After reading many threads and complaints about Forced Emotes. This is an issue that won't die. People are on either side of the fence or on the fence, no matter what Turbine does it will enrage the others.
I like forced emotes, I use them, however I don't like how they interrupt other people or grieve other people.
Having longer cooldown is annoying when doing the deed but as I understand Turbine did that because of the complaints. Is it working? No. Would banning Forced Emotes work? Well yes but it would take out the fun in the game.
Confining Forced Emotes into a training hall or certain fellowships goes against the entire point of pranking someone. Not much fun having to invite someone into fellowship then use it.
How to solve this by pleasing both sides? Simple, straightforward and easy to fix! By addressing two major issues arising from Forced Emotes.
Issue No 1: Area of Effect.
Yes it is fun to make a large group bow to you or make them fall down or dance. But it is also a big tool for grievers. How to fix this?
* All Forced emotes should only have a single target effect, with only one exemption;
* Area of Effect can only affect people in fellowship/raids. This allow people to make use of area of effect for prank or RP purposes.
(This is achievable as minstrel demonstrates with their fellowship heals that can be either single target outside fellowship or fellowship wide in fellowship.)
Issue No 2. Interrupt.
Certain Forced emotes can interrupt. This can be disruptive especially during events. There are no justification for this, and it is a tool for grieving.
*Forced emotes should not interrupt what the character is doing or already in emote state, whether it be crafting, sitting or playing music.
The Results? Grievers won't get much fun out of waiting every 5 minutes to get a person to bow to disrupt things. And the Grievers won't be able to use them to interrupt music players. Also only one impact at a time won't be able to cause massive lag. And on the other hand, players get to use forced emotes the way it is intended with fun and pranks.
As a last resort, if above 2 solutions fails to achieve the target of making the forced emotes fun and enjoyable for all is to have a toggle like no sparring.
Agree or Disagree? Opinion?
Last edited by duvelmoortgat; Jun 26 2012 at 12:29 AM.
I have personally been the target of a group of people intentionally trying to disrupt my game play with the "fun" "pranks". It was neither fun, nor funny.
I just want the ability to play my own character the way I want. Give me a toggle to avoid the "fun" "pranks" entirely.
"Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart." - Marcus Aelius Aurelius
Consider your "interrupt". If a player is standing still and dealing with chat or simply listening to music or watching dancing, your proposal would allow that character to be affected by forced emotes.
The proposal also overlooks a fundamental reason why some people so strongly object to being targeted by forced emotes is that there is absolutely no justification to permitting one character to force an action on an unwilling target. Beyond that, the way forced emotes are used all too often is *not* "we're all good friends together", but as "drive bys" that treat the targeted character as a piece of furniture. It is not reasonable to expect this to be permitted by game mechanics.
While I agree that you are attempting to find a compromise that will permit free use of forced emotes without upsetting either those that like them and those that don't, I don't think this proposal succeeds.
I also agree that removal of forced emotes would--rightly--upset those that like them. The question becomes: If there is a conflict of "rights", whose "rights" win out? This is where I would apply the old quip from the judicial system: Your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins.
I would prefer an "opt out" flag that makes characters (selectively...and at the player's option) completely immune to forced emotes. That way, those that like the emotes can use them and those that don't like them don't have to put up with them. IF--and ONLY IF--Turbine can not, or will not, develop an "opt out" flag, THEN forced emotes should be removed from the game. Should that be done (and I agree that it is far less than an optimal--let alone ideal--solution), if an "opt out" is later implemented, forced emotes should be allowed in again.
I think it's great that you're reading these threads and coming up with ideas. That's the only way we're going to raise enough awareness and finally hit on a solution that will really work. A lot of folks have been debating this issue for so long that we're passionate about the solution that we think is the right one, but the more thoughtful and respectful voices added to the conversation, the better!
I'm still of the opinion that the 'simplest' (not in a tech sense but in the sense of having something that will solve the biggest number of people's issues) solution would be to have an opt out toggle so that if someone casts an emote on you and you have emote effects turned off, your character won't see the effects. I also think that while Turbine is working on that, they should expand their existing tech that disables forced emotes in certain areas, and come up with a small number of places that are always emote free until they have a more universal fix, so that players can have events in peace--maybe not exactly where they wanted to hold the event, but better than nothing for now.
If Turbine decides that they will never do an opt out for emotes, then thinking of intermediary fixes like number of targets and elimination of 100% of ability to interrupt anything will be the next step in the conversation. As others have said, while those ideas are a good step in the right direction, especially for group events, they don't quite eliminate the problem for other situations.
I have personally been the target of a group of people intentionally trying to disrupt my game play with the "fun" "pranks". It was neither fun, nor funny.
I just want the ability to play my own character the way I want. Give me a toggle to avoid the "fun" "pranks" entirely.
Yep. What you've gone through has not been fun. I just want us to be able to dance together without looking around to see who's next to disrupt us because it's "fun".
Estellost, loving husband of the wonderful Shinarra
The proposal also overlooks a fundamental reason why some people so strongly object to being targeted by forced emotes is that there is absolutely no justification to permitting one character to force an action on an unwilling target. Beyond that, the way forced emotes are used all too often is *not* "we're all good friends together", but as "drive bys" that treat the targeted character as a piece of furniture.
In my opinion what we see in the screen is an animation not an action and the game uses forced animations in several ways. There is no way to prevent players to interfere with others like unwanted heals and buffs that players cast at random usually as part of the class deeds.
Lord of the Rings online has festival consumables and skills that force animations and several other ways a player can use to grief or force the real people behind the screen.
I don't need to explain how many times I have to put someone on ignore or turn off some sounds because I cannot prevent random roarers or louder musicians. This is by far more important that a simple character animation because it forces "me", the player, to do something and it breaks my inmersion.
It is not reasonable to expect this to be permitted by game mechanics.
Other games allow free player killing which is by far the most disruptive game mechanic. Players interfering with others is nothing "new" here in Lotro
The question becomes: If there is a conflict of "rights", whose "rights" win out? This is where I would apply the old quip from the judicial system: Your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins.
There is no "conflict of rights" while we are under Turbine rules (not real life ones) that allow us to use festival consumables. Rules can change but we cannot expect a replica of the "state of right" inside a videogame.
I would prefer an "opt out" flag that makes characters (selectively...and at the player's option) completely immune to forced emotes. That way, those that like the emotes can use them and those that don't like them don't have to put up with them. IF--and ONLY IF--Turbine can not, or will not, develop an "opt out" flag, THEN forced emotes should be removed from the game. Should that be done (and I agree that it is far less than an optimal--let alone ideal--solution), if an "opt out" is later implemented, forced emotes should be allowed in again.
The "opt out" flag doesn't solve the fact that players can abuse it, for example completing their deeds and turn it off later.
Make it simple: I support the idea of an extended ignore function that include these consumables and other skills. After we "ignore", the player cannot use them on us.
Sounds like a good proposal to me, at least as a compromise. While the ideal solution would be the toggle that many people are calling for, if it would be a more easily implementable fix to limit the number affected by the emotes (e.g. to those in a raid) and/or to make the persistent state emotes like dancing unbreakable by forced emotes, that would cut out *most* of the annoyance of what griefers do now. Would it be better to be able to set a toggle so forced emotes and prank items don't work on you? Sure, but if we can't get that, I would love to see the OP's suggestions implemented. Actually, I'd love to see them implemented even if we *do* get a toggle, so that people who don't know about the toggle won't have their dancing interrupted either, and crowded events lke Weatherstock won't have the lag spikes caused by forced emotes taking effect on all the people within reach who didn't know they could opt out of them in advance.
Linett Redfern, 3 Haven Way, Ecthelhad, Falathlorn Homesteads of Nimrodel Lennidhren of Lórien, 5 Brookbank Road, Oldfurlong, Shire Homesteads of Landroval
I'm still of the opinion that the 'simplest' (not in a tech sense but in the sense of having something that will solve the biggest number of people's issues) solution would be to have an opt out toggle so that if someone casts an emote on you and you have emote effects turned off, your character won't see the effects. I also think that while Turbine is working on that, they should expand their existing tech that disables forced emotes in certain areas, and come up with a small number of places that are always emote free until they have a more universal fix, so that players can have events in peace--maybe not exactly where they wanted to hold the event, but better than nothing for now.
I *hope* Turbine is working on an "opt out", but until I see some word that they are (which I don't expect to see until it's ready to go live), I won't conclude that it is in the works.
As for emote suppression zones (aka "Serious Business")... I don't know how Turbine coded it. I do know that had I done so, it would have been an attribute byte at the landblock level, and while it would have been set on in designated landblocks there would be nothing to prevent developing an interface to flip that attribute on or off anywhere in the world, which would enable someone up the chain of command to set it on when and where an event is scheduled to take place. The reason I say I would have done it that way is because general, extensible solutions are nearly always better than specific ones.
Originally Posted by Laerien
In my opinion what we see in the screen is an animation not an action and the game uses forced animations in several ways. There is no way to prevent players to interfere with others like unwanted heals and buffs that players cast at random usually as part of the class deeds.
That argument is making best the enemy of good....or good enough. Does a forced emote "opt out" solve all game problems? Of course not. Would it solve enough of them to be worthwhile? Yes.
There is no "conflict of rights" while we are under Turbine rules (not real life ones) that allow us to use festival consumables. Rules can change but we cannot expect a replica of the "state of right" inside a videogame.
That's why I put "rights" in quotes. Of course we don't have any particular "rights" in game. All we have are privileges granted by Turbine. However, it is sometimes easier to think of certain things as rights, and control of ones "own" character (they're all really owned by Turbine) is--or should be--one of those.
The "opt out" flag doesn't solve the fact that players can abuse it, for example completing their deeds and turn it off later.
So? An "opt out" isn't intended to do that in the first place. It is simply intended to prevent my character from being forced to take an action determined by you through your character. If you want to turn the flag on in the future...be my guest. In the mean time, I don't want my character to be your target dummy.
Originally Posted by RannaDylin
Actually, I'd love to see them implemented even if we *do* get a toggle, so that people who don't know about the toggle won't have their dancing interrupted either, and crowded events lke Weatherstock won't have the lag spikes caused by forced emotes taking effect on all the people within reach who didn't know they could opt out of them in advance.
The sensible thing to do at the beginning of an event is to make an announcement asking everyone to turn off their susceptibility to forced emotes....just like movie theaters ask everyone to turn off their cell phones for the duration.
Djheydt
Grieving will always exist in some form, it may be someone jumping in front of you all the time, blocking your view. We have to agree to disagree about the meaning of fun and grieving. I don't see one off use of forced emote on you as a grieving if you are not doing a roleplay or participating in event.
One of the reason why I flagged the solution above because it is a way to stop deliberate grieving. Using a toggle will not work actually if someone put together 20 people (like a grieving kinship), and all 20 have the toggle off and they go off grieving people by using forced emotes on themselves/each other. That can be disruptive especially in laggy environment.
Yes there are drawbacks as some may be just standing doing nothing and listening or chatting and still get affected by Forced Emote. But at least the damage is minimised because only 1 person is affected, not the whole area. But yes a toggle will work in this part, so I guess all three needs to be implemented.
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players."
Unless you're sending every single player who ever forces any emote on you a polite /tell and asking them to stop because you don't like it, it's not griefing. No one is a mind-reader and they may be having some innocent fun without knowing that you're opposed to their idea of fun. And furthermore, if you're reporting people (like your husband does) without asking them to stop first, that's an abuse of the ticket system and a giant waste of the GM's time.
We have to agree to disagree about the meaning of fun and grieving.
No, we really don't have to agree to disagree. It's very simple... If you are doing something to another player and they clearly don't like it, it's not fun for them. There is no grey area or room to argue that point.
"Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart." - Marcus Aelius Aurelius
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players."
Unless you're sending every single player who ever forces any emote on you a polite /tell and asking them to stop because you don't like it, it's not griefing. No one is a mind-reader and they may be having some innocent fun without knowing that you're opposed to their idea of fun. And furthermore, if you're reporting people (like your husband does) without asking them to stop first, that's an abuse of the ticket system and a giant waste of the GM's time.
This is a truthful, factual post that uses rational logic as it's foundation, rather than irrational emotionalism. One won't realize this until one stops being blinded by their emotions. I have been saying this off-and-on for two years now in similar threads. Sadly it hasn't sunk in very well.
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players."
Unless you're sending every single player who ever forces any emote on you a polite /tell and asking them to stop because you don't like it, it's not griefing. No one is a mind-reader and they may be having some innocent fun without knowing that you're opposed to their idea of fun. And furthermore, if you're reporting people (like your husband does) without asking them to stop first, that's an abuse of the ticket system and a giant waste of the GM's time.
You are correct that none of us can read minds. Thus, if the character controlled by one player takes an action that affects the character controlled by another player without good reason to believe that the player of the targeted character will find to be acceptable, then it meets the criterion of griefing.
Since griefers are known to take a /tell asking them to stop as an indication that they have found someone they can irritate, responding by /tell is NOT a prudent response. It is simply begging for more griefing. Better--if one doesn't like the action taken to file the ticket and let Turbine make the decision. If Turbine finds that certain actions allowed by the game generate too many tickets to handle, then it behooves Turbine to "change the rules" by changing the code to either eliminate even the possibility of one player taking that action against another, or creating an option that permits the targeted player to suppress the action at his own discretion.
It the player using the forced emote *isn't* in the habit of using them on characters whose players don't like them, then there will be few, if any, tickets and the non-griefer won't be at risk of disciplinary action. This is an easy situation to achieve...make sure (either because you are acquainted with the player controlling the targeted character, or by *asking* if you may use a forced emote on the character) of your chosen target.
In short, I disagree with the conclusion you draw from the definition. One doesn't need to send a /tell in order to prove the action wasn't deliberate.
This is a truthful, factual post that uses rational logic as it's foundation, rather than irrational emotionalism. One won't realize this until one stops being blinded by their emotions. I have been saying this off-and-on for two years now in similar threads. Sadly it hasn't sunk in very well.
Actually, you have deliberately obfuscated, attempted to tear down, minimized, or otherwise denied nearly every example griefing activity anyone has cited involving forced emotes in an effort to oppose a reasonable and effective compromise that will allow those that wish to sue forced emotes to do so while protecting those that don't like them from being affected by them.
Opt out really is the only reasonable solution. Just as we can opt out of being inspected, we should be able to opt out of forced emotes. There's a level of invasiveness that some players simply find unacceptable.
Failing that, they do need to make it so they don't interrupt actions already in progress. The effect could manifest after the current action has expired.
I guess it was too much to ask to make this suggestion in one of the many threads about this topic.
Anyway, I agree, the only effect of the increased cooldown was that you don't get spammed for 2 weeks and that's it, but that you get emotes on you now aöö year because people want to finish the deed.
I would LOWER the cooldown so peopel get through faster.
My suggestion would be that it should be possible to use the emote items on "civilian" NPCs and on self (really, I would love to be able to set my char on fire - visually).
I like the emotes as well, what I don't like is when they affect peoples mobility by knocking them out or slowing them down.
That's why I chose emotes for my deed which have a visual effect, but don't do anything fancy. The fire dragon is nice, the bugs, maybe the birds (ok, they are a bit too much already). Most other emotes are a harrassmeht.
... I chose emotes for my deed which have a visual effect, but don't do anything fancy. The fire dragon is nice, the bugs, maybe the birds (ok, they are a bit too much already). Most other emotes are a harassment.
I liked most of your post but, it is absolutely incorrect to say "Most other emotes are a harassment". Before accusing another player of harassment, one must first demonstrate that the player was intentionally behaving in an offensive manner.
Here are the common and legal definitions of Harassment:
"Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviourintended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing."
Out of the hundreds of thousands of Lotro players there will invariably be some players that behave with the intent to harass. However, there are a majority of players who do not. Thus it is wrong to label all emote users as harassers.
We saw a very good illustration of the community at Weatherstock 2012. Out of 500 players only one was one of these rare wingnut emote harassers. Actually because only one existed it qualified as unique to that event. The fact is that most of the Lotro community are not harassers. Most people are mature, happy, helpful, and harmless. Most players have no intention to harass anybody.
Please lets try and remember this going forward.
Last edited by enginekid; Jun 27 2012 at 05:17 AM.
"Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviourintended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing."
Did you stop reading the entry after the third line? Go to the bottom and continue reading what it says about harassment in computer games...
(Waiting to see what answer we get for this one...)
Crafting - Explorer - Tailor/Forestor/Prospector - 8s Across the Board
If I affect someone, make him slow down, stand still or whatever intentionally, it's not very nice. If I do it 300 times, I think it can be called harassment without quoting wiki.
Anyway, it was 1 word and now we have 4 posts about it? Aren't forums great?
This is a truthful, factual post that uses rational logic as it's foundation, rather than irrational emotionalism. One won't realize this until one stops being blinded by their emotions. I have been saying this off-and-on for two years now in similar threads. Sadly it hasn't sunk in very well.
Liking or not liking something is at base an emotional reaction. One does not need a reason to dislike okra, one just doesn't like it. Same with forced emotes, or more accurately, the same with the mechanism of another player taking control over your character, however brief it be. You keep trying to deny people the valid position of disliking these forced emotes being used on them by this blather about emotionalism. That is a crock, and that is why it hasn't sunk in, as you say.
You also keep focusing on the griefing aspect of these emotes, and pointing out how little actually griefing goes on as a reason to deny the need for a toggle. I reiterate (as I have before) that the annoyance does not have to rise to the level of griefing to be, well, annoying. It would take many repeated spar requests to rise to the level of griefing, going by the generally accepted definition of the word, and yet Turbine provided us a way to avoid all spar requests if we so choose, before we receive even one. Asking for the same in re these forced emotes is not a out-of-line request.
I know, I said I quit, so why am I posting? 'Cause there ain't no Blogorette patch.
You keep trying to deny people the valid position of disliking these forced emotes being used on them by this blather about emotionalism.
Deny a valid position? You can hate emotes all you want. You can jump up and down in your living room and scream at the top of your lungs whenever you see one if you want.
You just can't call everyone who uses one a griefer because it's not true. It's not a valid position, and I will deny that position until the end of time.
But you can keep using strawman arguments. It's a free country. But it's really getting tiresome. Don't you have anything new to say?
Here, let me help you. From the article you claim to have read.
"Repetitive unprovoked intrusions"; that sounds a lot to me like getting hit with unasked for forced emotes time after time.
Yeah that's right Ursa. Next time someone uses a forced emote and you tell them you don't like it, and they don't stop and "repeat it" after knowing you don't like it, then by all means send in that ticket.
"Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviourintended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing."
Sorry, no.
And before I go on I must regrettably state that I do agree with you to a lesser point. Most users of the forced emote do not intend to harass, they only wish to have fun. It is indeed unfortunate that out of every hundred or even thousand players the one who is a griefer has caused the problem. That unfortunately is how this world works and you need to wake up to that. A lot of rules, laws and regulations are based on the one big idiot rule. Because one big idiot decided it would be funny to throw that glass bottle onto the field at the ball game which broke everywhere, now no one can bring in coolers to the game, we have to buy the beer there, and it comes in plastic cups. Because one big idiot decided to drink on the tram and urinate on the wall next to the mother and her two toddlers because he was completely drunk and thought it was funny, drinking is no longer allowed on the tram or even in the station.
First of all Wikipedia is anything but an authoritative source of information (there is a major difference between accurate and authoritative). Yes it is a great source of info, yes it is useful, and yes I use regularly because of the wealth of knowledge available there. But we should not conveniently forget that it is authored, edited, updated and otherwise maintained by normal people who will oft push (whether intentional or not) their own beliefs, ideas and prejudices into entries. (If you wish to argue against this point of common knowledge, go to the page you referenced and look on the far right under that definition you posted and click the Edit link. Wow!)
For argument's sake, though, let's consider Wikipedia authoritative enough to be used in this context.
I would then suggest you may want to read more than the first three lines of the article before you start posting. Go down to the bottom where there is a reference to harassment in computer games:
"In computer gaming contexts, "harassment" might constitute provocative or annoying actions in the game. Harassment in strategy games may also mean early attacks aimed to stunt an opponent's growth of either economy or technology. In these contexts, the severity of the terminology is much less intense, and does not carry the same connotations as the legal definitions."
And before you start denial phase v.74.2, I saw the "might constitute" and unless your comprehension that you are so artfully boasting about has taken a hit somewhere down the line, you should already realize that in the case of forced emotes as the community has been so vocal about, might constitute = does, and does = harass.
Yeah, yeah, your interpretation against mine, blah, blah. Well, since you are into "quoting" legal definitions and such this time around, why don't you just go to the actual dictionary and find the accepted and authoritative definition?
Harass (ment) a:exhaust, fatigueb (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
(BTW in case you missed it, definition b1 is a griefer, definition b2 are those who throw the emote without consent on those who do not want it.)
Or how about a definition of harassment written by lawyers to help those who need assistance understanding the law:
Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons.
(Yes, before you go accusing me of trying to hide something, I left out the legal portion at the beginning as it has no application since we are not talking of criminal actions. Since your own expert source you provided states the following about harassment in computer games - the severity of the terminology is much less intense, and does not carry the same connotations as the legal definitions, that clause had no place. Just following your example here bud.)
Let's note the references to the victim. Unless you live in a closet and have no job that interacts with other employees (real ones), you should already know this. If you don't, you'd better pick it up really fast, because this is the way things are.
The definition of harassment does not belong to the alleged offender but to the victim. If I feel you are harassing me then you are. If I show that what you are doing is detrimental to me, controls me or otherwise affects me it is considered harassment. And especially if I say it once "please don't do that" and you do it again, by accident or by intent, it is definitely harassment. Sorry, that's the way it is. Whether done once or multiple times, it is harassment.
Before you start your "if I don't know you consider it harassment" argument, you now do. You and your 2 supporters acknowledged throughout many threads that we consider the use of the forced emote harassment and you don't understand why. Well, sad puppy but it's not yours to understand, it's yours to cease the harassment immediately, whether innocent or mean spirited.
On a legal standpoint (since this is the avenue I see you following now since your other arguments have turned into gobble-di-goop), if you go out after you read this (especially after posting in these threads so many times) and cast a forced emote on even one more person with whom you do not have an agreement to do so, you are guilty of harassment.
Before you come off with that "but this is not physical! This is just a game!" argument I will remind you that you are the one that started to try to use a "legal" definition as a justification, not us.
I am sure you are going to spend your next few hours pulling out all the wikistops trying to explain our misinterpretations, falsehoods, or whatever other big words you can find in your thesaurus, so fire away. Perhaps if you still can't comprehend the simplicity of this request while everyone else does on this and so many other threads (well, okay, I admit, you do have a following, how are your other two friends doing today btw?) maybe you should use that great mind of yours to consider that you might just be arguing to argue and you have no other real agenda here at all. Well, there is one other reason but I won't go there.
And please stop coming up with these regurgitated strawman arguments, it is belittling and is really starting to bore us. If you have anything of more substance than "but I WANT TO PLAY and YOU CAN'T STOP ME" arguments, feel free to post them here.
You're welcome.
Last edited by Tarmuar; Jun 27 2012 at 01:02 PM.
Reason: No matter how hard you try, there is always one mispelled word (my spell checker needs a spell checker)
Crafting - Explorer - Tailor/Forestor/Prospector - 8s Across the Board
First, thank you so so very much for your permission, I am humbled and belittled at your graciousness to allow me to post on this forum.
/sarcasm off
And before I go on I must regrettably state that I do agree with you to a lesser point. Most users of the forced emote do not intend to harass, they only wish to have fun.
Sarcasm off? I wasn't being sarcastic. Why were you?
Belittled? Why would you think I was trying to belittle you?
You must regrettably state? Why would you regret agreeing with me on any point I made?
Sounds like you are are getting carried away with emotions.
Please quote me where I called you names? What exactly was the point of this post? I have been nothing but fair and objective, yet you decided to construe the things i wrote as negative. Perhaps you don't like me, is that why? Because you told me to look at something that wasn't even on the wikipage I quoted. And I simply asked you to post it so I can see what you are talking about. I can't help it if you decided to construe that as belittling you and being high and mighty handing out permission to post.
Why pick a fight with me?
Ok, I'm lost, no one picked a fight, I presented facts in your mannerism and voice and all I am doing is waiting for a valid answer. You, in return, have resorted to saying that I have problems with sarcasm, belittlement, and emotions.
And I am very sorry to say that you apparently still haven't made it to the bottom of the page you quoted. Keep going, its there.
So, back to the thread and its content, again we are waiting anxiously for your valid and non-reptitive, non-strawman argument.
Please enlighten us.
Crafting - Explorer - Tailor/Forestor/Prospector - 8s Across the Board
Yeah that's right Ursa. Next time someone uses a forced emote and you tell them you don't like it, and they don't stop and "repeat it" after knowing you don't like it, then by all means send in that ticket.
You still keep missing the point. It does not matter if the 12 emotes within a single hour are inflicted by one person or twelve different people, the effect on the target is the same. It's still 12 unprovoked intrusions or interruptions, and it's an annoyance that should be avoidable. The only difference if they are all being done by one person, it is more annoying, and it may actually be reportable, although anectdotal evidence indicates that Turbine is not doing anything about egregious griefers in some cases.
I know, I said I quit, so why am I posting? 'Cause there ain't no Blogorette patch.
Deny a valid position? You can hate emotes all you want. You can jump up and down in your living room and scream at the top of your lungs whenever you see one if you want.
You just can't call everyone who uses one a griefer because it's not true. It's not a valid position, and I will deny that position until the end of time.
But you can keep using strawman arguments. It's a free country. But it's really getting tiresome. Don't you have anything new to say?
Allow me to borrow one of your tactics, and see how you deal with. I defy you to find one single instance where I said or even insinuated that everyone who uses a forced emote is a griefer. I triple-dog dare you! The post you quoted had, in fact, pointed out just the opposite; I notice you left that part out when you quoted me. Your attempt to make me look like my 'valid position' refers to all forced emote users being griefers is puerile.
What I have stood for all along is that the intent of the forced emote user is immaterial to the effect on the recipient that doesn't like them. I don't care if the forced emote user is the worst intentioned griefer on the server, or the best intentioned social instigater on the server. I don't like being the target of forced emotes at all. It is up to Turbine to provide some protection against these annoyances that they introduced into the game.
I know, I said I quit, so why am I posting? 'Cause there ain't no Blogorette patch.
Allow me to borrow one of your tactics, and see how you deal with. I defy you to find one single instance where I said or even insinuated that everyone who uses a forced emote is a griefer. I triple-dog dare you! The post you quoted had, in fact, pointed out just the opposite; I notice you left that part out when you quoted me. Your attempt to make me look like my 'valid position' refers to all forced emote users being griefers is puerile.
I've noticed he does that alot. I've yet to see someone state that "all forced emote users are griefers". On the contrary, most people who want an opt out recognize that most of them aren't griefers.
In the same manner, not everyone who uses chat/tells/fellowship invites/kin invites/spar requests/plays music are griefers, yet Turbine sees fit to give opt outs to all of those functions in the game. Why not do the same for forced emotes?
Well, I was hoping for a lively debate, but it seems our friend is at a loss for words. It is indeed unfortunate that I have to log, dinner and all, but I will be back.
I would hope the EK presents a both fresh and constructive answer to this problem, seeing his wisdom is, as he rates, much above ours, we shall see.
In advance, Colloquial speech equates to usage in different settings or cultures and does not qualify as any argument against (I had to add this now because I have a feeling he is going to base alot of his arguments based on that....if not, touche...but then again, if he STILL hasn't gone through the entire article he quoted, well)
Have a great one all, and be safe in ME!
Last edited by Tarmuar; Jun 27 2012 at 01:03 PM.
Crafting - Explorer - Tailor/Forestor/Prospector - 8s Across the Board
Wow. Seems people are taking the forced emotes to a more personal level?
Some of them do catch me off guard and yes they do interrupt some of stuff I am doing which is an inconvenience but really I find it just a wee bit excessive to blow up about it....or write a 2-page, single spaced essay about it harping out all the petty things and nit picking down the nitty gritty goodness of the topic.
Here's an easy solution that isn't hard to explain: just have it where you can turn off the "received emote effects." Like kinship requests and sparring requests. We can turn off the special effects under the UI settings to help with lag issues....perhaps just lump it there.
Honestly, I can't recall that many forced emotes that have hindered my gameplay where it's really making the game unpleasant. Maybe like a dozen in a whole month with me spending at least 3-4 hours online every day (yes, I enjoy the game immensely).
Let's be reasonable....let's be a little more realistic.
Nehl the Rune-Keeper | Ramiell the Minstrel
\M/ ^_^ \M/
Wow. Seems people are taking the forced emotes to a more personal level?
Some of them do catch me off guard and yes they do interrupt some of stuff I am doing which is an inconvenience but really I find it just a wee bit excessive to blow up about it....or write a 2-page, single spaced essay about it harping out all the petty things and nit picking down the nitty gritty goodness of the topic.
Here's an easy solution that isn't hard to explain: just have it where you can turn off the "received emote effects." Like kinship requests and sparring requests. We can turn off the special effects under the UI settings to help with lag issues....perhaps just lump it there.
Honestly, I can't recall that many forced emotes that have hindered my gameplay where it's really making the game unpleasant. Maybe like a dozen in a whole month with me spending at least 3-4 hours online every day (yes, I enjoy the game immensely).
Let's be reasonable....let's be a little more realistic.
The true issue really boils down to, and is the real heart of all these heated arguments, that there is an equally vocal faction who are (from my own observation) vehementaly opposed to having such an option coded and added to the game, that there is no need for it and those who are bothered by it should just suck it up and grow up; that there is no problem at all with the emotes to begin with.
So the one side who just wanted a way to say no, thanks anyways have escalated and become more personal and passonate, and the otherside who say what's the big deal have equally escalated to what we have now.
That, in my opinion, is it in a nuthsell. So, while your suggestion is reasonsable, there is one faction who would rather die (it seems) than to agree to it.
most people who want an opt out recognize that most of them aren't griefers.
If everyone here feels the same way and believes harassment is not the issue than why are people using that word? If griefing and/or harassment, whatever you want to call it, isn't the issue. Then perhaps those terms should be left out of the threads completely?
How about everyone simply say, I can't stand the emotes and want a toggle and leave it at that? Seems simple and clear that way.
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Forced Emotes, Solution to fix all.
Grand Member Online status:
Originally Posted by duvelmoortgat
Eruanne - Shards of Narsil - Elendilmir
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Counter of Stairs Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
