Editor's Note: The Dick Tax
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
Good article.
Gabe's plan (or abstract musings, as they are at this point I hope) sounds horribly horribly flawed.
There's another human factor you forgot to mention Russ:
That a human will be the one deciding who is "good" and who is
"bad." (or at the very least, a human will be the one programming a system to decide that).
A Valve-employed Santa Clause if you will. But instead of some omniscient holiday spirit, they are a flawed human.
I don't trust humans to make decisions that black and white and that sweeping.
Gabe's plan (or abstract musings, as they are at this point I hope) sounds horribly horribly flawed.
There's another human factor you forgot to mention Russ:
That a human will be the one deciding who is "good" and who is
"bad." (or at the very least, a human will be the one programming a system to decide that).
A Valve-employed Santa Clause if you will. But instead of some omniscient holiday spirit, they are a flawed human.
I don't trust humans to make decisions that black and white and that sweeping.
It's yet another instance of an attempt to replace the need for judgment with some sort of automatic system that does your judging *for* you. If you don't want to play with dicks, you don't have to. You boot them from your parties and don't join groups that contain the dicks. But that requires some judgment and perhaps occasional episodes of getting burned. (It also requires people who have enough sense to say, huh, one bad experience with multiplayer doesn't mean that the ENTIRE GAME is populated by nothing but dicks.)
I run across this mentality a lot on DDO, as well. People complain constantly about PUGs. Yeah, there are some really lousy players out there who are a pain to deal with, but something like 85% of the PUGS I've been in got the quest done in the end. Some of them were super-fantastic powerhouses of destruction who got me more XP in an hour than I usually get in a day. I usually get more questing done if I PUG than if I just solo. When I'm soloing, I'm inclined to dick around, visit vendors, refresh my long-term buffs more often than is necessary, wander off bored, etc. etc. etc. When there are people waiting on me, I get stuff done.
I run across this mentality a lot on DDO, as well. People complain constantly about PUGs. Yeah, there are some really lousy players out there who are a pain to deal with, but something like 85% of the PUGS I've been in got the quest done in the end. Some of them were super-fantastic powerhouses of destruction who got me more XP in an hour than I usually get in a day. I usually get more questing done if I PUG than if I just solo. When I'm soloing, I'm inclined to dick around, visit vendors, refresh my long-term buffs more often than is necessary, wander off bored, etc. etc. etc. When there are people waiting on me, I get stuff done.
Not to mention what happens when one dick who has a lot of dick friends decides to group up and actively down-vote anyone who ever called them out for being a dick. I've seen this happen with rating systems all the time. If there really are *so many* dicks out there being a problem, how is a majority-based system going to have any effect? You'll have nice people getting down-voted because they police their server and kick off the dicks. Turds with an axe to grind rule democracies.beema said:
A more organic system works better, where the ratings don't directly rate users, but you can get a historical snapshot of their activity. This is a system which *assists* judgment, it doesn't seek to *replace* it. Instead of, say, just seeing a single number that represents an aggregation of all the up and down votes on a particular player, what if you instead got to see their "kicked" record? What if this cross-referenced with your "favorite servers" list (if you had such a thing, I don't know the current setup, but it would make sense to let you mark everything and anything in the game you like, for future reference). So if you get a new player you don't know wanting to join your server, you can look at their record and see, huh, they've been kicked dozens of times from the servers you like the most. Maybe not worth letting them join.
It takes away their anonymity, and not by releasing their "real identity". Yeah, sure, some people who are determined to be dicks will just go out and make a new identity to erase their history, but this is a much smaller group. Plus, it cuts both ways--they can't get on THEIR favorite servers that way because they're a "fucking noob".
People are more likely to be douches because there are no consequences. Valve would introduce consequence.
Communities online are far smaller than their potential source. A lot of those people are nice. Nice communities (which tend to be more profitable for everyone) have nice people in them. So if you dissuade the bad people from joining them they remain a nice community. What's more, by the definition of the restriction, the bad people joining them negatively affects the worth of the community and thus if you remove them, has a positive effect on the community.
What's more if the bad people pay more and join anyway, the status quo is the same, except that the nice people pay less. As you said "people don't change" so the bad people won't get worse (unless you want to propose that you're reasoning wasn't logically cohesive
)
I feel your argument is invalid
Communities online are far smaller than their potential source. A lot of those people are nice. Nice communities (which tend to be more profitable for everyone) have nice people in them. So if you dissuade the bad people from joining them they remain a nice community. What's more, by the definition of the restriction, the bad people joining them negatively affects the worth of the community and thus if you remove them, has a positive effect on the community.
What's more if the bad people pay more and join anyway, the status quo is the same, except that the nice people pay less. As you said "people don't change" so the bad people won't get worse (unless you want to propose that you're reasoning wasn't logically cohesive
)I feel your argument is invalid
Heh.oldmanscene24 said:
I was going to dismiss the article as pretentious waffle, but a valid point was raised about people paying the dick tax being allowed to be dicks.
I'm sure someone else has said this already, but I think this article is looking at the situation from the wrong angle. The article seems to assume that Gabe wants to create some ideal environment where everyone is nice, but if you look at his statement that just isn't the case. I think Gabe would like to implement this system counting on two facts. 1) people who are rude online will not stop being rude despite incentives, and 2) they will continue playing the games despite the increased cost. Gabe stated he's looking to this as a source of revenue.
The real flaw in this plan is not point 1, but point 2. If Valve starts charging more if a player is a dick online, that player is just going to look for a different service that offers the normal, flat rate, and continue being a dick there with no additional charge. I think this article is looking at this from the wrong point of view.
The real flaw in this plan is not point 1, but point 2. If Valve starts charging more if a player is a dick online, that player is just going to look for a different service that offers the normal, flat rate, and continue being a dick there with no additional charge. I think this article is looking at this from the wrong point of view.
The article raised good points. People don't change, or if they do change it's for their own reasons.
What disturbs me is that when discussing models for sweeping societal change there are only really two camps represented: those who think people could be better and those who think people will never change because that is their nature. We never hear from the people who think that society would be better if there were no people (yes, I understand there would be no society in such a case).
After all, no one can be a dick if no one is around. And the "good" people can never do enough good to justify their own existence.
IF Valve were to move forward with their plan, then I put forward that they just hand the reins of their new revenue model over to Skynet. Because there's no better deterrent from being a dick than a nuke aimed straight at your house.
What disturbs me is that when discussing models for sweeping societal change there are only really two camps represented: those who think people could be better and those who think people will never change because that is their nature. We never hear from the people who think that society would be better if there were no people (yes, I understand there would be no society in such a case).
After all, no one can be a dick if no one is around. And the "good" people can never do enough good to justify their own existence.
IF Valve were to move forward with their plan, then I put forward that they just hand the reins of their new revenue model over to Skynet. Because there's no better deterrent from being a dick than a nuke aimed straight at your house.
Businesses are small tyrannies that we are free to participate in or leave alone. From an economic perspective, I think this is a fascinating experiment. I'm wondering if this will relate to some sort of thumbs-up or thumbs-down tact. The problem with that would be that said dickish people will thumb everyone and everything down in order to get them to pay more. Anyhow, this gets down to a company's desire to make their online presence as attractive as possible with the least possible effort. Particularly investigating individuals is both invasive (which makes the site less attractive) and expensive.
While gaming is certainly not known for it's civility in online interactions, it's actually not as bad as many things on the internet. If you read the comments section on a news article on a website like cbs or cnn, you get a constant stream of complete hatred being spouted. It's almost sickening. It's funny because the directions taken in politics in the US today have so little effect on our lives.
I find the vitriol and cheating associated with certain gaming sites particularly surprising. If you look at how supportive the gaming culture is, it is actually really isolated. I mean, there are whole multiple websites dedicated to letting you freely download user made additions to video games. People put up highly accurate faqs and support pages all the time. In fact, it's really only on a small subset of webpages and internet based communities where I see people acting "dickish".
I guess that's just a stream of random thoughts.
While gaming is certainly not known for it's civility in online interactions, it's actually not as bad as many things on the internet. If you read the comments section on a news article on a website like cbs or cnn, you get a constant stream of complete hatred being spouted. It's almost sickening. It's funny because the directions taken in politics in the US today have so little effect on our lives.
I find the vitriol and cheating associated with certain gaming sites particularly surprising. If you look at how supportive the gaming culture is, it is actually really isolated. I mean, there are whole multiple websites dedicated to letting you freely download user made additions to video games. People put up highly accurate faqs and support pages all the time. In fact, it's really only on a small subset of webpages and internet based communities where I see people acting "dickish".
I guess that's just a stream of random thoughts.
You know, I kind of agree with this.MaxPowers666 said:
Also, on the topic of this week's theme, I'm kind of sad there isn't a column illustrated with Mother Thereza eating a baby [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4-BioShock].
Also your homework for today is to post 'Mother Thereza eating a baby', in context, somewhere on the net, or to slip it into conversation. Get to it.
If a community treats you poorly stating you deserve it because your bad and you can:BrotherRool said:People are more likely to be douches because there are no consequences. Valve would introduce consequence.
Communities online are far smaller than their potential source. A lot of those people are nice. Nice communities (which tend to be more profitable for everyone) have nice people in them. So if you dissuade the bad people from joining them they remain a nice community. What's more, by the definition of the restriction, the bad people joining them negatively affects the worth of the community and thus if you remove them, has a positive effect on the community.
What's more if the bad people pay more and join anyway, the status quo is the same, except that the nice people pay less. As you said "people don't change" so the bad people won't get worse (unless you want to propose that you're reasoning wasn't logically cohesive
I feel your argument is invalid
A) Rise to the challenge and prove them wrong (hard to do)
B) Prove them right and troll them back (revenge)
Basically its going to have to be a delicate system. If the game tells someone they are bad they are in fact likely to react. People do change the face they show someone. If you charge a dick more to be in your community then a good person don't be surprised if they act like they own the place.
Right as isn't that the issue. Maybe he really want advice but he doesn't want some dude in a random to tell him whats what. You could come off as a dick in the first IM and he closes his think hole after that. There will always be miscommunications out there.warcraft4life said:PROBLEM:
I play WOW (a bit too much D
When I'm on my rogue and I get a holy priest in healing a dungeon, I WILL inspect them - there spec is usually wrong, and there rotation horrid (still getting gear and therefore in normals) when I try and help them by telling them there rotation is wrong or their spec has points wasted I get screamed at.. Even after I tell them I have my own priest ;-;
So - even though I start with good intentions so that this healer will heal many more groups efficiently and not drag a team behind, I get called an ignorant ass hole and ignored. See how this problem could come up with this "dick tax"?
"The industry has this broken model, which is one price for everyone," says Newell. "That's actually a bug, and it's something that we want to solve through our philosophy."
No, Gabe, you morbidly obese orca with legs. Just no.
Remove the assholes and after a time the definition will change to include those who are just mildly annoying or voice an opinion that doesn't jive with the general consensus. A true elitist's environment, filled with what will essentially be elitist pricks. Never mind the whole "charge those we deem to be assholes more" thing, this is just a piss poor idea.
No, Gabe, you morbidly obese orca with legs. Just no.
Remove the assholes and after a time the definition will change to include those who are just mildly annoying or voice an opinion that doesn't jive with the general consensus. A true elitist's environment, filled with what will essentially be elitist pricks. Never mind the whole "charge those we deem to be assholes more" thing, this is just a piss poor idea.
For the sake of argument, more like a restaurant that charges you more if you have a history of pissing off other costumers and causing a scene.Chronologist said:
Pull your head out of your arse Gabe. All you're going to do is piss off at least half of your customer base with this moronic idea that one price for everyone is broken.
"Oh noes, somebody save me from the dickish players because I'm too fucking stupid to just join another game or mute them."
I was agreeing with you but you proved my point. It easy to mistype/misinterpret something. Why should you have to pay more for that?warcraft4life said:But, why should I have to lose out on stuff (or pay more) because people don't want to listen to actual advice? I usually open with; "you've got a few wasted points in your spec, armoury [my priests name] for a better holy spec"mcnally86 said:Right as isn't that the issue. Maybe he really want advice but he doesn't want some dude in a random to tell him whats what. You could come off as a dick in the first IM and he closes his think hole after that. There will always be miscommunications out there.warcraft4life said:PROBLEM:
I play WOW (a bit too much D
When I'm on my rogue and I get a holy priest in healing a dungeon, I WILL inspect them - there spec is usually wrong, and there rotation horrid (still getting gear and therefore in normals) when I try and help them by telling them there rotation is wrong or their spec has points wasted I get screamed at.. Even after I tell them I have my own priest ;-;
So - even though I start with good intentions so that this healer will heal many more groups efficiently and not drag a team behind, I get called an ignorant ass hole and ignored. See how this problem could come up with this "dick tax"?
FFS you can find similar specs via. google ;-;
Well expressed, but I would have approached it a bit differantly.
To be honest I don't think there are that many people who are just outright dicks. It comes down to differances in point of view, philsophy, and well.. existance. Two people can hate each other for perfectly valid and irresolvable reasons.
The problem with this system is that it works under the assumption that there is a litmus test to who the good people and the bad people are. In the end there isn't one, all that exists is of course Gabe's own opinion as to what's positive and negative, and his system then comes down to him saying "I want to run STEAM like my own personal empire, reward those I like, and torment those I don't", which makes him just another tyrant, there is no great plan involved here, just base egomania for him looking for a way of discarding any kind of neutrality and professionalism in the guise of a social experiment.
To take a big issue for example. Like it or not the population is pretty much divided 50-50 on issues like homosexuality, which actually consists of a number of related but seperate issues, but the point isn't the arguement itself, but merely that it exists. Let's say Gabe decides that anyone who is "Homophobic" by saying they don't like gays or whatever, is by definition going in the bad people bin. The term "Homophobic" in of itself a loaded term designed to trivialize the other side, by implying they are in some way flawed or in fear of what they don't like, and thus inherantly breeds conflict and tends to prevent serious discourse of the subject when used, leading to the issue continue to endure... and well it isn't about the arguement. The point is that Gabe is making a personal jugement on who is a dick if he was to do that. He's a tyrant, charging people extra money, to play games, because he doesn't like their politics, forget that he pretty much just set himself in opposition to what is honestly about 50% of the population right there. A guy who doesn't like gays might be a great guy, get along with just about everyone, and be a positive influance on the games, but he's in the dick column, because Gabe put him there.
The point being, that such a system cannot be used unless there is some fairly impartial way of administrating it, and human nature being what it is, there isn't one. It all comes down to establishing a cult of personality which winds up having nothing to do with the games themselves or what is good for the community.
It's sort of like how a guy from India and a guy from Pakistan could go at it for hours about their cultural conflict, who wronged who, who is right and who is wrong, those god or gods can beat whom up, and whatever else. They both think themselves to be right, and the other guy to be wrong.
Neutrality, or rather I should say professionalism, evolved in business specifically to avoid these kinds of issues. Especially seeing if Gabe DOES do something like this, he's probably going to cut his business down substantially as few people are going to pay extra for a product from him, when they can buy it froma competitor that maintains neutrality for less. He's also liable to get himself sued back to the stone age, since if he started charging people extra money to use programs they already own on STEAM, well I don't think that will end well for him.
To be honest I don't think there are that many people who are just outright dicks. It comes down to differances in point of view, philsophy, and well.. existance. Two people can hate each other for perfectly valid and irresolvable reasons.
The problem with this system is that it works under the assumption that there is a litmus test to who the good people and the bad people are. In the end there isn't one, all that exists is of course Gabe's own opinion as to what's positive and negative, and his system then comes down to him saying "I want to run STEAM like my own personal empire, reward those I like, and torment those I don't", which makes him just another tyrant, there is no great plan involved here, just base egomania for him looking for a way of discarding any kind of neutrality and professionalism in the guise of a social experiment.
To take a big issue for example. Like it or not the population is pretty much divided 50-50 on issues like homosexuality, which actually consists of a number of related but seperate issues, but the point isn't the arguement itself, but merely that it exists. Let's say Gabe decides that anyone who is "Homophobic" by saying they don't like gays or whatever, is by definition going in the bad people bin. The term "Homophobic" in of itself a loaded term designed to trivialize the other side, by implying they are in some way flawed or in fear of what they don't like, and thus inherantly breeds conflict and tends to prevent serious discourse of the subject when used, leading to the issue continue to endure... and well it isn't about the arguement. The point is that Gabe is making a personal jugement on who is a dick if he was to do that. He's a tyrant, charging people extra money, to play games, because he doesn't like their politics, forget that he pretty much just set himself in opposition to what is honestly about 50% of the population right there. A guy who doesn't like gays might be a great guy, get along with just about everyone, and be a positive influance on the games, but he's in the dick column, because Gabe put him there.
The point being, that such a system cannot be used unless there is some fairly impartial way of administrating it, and human nature being what it is, there isn't one. It all comes down to establishing a cult of personality which winds up having nothing to do with the games themselves or what is good for the community.
It's sort of like how a guy from India and a guy from Pakistan could go at it for hours about their cultural conflict, who wronged who, who is right and who is wrong, those god or gods can beat whom up, and whatever else. They both think themselves to be right, and the other guy to be wrong.
Neutrality, or rather I should say professionalism, evolved in business specifically to avoid these kinds of issues. Especially seeing if Gabe DOES do something like this, he's probably going to cut his business down substantially as few people are going to pay extra for a product from him, when they can buy it froma competitor that maintains neutrality for less. He's also liable to get himself sued back to the stone age, since if he started charging people extra money to use programs they already own on STEAM, well I don't think that will end well for him.