Social question.

Blackwidow

Mablung wrote: »

LOL. Listen to you. I see you post on how certain threads need to be closed and how 'your faith in the moderators will be restored' if such occur. Hypocrite much?

My post was on a non constructive thread.

This thread is constructive.

You are just being rude.

Mablung

Blackwidow wrote: »

Mablung wrote: »

LOL. Listen to you. I see you post on how certain threads need to be closed and how 'your faith in the moderators will be restored' if such occur. Hypocrite much?

My post was on a non constructive thread.

This thread is constructive.

You are just being rude.

This thread is far from being constructive. You had your answer in the first few posts, as I stated being involved any MMO you would have known the propper etiquette behind this. Validation for something you did and maybe even felt some remorse or guilt over does not constitute a 4 page thread.

Who are you to decide if a thread is constructive or not? It was a lighthearted thread that people were having fun with. No insults or harm. Most of the comments were directed at me. I had no problem with it. Again, do you like being a hypocrite?

AreoHotah

He tried 1st, he failed. You tried after and you made it. You won, walk away. Simple.
Report you for stealing his chest... bahahahahahaha.

Mablung

AreoHotah wrote: »

He tried 1st, he failed. You tried after and you made it. You won, walk away. Simple.
Report you for stealing his chest... bahahahahahaha.

You are correct. I mean there are people who do this and people who don't what is important is the moving along part.

ganja.mullarwb17_ESO

This is like saying if a $100 bill was flying in the wind and two guys see it and run after it - it belongs to the guy who saw it first ?
- I think not.

ZOS_CarolusS

Greetings!
We'd like to remind you that we do encourage debate and it is absolutely okay to disagree, but keep your disagreements civil, on-topic and constructive. We will be closing this thread, if it should derail again.
If you have any questions, be sure to review the Code of Conduct and our guide on How to be a Community Hero.
Thank you for your understanding!

Curragraigue

I have never gone for a chest if someone else has gotten their first, but if I'm at a chest and fail and I can see someone else is waiting to have a go at it I always step out of the way so they can have a go during my cool down.

No hard feelings on my part other than towards myself for failing to open the chest on the first go. I think you were fine OP, as I say I personally wouldn't have done it but I don't think there is anything wrong with people doing it.

bloodenragedb14_ESO

its first come first serve when it comes to materials, ninja-ing stuff isnt forbidden, or against the terms of use, but its still kinda a *** move. but reporting it is a worse *** move than the act itself.

isengrimb16_ESO

If I see another player at a chest, I just skip on by; I know I'll find another eventually. My NB is probably out of picks, anyway.

My sorcerer has over 100, though, and really good luck with the lock-breaking. Found an Intermediate with a 5% chance to break yesterday; got into it first try. Was hoping to waste a few picks, lol.

cisadanepajsuxrwb17_ESO

In OP's situation, I would purchase with real money from ZoS, the ability to reply to that chat in emoticon. In this instance its the troll face.

phtony06b14_ESO

Bad game etiquette on your part but not a GM punishable offense either.

Magdalina

Me, I do find it kinda rude. But then I've been repeatedly told I'm too nice for MMO gaming:)

It's "fair game", yes(tho only times I personally fail at chests is when ESO decides to go all laggy and screw up my amazing mouse clicking skills, and then it is even more annoying). And it's most certainly not reportable, that's just silly. But you know it'd annoy you if someone else did that, and you can be rather certain it'll annoy them, so why do it? For that amazing green axe and 20 gold the chest probably has?

I think it's like common courtesy. Like holding a heavy door so it doesn't smack next person in the face or smth. Do you HAVE to do it? Most certainly not. But if you never ever even think about doing so, maybe it says something about you.

World needs more kind people, why not just be nice to each other?;)

SilverWF

Blackwidow wrote: »

What do you guys think?

I think he have butthurt.

GoranAgar

It always helps to compare internet situations with real life situations. In this case I see it like this: If I see someone standing at a vending machine and his coin falls through I do NOT try one of my own while he is still looking for another coin. It is rude. Wait your turn. When he gives up, give it a try. Don't be unfriendly simply because on the internet there are no consequences.

Reykice

Its fine, this is why they made it like this...

Usually all the slow people complain... us fast ones that never fail to get a chest say its fine. )

Again, nature is a ***. :-)

AlexDougherty

Mablung wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

I've had it done when I was fighting the mob which guarded the chest.

I thought that was pretty *** and the guy must have been a ***. But that's how he rolls....

This is pretty common even when obtaining certain quest objectives. There has always been an unwritten rule that if someone is near, fighting mobs or attempting to unlock a chest as in this instance, the honourable thing to do is move on. Come back later.

This unwritten rule is undermined by the cooldown mentioned.
There is an unwritten rule that if there is a cooldown, and the first person fails, then the second person can have a try. Otherwise why the cooldown??

Heretik76

Competitive as mentioned is not something natural. It's something humans invented like money, religion, time etc. Giving meaning and symbolisms to things doesn't makes us intelligent or spectacular or noteworthy. Common sense does, in a sense and common sense is not so common as already told..

So, in a game, in a Social game (and it is a Social game since it is an MMO) you actually socialize and "show off" your socializing skills in a way. We evolve exactly because we learn to socialize, to communicate with eachother and not because we compete eachother, however absurd may this seem to some, probably a lot.

In lesser words, i thing the social thing here would be to take turns. Everyone has a try, he/her cooldown will be off if the next will fail to open it too.

(It is very disappointing to me that we actually need rules to obey blindly to just do or not do something that only applies common sense. The ability to speak, of course - master Qui-Gon said, doesn't make you intelligent.)

AlexDougherty

Heretik76 wrote: »

Competitive as mentioned is not something natural. It's something humans invented like money, religion, time etc. Giving meaning and symbolisms to things doesn't makes us intelligent or spectacular or noteworthy. Common sense does, in a sense and common sense is not so common as already told..

Um, how to put this, Competitiveness does exist in the natural world.
Animals compete for area and food sorces (often other animals).
Animals compete for the best Mates.
Plants often compete for sunlight.

All humans did was formalise it.

Heretik76

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Heretik76 wrote: »

Competitive as mentioned is not something natural. It's something humans invented like money, religion, time etc. Giving meaning and symbolisms to things doesn't makes us intelligent or spectacular or noteworthy. Common sense does, in a sense and common sense is not so common as already told..

Um, how to put this, Competitiveness does exist in the natural world.
Animals compete for area and food sorces (often other animals).
Animals compete for the best Mates.
Plants often compete for sunlight.

All humans did was formalise it.

They compete in their own unconscious world, indeed. If you mean it like that i agree and i should elaborate even further. Man though, is not an animal. Or he claims not to be. He is a conscious state some thousand years now, so i've been told and thus, he can think above competitive or the very definition and application of it in he's social structure. What is viable, good for all and a virtue. If nothing is needed to make a humane world than to just keep being competitive in a conscious and intelligent society, then i can agree with that, i just won't participate as i already do.

AlexDougherty

Heretik76 wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Heretik76 wrote: »

Competitive as mentioned is not something natural. It's something humans invented like money, religion, time etc. Giving meaning and symbolisms to things doesn't makes us intelligent or spectacular or noteworthy. Common sense does, in a sense and common sense is not so common as already told..

Um, how to put this, Competitiveness does exist in the natural world.
Animals compete for area and food sorces (often other animals).
Animals compete for the best Mates.
Plants often compete for sunlight.

All humans did was formalise it.

They compete in their own unconscious world, indeed. If you mean it like that i agree and i should elaborate even further. Man though, is not an animal. Or he claims not to be. He is a conscious state some thousand years now, so i've been told and thus, he can think above competitive or the very definition and application of it in he's social structure. What is viable, good for all and a virtue. If nothing is needed to make a humane world than to just keep being competitive in a conscious and intelligent society, then i can agree with that, i just won't participate as i already do.

I can agree with that, deciding when to compete and when not is an important attribute. Like anything, what a virue in one situation might be a detriment in another, and it's carefully applying what will work now that's important.

Fleymark

No, not against the rules or reportable, but definitely bush league.

If I saw someone picking a chest it wouldn't even occur to me to go near it, unless they just left it or something.

Aeradon

Master chests are awesome, you deserved it.

Though I would personally leave some items in it, cause its always crap and I just wanted the soul gem and the fun of a master chest.

Usually I ignore a chest when I see someone running to it, unless he/she is running to the chest when I'm nearer. "B** ain't stealing ma' chest!"

Master chests are just so rare and tempting and fun. It's so hard to come by once you out level the chests.

The cool down window is there for a reason. The only ninjas are those who spam "E" when you're picking a chest, the moment you pick it, he opens it.

Though prior to the dungeon chest system change, it would be really polite to ask your team if they wanted the chest, and coordinate to allow the pitiful unlucky members to have the chest fun. Or just leave some items in it when you're done.

You're not the first one to come across a b. Some lowbie reported me for camping a vamp/ww spawn while all I did was just standing there /lean and waiting for someone worthy of the bite.

@Mablung‌ I do disagree with OP's way of posting in multiple threads, but this thread is fine as it is. (:

AlienSlof

I'll feel a momentary annoyance, then remind myself that the chests eventually respawn and it's only a game, after all. Sometimes, I'll indicate to a waiting player that they're welcome to it if I've broken my last pick.

Blackwidow

Heretik76 wrote: »

They compete in their own unconscious world, indeed. If you mean it like that i agree and i should elaborate even further. Man though, is not an animal. Or he claims not to be.

He is an animal, just a highly intelligent one.

He is a conscious state some thousand years now, so i've been told and thus, he can think above competitive or the very definition and application of it in his social structure.

Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.

What is viable, good for all and a virtue. If nothing is needed to make a humane world than to just keep being competitive in a conscious and intelligent society, then i can agree with that, i just won't participate as i already do.

Obviously if all we had was a competitive side, we would be killing each other over a piece of fruit. But, that does not mean that being competitive is purely a bad thing.

Our competitive nature is one aspect of us that helps us survive and thrive. It is what makes us want to invent things and be better than we are, constantly wanting to improve ourselves.

I asked about the "chest social aspect" to get an idea of where we all think this might fall between the realm friendly competition and socially rude.

I know ZOS set this up to make chests viable for all players, so one person could not hog the chest and sit there all day long breaking his lockpicks without giving the next player a chance at the chest.

I have had chests taken from me early in the game. It did not bother me at all. I thought it was a cool system and this is just a game.

However, this was just my aspect of the game and I wanted to know how a group consensus felt and what was the "golden rule" of the game.

After reading the thread, I think anyone who waits their turn at a chest has a right to pick it next, just like the game is designed to do.

If anyone is nice enough to let people just take a chest because the other person got there first, that is great. Super nice and I'm glad people like you exist.

I happen to craft things free for people when people /zone chat they need a crafter. Most people charge 100's of gold just to craft, even with the other person's mats.

There is nothing wrong with charging people for crafting, just like I think there is nothing wrong with taking a turn on the chests.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who took the time to politely give their opinion.

Sindala

I think the Imperial 'Luck' buff must work well on chests....never failed to open a chest apart from the 'impossible' ones.
Got over 200 lock-picks now on 1 char and hardly break any.
It's more annoying that it's 3 stacks of lock-picks now.....(why do they have to have limits on stacks anyway??)

Blackwidow

Mablung wrote: »

This thread is far from being constructive.

Obviously the moderators disagree.

Who are you to decide if a thread is constructive or not?

We all have a right to our opinions. I happen to be right, your thread got shut down super fast for being non constructive. Now you are here all upset with my comment, so you came to insult me, and derail my thread.

It was a lighthearted thread that people were having fun with. No insults or harm. Most of the comments were directed at me.

And still, the devs felt it was not worth keeping alive, because it was not being constructive. I guess I was right.

I had no problem with it.

Yet, the mods did or you would not have been shut down.

Again, do you like being a hypocrite?

Call me whatever you want if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day you are just butt hurt because you think somehow I got your useless thread shutdown, so you came here to attack me to make yourself feel better.

So, vent at me all you like, if it helps you sleep better at night. I won't be responding to you anymore if you are going to be like this.

I'm done with the thread, so I guess anything you post after this will not hurt it.

Have a nice day.

Singular

Blackwidow wrote: »

I saw a chest in the distance, but by the time I got to it, another player started to pick the lock.

It was a master chest to me, so I thought he might mess up and I could try to pick it. As it turns out that is what happened.

I got the chest and started to walk away.

Next thing I know he is giving me a tell that he is going to report me for stealing his chest.

So, I guess the question is, is it a social faux pas to take a chest from another player? I know it is not against the rules and all that, but is it just rude in general?

What do you guys think?

It's all good. It's just a chest. He'll be ok.

Just write him something vaguely rude but not reportable and get him to use excessive swears at you. Then report him.

(just kidding, mean people suck)

dolanjamieb16_ESO

Well i personally wouldn't have tried to ninja it like you did

But as an adult i also understand that essentially its first come first served which means first to pick it wins the prize

Whats to say he didn't break his last lockpick and could never have opened it anyways

isengrimb16_ESO

Blackwidow wrote: »

Heretik76 wrote: »

They compete in their own unconscious world, indeed. If you mean it like that i agree and i should elaborate even further. Man though, is not an animal. Or he claims not to be.

He is an animal, just a highly intelligent one.

He is a conscious state some thousand years now, so i've been told and thus, he can think above competitive or the very definition and application of it in his social structure.

Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.

What is viable, good for all and a virtue. If nothing is needed to make a humane world than to just keep being competitive in a conscious and intelligent society, then i can agree with that, i just won't participate as i already do.

Obviously if all we had was a competitive side, we would be killing each other over a piece of fruit. But, that does not mean that being competitive is purely a bad thing.

Our competitive nature is one aspect of us that helps us survive and thrive. It is what makes us want to invent things and be better than we are, constantly wanting to improve ourselves.

I asked about the "chest social aspect" to get an idea of where we all think this might fall between the realm friendly competition and socially rude.

I know ZOS set this up to make chests viable for all players, so one person could not hog the chest and sit there all day long breaking his lockpicks without giving the next player a chance at the chest.

I have had chests taken from me early in the game. It did not bother me at all. I thought it was a cool system and this is just a game.

However, this was just my aspect of the game and I wanted to know how a group consensus felt and what was the "golden rule" of the game.

After reading the thread, I think anyone who waits their turn at a chest has a right to pick it next, just like the game is designed to do.

If anyone is nice enough to let people just take a chest because the other person got there first, that is great. Super nice and I'm glad people like you exist.

I happen to craft things free for people when people /zone chat they need a crafter. Most people charge 100's of gold just to craft, even with the other person's mats.

There is nothing wrong with charging people for crafting, just like I think there is nothing wrong with taking a turn on the chests.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who took the time to politely give their opinion.

The most intelligent non-humans are generally recognized to be social ones (and yes, even domestic cats are considered social, at least enough so to put up with Man.) Animals who live in their own communities - wolves and chimpanzees, for instance - also have to have rules. It was social rules - laws - that man formalized, and originally felt he had to back up with gods to give those rules some weight and authority .. and the bigger and more genetically unrelated a community gets, the more rules tend to be needed.

Their social rules and interactions are actually quite complex, quite conscious, and quite deliberate and formalized, as much as any stone-age small, family-oriented human community (tribe). Justice amongst the non-humans can resemble justice amongst human tribes - not necessarily killing, but ostracism and shunning. Being outside the social group without its help is usually a death sentence on its own.

Most of what we learn in kindergarten, wolves and chimps have to teach their offspring too. Wait your turn. Respect your elders. Share. Don't fight amongst each other (it makes for a disharmonious and eventually broken society of any size). Don't steal from each other (though stealing from other tribes, etc, is perfectly fine.) etc.

The problem is, we're smart enough to ignore these deep-seated social mechanisms when and as we see fit.

Blackwidow

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

The problem is, we're smart enough to ignore these deep-seated social mechanisms when and as we see fit.

No offense, but I think you are way over simplifying it, at least from what I can understand.

It sounds like you are saying the nature part of us is good, but the intelligent side of use can override that and we can choose to be evil.

I would argue that it is a balancing act. It's our base instincts that make us do impulsive things, right or wrong.

Our base instinct makes us jump into action. Fight or flight.

Look at a drunk person. That person is working on a more base instinct. Drunk people can get loud, violent, abusive.

On the flip side it is also our base instinct to love and care for each other. We have it hard wired to make sure our species survives.

Our intelligence lets us reflect on our decisions and learn from what we have done.

Right or wrong. Good or bad. These are just labeled judgments our intellect came up with.

Wolves, monkeys and other social animals don't have a good or evil mentality. It is all instinct. However, that does not mean animals can not be just as cruel and violent as the rest of us.