Actually, my post was not structured on assumption. It was built around the conclusion that I drew from carefully reading the article. The actual structure of my post goes like this: 1) Thesis - Where I posit a conclusion about the article in question 2) Supporting evidence - Where I point to specific text that backs up my thesis 3) Conclusion - I restate the Thesis and close my argument. The asshole who wrote that article is trying desperately to compensate for some internal shortcoming and uses the article as a way to play it off as something else. Remember, I'm judging only by the text itself and not any fallacy of the writer's intention. The text itself points to a very insecure, overcompensating kind of person. Go through it line by line if you have to.
The problem comes in when your supporting evidence is gathered by taking comments out of context in order to support your theory. That does not necessarily make your theory incorrect, but it does make your supporting evidence worthless.
You believe something as fact. You seek to prove it. You manipulate data to make your belief seem a fact. That's shoddy reporting and science.
Actually, my post was not structured on assumption. It was built around the conclusion that I drew from carefully reading the article. The actual structure of my post goes like this: 1) Thesis - Where I posit a conclusion about the article in question 2) Supporting evidence - Where I point to specific text that backs up my thesis 3) Conclusion - I restate the Thesis and close my argument. The asshole who wrote that article is trying desperately to compensate for some internal shortcoming and uses the article as a way to play it off as something else. Remember, I'm judging only by the text itself and not any fallacy of the writer's intention. The text itself points to a very insecure, overcompensating kind of person. Go through it line by line if you have to.
The problem comes in when your supporting evidence is gathered by taking comments out of context in order to support your theory. That does not necessarily make your theory incorrect, but it does make your supporting evidence worthless.
You believe something as fact. You seek to prove it. You manipulate data to make your belief seem a fact. That's shoddy reporting and science.
How were those comments taken out of context? Who do you think the article was addressed to? Who was the audience that the author was talking to? I read it and came to the conclusion that he was writing a "fuck you" letter to all the people he had Pk'd over the years. If you consider the audience and tone, those quotes are dead on accurate.
In fact there's really only one paragraph that says all that you need to know about the guy.
Does it bother your sense of reality that I'm just a normal, every-day guy, working behind a desk 50 a week and married? That I have short-cropped hair and wear collared shirts? That I have more suits than t-shirts? That I have degrees on my wall, and a group of normal friends?
What's telling here is the way that he outlines normality. Notice the emphasis on what he has. He has "degrees" plural so you know how educated he is. He has "more suits than t-shirts." He works "behind a desk" as opposed to a factory, construction site, kitchen, drawing table, etc. There's definitely a sense that he isn't trying to establish normality so much as supremecy.
Think about how you would describe a normal guy. He has a full time job, goes to the bar with his friends after work or bowling on the weekend, coaches little league or takes his family to a game on the weekend, you get the idea. Most of us describe normality based on what we do and not what we have. This guy is focused on 1) his appearance, 2) his credentials and 3) he things he owns.
This one paragraph gives context to the rest of the author's masterbatory rambling. He's trying to get attention by getting a rise out of people. Go through the article line by line and you'll see, very clearly, that he is trying desperately to convince himself how great he is because he can piss others off.
<shrug> but if you don't like my take, do your own close reading. Then we'll be able to compare notes.
For a doctor or someone who lives a white collar life, that is a normal person. College degrees, suits, ties.
Now if you had used this quote:
Ironically, you created me. You came to my game, where PvP is law
I find that comment to be a better example of the author's mastubatory ego trip. My Game, You created ME. Making him some unique entity due to some cosmic mission to restore balance.
I still find that the examples he gave for his normalcy , for either a fictitious purposes or a fuck you letter, were due to the typical vision of what a PK'r is and challenging that idea. Especially when you consider the next comment that clearly lays it out for you:
Ahh, you expected Charles Manson, perhaps. I wish I could help you, but I'm not wired "wrong," or anti-social, or sacrificing cats in the background to the light of red and black candles while chanting the 32nd Psalm backwards.
If he's concerned with image it's because his image spits in the face of what a disturbed, violent, sociopath's image is to the common person. Nowadays, with all the movies, CSI's, Bones, NCIS, about these type of people, nobody is surpirsed that the average white collar guy turns out to be the killer.
I've already stated, this guy could have thought he was writing a nice fictional piece to throw out into the web or he is writing a letter touting his greatness. It could be either or. What I do know and stated already, is it's pisspoor writing.
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
Originally posted by OddjobXL
Originally posted by FC-Famine
Another thing I picked up from this as well just general experience is that sometimes styles of game play are only clear to the person who utilizes it. It's like the guy who uses some strange character build you never see used and can't see how it's effective in any form of that type of game play. Yet to that one player it's what fits them the most and something they utterly swear by because that's how they play and no one else will understand it. You really think those early MUDs were full of people who didn't understand PKing if they were playing on a PK MUD? No this is a guy who's proclivities and desire for attention because of them certainly transcend the average PKer. PvPers generally don't feel the need to rationalize what they do even if they do love bragging about it. If anything this guy was just trying to goad a response and he's obviously done well considering it still works all these years later.
Sorry for slow response here.
The point I was going with that is how players view PK in a PK MUD (or game). One player for example believes a specific tactic or practice is pure griefing that needs to stop. Another equal player believes it's not griefing and it's only the victims fault for putting themselves in that type of situation. Articles as such sometimes put off the impression the need to clarify what PK is to them in order to reach out to you. That's because not everyone has the same view on what PK really is to everyone. It's like arguing what is TRUE PK or HARDCORE PK. Everyone has their own opinions.
On playing the role portion that's not in the quote. It's more directing that he or she is into the role. It doesn't mean they're trying to roleplay or be a roleplayer. We all play roles in games like these no matter if you're trying to RP or not. He plays the role of the PK'er and trying to express that role through that article.
Again it's only up to you in the end. That's just the impression I got from it.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Comments
The problem comes in when your supporting evidence is gathered by taking comments out of context in order to support your theory. That does not necessarily make your theory incorrect, but it does make your supporting evidence worthless.
You believe something as fact. You seek to prove it. You manipulate data to make your belief seem a fact. That's shoddy reporting and science.
Ridiculous.
Winning a FPS match 50-49 in a nail biter is a lot of fun.
Winning a FPS match 50-0 is a lot of fun too.
As long as you don't always do one or the other and the majority fall somewhere in the middle, g2g
Same goes for MMO PvP.
Ganking is fun.
So is winning an even fight.
As long as in the end your kill/death ratio is around 50% then thing are as they should be.
Your opinion is immaterial.
It is because the man who wrote the Tao of the hunt is not a very good writer.
If he were truly writing a Tao of the Hunt he would stick to the one persona of in game PK'r or he would have stuck to his real life persona.
He would not have written as if he was speaking TO someone, but rather speaking aloud.
Because he jumps from one persona to the next, from reality to fantasy, and takes a direct approach to speaking to
some person or group of people in particular his article is reduced to nothing more than the ramblings of someone who
is bragging, self-absorbed, and a sociopath. This is still a possibilty, but there is the chance that he just cannot write for shit.
I was hoping people would pick out the real reasons it's a poorly written piece instead of getting worked up over emotional points.
(this was not directed at you Neo, but your question provided the best opportunity)
The problem comes in when your supporting evidence is gathered by taking comments out of context in order to support your theory. That does not necessarily make your theory incorrect, but it does make your supporting evidence worthless.
You believe something as fact. You seek to prove it. You manipulate data to make your belief seem a fact. That's shoddy reporting and science.
How were those comments taken out of context? Who do you think the article was addressed to? Who was the audience that the author was talking to? I read it and came to the conclusion that he was writing a "fuck you" letter to all the people he had Pk'd over the years. If you consider the audience and tone, those quotes are dead on accurate.
In fact there's really only one paragraph that says all that you need to know about the guy.
Does it bother your sense of reality that I'm just a normal, every-day guy, working behind a desk 50 a week and married? That I have short-cropped hair and wear collared shirts? That I have more suits than t-shirts? That I have degrees on my wall, and a group of normal friends?
What's telling here is the way that he outlines normality. Notice the emphasis on what he has. He has "degrees" plural so you know how educated he is. He has "more suits than t-shirts." He works "behind a desk" as opposed to a factory, construction site, kitchen, drawing table, etc. There's definitely a sense that he isn't trying to establish normality so much as supremecy.
Think about how you would describe a normal guy. He has a full time job, goes to the bar with his friends after work or bowling on the weekend, coaches little league or takes his family to a game on the weekend, you get the idea. Most of us describe normality based on what we do and not what we have. This guy is focused on 1) his appearance, 2) his credentials and 3) he things he owns.
This one paragraph gives context to the rest of the author's masterbatory rambling. He's trying to get attention by getting a rise out of people. Go through the article line by line and you'll see, very clearly, that he is trying desperately to convince himself how great he is because he can piss others off.
<shrug> but if you don't like my take, do your own close reading. Then we'll be able to compare notes.
For a doctor or someone who lives a white collar life, that is a normal person. College degrees, suits, ties.
Now if you had used this quote:
Ironically, you created me. You came to my game, where PvP is law
I find that comment to be a better example of the author's mastubatory ego trip. My Game, You created ME. Making him some unique entity due to some cosmic mission to restore balance.
I still find that the examples he gave for his normalcy , for either a fictitious purposes or a fuck you letter, were due to the typical vision of what a PK'r is and challenging that idea. Especially when you consider the next comment that clearly lays it out for you:
Ahh, you expected Charles Manson, perhaps. I wish I could help you, but I'm not wired "wrong," or anti-social, or sacrificing cats in the background to the light of red and black candles while chanting the 32nd Psalm backwards.
If he's concerned with image it's because his image spits in the face of what a disturbed, violent, sociopath's image is to the common person. Nowadays, with all the movies, CSI's, Bones, NCIS, about these type of people, nobody is surpirsed that the average white collar guy turns out to be the killer.
I've already stated, this guy could have thought he was writing a nice fictional piece to throw out into the web or he is writing a letter touting his greatness. It could be either or. What I do know and stated already, is it's pisspoor writing.
Sorry for slow response here.
The point I was going with that is how players view PK in a PK MUD (or game). One player for example believes a specific tactic or practice is pure griefing that needs to stop. Another equal player believes it's not griefing and it's only the victims fault for putting themselves in that type of situation. Articles as such sometimes put off the impression the need to clarify what PK is to them in order to reach out to you. That's because not everyone has the same view on what PK really is to everyone. It's like arguing what is TRUE PK or HARDCORE PK. Everyone has their own opinions.
On playing the role portion that's not in the quote. It's more directing that he or she is into the role. It doesn't mean they're trying to roleplay or be a roleplayer. We all play roles in games like these no matter if you're trying to RP or not. He plays the role of the PK'er and trying to express that role through that article.
Again it's only up to you in the end. That's just the impression I got from it.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom