Renaming 'Bandits' to psychologically discourage it: Tramps.

[Justitia 17]

Won't enough for the practice to be common, but enough for it to not be so dominant. Connotations are a lot and henceforth, I'll refer to bandits (almost stylistic to have it as a /cool/ title) as 'tramps': People who do the apocalyptic version of begging: thievery, forcefully take from others' works, and have no contributing role in society. However, though, I'd like to differentiate between three types of player-killers:

1 - People who kill for resources.

2 - People who kill due to fear instinctively.

3 - People who kill for the thrill and challenge.

[Rage VG 4033]

No.

Bandit is the term for someone who attacks other people for personal gain or satisfaction. A bandit could be loaded with gear and still attack others.

A tramp is simply a beggar. To call them tramps is to imply they have few or no personal possessions.

2 Is simply a survivor instinct. 1 and 3 are malicious intent, and are associated with bandits.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rage VG

[mzltv 2281]

If it's broadcast like this, surely it removes the psychological value..

I mean, I vom on most things when I'm mad hammered; just because someone who walks past me chundering onto my own shoes calls me a 'tramp' or 'a disgusting young man' or whatever, won't really deter me from doing it next time I'm mashed up (sadly)

[Justitia 17]

If it's broadcast like this, surely it removes the psychological value..

I mean, I vom on most things when I'm mad hammered; just because someone who walks past me chundering onto my own shoes calls me a 'tramp' or 'a disgusting young man' or whatever, won't really deter me from doing it next time I'm mashed up (sadly)

It'll still be an insult and may work on certain players who don't like the connotations.

No.

Bandit is the term for someone who attacks other people for personal gain or satisfaction. A bandit could be loaded with gear and still attack others.

A tramp is simply a beggar. To call them tramps is to imply they have few or no personal possessions.

2 Is simply a survivor instinct. 1 and 3 are malicious intent, and are associated with bandits.

Fact is, though, that if we don't approve, we can make new words to describe them. ;)

[Dankine 377]

How about "carebear morons" for you lot who complain?

Fair trade.

[Cdrive 60]

We're much like carnivores in nature - Our killing thins the herd and benefits those who manage to survive, causing them to thrive on the loot while those left behind run from Kemanka. :)

You should be thanking us for that AK and GPS you found in the firehouse in Electro amoungst the 5 other dead bodies.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Cdrive

[Justitia 17]

How about "carebear morons" for you lot who complain?

Fair trade.

Bears are still bad-ass. ROAR!

We're much like carnivores in nature - Our killing thins the herd and benefits those who manage to survive, causing them to thrive on the loot that is left behind from all the freshly spawned dead people in Kemanka. :)

You should be thanking us for that AK you found in the firehouse in Electro amoungst the 5 other dead bodies.

No, tramp, just no.

[Rage VG 4033]

Fact is, though, that if we don't approve, we can make new words to describe them. ;)

'We'? You mean you? Go ahead, nobody'll stop ya.

It's not going to become official terminology though. Its only purpose is to dissuade a certain play style, which isn't DayZ, so it doesn't belong in DayZ (At least officially.)

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rage VG

[Budheadz 28]

haha, good one op, but tramp isnt harsh enough, how about phaggits ?,... oh, wait, didnt sergey do that already ^^

[Justitia 17]

Its only purpose is to dissuade a certain play style, which isn't DayZ, so it doesn't belong in DayZ (At least officially.)

Are you saying a suggested change to the DayZ community attitude doesn't belong to a DayZ forum? What...

[boneboys 7988]

A suggested change to DayZ belongs in the,,,, (you've guessed it) Suggestion Forum.

Moved.

[Rage VG 4033]

Are you saying a suggested change to the DayZ community attitude doesn't belong to a DayZ forum? What...

No, I'm saying that changing the actual terminology would have negative effects on the game, as it essentially frowns upon one style of play. Why don't we go ahead and call survivor "Sissies" instead? It'd have just as much effect.

Besides, trying to change the attitude of the community is not only futile, but goes against the nature of the game. Everyone is here because they get to choose everything they want. If you want to hate on bandits, you can be a bandit-hunting mofo and the game implores you to do that, and it in fact rewards you. If you live for the thrill of combat, you can arm yourself to the teeth and the game will welcome and (again) reward that choice each and every time. So to target a single group of players and say that we should slap a negative label on them not only alienates the (pretty big) group you are targeting, but you won't get much support from the open-minded survivors either.

[Justitia 17]

No, I'm saying that changing the actual terminology would have negative effects on the game, as it essentially frowns upon one style of play. Why don't we go ahead and call survivor "Sissies" instead? It'd have just as much effect.

Besides, trying to change the attitude of the community is not only futile, but goes against the nature of the game. Everyone is here because they get to choose everything they want. If you want to hate on bandits, you can be a bandit-hunting mofo and the game implores you to do that, and it in fact rewards you. If you live for the thrill of combat, you can arm yourself to the teeth and the game will welcome and (again) reward that choice each and every time. So to target a single group of players and say that we should slap a negative label on them not only alienates the (pretty big) group you are targeting, but you won't get much support from the open-minded survivors either.

Aren't I embracing that openness with suggesting this? Nothing to do with hate or disabling this feature, it's a social effect that is how many aspects of DayZ have evolved. Nevertheless, considering certain reactions here, I think the aim is rather effective and although I'd never, ever want player-killers to be removed, I certainly enjoy the prospect of altering how they are perceived since the activity itself isn't nothing. Isn't it our open privilege to decide how we categorize certain attitudes and preferred playing styles?

What's funny is how you insinuate this as so wrong whilst many bandits derogatorily refer to friendly survivors as 'care-bears', denouncing their disposition with an insult on how caring is supposedly wrong. Can't I create a comparable insult for bandits, oh, which isn't flattering as 'bandit' is to players who enjoy the bad-ass image it feasibly conveys?

PS: It would be an insult from one player-base to another, rather typical and these arguments/approaches are only natural as means of influencing. As a survivor who regularly saves people, it's only natural for me to be opposed to people who contradict my preferences and I will use certain techniques for dissuading said behavior. This develop in the real world and on DayZ, most evinced with people choosing to murder over assisting: a social dynamic.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Justitia

[Michno 33]

Graveyard this please.

This is just a butthurt guy no offense ;)

This is dayz, you're story!

[Justitia 17]

Graveyard this please.

This is just a butthurt guy no offense ;)

This is dayz, you're story!

What a righteous, arrogant attitude: Don't like this, bin this; followed with the most presumptuous statement that I must be butthurt to suggest this topic.

[Rage VG 4033]

Aren't I embracing that openness with suggesting this?

No, no you're not. Your title says it clear as day: "Discourage". There should be nothing in the game to discourage any moral choice whatsoever besides your morals. No argument you can make could justify otherwise.

If you want to change the way something is perceived, do it yourself, with your actions. Don't just tell anyone to do it anyway because the lulz.

And the term "care-bare" is used by everyone to describe someone who thinks the pvp aspect should be removed or toned down, when that's really the main part of the game. I don't partake in it but I enjoy its existence. This means I am not a care-bear. If someone wants people to not shoot each other and just get along, that is called being a care-bear. Again, this is community terminology and only you are able to decide what you call what. If you don't think it deserves a different name, don't give it one. Just don't tell others to do it.

And if it's any consolidation, I don't think you're butthurt. You're just simply going about things the "Unjust" way.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rage VG

[Sutinen 635]

I call them "fuckers" and I bet there are a lot of other player created terms.

[Justitia 17]

No, no you're not. Your title says it clear as day: "Discourage". There should be nothing in the game to discourage any moral choice whatsoever besides your morals. No argument you can make could justify otherwise.

If you want to change the way something is perceived, do it yourself, don't just tell anyone to do it anyway because the lulz.

And the term "care-bare" is used by everyone to describe someone who thinks the pvp aspect should be removed or toned down, when that's really the main part of the game. I don't partake in it but I enjoy its existence. This means I am not a care-bear. If someone wants people to not shoot each other and just get along, that is called being a care-bear. Again, this is community terminology and only you are able to decide what you call what. If you don't think it deserves a different name, don't give it one. Just don't tell others to do it.

And if it's any consolidation, I don't think you're butthurt. You're just simply going about things the "Unjust" way.

People have their choice and if they advocate less banditry overall, I think this is an efficient term for dissuading player-killers socially. ;) There are many words which influence player dynamics and that's the whole purpose of a community with the game: stereotypes, meta-terminology, conflicts between disparate styles, adopted strategies, alliances, and influential tactics. The suggestion is no less than the 'care-bear' term in practice you hypocritically support, no matter where the origin is or how it is accepted.

I'm not demanding people to change, by the way, I am presenting the idea itself, which may or may not be adopted - we shall see. From this thread, though, I think a few 'bandits' have been offended and they definitely reacted to it with emotions as intended. Nevertheless, if you are happy being a bandit - no matter how morally ambiguous the conduct is - you'll not care for others' words and simply continue happily: that's YOUR choice.

Please do not portray my actions, though, as being selfish when the community will decide, NOT your arguments which assert it's wrong whilst it's only natural as the choice to kill.

[dallas 5195]

DayZ don't judge.

[Justitia 17]

DayZ don't judge.

DON'T JUDGE ME....But yeah, care-bear FOOKUH!

[blunt_zephyr 51]

All this while, I thought a 'care bear' was one who 'could' kill most when paths-cross but chooses not to, unless 'needed'.

Some prefer teamplay. Some dont. Shouldn't expect one to coheir to the other. Lack of 'mission' (even ones from Arma II Armo"u"ry ;P) and ease of zombie-avoidence (lol, spell-check wants to change that to self-confidence) make 'what-to-do?' almost non-exsistant after one gets their basic-gear. This, I believe, results in the 'cant trust no-one' since it only takes one or two to say "yeah, Im friendly" and shoot you (something lacks in the soul when one acts like this ;)) and I guess that's the better vid for your youtube upload rather than a zombie-apocalypse pickinic :blush: idk, game needs something to do "go save npc@xy location from zombies" "npc offers truck if you fix and give him a ride some where" "random C130 supply drops that you need to race against zombies (who could be scripted to attack objects/dropboxes?) and others"

[Rage VG 4033]

People have their choice and if they advocate less banditry overall, I think this is an efficient term for dissuading player-killers socially. ;) There are many words which influence player dynamics and that's the whole purpose of a community with the game: stereotypes, meta-terminology, conflicts between disparate styles, adopted strategies, alliances, and influential tactics. The suggestion is no less than the 'care-bear' term in practice you hypocritically support, no matter where the origin is or how it is accepted.

I'm not demanding people to change, by the way, I am presenting the idea itself, which may or may not be adopted - we shall see. From this thread, though, I think a few 'bandits' have been offended and they definitely reacted to it with emotions as intended. Nevertheless, if you are happy being a bandit - no matter how morally ambiguous the conduct is - you'll not care for others' words and simply continue happily: that's YOUR choice.

Please do not portray my actions, though, as being selfish when the community will decide, NOT your arguments which assert it's wrong whilst it's only natural as the choice to kill.

I am not presenting you with my argument, I am presenting only facts. These are things that you can not dispute and are not my opinion, and I will explain why:

First fact: Any attempts to discourage a certain play-style is against the spirit of the game and would never be officially included.

This is because the game is developed to not give you any indication of whether what you are doing is better or worse than what you could have done. The developers of the game have said they made the game with that aspect in mind and that is what makes the game what it is.

Second fact: Your intention with this thread was to change the community's attitude towards banditry.

As you have yourself stated:

Are you saying a suggested change to the DayZ community attitude doesn't belong to a DayZ forum? What...

So this really only leaves two results:

A. You are merely posting this to offend bandits, which is considered flamebaiting and thus there is no reason this thread should continue to exist, or

B. You are trying to discourage a large part of the game, which as I have explained, is highly unlikely to interest anyone with an open mind (aka the majority of people) or make an impact at all.

Given you are well aware and in fact are aiming for the term to be insulting, as shown here:

It'll still be an insult and may work on certain players who don't like the connotations.

And here:

From this thread, though, I think a few 'bandits' have been offended and they definitely reacted to it with emotions as intended.

I'm going to put my money on option A, that you are simply doing this for a reaction, and not to actually suggest anything meaningful.

[jayman9696 14]

No, no you're not. Your title says it clear as day: "Discourage". There should be nothing in the game to discourage any moral choice whatsoever besides your morals. No argument you can make could justify otherwise.

If you want to change the way something is perceived, do it yourself, with your actions. Don't just tell anyone to do it anyway because the lulz.

And the term "care-bare" is used by everyone to describe someone who thinks the pvp aspect should be removed or toned down, when that's really the main part of the game. I don't partake in it but I enjoy its existence. This means I am not a care-bear. If someone wants people to not shoot each other and just get along, that is called being a care-bear. Again, this is community terminology and only you are able to decide what you call what. If you don't think it deserves a different name, don't give it one. Just don't tell others to do it.

I for one think that there is too much pvp now. You can't even trust a damn hero. You used to be able to ask if they are friendly before entering a town now if you do that youare waving a huge kill me flag. It seems as the popularity increased so did the banditry. This just annoys me.

[Rage VG 4033]

I for one think that there is too much pvp now. You can't even trust a damn hero. You used to be able to ask if they are friendly before entering a town now if you do that youare waving a huge kill me flag. It seems as the popularity increased so did the banditry. This just annoys me.

But do you believe that players should stop doing that because it bothers you, or do you believe that you should simply counteract this change by being more cautious?

The former is what makes you a "care-bear".

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rage VG

[WiFiN 55]

Nagg off, carebears.

Rocket stated that everyone has their choice to behave as they like. It's apocalypse - everyone's their own god. If you want to be immune to players (provided zombies don't pose any threat for now), then start a private hive or learn to survive for a change.

I'm not a trigger-happy bambie-murderer, but I know when to stride and when to crawl, when to fire till it goes click and when I should just stop, drop and hide. Learn to survive - that's what you are here for. Either do that or go watch My Little Pony.

Edited January 16, 2013 by WiFiN