles I'm in. Simply considering them "immature, lazy and dumb" is not enough since - exactly because it keeps them among "us", the in-group and the proper action is "helping". I don't want to help them. I want them out!

Anonymous said...

@Gevlon
You are fighting against something you can not beat. You can't get every moron to leave WoW.

It's not realistic to even think you can manage that. Also, not everybody is a moron, but most likely behaving as a moron.

You want to expel them from the gaming circles you are in?

Create your own gaming circle and you get to say who's in, who's out. Witch is what you did. You created a guild.

There is by no means a good reason to refer to other people as filth though.

It's a game. Don't overdo things. For some people being social and all is fun. Let them be. Let them have fun in their way, as long as it is not harming you. You are in your own guild, they cannot harm you there.

Freedom is important. Don't name and yell at others because they have other idea's of fun. I do disagree with people a lot. Never called them filth though. Because it destroys any discussion of a reasonable level.

Anonymous said...

Townes, socials thrive even on negative attention.Dehumanizing them, on the other hand, simply....ignores them. It is THE greatest insult to them. It is non-attention.

On the other hand, while doing that irl IS indeed dangerous for the reasons you told us. Such dangers are non-existant in WoW, so for now, it is the best tactic.

Dàchéng said...

You are absolutely right, Townes. This is a matter of group psychology. Defining "us" and "them". Gevlon is reinforcing the in-group by calling the out-group names. Of course, every group sees itself to be superior in some way to "them". Here, three terms are used to distinguish the in-group from the out-group: "M&S", "socials" and most objectionably "filth", designed to make the in-group feel superior to the out-group.

Of course, this reinforcement is itself a social activity. "The PuG" is actually a very social (but not sociable) guild where group norms are strongly enforced.

Anonymous said...

" This terrible pug reminded me of the times when I had no other options to raid than suffering this filth."

The way you describe "this filth" seems to relate to the raiding environment and the atmosphere created by the other members as opposed to actually calling these players filth directly. Would that understanding be correct

-Beltox

Tonus said...

Lots of people depend on luck. They generally do poorly at anything they attempt because luck is a terrible way to try to get by.

As for MMORPGs, any online game that I have ever signed up for I did so with a group of friends that I could play with. To me, the fun of the game is in sharing it with my friends, not in reaching any particular in-game goal. Which makes it like any other game or sport that I've ever played with friends.

Wildhorn said...

@Tonus: This means you are a social. You are playing WoW to be with your friends and to "lulz" with them. I am sure you over abuse the sentence "m8, itz just a gamz lulz :D" when something goes wrong.

swills said...

@Dacheng
"...designed to make the in-group feel superior to the out-group."

In the context of WoW alone (and possibly other aspects of life, but we have zero evidence of that) the "in-group" IS superior. The "out-group" frequently negatively impacts the experience of the "in-group" by doing retarded stuff in a daily HC or when you try to PuG a raid on an alt. Also, the "in-group" frequently positively impacts the experience of the "out-group" by effectively allowing them to defeat bosses and gain gear that they would have zero chance of doing if they were accompanied by 4/9 other such individuals.

It's not a matter of calling them names to *feel* superior. The "in-group" IS already superior (again, within the context of WoW *only*).

Drilski said...

@First anonymous: don't start bullshitting people with the tired old importance of freedom. If you're going to use that, Gevlon's well within his "freedom" to call people filth, but of course offending people (who probably won't even read the blog anyway) is bad and should be punished. Direct contradiction, but hey, that's the world we live in where people are so hypocritical it's actually just sad (if you want an example, feel free to see Nick Griffin on question time and all the hate he gets. As much as I disagree with his views, the idiots who call him names are the real cretins in society.)

Also, what constitutes "fun" and who gets to have fun isn't a factual argument you can have. I like being social, I like entertaining, conversing and being entertained. I also bloody hate wiping because people think it's "fun" to do something "funny" (Christ on a tractor the shitty sense of humour people have in this game...either too liberal, too stupid or incredibly awkward) or because they found it "fun" to go pwn sum nubz on Halo: Reach rather than know what the hell they're doing in my raid.

Squishalot said...

Following on from Townes's comments...

@ Gevlon: "This is the point. I want them out. I want to expel them from the gaming circles I'm in."

Do you believe that genocide or mass deportation is a good thing, then? That a person's inferiority, relative to some subjective standard, somehow justifies their non-existence in your world?

Because, really, that's just going too far.

Drilski said...

@Squishalot: If we're taking it to extremes, let's take it to another: would you be willing to let everything descend into total anarchy simply because you were unwilling to deal with specific individuals (NOT generalised groups) who ultimately caused the start of said downfall in the first place?

Because I like my society nice and wholesome.

Anonymous said...

@Townes

I suggest you find a time consuming hobby so you have less time to think about things. There is no real link between something as horrible as genocide and calling bad players filth.

During online interaction through an avatar in a game like WoW you are already very much dehumanized. Players dont even call each other by the names of thier avatar they just say tank, healer, hunter or whatever role the person is playing.

@Squishalot

Genocide is something different from not wanting to play a game with M&S.

When the world in question only exists in cyberspace it changes everything.

I would compare it to having a say in who you choose to watch a movie with or who you go out dancing with.

Dont use words like genocide without thought it is horrible.

Barrista said...

@squish:

Everyone does this, even you. Your judgement that they are "inferior" may just be that you don't like their attitude. Either way, you don't want to include them in your life. That doesn't mean you want them all dead.

He doesn't want to play a game with them. He has a right to feel that way. Heck, I don't know if I want to even buy Cataclysm because of the WoW community.

@Gevlon:
They aren't going anywhere. I think you need to accept that the game has changed because the developers wanted it to.

chewy said...

Entirely agree with Townes and Squishalot.

You're going too far Gevlon. By all means express your opinion but save the overly emotive language. It betrays your usual pragmatic approach.

Andrei said...

Wow this last post got me really puzzled. It appears that Gevlon's dislike to put it mildly of the WoW players he labels as M&S is increasingly becoming irrational almost bordering with obsession. It is one thing in true spirit of Goblinism to try to limit your interaction with "socials" and other unfortunate categories of players but at the same time accepting that dealing with them is inevitable consequence of playing WoW. And it completely different story when it turns into a personal vendetta and emotional outbreaks such as "suffering this filth" statement.

I wonder what is the real reason behind it assuming that this is not just a "bite" to drive blog traffic. Is Gevlon becoming increasingly frustrated by loosing his quixotian war against M&S in WoW?

Anonymous said...

@ Gevlon: "This is the point. I want them out. I want to expel them from the gaming circles I'm in."

You don't want them out of the game, just your guild.
The majority of wow's subscribers would be described by you as M&S. If they are all to magically leave, blizz would shut down any future development of wow and either close it, or as they did in china and sell the rights to 3'rd party to host it.

For every 15 dollars per month from a competent player, there is a million dollars (probably more) from M&S. It's those millions that blizz is interested in.

Vesoom said...

@Squishalot,

I have to take issue with some of the arm chair psychology today:

"Do you believe that genocide or mass deportation is a good thing, then?"

You're right that is too far. Gevlon is talking about removing them from his circles in a game, not removing them from LIFE IRL as you imply.

As alliance I feel justified killing horde in game. Don't extend that to real life and accuse me of applying the same ideas to real life.

Dàchéng said...

@Swills

I see you've got with the program!

Seriously, your belief that your group really IS superior is exactly what every in-group believes about the out-group.

Entha said...

Squishalot: Looks to me like you are aware of the misconception yet abuse it anyway. Obviously Gevlon knows the difference between his gaming world and the real world. Do you?

Squishalot said...

Heh, looks like I got a good turnout today!

Let's go through one by one.

@ Drilski: "If we're taking it to extremes, let's take it to another: would you be willing to let everything descend into total anarchy simply because you were unwilling to deal with specific individuals (NOT generalised groups) who ultimately caused the start of said downfall in the first place?"

Of course not. Who said we were unwilling to deal with specific individuals? The difference between the deportation/genocide approach (elimination) and the welfare approach (education / financial support) is that one is moral, one is not.

@ Anonymous: "Genocide is something different from not wanting to play a game with M&S."

Well, look at it this way. Townes argued that Gevlon's attitude is similar to that of genocide. Gevlon replies "[Yes,] This is the point." He then goes on to state "I don't want to help them. I want them out!"

So he acknowledges the links and the approach, and must therefore be comfortable with it if he's standing by his statements. Which is why I'm questioning if that is actually his view.

@ Barrista: "Everyone does this, even you. Your judgement that they are "inferior" may just be that you don't like their attitude. Either way, you don't want to include them in your life. That doesn't mean you want them all dead."

Wrong. I may feel that they are 'inferior', but I will attempt to educate them, or alternatively, ignore them. At no point will I campaign for their non-existence, which is what Gevlon has advocated.

Me: "I want to help them, so that they're not stupid anymore."
Gevlon: "I don't want to help them. I want them out!"

There's the difference.

@ Vesoom: "I have to take issue with some of the arm chair psychology today:
...
You're right that is too far. Gevlon is talking about removing them from his circles in a game, not removing them from LIFE IRL as you imply."


The principle is the same, even if we're talking about 'luxuries' instead of 'life'. He doesn't want people enjoying the game in their own manner. This, perhaps, could be paralleled with Israel's previous blockade on Gaza whereby all luxury goods were prohibited.

Gevlon is still arguing for the discrimination of a group of people - note, the 'M&S' in game are likely to be correlated to people of lower socio-economic background in real life. If you argued that disadvantaged people in real life shouldn't have access to X, Y and Z just because they are uneducated, you would be lynched. Gevlon is arguing that these people shouldn't have the game. He wants them out. And that is immoral.

And it's not just the gaming circles - by that, he must mean his entire server, and any other server he plays on, since he's venting about joining a /trade pug.

@ Entha: "Squishalot: Looks to me like you are aware of the misconception yet abuse it anyway. Obviously Gevlon knows the difference between his gaming world and the real world. Do you?"

See point made to Anonymous above. Gevlon has acknowledged that his attitude to the M&S is the same attitude taken by people committing genocide, and that he doesn't want to help them (welfare), he just wants them eliminated.

@ All of you:

My point to Gevlon is this - if a genocide attitude is not alright in real life, what makes you think it should be tolerated in game?

"Because it's just a game?"
"It's just in cyberspace, it changes everything, it's not real life?"

That's just bullshit. Ignoring people is one thing. Wishing, and in fact, actively campaigning for their non-existence is another thing altogether, in the real world and the cyber world both.

Anonymous said...

From a business perspective, I would simple label M&S as 'underperformers' and put them on ignore. It isn't kind, but it isn't genocide. (@Townes)

@Gevlon: Don't rely on luck. I have a suggestion: Use your blog to drive the creation of the following mod: Karma

For WOW, the main difficulty in eliminating M&S is the limited number of repeated interactions. One M&S can get many, many chances before getting on an entire server's #$%-list.

So, develop a mod with the following functionality.

(1) Reference characters by ReadID. (Avoids name change/alts)
(2) Share character data with other toons using the same mod. (Maybe just 'exceptional' performances...database size issue)...I would still keep off-server toons in the database.
(3) Allow modest non-automated #$%-listing.
(4) For each grouping, rate characters according to number of #$%-ups and overall dps, et cetera, and, of course, leet-speak.
(5) Grant a character rating after 10 independent groups have been rated. Make this character rating customizable. (Eg...I HATE leetspeak.)

Call the mode Karma. Then, don't group with people in the lower percentiles. Think of it as performance-based Gearscore...I'd use it.

Extrapolating...assuming at least 20% server coverage...I'd say that a real M&S would be effectively account-banned within 20 instances/raids.

Yngvede said...

@Anonymous: As far as I know there is an addon that does everything you mentioned except for your first point (the real ID part): Elitist Group.

You can download it here: http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/elitistgroup.aspx

Grim said...

@Squishalot
"If a genocide attitude is not alright in real life, what makes you think it should be tolerated in game?"

A genocide attitude is not alright IRL because we don't have a proper gauge to decide who needs to go. There is no universal stupid-meter.

It is, however, perfectly possible to figure out who is stupid in WoW. And it makes perfect sense to wish them out. Everyone left would benefit (unlike IRL where I wouldn't have anyone to serve me pizza).

Drilski said...

@Squish: So you're telling me that you're going to go out and educate every idiot you encounter in-game rather than put them on ignore/gkick them?

Tonus said...

@Wildhorn: "I am sure you over abuse the sentence "m8, itz just a gamz lulz :D" when something goes wrong."

Yes and no. It's certainly the way we approach the game, but people who say that are usually assuring someone else who is upset over a wipe or bad play. Since we approach the game the same way and play with others who are of like mind, we never have to ask anyone else to 'take it easy' or anything like that.

A person who is M&S will use that phrase because he signed up with a group and gave the impression that he shared their expectations, then tries to dismiss them when it turns out that he is a detriment to the group. That's not a sign of being social, it's a sign of being dumb.

Andrei said...

@Grim
"It is, however, perfectly possible to figure out who is stupid in WoW."

Really? Can you provide a practical recommendation on how to do that? For example, who is stupid: the one getting carried in the 5-man instance or 25-man raid or players boosting underperformed group? Or even more broadly: is it so called M&S who are stupid by playing the game that caters them. Or is it Gevlon and Co who continue to play (and pay subscription) the game that is designed for "socials" and who still hope that those socials someday will get auto-magically eradicated?

"And it makes perfect sense to wish them out. Everyone left would benefit (unlike IRL where I wouldn't have anyone to serve me pizza)".

Why would it make perfect sense? For one, getting rid of players marked as M&S would cut Blizzard revenue from subscriptions thus limiting their ability to develop new and better content. In what way it would benefit "everyone left"? Take another example. It Gevlon's forays to become a WoW millionaire he exploited lack of market knowledge, planning and patience of other players (M&S in this case). That brought him as well as other goblins significant riches. Would it make easier for them to make gold if "unfit" from market point of view players were pushed out? I doubt it. Without M&S in a primitive economy like WoW it is extremely difficult to get any differentiation or competitive advantage except for amount of time invested. That would turn gold making activity into a very boring grind.

Squishalot said...

@ Grim: "A genocide attitude is not alright IRL because we don't have a proper gauge to decide who needs to go. There is no universal stupid-meter.

It is, however, perfectly possible to figure out who is stupid in WoW. And it makes perfect sense to wish them out. Everyone left would benefit (unlike IRL where I wouldn't have anyone to serve me pizza)."


We do - it's called IQ. Is it imperfect? Yes, but so are all of Gevlon's in-game measures. Remember that Gevlon classes people into the 'moron' category for using 'lol' - I'm fairly certain you can apply precisely that same subjectivity in real life.

And if they were out, you wouldn't have anyone around to serve up cheap materials, or to provide you with fresh raid content, since WoW would wouldn't have a significant subscriber base and would fall off the map.

@ Drilski: "So you're telling me that you're going to go out and educate every idiot you encounter in-game rather than put them on ignore/gkick them?"

Ah, this is the thing. Gevlon doesn't want to ignore / gkick them. Gevlon wants them out of the game. I've actually got precious few people on my ignore list - and most of those are there for gratiuitous trade spamming.

In real life, we have an obligation to assist the less fortunate. Not just a moral one, but a practical one also - it reduces crime and homelessness, it increases productivity, it improves society as a whole. The same principles apply in WoW too.

Grim said...

@Andrei
I mean the stupid. Not the generous, social or lazy, but the stupid. The one who causes wipe after wipe by making the same mistake. The one who does 3-digit dps. The one with 0/0/71 spec and spirit gems on a warrior.

Of course there is a large gray area, but even if we just count the gray area as worthy of continued existence, the average IQ would soar like a keyboard-turner on a column of frost.

And it would make perfect sense because it would just clear the game of retards. Blizzard's revenue is a non-issue here - i'm talking about player benefits. Blizzard is perfectly capable of making the game more demanding should the playerbase change. Also, at 10 million players most of the costs are variable, so they can scale the game easily.

As for gold - its primary purpose is to buy crafted gear, enchants, consumables etc. for progression raiding. A smaller market would be a small price to pay for being certain that the 9 random people you just picked up in Trade have the brainpower for Alone in the Darkness.

If someone is seriously just playing WoW to get as much ingame gold as possible, he can probably get the condition named after him.

Squishalot said...

@ Grim: "Also, at 10 million players most of the costs are variable, so they can scale the game easily."

Yes and no, but that's precisely the point. Once you cut back all the people who Gevlon defines as M&S, you'll end up with a small portion of people paying the entire fixed cost.

And what is that fixed cost? Cost of expansions, bug fixes, patches, new content, etc. So if you're happy with WoW disappearing into oblivion like Star Wars Galaxies and other failed min/maxing MMOs, then by all means, keep campaigning for the cutbacks in the player base.

Aljabra said...

@Squishalot
"In real life, we have an obligation to assist the less fortunate. "

No, we don't. "Less fortunate" would like us to, that's for sure, but there are no obligation above what you want to take yourself.

"Not just a moral one, but a practical one also - it reduces crime and homelessness, it increases productivity, it improves society as a whole."

Moral one is not something to take into account, as in most cases it is product of the "less fortunate" in a first place, as they sure want someone to carry them around, and practical one is quite questionable as well. It does reduces homelessness, that's for sure, but crime? There are no proven correlation.
Increases productivity of whom? Those, who must give some of the money they work hard to get to some stranger just because he's poor? No way. Most people have strict limits on how much charity they can afford, and, more important, want to give out.
Improves society as a whole? How? By increasing number of people, that don't do anything, pretending that they are "less fortunate" and therefore should be cared for?

Andru said...

@Grim

Why would you want that?

That's just lazytalk for: 'I CBA to get/run a good guild.'

The tools are already in place to avoid most people who you don't like.

The one thing Blizzard could do more, is extend the ignore list to a way higher number.

Other than that, you have every tool available to find people with whom to play.

Excluding people should not, and can not be done by the 'government'. No government in the world can say: "Hey, M&S, starting tommorow, you'll all be arrested, and kicked out of the country."

But you know what? As a personal person, I have every right to kick anyone whom I don't like out of my house, and don't even have to give a reason why.


Waiting for some 'miracle' to happen and some 'long arm' of Blizzard to reach in and remove the people who you don't like is as stupid as it is naive.

How about you take the matters under your control for once?

Grim said...

@Andru
Where did I say that I am waiting for a miracle? Where has anyone said that they actually expect that M&S will be removed from the game?

Its just wishful thinking. My point is that it would be good for players, not that Blizzard would ever even consider it.

As for the tools at my disposal. Yes, I have the tools to make a good guild, but I also have the tools to make my own game. That one of these things takes far more time than the other is irrelevant to me, because both take far more time than I am willing to input.

The increase in my share of fixed costs in case of M&S removal wouldn't even get close to the time making and running a guild would consume.

Anonymous said...

Gevlon,

what did you expect when you joined a /trade PuG, on top with the same Rhaegar that starred in wednesday's MotD as a Raid Leader?
You would have to be very, very lucky for that to work out...

Squishalot said...

@ Aljabra: "No, we don't. "Less fortunate" would like us to, that's for sure, but there are no obligation above what you want to take yourself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Under any definition of morality, you would be incorrect. Not assisting those 'less fortunate' is immoral under most codes of morality, including utilitarianism (up to the point whereby you start wasting resources in the process of helping).

"Moral one is not something to take into account, as in most cases it is product of the "less fortunate" in a first place"

That's your opinion, and one that desperately needs further education in the definition of morality.

"It does reduces homelessness, that's for sure, but crime? There are no proven correlation."

There is a very strong negative correlation between the level of crime and the level of education of the offenders. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

"Increases productivity of whom? Those, who must give some of the money they work hard to get to some stranger just because he's poor? No way."

Increasing productivity of society. You view welfare as "tax the rich to give to the poor", which is the modern view of welfare, but it's not the only form. I see welfare as including "tax the rich to build schools for the poor". Again, I'm not advocating giving away money, in real life or in WoW, I am, as I always have been, advocating education and helping them to help themselves.

Gevlon complains about the M&S who don't learn. They're likely to be the less educated ones, without university educations, from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Stupid people come from lower socio-economic backgrounds - plenty of correlational studies there. What's the best way to solve this? Provide better education for those people, so they don't grow up to be as stupid. It's not that hard.

"Improves society as a whole? How? By increasing number of people, that don't do anything, pretending that they are "less fortunate" and therefore should be cared for?"

I hope that if you understand my previous responses, you'll understand why I no longer need to respond to this point.

@ Grim: "Yes, I have the tools to make a good guild, but I also have the tools to make my own game. That one of these things takes far more time than the other is irrelevant to me, because both take far more time than I am willing to input."

Then don't complain about the M&S circles that you're choosing to join instead. What you're doing at the moment is saying that you can't be bothered to cook a meal, so you go to Maccas and complain about how unhealthy it is.

Andrei said...

@Grim
"I mean the stupid. Not the generous, social or lazy, but the stupid. The one who causes wipe after wipe by making the same mistake. The one who does 3-digit dps. The one with 0/0/71 spec and spirit gems on a warrior."

Just like that? You make a conclusive assessment of somebody's mental abilities without ever dealing with the person in real life? Merely by interacting with his/her avatar for a couple hours and judging the person by the artificial metrics of the video game? What indicates that this individual is stupid? Not knowing boss fight mechanics and requiring a longer learning curve to master them? Struggling to get spell rotations right or figure out optimal talent spec? Hmm... to me it is just as stereotyping as claiming that all WoW hardcore raiders or min/maxers are either no-lifers or compensate for their failures in real life.

This person uses leet speak and abuses lolz? How do you know this a true reflection on player’s mental abilities or standing in real life? Games like WoW are called RPG for a reason. One may call it stupidity to not realize or accept that people and their motivations and goals in life, work and play are different and it is Ok to be different.

“If someone is seriously just playing WoW to get as much ingame gold as possible, he can probably get the condition named after him.”

Do you always attach a named condition to the people who’s goals in life do not align with yours? And how do you categorize someone seriously playing WoW to get as much in-game epic loot as possible?

Drilski said...

@Squishalot: you dodged the question, but I'll bite the decoy.

Firstly, let me state that by no means do I disagree with you (I'm all for it in real life,) but I have a different view: I'd happily give my money (and I do, voluntarily) to help people who deserve it and want it.

But, what I don't want to do is help people who neither deserve it nor want it. Take knife crime in London. It's concentrated on "youths," and when the whole thing kicked off I fell into that age range as well. I sure as hell do not want to help those people. I don't want money spent helping them "get back on their feet" since they lacked a good role model or whatever bullshit people come out with to excuse it. Quite simply, I'd rather my money was spent using a scheme to deceive and catch these wankers and put them to work unfucking the area they were previously covering with graffiti and blood-splatters after mandem A decided mandem B were dissing their bruvs. I don't believe in helping criminals, misfits and those who make no effort to help themselves and don't take it kindly when someone tells them so.

That same thing applies in WoW; I'd rather these imbeciles buggered off. Helping others is great; blind altruism isn't.

By the way: before someone says I have no idea what it's like having no role model/falling in with he wrong people and all that shit: I spent 11 years of my life in one of the poorest boroughs in London, and since my parents weren't idiots I never "fell in with the wrong crowd."

Aljabra said...

@Squishalot
"Under any definition of morality, you would be incorrect."
Any? Not really. Add "modern" to your phrase and then it will be true.

"including utilitarianism (up to the point whereby you start wasting resources in the process of helping)."
You waste resources every time you help - and the only real difference is how much you are ready to waste that way.

"That's your opinion, and one that desperately needs further education in the definition of morality."
That's not only my opinion, and don't even try to imply, that you know about morality something that I don't. I did very through research on this subject, and not once. Your arguments in this area are pretty common.

"There is a very strong negative correlation between the level of crime and the level of education of the offenders. "
Wait, when it started to be about education? Education is in completely different matter, it's about teaching people how they can help themselves instead of directly helping them.

"Increasing productivity of society."
Productivity of society increases when it begin to produce more, or spend less on useless things. It is only way. Welfare, therefore, can increase productivity if most of the people, that recieve it, will become productive members of society later. This is the case with education, and that's the reason I called it totally different matter earlier. Rationally thinking, education is not welfare at all, it is investiment.
But hobo in most cases will remain hobo no matter how much welfare he'll get.

"What's the best way to solve this? Provide better education for those people, so they don't grow up to be as stupid."
It is not the way to solve it at all. It's the way to fish out the intelligent ones. Stupid ones will still grow up stupid - it's proven fact, that you can't educate a person if that person don't want to be educated. More than that, stupid ones, when educated with the smart ones, dramatically slow smart ones progress, therefore M&S start to cripple life quality right from the start.

Grim said...

@Squishalot
Where have I been complaining about any "M&S circle" other than the whole game in general? I'm quite happy with my current guild.

Still, you saying that I shouldn't complain if I'm not willing to lead my own guild is kind of like saying that I shouldn't complain about the government if i'm not willing to start my own country.

@Andrei
My very first post on this subject clearly distinguished IRL-stupid people from WoW-stupid people.
The point was that WoW-stupid people can be identified and thus WoW-genocide is in theory not as dysfunctional as IRL-genocide.
I don't care if someone has ten Ph.Ds and an IQ of 200. If he does 3-digit dps, he is WoW-stupid and I'd be happier if he didn't play.

Squishalot said...

@ Drilski - I didn't dodge the question, I said that I'm happy to put people on /ignore when necessary. The fact that I don't have many on /ignore isn't because I don't run into idiots, but because I do try to help them. I thought that was a the obvious conclusion from my comments, sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

What I also said was that Gevlon's not content with using /ignore. If it was just about ignoring the M&S, he'd easily be able to get someone to make an addon with a bigger /ignore, /moron and /slacker tags, so that he can quickly ascertain whether he wants to steer clear of people he runs across. But he doesn't, he wants to humiliate them and drive them out of the game entirely. And I think that's not right.

I hear what you're saying about growing up in poor socioeconomic environments. But as you say, your parents aren't idiots. It's a deterministic world - they grow up as idiots, because they're raised as idiots. Do you actually think people *choose* to be stupid, or uneducated, or poor, etc?

Richard Dawkins makes the point in The God Delusion that certain people out there are religious because they don't realise they can be anything different, because they've grown up in a religious culture all their life, and are never taught to question it. The same principal applies to any other mindset as well.

Drilski said...

@Squish: Sorry, looking at it again you're right, you didn't dodge it. I just fail at inferencing. (See, this is my problem; I disagree with people vehemently and then end up agreeing with them :/)

Anyway, while I think correcting people is the best option, the second best is, imo, removing them (more on that in a minute, it links in what I'm about to say.)

Yes, quite frankly, people do choose to be those things, with the possible exception of stupid since natural intelligence plays a part in that. There simply isn't a viable excuse short of physical restraint that takes the blame away from people that refuse to educate themselves. I'll use myself as an example: when I was in secondary school, I was capable of getting an A/A* in a particular subject that we were forced to take as a GCSE; I didn't, I got a B (which was my lowest mark in anything) and I have no problem admitting that I could've done much better than that, but I simply didn't want to revise for it. I didn't like it as a subject anyway, but I could've done much better than that. It wasn't anyone's fault apart from my own.

I'm staggered when people say something like "oh yeah our class/I just talked so much we/I never learned anything lol, teacher couldn't control teh class." Are you fucking shitting me? You're blaming your shittiness and trying to say that it was your teacher's fault for not telling you to shut up? Were they not capable of consciously thinking "hmm, I could be a binman or a doctor; but talking r fun tingz so der goes mai doctor stuff lol"?

Similarly, we don't live in a society where people are only ever exposed to one thing. Everyone knows there are people who make loads of money because they had training, and that's because they applied themselves and made the effort to get there. Religion is another case, since if you live in, say, India or the Middle East not being religious is not gonna be good for you, and virtually everyone around you and even n your own country is religious in some way.

However, since people can't be arsed to reach the visible top rungs of society, they instead join their peers and think "oh it's great, everyone else is here." The "aspiration" as it were works both ways, and if you remove the lowest common denominator then you remove the social gravity that means people think it's okay to be there. There, I linked back to the second paragraph.

Drilski said...

Part Two
Similarly, we don't live in a society where people are only ever exposed to one thing. Everyone knows there are people who make loads of money because they had training, and that's because they applied themselves and made the effort to get there. Religion is another case, since if you live in, say, India or the Middle East not being religious is not gonna be good for you, and virtually everyone around you and even n your own country is religious in some way.

However, since people can't be arsed to reach the visible top rungs of society, they instead join their peers and think "oh it's great, everyone else is here." The "aspiration" as it were works both ways, and if you remove the lowest common denominator then you remove the social gravity that means people think it's okay to be there. There, I linked back to the second paragraph.

Squishalot said...

@ Drilski:

You haven't justified why it's the second best option yet, you've only outlined the benefits of removal. That needs to be outweighed against the costs of removal, at which point, the net benefit gap between education and removal expands extremely rapidly.

It's interesting what you say about religion, because the same would also apply in the US and most Western countries as well. Dawkins was preaching to a US crowd about the plausibility of atheism. Considering that 75% of the US affiliate themselves with Christianity in some way, shape or form, it's hard to ignore that the US, 'one nation under God', is any less religious than India or Israel or any of the other Middle Eastern countries.

Anyway, you talk about you not applying yourself to get an A in your class, because you couldn't be bothered, you didn't like it. That, in itself, is a form of stupidity. Consider though, if you had been brought up in a family that put much more value on education, you would have perhaps made more of an effort, and been less inclined to slack off. There are still environmental effects at play.

Again, we live in a deterministic world. There is no real such thing as free will, there are only antecedent effects from precedent causes. Everything that we do is a byproduct of everything that has been in our past. If people are stupid, it's because they've been brought up to be stupid. If people are slackers, it's because they've been brought up to be slackers. If people are hard workers, it's because they've been brought up to be hard workers.

As a government, you can't (morally) take children away from 'poor/average' parents. What you can do, however, is provide them with better essential services (schools, colleges, higher education, opportunities), to help create a better growth environment, and try to create positives to out-weigh the negative socio-economic environment. If you do this successfully, over time, the stupid people, the slackers, get replaced by hard working, successful people.

That's why I think education is important. And likewise, why I think welfare and 'helping' others has its place, provided that it is implemented in a way that doesn't result in perpetuating the cycle of stupidity. One jurisdiction in Australia is making welfare payments to families conditional on meeting certain education targets. It's controversial, making welfare based on a scholarship-style system has its merits.

Aljabra said...

@Squishalot
"If people are stupid, it's because they've been brought up to be stupid. If people are slackers, it's because they've been brought up to be slackers. If people are hard workers, it's because they've been brought up to be hard workers."
...and if people have no ability to learn how to read, that mean they've been brough up to be dyslexics? Environment is affecting people and have some effect on they abilities, but in most cases people tend to have some traits right from the birth. There are people, who born stupid, there are people, who born smart (and there are naturally more of the former, as being smart is not what human organism is designed for, it's a clear case of unresolved evolutionary conflict). There are people, that born strong, and there are people, that can train all they life and get nowhere close to the real results.
You can develop natural affinities of human, you can slow they development, but it will be developing or dumping what was already there, right from the start. There are several cases of human developing something he have no natural talent for, but such cases are extremely rare.

Squishalot said...

@ Aljabra - you're only proving my point perfectly. People can be born with a lower potential intelligence, through genetics. But again, this is the point - they don't choose to be stupid, it's thrust upon them by the world, be it through genetics or through environment.

Aljabra said...

@Squishalot
Your point was that people are brought up to be stupid or smart, which is not the same as they being born such way.

Squishalot said...

@ Aljabra:

This is what I said:

"Again, we live in a deterministic world. There is no real such thing as free will, there are only antecedent effects from precedent causes. Everything that we do is a byproduct of everything that has been in our past."

Being born is a part of your past.

If you don't have anything against my statement that people don't choose to be stupid, then move on. Otherwise, put forward an argument based on logic rather than incorrect semantics.

Squishalot said...

@ Grim - sorry I didn't reply to you earlier. You don't need to interact with the M&S circle that is 'the game' at the moment. You can solo your way to 80 with everyone in the world on /ignore (if such a feature were available, probably made possible by addons).

However, you choose to sit in /trade and /general. You choose to join PuG dungeons and BGs rather than premades. If so, that's your choice to interact with the M&S. If you don't, then you don't interact with them at all, and you shouldn't have any problems with them.