ChaosExMachina

This is kind of what I am getting at. Let's put it this way:

I go to a PVP zone. I discover a team trying to fight AVs.

From experience, I know that those who organize these teams often need to do a ton of recruiting. There are not enough people available most of the time. When I joined such a team, it took 2 weekends and some of them, particularly Statesman, could only be taken with one team if that team was better than your average PUG. The main person who wanted the badges was able to join only during certain times. The heroes in zone were nice enough to let us do it. That was before i13 made enemies super strong too.

They ask me to let them do it politely. There is no bounty or benefit to me attacking other than the inf and very unlikely chance of recipe drop. It also won't be particularly interesting since I could kill them just by so much as buffing the AV. I am aware that if I do stop them I could ruin hours of effort and they might not be able to try for quite a while.

You'd better believe that attacking them, for no reason other than possible enjoyment of frustration of others, would be trolling, sociopathic, or whatever. It would be entirely within the rules, consistent with the intent of PVP, and not GM-actionable. But that would not make it anything other than schadenfreude.

I said "For non-sociopaths, PVP is fun because it is more interesting and challenging than PVE." I suppose there is recipe farming too, but the point is that a person whose primary interest is to frustrate a person they don't know is quite obviously performing sociopathic behavior. That isn't even a remotely controversial thing to say. Sociopathic behavior is that which demonstrates lack of empathy or social conscience. Perhaps somebody could try to dispute it instead of saying "oh, so now you call people sociopaths?!"

What way of thinking might that be? Could you explain it?

None of that is in dispute, but the moment a person says they don't want something, regardless of previous behavior, it is not consentual, IMO. But I don't want to argue personal interpretations of the word consent.

That I agree with totally. What I'm speaking of is a whole other scenario, where a person is asking not to battle, and there is no benefit to the attacker.

Stay classy Twixt! I suggest your next study should be about supposed sociologists who are incapable of making an argument other than "it's within the intent of the zone" or ad hominem trolling.

That, or scam research funding to study whether people get mad when you point at them and yell "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU! I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!" even in absence of rules against it.

...Wow. Are the feelings of that person even remotely relevant? Mobs also generally have better rewards.

This would make a very interesting defense during one's trial for war crimes!

Never mind that any soldier caught doing this would be in big trouble. I want to get past the stage 1 morality here. The debate is not about whether PVP by duress is against the rules, but whether it is rude. That argument, if you do mean it as a defense of surprise PVP, implies that a soldier who kills journalists is acting appropriately.

Hilarious. I wouldn't do it unless they were being jerks, but hilarious.

Good points. I am a PVPer actually, but bad arguments are bait for me to start up some forum PVP.

If a person says not to do something, they are not giving consent. To state otherwise because "you signed it" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the word means. What you're talking about is more akin to the legal principle of consent.

Who said anything about not wanting to PVP? Sometimes they interrupt duels, not just badges, though that isn't such an issue now that arena works anywhere.

See, this is one of the things that sucks about discourse now. Nobody even debates what the other person is saying, they just either argue with an alternate meaning of the words that were said:

See, it IS consent if you use this meaning of the word! Never mind that "PVP should involve giving technical consent by entering a PVP zone, or it isn't any fun anyway. What is the point of PVP against a target that doesn't fight back?" makes absolutely no sense in the context.

or classifying them into some group, and then debating with your stereotypical perception of that group:

Aha! You complained about attacks in a PVP zone! You must not want to PVP, even though you specifically referenced duels.

And thus armed with these 2 awesome debating techniques, the masses of the internet can win any argument simply by covering up the main point under a 10 page pile of drivel about word definitions or arguments about group stereotypes.

The POINT is that there is no fun to be gained from PVPng an unprepared person who is not able to fight back, unless you are getting jollies from causing them to be frustrated, which is the essence of trolling. For non-sociopaths, PVP is fun because it is more interesting and challenging than PVE.

Shopping mall brings customers to multiple stores because of convenience, thus supply leads to demand. Megastores use similar principles.

The large supply of 50s makes it more convenient to buy them than IOs at other levels. If you are in a hurry it would be stupid to leave bids at 49.

I've played the STO beta and it is blatantly a mass-produced game built with an engine that was designed for CO rather than Star Trek. The reviews will be brutal and fandom can only get them so far.

When it came out, I wondered why they bothered with recipe levels. It only serves to make each level unbalanced with the others, complicate searching, make low levels compete with high levels for some 30ish recipes, and much more.

I suppose the idea was to prevent level competition, but the way it is set up, with some of the most desirable recipes at 30 and no set bonus exemping, does the opposite.

What was the quote context?

What game are you playing in which everybody (hyperbole) isn't a superspeeder now? Especially if you count the hasten users.

You can get to every door by walking and jumping, so what IS the point of that setting?

There isn't one. It's just a way to be annoying.

Travel sinks were a bad idea in 2004. The big difference is that the industry started to realize that a lot later than players did.

Which info is that and how do we read it?

I just noticed the enemy info text.

There is no evidence that more than a few people in the universe have reproduced, particularly within 20 years.

Obviously the population of the city is sterile. The reason is up for speculation, particularly if it is entertaining.