Greedy Goblin

Monday, November 29, 2010

There is no "opinion crime"!

I was surprised on the comments that K was "bullied" out by people who violated the "no GS" rules of the guild. They claimed that I should have protected him from "bully".

That is nonsense. I do not believe in "opinion crime" more than I believe in "dark sorcery". K was not harmed as he was not kicked from anywhere, nothing were taken from him. 1 (or 3) people claimed that he has no GS. They were absolutely wrong because a boost raid is designed to let low geared players buy gear, and also, because we don't use GS at all. But they were entitled to have an opinion (even if completely stupid), and to voice this opinion. K was equally entitled to tell them that he can't care less or even to put them to /ignore.

I refuse to police every single whisper screenshot seeking for opinion crimes as they don't exist. No one can harm you with words, just by actions. If people have bad opinion about you, that's their problem, not yours. If they do bad actions, then you can turn to the authorities. Back to the case of K: if 8/10 people claim that "u haz no gs we dun wanna boost ur ass" and the RL doesn't kick him, then the proper action is a "/raid I have the right to be here, so shut up GS-using morons".

Of course stupid socials claim that "words hurt feelings" and "we shouldn't hurt feelings". If you believe in this nonsense, let me remind you that my feelings are very hurt if you don't wire me 1000$ now!

If you are insulted/hurt/forced by mere words, you have problems, and not the guy telling them. Actually he is right to abuse your mental deficiency to get gain. The guy who whined about low GS got one less competitor for gear bids, good for him! Bullying is a voodoo nonsense that doesn't work on rational people, just on socials who want to be liked by peers and feel bad if some random guy tells them a bad opinion. Socials believe that bad words are bullets that hurt or can even kill. The trick is that if you believe in them they do. The socials wish that they would have some magic armor, the "thick skin" to protect them from words. Such armor does not exists. The way is not being "stronger". It's simply recognizing the truth: words are not bullets, just noise.

If words would be bullets, I would be dead long ago. I deleted more than five thousand comments in this blog, most of them belong to the "u r the lowst scum of teh earth die painfully" class. There are several blog posts clogging our favorite series of tubes about me being terrible, heartless and evil (thanks for the traffic by the way). Anyone can see those posts and can learn that I'm a terrible person. So what? They can't take my food, my home, my money, not even my internet traffic.

I'd like to explain how does it feel to know that words are not bullets, but a picture tells more than thousands of words:


PS: You might be surprised that while I don't believe in "opinion crime", there are detailed chat rules in the guild. They are there because of spamming. Imagine that people would randomly write "blablabla"! It's not considered offensive even by the softest social. Every time someone logs in, 10 lines of "blablabla" would be bad, so there is "no hi/bye rule". 10 lines of "blablabla" after every achievement pop? No thanks, rather "no gz" rule. Countless lines of "blablabla" whenever someone heard something funny, sad, happened something in his real life? No way! So welcome "no IRL things". Hard to read n0n53n53? No one needs that, so no kiddie speak rule! These are not here to protect people from feeling bad, they are here to protect the chat from being flooded with "blablabla" and terrible grammar making it practically unusable as source of information.

PS2: read this extremely good guide!

55 comments:

Jeanie said...

I don't think people was talking about opinion crime, but rather:

"Demanding gearscore or achievement is forbidden. [bEven mentioning gearscore is forbidden[/b]. However demanding gems, enchants, at least ilvl 200 blues are allowed (but the RL can be more permissive if he wants)."

By the above rule, no one is allowed to even mention GS. Your post didn't explicit state how the whisperer criticize K for his lack of gear (because GS is not necessary to know that someone in blues gear is low). But judging by the comments, it looks like some in the raid was using GS, and criticize him on the basis of GS, so they are against the rule.

Yaggle said...

There is no opinion crime because you are in charge and that is your policy. Spam is just words, trolling is just words, Your character name is just a word. You have decided that some words are crimes and that some are not. The guild leader is allowed to do that. I agree that opinions are not crimes. If I was "K" and I got told my gear was low, I would be annoyed, maybe put them on ignore, maybe tell them to worry about their own selves. I believe that everybody at some time has had their feelings hurt by words, and everybody has to fight back in their own way. For example you said "thanks for the traffic by the way" to those people who said negative things about you. Do you really feel thankful to them, or are you just letting them know that their words did not hurt your feelings? Mr. "K" maybe should have said, "Thanks for boosting me, loser. Nothing you can do about it haha.".

Kelindria said...

When you join a raid you expect to raid within the rules established by the raid lead and as this would have been a PuG raid you would expect to be raiding within those rules. Whether or not you are offended by the words should you be free of having people ignore the rules?

Perhaps K is simply not wanting to raid with people not following the rules set out. Obviously he didn't handle the situation rationally or he would have come to the boost raid conclusion and the issue would have dissolved. My arguement mainly stems from the fact that the only thing taken from him was a guild that followed it's rules.

If we can tell people all day in whisper that they are low GS and fail then why can't you tell people that you expect them to be back monday or they won't be invited next week.

I would expect you to police every little violation of your rules whether or not they are truely harmful for the individual. They are harmful for the entire group.

Gevlon said...

@Jeanie: the "even mentioning GS is forbidden" rule was MAYBE broken, but I don't know that as no one cared to send me screenshots. What I know is K was not kicked, refused to get heal, misdirected mob on him or whatever way harmed by ACTION. All I saw was some social drama.

Anonymous said...

If words do not hurt, then why do you moderate comments on this blog? It is certainly extra work for you.

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: typical "blablabla" case. The comment section would be unusable due to flooded with troll nonsense.

nightgerbil said...

@ gevlons remark to Jeanie: Social drama sums it up gevlon and you lost a guild member because of it. I grant you he didnt handle it like I would have, or others of your readership and no I dont expect you to don your cowboy hat and mount your trusty steed and ride to the rescue. Still a violation of YOUR rules happened and you didnt investigate it or at least press home an investigation. The guy was on g chat listening? why werent you /w him? did you and he didnt reply? fair play. If not why not? did you ask the raid leader what happened directly? and if he didnt know, why didnt he know? he must have had a clue when x y and z were slagging "K" out in raid chat. Why didnt your raid leader deal with this?

A good comment was made at the end of the last post: You need to educate your raid leaders better. Apart from you who else is there to interpret the rules? Dont say they are clear, they obviously werent to "K" the /w'ers or the raid leader who SHOULD have told them to "STFU its a boost raid leave him alone". Which by the way if it were my raid, would/will be and is my reaction to idiots using gscore. I commonly took alts of kslayers on boost runs that went further then most pugs and watched the 3.6kgs out perform a 5.5k pug. Thats irrelevant though. The point I wish to make is maybe you should clarify your raid rules to make it a resonsibilty of the raid leaders to enforce guild raid rules within their raids?

Gevlon said...

@Nightgerbil: if someone is lost over social drama, it wasn't a big loss. He was online but I figured out only later. I did not know who it was, I just heard that someone had a problem. Again: no screenshots were sent to me, so all I have is hearsay.

Not the raid leaders but EVERYONE are entitled to remind offenders of the rules and send screenshots about serial-offenders. I assume the RL and others did not even notice that there is a problem. They were busy with their own job and all they saw was "some silly social chit chat"

Ephemeron said...

As I believe I've mentioned before, disparaging the values of others to prove one's own superiority ("your beliefs are stupid, I don't share your beliefs; ergo, I'm smart and you're dumb") is a fairly cheap rhetorical trick, and one that is easily turned around:

"If you are insulted/hurt/forced by mere words, you have problems, and not the guy telling them. Actually he is right to abuse your mental deficiency to get gain. The guy who whined about low GS got one less competitor for gear bids, good for him! Bullying is a voodoo nonsense that doesn't work on rational people, just on socials who want to be liked by peers and feel bad if some random guy tells them a bad opinion. Socials believe that bad words are bullets that hurt or can even kill. The trick is that if you believe in them they do. The socials wish that they would have some magic armor, the "thick skin" to protect them from words. Such armor does not exists. The way is not being "stronger". It's simply recognizing the truth: words are not bullets, just noise."

"If you are insulted/annoyed/outraged by catapult riders and wipes caused by unenchanted fire-standers, you have problems, and not the guys that you're angry at. Actually, they are right to abuse your mental deficiency to have fun. The guy who flies into nerdrage after being wiped by "trade filth" is free comedy goldmine! Virtuals like you believe that their pixel epics and fake gold are valuable, and that wipes and griefing can hurt or even damage them. They wish that they would have some magic skill, the "armor of asociality" to protect them and their precious pixels. Such armor does not exist. The way is not being "asocial". It's simply recognizing the truth: World of Warcraft isn't real, it's just a silly game for young teenagers and those who are still mentally 12 years old."

See?

Aljabra said...

@Jeanie
"By the above rule, no one is allowed to even mention GS."
As far, as I understand The PuG rules, concerning what you can say and what you can't, they are apply only to guild public communication - guild channel and raid channel in guild raids. You can use your /w as you like. If someone want to express his opinion on how your gear doesn't fit the instance in whispers, he's free to do it, and you are free to ignore him, tell him, that you hate him, ask for gearing advice, or express your feelings some other way, using the power of personal communications.

@Kelindria
"If we can tell people all day in whisper that they are low GS and fail then why can't you tell people that you expect them to be back monday or they won't be invited next week."
You can tell anything you want, but unless your words can't be backed by your actions, they are just words. Words can hurt your ears, if said loud enough, but without the action part that's all the words can do.

Gevlon said...

@Ephemeron: I SEE and what you don't see is that your satire is TRUE. If I'm insulted by catapult-riders, fire standers than I have a problem and they just got a free boost.

The solution is not nerd-raging but kicking them or leaving their group.

WoW would be a silly game if played alone. But as an MMO it is a valuable simulation field where you can encounter M&S with only risking pixel damage.

Botter said...

No rules were broken in K's case. He wasn't kicked or harassed by people in charge of the guild and raid. It was just one dumb member who whispered him something.

He had many options. He could've ask the raid leader if his low gear was an issue. Or he could let everyone know in guild or raid chat about the whisper and ask "Is there a problem with my GS because D (dumbass who whispered him) was talking about it.

The problem with ALOT of people is that they usually complain to people who have no power to solve the problem, if they did then D would be shut and maybe kicked out for trying to emphasize on something forbidden in the guild/raid or if his GS do actually matter he will get a clearer picture from people who are in charge about the rules he might think that he misunderstood when he got the whisper.

D talked BS and K didn't raise it up properly.

If someone punched you and you didn't go to police and instead whine to your co-workers or the janitor then why would you think the police will go after the attacker. You must call the police, press charges, sue the attacker and smile as you see him be sent to jail.

Jeanie said...

Your previous comments in this post cleared up quite a few things. I think now, the confusing part is the inconsistent in your actions: by your logic, there wasn't any evidence at all (even the raid kick, or some "true" damage in the raid, if happened, has to be screenshot to be evidence), so why would you bother to start investigate on whether K was kicked or not, but didn't bother to investigate whether those guys violated the GS rule? I mean, there is absolutely no evidence for both cases, all were just hearsay (and for the former, not even complaint, K was complaining the latter).

Ephemeron said...

The solution is not nerd-raging but kicking them or leaving their group.

Isn't that the solution that K chose in the end?

Jeanie said...

Just trying to make my last comment clearer: Yes, K's actions were irrational, in many ways and several times. But, whatever reason that make you start the investigation whether he was kicked or not, would apply to be the reason that you should investigate whether the other guys violated the rule or not. Ideally and most logically, of course, is that you did nothing at all, because he didn't say anything to you.

chewy said...

Words, both printed and spoken, do have a material effect on people which is exactly why slander and libel laws exist in most advanced societies.

I could be argued that they are there to protect against falsehood and in the most part that is true, however, they are also there to prevent damage to reputation which can have a very significant material effect on a company or individual.

In the case of "K" I'm assuming that the accusations were based on fact but the onus of responsibility lies with the authorities (in this case you) to uphold a case against those that would highlight his poor gear exactly because it's against the rules.

If your choice is to make rules that suit you and attract people to your guild, you have an obligation to uphold the rules, not simply tell people "it doesn't matter, the words can't hurt you". In my opinion that's a dereliction of duty.

Korenwolf said...

Actually I disagree that the correct response is "/raid I has the right to be here, so shut up GS-using morons", a better response would be "No problem, I'll take my gold to a raid group which is willing to boost me". The power (if the boostee) wishes to use it is with them, they're the ones bringing the gold to the raid.

Ulsaki said...

@chewy

"I could be argued that they are there to protect against falsehood and in the most part that is true, however, they are also there to prevent damage to reputation which can have a very significant material effect on a company or individual."

The laws exist to prevent people falsely damaging the reputation of someone else. If the statement is true however, it's not libel/slander, no matter how damaging.

@gevlon

One thing I've noticed in WoW (and life) is that there are a lot of people who will make ineffective complaints, but refuse to try and do anything productive that could actually have a result.

I've seen this in several guilds I've been in. No matter how often it was mentioned that problems should be brought up with the officers so that they could be solved, plenty refused to do so.

Andru said...

In my opinion, the "no talk about GS/no discrimination against GS" rule is BS. Just scrap it, it only seves for social drama anyway. In an idea free society, the raidleader should be free to invite whomever he wants, even based on IRL hair color, and/or whether it's raining on Tuesday. There's two outcomes. Either:

1) GS has no bearing on raid performance, therefore the RL will gimp himself and his group, making it a failed raid. Failed RLs attract no raiders, so his behaviour will not perpetuate. In which case the "no GS mention" is a superfluous rule.

or
2) GS does have a performance impact, in which case "the no GS discrimination" holds back the raidleader and constraints the sucess of the raid. In which case it's a stupid rule.

Just who is the "No GS discrimination" rule is supposed to protect?

Gevlon said...

@Korenwolf: This will be a post on Wednesday.

@Andru: offtopic so no further discussion about it is allowed, very short answer: it defends everyone from forced to farm gear before even entering raiding.

chewy said...

@Ulsaki

The laws exist to prevent people falsely damaging the reputation of someone else.

I agree and that's what I said. I wasn't intending to debate the legal minutia of libel laws, I was simply illustrating where words do hurt, contrary to Gevlon's assertion.

If Gevlon wants to refine his argument down to, only false words hurt, that's different, but as it stands he doesn't make any distinction.

Gevlon said...

@Chewy: because I don't. I believe libel laws will be mentioned 100 years from now as we talk about witch-trials.

Ismaele said...

I think that the point of discussion is missing. None cares about K, K is not relevant in this discussion, if it would be relevant you would have asked something to him before posting anything.
Only two comments talk about protection, while 15 comments on 28 contains the word "rule". There is no mention to bullies in the comments so my opinion is that starting line of the post is representing something false, this make whole post not useful in the discussion.
More to say, if you don't have any screenshot about what happened you should represent situation equally, typing "1 (or 3) people" is quite different from "1 to 3 people". Same thing applies to your comment where "rule was MAYBE broken". There was a discussion over GS in a guild raid, this is a fact even without screenshot as I quote you : "Was he right to be disappointed? In a sense yes. We are advertising ourselves as a non-GS guild and he was criticized for low GS". So a rule is broken as the rule says: "Even mentioning gear score is forbidden".
My opinion is that you want so bad to be right that you search situation for your opinion instead of analyzing the situation.
Last to say, you are saying that is fine if guild has people with stupid opinion or GS-using moron. K decided to leave because he didn't want to play in a guild with stupid people and moron users. While you are fine with that and give no value to the noise of playing with such a people. So what you wanted to made is a guild where people need to insult and ignore each other to carry over a raid or to get gain from other members' mental deficiency. I fear that you carry over abit too much just to prove you're right.

Anonymous said...

the problem lies not within words themselves but in who says them.
it's simply a matter on whose opinion we give something. if a stranger tells me that i look good, i smile, nod and thank him but that's it. if my partner says it, i'm truly happy. same with criticism.
the difference is simply that i care only about very little peoples personal opinion/feelings while socials take everything by heart.

*vlad* said...

K made his own decisions. Gevlon is not to blame for him quitting the guild.
Really though, what was he expecting? The guild rules in themselves should have been an indication to him that this was not the right guild for him. He will probably be happier in a more social guild, but that won't stop people being rude to him every once in a while, guildmates or otherwise.

You don't need GS to check people's gear out. All you have to do is look at people's health. If it's over 30k they have good gear, if it's below 20k their gear is crap. Anything else is somewhere in-between. Simple.

Gevlon said...

@Ismaele: I don't think it's fine to have morons in the guild. I'm saying it's unavoidable. The M&S are everywhere, you simply can't throw a stone without hitting a dozen of ungemmed players standing in the fire whining about other people's gear.

I cannot offer a place without them. I can and do offer a place where no one forces you to help or even tolerate them. You look down on "need to insult and ignore each other to carry over a raid", however it's already a huge jump from any social guild. Good luck insulting or ignoring a 700 DPS lolling "friend" in a social guild! You'll be kicked for being a "selfish elitist ass" before you could link recount to back up your opinion.

You either has a HM raiding background, having no idea how the average WoW experience look like, or you're expecting me to save the world (of warcraft) in one day.

K WAS invited to the raid with low GS and did NOT get kicked when people mentioned low GS. That's much-much more than he could get from any trade pug. So I succeeded to save him from morons HARMING him. Expecting me to save him from morons INSULTING him is simply irrational. I'm just a guy, not God.

Ismaele said...

@Gevlon: i see no reason to carry on as long as you avoid to answer to any of my points and then trying to guess at my past just to prove once more that you're right.

Gevlon said...

@Ismaele: I try to dig up any kind of "point" in your posts, and I may found one: "There was a discussion over GS in a guild raid, this is a fact even without screenshot as I quote you"

That's true. However I don't know if the discussion happened on raid chat (forbidden) or in /w (allowed). Also I have no idea WHO did it, so there was nothing I could do.

All I saw back then is social drama based on he-said-she-said. In today's post I expressed that I refuse to police such childish things, as I don't believe in "opinion crime".

Derkham said...

Most of what you say here regarding "opinion crime" is entertaining. Its common to understand one should not allow bullies to manipulate you and that one should not let them cause you unnecessary grief. In the case of socially dealing with idiotic WoW players it is perhaps essential to progress.

However, words have power and are not just noise. If that were true then this blog would have no relevance, and Shakespeare would be nothing but "a tale told by and idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing" ( see what I did there?)

Ask any linguist, words and language are part of our being and its still a huge area of study and development. So its not surprising that people are hurt buy mere words. In the context of the game, where egos are involved its part and parcel to use them to hurt , soothe and reason.

Gevlon said...

@Derkham: words are not noise if you CHOOSE to accept them. This blog matters only to people who choose to read it and choose to consider the ideas mentioned. To others, it's just waste of bytes clogging the series of tubes.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that words are meaningless. I doubt that Hitler personally killed many, if any, people. However he's widely accepted to cause many deaths.

Would you report someone for offensive language in game? I do. Just last week, out of the blue I was called an offensive word in AV, and reported it. At first I ignored it, but at times a 10 year old maybe looking at the game, and a whisper printed in different color than normal bg-spam, will stand out. Sending out curse words to random people seems offensive to me.

Although what you described to have happened doesn't seem reportable offense. However talking of GS in guild raid while one of the rules is to not use GS, seems to be against the rules.

Ulsaki said...

@gevlon

"I believe libel laws will be mentioned 100 years from now as we talk about witch-trials."

Reputation will always have value. Sometimes reputation can be useless "HAY YOUR COOL", but it can also be valuable. For example, having a reputation as a skilled raid leader makes it easier for you to form groups in future, saving you time.

Unfortunately there will always be some who make up false claims. Either to try and discredit someone, or because of a mental illness, or whatever. Either way, there will most likely still be a need for libel laws in the future.

Gevlon said...

@Ulsaki: I don't question the value of reputation. I simply don't believe it can be harmed by some liar. Or alternatively if some liar can change some people's mind, he actually just saved me from those morons.

Mcmokka said...

@Anonymous:

Wow, it didn't take long for Godwin's Law to kick in!

I think we need to take a look at exactly a guild leader's duty is. In my opinion, if a guild has a very specific set of rules, these rules need to be policed. However, a guild leader shouldn't be an investigator, who feverishly uses all his energy on trying to unearth evidence on "crimes" committed. The very basis of PuG is to have a basis for players to raid without putting up with the following: Incessant spamming, guild drama, months of farming instances and underachieving M&S. PuG is heaven for people who

1) have a very limited time on their hands to raid; they will be accepted without having the state-of-the-art gear (aka no GS),

2) want to play in an environment without the strict commitment of carrying M&S through raids and the "social" commitment of boosting and crafting,

3) want to keep spam levels to a low, not only due to irritation, but mostly to keep "real" information available.

This is the idea (at least that's what I get from Gevlon's posts) of the PuG. What it doesn't want is to care and nurture everyone. Obviously, if a raid leader kicked someone due to low gear, it would go against the rules. But a random whisper? Not so much. We don't even know what was said. For example: "Wow, your gear is really crappy" is to me stating the obvious, as it probably is true. I don't see any harrasment there. However, a "your gear is too crappy, gtfo, or I won't heal you" is truly too much. But again, no screenshots were taken, so nobody knows. And also, whining to someone, who isn't Gevlon also won't bring "justice". In short, while I don't play in PuG, I think K made the right decision to quit the guild. Obviously he wasn't the right material to play there.

Dàchéng said...

Gevlon, it seems to me that K did the right thing: on discovering that The PuG (or at least his sample of it) was 1/3 morons who ignored the guild rules, and that the GM did not punish those disobeying the rules, he simply chose to find a guild with fewer morons, and not waste his time further with The PuG.

Ulsaki said...

@Gevlon

"I don't question the value of reputation. I simply don't believe it can be harmed by some liar. Or alternatively if some liar can change some people's mind, he actually just saved me from those morons."

I hope this isn't going to drag this off-topic, but a dramatic example would be a man falsely being accused of rape.

Because this is a very difficult crime to prove someone guilty of (or innocent), and because it's generally believed that false accusations are rare, the stigma from such an accusation can be devastating. There are cases out there where people have lost their jobs, even custody of their children, all over a claim with no evidence behind it, and which has later been admitted to be false.

These aren't things you can shrug your shoulders at and say "well, the people who believe those claims are morons". That may be true, but the real world effects still persist.

A hypothetical WoW example. Let's say several people on your server accuse you of being a ninja looter.

There'll be some people who immediately accept this, because they're gullible and stupid.

But, there will also be intelligent people who will consider the probabilities, and therefore consider you a higher risk than someone else, simply because someone accused of ninja looting is more likely to be a ninja looter than someone who is not being accused. Because of this, it's less risky for them to find another group.

We don't have the time or the desire to validate every claim out there, so we all have to make risk assessments.

In short, false claims can still damage your reputation, and they can have an impact on intelligent rational people.

energybomb said...

I would dissagree that, as a general rule there is no opinion crime.
Opinions DO matter. After all, the persons in the guild are the same. If you tell them to "stop being morons" they WILL hold a grundge on you.

In any case, compromise is the best solution. But, as I was too there, I have to say that mister K had a point. They told him he was a reliability.

Being a reliability, social or antisocial, is NOT good. That's a propable reason why he left. At least I refuse to participate until I feel I am at the very least pulling my weight (having gold =/= downing a boss).


ps: Gotta love the new banner

ps2: a funny thing. I have more than 20 people give me 50g EACH to make the portals from Dalaran to X city for the first 2 days of Cata. I thought of keeping screenshots but then I didn't because I thought you would have too many of those already for the morons of the day....
I guess we all thought the same?

chewy said...

@Ulsaki

I hope this isn't going to drag this off-topic, but a dramatic example would be a man falsely being accused of rape.

An excellent point.

It has been known for groups to falsely accuse people of paedophilia in order to discredit them and have them victimised by their immediate society (neighbours, work mates etc).

Gevlon, you too glibly dismiss the potential impact of words without considering all the implications.

Anonymous said...

It's funny because by this mentality i should be able to call a black person a "nigger" whenever i want and if they take it the wrong way that's their problem.
Since I'm not physically hurting them, i can call them whatever I want. It's upto them to get offended or not....
Did i get your message correctly?

luro said...

Am I going to be the only one to point out we are discussing a social issue (2 posts in a row) in a supposedly asocial guild with no drama (which this obviously is).

Kronojuice said...

There is research indicating that psychological pain, caused by words and emotions, and physical pain, caused by pointy sticks and fire, activate the same areas of the brain:
http://www.sutherlandsurvey.com/Column_pages/emotion_as_pain.html#1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252330

This means saying "If you are insulted/hurt/forced by mere words, you have problems, and not the guy telling them.", is equivalent of saying "If you are hurt by mere broken bones, you have problems, and not the guy punching you"

Now, everyone has a different pain tolerance, and just as we wouldn't tolerate an adult who breaks into tears from a paper cut, we can say that K was probably too sensitive to criticism here.

However, in this post you completely dismiss psychological pain, and imply that it isn't immoral to use words to hurt someone's feelings, since your psychological pain tolerance is so high that words don't affect you at all.

Imagine someone who has no physical feeling in their skin, or someone like a professional boxer with a high pain tolerance, claiming that it should be okay to go around punching people because it's their own fault if they feel hurt.

Obviously, we must cater to the regular people in the population, not the incredibly tolerant nor the incredibly intolerant, and the vast majority of humanity feels real emotional pain in reaction to words.

Kuckuck said...

Being wrongly accused of rape does't stop you from bringing forth legal action against people that break the law.

Also, if my friend is no longer my friend even after I was proven innocent, was he ever really my friend?

Lamna nasus said...

'Actually he is right to abuse your mental deficiency to get gain. The guy who whined about low GS got one less competitor for gear bids, good for him! '

.. therein lies the problem.. I may have misread your blog concerning your guild rules regarding GS bigots.. however this appears to completely contradict them.. yes K was too thin skinned.. however your rules clearly did not prevent between 1 and three members of the raid having a pop about GS.. despite the raid being aimed at getting better gear.. so logically your rules mean diddly.. since you actually state the GS bigot was in the right.. K may be too thin skinned but he was right to leave a guild which has rules that can be flouted whenever someone feels they may gain a benefit.. since the GS rules are therefore meaningless... just my two cents...

Libel Slander said...

Usaki and others are right. There certainly are opinion crimes. In some places they are called libel and slander.

However, there are no "private" opinion crimes. K was not hurt by these people messaging him privately, especially when he had the easy recourse available.

Consider two scenarios:

1) Random idiot from respected server guild messages Gevlon and says he is a dishonest auctioneer and will never buy from him again and in fact installed an addon so he ignores Gevlon's auctions: Gevlon is hurt very minimally, if at all, by this idiot.

2) Random idiot from respected server guild messages Gevlon and says he is a dishonest auctioneer and will never buy from him again and in fact installed an addon so he ignores Gevlon's auctions. He gets his friends to do this too, and gets them all to spam general chat with this message, and get 3/4 the server to install this addon blocking Gevlon.

Gevlon is hurt pretty significantly by this.

K's situation is more analogous to hypothetical 1 than hypothetical 2, but situations like hypothetical 2 can come to pass, in game and out. A more realistic situation like hypothetical 2 is the one advanced by chewy.

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: if you call people "nigger", you just make everyone sure that you are a capital case moron. And no, the black people should not be offended, they should pity you.

@Kronojuice: I don't question the existence of psychological pain, I just claim it to be a disorder. Similarly, the claustrophobic guy may get the hearth rate of 170 in an elevator and faint, yet no one suggest we should ban elevators, the proper action is to treat him.

@Lamna nasus: you missed the first post http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2010/11/misery-of-k.html. It says that the rule was not enforced due to his fault as he failed to report it. I can't stop what I can't see.

@Luro: there was no drama, he left silently at 2 AM. I'm making "drama" here, trying to understand and discuss a social issue (that's what I do on this blog)

@Libel Slander: 3/4 of the server can't be that stupid to not know that no one is "dishonest auctioneer" as you can't ninja the AH interface, so even if I'm the worse person ever, it's safe to buy from me in the AH

Symbolsix said...

"I don't question the existence of psychological pain, I just claim it to be a disorder."

Would you claim the same of the distress felt at being physically touched but not injured (someone spitting on you, for example)? If you say that the only bad thing about getting spat on is that you have to wipe a bit of fluid off your face, I guess that's a value judgment you're entitled to, but I suspect it's an exceedingly rare one.


What about being tortured painfully, but with no lingering affects? Suppose someone simply tazed you in the street, and you were able to immediately get up and go about your business, so it only costs you the few seconds during which you were being electrocuted.

If what Kronojuice claims is true, and "psychological pain, caused by words and emotions, and physical pain, caused by pointy sticks and fire, activate the same areas of the brain," then regarding the physical pain of being tazed and the psychological pain of being libeled (forget the possible other effects of libel) are fundamentally *the same pain* not just in people with disorders, but in the healthy human adult.

To put it another way, why do you privilege physical pain?

Libel Slander said...

Replace "dishonest" with ninja, or gold farmer, or hacker, or whatever other accusation that is easy to prove, easy to believe, and hard to disprove.

Gevlon said...

@Symbolsix: this is getting very offtopic so I do not wish to continue this on this comment section. But a short answer: yes, I do think pain without injury is harmless and the perfect example is the dentist. He inflicts pain without injury (actually with the opposite: healing) and stupid people afraid of him. On the other hand they drink and smoke because it does not inflict pain despite harming.

@Libel Slander: the point is that I don't CARE if someone is a ninja, gold farmer or hacker. His auctions are just as good as anyone elses. I do not do face-to-face trading exactly because I don't want to be associated with them, but the AH is fair game.

dangphat said...

@Gevlon
“I don't question the value of reputation. I simply don't believe it can be harmed by some liar. Or alternatively if some liar can change some people's mind, he actually just saved me from those morons.”

This response didn’t work for me logically, so I am trying to work through the reasoning in the hope of either educating myself or adding to this debate.

To rewrite your comment: “Reputation has value, which cannot be affected by falsehood, however if this is not true then my basis for measuring reputation is wrong”

Our reputation is interlinked with our personal brand. We cannot decide on what our brand is directly, we can only carry out actions that then influence other people’s opinion of what our brand is. In-between carrying out the action and them forming an opinion there will be multiple mechanisms of information transfer one of which will often be word-of-mouth. If the information the person receives is errant then they will have to compare the information against what they know of your brand already, they will then make a decision on its likelihood.

At that point, while considering the validity of the information they receive, they will forever connect your brand with that falsehood, even if they know it is a falsehood. Now this thought process does not just happen with “morons” it happens with everyone, including our friends and family.

So in essence my point is that falsehoods, however obvious, will damage people’s image of you.

Gevlon said...

@Dangphat: I don't believe that we have ONE universal reputation. Funny but WoW's reputation system is more realistic than this "brand" view. There are several groups and we have different standing with them. If I write a scientific article, I increase my reputation in academic circles but have no effect on the blue-collars or even with the family. Typical example is the female relative who asks from the young female upon hearing that she was promoted to department head: "it's all very nice but when will you have babies?". For the "old-fashioned relatives" group, being department head is irrelevant.

These groups usually mutually contempt each other and the opinion of one group is is ignored by the other (if the right-wing republicans call me a "baby-killing America-hater", the liberals will just laugh or translate it to "pro-choice, anti-Quantamo guy".

The falsehood emerging in a group is limited to its borders. In relevant groups you have all the options to fight these lies. For example in the blogging community I can voice my opinion (by blogging) gaining followers despite others constantly try to bully me out. It is quite probable that they completely blackened me in their circles and their friends don't read my blog. So what? There are enough fish left in the pond for me.

Libel Slander said...

Gevlon:

I understand that is how *you* feel.

But the whole point of your blog (or part of it) is that there are tons of M&S.

Tons of M&S having a bad opinion of you can have negative consequences. I agree no opinion crime happened in K's case -- but opinion crime can happen and have negative consequences.

An example of opinion mattering (not crime) is the people who boycotted British Petroleum in USA after the oil spill. Imagine if the oil spill was all lies and still this happened.

dangphat said...

@Gevlon

It is my opinion that there could be a compromise between your concept of multiple co-existing brands, with no interaction and my idea of a wider all encompassing brand.

You used WoW reputations as an example, well if we look at the example of Horde Expedition/Alliance Vanguard, composed of different reputations that affect the overall whole. Contrived I admit, but you could draw comparisons to real life.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, I initially worked as Machinery Engineer (so directly using Mech Eng), and as long as I worked well, improving my reputation as a Mechanical Engineer. My next role was a Project Engineer (drawing on my engineering knowledge but no specific Mechanical Engineering work), yet as I improved myself as an Project Engineer my reputation as a Mechanical Engineer would still improve. Now it would be easy to rip apart my example by pointing out how different disciplines within engineering are merely different flavors, however I think it still stands as a reasonable example.

So let’s look at your example

“If I write a scientific article, I increase my reputation in academic circles but have no effect on the blue-collars or even with the family.”

Let’s assume you write good scientific articles, and each improves your brand as an academic. Now if one of your articles was rubbished, even if the person rubbishing it did it on the basis of false logic or incomplete information and that information got back to the “blue-collars” or your family it would change their view of you. The change may be insignificant in size but it would still be affecting your brand, to write in extremes, you would move from “that person who writes clever stuff that I am neither able or willing to understand” to “that person who attempts to write clever stuff but probably doesn’t understand it himself”. Now the fact that these people may care more about the parts of your brand that describe you as a person rather than as a scientist is irrelevant your brand has changed.

Now let’s bring this back to your original post. “There is no “opinion crime”” In describing K’s story he may have detracted from his own brand. However, even working with the best of intentions the raid leader detracted from K’s brand by labeling him as a sponger, if being a sponger is not K’s intention (which is a fair assumption) then he has a detracted from K’s brand. And to say “there is no opinion crime” is to cast to make too sweeping a statement. Remember that the definition of crime is not based on personal opinion it is instead the opinion of society or a group within society.

Cloee said...

It sounds to me as if you are just to lazy to deal with the fact that somebody got bullied. A guild that does not handle that kind of problems will be affected by the same issues that a company has that ignores mobbing.

It sounds like a pretty silly attempt to blame the victim for the crime. I had to deal with a situation like that after last raid, it wasn't very pleasant but that is what you do. If you are in charge, you need the balls to speak up if things go the wrong way.

Anonymous said...

"victim" "crime" .. do you even listen to yourselves? There is absolutely no need to deal with "bullying" if one can ignore it without suffering adverse consequences.

The person complaining about the gearscore might still not be a good fit for the guild, though, if he genuinely believes what he said to K.

Anonymous said...

This article really rang true for me and helped me better define my ideas. Great post, great insight.