Are griefers needed online?

[Gindil]

Link [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/pl_column_griefing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))]

This isn?t because I believe griefing is wrong. I actually think a little online anarchy is a positive thing. Griefing demands critical thinking from the griefer and urges technological improvements in everyone else. Spammers have triggered the creation of smarter filtering and better moderating tools. Captcha text, which helps secure polls and website registrations, often aids in the digitization of books. (See a two-word Captcha? It?s part of a project to help identify words scanned in by Google.)

*Disclaimer*
*Keep it classy folks, no griefing here, mainly a discussion please*

Interesting way of looking at things. Never thought about the advantages to improvements by wanting to counteract the griefer, but it's a good topic of debate.

Should we accept griefers into societies, or always find ways to ban them?

 

[Alfador_VII]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Could the world survive without murderers?

I know there's a very long way between a griefer and axe-murderer, but the principle is the same. The online community would be a better place with no griefers.

 

[Riobux]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Could the world survive without murderers?

I know there's a very long way between a griefer and axe-murderer, but the principle is the same. The online community would be a better place with no griefers.

There are some philosophies of thought that would claim that criminals are not only beneficial for society, but are required for it to function.

Are griefers beneficial, maybe, are they going to exist for an extremely long time, if not forever, due to human nature, yes. After all, bad attention is still attention.

 

[thejackyl]

Are people who ruin the game for everyone but themselves needed online?

I don't think I need to answer that question, seeing how I worded it.

 

[FalloutJack]

Are griefers needed online?

[HEADING=1]NO.[/HEADING]

Thank you, good morning! NEXT!

 

[Vern5]

Why would you accept a griefer into anything but a fiery pit? Griefers are just players who have let the anonymity of the internet poison their minds, allowing their inner-jackass to roam the servers completely unfettered.

Griefers should be banned on sight. And then located IRL and beat with rocks.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Err, what?

So someone who makes 'your mum' jokes is, in your head, equivalent to a murderer? Wow. Just wow.

OT: Griefing has it's place in gaming. Yeah it can get annoying occasionally but most of the time you can see the funny side of it. Games are meant to be fun, and griefers remind us of that. Casual griefing (done for a laugh) is perfectly acceptable, it's only when it becomes malicious griefing (done specifically to ruin the enjoyment of others) that it becomes an issue. I'd rather be in a game lobby where people are there to kick back and have fun than be in a game lobby where everyone is taking the game waaay too seriously and throwing hissy-fits if their K/D spread is negatively affected.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Yes Goddamnit! They are but a small key to the essential balance that is the internet. If all greifers were to be put in prison camps the internet as we know it would cease to exist!

 

[Giest4life]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Err, what?

So someone who makes 'your mum' jokes is, in your head, equivalent to a murderer? Wow. Just wow.

OT: Griefing has it's place in gaming. Yeah it can get annoying occasionally but most of the time you can see the funny side of it. Games are meant to be fun, and griefers remind us of that. Casual griefing (done for a laugh) is perfectly acceptable, it's only when it becomes malicious griefing (done specifically to ruin the enjoyment of others) that it becomes an issue. I'd rather be in a game lobby where people are there to kick back and have fun than be in a game lobby where everyone is taking the game waaay too seriously and throwing hissy-fits if their K/D spread is negatively affected.

lol wut? Did you even read the full post (unless alfador edited)?

I know there's a very long way between a griefer and axe-murderer, but the principle is the same. The online community would be a better place with no griefers.

 

[Alfador_VII]

No I did't edit it. That first line of my comment was a little excessive though, I also have a habit of rambling on before getting to the point, sorry for seeming to imply what you thought.

So no death penalty needed for "Your Mom" jokes, but life imprisonment for "That's what she said!"

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Err, what?

So someone who makes 'your mum' jokes is, in your head, equivalent to a murderer? Wow. Just wow.

OT: Griefing has it's place in gaming. Yeah it can get annoying occasionally but most of the time you can see the funny side of it. Games are meant to be fun, and griefers remind us of that. Casual griefing (done for a laugh) is perfectly acceptable, it's only when it becomes malicious griefing (done specifically to ruin the enjoyment of others) that it becomes an issue. I'd rather be in a game lobby where people are there to kick back and have fun than be in a game lobby where everyone is taking the game waaay too seriously and throwing hissy-fits if their K/D spread is negatively affected.

lol wut? Did you even read the full post (unless alfador edited)?

I know there's a very long way between a griefer and axe-murderer, but the principle is the same. The online community would be a better place with no griefers.

Yes, I did read the full post. Admittedly Alfador says there's "a long way" between them, but that just doesn't hold true. They are in no way the same thing, or even slightly connected. Alfador reckoned that a totally harmless legal activity is in some way connected to a brutal and horrific illegal one.

 

[Giest4life]

I don't agree or disagree; I was just struck by--which seemed to me--a disingenuous attempt to prove a point.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

No I did't edit it. That first line of my comment was a little excessive though, I also have a habit of rambling on before getting to the point, sorry for seeming to imply what you thought.

So no death penalty needed for "Your Mom" jokes, but life imprisonment for "That's what she said!"

Also, twenty lashes in the town sqaure for "Nudge nudge, wink wink".

 

[Vern5]

Would it be unfair to assume that everyone who says that Griefers are necessary are Griefers themselves?

 

[zehydra]

It's a bit like saying, are criminals needed in society?

Could the world survive without murderers?

I know there's a very long way between a griefer and axe-murderer, but the principle is the same. The online community would be a better place with no griefers.

There are some philosophies of thought that would claim that criminals are not only beneficial for society, but are required for it to function.

Which doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying that in order for a system to be successful, you have to have some object that runs against the purpose of that system. It may help improve technology in the long run, but the long run isn't really what we're concerned with, so long as what we do doesn't harm the long run.

 

[Accountfailed]

Nope, here's why;

Though griefing can be considered a motivation for improvement/evolution/smart thinking, it's not viable to believe that it is needed for said thing to happen, the same way you can't believe that murder is needed for the development of bulletproof vests.

griefing is defined as the malevolent act of one person on another person over the internet, done so without reason or provocation. So you can't lump griefers with spammers and bot users etc etc...

Because griefing is simply random acts of dickishness and the job of 'motivating' improvement on internet security(captcha's what have you) is already mostly headed by spammers and bots there is no need, whatsoever for griefing. It is never justified, and it is never correct, it's simply people being assholes to make themselves feel big and then masking it as "lol cuz itz funny to do it lol", that's bully logic right there.

Also, just as a side, anarchy DOES NOT MEAN destruction/chaos/madness/being a **** because FUCK YEAH ANARCHY. Anarchy translates directly from greek as "without rule/ruler" meaning lawlessness, or lack of moderation/administration, trying to justify griefing by saying "a little online anarchy is a good thing" is like saying stabbing someone is OK because "well there aren't any police around to stop me! "

question. fucking. answered.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

No.
Unless it's a game that's actually based around griefing.

 

[Cheesus333]

There are some philosophies of thought that would claim that criminals are not only beneficial for society, but are required for it to function.

Philosophies of thought that I would imagine are possessed by people who have never been a vitcim of crime and/or commit it themselves.

I'm quite intrigued though, how exactly would society be worse without criminals?

 

[kayisking]

Link [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/pl_column_griefing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))]

This isn?t because I believe griefing is wrong. I actually think a little online anarchy is a positive thing. Griefing demands critical thinking from the griefer and urges technological improvements in everyone else. Spammers have triggered the creation of smarter filtering and better moderating tools. Captcha text, which helps secure polls and website registrations, often aids in the digitization of books. (See a two-word Captcha? It?s part of a project to help identify words scanned in by Google.)

*Disclaimer*
*Keep it classy folks, no griefing here, mainly a discussion please*

Interesting way of looking at things. Never thought about the advantages to improvements by wanting to counteract the griefer, but it's a good topic of debate.

Should we accept griefers into societies, or always find ways to ban them?

Of course not, if there were no spammers there would be no need for filters either.

 

[thelonewolf266]

Link [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/pl_column_griefing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))]

This isn?t because I believe griefing is wrong. I actually think a little online anarchy is a positive thing. Griefing demands critical thinking from the griefer and urges technological improvements in everyone else. Spammers have triggered the creation of smarter filtering and better moderating tools. Captcha text, which helps secure polls and website registrations, often aids in the digitization of books. (See a two-word Captcha? It?s part of a project to help identify words scanned in by Google.)

*Disclaimer*
*Keep it classy folks, no griefing here, mainly a discussion please*

Interesting way of looking at things. Never thought about the advantages to improvements by wanting to counteract the griefer, but it's a good topic of debate.

Should we accept griefers into societies, or always find ways to ban them?

Of course not, if there were no spammers there would be no need for filters either.

Look at the post you quoted it goes on to say that that filter technology is being used to help improve other technology that isn't to do with preventing spammers but is used for identifying word typed into google.