Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interaction?

[pilgrim* 3514]

I still don't understand what you're inferring: "No Pasaran" was the rallying call of the communist supporters against the black coats in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. It translates roughly from Spanish as "None Shall Pass".

 

It is off topic, but I can't resist putting the historical record straight - The Spanish civil war was fought by the democratically elected Government of Spain against a right-wing military coup to overthrow the democracy and take power. The government gave out arms to it's democratic supporters in the Spanish people, and many foreigners volunteered to help the republic fight the fascists - foreign help included anarchists, communists, middle class liberals, dock workers, doctors, from around the world. On the other side, Hitler sent openly (in total) 600 tanks and 100 aircraft + experts, to the fascists, Mussolini gave them 100,000 men, and weapons, supplies.. etc.. 

The Euro countries and USA decided to "stay neutral", the USSR and Mexico openly sent aid to the Republic.

 

- so not really "communists"..some -many - were, but this was NOT a 'communist' war, it was a legal, openly-elected, modern democracy defending itself (pretty soon the rest of Europe would be doing the same). Many individuals - of all politics, for all kinds of reasons - showed ready to put themselves on the line to fight for democratic freedom to the bitter end, against better-armed, trained, fascist-led military.  The fascists won. The Franco Dictatorship stayed in power for around 50 years. All political parties were banned - no vote. Press was silenced. etc. Standard fascist strong-arm dictatorship. No fun. Prisons full, secret police, no citizen rights, trials often unnecessary. Lot of exiles, lots of deaths.

 

Kind of thing many folk don't want. Hence the slogan 'No Pasaran'. And so we come back on topic - as Alyais says in this thread - "I'm always friendly and if someone tries to use intimidation to control me I always try to fight. Something in me tells me its just right."

 

Cool. (IMO) I have respect for those people.

Edited May 5, 2014 by pilgrim

[BlackForrest 1]

As for the sniper? I'm still torn. The target was trying to draw a weapon whilst on the ground,

 

 

You shot first. There is little doubt about that.

 

I was in these situations before. "Come out of the building, we are friendly." And the moment I opened the door I had a bullet in my face. You can't blame anyone who is trying to escape certain death.

 

I'm also in dayz to communicate with people. But if they feel to run away, I never stop them. And I let them run because I wanted to communicate, not take them hostage or whatever. If your aim was to take a hostage or force communcation, then say so and don't tell me you just wanted to communicate.

 

 

tried to open a dialogue.

 

"Alright buddy" I oozed, "Put your weapon down and nobody has to get hurt. We have you surrounded."

 

Do me a favor, learn English. That is what is called a threat, it's not a dialog. You might want to look up these two on wikipedia, just in case.

 

 

 

As I stated, the target here was already our de facto hostage when I tried to open communications.

I'm not sure how I would have reacted in this moment, most probably just stay in the building and shoot people trying to enter. But I would also consider to play along and then after a while shoot you in the back of your head.

 

Next time try: "Hey there! Hello!"

Edited May 5, 2014 by BlackForrest

[mithrawndo 166]

It doesn't seem like a really great idea to demand an interaction from someone whom you are threatening. I don't see why would anyone have a reason to submit to a bandit in game only to be toyed with, humiliated and most likely killed anyway, is this a some kind of masochism some find enjoyable?

 

I don't believe I was demanding an interaction, I was simply perplexed at the lack of survival instinct. I gave our target the opportunity to talk his way out of the situation rather than simply gunning him down, as is seemingly the norm in a military loot spawn area. I made it clear his position had been compromised and that escape was unlikely at best - in his shoes I would and have tried to talk my way out. When that fails, I would have attempted violence. The person here elected to ignore the first option, trying for the impossible escape and then, once this option was removed again ignored the opportunity to talk his way out of it and tried to draw his weapon.

 

 

op i dont get why you would expect someone to interact with you in the situation you just described, seems really obvious to me that they would not want to interact

 

By refusing to interact, so the player chose their own fate. This thread would not exist if the player had even simply replied: "Go fuck yourself" as they tried to sprint away across the apron. Similarly, if they had opened fire I would not be asking this question - but to do nothing to attempt to save his own life?

 

 

Had a guy find me in the jail building at NEAF the other day, and he said pretty much that I was surrounded, and to put down the weapon and I wouldn't die. I wasn't sure, so I did a bit of scouting in from the windows. I didn't see anyone, and after a bit, I had a thought. I poked my head in the wall to check, and there he was, no weapons or anything. Just hoping I would give up and he could get the jump on me out of fear. What a scam. Sorry, I don't give up when confronted. I would rather die and regear that be a plaything for psycho's trying to hold me up for no real reason.

 

Fair play to you, sir. Your reaction is exactly the one I would have had if the tables were turned; I would have tried to gather intel on my situation rather than blindly believing my assailants, and likely attempted to fight or talk my way out. The player in the original post did neither, and it is this seemingly nonsensical action that led to this discussion.

 

 

Many many different reasons but in this particular case I would say because dying is preferred over being humiliated. Most people who carry around handcuffs are going to take a great deal of pleasure in "playing" with you while handcuffed. I would rather not partake in their gratification.  

 

Poor judgement of whom? You or him? I think he knew his odds and played the cards he was dealt, would I play them that way? Certainly not, you would have had to come in there and get me and I know I would kill at least one of you.

 

Can't answer that unless we know what your true intention was. It sounds to me you wanted a power trip (nothing wrong with that). You clearly had all the gear you wanted, so why take him prisoner at all? If that is the case then you did something wrong as you failed in that task. I would suggest if that is what you wanted then taking the softly softly approach works far better. Tell him to holster his weapon instead of dropping it, pretending it is just you alone etc etc. You already have him on edge just by knowing where he is and him not knowing anything about you but a voice in the cold.

 

As above, think like you are negotiator for the police or a hero wanting to help but being cautious at the same time but again hard to answer without knowing what your end goal was.

 

Twas a good story.

 

I absolutely do understand the "No surrender" philosophy, though it's one I don't personally share. "It is better to live one daty as a lion..." is such a popular quote for good reason, and I would not be asking these questions if the player had acted in fitting with this philosophy - but in this instance, they acted seemingly without reason.

 

Poor judgement on his part is what I was inferring in the original post. As you say, you would not have tried to run straight out the door and across the apron given the circumstances. You likely would have tried to find a way out without giving in to my demands, but not like that! As for poor judgement on my part? In hindsight, probably. Pertaining to both this and your next response, in future I will definitely be looking for the player to holster their weapon rather than entirely disarm themselves.

 

Our intentions were to ensure the safety of our group. We were at the Balota airfield having scoured round from NEAF to NWAF and down past Zele, trying to find an ACOG for one of our group. This player was armed and as such a risk factor, our actions here were to ensure that the risk factor be mitigated as much as possible. The best way to do this of course is to silence him, but that in itself brings it's own risks: A gunshot is far louder than a conversation, and likely will draw attention from other players. If the threat can be disarmed without risking this, so much the better.

 

 

You shot first. There is little doubt about that.

 

I was in these situations before. "Come out of the building, we are friendly." And the moment I opened the door I had a bullet in my face. You can't blame anyone who is trying to escape certain death.

 

I'm also in dayz to communicate with people. But if they feel to run away, I never stop them. And I let them run because I wanted to communicate, not take them hostage or whatever. If your aim was to take a hostage or force communcation, then say so and don't tell me you just wanted to communicate.

 

Do me a favor, learn English. That is what is called a threat, it's not a dialog. You might want to look up these two on wikipedia, just in case.

 

I'm not sure how I would have reacted in this moment, most probably just stay in the building and shoot people trying to enter. But I would also consider to play along and then after a while shoot you in the back of your head.

 

Next time try: "Hey there! Hello!"

 

In every sense, I was the hostile party in this encounter. I have made no attempt to veil this truth from you, nor from the player in the original post. I also never once stated that I was friendly, nor did I ask for him to come out of the building. Our ideal play here would have been to keep him pinned down in that building without having to take a shot, whilst we assessed any further potential threats and tried to find that ACOG our group member desired. The reason for this thread is to understand why someone would refuse to converse when facing a "life threatening" situation and offered an option, and when the options of remaining concealed or retreating were removed from their arsenal.

 

Letting the player leave the encounter without assurances was never an option for us: If I had been in his boots and had made the bizarre decision to run into the open, I would have hit the nearest cover and flanked around, trying to gain the tactical advantage and assessing if murdering the potential hostage takers was necessary to ensure my future survival.

 

As for learning English? Right back at you: The word "dialogue" in this context actually comes from the North American vernacular English (which, assuming by your spelling is your native or adopted form) and is a verb, not a noun - it means to take part in a conversation, the goal of which is to resolve a problem.

 

Your reaction is typical, but it is not the reaction of the player in the original post. Had the player reacted as you propose, we would not be having this conversation - instead they acted irrationally, and I inferred from this that the player simply wanted to avoid any interaction at all.

[pilgrim* 3514]

.

The right to remain silent is a legal right recognized explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

[mithrawndo 166]

.

The right to remain silent is a legal right recognized explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

 

This has always tickled me.

 

To take the example of the United States, the Miranda warning wouldn't cover this particular situation: Since 2010 the supreme court has ruled that the detainee must confirm they they are invoking their right to remain silent. In the United Kingdom you can actually be detained indefinitely if you do not identify yourself - countermanding your right to remain silent. Interesting trivia points, though obviously not strictly relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Absolutely, the player had the right to remain silent in this situation if they so desired. However knowing this only makes their decision yet more irrational.

[theevancat 94]

I've shot people only to regret my decision and fix them up and letting them go. They're disarmed, of course. So that was just me panicking a KoS (lone NWAF pilgrimage, go figure) and then turning the botched job into an interaction.

[nexventor 429]

I don't believe I was demanding an interaction, I was simply perplexed at the lack of survival instinct. 

 

There is no survival instinct because there is no punishment for death, 30 seconds later you are back on the coast away from the danger. The less gear you have the even less of a concern this is; just look at freshies they will risk their lives to go from nothing to kitted by attacking an armed man with their fists. This isn't a social experiment as there are no repercussions as in RL, it is vastly different.

 

 

Our intentions were to ensure the safety of our group. We were at the Balota airfield having scoured round from NEAF to NWAF and down past Zele, trying to find an ACOG for one of our group. This player was armed and as such a risk factor, our actions here were to ensure that the risk factor be mitigated as much as possible. The best way to do this of course is to silence him, but that in itself brings it's own risks: A gunshot is far louder than a conversation, and likely will draw attention from other players. If the threat can be disarmed without risking this, so much the better.

 

I am sorry I can not subscribe to this at all. If safety of your group was the paramount objective, then watching from a far would have been the far more sensible decision and anyone who has played DayZ for more than a few hours knows that any interaction with another player could end badly. He hadn't seen you so you could do this but instead you chose to interact with him. Your motives, I am still unsure about but 99% of players would do this to grief him. So his actions while not the best are totally understandable.

[WrecklessMEDIC 129]

If I may, I'll start with a short story recounting the events of last night. I play in a small group of 3 or 4 laid back players who spend most of their time in the western reaches of the map. Once we're comfortably set up we tend to roam around looking for interaction with a healthy balance of firearms on our side, casting a reasonably wide circle around Berezino (as we once did with Elektro) as we'd like to do a little more than just shoot and be shot at - though of course we do enjoy our share of conflict. However this post was inspired by another player we met at Balota Airfield in the small hours last night, on a server with around 25 players connected.

What happened here? Was this just poor judgement coupled with a non english speaking player, or a player silently raging at himself for his mistake? Did I do something wrong that spooked him into trying to run? My transcript is, excepting a few corrections in prose, word for word.

If you're still with me, thank you for taking the time to read this. In the interest of Becoming Better At Being A Bastard At Balota And Berezino (teehee!) I'd like to know what I could do differently in the future, and to do that I feel I have to understand the mentality that leads to the fight or flee reaction when a reasonable alternative is available.

TL;DR: Go away or stop being lazy and read!

Awesome story and all, but in all honesty most people don't take the game as seriously as you guys do.

If I was him I would've run for it as well. I would never even consider being taken hostage. Better to be killed and start over.

So to answer your question: "Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interaction?"

Because they don't want to be humiliated or tortured.

[qww 287]

op surrounds someone tries to force them to drop weapon and shoots them twice, and then makes therad because they dont chat with him? what ??

[Bororm 1156]

It's not why wouldn't they chat with him, but why didn't the guy interact with him in any capacity which is a valid question and multiple perspectives have resulted from the discussion, the main one seemingly being that most players would rather not interact in a situation like this because there's a high probability of being "humiliated or tortured."

[_Mandrake_ 49]

Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interactions?

 

For me, this is a simple one; I am one of those players.  My reasoning is simple: every time I've interacted with someone, they have done what they can to kill or rob me.  If someone says "Come out, we have you surrounded", I have a near certainty that if I come out, I'm going to die.  Here are a myriad examples of my personal experiences of interactions.

"Come out, we won't shoot" = we are going to shoot you.
"I'm friendly!" = not friendly.
"I don't have a gun" = has a gun stashed.

"I'm alone" = has a friend hiding.

"I'm looking for a friend / travel partner" = wants to kill or rob you, or both.

 

The only time I've ever met a person and felt I could trust them, was on the coast with another fresh spawn.  As soon as he found a weapon, we parted ways.  Every other encounter has ended badly.

 

So yes, I avoid interactions because nothing good comes of them 99/100 times.  If you have a culture of robbing and murdering people, you must surely understand this.
 

 

Edit:  In short: players lie, cheat, steal, dishonour everything and will kill their own brother for a can of beans.  Cannot be trusted.

Edited May 6, 2014 by _Mandrake_

[Valadain 270]

Seems like there was a lot of interaction, just not the kind you wanted.

[MarchHare 184]

OP:  Why if you could have taken the subject out through the window at 50m, didn't you just let him loot and move along?  Why engage if your team had the area locked down?   I let survivors walk by all the time. They never know I'm there or how easily they could have been dropped. 

 

 

OT: Would have quoted but this quote mechanic doesn't seem to work correctly for me.  Never displays what I've "quoted".

 

 

Edit:  After reading a couple more posts I get the Idea that your team is motivated to behave as a roving Police Squad, looking to restore order to a chaotic land. Though the methods seem overly confrontational.   In this chaotic land I have just as much right to avoid your boys in blue as you do to impose your form of Banditry from behind a Badge. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by MarchHare

[Ken Bean 175]

@op

At the end of the day, you and your team effectively killed a survivor who was not the slightes a threat to you only because he tried to run away.

 

Therefore you trapped, threaten, wounded him and stole all his gear (as punishment for combat logging, what he didn't do).

 

Because of what?

 

I see that in your opening post and over all interactions you try to make a reasonable impression. You even used this phrase quite often in your opening post to underline that, but at the end of the day ....

 

 

---

Bottom line: You absolutely dominated the scene and abused your power heavily. One peaceful survivor dead, who refused communication and who logged out after he were absolutely blacked out and even hand cuffed while you talked to him, good knows what.

 

Good question is, why anyone should consider you a friendly guy who one could trust?

And I really would know why you consider this combat logging. Didn't you won? Is dominating an enemy physically not enough for you?

 

If you had some respect against your enemy, you would have said "Good, wasn't nice from me. You don't want to talk, I respect that.", but no, this is not your bussines.

 

Imho, whatever why he exactly  logged out or didn't talk - be it instinct - I bet he was right.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Ken Bean

[.Ender. 42]

Seems like there was a lot of interaction, just not the kind you wanted.

 

sounds like an evening with the bull queer gang, "the Sisters"....

[BlackForrest 1]

This isn't a social experiment as there are no repercussions as in RL, it is vastly different.

 

And this is the reason why I think all servers being connected to a central hive to be the worst design decision ever. Every server should be isolated from the others. Then you have a name to lose, at least after a while and regulars begin to know you. In fact the central hive is a contributing reason why there is so much KoS and stupidity going on on the servers.

Edited May 6, 2014 by BlackForrest

[PongoZ 127]

ya the game is boring, so you fight that bordom by trying to show how tough you are or what ever that is you were doing, and others fight the boredom by trying to stay alive and away from you.

you just proved KOS in the game but then came here with a pathetic attempt to say the other guy was anti social. 

LOL

glad you hand cuffs make you happy, Rocket put them in for you.

[nexventor 429]

And this is the reason why I think all servers being connected to a central hive to be the worst design decision ever. Every server should be isolated from the others. Then you have a name to lose, at least after a while and regulars begin to know you. In fact the central hive is a contributing reason why there is so much KoS and stupidity going on on the servers.

 

I completely agree and as soon as the mod tools are handed over it will go to that.

 

I don't see any point in complaining about something that is CONFIRMED to change.

[Bororm 1156]

ya the game is boring, so you fight that bordom by trying to show how tough you are or what ever that is you were doing, and others fight the boredom by trying to stay alive and away from you.

you just proved KOS in the game but then came here with a pathetic attempt to say the other guy was anti social. 

LOL

glad you hand cuffs make you happy, Rocket put them in for you.

 

This wasn't KOS, he didn't kill on sight.

 

 

@op

At the end of the day, you and your team effectively killed a survivor who was not the slightes a threat to you only because he tried to run away.

 

Therefore you trapped, threaten, wounded him and stole all his gear (as punishment for combat logging, what he didn't do).

 

Because of what?

 

I see that in your opening post and over all interactions you try to make a reasonable impression. You even used this phrase quite often in your opening post to underline that, but at the end of the day ....

 

 

---

Bottom line: You absolutely dominated the scene and abused your power heavily. One peaceful survivor dead, who refused communication and who logged out after he were absolutely blacked out and even hand cuffed while you talked to him, good knows what.

 

Good question is, why anyone should consider you a friendly guy who one could trust?

And I really would know why you consider this combat logging. Didn't you won? Is dominating an enemy physically not enough for you?

 

If you had some respect against your enemy, you would have said "Good, wasn't nice from me. You don't want to talk, I respect that.", but no, this is not your bussines.

 

Imho, whatever why he exactly  logged out or didn't talk - be it instinct - I bet he was right.

 

The OP never claimed to be friendly.  I actually never say I'm friendly either when holding people up.  I'm not doing it to be their friend, even if my intentions aren't purely malicious.  As people have stated it's an act of aggression to begin with.  I think you can still trust some one who isn't out to be nice to you, and this guy could have made an effort to trust that he wouldn't be killed or "tortured" or whatever else.  It's on the aggressors to win that trust if that's their intention, but it's also on the victim to give it.  How a victim acts plays just as much of a role in the end result of an encounter as the captors.

 

You don't know that the guy was peaceful either, he could have ran out and flanked and attacked them.  Letting him just run off with no sense of his intentions isn't really an option if your goal to begin with is to control the area.  Mithrawndo wanted to give the guy the option of not being killed outright and the guy didn't want to take it.  Without the other guy's side of the story we don't know what he might have done, all we know is given the situation he made a pretty poor choice of trying to run.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Bororm

[PongoZ 127]

?

he proved that the other guy should have tried to KOS, 

[PongoZ 127]

OP, 

its not that hard, when you spend all this time to try and get in game power over people, and he chooses not to talk to you - which you clearly want more then is healthy, and not to let you capture him alive he wins, you lose.

That's it, You invested what ever in your little greifing expedition, he denied you most of what you wanted to gain from it. 

So you and you buddies lost. And he won, and that's what he wanted, that's why you see the behaviour you did.

Its not mysterious.

[Ken Bean 175]

You don't know that the guy was peaceful either, he could have ran out and flanked and attacked them.  Letting him just run off with no sense of his intentions isn't really an option if your goal to begin with is to control the area.  Mithrawndo wanted to give the guy the option of not being killed outright and the guy didn't want to take it.  Without the other guy's side of the story we don't know what he might have done, all we know is given the situation he made a pretty poor choice of trying to run.

 

Given that he didn't do or say anything what could be called hostile (trying to get away hardly is a hostile action), he was in fact not hostile. I don't know how you make up that thing that he potentially could be a threat and therefore killing him would be justified. If you really think like that, then everyone is guilty because potentially he could ...

 

That's unreasonable and implies a kind of a fear driven arbitrary.

 

In my understanding, he did the only thing what could have let him a chance, in question. The op however clearly showed that he was very hostile and in the moment the cornered tried to escape from his plight, the op pretty much proved that.

 

Well and then, talking to the hand cuffed like "this is all your fault" and punishing for "essential combat logging" also questiones the ops power of judgement in that situation.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Ken Bean

[gearjammer 97]

I recently learned that my mic wasn't set up properly so a lot of people that I've tried to talk to couldn't hear me. This possibly could have contributed to my first death as the guy was talking to me and I thought I was talking back when he hauled off and hit me with an axe. I also would never stick around to chat once I am dead. What's the point? I am clicking respawn within seconds of the "You are dead" message. Finally, and most importantly, I just don't care. Looting up is what I am enjoying most right now so if I am dead I am back to doing what I enjoy. In that situation I wouldn't talk either... I'd corner camp the top floor and stay quiet waiting for you to come up the stairs. Talking to you only let's you know that I am still there... If I am silent the thought that I may have logged off will creep into your head.

[AdmiralBull 15]

Here is the thing,in my experience,I have been fired upon after knowing that multiple players are in my vicinity and tried to peacefully go in the opposite direction and not engage.Whether or not I made that known to the other party was MY OWN decision.The party fires on me and I end up killing them and after one is killed the other is firing on me and can't aim for shit and is reloading and screaming "Friendly,Friendly,Friendly!" at me like its gonna do him any good at this point.....

                                                                                                                                 On the other hand, I have spotted someone and even surprised someone,face to face and spoke to them and with no response from them let them go on their merry way or took off myself.I had an encounter with a friend of mine who was being generous with his food and giving directions to new spawns when 3 others show up and took all of us out, without warning.So lessons were learned (by me) in each scenario.I say to each his own when playing this game.No one should have to do anything in any capacity that they deem might lessen their individual chances of survival,except play fair within the game's own set boundaries/rules.Up until now I haven't seen/heard any rules or circumstances (other than no blatant hacking/cheating) to make me or anyone else feel the need to do so within this game.Its the constant nagging and whining by individuals within the community,voicing it in the forums that, bring this subject to fruition.

                                  It comes down to one thing.....personal choice.And that,my friend is what this game is all about.

[Bororm 1156]

Given that he didn't do or say anything what could be called hostile (trying to get away hardly is a hostile action), he was in fact not hostile. I don't know how you make up that thing that he potentially could be a threat and therefore killing him would be justified. If you really think like that, then everyone is guilty because potentially he could ...

 

That's unreasonable and implies a kind of a fear driven arbitrary.

 

In my understanding, he did the only thing what could have let him a chance, in question. The op however clearly showed that he was very hostile and in the moment the cornered tried to escape from his plight, the op pretty much proved that.

 

Well and then, talking to the hand cuffed like "this is all your fault" and punishing for "essential combat logging" also questiones the ops power of judgement in that situation.

 

I don't trust anyone who isn't in my group in this game.  I consider everyone hostile unless they prove otherwise, and it takes more than running away with their gun to prove that to me.

 

If the OP is being sincere about not wanting to kill this guy, the guy had a better chance of living to actually comply.  He had no way of knowing that obviously, and made a poor choice.

The OP was hostile, he's made no secret of that.  This isn't about doing the right and wrong thing, it's about interacting with players and in this case holding people up.

 

The OP was hostile, the guy running was neutral but that doesn't mean he was a pacifist.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Bororm