Hit 13 times in one hour by one person

jobob

Spudgutter wrote:

Maybe I am showing my age a little, but maybe "Heather's" is the more appropriate movie to reference. If you aren't playing the way those at the top want you to play, you get bullied into another slice. Like I said, we don't see eye to eye on this topic, and I maintain that everyone is allowed to play however they want. It just bugs me with what I perceive to be a slight cognitive dissonance. Everytime someone mentions they are just looking out for everybody, they turn right around and say they smash anyone that doesn't tow the company line. Classic bully tactic.

I haven't seen "Heathers" so I don't know what it's about. But the whole "those at the top" thing is confusing, because Judy is more at the top than the people the enforcers are protecting. Does somebody in Heathers come in and start attacking the regular people and the Heathers try to get her to stop... and then resort to attacking her when she refuses to stop?

I said it elsewhere in this thread, there is a difference between being a jerk on accident, and being a jerk on purpose. I don't know Judy from Adam, or anybody else for that matter, so I won't speak to another person's motivation. But I can have the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to play that way, fine, but from where I sit, it just looks like sanctimonious nonsense.

I agree there's a difference, but being a jerk on accident is STILL being a jerk, and it's not like there are never repercussions from being a jerk on accident. Two wrongs don't make a right, I agree, but if an enforcer is being a jerk, it's as accidental as JJ claims be. SpiderJesus already pointed out that Judy's behavior is classic sniper behavior, and looks very intentional. And, frankly, I think JJ is more aware of the way his actions were being perceived than he lets on.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't play high level PVP, so I can only comment on what it looks like from the outside looking in.

And that's understandable. On the one hand, it should give you some objectivity, but on the other, you lack the information to form a full opinion on the matter.

jobob

Pylgrim wrote:

You are making up the argument that I have anything against Line or OOG communication. I don't. I'm a Line user and I'm in a BC. The one thing I am speaking against is hitting a person 13 times. That's literally the opposite to social, i.e. anti-social.

So bringing something up in a social way, like Line, and an enforcer hitting someone as a result is anti-social... but you support using the forum as an attempt at a public shaming?

Dude, the guy literally told me to my face that if I didn't like it I should move away. If that's not how gangsters speak in your city, I don't know what do they say instead. I'm not trying to rally any mob. I don't want anybody going out of their way to hit Spiderkev either, and I'd be equally critical of anyone who did.

There are no gangsters in my city, because we have SpiderKevs in blue uniforms who drive them out when they prey upon the people who play nice. I get that you hate cops, but why bring that outside bias into discussion about a game?

Also, in case you also missed Spiderkev's own admission, he was not an enforcer called upon by JJ's victims or anything of the sort. He had a personal beef

And it really seems like you are going out of your way to make this about SpiderJesus... I can only assume that since- as you say- there are no logical fallacies in your argument, this must be a very important distinction for you. So, can we safely assume that you would support enforcing if it were called for by JJ's "victims?"

As I wrote that, I was really hoping people would have enough common sense not to having me spelling it out, but in hindsight I should have known that it was low-hanging fruit for a cheap counterargument.

Speaking of bully tactics... cheap ad hominem attacks are a favorite.

When I speak of a "competitive game", I mean a pool of people on an equal field battling it out with eachother in randomised fights with the purpose of finding the best (at something). Going out of your way, skipping other contenders in order to find the same person over and over again is not competition, is harassment.

Can you help us draw the line between where "competition" in a PVP ends, and "harassment" begins? I would say that calling people out on the forums is far more harrassing than extra hits.

Especially when you consider the hits equal out... most of the people JJ is hitting aren't hitting back, they are coordinating hops with each other. So in your "free for all" Utopia, just as many hits would likely land.

Going by JJ's description of their playstyle, those hits were not purposefully targeting a person or an alliance. I can see how that is inconvenient to some people and I wouldn't bat an eye if all the players affected retaliated at once, causing JJ to lose several hundreds of points in a minute. That's how the game works. But having a single person go out of their way to harass someone? Especially when he was not acting as some sort of "enforcer" but, by his own admission, exacting a personal revenge over having been hit a few times over the course of several days, I see no way of justifying that kind of behaviour. I cannot do anything to stop it, the game definitely allows it, but I believe that you are still a jerk if you do that and I'm going to call it as I see it. Unfortunately, standing up against anti-social behaviour is one thing that the cartoon, spandex-clad heroes featured in this game taught me when I was an impressionable little tyke.

Did those cartoon, spandex-clad heroes let people get away with being jerks "on accident?" Did Captain America only punch the Red Skull when Red Skull went after him? Or did he punch him for the people that couldn't punch back themselves? SpiderJesus is essentially on the Super Soldier Serum. And if you want to call Captain America a jerk... well, unlike some people here I think everyone should be entitled to their opinion.

If you nitpick apart every single sentence, yeah it's hard to see the thread of my thoughts. Hopefully now you can see that if any, I'm being coherent in my approach. You might not like it and you can call me out on it if from your own perspective it seems that I'm wrong, but please don't be so disingenuous as to try to disarm my argument looking for logical fallacies where there are none.

It's always a red flag to me when someone feels the need to point out that their argument is compltely free from logical fallacies. Is the issue that people are hailing SpiderKev as The Son? Do you want to be similarly annointed as The Father due to your infallable logic? I'm cool with that. Hurry up folks, apply for the position of Holy Spirit... only 1/3 spots for the trinity remain!

The Bob The

jobob wrote:

I haven't seen "Heathers" so I don't know what it's about.

Get the hell out.

liminal_lad

Are these enforcers getting paid somehow or is this just repetitively attacking strangers for the joy of it? Do the mercs just benefit from playing with a strong alliance or is there some other motivation? Are there alliances we shouldn't attack in order to avoid being swatted or doxxed by people who just REALLY LOVE Puzzle Quest?

Spudgutter

jobob wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

On mobile, so I don't want to try to jump back and forth for the proper quote parts, so please bear with me. And I am not putting forth a rebuttal on the behalf of pilgrim, this is just my observation. Also, I am not replying to your response to me, I thought you made good points, so I thumbed that response up. But, as for this response...

The first part is the public shaming as anti social. JJ never mentioned a name to begin with, so (my impression is) the thread was created to start a dialogue as to the reasons for the 13 attacks. This is not public shaming, so I feel you are off the mark there.

Next, there is a reference to you don't know who gangsters are, who admit to trying to kick people out of an area (slice 4), because you liken Kevin to the police who "prey upon those that don't play nice." Again, you ignore the fact that there are no rules in game as to how to "play nice," so if you are telling someone that it's my way or the highway, you are the bad guy in that scenario.

Lastly, the reference to Captain America. Sure, he hits the red skull for those that cannot, but in the second movie, Winter Soldier, he is very specifically against hitting people just because you feel they may hit you. For anyone that JJ hit while they were climbing, the game allows for them to retaliate. That is a very obvious design feature. To skip over other people in order to hit someone 13 times to try to get them in line, is certainly bullying. You asked where you can draw the line between "competition" and "harassment" and I would say that is already well past the line.

P.S. as far as being a jerk on accident. If I am on a bus or subway, and some jerk steps on my feet a few times, possibly on accident(I have literally no way to decipher his motivation) I ask him to stop and go about my business. If i turn around and step on their feet in return, i am being a jerk on purpose, and no matter how you spin it, i am now being a jerk on purpose, and i know it. In your scenario, some other dude comes in, punches him in the face 13 times, and tells him to get in a different bus or subway car.

jobob

The Bob The wrote:

jobob wrote:

I haven't seen "Heathers" so I don't know what it's about.

Get the hell out.

Are you enforcing on me, because I don't watch the same movies you mobsters at the top do?

cyineedsn

I really like how the argument(s?) are still going, 2 days after the OP and the attacker apparently buried the hatchet and went on their merry way

jobob

Spudgutter wrote:

The first part is the public shaming as anti social. JJ never mentioned a name to begin with, so (my impression is) the thread was created to start a dialogue as to the reasons for the 13 attacks. This is not public shaming, so I feel you are off the mark there.

I'm not referring to JJ shaming publicly. That's been more Pylgrim's schtick.

Next, there is a reference to you don't know who gangsters are, who admit to trying to kick people out of an area (slice 4), because you liken Kevin to the police who "prey upon those that don't play nice." Again, you ignore the fact that there are no rules in game as to how to "play nice," so if you are telling someone that it's my way or the highway, you are the bad guy in that scenario.

No written rules, save the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's really all that "playing nice" is about. That, and don't be a jerk. I get that you think an enforcer is being a jerk

Lastly, the reference to Captain America. Sure, he hits the red skull for those that cannot, but in the second movie, Winter Soldier, he is very specifically against hitting people just because you feel they may hit you. For anyone that JJ hit while they were climbing, the game allows for them to retaliate. That is a very obvious design feature. To skip over other people in order to hit someone 13 times to try to get them in line, is certainly bullying. You asked where you can draw the line between "competition" and "harassment" and I would say that is already well past the line.

Let's be clear though... this is not a pre-emptive strike. JJ has created a reputation for doing this, and has been made aware of how it is perceived before. Further, there are people in the game who are definitely aware of what they are doing, and will even gloat about it. Captain America would skip over people to hit them 13 times, I can pretty much guarantee it.

P.S. as far as being a jerk on accident. If I am on a bus or subway, and some jerk steps on my feet a few times, possibly on accident(I have literally no way to decipher his motivation) I ask him to stop and go about my business. If i turn around and step on their feet in return, i am being a jerk on purpose, and no matter how you spin it, i am now being a jerk on purpose, and i know it. In your scenario, some other dude comes in, punches him in the face 13 times, and tells him to get in a different bus or subway car.

...Wait, how did it go from stepping on feet to punching them in the face? Either Dude #2 comes in, asks Dude #1 to stop stepping on feet, and when he refuses, then he steps on his feet 13 times in hopes that he either gets that it sucks to have your feet stepped on or leaves... Or Dude #1 was accidentally punching everybody in the face. Let's not mix & match... it wasn't a different action or an increase in magnitude, it was an increase in frequency (and, to be honest, not even that if you add up the rate that JJ was stepping on feet).

Spudgutter

jobob wrote:

Spudgutter wrote:

The first part is the public shaming as anti social. JJ never mentioned a name to begin with, so (my impression is) the thread was created to start a dialogue as to the reasons for the 13 attacks. This is not public shaming, so I feel you are off the mark there.

I'm not referring to JJ shaming publicly. That's been more Pylgrim's schtick.

Next, there is a reference to you don't know who gangsters are, who admit to trying to kick people out of an area (slice 4), because you liken Kevin to the police who "prey upon those that don't play nice." Again, you ignore the fact that there are no rules in game as to how to "play nice," so if you are telling someone that it's my way or the highway, you are the bad guy in that scenario.

No written rules, save the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's really all that "playing nice" is about. That, and don't be a jerk. I get that you think an enforcer is being a jerk

Lastly, the reference to Captain America. Sure, he hits the red skull for those that cannot, but in the second movie, Winter Soldier, he is very specifically against hitting people just because you feel they may hit you. For anyone that JJ hit while they were climbing, the game allows for them to retaliate. That is a very obvious design feature. To skip over other people in order to hit someone 13 times to try to get them in line, is certainly bullying. You asked where you can draw the line between "competition" and "harassment" and I would say that is already well past the line.

Let's be clear though... this is not a pre-emptive strike. JJ has created a reputation for doing this, and has been made aware of how it is perceived before. Further, there are people in the game who are definitely aware of what they are doing, and will even gloat about it. Captain America would skip over people to hit them 13 times, I can pretty much guarantee it.

P.S. as far as being a jerk on accident. If I am on a bus or subway, and some jerk steps on my feet a few times, possibly on accident(I have literally no way to decipher his motivation) I ask him to stop and go about my business. If i turn around and step on their feet in return, i am being a jerk on purpose, and no matter how you spin it, i am now being a jerk on purpose, and i know it. In your scenario, some other dude comes in, punches him in the face 13 times, and tells him to get in a different bus or subway car.

...Wait, how did it go from stepping on feet to punching them in the face? Either Dude #2 comes in, asks Dude #1 to stop stepping on feet, and when he refuses, then he steps on his feet 13 times in hopes that he either gets that it sucks to have your feet stepped on or leaves... Or Dude #1 was accidentally punching everybody in the face. Let's not mix & match... it wasn't a different action or an increase in magnitude, it was an increase in frequency (and, to be honest, not even that if you add up the rate that JJ was stepping on feet).

The stepping on feet to punching is a metaphor for the overreaction that I see to being hit. Ignore if you like.

The main point is, the game has a built in retaliation system. If someone hits you, you are allowed to hit them back. The Golden rule does not say anything about someone else gets to come in and retaliate on your behalf.

I'll simplify it. I have decreed that you no longer get to play in the slice you choose (even though the game still gives you all 5 choices), and cannot play utilizing the play style that you have chosen, because I have already chosen for you. I also hereby swear that if you are seen in said slice, I will rally every jerk who likes to be a jerk to go out of there way to hit you every chance they get, because they enjoy being the bad guy, even gloat about it.

If you think that kind of attitude is OK, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I will have no more to say to you on the matter.

JVReal

Please?

Fightmastermpq

Spudgutter wrote:

P.S. as far as being a jerk on accident. If I am on a bus or subway, and some jerk steps on my feet a few times, possibly on accident(I have literally no way to decipher his motivation) I ask him to stop and go about my business. If i turn around and step on their feet in return, i am being a jerk on purpose, and no matter how you spin it, i am now being a jerk on purpose, and i know it. In your scenario, some other dude comes in, punches him in the face 13 times, and tells him to get in a different bus or subway car.

Not exactly what happened. A more appropriate analogy....

On Monday some guy (let's call him X-man) is riding the subway on his way to work, trying to get through his daily grind and progress through life. Judge Judy of all people gets on the subway with gavel in hand, robed and everything. While getting on the subway she steps on X-man's foot. It's busy, there are a lot of people coming and going, X-man doesn't say anything, he just shrugs it off.

Tuesday....same thing happens.

Wednesday....Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot again. X-man isn't too happy, but what can he do - she is a Judge afterall? He speaks up just a bit and says "hey there Judge, can you uh.....please not step on my foot when you get on the subway?" But Judge Judy completely ignores him. She has her head buried in a case file and her headphones on.

Thursday....same thing happens.

Friday...It's becoming a trend at this point and finally X-man says something to his friends "hey, anyone here work with Judge Judy? She's kind of being a jerk and I can't even get her to acknowledge me, if someone could just tell her not to step on my foot every day that would be great." One of X-man's friends says "yeah, I know a guy at her WC office, I'll talk to him today."

The next week Judy steps on X-man's foot both when getting on the subway and when getting off the subway - every day. X-man knows this is no accident at this point, but every effort to communicate with the good Judge has been ignored. He's completely fed up with her behavior at this point and so over the weekend he calls up his buddy SpiderJesus.

Monday morning Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot for the last time, and SpiderJesus is there to see it. He gets up and punches her in the face 13 times. She acts like she has no idea why and complains to everyone else on the subway. Most of them agree that SpiderJesus overreacted, but suggest that maybe from now on she take the bus, or just pay a little more attention to where she is walking as she gets on the subway.

jobob

Spudgutter wrote:

I'll simplify it. I have decreed that you no longer get to play in the slice you choose (even though the game still gives you all 5 choices), and cannot play utilizing the play style that you have chosen, because I have already chosen for you. I also hereby swear that if you are seen in said slice, I will rally every jerk who likes to be a jerk to go out of there way to hit you every chance they get, because they enjoy being the bad guy, even gloat about it.

If you think that kind of attitude is OK, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I will have no more to say to you on the matter.

No, I'm obviously not okay with that attitude. That's been my point all along. What you and I disagree on is who is the one who has "decreed that you no longer get to play in the slice you choose (even though the game still gives you all 5 choices), and cannot play utilizing the play style that you have chosen, because I have already chosen for you. I also hereby swear that if you are seen in said slice, I will rally every jerk who likes to be a jerk to go out of there way to hit you every chance they get, because they enjoy being the bad guy, even gloat about it." I get that it is possible JJ was being one of these jerks on accident. But the vast majority of them know EXACTLY what they are doing, because in a lot of cases they ARE going out of their way to gloat about it, and that is why people will skip over "friendly" players to hit these jerks.

dsds

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Spudgutter wrote:

P.S. as far as being a jerk on accident. If I am on a bus or subway, and some jerk steps on my feet a few times, possibly on accident(I have literally no way to decipher his motivation) I ask him to stop and go about my business. If i turn around and step on their feet in return, i am being a jerk on purpose, and no matter how you spin it, i am now being a jerk on purpose, and i know it. In your scenario, some other dude comes in, punches him in the face 13 times, and tells him to get in a different bus or subway car.

Not exactly what happened. A more appropriate analogy....

On Monday some guy (let's call him X-man) is riding the subway on his way to work, trying to get through his daily grind and progress through life. Judge Judy of all people gets on the subway with gavel in hand, robed and everything. While getting on the subway she steps on X-man's foot. It's busy, there are a lot of people coming and going, X-man doesn't say anything, he just shrugs it off.

Tuesday....same thing happens.

Wednesday....Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot again. X-man isn't too happy, but what can he do - she is a Judge afterall? He speaks up just a bit and says "hey there Judge, can you uh.....please not step on my foot when you get on the subway?" But Judge Judy completely ignores him. She has her head buried in a case file and her headphones on.

Thursday....same thing happens.

Friday...It's becoming a trend at this point and finally X-man says something to his friends "hey, anyone here work with Judge Judy? She's kind of being a jerk and I can't even get her to acknowledge me, if someone could just tell her not to step on my foot every day that would be great." One of X-man's friends says "yeah, I know a guy at her WC office, I'll talk to him today."

The next week Judy steps on X-man's foot both when getting on the subway and when getting off the subway - every day. X-man knows this is no accident at this point, but every effort to communicate with the good Judge has been ignored. He's completely fed up with her behavior at this point and so over the weekend he calls up his buddy SpiderJesus.

Monday morning Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot for the last time, and SpiderJesus is there to see it. He gets up and punches her in the face 13 times. She acts like she has no idea why and complains to everyone else on the subway. Most of them agree that SpiderJesus overreacted, but suggest that maybe from now on she take the bus, or just pay a little more attention to where she is walking as she gets on the subway.

Well the analogy isn't really correct. Your analogy assumes that you can just sit on the subway and not step on toes to progress. But that's not how the game goes. The game is designed so that you have to step on someone's toes. X man can ask to not get his toes stepped on. But he isn't asking JJ to stop stepping on his toes, he is essentially asking that jj step on someone else's toes everyday instead. Someone who can't ask someone else to defend him/her.

You can say that shields allow you to not step on any toes. But then that takes more time and coordination. A subway ride that is 10 minutes, can turn into a 30 mins ride. Some people don't have that extra time because of their busy lives.

Calnexin

jobob wrote:

The Bob The wrote:

jobob wrote:

I haven't seen "Heathers" so I don't know what it's about.

Get the hell out.

Are you enforcing on me, because I don't watch the same movies you mobsters at the top do?

He (she) is being funny. I laughed.

simonsez

dsds wrote:

Well the analogy isn't really correct. Your analogy assumes that you can just sit on the subway and not step on toes to progress. But that's not how the game goes. The game is designed so that you have to step on someone's toes. X man can ask to not get his toes stepped on. But he isn't asking JJ to stop stepping on his toes, he is essentially asking that jj step on someone else's toes everyday instead.

Here's a better analogy. Judge Judy comes onto the train, and farts in the face of the guy sitting down behind her. Look, she had Panda Express for lunch, so there's no avoiding the farts, but when she feels the second one coming on, the decent thing to do would be to move somewhere else and spread it around.

Spudgutter

jobob wrote:

Spudgutter wrote:

I'll simplify it. I have decreed that you no longer get to play in the slice you choose (even though the game still gives you all 5 choices), and cannot play utilizing the play style that you have chosen, because I have already chosen for you. I also hereby swear that if you are seen in said slice, I will rally every jerk who likes to be a jerk to go out of there way to hit you every chance they get, because they enjoy being the bad guy, even gloat about it.

If you think that kind of attitude is OK, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I will have no more to say to you on the matter.

No, I'm obviously not okay with that attitude. That's been my point all along. What you and I disagree on is who is the one who has "decreed that you no longer get to play in the slice you choose (even though the game still gives you all 5 choices), and cannot play utilizing the play style that you have chosen, because I have already chosen for you. I also hereby swear that if you are seen in said slice, I will rally every jerk who likes to be a jerk to go out of there way to hit you every chance they get, because they enjoy being the bad guy, even gloat about it." I get that it is possible JJ was being one of these jerks on accident. But the vast majority of them know EXACTLY what they are doing, because in a lot of cases they ARE going out of their way to gloat about it, and that is why people will skip over "friendly" players to hit these jerks.

JJ is not trying to force anyone to change their playstyle....

There will always be trolls or "greifers," some of us choose not to stoop to their level. Others (a couple in this thread, which is obviously already gone on too long) are respectably owning up to the fact that they play that way. Props to them.

I guess I should play the way you tell me to, or I face the consequences. Got it.

jobob

dsds wrote:

You can say that shields allow you to not step on any toes. But then that takes more time and coordination. A subway ride that is 10 minutes, can turn into a 30 mins ride. Some people don't have that extra time because of their busy lives.

And this is ultimately the cause of the conflict and the choice players have to make. Two points that haven't received enough attention: 1) it's kind of a pain to go through all the shield-checking and battle chat... It takes longer and is more expensive shield and ISO wise. 2) JJ is using the quickest and easiest route by trying to score 1200 points the last 3 hours, which is often considered a "jerk" move by itself.

It's two different play styles, with built in advantages and disadvantages. The people JJ is hitting chose to put in more time, ISO, and shields... But in return have to deal with a relatively small number of unfriendlies. The people who play like JJ can score similarly in a fraction of the time, expending fewer resources, but have to deal with ruffling more feathers and risk ticking off some heavy hitters.

I've played both ways. I can tell you that- even with all the hits- JJ's play style is probably easier. That said, it can also be very frustrating if you manage to tick off the wrong people.


Shame on you people that are trying to demonize the other side just because they don't agree with you.

jobob

Spudgutter wrote:

JJ is not trying to force anyone to change their playstyle....

There will always be trolls or "greifers," some of us choose not to stoop to their level.

I know. I just disagree that targeting "griefers" or "trolls" is the same thing as "stooping to their level."

I guess I should play the way you tell me to, or I face the consequences. Got it.

You should consider that different choices in the way you play will have different outcomes. Whether you want to check, bake, troll, snipe, grief, late climb, dump, enforce... Is entirely up to you. But when you play PVP at the level JJ is, you are talking about a very small community within a slice. Maybe 40 people or so? There's no anonymity anymore, and people take notice of you and the way you play. If you want to make choices free of consequences, you need to pick a larger game, and one with much less of a human element.

SpiderKev

JJ went to S5 this past PVP event. He probably doesn't know but I was there too. I didn't hit him though. The thought of trying to go for 14x crossed my mind just to try and get a full week of talk going in here though haha

cyineedsn wrote:

I really like how the argument(s?) are still going, 2 days after the OP and the attacker apparently buried the hatchet and went on their merry way

Pylgrim

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Not exactly what happened. A more appropriate analogy....

On Monday some guy (let's call him X-man) is riding the subway on his way to work, trying to get through his daily grind and progress through life. Judge Judy of all people gets on the subway with gavel in hand, robed and everything. While getting on the subway she steps on X-man's foot. It's busy, there are a lot of people coming and going, X-man doesn't say anything, he just shrugs it off.

Tuesday....same thing happens.

Wednesday....Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot again. X-man isn't too happy, but what can he do - she is a Judge afterall? He speaks up just a bit and says "hey there Judge, can you uh.....please not step on my foot when you get on the subway?" But Judge Judy completely ignores him. She has her head buried in a case file and her headphones on.

Thursday....same thing happens.

Friday...It's becoming a trend at this point and finally X-man says something to his friends "hey, anyone here work with Judge Judy? She's kind of being a jerk and I can't even get her to acknowledge me, if someone could just tell her not to step on my foot every day that would be great." One of X-man's friends says "yeah, I know a guy at her WC office, I'll talk to him today."

The next week Judy steps on X-man's foot both when getting on the subway and when getting off the subway - every day. X-man knows this is no accident at this point, but every effort to communicate with the good Judge has been ignored. He's completely fed up with her behavior at this point and so over the weekend he calls up his buddy SpiderJesus.

Monday morning Judge Judy steps on X-man's foot for the last time, and SpiderJesus is there to see it. He gets up and punches her in the face 13 times. She acts like she has no idea why and complains to everyone else on the subway. Most of them agree that SpiderJesus overreacted, but suggest that maybe from now on she take the bus, or just pay a little more attention to where she is walking as she gets on the subway.

I actually.... love this analogy? Because it accidentally goes to the heart of my case: Do you really think that 13 repeated punches to the face are not a disproportionate retaliation to 6 stepping on toes spread over a week? The disproportion is what's my problem. As I said before, I wouldn't have any problem with the whole train getting up on their feet and punching JJ once for each time she stepped on her toes, preferably as soon as it happened, because damage spread over time causes less harm than a beating. Either way, it would be a natural form of resolution in an equally competitive field.

jobob wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

You are making up the argument that I have anything against Line or OOG communication. I don't. I'm a Line user and I'm in a BC. The one thing I am speaking against is hitting a person 13 times. That's literally the opposite to social, i.e. anti-social.

So bringing something up in a social way, like Line, and an enforcer hitting someone as a result is anti-social... but you support using the forum as an attempt at a public shaming?

Who am I "shaming"? I am no venting some hidden dirty clothes or anything. The only reason I'm freely using SK's name is because he publicly, repeatedly, and should I say, proudly, admitted to his deeds in this thread. If you think that calling out such deeds is shaming, you may have a wrong definition of the word.

Dude, the guy literally told me to my face that if I didn't like it I should move away. If that's not how gangsters speak in your city, I don't know what do they say instead. I'm not trying to rally any mob. I don't want anybody going out of their way to hit Spiderkev either, and I'd be equally critical of anyone who did.

There are no gangsters in my city, because we have SpiderKevs in blue uniforms who drive them out when they prey upon the people who play nice. I get that you hate cops, but why bring that outside bias into discussion about a game?

So, are you saying that cops in your city are the ones who speak like that? I can believe that there are not gangsters, then. (psst, the cops are the gangsters, and that's a thing that definitely happens.) Checks out with your belief that "law enforcement" can disregard and stomp basic decency and other rights.

Also, in case you also missed Spiderkev's own admission, he was not an enforcer called upon by JJ's victims or anything of the sort. He had a personal beef

And it really seems like you are going out of your way to make this about SpiderJesus... I can only assume that since- as you say- there are no logical fallacies in your argument, this must be a very important distinction for you. So, can we safely assume that you would support enforcing if it were called for by JJ's "victims?"

Again, I am not the one making SK's anything. He himself grabbed that limelight, even though JJ had chosen to omit his name.

As I wrote that, I was really hoping people would have enough common sense not to having me spelling it out, but in hindsight I should have known that it was low-hanging fruit for a cheap counterargument.

Speaking of bully tactics... cheap ad hominem attacks are a favorite.

Uh? Seriously, if you are gonna try to poke logical fallacies in people's argument, first get a good grasp on them. My sentence there lambasted both my own lack of punctiliousness and the inevitability of the cheapness of the argument that it allowed. It never attacked you, the person, which is what an ad hominem is. Trying to erode the validity of someone's argument by constantly alledging that one commits logical fallacies (where one hasn't) is much more of an ad hominem, you know.

When I speak of a "competitive game", I mean a pool of people on an equal field battling it out with eachother in randomised fights with the purpose of finding the best (at something). Going out of your way, skipping other contenders in order to find the same person over and over again is not competition, is harassment.

Can you help us draw the line between where "competition" in a PVP ends, and "harassment" begins? I would say that calling people out on the forums is far more harrassing than extra hits.

I already did? I think that it is pretty obvious for a noncontentious reader of that sentence that I trace the line at going out of your way to find the same person over and over again, even when other targets are readily available.

Especially when you consider the hits equal out... most of the people JJ is hitting aren't hitting back, they are coordinating hops with each other. So in your "free for all" Utopia, just as many hits would likely land.

Yes. I don't care about the hits themselves, that's just the nature of the game. It's the insidiousness and persecution of a single target what bothers me.

Going by JJ's description of their playstyle, those hits were not purposefully targeting a person or an alliance. I can see how that is inconvenient to some people and I wouldn't bat an eye if all the players affected retaliated at once, causing JJ to lose several hundreds of points in a minute. That's how the game works. But having a single person go out of their way to harass someone? Especially when he was not acting as some sort of "enforcer" but, by his own admission, exacting a personal revenge over having been hit a few times over the course of several days, I see no way of justifying that kind of behaviour. I cannot do anything to stop it, the game definitely allows it, but I believe that you are still a jerk if you do that and I'm going to call it as I see it. Unfortunately, standing up against anti-social behaviour is one thing that the cartoon, spandex-clad heroes featured in this game taught me when I was an impressionable little tyke.

Did those cartoon, spandex-clad heroes let people get away with being jerks "on accident?" Did Captain America only punch the Red Skull when Red Skull went after him? Or did he punch him for the people that couldn't punch back themselves? SpiderJesus is essentially on the Super Soldier Serum. And if you want to call Captain America a jerk... well, unlike some people here I think everyone should be entitled to their opinion.

Not sure we watched the same cartoons/read the same comics? Someone being, as you call it, "a jerk on accident" is usually dealt with in quick, often humorous ways, a comeuppance that is proportionate both to the gravity of the crime and the intentions of the perpetrator (such as being webbed pantless and dangling from a tree). 13 punches? That's a **** beating the likes of which are reserved for the vilest villains after their most heinous crime, when the nobility of the hero is overcome with righteous rage. But we are not talking here about a hero overwhelmed by a villain's monstrosity, (nor someone, as you suggest, being a blood avenger for those too weak to go after the villain themselves). This was a cold and calculated campaign by someone with a personal agenda. I've seen characters like that in those comics but let me tell you, they were not precisely the heroes.

If you nitpick apart every single sentence, yeah it's hard to see the thread of my thoughts. Hopefully now you can see that if any, I'm being coherent in my approach. You might not like it and you can call me out on it if from your own perspective it seems that I'm wrong, but please don't be so disingenuous as to try to disarm my argument looking for logical fallacies where there are none.

It's always a red flag to me when someone feels the need to point out that their argument is compltely free from logical fallacies. Is the issue that people are hailing SpiderKev as The Son? Do you want to be similarly annointed as The Father due to your infallable logic? I'm cool with that. Hurry up folks, apply for the position of Holy Spirit... only 1/3 spots for the trinity remain!

Look, I actually don't have anything against SK. I kind of respect the swanky bravado with which he admitted his deeds and apparently so does JJ, as those two already made their peace. My problem is with harassy campaigns against single players in a game that's supposed to be free for all, regardless of the reason or the perpetrator. If SK's name comes around is because he's the available example and in fact, if I were not a litigious fool who's not capable of pulling back from an argument, I'd stop engaging with you and as such, also stop getting on SK's case.

Also, I'm not saying that my logic is infallible, just that my argument is not fallacious. There's a big distinction.