[TL;DR: Sugar's high
horse of individual acceptance summery of a chat discussion this morning.
AKA Babbling.]
"Can you see up
from all the way up on that soap box? You are pretty high."
"No, this high up
there are too many clouds. Once it rains it should clear up."
And thus ended a
discussion I probably should have refrained from having in a public chatroom
and stuck to having on my blog where I can run around and write long, wandering
threads of thought in a more suitable environment. It is easy
enough for me to forget that not everyone wants to have discussions
on societal behaviors in video games.
Topics that creep up
across the game tend to echo. The discussions grow and shrink for various
reasons. At the core there is often a simple kernel that means
something is an issue. An issue large enough that it is
bothering different groups of people in the same way, often without their
interacting with each other.
The fundamental nature
and aspect of Eve is often discussed Eve is harsh. Eve
is dark. Eve is full of non-consensual PvP. Yet, there are also
other aspects that become assumed. We often call these, "doing it
wrong" type of ways.
However, the soapbox
that I believe I was told I was standing on at such a height was a fundamental
aspect of my personality. I am a believer in looking at each situation as
its individual self. Now, it may simply be a piece of a larger whole or
it may be an instance upon its own. I'm also very interested in
individuality at its core.
One of the first
soapboxes I hopped onto as I climbed into the heights of
self righteousness was that people should not be forced to PvP.
I learned that saying that often causes the information following
that to be ignored or missed. I do not say that people should be able to opt
out of PvP or that people should not understand that nonconsensual PvP happens.
I believe that people should be taught to mitigate their loses, to be
aware of their surroundings, to know what dangers lay there but not be forced
to press F1 to shoot someone unless they want to. To many players play in ignorance of the rules
of conflict inside of the game. I mean base core rules here. That you can die in high sec still comes as a
surprise to people. Some who have playedfor years and years.
Pushing someone over
their fear may work for people. Once they learn that the loss does not
hurt it opens doors. But, mandating that a group such as Eve Uni force
everyone to take aggressive PvP actions is something I do not agree with and
something the topic was about. The idea for me was that a place like Eve
Uni is made to help and support new players not just one subset of new players.
If they are to do that, helping and supporting someone to get into the
game that wants to play in a pacifistic way should be as much of a
goal as getting people's toes wet in PvP.
My point is also about a group focused towards helping people get into Eve vs a corporation where there are corporation requirements. If A: Forcing a PvE focused person to pewpew is similar to forcing a PvP player to mine their first battleship. I don't agree with it. If it is B: They signed up for the corporation. Have fun with them. They can leave. My goal is to not have them leave the game itself unless the game is really not what they want. Hence, another post about that later.
I do not think the
problem is that people do not want to PvP. I think the problem is that
people need to accept that they are part of the environment where PvP
can happen. If they wish to never engage in F1 aggressive pewpew they should
be taught how to avoid it and how to accept when it happens. This is
something as simple as tanking your hauler, don't shove 10billion in a
freighter, dscan, overview settings, and the endless list of survival skills
that an Eve player needs.
What I do not agree with
is going, "oh well Eve isn't for them" if they do not want to fight.
That tastes to much of, "Oh well, if they don't want sov null they
don't belong here" or "if they don't want to be pirates GTFO" or
any other mantra. The urge to place ones interest on another and force
them to 'play properly' is detrimental. A player, struggling to force
themselves to PvP because they must and have no other choice will then leave
because they do not enjoy it. Yet, Eve has plenty of places for them to
be and things for them to do where they don't have to go out in a fleet and
shoot someone.
I believe in helping
people take a step instead of pushing them into the pool. I'm one who
hates to be pushed in. It does not work for me. I don't go,
"My god this is fantastic." I'm normally too busy being angry
or miserable over someone forcing their will on me for their preconceived
notion of my own good. I'm pretty comfortable with knowing what does
and does not work for me. Not everyone is. Yet, if someone is
asking to be given options and led then give them options and leave. If
someone has dug their feet in about (say battleships) and said "Do not
want THIS but will take everything else" then work with it. That is
part of defining a game as well. I was told I can come into Eve and make
my path. I'm making it. I stop and ask for help all of the time but I
still will shape and mold it into what makes me want to log in each day.
I do have a hard line in
my understanding and acceptance of others. That line is when they try to
make high sec 100% safe and end nonconsensual PvP. My support vanishes at
that point.
Of course the
conversation, which was wrapped around war declarations migrated
some into war decs needing to be changed or not needing to be changed. As
always, the insults are thrown out about cowards and wanting to war dec newbies
for killboard status and such things. What caught my attention and caused
me to climb so far up my soapbox that it seemed I was attempting
to transcend into a demi-god is my eternal frustration with
assumptions.
I tire of assumptions in
behavior. I tire of people calling gankers cowards. Some gankers
are cowards. Some do it because they want to kill and not take risk
themselves. That is fine. Yet, to paint all gankers are cowards is
also incorrect. People do things for many reasons. I've never been fond
of the 'all x are y'. If someone says, "I am brave, I have killed a
barge," then call them a coward if that is a word that you want to use.
If someone ganks and leaves call them a coward but you really have no
idea if they are or are not or have another motive happening. At that
point the name calling has become nothing more than an assigned series of
emotions and preconceived notions. But I also don't get smack talk very
well and understand that there is an emotional trigger that I am lacking
somewhere. It may be part of my acceptance or view of the game.
I'm not really into
that. But people interest me. They interest me a lot. I like
to know the whys. The why may be, "Because I wanted to," but
that is not the same as, "Because I am amazing." I may not
understand the way personally but I would not label "wanted to" with
"amazing" under coward. I'm just not one to agree
with instantaneous labels and I don't have the need to assign
labels to others for their actions done to me. I assume they did it for
whatever reason they have and if I do not know their reason I cannot assign
anything to it.
Now, I sit upon the soap
box of acceptance of individual circumstantial differences for all
situations. I like it up here I must admit. There is a nice breeze.
I can preach loudly to look at things as they are and break them apart.
I guess it makes me sound like a pretentious git when I turn around and
attack arguments by trying to rip away at the layers of context slathered on
top of the topic. But how can we see what it is about when it is all
covered up?
I love those types
of discussions but I really try not to have them anywhere but places
like the blog. Inevitably, when I am far from finished the discussion
someone tires of it spamming the chat. For a moment, that warm excited
buzzing of a good topic makes me forget what I am talking. That's what
the blog is for in the end.
Accept everyone
(it doesn't mean you have to like them)? People are different?
Individuality must be taken for its own merits? It is all a
reaction of my personal wants to be placed in these situations. My
thoughts are selfish in the end. I know that for some it will always be
'coward'. That too is okay as long as that is their end result based off
of their reasonings. Reasonings I cannot have because I am not
them and may never understand because we are different.
The
most amusing part of the discussion was later when someone said,
"Sugar Kyle, id have known you were girl purely by all that
'people shouldn't have to fight!' stuff earlier :D Because ive yet to meet the
guy who would go on like that over combat in a computer game :D"
People so rarely check
killboards. I'm often accused of being uninterested in fighting things because
I support people who do not wish to fight things. I don't promote safety.
That is a different subject.
Chuckle. Maybe I
should ban myself from discussions before lunch.
This reminds me of pjharvey (of Tiger Ears) noting that she gets more of an adrenaline spike from engaging haulers than combat ships, and even she has no idea why.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that, but I have no reason to believe that she's making it up. It's useful to know just how different people can be.
My wife plays EvE. She does not like PvP. Not. One. Bit. She does love industry and mining. Has actual fun doing it. Folk don't have to agree with her, but folk do, I think, have to accept that for her, that's what makes EvE fun.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand gankers or scammers - and dislike the practices - but I guess if I'm being fair, if I want the PvPers to accept that miners are not scum, I have to accept that gankers and scammers are not scum.
Damn you, Sugar! I hate having being forced to admit my entirely correct way of thinking may not be :)
"I do not think the problem is that people do not want to PvP. I think the problem is that people need to accept that they are part of the environment where PvP can happen."
ReplyDeleteBut what about the "problem" of people who do not want to accept that they're part of a game where PvP can just :happen:, because _they_ "don't want to PvP". That's the whole crux of the argument, right there. If you've already got the mind-set that you should be exempt from PvP, and others who don't want to PvP should be exempt too, well, there IS no acceptance of PvP -- either you campaign to end non-consentual PvP, or you raeg-quit the first time non-consentual PvP happens to you. Those are basically the 2 options, or Option C, "All of the Above".