Talk:Griefer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

On Starcraft: Brood War, there is a griefer named "angryjew". He fits the description precisely. He frequently chooses "Use Map Settings" (UMS) games so he will not be penalized for attacking his teammates if they manage to overturn him. It's a way of ensure you don't take a loss on your account. UMS games are specifically designed to promote maps and environments not intended for serious and recorded gaming, hence no loss on his account even if his teammates overturn him (or if he successfully team-kills, commonly referred to backstabbing on Brood War).

Although Brood War, which is played on a gaming environment called Battle.Net allows for several instances of racial and ethnic offenses, he frequently joins a game called "Nazi D", a map consisting of computer attackers named after famous Jews, and players that fight the computer with surnames for their defending units like "hitler", "gas-chamber operator", "nazi whore", and "Luftwaffe". In any game he joins, although more prevalently in "Nazi D", after the first word is uttered he claims there is an anti-sematic environment being implemented by the host of the game and complements with "my grandmother/father/parents was/were in a camp you *expletive*!" After observing him join several games, a majority of the replies to his comments have been extremely racist in content and horrifyingly revolting (usually references are made to death camps and nazi experimentation. I had witnessed several repetitions of the joke "how many jews can you fit into a car"). Every sentence typed on the screen contains some sort of foul language or bad manner towards teammates. In private games, which I cannot comprehend why he is allowed to join, he waits until the game is started to unload his diseased attacks of hatred and vileness, thus avoiding being banned from the game by the host.

When the private game does start, he is usually allowed to join for the purpose of observing. Certain UMS maps are specifically tailored to allow slots for players to actually battle, and the remaining slots are allocated to observers who are not given any units to manipulate and therefore cannot interfere with the game. As a result, "angryjew" continuously utters racist remarks and slurs distracting the players. Of course the players ask him to leave, or sometimes issue a direct order, which is ignored and cannot be enforced due to the fact these games do not feature the ability to ban a player after the match has commenced, player or observer. He (i'm assuming he is in fact a male) floods the screen with messages that interfere with the players visibility of their units. If he isn't making racist accussations or receiving any from other observers, he's making berating statements to actual players in the game, which of course is usually enough to anger the players, as noted in the description. You would think the host would just re-create the game without him but that rarely happens for some reason.

In some instances, he joins a regular map (not a UMS) where has the ability to observe on the condition he lifts his units off the map and promises not to let any remaining units interfere with the match. Hosts that actually grant him this deal are kindly rewarded as he stays out of the vision of the players and constructs a massive army to unleash when both opponents are battling and at their weakest stages of the game. I've observed, and have actually been the victim of, occurrences when he and a friend pose as non-accquaintences and each pair with a teammate. I was one of those teammates. He backstabbed me, and his friend backstabbed his teammate, and subsequently we each recorded losses on our records from being caught off gaurd. Lately he has a well-known accquaintence that is constantly sought by challenging players, but will not play unless his "angryjew" friend is allowed to observe.

What boggles my mind the most is not how such a person can spend so much time spreading disgust and villiany across a majour wide-area network (and I'm sorry to say that I know he spends a majority of the day on Battle.Net), but that someone would actually befriend this interrorist (internet terrorist). I've seen griefers on Battle.Net, but none devote so much effort to causing hatred and deciet to such a large populous. I have noticed, in fact, that he uses the name "angryjew" yet is offended if anyone addresses him by this name, claiming they are targeting the portion of his name indicative of his religion. I believe that he uses this name simply to spread disdain for Jews themselves, and form a common stereotype that will be widely accepted. Phrases such as "I'm not spending that kind of money on cable" (explaining why his connection to the internet is so slow), or in a certain game where you are compensated with cash for destroying computer attackers: "I love the sound of that cash register", and "I don't talk to arab *expletives*" are all part of his repetoire. And to top it off, he has a well-known, liked, and respected friend.

I've stopped playing Brood War for one reason, and that is because of the "angryjew" and the environment in which he subjects others. Parents and guardians should never allow their children access to any public automated communication system without strict control due to bottom-feeding garbage such as he.

Does anyone care? Borgs8472 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The original poster obviously does, and if the griefer in question gets to read this and see that he does then he'll be thinking "job done" to himself. It's this kind of stupidity that the OP exudes that makes them such perfect targets. They are natural victims and attract attention to themselves as prey objects. I'm only keeping it all here because it's somewhat vicariously satisfying to witness someone in such discomfort that they write so verbosely about their experience, especially away from the point of origin. =]
Fair point. This is a troll overlap in my opinion Borgs8472 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

exam[ple of why griefing is fun 82.21.150.24 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Microsoft's Griefing Definition

Microsoft has a good definition of this (no link, sorry!), which covers more about verbal abuse rather than the team killing and techincal aspect of Griefing Borgs8472 17:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

"The typical stereotype is of a teenaged male who escapes a life of social ostracism and perhaps even parental abuse by lashing out at others in the only realm where he has power - the net." This statement seems pretty biased to me, so I slapped the section with an NPOV tag. --Antoshi~! T | C 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased? I'd probably write something like "the typical griefer is a psychopath and may share character traits with rapists, wifebeaters and other violent criminals." I don't think that would be POV at all.
Reading skills? The section goes on to state that the stereotype is false. What's NPOV about exploding popular myths? -Kasreyn 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It simply is not neutral. It's as if to say that any abused or troubled teenager only had power taking it out on people over the internet, that's simply unacceptable. And furthermore, if it goes on to prove that it's false, why have it there in the first place? --Antoshi~! T | C 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's unencyclopedic to state "In contrast to Myth B, Fact A is the case"? You have to always state "Fact A is the case" and nothing more? I have a hard time believing that, especially when it's a widespread myth or misperception that many readers might have an interest in learning the truth of.
My point is that I think it's our duty not only to report on what griefers are, but what people think of them. I'll admit that it's a hard thing to source, though. -Kasreyn 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, you really made me laugh. "My point is that I think it's our duty not only to report on what griefers are, but what people think of them." Yeah, that's rich. Let's re-write Wikipedia, and, instead of puttting FACTS into articles, let's just put in OPINIONS. Your last comment is making me itch to just delete that entire part of the article, because apparently you're more biased in editing pages than anything else. What about the people who don't play online games and therefore have no idea what a Griefer is? So, are people who don't know immediately supposed to believe this drivel about them? And yeah, it is unencyclopedic to state "In contrast to Myth B, Fact A is the case", because instead of giving people straight facts, you first lie to them, THEN set them straight. Try reading WP:NPOV before you decide to add anymore OPINIONS to articles. --Antoshi~! T | C 18:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever tried to find reputable sources on the topic of "griefing"? Good luck with that. There aren't any. Therefore it's not really possible to source or prove anything we're talking about on this entire article. I'd delete it but someone would just re-create it.
I don't know exactly why you're going off on me like this, or becoming so angry. I'm not defending a piece of the article (that would violate WP:OWN), I'm simply trying to engage you in debate on whether wikipedia should report on public opinion. I already made my main point, which is the difficulty of sourcing information on "griefing". And for your information, I happen to spend almost all my wikipedia time reverting vandals and NPOV edits, so I really don't need or deserve your condescension. You've made your point, and I don't disagree. So how about you calm down and stop thinking of me as the enemy? -Kasreyn 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I think this quote from WP founder Jim Wales might be informative: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." [1] This would seem to support my point, though as I've pointed out, the entire article suffers from a sourcing problem which might be insurmountable. -Kasreyn 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure there is much of a sourcing problem. Why not use the quotes from article linked from the article specifically the part Dissecting griefer dysfunction to write/source that section? Google comes up with plenty of sources for other things as well. kotepho 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If there's no sources on Griefing, that's fine and good. If Jimbo Wales says what he wants about encyclopedic writing, that's also fine and good. What's not fine and good is using either of those as excuses to be non-neutral or biased. Furthermore, the only reason I appear "angry", is because I don't much appreciate there being non-NPOV in this article and then having you defend them. And no, I don't believe I own this article. I didn't create this article, neither did I make any real edits to it other than posting the two tags that are there now. If you go ahead, and delete said text in the article, and then someone reverts or re-creates it, and then you remove it again, then you either direct them to this area of the Discussion page, or file for WP:RFM. However, if an article suffers from sourcing problems, then it either remains as a Stub until more information is available. However, I have gone ahead and listed this article as a WP:PNA, so perhaps someone else can help out. --Antoshi~! T | C 05:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be POV to say that griefers are psychopaths or otherwise mentally deranged, like rapists, wifebeaters and other violent criminals. It would simply be factual. Of course, some sort of source would be required.
Thats not a fact, thats an opinion. "Griefers" and criminals are not even comparable.

[edit] Helpful

I found this article helpful, even if it is overly filled with jargon. I support its inclusion as a standalone article on the English-language Wikipedia. I would like to see it improved, however I lack the technical knowledge to do so. But I did come across a recent newspaper article that could point to recent trends in the use of this term and could be used as a reference: Davies, Martin (June 15, 2006) "Gamers don't want any more grief", The Guardian. - Wisekwai 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abuse of features

Griefing isnt just about scamming or harrassing people, the abuse of features in ways not intended is a major part of it too. Non griefers also do this yeah, but similarly not all scammers or team killers are griefers.

No, I'm certain that is a misapprehension. Griefing is the act of abusing other players online. It's true that griefers typically make use of exploits - in fact, most of them do, and it's worth mentioning. But we must make it clear that not all griefers exploit, and it's not required for the definition of what griefing is. Kasreyn 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah yeah I see what you mean, its more a means to an end. 82.21.150.24 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

It seems to me that this particular section lacks hardly any verifiable sources. In fact, it seems to be mostly made up of the sheer opinion of whoever wrote it. Does anyone else have reason on why this section should exist? Also, is there any credible proof that any of the groups listed are "griefing groups"? DarkWolves was the only group listed in which evidence was actually supplied. 66.56.44.90 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Edit

I majorly rearranged the format of this article and added some information. Hopefully it works. I also removed the tone tag because I believe I fixed that - Arathwindmere

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/i/Talk%7EGriefer_d2d0.html"