Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 147

Thread: Could someone please give me a serious argument for the mute system?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Synaptic View Post
    You misunderstand. You see I tripped on the street on the way to work this morning. Taking your comments all together presents lack of clarity. I need your guidance in determining the proper terminology for what's wrong with people who have at one time in their life misstepped and exactly how offended we should to be at a seemingly benign analogy.
    Sure thing, I enjoy educating adults who should know better in privilege 101.

    A person who is unable to perform a physical action which is deemed "normal" by the privileged is differently, or at worst, "less abled". These people are regularly verbally assaulted for things they can't help. To compare this to someone being bad at a video game is to trivialize it.

    Do you think that given this explanation you can be a better person and less of a shitlord?

  2. #22
    Basic Member Shaella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The moon
    Posts
    1,522
    Quote Originally Posted by MasonWasTaken View Post
    Sure thing, I enjoy educating adults who should know better in privilege 101.

    A person who is unable to perform a physical action which is deemed "normal" by the privileged is differently, or at worst, "less abled". These people are regularly verbally assaulted for things they can't help. To compare this to someone being bad at a video game is to trivialize it.

    Do you think that given this explanation you can be a better person and less of a shitlord?
    This is the most hilariously obvious trolling ever

    No one actually says 'check your privledge cisscum'

  3. #23
    So leaning in is trolling now. Thats great. I think I'm done with this forum.

  4. #24
    Basic Member Shaella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The moon
    Posts
    1,522
    No, but talking the way you are is. Holy fuck man. XD

  5. #25
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Trubs View Post
    I did read it, and I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe that 1% of the player base is muted. There is no way. In every game I play there is at the very least 1 person with a [muted] tag in their name and probably others who didnt bother to change their name.
    Total unique players this month: 3,451,040
    1% of that ≈ 34,510
    Players online right now ≈ 152,000
    Chances of a muted player in your game ≈ 22%

    1% is A LOT. People sure do have a lot of ego/anger problems.
    Last edited by k0n; 06-04-2013 at 03:38 PM.

  6. #26
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by erik-the-red View Post
    No. If you want behavior modification, you have to specify what behavior you want modified. That's introductory psychology.
    Fyi that is absolutely not introductory psychology, nor any level of psychology. I have literally no idea where you got the idea that behavioral modification psychology relies even the tiniest bit on a subject's cognizance of the methodology being administered. I'm going to assume that you made it up.

    Psychology is a soft-science application of behavioral biology anyway (which I'm admittedly more familiar with), and is a better model for understanding the behavioral modification system put in place by Valve. I might put together a quick and dirty post comparing Valve's chat ban model to the basic evolutionary model (which applies to phenotypic behavioral expressions). There are even analogs to genetic/memetic drift with the possibility for false positives. But I probably won't. In any case, the end result is basically that you might not find it "fair" by whatever standard you choose to judge something "fair" because you can't codify the exact standards of the environment for selection, but it is one of the most effective models we know of to alter a system. It's also especially democratic in a sense, in that it is the player base as a whole determining its standards for acceptable communication and not a set of codified laws administered by Valve.

    You can argue about the exact implementation in regards to things like the length and type of punishment, amount of reports required to administer a chat ban, what amount of false positives are acceptable, and so forth. (And in terms of behavioral or biological science as an analogue, that's exactly where the conversation takes place.) But something along the lines of "the system needs to codify what it asserts as acceptable behavior if you want the subjects of that system to comply to that behavioral modification" is a really silly thing to assert and cannot be backed by any branch of modern science, including psychology.

  7. #27
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by MasonWasTaken View Post
    Sure thing, I enjoy educating adults who should know better in privilege 101.

    A person who is unable to perform a physical action which is deemed "normal" by the privileged is differently, or at worst, "less abled". These people are regularly verbally assaulted for things they can't help. To compare this to someone being bad at a video game is to trivialize it.

    Do you think that given this explanation you can be a better person and less of a shitlord?
    So we're on the same page: according to you a person who trips on the street is not "normal", this isn't just an accident, but insted they fall into a new separate class of individuals that must be treated with special sensitivity. However, a person who accidently misses a stun, or leap, or hook, or etc... is totally deserving of being flamed, and somehow the first case is trivialized by comparing it to the second?

  8. #28
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by daretoslack View Post
    Fyi that is absolutely not introductory psychology, nor any level of psychology. I have literally no idea where you got the idea that behavioral modification psychology relies even the tiniest bit on a subject's cognizance of the methodology being administered. I'm going to assume that you made it up.

    Psychology is a soft-science application of behavioral biology anyway (which I'm admittedly more familiar with), and is a better model for understanding the behavioral modification system put in place by Valve. I might put together a quick and dirty post comparing Valve's chat ban model to the basic evolutionary model (which applies to phenotypic behavioral expressions). There are even analogs to genetic/memetic drift with the possibility for false positives. But I probably won't. In any case, the end result is basically that you might not find it "fair" by whatever standard you choose to judge something "fair" because you can't codify the exact standards of the environment for selection, but it is one of the most effective models we know of to alter a system. It's also especially democratic in a sense, in that it is the player base as a whole determining its standards for acceptable communication and not a set of codified laws administered by Valve.

    You can argue about the exact implementation in regards to things like the length and type of punishment, amount of reports required to administer a chat ban, what amount of false positives are acceptable, and so forth. (And in terms of behavioral or biological science as an analogue, that's exactly where the conversation takes place.) But something along the lines of "the system needs to codify what it asserts as acceptable behavior if you want the subjects of that system to comply to that behavioral modification" is a really silly thing to assert and cannot be backed by any branch of modern science, including psychology.
    I'm a neurobiologist and behaviorist, when I read that guy saying you need to specify the behavior you want to alter to the subject I came so close to saying how wrong that is. Instead I decided to troll this guy that thinks tripping on the street is some new form of physical disability.

  9. #29
    Basic Member erik-the-red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by daretoslack View Post
    Fyi that is absolutely not introductory psychology, nor any level of psychology. I have literally no idea where you got the idea that behavioral modification psychology relies even the tiniest bit on a subject's cognizance of the methodology being administered. I'm going to assume that you made it up.
    Where did I say that behavior modification relies on a subject's "cognizance of the methodology being administered"?

    Psychology is a soft-science application of behavioral biology anyway (which I'm admittedly more familiar with), and is a better model for understanding the behavioral modification system put in place by Valve.
    Mmmkay.

    I might put together a quick and dirty post comparing Valve's chat ban model to the basic evolutionary model (which applies to phenotypic behavioral expressions). There are even analogs to genetic/memetic drift with the possibility for false positives.
    You know I know you're just typing bullshit, right?

    But I probably won't. In any case, the end result is basically that you might not find it "fair" by whatever standard you choose to judge something "fair" because you can't codify the exact standards of the environment for selection, but it is one of the most effective models we know of to alter a system. It's also especially democratic in a sense, in that it is the player base as a whole determining its standards for acceptable communication and not a set of codified laws administered by Valve.
    You do realize that all I said was the "disruptive" player should know what "the player base" judged was disruptive, yes?

    You can argue about the exact implementation in regards to things like the length and type of punishment, amount of reports required to administer a chat ban, what amount of false positives are acceptable, and so forth. (And in terms of behavioral or biological science as an analogue, that's exactly where the conversation takes place.) But something along the lines of "the system needs to codify what it asserts as acceptable behavior if you want the subjects of that system to comply to that behavioral modification" is a really silly thing to assert and cannot be backed by any branch of modern science, including psychology.
    There's a nice paper by Daniel Oppenheimer that was published in 2005 titled "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly." You should read it.
    We need a player review system like Overwatch for DotA 2. Get real people to judge communication abuse, intentional skill abuse, and intentional feeding.



    merci fenix

  10. #30
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by SauloAqueiroz View Post
    after implementing the system mute, I can not get 2 + days without being mutated.

    uncompensated today was mutated why I asked if it was a man or a woman who was talking to me .. what's wrong with that? which the logic of this system? First I think this system is violating a law that exists in all countries, freedom of expression, ..
    summarizing this is idiotic.
    First: You aren't "mutated" for a single example of unacceptable behavior. You have behaved unacceptably in a series of games.
    Second: It is entirely likely that it was clear what gender the person you asked was and that you were belittling their voice. Way to go.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •