RuFF Removed from IvD Gaming - Page 20

On June 16 2014 12:59 NonY wrote:

Let's say there's a guy who losers his temper and says something inappropriate every 1 in 100 times he loses a game. He plays 30 games a day, loses 15 of them, so he says something bad about once a week. Now, depending on how people react and what kind of environment he's in, that rate can either go up or go down. There's no doubt in my mind that when people respond to venom with venom, that rate goes up. And it's not only that, but there are people who very clearly recognize a known rager and try to get them to rage just to laugh at their rage (and so their viewers can laugh too). In other words, there are people who purposely try to increase that rate. Let that influence happen over several years to an impressionable young kid, and you turn him into a guy who has a nasty comment at the end of nearly every loss.

Personally I block almost every rager I encounter while streaming. SC2 practice is not the time to try to help a guy with a rage problem, but I do my best to not feed his rage. I play the best I can to win the game, which is the most respectful thing I can do, and I simply say gg and leave if I've lost. I think these simple policies would go a long way toward improving the community if everyone who was capable of doing them actually did them. I haven't been doing this for long, but I've done it pretty consistently for a little while now and I'm gonna keep doing it for as long as I can.

There are some hopeless cases but there are also always some people who could either get worse or get better. It is absolutely ignorant to think you don't have some influence over the people you interact with and you ought to take responsibility for that influence. And with regard to the hopeless cases, I definitely think there's something immoral about abusing them just because they're incapable of contributing anything positive. If you have to cut them off then just cut them off, but don't ever abuse them. It's not like the abuse is punishment in hopes of rehabilitation... it's just eye for an eye bullshit. Or if you can't help it, and it's your own weakness that you can't help but get revenge on people who have wronged you, then at least admit it's a weakness and don't act like you're righteous.

On June 16 2014 12:59 NonY wrote:

Let's say there's a guy who losers his temper and says something inappropriate every 1 in 100 times he loses a game. He plays 30 games a day, loses 15 of them, so he says something bad about once a week. Now, depending on how people react and what kind of environment he's in, that rate can either go up or go down. There's no doubt in my mind that when people respond to venom with venom, that rate goes up. And it's not only that, but there are people who very clearly recognize a known rager and try to get them to rage just to laugh at their rage (and so their viewers can laugh too). In other words, there are people who purposely try to increase that rate. Let that influence happen over several years to an impressionable young kid, and you turn him into a guy who has a nasty comment at the end of nearly every loss.

Personally I block almost every rager I encounter while streaming. SC2 practice is not the time to try to help a guy with a rage problem, but I do my best to not feed his rage. I play the best I can to win the game, which is the most respectful thing I can do, and I simply say gg and leave if I've lost. I think these simple policies would go a long way toward improving the community if everyone who was capable of doing them actually did them. I haven't been doing this for long, but I've done it pretty consistently for a little while now and I'm gonna keep doing it for as long as I can.

There are some hopeless cases but there are also always some people who could either get worse or get better. It is absolutely ignorant to think you don't have some influence over the people you interact with and you ought to take responsibility for that influence. And with regard to the hopeless cases, I definitely think there's something immoral about abusing them just because they're incapable of contributing anything positive. If you have to cut them off then just cut them off, but don't ever abuse them. It's not like the abuse is punishment in hopes of rehabilitation... it's just eye for an eye bullshit. Or if you can't help it, and it's your own weakness that you can't help but get revenge on people who have wronged you, then at least admit it's a weakness and don't act like you're righteous.

On June 16 2014 12:59 NonY wrote:

Let's say there's a guy who losers his temper and says something inappropriate every 1 in 100 times he loses a game. He plays 30 games a day, loses 15 of them, so he says something bad about once a week. Now, depending on how people react and what kind of environment he's in, that rate can either go up or go down. There's no doubt in my mind that when people respond to venom with venom, that rate goes up. And it's not only that, but there are people who very clearly recognize a known rager and try to get them to rage just to laugh at their rage (and so their viewers can laugh too). In other words, there are people who purposely try to increase that rate. Let that influence happen over several years to an impressionable young kid, and you turn him into a guy who has a nasty comment at the end of nearly every loss.

Personally I block almost every rager I encounter while streaming. SC2 practice is not the time to try to help a guy with a rage problem, but I do my best to not feed his rage. I play the best I can to win the game, which is the most respectful thing I can do, and I simply say gg and leave if I've lost. I think these simple policies would go a long way toward improving the community if everyone who was capable of doing them actually did them. I haven't been doing this for long, but I've done it pretty consistently for a little while now and I'm gonna keep doing it for as long as I can.

There are some hopeless cases but there are also always some people who could either get worse or get better. It is absolutely ignorant to think you don't have some influence over the people you interact with and you ought to take responsibility for that influence. And with regard to the hopeless cases, I definitely think there's something immoral about abusing them just because they're incapable of contributing anything positive. If you have to cut them off then just cut them off, but don't ever abuse them. It's not like the abuse is punishment in hopes of rehabilitation... it's just eye for an eye bullshit. Or if you can't help it, and it's your own weakness that you can't help but get revenge on people who have wronged you, then at least admit it's a weakness and don't act like you're righteous.

On June 16 2014 14:00 DinosaurJones wrote:
Someone in a position of prominence is more likely to be punished, because like it or not, they have to be held to a higher standard and walk on eggshells.

On June 16 2014 14:00 DinosaurJones wrote:
Someone in a position of prominence is more likely to be punished, because like it or not, they have to be held to a higher standard and walk on eggshells.

On June 16 2014 14:24 ninazerg wrote:


So,

N-word: not okay
C-word: okay because it's normal in Australia

On June 16 2014 14:24 ninazerg wrote:


So,

N-word: not okay
C-word: okay because it's normal in Australia