Then describe to me how going for an achievement will incentivize active malice in a player.
You’re deliberately disturbing/spoiling other players’ enjoyment by going for that achievement.
1 Like
How do you know that is their intention?
Because they actively chosen to not spawn their best available vehicles for that nation/vehicle combination.
If you’re fine with that behavior I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose your teams being made of only God Mode hunters for the rest of your playtime. At the end of the day, they aren’t doing anything wrong, right ?
1 Like
That does not automatically mean intentional malice.
It automatically means deliberate disruption/spoiling of other players’ enjoyment.
Also, there’s a pending question you haven’t answered yet.
1 Like
We are running in circles now.
Will not answer irrelevant questions.
Because they’re going for the achievement ?
And don’t reply with: “How do people know it’s disruptive to bring Reserve tanks to top tier”.
It’s pretty relevant.
Would you get upset if you had nothing but God Mode hunters in your teams for the rest of your playtime ? Would you feel your experience is getting disrupted/spoiled by all those innocent people just hunting a simple achievement.
It’s a simple yes/no question but it’s obvious you’re refusing to answer as you yourself know it wouldn’t suit your agenda.
1 Like
Re-read the description of the word griefing.
They have to do it with the purpose of being disrupting and aggravating, that HAS TO be the goal for the action for it to fall under griefing. It cannot be a biproduct or an unintentional consequence while they aim for something else. By your definition a bad player would be griefing just by being bad at the game.
You’re asking for my personal opinion about a specific in-game situation. it is irrelevant to your incorrect usage of a word during a discussion on the forum.
My answer does not matter to the discussion of your usage of the word “griefing”.
My answer could be yes, my answer could be no. Either way it wouldn’t effect the discussion and would only lead to sidetracks that has nothing to do with the word “griefing” and your usage of it.
My criminal law teachers would like to have word with you on the topic of negligence.
1 Like
And on that topic, doesn’t actual law have different words for things when they are intentional vs when they are not?
It very much can.
No he wouldn’t if he’s trying his hardest to do something with his available skillset and vehicles.
Someone spawning in a Reserve tier tank when he has multiple top tier tanks available is an intentional way to spoil others’ enjoyment. The intention behind it is irrelevant. You could go for the God Mode, you could try to jump over a 2A7V for a “funni” video or do something else entirely.
You did that with intent.
Scared of answering because it wouldn’t really go with your agenda ?
Supporting something but not wanting that to be happening to you is a clear way of knowing you’re in the wrong.
I agree with a BR restriction, and I’ve also said the exact same thing in the past that these biplanes do nothing but shooting the one who brought them into higher BR and dies for 99% of the times.
2 Likes
Not if you want to use the word griefing.
And if someone is trying their hardest with their available skillset and lower BR vehicle to try to get the achievement?
Not if you want to use the word “griefing” .
Again, has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant to the discussion. And no, i’m not answering on principle of sidetracking.
I can be against something and at the same time correct your incorrect word usage to describe that thing. They are not mutually exclusive and thus my opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
I’m not “scared”. I’m trying to keep the discussion on track.
That would be negligence.
Standard negligence, in czech criminal law, is when the perpetrator either
A) knew he can break a law but without a proper reason thought the breach of law wont occur
B) didnt know he can break a law but in regard to the situation at hand as well as the person of the perpetrator he should have known the breach of law can occur.
Gross negligence is when the perpetrator knew he can brek a law with his action, but he simply didnt care he will do so.
Negligence is the same as intent for certain crimes.
Gross negligence is aggravating circumstance.
So no, the griefing does not neccesarily has to be intentional for it to be bannable offense, just as some crimes dont have to be commited with intent to be punishable by law.
1 Like
Not really.
Still bad as you aren’t bringing the best vehicles you can.
You getting an achievement is just your personal gain, so your team cannot suffer because of it.
Having an opinion is allowed.
Or you aren’t answering because you wouldn’t really want to experience things you’re valiantly labeling as okay in here.
This is one of the best questions you can ask anyone that supports this “fair” game mechanic.
This is a discussion about troll squads and my question is pretty much spot on when it comes to the topic.
I think i was being a bit unclear. I was thinking more in lines of what the alternative would be. As in if the same action was taken with intent.
So Negligent injury VS assault, Manslaughter vs murder, arson vs reckless burning. My point here is that he is trying to use the word that requires intent to describe all occurrences of the same action even if they are carried out with intent or not.
You cannot claim “griefing” for all actions of the same kind when you don’t know the intent of the person performing that action.
The word “griefing” then doesn’t apply anymore is my entire point. Even if the action can be considered part of a bannable offence you can’t attribute intent to all actions of that kind that happens.
Take teamkilling for example, its a bannable offence, but it only becomes griefing when intentional.
Have i ? where ?
No, really, where?
When did i support it?
Sure, but it has absolutely zero to do with why i started commenting in this thread to begin with.
You are using the word “griefing” wrong. That is it, that is all of what i’m trying to say here. 100% of my argument. My entire point.
Fair enough, I guess.
However keep in mind some crimes do not differentiate between intent and neglince. For example, § 155 of czech criminal code, exposing someone to STD idoes not differentiate between intent and negligence. or § 180, mishandling of personal information. There are many more examples I could give.
A) See above.
B) Intent can be inferred.
no but as stated above, some crimes do not differentiate between negligence and intent. and, as stated above, intent can be inferred.
God heavens, imagine the world if all criminals had to do was to say “i didnt mean to” to not be charged lol.
1 Like
By not being against it you’re supporting it.
Being neutral isn’t an option here.
Your semantics arguing doesn’t really bring a lot to the thread. Griefing, trolling or whatever word you want to pick, it simply isn’t an action that should be legitimate, even more so literally incentivized by Gaijin.