First, you are misinterpreting the point. It's not that all minorities should be ignored, it's that what you are asking for is unreasonable precisely because it would open the doors to so many other 'reasonable' requests. This doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to let Cryptic know that you don't like the item, but it is definitely unreasonable to expect them to place fixing your concern on a higher level than all the others.
Second, you are equivocating with regards to the word "ignore", used first in the sense of "disregard" and then second in the sense of "/ignore". There is a huge difference between disregarding a specific concern from a specific group, and creating an in-game system to wholesale remove the existence of certain players from the game. The fact that you conflate the two does you no favors in the persuasiveness department.
Third, you misunderstand your position in the argument re: evidence burden. You are correct that people who disagree with you are doing so on the basis of opinion, and not provable facts. That said, since those people are not arguing for change, they have no obligation to affirmatively prove anything - merely to demonstrate that you have failed to establish your case. Thus, while us showing how your position is a subjective opinion serves to undercut your position, turning that around against us does basically nothing to our central thesis that your opinion is not persuasive.
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
you aren't being quarrelsome 'and' passive aggressive now are you ?
tisk tisk..... :rolleyes:
Do I need to quote examples for you to realize just where it is happening the past few pages ? I'd rather not do that to be honest, but it's pretty blatant.
but FWIW.... I'm starting to think that you can't help it.
so on that note....I'm not gonna stick around in this thread anymore.
/end
No worries, your completely transparent bowing out wasn't lost on me. Good luck in your future endeavors.
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
I'm RPing Dukat if he were President of the U.S, I have to be extremist and crazy;)
To late for crazy extremist president...we got Obama already
(Now for a shameless campaign add )
America is the land of the free and home of the brave , where men are men and women are men and the streets are paved with..asphalt.
A place where you can take you and your family outside for a family outing only to be shot at by kids with machine guns.
Yes in this great country of ours we need strong leadership and a strong guiding hand to show us the way to TRUE prosperity and there is only one man that can do that....Gul Dukat
So in 2016 vote for Gul Dukat and bring true order and servitude to every home
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
There's some explanation on why slippery slopes are fallacious, which is exactly the argument you're proffering. There's also something strange about someone arguing that I can't place my interests before theirs when their own side of the argument is doing just that. If you want to admit that this argument is inherently silly and will go nowhere, then I'd reiterate that since you lose nothing by the proposed toggle (which I will explain in relation to your second point), then I would err on going with the toggle.
I thought it was a given that I find abuse of "social items" to be distasteful, and I've provided a specific example of the behavior I'm arguing against. And once again, it's strange that you would lament my telling someone their playstyle is less important than my own when you're doing just the same. Also once more, I reiterate that since you lose nothing by the arrangement except for the ability to annoy people who don't want to be bothered (since everyone else can still opt in), I wonder about the motivation for arguing against a toggle.
I've already proven that a toggle is "good." It prevents abuse by people who misuse it to purposefully disrupt others, while not taking away any functionality from those who use it as it was intended (I can make the very safe assumption that Cryptic isn't designing these things for them to be abused). This argument works, so long as you agree that using the disco ball to intentionally bother another player qualifies as abuse. If you don't agree with that premise, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Personally I don't care if they add a toggle. I think it would be a waste of Cryptic's time, but who knows anything is possible. IMHO you could just change to an instance with less players - problem solved 98% of the time. The other 2% are the players that want to hassle you and I am pretty sure you can report them.
There are tons of other things in this game that need a toggle as well. Smoke grenades can be thrown at you now, some one can come up to your character and bash you with tons of party poppers, balloons, and even Cryo -grenades. My first month of playing I was getting hit with cryos at least 4 times a week on ESD. Then there are the abilities that other players can cast on you making your toon glow or light up. I know you said that doesn't bother you. Well that is YOUR opinion and others may have a problem with that. While the abilities, party poppers, and grenades don't take control of your character, they still could ruin someone's idea of role play. Guidelines of role playing would then need to be set. Is your idea of roleplaying better then anyone else's? So I do understand what some of your opponents are saying. Once Crypic opens that door it will bring on tons of requests of the same thing. Not saying it is right (the whole slipper slope thing) but it will happen.
I play sto on average 4 to 5 hours a day, every day. I just haven't seen the dance amps used that much. How often does this happen to you? I spend a lot of time at star bases and have never seen anyone ask someone to not use a dance amp. Actually since the dance amp came out I have never seen anyone complain about it on chat or ask someone to stop.
Don't get me wrong you have a right to your opinion and have the right to ask Crypic's to change it, but don't expect everyone not to add their 2 cents on the topic on a public forum. Good luck with your request, and I hope Crypic codes it for you.
And with that I am off to go submit a request to censor the word gorn and save everyone from the thousands of bad gorn jokes. Just kidding, but had to throw that in there for a little fun.
Personally I don't care if they add a toggle. I think it would be a waste of Cryptic's time, but who knows anything is possible. IMHO you could just change to an instance with less players - problem solved 98% of the time. The other 2% are the players that want to hassle you and I am pretty sure you can report them.
There are tons of other things in this game that need a toggle as well. Smoke grenades can be thrown at you now, some one can come up to your character and bash you with tons of party poppers, balloons, and even Cryo -grenades. My first month of playing I was getting hit with cryos at least 4 times a week on ESD. Then there are the abilities that other players can cast on you making your toon glow or light up. I know you said that doesn't bother you. Well that is YOUR opinion and others may have a problem with that. While the abilities, party poppers, and grenades don't take control of your character, they still could ruin someone's idea of role play. Guidelines of role playing would then need to be set. Is your idea of roleplaying better then anyone else's? So I do understand what some of your opponents are saying. Once Crypic opens that door it will bring on tons of requests of the same thing. Not saying it is right (the whole slipper slope thing) but it will happen.
I play sto on average 4 to 5 hours a day, every day. I just haven't seen the dance amps used that much. How often does this happen to you? I spend a lot of time at star bases and have never seen anyone ask someone to not use a dance amp. Actually since the dance amp came out I have never seen anyone complain about it on chat or ask someone to stop.
Don't get me wrong you have a right to your opinion and have the right to ask Crypic's to change it, but don't expect everyone not to add their 2 cents on the topic on a public forum. Good luck with your request, and I hope Crypic codes it for you.
And with that I am off to go submit a request to censor the word gorn and save everyone from the thousands of bad gorn jokes. Just kidding, but had to throw that in there for a little fun.
Thanks for this well-reasoned response!
I don't think the frequency of abuse should matter. I could cite a plethora of analogies, but suffice it to say that one unhappy person is one unhappy person too many. I stand by my suggestion that since the toggle takes nothing away from anyone except the ability to harass others, it is worth doing.
I was gorna make a joke, but I don't wanna offend.
There's some explanation on why slippery slopes are fallacious, which is exactly the argument you're proffering. There's also something strange about someone arguing that I can't place my interests before theirs when their own side of the argument is doing just that. If you want to admit that this argument is inherently silly and will go nowhere, then I'd reiterate that since you lose nothing by the proposed toggle (which I will explain in relation to your second point), then I would err on going with the toggle.
Actually, there's no explanation of the slippery slope there that I found directly (although it appears in some of the follow on links). It should be noted that actually if you accept this source, it agrees ONLY with me, since I'm the one who asserted that slippery slope arguments are not automatically fallacies, which is exactly what that says. Crucially, the only situation in which a slippery slope argument becomes a problem is when it builds an unwarranted causality chain to an absurd end. That does not apply here, because the claim that people would use the precedent set by your proposal as grounds to ask for things they have, factually, asked for in the past does not seem to be on face an unwarranted leap of logic.
Also, again, the more salient point is that each of those alternate issues represents another concern that is at least as valid as yours, yet you assert an affirmative right to take precedence without providing a single reason why you should be allowed to do so. This is not, by the way, the same as me putting my interests above yours - that's a false choice you have created. I'm saying that neither of us have established any right to prefer one set of interests at all, and that neither of us has established the capability to rationally distinguish between them. Since you are the one whose advocacy requires proving a sufficient need for change, the fact that neither of us know whose interests are paramount helps only me, and hurts only you.
Now, before you go back to your fancy list of fallacies, let me be clear - this is not me arguing from ignorance. I'm not saying your position must be false, or even that it cannot be proven, merely that you have failed to do so yet, and thus your proposal fails at the very first hurdle. Here's a hint about the bright-line I think you could probably defend as reasonable, however: There may be a difference between being forced to see something distasteful, and having one's character actively controlled. Just saying. Assuming you can parse that out, let's suppose you do establish that you even have a right to ask for this change in the first place. You still need to prove that it's worth doing, which you are a long way from establishing.
I thought it was a given that I find abuse of "social items" to be distasteful, and I've provided a specific example of the behavior I'm arguing against. And once again, it's strange that you would lament my telling someone their playstyle is less important than my own when you're doing just the same. Also once more, I reiterate that since you lose nothing by the arrangement except for the ability to annoy people who don't want to be bothered (since everyone else can still opt in), I wonder about the motivation for arguing against a toggle.
Again, I'm not telling you that your playstyle is less important than anyone else's. At all. That is merely the lazy "logic" you are relying on that makes you think we must choose between your world view, or else mine. That's clearly absurd - there are any number of perspectives. My point was that your perspective is not the only valid one, and that, again, you've done precisely no work to justify your right to prefer it, beyond simply "I don't like that, and I have a right to that opinion". This is surely a true statement - you are allowed to think and feel whatever you want, but that doesn't make you RIGHT, and it certainly doesn't mean any of us need to care.
I was also attempting to imply that while from your viewpoint, you are merely asserting your agency, from another perspective, your act of agency does, necessarily, come into conflict with someone else's. Your response to that is to assert essentially that anyone who intentionally effects a player with this device is "abusing" that player, and thus their viewpoint is automatically invalid. I do, in fact, disagree with this assertion, which I suppose given your last line means you will assert I am impossible to reason with. Oh well.
I've already proven that a toggle is "good." It prevents abuse by people who misuse it to purposefully disrupt others, while not taking away any functionality from those who use it as it was intended (I can make the very safe assumption that Cryptic isn't designing these things for them to be abused). This argument works, so long as you agree that using the disco ball to intentionally bother another player qualifies as abuse. If you don't agree with that premise, then we have nothing more to discuss.
You have proven no such thing. You haven't demonstrated that you have a right to ask for it over other concerns in the first place, you haven't demonstrated that it would actually significantly improve the game enough to justify any investment in dev resources, you have no idea what the investment might actually be so you've failed to establish that it's even possible, and you've certainly failed to establish that the benefits of doing this outweigh the tradeoffs in dev attention to fix your personal pet peeve, as well as the possible backlash from other players against the devs for choosing to fix your issue, rather than some other, seemingly equally valid item. In short, your argument "works" in the same sense that my car "works" - it's perfectly fine until you actually examine it for a moment, and then you realize just how janked it really is.
Actually, there's no explanation of the slippery slope there that I found directly (although it appears in some of the follow on links). It should be noted that actually if you accept this source, it agrees ONLY with me, since I'm the one who asserted that slippery slope arguments are not automatically fallacies, which is exactly what that says. Crucially, the only situation in which a slippery slope argument becomes a problem is when it builds an unwarranted causality chain to an absurd end. That does not apply here, because the claim that people would use the precedent set by your proposal as grounds to ask for things they have, factually, asked for in the past does not seem to be on face an unwarranted leap of logic.
Also, again, the more salient point is that each of those alternate issues represents another concern that is at least as valid as yours, yet you assert an affirmative right to take precedence without providing a single reason why you should be allowed to do so. This is not, by the way, the same as me putting my interests above yours - that's a false choice you have created. I'm saying that neither of us have established any right to prefer one set of interests at all, and that neither of us has established the capability to rationally distinguish between them. Since you are the one whose advocacy requires proving a sufficient need for change, the fact that neither of us know whose interests are paramount helps only me, and hurts only you.
Now, before you go back to your fancy list of fallacies, let me be clear - this is not me arguing from ignorance. I'm not saying your position must be false, or even that it cannot be proven, merely that you have failed to do so yet, and thus your proposal fails at the very first hurdle. Here's a hint about the bright-line I think you could probably defend as reasonable, however: There may be a difference between being forced to see something distasteful, and having one's character actively controlled. Just saying. Assuming you can parse that out, let's suppose you do establish that you even have a right to ask for this change in the first place. You still need to prove that it's worth doing, which you are a long way from establishing.
Again, I'm not telling you that your playstyle is less important than anyone else's. At all. That is merely the lazy "logic" you are relying on that makes you think we must choose between your world view, or else mine. That's clearly absurd - there are any number of perspectives. My point was that your perspective is not the only valid one, and that, again, you've done precisely no work to justify your right to prefer it, beyond simply "I don't like that, and I have a right to that opinion". This is surely a true statement - you are allowed to think and feel whatever you want, but that doesn't make you RIGHT, and it certainly doesn't mean any of us need to care.
I was also attempting to imply that while from your viewpoint, you are merely asserting your agency, from another perspective, your act of agency does, necessarily, come into conflict with someone else's. Your response to that is to assert essentially that anyone who intentionally effects a player with this device is "abusing" that player, and thus their viewpoint is automatically invalid. I do, in fact, disagree with this assertion, which I suppose given your last line means you will assert I am impossible to reason with. Oh well.
You have proven no such thing. You haven't demonstrated that you have a right to ask for it over other concerns in the first place, you haven't demonstrated that it would actually significantly improve the game enough to justify any investment in dev resources, you have no idea what the investment might actually be so you've failed to establish that it's even possible, and you've certainly failed to establish that the benefits of doing this outweigh the tradeoffs in dev attention to fix your personal pet peeve, as well as the possible backlash from other players against the devs for choosing to fix your issue, rather than some other, seemingly equally valid item. In short, your argument "works" in the same sense that my car "works" - it's perfectly fine until you actually examine it for a moment, and then you realize just how janked it really is.
Indeed, we have nothing more to discuss. You won't meet squarely, your choice of words is overtly antagonistic, and I completely and wholly disagree with your assessments--which I've already outlined. Good luck to you.
Wow, I've only bothered to read the last couple of pages in this argument, and I can't believe what I read. purplegamer, you are most definitely wrong here, and I'll explain why in simple terms:
You are not losing control of your character! You have the choice to do any of the following:
- Walk away (~10 steps is sufficient to get out of range)
- Change instances
- Go to a different social zone
- Turn your sound off (if standing by the bank/exchange, the windows will cover up your character anyway)
- Go to your starship bridge
- Go to your starbase/embassy/dilithium mine
- Ask for an invite to a tuffli or cellship
- Call in the S.S. Azura while in sector space
All of these are actions you can take to avoid the "unsavory" individuals who "ruin your fun" by "griefing" you, and yet still maintain access to the bank/exchange/mail/crafting/vendor/starship selector. :rolleyes: You have not lost the ability to take action.
Let me give you a couple good examples of actual griefing, and actually losing the ability to control your character:
---
In Star Wars Galaxies, there used to exist several character states: "stun", "knockdown", and "root". When "stunned", you could take no actions at all until the stun timer ran out - you could not move, you could not use any actions on your toolbar, you could not use any items; you could only chat. When "knocked down", you technically had an ability called "Knockdown Recovery" which was supposed to allow you to immediately stand up and continue fighting - except it never worked. The ability would never actually run, and you'd be stuck clicking it repeatedly praying it would actually do something besides scold you for trying. You could not take any other actions until you were standing again. When "rooted", you could not move, at all. Again, no real way to counter (unless you were a Jedi).
In Star Trek Online, back in the early days, players used to be able to fire off "Abandon Ship" whenever they pleased. Starfleet Dental took advantage of this fact and started griefing players loading into Earth Space, repeatedly blowing up several galaxy starships in order to create chain-reaction explosions. Players were stuck respawning into explosions over and over and over again, because they (at the time) could not leave the map while dead, nor could they change instances while dead.
---
You are not losing control of your character, you are merely upset that your character is in a good mood, and dancing to the music.
I'll also add that if Cryptic adds a toggle to allow you not to react to the party amp, you are in fact interfering with someone else's gameplay. If you're not dancing, then they just wasted their own in-game resources. Since it literally doesn't hurt or hinder anything for you to stand there and dance (or to walk away), you're asking for a change to the detriment of anyone who has one of these devices. You're effectively stating that your time (and potentially money, depending on how the other player obtained the GPL necessary to purchase a party amp) is superior to, is categorically worth more than, the other player. Talk about a logical fallacy!
You also can't argue "I was here first!" I realize this is a videogame, and law has very little to do with it, but this is still an apt comparison. Social zones in STO are like public parks in real-life. Everyone has the right to be there, and do anything (legal) they want. If you go to a park and start reading, and then someone else shows up with a trombone and starts playing poorly, you only have the right to complain or leave. Since the trombone player is not breaking any laws, neither you nor the police can require him to stop or leave. Same thing in STO - the player with the party amp is using it EXACTLY as intended, and you're just annoyed. You cannot require them to stop or leave, you only have the option to do so yourself.
Disco balls is a consumable, and a fun one at that.
If you get pissed because it screws with your immersion if you see such a ball on the other side of a room; put on a reallife TOS redshirt and go do your RP outside. The sun won't bite, I promise.
That's quite the paradox, how could you nerf nerf when the nerf is nerfed. But how would the nerf be nerfed when the nerf is nerfed? This allows the nerf not to be nerfed since the nerf is nerfed? But if the nerf isn't nerfed, it could still nerf nerfs. But as soon as the nerf is nerfed, the nerf power is lost. So paradoxally it the nerf nerf lost its nerf, while it's still nerfed, which cannot be because the nerf was unable to nerf.
....You also can't argue "I was here first!" I realize this is a videogame, and law has very little to do with it, but this is still an apt comparison. Social zones in STO are like public parks in real-life. Everyone has the right to be there, and do anything (legal) they want. If you go to a park and start reading, and then someone else shows up with a trombone and starts playing poorly, you only have the right to complain or leave. Since the trombone player is not breaking any laws, neither you nor the police can require him to stop or leave. Same thing in STO - the player with the party amp is using it EXACTLY as intended, and you're just annoyed. You cannot require them to stop or leave, you only have the option to do so yourself.
good point, but my advice is to just let it go.
many have posted their opinions, and he is compelled to reply to every one that is contrary to his view. just look at the past few pages history, it's pretty obvious.
it is like an argumentative compulsion disorder that cant be controlled IMO. anything you post from here on...you can literally bet that he will come back with a counter argument.
History shows he wont stop until you say 'whatever dude"...and then he posts a condescending last word in as a pat on the back victory to himself.
when someone is here just for counter-arguments sake...it's not worth trying to discuss.
.
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
@purplegamer sry but i dont think they will ever add a toggle button or even an emote to make your toon stop. They couldve done that a few months ago when this was brought up, but it seems some1 at Cryptic really loves the trolls and the griefers since it seems they even bothered to import this crapy thing from Champions. Actually is these kind of players, along with afk leachers and mass hoarding farmers they seem to care for becouse all past nerfs or "adjustements" done lately havent bothers these groups at all. And thats ok, if they think these kind of players will suport their game, then by all means, they can do their worst.
And speaking of worst, its amazing how behing the escuse "Its just a game" ppl will give their worst from them. Ok, its a game, so what? This gives the right to act like animals or something?
No one here demanded to TAKE AWAY the party amp actually. Only that a personal toggle or stop button to be added. Then you can still use the item, just dance yourself till you drop if you feel in a good mood.
You are not losing control of your character! You have the choice to do any of the following:
- Walk away (~10 steps is sufficient to get out of range)
- Change instances
- Go to a different social zone
- Turn your sound off (if standing by the bank/exchange, the windows will cover up your character anyway)
- Go to your starship bridge
- Go to your starbase/embassy/dilithium mine
- Ask for an invite to a tuffli or cellship
- Call in the S.S. Azura while in sector space
So why he would have to be FORCED to take this actions, wich will make him lose time?
I'll also add that if Cryptic adds a toggle to allow you not to react to the party amp, you are in fact interfering with someone else's gameplay. If you're not dancing, then they just wasted their own in-game resources. Since it literally doesn't hurt or hinder anything for you to stand there and dance (or to walk away), you're asking for a change to the detriment of anyone who has one of these devices. You're effectively stating that your time (and potentially money, depending on how the other player obtained the GPL necessary to purchase a party amp) is superior to, is categorically worth more than, the other player. Talk about a logical fallacy!
So in your words it ok for you to afect his gameplay then, right? Becouse you will make him lose time with reloging and such thus afecting his gameplay. So then your in-game resources will count more then his time.
And it does hinder with role players, wich i personally love. I am not one, but i really like to watch them sometimes in Quark's bar when i play dabo. I've seen some fascinanting stories there
Now lets me ask you this, if a similar item that will make you to stand on your head or some other thing that will offend you will be out, would you like that?
You also can't argue "I was here first!" I realize this is a videogame, and law has very little to do with it, but this is still an apt comparison. Social zones in STO are like public parks in real-life. Everyone has the right to be there, and do anything (legal) they want. If you go to a park and start reading, and then someone else shows up with a trombone and starts playing poorly, you only have the right to complain or leave. Since the trombone player is not breaking any laws, neither you nor the police can require him to stop or leave. Same thing in STO - the player with the party amp is using it EXACTLY as intended, and you're just annoyed. You cannot require them to stop or leave, you only have the option to do so yourself.
Sry but you are wrong. In this park situation you can still take a legitimate action, put some earphones thus not listening. Wich translate here with a button/emote to stop dancing.
But meh, i've given up on this crapy game, since it seems the more time passes the worst it gets
So why he would have to be FORCED to take this actions, wich will make him lose time?
He's not forced. He has a CHOICE. The only people throwing the word "forced" around are those against the party amp. No one held a gun to your head, you don't receive electric shocks in real life from it, you simply dislike it. That's not being forced to do anything, that's attempting to justify pushing your personal distaste on everyone else.
So in your words it ok for you to afect his gameplay then, right? Becouse you will make him lose time with reloging and such thus afecting his gameplay. So then your in-game resources will count more then his time.
And it does hinder with role players, wich i personally love. I am not one, but i really like to watch them sometimes in Quark's bar when i play dabo. I've seen some fascinanting stories there
He wouldn't lose any more time "relogging" (which I never suggested as an option, though I suppose it is) or moving elsewhere than the party amp player lost earning the GPL to purchase it. They balance each other out. (In reality, the few seconds it takes to move away are SIGNIFICANTLY less than the hours of time or the money spent to get GPL in game, but I choose to equate them equally here for the sake of simplicity.)
As for your preference for RP, good for you. It has no relevance here. The party amp also induces roleplay, in the form of a dance party.
Sry but you are wrong. In this park situation you can still take a legitimate action, put some earphones thus not listening.
... which is simply a comparable method to avoiding the dance amp. The most direct comparison would be to one of my original suggestions: mute your speakers. The guy would still be there playing the trombone, and you can still see him. So too, the party amp is still there, and your character (not you, just your character) is still dancing. If you choose to turn away from the trombone player, you don't seem him anymore. Same with opening windows and conducting your business for ~2 minutes - you cannot see your character dancing.
A "block social device" toggle would actually be more like instantaneously teleporting yourself and everyone else into an alternate dimension, where your park is free of the trombone player. You think it has no effect, but the trombone player no longer has anyone around listening to his music, bad as it may be. That was his whole purpose for going to the park, and you just took that away from him.
The thing with Cryptic adding a toggle is obviously not the most pressing matter - it's not top 10 - it's not top 100. Generally speaking, it's along the lines of a suggestion should they introduce additional such items - that when designing said item, that they take that extra moment to work in a toggle for such items.
The item is nifty - future items could be nifty...things have their place, they have their time - and it's that simple, in allowing a player to toggle out.
That the same folks that harass with them in the game troll on the forums about it...that's just tedious.
Rather than continue to post on the forums, in public, giving that certain group the attention they crave - folks should just continue to let Cryptic know about their concerns in private. Hit them up with PMs on the forums, hit them up with emails through the site, etc, etc, etc - don't harass them on the matter, don't get out of line (no, I'm not going to show up for the Add A Toggle Now Bikini Car Wash in the parking lot across the street from the studio)...but let them know - in a way - that doesn't feed the trolls.
Wow, I've only bothered to read the last couple of pages in this argument, and I can't believe what I read. purplegamer, you are most definitely wrong here, and I'll explain why in simple terms:
You are not losing control of your character! You have the choice to do any of the following:
- Walk away (~10 steps is sufficient to get out of range)
- Change instances
- Go to a different social zone
- Turn your sound off (if standing by the bank/exchange, the windows will cover up your character anyway)
- Go to your starship bridge
- Go to your starbase/embassy/dilithium mine
- Ask for an invite to a tuffli or cellship
- Call in the S.S. Azura while in sector space
All of these are actions you can take to avoid the "unsavory" individuals who "ruin your fun" by "griefing" you, and yet still maintain access to the bank/exchange/mail/crafting/vendor/starship selector. :rolleyes: You have not lost the ability to take action.
I'm not wrong here, now let me counter: Until that player arrived to use their disco ball to interrupt my activity (be it roleplay, chat, or whatever), I didn't have to make any of those choices. This player has effectively imposed a decision on me where I have to either ignore them or deal with it--neither of which is pleasant and weren't initiated by my own agency.
It's really quite simple...
Player A is minding their own business. Player B realizes they can disrupt Player A by using their disco ball. Player B sets out their disco ball to disrupt Player A. Player A now has to make a choice to either ignore Player B (requiring the action to ignore) or move somewhere else (requiring the action to move). In both cases, Player A has had a decision imposed on them by Player B. Player B has successfully bothered Player A and now Player A is unhappy.
How about another example?
Poster A is minding their own business on the forum. Poster B realizes they can derail Poster A's thread by filling it with off-topic discussion and nonsense. Poster B does this. Poster A now has to either ignore Poster B or file a report to customer service. In either case, Poster A has been imposed upon by Poster B.
EDIT: For clarity, I'm not angry or bothered or upset by this debate. Some here seem to think I have a vendetta or that I'm being intentionally argumentative. I just happen to disagree with the idea that these disco balls can't cause harm and that since the people bothered by them are only a small minority, that that should somehow disqualify their concerns. I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread.
Poster A is minding their own business on the forum. Poster B realizes they can derail Poster A's thread by filling it with off-topic discussion and nonsense. Poster B does this. Poster A now has to either ignore Poster B or file a report to customer service. In either case, Poster A has been imposed upon by Poster B.
I feel like what you are asking for is functionally asking for a great deal of work to be done to solve what is ultimately a minor issue. I further feel like demanding that Cryptic solve the problem is a little childish at best and selfish at worst. We all have to deal with minor annoyances everyday. The fact that something bugs you doesn't give you the right to legislate it away.
I'm sorry that people disagreeing with you is such an imposition. I'm even more sorry that you feel like you have no personal agency to deal with things that annoy you. I feel like what you are asking for is functionally asking for a great deal of work to be done to solve what is ultimately a minor issue. I further feel like demanding that Cryptic solve the problem is childish at best and selfish at worst. We all have to deal with minor annoyances everyday. The fact that something bugs you doesn't give you the right to legislate it away.
You mischaracterize my dissent. People disagreeing is not an imposition, but having to deal with griefers is--that's why they do it. My agency to act isn't taken away, in fact I'm arguing the opposite: I'm being forced to make a choice where I didn't have to before, and that choice is being imposed on me by another player. You or I can't say with any certainty that it's a "great deal of work" to provide an option to toggle or otherwise avoid social items like the disco ball. No one is demanding anything, though that does seem to be a popular expression when the discussion is dying off, so I'll let your comments about my behavior roll off my back.
If something bothers me, I have every right to both speak my mind and ask for my concerns to be addressed. That doesn't mean Cryptic has to do anything, but simply because you disagree on the degree of annoyance these things have doesn't give you the right to belittle my opinion. Disagree all you want, but we can at least be respectful to each other.
The thing with Cryptic adding a toggle is obviously not the most pressing matter - it's not top 10 - it's not top 100. Generally speaking, it's along the lines of a suggestion should they introduce additional such items - that when designing said item, that they take that extra moment to work in a toggle for such items.
Considering that this is, depending on your PoV, the THIRD such item, I doubt it.
Peeps have been whining for toggles since the creation of the infamous tribble launcher.
Then the Balloon launcher.....
The only time I can think of where there was real greifing involved was back when the biothermal dampener caused people to go into redalert status and thus forcing them to stop playing dabo, THAT got fixed.
So yes, Cryptic does care about ACTUAL greifing, this is at worst an annoyance.
Considering that this is, depending on your PoV, the THIRD such item, I doubt it.
Peeps have been whining for toggles since the creation of the infamous tribble launcher.
Then the Balloon launcher.....
The only time I can think of where there was real greifing involved was back when the biothermal dampener caused people to go into redalert status and thus forcing them to stop playing dabo, THAT got fixed.
So yes, Cryptic does care about ACTUAL greifing, this is at worst an annoyance.
That's going to be subjective. Somebody cluttering the screen with the various Party Poppers is not the same as somebody forcing your character to dance and be unable to do any emotes while within the area of effect of the Party Amp (outside of combadge). For some, it's not about the screen effects - it's not about other folks dancing around like they're having a seizure...it's just about the forced emotes and emote lockout. You can ignore the Party Poppers, the other folks dancing from the Party Amp...as insert some forum violation comment here. It's different when it's your character that's doing it.
Guys, are you really getting that bent out of shape over your character being "forced" to dance in a virtual game? Am I really here in this forum? Is this 2013?
Guys, are you really getting that bent out of shape over your character being "forced" to dance in a virtual game? Am I really here in this forum? Is this 2013?
Yeah, with it being 2013...things like this having come up in the past in other games...you'd think that Cryptic might have given it more thought.
Comments
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
No worries, your completely transparent bowing out wasn't lost on me. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Heh. While I don't agree with your stance, I do appreciate the humor.
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
To late for crazy extremist president...we got Obama already
(Now for a shameless campaign add )
America is the land of the free and home of the brave , where men are men and women are men and the streets are paved with..asphalt.
A place where you can take you and your family outside for a family outing only to be shot at by kids with machine guns.
Yes in this great country of ours we need strong leadership and a strong guiding hand to show us the way to TRUE prosperity and there is only one man that can do that....Gul Dukat
So in 2016 vote for Gul Dukat and bring true order and servitude to every home
http://i.imgur.com/8UkI1.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
There's some explanation on why slippery slopes are fallacious, which is exactly the argument you're proffering. There's also something strange about someone arguing that I can't place my interests before theirs when their own side of the argument is doing just that. If you want to admit that this argument is inherently silly and will go nowhere, then I'd reiterate that since you lose nothing by the proposed toggle (which I will explain in relation to your second point), then I would err on going with the toggle.
I thought it was a given that I find abuse of "social items" to be distasteful, and I've provided a specific example of the behavior I'm arguing against. And once again, it's strange that you would lament my telling someone their playstyle is less important than my own when you're doing just the same. Also once more, I reiterate that since you lose nothing by the arrangement except for the ability to annoy people who don't want to be bothered (since everyone else can still opt in), I wonder about the motivation for arguing against a toggle.
I've already proven that a toggle is "good." It prevents abuse by people who misuse it to purposefully disrupt others, while not taking away any functionality from those who use it as it was intended (I can make the very safe assumption that Cryptic isn't designing these things for them to be abused). This argument works, so long as you agree that using the disco ball to intentionally bother another player qualifies as abuse. If you don't agree with that premise, then we have nothing more to discuss.
There are tons of other things in this game that need a toggle as well. Smoke grenades can be thrown at you now, some one can come up to your character and bash you with tons of party poppers, balloons, and even Cryo -grenades. My first month of playing I was getting hit with cryos at least 4 times a week on ESD. Then there are the abilities that other players can cast on you making your toon glow or light up. I know you said that doesn't bother you. Well that is YOUR opinion and others may have a problem with that. While the abilities, party poppers, and grenades don't take control of your character, they still could ruin someone's idea of role play. Guidelines of role playing would then need to be set. Is your idea of roleplaying better then anyone else's? So I do understand what some of your opponents are saying. Once Crypic opens that door it will bring on tons of requests of the same thing. Not saying it is right (the whole slipper slope thing) but it will happen.
I play sto on average 4 to 5 hours a day, every day. I just haven't seen the dance amps used that much. How often does this happen to you? I spend a lot of time at star bases and have never seen anyone ask someone to not use a dance amp. Actually since the dance amp came out I have never seen anyone complain about it on chat or ask someone to stop.
Don't get me wrong you have a right to your opinion and have the right to ask Crypic's to change it, but don't expect everyone not to add their 2 cents on the topic on a public forum. Good luck with your request, and I hope Crypic codes it for you.
And with that I am off to go submit a request to censor the word gorn and save everyone from the thousands of bad gorn jokes. Just kidding, but had to throw that in there for a little fun.
That's true though, I NEVER see complaints in chat channels or zone chat(and yes I actually READ zone chat)
My character Tsin'xing
Thanks for this well-reasoned response!
I don't think the frequency of abuse should matter. I could cite a plethora of analogies, but suffice it to say that one unhappy person is one unhappy person too many. I stand by my suggestion that since the toggle takes nothing away from anyone except the ability to harass others, it is worth doing.
I was gorna make a joke, but I don't wanna offend.
Actually, there's no explanation of the slippery slope there that I found directly (although it appears in some of the follow on links). It should be noted that actually if you accept this source, it agrees ONLY with me, since I'm the one who asserted that slippery slope arguments are not automatically fallacies, which is exactly what that says. Crucially, the only situation in which a slippery slope argument becomes a problem is when it builds an unwarranted causality chain to an absurd end. That does not apply here, because the claim that people would use the precedent set by your proposal as grounds to ask for things they have, factually, asked for in the past does not seem to be on face an unwarranted leap of logic.
Also, again, the more salient point is that each of those alternate issues represents another concern that is at least as valid as yours, yet you assert an affirmative right to take precedence without providing a single reason why you should be allowed to do so. This is not, by the way, the same as me putting my interests above yours - that's a false choice you have created. I'm saying that neither of us have established any right to prefer one set of interests at all, and that neither of us has established the capability to rationally distinguish between them. Since you are the one whose advocacy requires proving a sufficient need for change, the fact that neither of us know whose interests are paramount helps only me, and hurts only you.
Now, before you go back to your fancy list of fallacies, let me be clear - this is not me arguing from ignorance. I'm not saying your position must be false, or even that it cannot be proven, merely that you have failed to do so yet, and thus your proposal fails at the very first hurdle. Here's a hint about the bright-line I think you could probably defend as reasonable, however: There may be a difference between being forced to see something distasteful, and having one's character actively controlled. Just saying. Assuming you can parse that out, let's suppose you do establish that you even have a right to ask for this change in the first place. You still need to prove that it's worth doing, which you are a long way from establishing.
Again, I'm not telling you that your playstyle is less important than anyone else's. At all. That is merely the lazy "logic" you are relying on that makes you think we must choose between your world view, or else mine. That's clearly absurd - there are any number of perspectives. My point was that your perspective is not the only valid one, and that, again, you've done precisely no work to justify your right to prefer it, beyond simply "I don't like that, and I have a right to that opinion". This is surely a true statement - you are allowed to think and feel whatever you want, but that doesn't make you RIGHT, and it certainly doesn't mean any of us need to care.
I was also attempting to imply that while from your viewpoint, you are merely asserting your agency, from another perspective, your act of agency does, necessarily, come into conflict with someone else's. Your response to that is to assert essentially that anyone who intentionally effects a player with this device is "abusing" that player, and thus their viewpoint is automatically invalid. I do, in fact, disagree with this assertion, which I suppose given your last line means you will assert I am impossible to reason with. Oh well.
You have proven no such thing. You haven't demonstrated that you have a right to ask for it over other concerns in the first place, you haven't demonstrated that it would actually significantly improve the game enough to justify any investment in dev resources, you have no idea what the investment might actually be so you've failed to establish that it's even possible, and you've certainly failed to establish that the benefits of doing this outweigh the tradeoffs in dev attention to fix your personal pet peeve, as well as the possible backlash from other players against the devs for choosing to fix your issue, rather than some other, seemingly equally valid item. In short, your argument "works" in the same sense that my car "works" - it's perfectly fine until you actually examine it for a moment, and then you realize just how janked it really is.
Indeed, we have nothing more to discuss. You won't meet squarely, your choice of words is overtly antagonistic, and I completely and wholly disagree with your assessments--which I've already outlined. Good luck to you.
You are not losing control of your character! You have the choice to do any of the following:
- Walk away (~10 steps is sufficient to get out of range)
- Change instances
- Go to a different social zone
- Turn your sound off (if standing by the bank/exchange, the windows will cover up your character anyway)
- Go to your starship bridge
- Go to your starbase/embassy/dilithium mine
- Ask for an invite to a tuffli or cellship
- Call in the S.S. Azura while in sector space
All of these are actions you can take to avoid the "unsavory" individuals who "ruin your fun" by "griefing" you, and yet still maintain access to the bank/exchange/mail/crafting/vendor/starship selector. :rolleyes: You have not lost the ability to take action.
Let me give you a couple good examples of actual griefing, and actually losing the ability to control your character:
---
In Star Wars Galaxies, there used to exist several character states: "stun", "knockdown", and "root". When "stunned", you could take no actions at all until the stun timer ran out - you could not move, you could not use any actions on your toolbar, you could not use any items; you could only chat. When "knocked down", you technically had an ability called "Knockdown Recovery" which was supposed to allow you to immediately stand up and continue fighting - except it never worked. The ability would never actually run, and you'd be stuck clicking it repeatedly praying it would actually do something besides scold you for trying. You could not take any other actions until you were standing again. When "rooted", you could not move, at all. Again, no real way to counter (unless you were a Jedi).
In Star Trek Online, back in the early days, players used to be able to fire off "Abandon Ship" whenever they pleased. Starfleet Dental took advantage of this fact and started griefing players loading into Earth Space, repeatedly blowing up several galaxy starships in order to create chain-reaction explosions. Players were stuck respawning into explosions over and over and over again, because they (at the time) could not leave the map while dead, nor could they change instances while dead.
---
You are not losing control of your character, you are merely upset that your character is in a good mood, and dancing to the music.
I'll also add that if Cryptic adds a toggle to allow you not to react to the party amp, you are in fact interfering with someone else's gameplay. If you're not dancing, then they just wasted their own in-game resources. Since it literally doesn't hurt or hinder anything for you to stand there and dance (or to walk away), you're asking for a change to the detriment of anyone who has one of these devices. You're effectively stating that your time (and potentially money, depending on how the other player obtained the GPL necessary to purchase a party amp) is superior to, is categorically worth more than, the other player. Talk about a logical fallacy!
You also can't argue "I was here first!" I realize this is a videogame, and law has very little to do with it, but this is still an apt comparison. Social zones in STO are like public parks in real-life. Everyone has the right to be there, and do anything (legal) they want. If you go to a park and start reading, and then someone else shows up with a trombone and starts playing poorly, you only have the right to complain or leave. Since the trombone player is not breaking any laws, neither you nor the police can require him to stop or leave. Same thing in STO - the player with the party amp is using it EXACTLY as intended, and you're just annoyed. You cannot require them to stop or leave, you only have the option to do so yourself.
If you get pissed because it screws with your immersion if you see such a ball on the other side of a room; put on a reallife TOS redshirt and go do your RP outside. The sun won't bite, I promise.
*sigh*
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
good point, but my advice is to just let it go.
many have posted their opinions, and he is compelled to reply to every one that is contrary to his view. just look at the past few pages history, it's pretty obvious.
it is like an argumentative compulsion disorder that cant be controlled IMO. anything you post from here on...you can literally bet that he will come back with a counter argument.
History shows he wont stop until you say 'whatever dude"...and then he posts a condescending last word in as a pat on the back victory to himself.
when someone is here just for counter-arguments sake...it's not worth trying to discuss.
.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
what happens if you roll a 1 ?
:P:D
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
And speaking of worst, its amazing how behing the escuse "Its just a game" ppl will give their worst from them. Ok, its a game, so what? This gives the right to act like animals or something?
No one here demanded to TAKE AWAY the party amp actually. Only that a personal toggle or stop button to be added. Then you can still use the item, just dance yourself till you drop if you feel in a good mood.
So why he would have to be FORCED to take this actions, wich will make him lose time?
So in your words it ok for you to afect his gameplay then, right? Becouse you will make him lose time with reloging and such thus afecting his gameplay. So then your in-game resources will count more then his time.
And it does hinder with role players, wich i personally love. I am not one, but i really like to watch them sometimes in Quark's bar when i play dabo. I've seen some fascinanting stories there
Now lets me ask you this, if a similar item that will make you to stand on your head or some other thing that will offend you will be out, would you like that?
Sry but you are wrong. In this park situation you can still take a legitimate action, put some earphones thus not listening. Wich translate here with a button/emote to stop dancing.
But meh, i've given up on this crapy game, since it seems the more time passes the worst it gets
He's not forced. He has a CHOICE. The only people throwing the word "forced" around are those against the party amp. No one held a gun to your head, you don't receive electric shocks in real life from it, you simply dislike it. That's not being forced to do anything, that's attempting to justify pushing your personal distaste on everyone else.
He wouldn't lose any more time "relogging" (which I never suggested as an option, though I suppose it is) or moving elsewhere than the party amp player lost earning the GPL to purchase it. They balance each other out. (In reality, the few seconds it takes to move away are SIGNIFICANTLY less than the hours of time or the money spent to get GPL in game, but I choose to equate them equally here for the sake of simplicity.)
As for your preference for RP, good for you. It has no relevance here. The party amp also induces roleplay, in the form of a dance party.
... which is simply a comparable method to avoiding the dance amp. The most direct comparison would be to one of my original suggestions: mute your speakers. The guy would still be there playing the trombone, and you can still see him. So too, the party amp is still there, and your character (not you, just your character) is still dancing. If you choose to turn away from the trombone player, you don't seem him anymore. Same with opening windows and conducting your business for ~2 minutes - you cannot see your character dancing.
A "block social device" toggle would actually be more like instantaneously teleporting yourself and everyone else into an alternate dimension, where your park is free of the trombone player. You think it has no effect, but the trombone player no longer has anyone around listening to his music, bad as it may be. That was his whole purpose for going to the park, and you just took that away from him.
The item is nifty - future items could be nifty...things have their place, they have their time - and it's that simple, in allowing a player to toggle out.
That the same folks that harass with them in the game troll on the forums about it...that's just tedious.
Rather than continue to post on the forums, in public, giving that certain group the attention they crave - folks should just continue to let Cryptic know about their concerns in private. Hit them up with PMs on the forums, hit them up with emails through the site, etc, etc, etc - don't harass them on the matter, don't get out of line (no, I'm not going to show up for the Add A Toggle Now Bikini Car Wash in the parking lot across the street from the studio)...but let them know - in a way - that doesn't feed the trolls.
I'm not wrong here, now let me counter: Until that player arrived to use their disco ball to interrupt my activity (be it roleplay, chat, or whatever), I didn't have to make any of those choices. This player has effectively imposed a decision on me where I have to either ignore them or deal with it--neither of which is pleasant and weren't initiated by my own agency.
It's really quite simple...
Player A is minding their own business. Player B realizes they can disrupt Player A by using their disco ball. Player B sets out their disco ball to disrupt Player A. Player A now has to make a choice to either ignore Player B (requiring the action to ignore) or move somewhere else (requiring the action to move). In both cases, Player A has had a decision imposed on them by Player B. Player B has successfully bothered Player A and now Player A is unhappy.
How about another example?
Poster A is minding their own business on the forum. Poster B realizes they can derail Poster A's thread by filling it with off-topic discussion and nonsense. Poster B does this. Poster A now has to either ignore Poster B or file a report to customer service. In either case, Poster A has been imposed upon by Poster B.
EDIT: For clarity, I'm not angry or bothered or upset by this debate. Some here seem to think I have a vendetta or that I'm being intentionally argumentative. I just happen to disagree with the idea that these disco balls can't cause harm and that since the people bothered by them are only a small minority, that that should somehow disqualify their concerns. I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread.
I feel like what you are asking for is functionally asking for a great deal of work to be done to solve what is ultimately a minor issue. I further feel like demanding that Cryptic solve the problem is a little childish at best and selfish at worst. We all have to deal with minor annoyances everyday. The fact that something bugs you doesn't give you the right to legislate it away.
You mischaracterize my dissent. People disagreeing is not an imposition, but having to deal with griefers is--that's why they do it. My agency to act isn't taken away, in fact I'm arguing the opposite: I'm being forced to make a choice where I didn't have to before, and that choice is being imposed on me by another player. You or I can't say with any certainty that it's a "great deal of work" to provide an option to toggle or otherwise avoid social items like the disco ball. No one is demanding anything, though that does seem to be a popular expression when the discussion is dying off, so I'll let your comments about my behavior roll off my back.
If something bothers me, I have every right to both speak my mind and ask for my concerns to be addressed. That doesn't mean Cryptic has to do anything, but simply because you disagree on the degree of annoyance these things have doesn't give you the right to belittle my opinion. Disagree all you want, but we can at least be respectful to each other.
Peeps have been whining for toggles since the creation of the infamous tribble launcher.
Then the Balloon launcher.....
The only time I can think of where there was real greifing involved was back when the biothermal dampener caused people to go into redalert status and thus forcing them to stop playing dabo, THAT got fixed.
So yes, Cryptic does care about ACTUAL greifing, this is at worst an annoyance.
My character Tsin'xing
That's going to be subjective. Somebody cluttering the screen with the various Party Poppers is not the same as somebody forcing your character to dance and be unable to do any emotes while within the area of effect of the Party Amp (outside of combadge). For some, it's not about the screen effects - it's not about other folks dancing around like they're having a seizure...it's just about the forced emotes and emote lockout. You can ignore the Party Poppers, the other folks dancing from the Party Amp...as insert some forum violation comment here. It's different when it's your character that's doing it.
Yeah, with it being 2013...things like this having come up in the past in other games...you'd think that Cryptic might have given it more thought.