Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

EVE Online: The End of The Mittani Era

145791012

Comments

  • SkexRelboreSkexRelbore Austin, TXPosts: 30Member

    Originally posted by Quesa

    Originally posted by colddog04

    I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.

     

    The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.

    True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on.  There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it.  His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.


     

    What temper tantrum? The only communications I've seen from the Mittani on this issue have  been to admit his own error take responsibility for it and take actions to compensate the offended party. 

     

     

  • EcocesEcoces Chicago, ILPosts: 879Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    Originally posted by Ecoces



    or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....

    if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem

    going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.

     

    so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.

     

    what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.

     

    i have to ask ... are you drunk?

    Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.

    They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.

    he doesn't have a right to threaten Mittiani thats why i already stated if the guy said im going go kill myself because of Mittanis actions and does so i would not blame MIttani in the least (i have said this many many times). Unfortunately there is more to the story and it didn't end there

    All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it.  You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.

    what? lol the medium of course matters going to a public forum and telling people they should try to get this guy to commit suicide IS WRONG

    So what are the facts agian?

    Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says?  Correct?

    Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?

    Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.

      well then you are as big a douchebag as Mittani is simple as that, fact is I wouldn't give a crap if Mittani came out and told all about their scams and crap. but when you give the guys ingame name out and basically tell the audience that they should try and see if they can get him to kill himself. thats BS and over the line.

     

  • JetrpgJetrpg Whitehouse, OHPosts: 2,376Member

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Originally posted by RefMinor

    It's funny how even the Mittani admits what he did was wrong and yet people here keep trying to justify it, i wonder why they just dont let the story die rather than endlessly post about how a man who admitted he did something wrong did nothing wrong.

    I'm not seeing the 'nothing wrong'.

    What is upsetting is not actually getting the story right by the various news sites as PER THIS ARTICLE.

    You did read the article right? :(

    i guess wrong is a gerneric term.

    Its it nice, no, tastless yes. Moral no. Evil, nope. Wrong? jundgement call. He felt bad about it, for him he feels its not acceptable behavior, thats fine (well after the hounds are after you you start diaphoresis) . To me i find no logical reason to judge him as far has native/human rights he hasn't violated any and is in the moral right there.

     

    Ecoes, refer to post 150 , your narative contains no understanding of context or subtext.

    Alex isn't saying get this guy to kill himself, he is saying make this guy pay for using a mental health issue as a threat to save his ship or for being a bixxh. Thats context and subtext, like i could say i love bananas in the store and that would be fine. If i say it in a gym's male shower room it might mean something different.

    But alex is goona (dasa a pun) say he is sorry, the manufactured rage everyone is so afraid of wins, he will step lightly on the issue, just like everyone else.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,590Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by SkexRelbore



    Originally posted by Quesa






    Originally posted by colddog04





    I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.

     

    The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.

    True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on.  There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it.  His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.






     

    What temper tantrum? The only communications I've seen from the Mittani on this issue have  been to admit his own error take responsibility for it and take actions to compensate the offended party. 

     

     

    I believe they are reffering to this message

    http://soundcloud.com/cptunderpants/state-of-the-goonion-march

    in one breath he admits his terrible mistake, and in the next he is blaming everyone for his getting a ban.

    Beyond that, he plans to rally his entire alliance to Storm Jita to prove a point to mke himself some White Knight returning in triumph after having been wronged. 

    When really, all he's doing is intentionally disrupting everyone in the game's experience because he's upset.

    That's a Temper Tantrum.

  • EcocesEcoces Chicago, ILPosts: 879Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    Originally posted by RefMinor


    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by Ecoces



    or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....

    if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem

    going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.

     

    so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.

     

    what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.

     

    i have to ask ... are you drunk?

    Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.

    They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.

    All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it.  You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.

    To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).

    Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.

    So what are the facts agian?

    Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says?  Correct?

    Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?

    Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.

     

    If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?

    All of it , or what?

    Why do you feel that way?

    Situation 1, "If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship." -  and someone kills themself , thats ok ?

    thats not your problem

    Situation 2  "If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong." and if they kill themself , thats not ok?

    giving the guys ingame name and telling the audience that they should try to get him to kill himself makes you a douchebag and is a problem

    You have to see the hypocrisy here. Its ok to kill the ship and have them kill themself, but not ok to encourage others to kill the ship and have them kill THEMSELF (caps just so you get the point of who is killing who).

    I can't believe you can't see the difference between the two. hopefully those two sentences above in yellow you will read REAL slow and actually comprehend them ... doubt it but I will keep trying

     

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member

    Originally posted by RefMinor

    Originally posted by Zaltark

    Eve breeds cyber bullies. Have yal played the game? All you do is gank unknown people.

     

    The game is the game, when you confuse it with life you have a problem.

     

    It's a game that costs money, alot of money if you convert PLEX to ISK and then lose it when you get your stuff blown up. So I would not say that this game is a simple video game, it is more like online poker and casino with lots of money and time involved.

  • JetrpgJetrpg Whitehouse, OHPosts: 2,376Member

    Originally posted by Ecoces

    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by RefMinor


    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by Ecoces



    or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....

    if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem

    going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.

     

    so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.

     

    what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.

     

    i have to ask ... are you drunk?

    Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.

    They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.

    All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it.  You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.

    To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).

    Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.

    So what are the facts agian?

    Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says?  Correct?

    Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?

    Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.

     

    If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?

    All of it , or what?

    Why do you feel that way?

    Situation 1, "If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship." -  and someone kills themself , thats ok ?

    thats not your problem

    Situation 2  "If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong." and if they kill themself , thats not ok?

    giving the guys ingame name and telling the audience that they should try to get him to kill himself makes you a douchebag and is a problem

    You have to see the hypocrisy here. Its ok to kill the ship and have them kill themself, but not ok to encourage others to kill the ship and have them kill THEMSELF (caps just so you get the point of who is killing who).

    I can't believe you can't see the difference between the two. hopefully those two sentences above in yellow you will read REAL slow and actually comprehend them ... doubt it but I will keep trying

     

    Well theres no point in contiuing,  One day you'll learn that killing some one and hiring someone to kill them the same thing. Both actions were equal, one of them just bothers some moral code you learned somewhere, which is fine, but not logical or fair;   until then peace.

    Also your still missing the intent, context and subtext my friend.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine

  • iamflymoloiamflymolo Hampton, TNPosts: 152Member

    I find it a little disturbing and a lot depressing how many people completely miss the point. The Mittani called for people to harrass this character in game so brutally that he would ultimately decide to kill himself in real life. People who would in any way defend the Mittani are essentially placing a higher priority on a game than they are on the life of another human being. The Mittani himself continues to be guilty of this; I believe his appologies are sincere, but he's appologizing for the wrong thing. His appology applies to his being too drunk to hold his tongue. In fact, his being drunk has nothing to do with the issue at hand. As soon as he understands that what he did to this individual is far worse then what people have done by calling him a cyber-bully, I think he may lay off the gaming media a bit. Whether or not he'll ever get it is debatable. There's no reason to think he will when you notice how many gamers and game writers don't get it either.

    To say that all of this is all the result of an attempt to dethrone The Mittani is appalling, frankly. I had never before had anything other than admiration for him - not that I've played EVE much, but I've followed it and followed him and watched several videos with him online.

    Life is valuable. There are times when we need to be able to take ourselves out of our fantasy characters long enough to assess a situation from a human perspective. Had The Mittani done this, had he taken a moment to say, "here is a man who might be in trouble," this slide would never have been made and we wouldn't be talking about it. If The Mittani actually did do this and made that slide anyway, then "cyber-bully" is the kindest title that could be bestowed on him.

  • goatfightgoatfight Roslyn, WAPosts: 7Member

    This article is shameful. Watching the broadcast live I felt utterly embarrased for mittani. Encouraging others to rag on someone who is mentally ill is NOT acceptable in ANY way. His actions deserve consequence -and right now the only consequence he is receiving is the label 'cyber bully' when searching for his name and the stripping of a video game title. He will get a lot more than that, and rightfully so.

    I don't think it is very easy for people to understand what life lives like for people in deep depression or who are near suicidal unless they've had a loved one experience it. Intolerance is ignorance,  that kid sure as hell put his ignorance in the spotlight for thousands of people. The fact that he decidedly retold this story (with a look of glee in his face at the time, remember) is a clear insight to his state of being.





    He is an unenlightened human being, who repeatedly chose to remain that way. Disgusting. Shame on you for defending his actions and comdemning the community who sought to shed light on his disgusting attitude.



     

  • EcocesEcoces Chicago, ILPosts: 879Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    Originally posted by Ecoces


    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by RefMinor


    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by Ecoces



    or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....

    if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem

    going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.

     

    so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.

     

    what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.

     

    i have to ask ... are you drunk?

    Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.

    They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.

    All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it.  You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.

    To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).

    Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.

    So what are the facts agian?

    Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says?  Correct?

    Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?

    Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.

     

    If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?

    All of it , or what?

    Why do you feel that way?

    Situation 1, "If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship." -  and someone kills themself , thats ok ?

    thats not your problem

    Situation 2  "If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong." and if they kill themself , thats not ok?

    giving the guys ingame name and telling the audience that they should try to get him to kill himself makes you a douchebag and is a problem

    You have to see the hypocrisy here. Its ok to kill the ship and have them kill themself, but not ok to encourage others to kill the ship and have them kill THEMSELF (caps just so you get the point of who is killing who).

    I can't believe you can't see the difference between the two. hopefully those two sentences above in yellow you will read REAL slow and actually comprehend them ... doubt it but I will keep trying

     

    Well theres no point in contiuing,  One day you'll learn that killing some one and hiring someone to kill them the same thing. Both actions were equal, one of them just bothers some moral code you learned somewhere, which is fine, but not logical or fair;   until then peace.

    Also your still missing the intent, context and subtext my friend.

    LOL what does that even have to do with anything? more of your awesome analogies? just stop.

    someone tells you hes going to kill himself in game if you destory his ship ... thats on them not you.

    you going to a public forum and telling others "hey lets try to get this guy to kill himself ... here is his ingame name" you have made a problem for yourself. they are not equal in the least bit you thinking so shows you have some sort of f'ed up view on reality.

  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNPosts: 2,150Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

     

    I think the ultimate problem is that this man Alex Gianturco, never had an opprtunity in life to properly socialize as a human being with fellow human beings.

    This behavior is alarming from a high school sophomore but not totally unexpected. When this behavior originates from a 33 year old adult, I find myself at a loss for words.

    I have to agree.

     

  • SkexRelboreSkexRelbore Austin, TXPosts: 30Member

    Originally posted by GeezerGamer



     

     

    I believe they are reffering to this message

    http://soundcloud.com/cptunderpants/state-of-the-goonion-march

    in one breath he admits his terrible mistake, and in the next he is blaming everyone for his getting a ban.

    Beyond that, he plans to rally his entire alliance to Storm Jita to prove a point to mke himself some White Knight returning in triumph after having been wronged. 

    When really, all he's doing is intentionally disrupting everyone in the game's experience because he's upset.

    That's a Temper Tantrum.


     

    LOL you are clueless,

    Noting that there were factors that may have affected the severity of the reaction to his screw up is not the same as blaming everyone else for his actions. The ban is pretty much immaterial since he doesn't actually log into the game anyway nor does he need to in order to run the swarm or the coalition. Hell they could perma ban him and the only thing it would do would be to stop him from being able to troll the EVE-O forums. 

    The Jita interdiction was planned long before any of this happened, the only thing that changed was the "justification", originally it was to be a celebration of 10k votes in the CSM election now it's going to be a celebration of the Space King's return from exile.  It's just Goons being Goons and providing an ungrateful player base with content to enrich their gaming experience. 

     

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,590Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by SkexRelbore



    Originally posted by GeezerGamer












     





     

    I believe they are reffering to this message

    http://soundcloud.com/cptunderpants/state-of-the-goonion-march

    in one breath he admits his terrible mistake, and in the next he is blaming everyone for his getting a ban.

    Beyond that, he plans to rally his entire alliance to Storm Jita to prove a point to mke himself some White Knight returning in triumph after having been wronged. 

    When really, all he's doing is intentionally disrupting everyone in the game's experience because he's upset.

    That's a Temper Tantrum.






     

    LOL you are clueless,

    Noting that there were factors that may have affected the severity of the reaction to his screw up is not the same as blaming everyone else for his actions. The ban is pretty much immaterial since he doesn't actually log into the game anyway nor does he need to in order to run the swarm or the coalition. Hell they could perma ban him and the only thing it would do would be to stop him from being able to troll the EVE-O forums. 

    The Jita interdiction was planned long before any of this happened, the only thing that changed was the "justification", originally it was to be a celebration of 10k votes in the CSM election now it's going to be a celebration of the Space King's return from exile.  It's just Goons being Goons and providing an ungrateful player base with content to enrich their gaming experience. 

     

     

    This is a perfect example that is at the heart of this thread.

    When did we as a society degrade ourselves to the point where this type of interactive behavior become an acceptable form of communication?

     

     

  • DalanoDalano missoula, MTPosts: 116Member

    Man, this site has really gone downhill. Staff writer or no, this didactic, pedantic piece of crap-ola should never have been published here. This is D-grade blog rubbish at its worst.

    /logout

    Playing: FFXIV, EVE

  • QuesaQuesa Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,246Member

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Originally posted by Quesa


    Originally posted by colddog04

    I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.

     

    The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.

    True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on.  There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it.  His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.

    Considering the fact the news reports outright lied about the things he apparently did, I'd be mad too.

    If a news report came up to say 'JPNZ called John Smith to do bad thing' when the truth was 'JPNZ called Batman do bad thing', wouldn't I be upset?

    He did something that was deemed not socially acceptable and got punished for it.  Considering the current climate on cyber-bullying, as ridiculous as it is, he did something that he shouldn't have done.  He got punished for it, quite lightly if you ask me - again considering the current climate.  People have to take responsibility for their actions, which the latest generation seems alergic to.

    As a grown up, we take our lumps and keep moving but the immaturaty of his SOTG address just confirms what people are saying about him, he does himself no favors.  If he thinks shutting down Jita is going to get him anything possitive, he's wrong (highly doubt that's what he's going for).  If he gets banned from the game for organizing an event that downs the node, he only has himself to blame.

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member

    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    Originally posted by SkexRelbore




    Originally posted by GeezerGamer












     





     

    I believe they are reffering to this message

    http://soundcloud.com/cptunderpants/state-of-the-goonion-march

    in one breath he admits his terrible mistake, and in the next he is blaming everyone for his getting a ban.

    Beyond that, he plans to rally his entire alliance to Storm Jita to prove a point to mke himself some White Knight returning in triumph after having been wronged. 

    When really, all he's doing is intentionally disrupting everyone in the game's experience because he's upset.

    That's a Temper Tantrum.






     

    LOL you are clueless,

    Noting that there were factors that may have affected the severity of the reaction to his screw up is not the same as blaming everyone else for his actions. The ban is pretty much immaterial since he doesn't actually log into the game anyway nor does he need to in order to run the swarm or the coalition. Hell they could perma ban him and the only thing it would do would be to stop him from being able to troll the EVE-O forums. 

    The Jita interdiction was planned long before any of this happened, the only thing that changed was the "justification", originally it was to be a celebration of 10k votes in the CSM election now it's going to be a celebration of the Space King's return from exile.  It's just Goons being Goons and providing an ungrateful player base with content to enrich their gaming experience. 

     

     

    This is a perfect example that is at the heart of this thread.

    When did we as a society degrade ourselves to the point where this type of interactive behavior become an acceptable form of communication?

     

     

    Since people felt the need to hero worship clowns.

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • TorqiaTorqia CopenhagenPosts: 73Member

    I personaly think the author has done a mess of an article trying to excuse that behavior. 

    True people went overbord and started lying to make the story better but that does in no way excuse what he did.. hes on the CSM for christ sakes.. hes an ambassador for the gamers, and he did it so blantantly and publicly... 

    How the hell can you defend that? you say we are all cyber-bullies?? yearh 1 v 1 perhaps, not in public and with his position. With great power comes great responsabilites. Dont forget that.

     

  • TalonsinTalonsin Posts: 1,470Member Uncommon



    Originally posted by SkexRelbore








    Originally posted by Talonsin

    You are so wrong on so many counts that it would take me much longer than I am willing to spend to help you sort out your mixed up ideas.  Let me start by posting this:



     

    The term "cyberbullying" was first coined and defined by Canadian educator and anti-bullying activist Bill Belsey, as "the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." 

     

    The website you quoted is devoted to stopping teen cyberbullying hence they use the word teen it in their definition.  Most adults are not committing suicide from cyberbullying like teens are so the organization you quoted focuses on young adults.  Your analogy about James Earl Jones is complete nonsense since Mr. Jones did not ask people to email an emotionally unstable person and tell them to commit suicide.  A better analogy would be if Mittani found a kid with down syndrome who liked to eat boogers and then asked thousands of people to mail the kid boogers because he thought it was funny.  Either way, Mittani personally and NOT IN GAME asked thousands of real people (MANY OF WHOM ARE IN HIS ALLIANCE AND DO WHATEVER HE SAYS) to convince a known emotionally unstable person to take his own life. 



     

    You can paint it any way you like but it was wrong and regardless of the apology, shows what kind of person Alex truely is



     







    [Mod Edit]




     

    A few things.

    1. The first person to call names has run out of fact to back his claim and it is a show of low intelligence.

    2. Your argument is based on what Alex did in the game but what he did was in real life. 

    3. My fictional persona (Talonsin) was just judged by you to be an idiot.  Why is it ok for you to judge people based on what they do online and then criticize others for doing it? 

    4. It is very obvious you are a GOON and are emotionally involved in this issue. 

    Thanks, and have a nice day.


  • QuesaQuesa Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,246Member

    Originally posted by SkexRelbore



    Originally posted by Quesa






    Originally posted by colddog04





    I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.

     

    The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.

    True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on.  There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it.  His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.






     

    What temper tantrum? The only communications I've seen from the Mittani on this issue have  been to admit his own error take responsibility for it and take actions to compensate the offended party.

    His address to the Goonion, aptly named, The State of the Goonion(SOTG), where he starts planning a Jita node crash because he was wronged.  He may have admitted his error but it's all negated when he spews off about how CCP wronged him and he's not going to take it sitting down - then plans a Jita protest (which will probably crash the node and if that happens, they'll likely ban him).

  • BarCrowBarCrow Tampa, FLPosts: 2,212Member

    Originally posted by vorpal28

    The reason for this is there is no free speech, and never has been, say something thats not agreed by the masses and you'll be censored so fast your feet won't touch the ground.

    Upshot being you don't dare say anything thats not mainstream in fear of being flamed to death.

    Here's a qoute for those who know and sums it up rather succinctly:

     "...Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!.."

     

    If you believe something say it, you can only be wrong, you might even be right, but it's your right to speak and be heard, right or wrong.




     

    That's a great Hick's quote but I don't see this as the same thing. Speech is free but no one is free from the consequences of their words. You can not urge others to  harass a person in obvious need of help with the intent of driving them to kill themselves..without paying a price. We're suppose to be pursuing happiness..not misery.

  • MackehMackeh LondonPosts: 164Member

    It's articles like this that scare the shit out of me.  There are people out there that take playing a stupid game to life and death levels, if ever the phrase GET A LIFE should be used it's here.

  • RuienRuien Durant, OKPosts: 39Member

    In my opinion, I wish natural selection once again played a part in the human evolutionary chain.

     

    We have waaaay too much stupidity, mental disease, and bleeding hearts who want to give everyone a trophy for participation, for my taste.

     

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,590Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Ruien

    In my opinion, I wish natural selection once again played a part in the human evolutionary chain.

     

    We have waaaay too much stupidity, mental disease, and bleeding hearts who want to give everyone a trophy for participation, for my taste.

     

     

    Interesting.

    So, who gets to define "stupid"?

    Who gets to define "mental illness" and when it's punnishable by death?

    What is the definition between managing the lowest common denominator and what's best for society?

    What happens when you your self fail to meet the every aspect of those defined standards set forth in your own utopian society? Or would you simply design rules to make sure that didn't happen?

  • White_TreeWhite_Tree WicklowPosts: 13Member

    Why do people think I'm conducting some sort of 'Mittani Apologism' here. I pointed out what he did was stupid and wrong, I also pointed out he apologised. The ultimate point I was trying to make was that by witch-hunting a person, our actions become as vile or worse than the actions of the original perpetrator. 

    I think mob justice is ridiculous.

  • DLangleyDLangley Beaumont, TXPosts: 1,407Member

    Hey guys let's cut out the baiting and personal attacks.

145791012
Sign In or Register to comment.