Its the rules of the game.
The winner gets the pot.
1 Like
By legitimate gameplay, I don’t have power over you, I just outplay you.
Nor is power a zero sum game, we can both have and give power, and there is power to do and create as well as power that prohibits or forces another.
Obviously, if you think any and all competition is resolved by one party having ‘power over another’
then beating anyone in any competitive sport or game would be bullying if the loser got upset about it.
I am sure professional athletes suffer ‘psychological harm’ when they lose a career defining game
I am sure their opponents, aware of these factors, try to take advantage of them on the court or at the board
I am sure that in many cases, these athletes have to play or lose their career, they can’t just walk away
But no one calls their opponents bullies- can you see why?
Now in this game, you can bully people, as in all mmos not just the pvp sandboxes- but actual bullying and harassment is bannable and if you report it and its severe then accounts get banned. Now they probably make more accounts but if they don’t change their behaviour they get banned again.
But you are not talking about someone making inappropriate comments in b4r or getting someone on coms and then humiliating them for hours after all financial and in game results have been achieved, then publicising the recording, you are talking about non-consensual pvp in general, or at least you were?
It’s a simple question and it has a simple, obvious answer. You can’t take things from people who have power. Duh.
Explain.
Buy a mining permit.
1 Like
I know the definition of the word.
I am asking you to explain your use of it in the context of your statement.
CCP actually encourage adverse behavior because the community believe’s it provides content and in a sense it does, destruction, the problem is some carry it too far, these folks are the ones of which you speak so for they sake of not including everyone who PVP’s into this I will make it CLEAR I AM NOT POINTING AT YOU, there are an array of folk here from many walks and one of those walks is mental illness, some are diagnosed and others are not (ones that lead a double life), some of those folks include people who are reclusive, they shy away from dealing with real people because they know they don’t behave in a way their cultures find normal.
These folk often get made fun of, put down, or otherwise thrown aside, in the past families often have to deal with them in different ways, today there’s the internet, here these folks are unleashed upon a world they find unfriendly, but here they are not seen as anything except the avatar until they act, some can behave with this new identity while others find their behavior gets them again pushed away, these become the rogue, these rogues wander around even more confused or angry and then it begins, they realize (or don’t), they have power, the power to get back at the world for everything they feel has been done to them, they may be mentally ill but they can still learn things, and one thing they learn is that other’s respond to them if they behave badly, so they learn to feed off of this attention, this gives them the only power they have every known.
So without a gigantic wall of texts I will cut it here “snip”
2 Likes
If I can take the money and you can’t take the money, which of us has the power (to take the money)?
Its in the rules of the game, which you submit to when you opt to participate in it.
There is no power differential, until the winner has been determined, and even then, its the power of the rules (to which you agreed) which grants the pot to the winner.
Who gets the reward is not determined by power of either player, it is determined by the rules.
2 Likes
The one with the power to take the money has power to take the money, because in this context power means only ‘able to do something’: it is power in the positive sense.
But they do not necessarily have any power over the other person who does not have the power to take the money, power in the negative sense-
in the poker example, they may not be competent to take the money, the other person may not be preventing them because they are more powerful,
indeed in eve pvp and poker pvp
it may come down to blind chance.
this does not mean that the other person is by necessity in a position of power over the other
such that they can take their money by force or prevent them from taking it, or coerce them into taking it on their behalf, or threaten them if they do take it
Now having more money can give a person power, but it is not the only source of power,
and in your example it is not the having of more money that confers power over another
that inaugurates the unequal dynamic, but the ability to take it, and if the ability to take money that another cannot worked in the way you describe, then no one with any power would ever lose money (manifestly and evidently false) and furthermore the act of taking money would by necessity innaugarate a power relationship that once again is evidently not the case:
I ‘have the power’ (in the way you use the word sometimes) to take money from my employer, I even have employment rights.
But my employer has more power ‘over’ me (power in the negative sense and another way you use the wordsometimes but its a different concept really), and they can seriously limit and curtail my actions and behaviour in ways that I cannot reciprocate.
Now going back to your initial point about moderates not realising non-consensual pvp is bullying,
what kind of power does the pvp player have in terms of their competency as you outlined above,
a) the power I have to take money from my employer (based on a contract or list of rules and allowed conduct)
b) the power my employer holds over me- to let me go or change the terms of my contract as long as they follow employment law (in other words they can do this when they want if they are clever)- to decide what clothes I wear at work- how I speak and in what tone- to have policies about my behaviour as a company representative on social media etc etc.
And ask yourself, has anyone ever told you they got taken to court for bullying their employer? I mean you can say nasty things to your boss but she can just sack you.
You sociopaths need need to get your fairy tale straight if you want anybody to play along. We can’t act in two plays at once.
If I was a sociopath, would you not agree that I would have a far more vicarious and intimate understanding of power than you?
Youve been brainwashed to see “power” as something it is not, even according to the definition you yourself linked as you misguidedly applied it in your statement.
For example:
-You can be the most powerful man in the world, and yet I can rob you of your dignity by shiptoasting about you.
-If you lose your wallet, where is your power when I pick it up?
Furthermore, whats wrong with power?
Are you so naive you think it can be universally equalized?
I haven’t looked into this, but my guess is there are loopholes in this. For example, your home phone might be on the registry but maybe not your cell. I often wonder if those EULA/TOS we often just click through contain some provision allowing them to engage in marketing, etc. Further, telemarketers might have simply relocated overseas where U.S. law does not apply.
Society does not make statements. People do. Stating that “society does…” is, IMO, a mistake. It reifies something that is far, far more complicated.
My point was I was objecting to Quintessen’s statement that if you block a person, report them, etc. for actual harassment and then move on, that you are somehow being controlled by that person is…well…nonsense. I used RL common place examples to demonstrate the silliness of the claim.
We do have recourse though. If you behave badly people can do things like shaming you or ostracizing you (indefinite you, BTW). These are powerful methods of curbing bad behavior.
Hey, stop bullying! 
Because you agreed to that possible outcome. So there is no “power” other than your agreement to abide by the rules of the game.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? To be clear you are talking about taking money from another person while playing poker. You have agreed, either explicitly or implicitly, to abide by the rules of the game. You have set up a condition, which if met, the other person can take your money.
I’m not a sociopath.
I have addressed your points and you have nothing to say it seems. We will see if you can address anything I have said in a meaningful manner but unfortunately this seems increasingly less likely, as you have now started labelling others and mischaracterising there posts to suit your own agenda.
If you want others to take you seriously and not assume you are trolling you have to address what we are actually saying to you.
It has nothing to do with snow white and Cinderella, but rather someone constructing an argument which hinges for its validity on their dual use of the same word to refer to two different concepts.
The person who is not good at space ship pvp may not have as much power to do what they want in a fight as someone who does, but this does not mean that the pvp expert has power OVER the other person such that your (specifically created to prove your point mind) definition of bullying would apply. Please address this, as anything else is just hot air.
Once again. The one with the power to take the money has the power to take the money, this does not mean they have power over the other person such that an unequal relationship by necessity develops that enable the person who takes the money to bully the one who doesn’t, as the person who takes the money may even have been given or had power co-opted to them by the person who does not have the power to take the money.
I, in your literal use of power in the positive sense, have the power to lift my arm, or walk to the fridge, this does not mean I ‘have power’ does it?
Everything you are saying results in all competitive games being a form of bullying, or if it doesn’t you have done nothing to persuade me otherwise.
In the professional sport example I gave, is the pro athlete the victim of bullying, or not?
In the employment example, please explain how an employee could bully their employer (without being sacked) unless they were blackmailing them or something and had gained power over them which trumped the employers power (in the negative sense)?
It is UTTERLY IRRELEVENT to your argument if the person taking the money has ‘the power to take the money’ it only matters FOR YOUR ARGUMENT if this power gives them power OVER the other such that a bullying relationship AS DEFINED BY YOU ABOVE can take place.
LOL. Can you can “rob someone of their dignity” by posting something about them? HERE???
You might meet the delusional aspect of common sociopath traits.
Yes.
5chars.
irony is a thing though
Assuming they have dignity in the first place.
Them giving you the power to take something you have no control over.
Failure
To expand on this, in relation to the notion of power.
There are various means to multiply power by use of such physical, or abstract, devices such as leverage, pulleys, gears etc. There is power in numbers, just as their is power in better equipment, better training/education or outright commitment.
Opportunity/surprise also multiplies the effect of power, as does unconventional use of power.
TLDR: Power is only as efficient as the means by which you apply it. History is rife with incident where nominally less powerful entities have overcome greater ones.
Antagonists notion of power as an absolute or constant held by some, or that every conflict is resolved only in the favor of the more powerful, just isnt true.