Renaming 'Bandits' to psychologically discourage it: Tramps.

[Justitia 17]

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:

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:

And here:

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.

I'm of the opinion that banditry is a poor choice and with that opinion the flexibility has endowed, I'll happily be disparaging towards individuals who choose otherwise. This isn't being closed-minded, it's choosing a preference and supporting it with my capacity to speak. For those who are similar to me, preferring helping over stealing, they have an option here, informally so, which is an aspect of the community you're preaching is crucial. This isn't a fact or an official feature: it's a choice among community members, with the effect a decision derived from how they want to INFLUENCE the game socially.

The community has choices, mhmm, but all of those won't be equal to everyone or entirely considered 'acceptable', even free of any supplementary thoughts. How shallow do you want roles to be? I understand the 'choice' being there, whether a bandit or hero, and it is, but that does not mean I should condone one or the other, let alone behave positively to one as it's an OPEN feature which attracts people. My choice!

As for 'changing' this community, I'm not and only appealing to people who are similar to me: very reasonable as we likely have comparable aims: kill bandits, organize survivors, promote teamwork. As for the effect it may have, so be it, but it'd never be disastrous as you fearfully insinuate, contradict the noted values overtly as you try to philosophize, or noticeably damage the framework which is existent.

My motive here is the one I said, not the subtle attempt to say I am trolling with a faux-alternative: Negatively categorize player-killers, currently 'bandits', to perhaps change a few into reformed citizens or cause shame among certain ones. Why can I not do this? If this was real life, as the developers want gameplay to illustrate with choices which define a player's role (ROFL @ your appeal to authority, phrasing the developers to support your reasoning), people would have harsh, negative words regarding individuals who select choices with which they disagree.

"Corporate Drone"

"Thug"

"Pothead"

"Brown-noser"

The choice remains, and it's no less valid, but I will still opt to think of 'bandits' as tramps. ;) Is that offensive? I think your choice with gaming is offensive and I'm only applying it to your in-game persona , not you on an individual, personal level.

[Justitia 17]

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.

Doesn't mean a few players - supporting more trust above the rampant consequence-free banditry, causing instinctive killing which thus inspires victims to follow this, a cycle - can't try to shape a better community with the right tactics as leaders would in real life during such an event. Whilst I entirely respect a bandit's choice, and think it should never be regulated or restricted physically, I do think people can and may act against it or think of them negatively whilst the nature of it is selfish: exploit others' achievements with murder, stealing their progression.

Skill is irrelevant - it's the nature of robbing someone and I don't think this would ever be happily accepted in a post-apocalyptic world by law-abiding citizens. Do you think they would rationalize their decisions and think of it as 'their' choice? No, they'd think of bandits as scum and if bandits were prideful of 'bandit', as script kiddies can be with being referred to as 'hackers', they'd choose a word which was different: descriptive of how their behavior is parasitic.

[Bludy 324]

i like ''bandit''..it reminds me armed bad guys..they can be smart and deadly and kill you or be stupid and die..so it's how you play that makes you what you are in dayz..the others can call you how they want, or you couldn't be the bandit for definition, but only when we meet ingame we can learn the truth about another player

[Justitia 17]

i like ''bandit''..it reminds me armed bad guys..they can be smart and deadly and kill you or be stupid and die..so it's how you play that makes you what you are in dayz..the others can call you how they want, or you couldn't be the bandit for definition, but only when we meet ingame we can learn the truth about another player

This is exactly the reason I call them otherwise. In game, relative to my choices, bandits are my enemies. (: Right now, it's too appealing for both advantage and how they're portrayed. Why are the 'bad guys' being flattered? Would you call them 'rambos' if they were very talented at being criminals?

[Rage VG 4033]

As I've already stated I believe your whole reason for making this thread is simply to provoke reactions, I'm not going to waste time reading all of your post, I'll take a part in case it's important and if you feel I missed something let me know. For now, I'll be dissecting this:

My motive here is the one I said, not the subtle attempt to say I am trolling with a faux-alternative: Negatively categorize player-killers, currently 'bandits', to perhaps change a few into reformed citizens or cause shame among certain ones. Why can I not do this? If this was real life, as the developers want gameplay to illustrate with choices which define a player's role (ROFL @ your appeal to authority, phrasing the developers to support your reasoning), people would have harsh, negative words regarding individuals who select choices with which they disagree.

So, let's start with this:

My motive here is the one I said, not the subtle attempt to say I am trolling with a faux-alternative: Negatively categorize player-killers, currently 'bandits', to perhaps change a few into reformed citizens or cause shame among certain ones.

Then can you give us some logical reasoning of this? I just gave you logical reasons why I feel this thread is just flamebaiting. Without anything, I can't really see how you saying "lol but no really" is relevant.

Why can I not do this? If this was real life, as the developers want gameplay to illustrate with choices which define a player's role, people would have harsh, negative words regarding individuals who select choices with which they disagree.

Nobody is saying you can't. That's not what anyone has yet to say. The only posts made have been either "We don't like the idea" or "This idea directly goes against my play style".

And, my favorite bit:

ROFL @ your appeal to authority, phrasing the developers to support your reasoning

Hehehe, okay, let's try and take this one seriously.

'Authority'. What sort of authority would I be "appealing to" that I don't either already possess or need to contribute to my post anyway?

'Support my reasoning'. No, as I told you in that post, this isn't MY reasoning, or MY opinion. It's facts that have been stated, and the devs have stated the game was made to keep out of your moral choices.

[jayman9696 14]

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.

Well based on the fact i that when i log on today it will say chernarous day 17 i can take care of myself. Its just that banditry needs to be discouraged. Maybe by giving then symptoms of PTSD because in reality it doesn't take much for trained soldiers to get sick so why wouldn't jon doe get messed up in the head.

In an extreme apocalypse would you be able to shoot your neighbors in cold blood? Especially just for sport like dayz?

[Justitia 17]

As I've already stated I believe your whole reason for making this thread is simply to provoke reactions, I'm not going to waste time reading all of your post, I'll take a part in case it's important and if you feel I missed something let me know. For now, I'll be dissecting this:

Wait, you won't waste time reading all of it, but you're fine with broad reasoning on my overall statement? Alright, yet you did miss two crucial points which are bothersome to repeat as you're narrow-mindedly skipping relevant content:

"The choice remains, and it's no less valid, but I will still opt to think of 'bandits' as tramps. Is that offensive? I think your choice with gaming is offensive and I'm only applying it to your in-game persona , not you on an individual, personal level. "

"The community has choices, mhmm, but all of those won't be equal to everyone or entirely considered 'acceptable', even free of any supplementary thoughts. How shallow do you want roles to be? I understand the 'choice' being there, whether a bandit or hero, and it is, but that does not mean I should condone one or the other, let alone behave positively to one as it's an OPEN feature which attracts people. My choice!"

Then can you give us some logical reasoning of this? I just gave you logical reasons why I feel this thread is just flamebaiting. Without anything, I can't really see how you saying "lol but no really" is relevant.

Your logical reasons? Where? Narrow reasoning such as the fact that as it offends to discourage, it must be flamebaiting? That is quite the assumption and until there is clear facts to reinforce such, it's nothing deeper and it's much more logical to accept my words as sinceer which coincide with the delinated strategy. My strategy is legitimate, applicable in-game without disbalancing features, and it's described to be offensive without interchangeably becoming flamebait (mutually exclusive, what?). The clear objective mentioned: decreasing banditry and having it less considered the best, most economical choice due to the social ramifications. You can't portray me as a troll or flamer when I have other reasons, repeatedly stated, no matter how much you simply say I am 'just because' with a superficial conclusion such as: Offensive>Flamebait.

Is that wrong? No, it's a choice among players - how they act, talk, react as already happens naturally - and this would only be an issue if you disagree with their choices on how to respond/categorize another playstyle.

Nobody is saying you can't. That's not what anyone has yet to say. The only posts made have been either "We don't like the idea" or "This idea directly goes against my play style".

You have indeed said it's wrong to influence the community this way.

Hehehe, okay, let's try and take this one seriously.

'Authority'. What sort of authority would I be "appealing to" that I don't either already possess or need to contribute to my post anyway?

'Support my reasoning'. No, as I told you in that post, this isn't MY reasoning, or MY opinion. It's facts that have been stated, and the devs have stated the game was made to keep out of your moral choices.

I love your conceit here with a 'hehehe'....and you simply repeat the exact crititicsm which I had. The fact is that you are taking the developer's words and representing them for your own ideas, incorrectly so, when they're discussing GAMEPLAY MECHANICS, not community-orienated trends which impact decisions (as this suggestion would be). In my opinion, if there's a logic to all of this, you're discouraging attitudes towards player roles and think we should be open to all choices, but I think if that was so, the social dynamics would be extremely so.

You're open to roles being such, and they are mechanically without opposition, but closed to social reactions or categories? These are already around, abundant, and they're far from 'close-minded': they're judgments from a decided position. People don't need to accept anything or flow with all options as I expressed in the segment conveniently neglected.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Justitia

[Mr Nasty 1023]

You can rename bandit to whatever you'd like. I will still kill you for amusement. What would you suggest then?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Mr Nasty

[Justitia 17]

Incidentally, don't assert arrogantly with definite options through definite logic revolving possibilities that I'm either trolling or being close-minded. Your path of reasoning is flawed as:

Fact 1 - Players decide this - it's an arbitrary realm. Devs made this so with the gameplay, not the community which is flexible as is seen with the fact bandit/hero exists.

Fact 2 - I'm not trying to change the community massively, I'm appealing to people who already dislike player-killing and enjoy opposing it. Why can't they verbally as they do with actions, eh? Oh yes, you affirm it's right to be open-minded and simply accept it or you're oh-so-wrong.

As for the two postulated outcomes to these narrow assumptions which constrain thoughts to your interpreted standards, I'll say 2 is true obviously - the nature of it being a deterrent as I already said - without the following words being correct about how it's close-minded (oh, as the first word is right, the next ones must be? Maybe to your absolute 1's and 2's!). It does not mean people are being narrow-minded to favor a play style and encourage it, disliking another, it means they've adopted one loyally. You say preferences are awesome, but can't we develop these preferences? Execute them? If only we all could be open-minded to every option as you and not dare question/discourage other possibilities!

This deterrent, by the way, will certainly not 'discourage' quite so substantially as said, causing people to instinctively fear I mean a removal of it or I want it significantly GONE, it'll simply be another dynamic of the care-bear/tramp dichotomy within the community.

[m.w. vindicator 880]

I don't kill people for no reason. I prefer to kill other killers. I prefer to team up with people because I enjoy the company. I usually am friendly until I find another friendly player. Once we team up, then we can kill others.

I am unpredictable like many players in this game. Their actions in game can depend on their IRL mood. Some one who is angry or stressed IRL is probably more likely to kill others in game.

You can call people in this game what ever you like. Some people are straight up bandits and thugs. You can call them brigands, thieves, or murderers but it doesn't make a difference. IRL people might be effected by their title and might be persuaded against committing bad actions.

But in a video game I don't think anyone will stop being a bandit just because they will be titled a tramp.

[Rage VG 4033]

The fact is that you are taking the developer's words and representing them for your own ideas

Proof you haven't been listening to anything I've said since my second post, since I said they're not "My ideas", they are facts that I am presenting to you to factor into your debates. It makes no difference to me what you call bandits; I'm a medic. I'm trying to contribute to your discussion nonetheless, and you're trying to disprove things that are concrete. Yes, they are talking about mechanics. You're trying to present an idea to a community that's here FOR THOSE MECHANICS. You expect them to agree on something that goes against that?

However since really you have flat-out admitted you're just trying to offend people, (starting with the derogatory labels towards bandits, and since I am not a bandit, you are now trying to offend me on a personal level by calling me narrow-minded,) I honestly doubt anyone is going to take you seriously when you say you are not trolling.

FYI, I'd take you calling me arrogant a bit more personally, but you've already said the same thing to 4-5 other people who've disagreed with you here, so I'm assuming it's your substitute for the typical "you're a fag".

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rage VG

[p4nnus 42]

Justitia. You can try to imagine theyre called tramps. If this is not enough, go and tamper with the games code to change it yourself and for yourself only. You fluffy carebear.

Once again: DayZ. Your story. Your story can be full of killing tramps, mine isnt. The only thing that this game does wrong, atleast what comes to banditry, is the bandit-skin which indicates bandits. Shouldnt happen, cause you wouldnt know IRL.

What Rage said about them developers and their opinion on this, its true. You can go look up Deans words on this. Even the bandit skin is against it, and I believe(hope?) it is only temporary. The direction youre trying to change the game in, is wrong. And by that I dont mean that the more banditry the merrier. More like, everyone gets to decide what they want to be, through their actions, and no one is punished.

[Rage VG 4033]

Justitia. You can try to imagine theyre called tramps. If this is not enough, go and tamper with the games code to change it yourself and for yourself only. You fluffy carebear.

Once again: DayZ. Your story. Your story can be full of killing tramps, mine isnt. The only thing that this game does wrong, atleast what comes to banditry, is the bandit-skin which indicates bandits. Shouldnt happen, cause you wouldnt know IRL.

What Rage said about them developers and their opinion on this, its true. You can go look up Deans words on this. Even the bandit skin is against it, and I believe(hope?) it is only temporary. The direction youre trying to change the game in, is wrong. And by that I dont mean that the more banditry the merrier. More like, everyone gets to decide what they want to be, through their actions, and no one is punished.

inb4 you are arrogant

[Justitia 17]

Proof you haven't been listening to anything I've said since my second post, since I said they're not "My ideas", they are facts that I am presenting to you to factor into your debates. It makes no difference to me what you call bandits; I'm a medic. I'm trying to contribute to your discussion nonetheless, and you're trying to disprove things that are concrete. Yes, they are talking about mechanics. You're trying to present an idea to a community that's here FOR THOSE MECHANICS. You expect them to agree on something that goes against that?

However since really you have flat-out admitted you're just trying to offend people, (starting with the derogatory labels towards bandits, and since I am not a bandit, you are now trying to offend me on a personal level by calling me narrow-minded,) I honestly doubt anyone is going to take you seriously when you say you are not trolling.

FYI, I'd take you calling me arrogant a bit more personally, but you've already said the same thing to 4-5 other people who've disagreed with you here, so I'm assuming it's your substitute for the typical "you're a fag".

You're not listening now: I'm not saying they are literally your ideas, I am saying how you present the words is changing how they are supposed to be- the connections. As for mechanics, my opinion doesn't change mechanics - how is that LOGICALLY related? It's something verbal, separate to the mechanics, and closer to an intangible influence on the abstract nature of choice INSIDE these mechanics.

Oh boy, if a bandit kills someone and the victim becomes mad, is the bandit now a troll too as their action is offensive? My strategy here is an action and it's for the game inevitably, opposed to simply being a random attempt to cause harm/offense for amusement. Is everyone using 'care-bear' in this thread also a troll? And in every other thread? It's about competition there and differences between players which do cause conflict, bitter remarks.....

I've called people 'arrogant' 4-5 times? I only recollect doing that once to a single person besides you - what an exaggerated claim. What's worse is how you proceed to mock me with something which has only been said twice and act as if it's a common trait to deserve this! For you:

Def .1 "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official."

You presume a lot during the reasoning, often with leaps, and these are framed to discredit my position with ONLY two narrow alternatives: close-minded or troll. This is only reinforced with believing that I'm 'A' and then using this to justify neglecting aspects of my responses or dictating 'relevance' without explanation at times. What's most shocking, though, is how you discourage these judgments as close-minded whilst thinking it's right to DECIDE (with judgments) how I wish to deem bandits or approach them.

My preference is being a hero and if I want to engage in a behavior which inherently discourages a behavior I despise, so be it. My post is an expression of my intent to do this and I hope others will also do it as bandits don't deserve no negative titles too. People have their choices and and they have the ability to not be influenced, but I won't judge me...for judging someone over a preferred path....when this is my preferred path, especially when the reason(s) of 'affecting mechanics' are flawed as meta-terminology already does....

[Rage VG 4033]

You're not listening now

Correct.

[Justitia 17]

Justitia. You can try to imagine theyre called tramps. If this is not enough, go and tamper with the games code to change it yourself and for yourself only. You fluffy carebear.

Once again: DayZ. Your story. Your story can be full of killing tramps, mine isnt. The only thing that this game does wrong, atleast what comes to banditry, is the bandit-skin which indicates bandits. Shouldnt happen, cause you wouldnt know IRL.

What Rage said about them developers and their opinion on this, its true. You can go look up Deans words on this. Even the bandit skin is against it, and I believe(hope?) it is only temporary. The direction youre trying to change the game in, is wrong. And by that I dot nmean that the more banditry the merrier. More like, everyone gets to decide what they want to be, through their actions, and no one is punished.

I agree they shouldn't have skins, actually, for precisely that reason. ;) As for the whole 'everyone deciding how they want to be, deciding their own story' concept, I don't think it's true when other players are equally the protagonists during multiplayer. ;) I've said countless times I'm fine with bandits, and I don't think they should be punished, but I do believe it's fine to create a stigma as there are people who feel bandits ruin their experience at times. What's wrong with acknowledging how they can be frustrating/assholes, no matter how much they add to the game and shouldn't be removed?

[Justitia 17]

Correct.

And here is my elaboration over arrogance exhibited clearly. It was quite apparent from his selective quotations before, ladies and gentlemen, along with refusal to answer certain points.

[Rage VG 4033]

arrogance

A once sharp blade, now dull and without an edge or point.

[Justitia 17]

A once sharp blade, now dull and without an edge or point.

Witty. I approve.

[Rekli 995]

no-one is gonna call them tramps!why would you change it.....infact what's the logic in the word 'tramp'...how is that meant to discourage?

they don't have crappy shoes and cardboard boxes...the have military grade weapons and clothing