99% of the people i game with regularly in MMO's refuse to post or participate on this forum because of the insanity caused by people intentionally baiting people into arguments, rows and the sheer stupidity displayed by these "haters".. things like threatening to sue, calling out devs, claiming a business is evil for trying to earn a living...
I agree with the sentiment. In my experience in STO, and other MMOs, the player who wants to visit the official forum for the game is a minority, I estimate less than 1 in 8 (based only upon my subjective experience). When I am asked where I find out what the Devs are planning, what the community is talking about, the hot tips on that tough STF and I tell them the official forum for <insert game>, the most frequent reply is along the lines of "I don't visit the official forums, too much drama."
The environment of STO's forums is not all that different from other MMO official forums, it is regrettably a product of the Internet culture. It is one of the reasons why Clans set up their own forums.
Robert E. Howard said it best - Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Robert E. Howard said it best - Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Smart guy, Mr. Howard....
They say the internet makes you socially inept if you allow it to because of the anonymity + the surety of an audience of some sort.
I agree.
Its sad too, I bet the other 7 out of 8 players who don't visit the forum have great ideas for the improvement of the game that Cryptic could use.
Sure some people here have great ideas too, but the more the merrier yes?
And besides, the more civil opinions you have the easier it is to choose a direction based on feedback.
They say the internet makes you socially inept if you allow it to because of the anonymity + the surety of an audience of some sort.
I agree.
Its sad too, I bet the other 7 out of 8 players who don't visit the forum have great ideas for the improvement of the game that Cryptic could use.
Sure some people here have great ideas too, but the more the merrier yes?
And besides, the more civil opinions you have the easier it is to choose a direction based on feedback.
I have been playing this game since open beta; this last week is the first time I have gotten on the forums. I have made a few posts here and there offering my critique on certain aspects of the game I felt could use some attention. Unfortunately on one of the threads I started I have not been able to really explain some of my thoughts on the game because of the constant spamming done by three or four individuals essentially claiming my viewpoints are completely invalid because they do not agree with my conclusions. This makes it very difficult to voice my particular concerns for the game. In those posts I have remained as civil as possible I am not a Hater I do like STO, but that does not mean I have not noticed problems or that I am entirely pleased with Cryptic. I just wonder if it is even possible to have a serious and civil discussion on some of the games short comings without inciting insanity.
It is possible to get a reasonably discussion, but just very hard to do - all it takes is one troll to hijack the thread, start somthing that connects emotionally, and hey presto, its away...
That said, with a little practice, you can see who are the extremes in posting, ignore them, and just post as if their little two lines don't exist.
On the topic, haters are more toxic. An old marketing adage comes to mind - if someone likes your service, they will tell 2-5 friends. If someone hates your service, they will tell 10+ friends.
People like me I suppose who dont really fit into any of those categories. You know the type..
Who actually play the game and because of that think they have the most brilliant idea for the game since bread? Dont really post on the forums much accept to say "hai, look at this idea!"
Pretty sure thats a peeve for someone creating this game or any other.
To be fair though, on my dogs eyes... I have not written a game concept in 2 years! i promise, Im going to concept anonymous meetings and uhm ok, accept the one for sto O.o.. in my sig I swear. NO really, I promise, nor uhm.. did I write concept proposals for... Ok Ive just incriminated myself haven't I.
You guys are depressing me here.
Who asked you anyway!
*Hits submit reply,opens photoshop and word*
Im not doing anymore I promise.
/evil grin
They're both just labels. Have a look at this list. I tried to apply it to STO as best I could.
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. I see no one in sector space therefore the game is dying.
argument from omniscience: My game client crashes therefore STO is TRIBBLE.
appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): WOW didnt do it this way so this game is sorely lacking.
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. Look at the success of WOW. Cryptic should follow suit.
begging the question (or assuming the answer): We must criticise Cryptic on the game so they can improve it.
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. STO is bad because I dont like it.
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): Plenty of people have already complained about ..... in STO, so it must be true.
confusion of correlation and causation: More people play WOW than STO, therefore WOW must be better than STO.
excluded middle You disagree with my point of view therefore you are a fanboi/hater.
observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): Used a lot in topics of C store items.
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. If Cryptic dont do ..... then therell be no subscribers left.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. If this game is to survive, it must go f2p. Cryptic havent released Caitians yet, purely to make me pay more money while I wait.
straw man: Youre new here, so your point is invalid. You dont have an RA5 so what do you know?
Regardless of the side of the fence you sit on, none of those help in a discussion, and yet every forum I've ever been on suffers the same. That list is not exhaustive btw.
I have been playing this game since open beta; this last week is the first time I have gotten on the forums. I have made a few posts here and there offering my critique on certain aspects of the game I felt could use some attention. Unfortunately on one of the threads I started I have not been able to really explain some of my thoughts on the game because of the constant spamming done by three or four individuals essentially claiming my viewpoints are completely invalid because they do not agree with my conclusions. This makes it very difficult to voice my particular concerns for the game. In those posts I have remained as civil as possible I am not a Hater I do like STO, but that does not mean I have not noticed problems or that I am entirely pleased with Cryptic. I just wonder if it is even possible to have a serious and civil discussion on some of the games short comings without inciting insanity.
It could be possible that you are taking it too seriously what others are saying. Or, at least you may be taking it to much a personal matter that others may not agree with what you may post. Since, like this post, you are putting your opinion on an open forum you have to be aware that others are going to either agree, disagree or just shrug their shoulders and walk away. Whichever whay they go, you have to just take it as THEIR opinion as they must try to take what you write as YOUR opinion.
As I wrote the above it dawned on me that their is nothing of the kind of "hater" or "fanboi". Simply, these are titles that people assign as some way of either identity or worse as some form of degradation of the individual they disagree or agree with. In other words, just ignore the terms.
It could be possible that you are taking it too seriously what others are saying. Or, at least you may be taking it to much a personal matter that others may not agree with what you may post. Since, like this post, you are putting your opinion on an open forum you have to be aware that others are going to either agree, disagree or just shrug their shoulders and walk away. Whichever whay they go, you have to just take it as THEIR opinion as they must try to take what you write as YOUR opinion.
As I wrote the above it dawned on me that their is nothing of the kind of "hater" or "fanboi". Simply, these are titles that people assign as some way of either identity or worse as some form of degradation of the individual they disagree or agree with. In other words, just ignore the terms.
My problem is not with people disagreeing with me. I come from a background of being on debate teams; I enjoy debating, but in a debate people do tend to follows some form of a rule of conduct. When I start a thread I have a purpose in mind; the problem arises when certain individuals try to high-jack the thread and distract people from my intended purpose for the thread in an attempt to squelch any point of view that does not align with theirs. Their common means of attack usually goes along the lines of " you probably have never played a game before", and other idiotic and pointless dribble of that nature. Comments like that do not add anything to the argument they just clog up the gears of thought.
My problem is not with people disagreeing with me. I come from a background of being on debate teams; I enjoy debating, but in a debate people do tend to follows some form of a rule of conduct. When I start a thread I have a purpose in mind; the problem arises when certain individuals try to high-jack the thread and distract people from my intended purpose for the thread in an attempt to squelch any point of view that does not align with theirs. Their common means of attack usually goes along the lines of " you probably have never played a game before", and other idiotic and pointless dribble of that nature. Comments like that do not add anything to the argument they just clog up the gears of thought.
Unfortunately, debate and rhetoric are virtually lost arts, both on the Internet and in real life. Which is awful, because we're not going to get anywhere if we just have Thesis and Antithesis and never the twain shall meet. We need Synthesis if we're ever going to break out of this cultural rut. And we get Synthesis from rational dialogue and debate.
Fanbois are much more dangerous to STO than haters. Cryptic won't listen to haters since they basically ask Cryptic to remove the game from the market. On the other hand, they may listen to the fanbois who pretend that the game is perfect. If they do that, they'll never improve it.
you forgot the haters, who will also not be listened to as they provide nothing constructive. can't blame one and not the other when both are equal.
Simple question, which is hurting STO more? Fanboi's that think Cryptic can do no wrong and STO is the best thing since sliced bread or Haters that think STO is the Anti Christ incarnate? I think both are equally responsible. Fire away...
The 3rd group of people.
The ones who don't visit forums, try the game and become frustrated, and/or indifferent, due to issues ranging from bugs to the grind game design, and cancel their subscription.
Simple question, which is hurting STO more? Fanboi's that think Cryptic can do no wrong and STO is the best thing since sliced bread or Haters that think STO is the Anti Christ incarnate? I think both are equally responsible. Fire away...
Neither of these fictional creations exist. There are no fanbois. There are no haters.
The structure and culture of internet forums dictates that threads where people "agree" with each other die out quickly and are buried by more "active" threads. These threads are threads where people are arguing with each other. Because arguments go on and on and on. When people agree, they agree and move on. Because they agree. When people disagree, they keep at it and it keeps getting the top position in the forum. So it spreads as more and more people hop into the argument.
There are no haters. There are no fanbois. There are just people. Who's most popular discussions are popular because they are actively arguing with each other.
Prove me wrong. Agree with me and watch this thread slowly die.
well depends on what you think a Hater or Fanboi is.
This is just my opion on this.
Hater - doesn't like the game at all and does not play (unless they log in to grief) and will
post on the forums how 'bad' the game is all the time but they never suggest how to fix it.
To a Hater...if your not a hater your a fanboi
Fanboi - love the IP so much they will defend any part of the game, even the bad parts or the bugs.
They are afraid the game will go under tommorrow unless unconditional support is pledged
on the forums for it. Any complaint about the game is an attack on thier 'faith'
To a Fanboi...if you don't love the game as it is right now, your a Hater.
Which is worst? BOTH
Both of them are very bad for the game in different but equal portions.
The wrost thing they do is kill moral by labling anyone who is not with them as someone from the
other extreme.
messages to them from me.
Hater - leave
Fanboi - stop posting, play the game
Comments
I agree with the sentiment. In my experience in STO, and other MMOs, the player who wants to visit the official forum for the game is a minority, I estimate less than 1 in 8 (based only upon my subjective experience). When I am asked where I find out what the Devs are planning, what the community is talking about, the hot tips on that tough STF and I tell them the official forum for <insert game>, the most frequent reply is along the lines of "I don't visit the official forums, too much drama."
The environment of STO's forums is not all that different from other MMO official forums, it is regrettably a product of the Internet culture. It is one of the reasons why Clans set up their own forums.
Robert E. Howard said it best - Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
Smart guy, Mr. Howard....
They say the internet makes you socially inept if you allow it to because of the anonymity + the surety of an audience of some sort.
I agree.
Its sad too, I bet the other 7 out of 8 players who don't visit the forum have great ideas for the improvement of the game that Cryptic could use.
Sure some people here have great ideas too, but the more the merrier yes?
And besides, the more civil opinions you have the easier it is to choose a direction based on feedback.
I have been playing this game since open beta; this last week is the first time I have gotten on the forums. I have made a few posts here and there offering my critique on certain aspects of the game I felt could use some attention. Unfortunately on one of the threads I started I have not been able to really explain some of my thoughts on the game because of the constant spamming done by three or four individuals essentially claiming my viewpoints are completely invalid because they do not agree with my conclusions. This makes it very difficult to voice my particular concerns for the game. In those posts I have remained as civil as possible I am not a Hater I do like STO, but that does not mean I have not noticed problems or that I am entirely pleased with Cryptic. I just wonder if it is even possible to have a serious and civil discussion on some of the games short comings without inciting insanity.
That said, with a little practice, you can see who are the extremes in posting, ignore them, and just post as if their little two lines don't exist.
On the topic, haters are more toxic. An old marketing adage comes to mind - if someone likes your service, they will tell 2-5 friends. If someone hates your service, they will tell 10+ friends.
People like me I suppose who dont really fit into any of those categories. You know the type..
Who actually play the game and because of that think they have the most brilliant idea for the game since bread? Dont really post on the forums much accept to say "hai, look at this idea!"
Pretty sure thats a peeve for someone creating this game or any other.
To be fair though, on my dogs eyes... I have not written a game concept in 2 years! i promise, Im going to concept anonymous meetings and uhm ok, accept the one for sto O.o.. in my sig I swear. NO really, I promise, nor uhm.. did I write concept proposals for... Ok Ive just incriminated myself haven't I.
You guys are depressing me here.
Who asked you anyway!
*Hits submit reply,opens photoshop and word*
Im not doing anymore I promise.
/evil grin
What lich is raising up this army of undead threads?
* - As opposed to the Zambonicalypse, in which squadrons of slow-moving machines come to your town and SMOOTH ALL YOUR ICE! Nefarious!
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. I see no one in sector space therefore the game is dying.
argument from omniscience: My game client crashes therefore STO is TRIBBLE.
appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): WOW didnt do it this way so this game is sorely lacking.
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. Look at the success of WOW. Cryptic should follow suit.
begging the question (or assuming the answer): We must criticise Cryptic on the game so they can improve it.
circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. STO is bad because I dont like it.
confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): Plenty of people have already complained about ..... in STO, so it must be true.
confusion of correlation and causation: More people play WOW than STO, therefore WOW must be better than STO.
excluded middle You disagree with my point of view therefore you are a fanboi/hater.
observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): Used a lot in topics of C store items.
slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. If Cryptic dont do ..... then therell be no subscribers left.
special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. If this game is to survive, it must go f2p. Cryptic havent released Caitians yet, purely to make me pay more money while I wait.
straw man: Youre new here, so your point is invalid. You dont have an RA5 so what do you know?
Regardless of the side of the fence you sit on, none of those help in a discussion, and yet every forum I've ever been on suffers the same. That list is not exhaustive btw.
It could be possible that you are taking it too seriously what others are saying. Or, at least you may be taking it to much a personal matter that others may not agree with what you may post. Since, like this post, you are putting your opinion on an open forum you have to be aware that others are going to either agree, disagree or just shrug their shoulders and walk away. Whichever whay they go, you have to just take it as THEIR opinion as they must try to take what you write as YOUR opinion.
As I wrote the above it dawned on me that their is nothing of the kind of "hater" or "fanboi". Simply, these are titles that people assign as some way of either identity or worse as some form of degradation of the individual they disagree or agree with. In other words, just ignore the terms.
Then they will just divide and conquer.
My problem is not with people disagreeing with me. I come from a background of being on debate teams; I enjoy debating, but in a debate people do tend to follows some form of a rule of conduct. When I start a thread I have a purpose in mind; the problem arises when certain individuals try to high-jack the thread and distract people from my intended purpose for the thread in an attempt to squelch any point of view that does not align with theirs. Their common means of attack usually goes along the lines of " you probably have never played a game before", and other idiotic and pointless dribble of that nature. Comments like that do not add anything to the argument they just clog up the gears of thought.
Unfortunately, debate and rhetoric are virtually lost arts, both on the Internet and in real life. Which is awful, because we're not going to get anywhere if we just have Thesis and Antithesis and never the twain shall meet. We need Synthesis if we're ever going to break out of this cultural rut. And we get Synthesis from rational dialogue and debate.
you forgot the haters, who will also not be listened to as they provide nothing constructive. can't blame one and not the other when both are equal.
The 3rd group of people.
The ones who don't visit forums, try the game and become frustrated, and/or indifferent, due to issues ranging from bugs to the grind game design, and cancel their subscription.
Neither of these fictional creations exist. There are no fanbois. There are no haters.
The structure and culture of internet forums dictates that threads where people "agree" with each other die out quickly and are buried by more "active" threads. These threads are threads where people are arguing with each other. Because arguments go on and on and on. When people agree, they agree and move on. Because they agree. When people disagree, they keep at it and it keeps getting the top position in the forum. So it spreads as more and more people hop into the argument.
There are no haters. There are no fanbois. There are just people. Who's most popular discussions are popular because they are actively arguing with each other.
Prove me wrong. Agree with me and watch this thread slowly die.
/end thread
This is just my opion on this.
Hater - doesn't like the game at all and does not play (unless they log in to grief) and will
post on the forums how 'bad' the game is all the time but they never suggest how to fix it.
To a Hater...if your not a hater your a fanboi
Fanboi - love the IP so much they will defend any part of the game, even the bad parts or the bugs.
They are afraid the game will go under tommorrow unless unconditional support is pledged
on the forums for it. Any complaint about the game is an attack on thier 'faith'
To a Fanboi...if you don't love the game as it is right now, your a Hater.
Which is worst? BOTH
Both of them are very bad for the game in different but equal portions.
The wrost thing they do is kill moral by labling anyone who is not with them as someone from the
other extreme.
messages to them from me.
Hater - leave
Fanboi - stop posting, play the game