Why is LTC hated?

[Constable Reggie]

You do realize that's exactly what he said of you

You just proved his point

Edited June 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Espinosa]

Olwen is right in one way though. The forum expects and demands too much from him in terms of empathy, yet barely anybody is willing to be patient with a peculiar theory of mind and understanding of social cues. All 18 pages of this topic and dozens of other threads derailed into bickering could have been avoided if people made an effort to not respond to certain comments (that, indeed, shouldn't have been made in the first place). Ethics is universal and not invented for specific individuals who are to uphold its principles. As it is right now, too many people are behaving as if they want some sort of acceptance from Olwen; well, you've already given his views more importance than anybody else's by acting this way, so it's your fault that there's no progress to be seen in that department.

[Constable Reggie]

Gee you're right: whenever I read Interceptor's posts toward Olwen, they just scream "I need acceptance!"

I personally don't see the expecting/demanding too much empathy, due the current standard being close to none at all.

I honestly think we've gotten past the point of really desiring progress of change: the dude will argue with people genuinely trying to help him for christs sake. What more should we expect from a dog biting the hand that is trying to feed it?

Edited June 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Snowy_One]

At this point I am unsure. This topic has made me realize that the problem with LTC seems to be a small percentage of the people and not the system. I'm not sure if I should be blaming the people, though, for being unaccepting and elitist, or the system for allowing such an elitism to exist. I don't think I can give up my hatred for LTC overnight, but... I am certain my disdain for it is poorly placed. I don't think I'll ever see it as a valid tiering method, but to stop hating it... That much I can at least try.

[Redwall]

As it is right now, too many people are behaving as if they want some sort of acceptance from Olwen; well, you've already given his views more importance than anybody else's by acting this way, so it's your fault that there's no progress to be seen in that department.

Point me to a single post in this thread where someone "enables" Olwen. The most we've done is (correctly) point out that it is wrong of others to harass him.

I personally don't see the expecting/demanding too much empathy, due the current standard being close to none at all. [...] the dude will argue with people genuinely trying to help him for christs sake.

For once I agree with you (though I removed the parts with which I disagree). While there's no question that Interceptor treats you more poorly than he should, it is extremely hypocritical of you (Olwen) to overreact to everything he says while criticizing others for overreacting to your own elitism. My jaw dropped when I saw that you actually tried to justify for a second time your RTU put-down. Your social problems on this forum aren't going to magically go away merely by having a mod step up.

[Narga_Rocks]

To those that want to censor the phrase "casual" for casual players because some people take it as an insult, how do we draw the line? Is it just whatever offends you is not okay but if it doesn't offend you then the word is fine? Is it every word that offends anybody is bad? Somewhere in between? I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that an innocuous word like "casual" is being placed in the same realm as words like "retarded" and "chauvinist pig" and a bunch of other words I'm unwilling to type. Like, really?

What word would you lot use other than casual for someone who just plays through the game, possibly multiple times, with no more thought than beating it? Not a challenge run like swords only or girls only or low turns or anything of the nature that might put them into hardcore status. Do we really need to invent a third description other than casual/hardcore to appeal to the non-hardcore players that don't want to be called casual?

Edited June 21, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[The Fush]

Change this thread title to "Why are LTC Players hated" and now you have a perfect fit for the second half of this thread

I'll just put it this way; Olwen is a good person, but gets carried away very easily and from that point on doesn't really keep up with what others are implying, not in the very slightest. That then chains into getting the wrong idea about what people are saying, and eventually leading to frustration which causes self preservation and a need to feel like the one being surrounded

It's like if an marathon runner sprints at his maximum strength but he has none left by the first minute

[RJWalker]

Anyone who places someone who spends hours on a game, gettting deeply immersed into it, etc into the same category as that mom or dad or grandparent who plays facebook games and other 'cow clicker' games is idiot. Plain and simple.

'Different definitions' isn't going to cut it. Not when pretty much everyone uses 'casual' for those type of gamers that play facebook games and other such games. Especially since it is used exclusively as an insult since 'casuals' are seen as the bane of the video game industry, the ones that will cause another industry crash, however ridiculous that may be.

Now I'm not offended when you call me a casual because you just lose all credibility when you did so it no longer matters. But it IS an offensive term. If you think otherwise, deal with it . Oh don't mind me. I don't think asshole is an offensive term so its totally okay.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Narga_Rocks
offensive phrase

[Rehab]

To those that want to censor the phrase "casual" for casual players because some people take it as an insult, how do we draw the line? Is it just whatever offends you is not okay but if it doesn't offend you then the word is fine? Is it every word that offends anybody is bad? Somewhere in between? I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that an innocuous word like "casual" is being placed in the same realm as words like "retarded" and "chauvinist pig" and a bunch of other words I'm unwilling to type. Like, really?

What word would you lot use other than casual for someone who just plays through the game, possibly multiple times, with no more thought than beating it? Not a challenge run like swords only or girls only or low turns or anything of the nature that might put them into hardcore status. Do we really need to invent a third description other than casual/hardcore to appeal to the non-hardcore players that don't want to be called casual?

Abridged version: personally, I like "player," doing a "playthrough." No descriptor needed, as our playthrough is nondescript, other than "playing through." By this logic, it's the playthroughs that have more specific goals that actually need a descriptor. Somebody can simply choose to use "casual" to describe their own attitude to a playthrough if they so choose.

I don't enjoy seeing other people called something that they don't like being called, personally, on just the most basic level because they don't like it, and thus calling them that is therefore inconsiderate at the least.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Rehab

[Narga_Rocks]

Anyone who places someone who spends hours on a game, gettting deeply immersed into it, etc into the same category as that mom or dad or grandparent who plays facebook games and other 'cow clicker' games is idiot. Plain and simple.

'Different definitions' isn't going to cut it. Not when pretty much everyone uses 'casual' for those type of gamers that play facebook games and other such games. Especially since it is used exclusively as an insult since 'casuals' are seen as the bane of the video game industry, the ones that will cause another industry crash, however ridiculous that may be.

Now I'm not offended when you call me a casual because you just lose all credibility when you did so it no longer matters. But it IS an offensive term. If you think otherwise, deal with it asshole. Oh don't mind me. I don't think asshole is an offensive term so its totally okay.

The part you are missing is something you actually said. Strange how that works. "Getting deeply immersed into it". That's pretty much the dividing line between "casual" and "hardcore". Although we could go with Rehab's suggestion and just drop both words and call them all players. But assuming we want to be more descriptive of the kind of playstyle people have...

So basically, if you just run through the game, no matter how many times, you are pretty much casual. If you start making challenge runs or whatever, that gets you hardcore status. For example, I am a casual Melee player. I do a little more than button mash, and I tried to do most of the little scenarios, but I'm still casual. And there's a difference between "casual player" and "casual playstyle". Snowy would not be a casual player, because he (sometimes) researches data about the game before making arguments. Among other things. His playstyle on the other hand? Totally casual based on his arguments. Turtling is even more casual, but since casual/hardcore is more of a spectrum than binary it's obviously going to involve degrees so even though he wouldn't be turtling, it's still pretty casual.

The trouble, maybe, is that you have a different opinion of "deeply immersed". Amazing how two people have differing opinions on something. Wow, that never happens. Your distinction had two main points. Hours spent and immersion. Personally, I don't see why hours spent matters. What if that grandmother spends 30+hours per week on her facebook game. Is she no longer casual? So immersion. If that grandmother investigates how to do better on that facebook game, or imposes challenges on herself, I think she can claim "I'm a hardcore facebook gamer". It shouldn't even matter what type of game it is. I think my definition is actually more generous and less offensive than yours, btw, since your "cow clicker" comment could be pretty offensive to her. She's a hardcore grandma and don't you forget it. In essense, the game shouldn't matter. The hours shouldn't matter. It's all about the immersion. To be a hardcore player, immerse yourself. To have a hardcore playstyle, do something special beyond "beat the game". I don't care if your challenge is to get the highest turncount without boring yourself to tears. You are now hardcore (strange, but hc nevertheless). But if you just plow through the game casually, then you have a "casual playstyle". No goal for turns, no goal for real time minutes, no goal for weapons to use, no goal for limiting the units, no goal for anything beyond beating it. For the record, not sure how I stand on Olwen's "support library still casual" stance. It is pretty simplistic a goal, so I might actually agree with him there. Like I said, hours alone do not a hardcore gamer make. But it is undeniably something "special" beyond "beat the game" so it could easily be a hardcore thing. But if you beat the game the same way just with different units until you have the full library, does that really make you hardcore?

Oh, and I don't think I want to talk to someone who is so obviously dishonest. Only reason I'm responding is to take a shot at helping you understand some concepts. Not gonna try again. You don't actually expect me to believe that you don't find that term offensive. Did you? If you truly, 100% believe that the word isn't offensive in your eyes, I'll let you put it back. I won't consider it flaming. But since I highly doubt that you are being honest when you claim you don't think it's offensive, it stays out. I illustrated this point in my last post, but you ignored the point. Where do you draw the line? Every single word that anybody finds offensive, or just the obvious ones? What if I find your use of the word "idiot" offensive? Do you suddenly stop using it? Fine then. From now on I am offended by the word "idiot". If you expect me not to call casual players casual, then I expect you to stop saying "idiot". Let's see, you called me an idiot and an ahole in the same post. Those are pretty offensive. I'm actually being serious now, but it's not that important whether I am or not. It's hilarious what a hypocrite you are being, though. Just saying. Asking me to not use "casual" when I don't think it's offensive but outright calling someone an idiot and an ahole when you likely do believe they are offensive.

I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that an innocuous word like "casual" is being placed in the same realm as words like "retarded" and "chauvinist pig" and a bunch of other words I'm unwilling to type.

Oh, maybe that's not a hypocrite, because you are asking me not to use unoffensive words and you are using offensive words. I see the difference here. Carry on, then.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Chiki]

My jaw dropped when I saw that you actually tried to justify for a second time your RTU put-down.

I didn't justify it because I never intended to put that person down in the first place.

And no, I was pointing out that eclipse is a hypocrite. I don't give a damn whether or not she does anything.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

To those that want to censor the phrase "casual" for casual players because some people take it as an insult, how do we draw the line? Is it just whatever offends you is not okay but if it doesn't offend you then the word is fine? Is it every word that offends anybody is bad? Somewhere in between? I just find it hard to take seriously the argument that an innocuous word like "casual" is being placed in the same realm as words like "retarded" and "chauvinist pig" and a bunch of other words I'm unwilling to type. Like, really?

What word would you lot use other than casual for someone who just plays through the game, possibly multiple times, with no more thought than beating it? Not a challenge run like swords only or girls only or low turns or anything of the nature that might put them into hardcore status. Do we really need to invent a third description other than casual/hardcore to appeal to the non-hardcore players that don't want to be called casual?

Actually, I asked myself this question, and that's what made me realize a truth. 'If, tomorrow, RFoF officially banned LTC and LTC tiering from SF, what would happen?' My answer? 'Ignoring the draconian enforcement that would, at least initially, be needed to enforce such a thing and the likely fallout. Some new standard would simply come into place on the tier lists and there would be people claiming it is the, de-facto, best. While I may find the new standard more agreeable, the elitism won't truly vanish. Just change form. Maybe it will be kill-counts, or least damage taken, but it will remain.'

If, tomorrow, aliens came down and brainwashed us to understand a difference between 'casual' and 'leasurely' gaming, would that change the problem? Not really. 'Casual' would still be an insult and, while leisurely gamers might not feel as offended since they are no longer grouped with children and facebook gamers, to 'hardcore' gamers they're still the same. Nothing has truly changed as the system is still in place.

Well, I'm now mad at the aliens for not erasing the collective memories of Twilight and/or Justin Beiber or some other, more worthy, cause of brainwashing than merely solving an internet terminology dispute and our understanding of the universe as well as a multitude of questions regarding faith and science have changed, but nothing has really changed in regards to the problem of elitism.

So is it LTC or the people who use it? Obviously LTC is impartial and objective. It only cares about turncounts. So it's not LTC or LTC tiering itself that causes the problem of elitism, but it DOES provide a measurement of 'I'm better than you'. At the same time, aside from measurements that would make North Korea proud, it's impossible to deal with people on any more than an individual level. And even if we tossed Chiki into the brain-washing machine, there is nothing stopping Chikitwo or Chikithree from coming onto the forum afterwards.

As for 'hardcore vs. casual', I honestly am coming to think BOTH terms are stupid. Am I 'hardcore' for beating Metroid Prime in under 2 hours? If I'm hardcore, is a computer equally 'hardcore' for completing the same feat? Am I a 'casual' Tales of Symphonia player because, I DON'T speed-run the game or some other self-imposed limitation? Am I the same caliber after clearing the game 20 times as a child who doesn't even understand that Sage is Raine's last name and not her job description?

[Chiki]

Snowy, my question is this: why is calling someone casual offensive? What is wrong with casual play?

[Narga_Rocks]

As for 'hardcore vs. casual', I honestly am coming to think BOTH terms are stupid. Am I 'hardcore' for beating Metroid Prime in under 2 hours? If I'm hardcore, is a computer equally 'hardcore' for completing the same feat? Am I a 'casual' Tales of Symphonia player because, I DON'T speed-run the game or some other self-imposed limitation? Am I the same caliber after clearing the game 20 times as a child who doesn't even understand that Sage is Raine's last name and not her job description?

Hence the distinction between "Casual Player" and "Casual Playstyle". If you play the same way as the child who doesn't understand that Sage is Raine's last name, then does it really matter if you understand the game better? Even if your skills are a little, or a lot, better than that child's, if you don't impose any differences in goals or whatever on yourself, does that do enough to differentiate your label?

This is the problem with applying two labels to a spectrum anyway. As I said so long ago with the right wing/left wing and male thing, labeling people with two different labels is going to cause this problem.

Let's look at this another way. Casual player A does not want to be associated with Casual player B because casual player B is an 80 year old Wii Sports player. So we rename Casual Player A "Hardcore Player A". But now Olwen, who sometimes is a casual player but other times is Hardcore Player B, does not want to be associated with someone who can't even break 200 turns in a game he finishes in under 100. Is it any worse to dump player A with CPB than it is to dump HPB with A? In other words, why do we care more about A being offended than HPB being offended? In other words, why does the casual player's rights matter more than the elitist hardcore player's rights? Shouldn't everyone have equal rights?

Note, for the record, no idea whether Olwen would care where you categorize him or who you lump him with. Maybe he'd be offended for being associated with a 200+ turn player and maybe he wouldn't. Whatever. The point is, with a two-label system, you are GOING TO OFFEND SOMEONE. Why should we care more about someone not wanting to be associated with his grandma than someone who doesn't want to be associated with a 200+ turn person?

Edited June 21, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Redwall]

I didn't justify it because I never intended to put that person down in the first place.

Doesn't matter. When people read posts like that, they will in general feel belittled regardless of what your intent was. The solution is not to say, "your feelings are irrational, these are the feelings you should experience."

And no, I was pointing out that eclipse is a hypocrite.

So what if she is? I can cite plenty examples of you being a hypocrite. That doesn't mean you're not deserving of an apology when someone wrongs you.

[Chiki]

Doesn't matter. When people read posts like that, they will in general feel belittled regardless of what your intent was. The solution is not to say, "your feelings are irrational, these are the feelings you should experience."

So what if she is? I can cite plenty examples of you being a hypocrite. That doesn't mean you're not deserving of an apology when someone wrongs you.

Do you think there's something wrong with trying to guess what someone's trying to say in their post? Is that something that's wrong?

Now you'll probably say that I should apologize whenever I hurt someone's feelings, regardless of not whether the thing I did was wrong. But you used the verb "to wrong someone."

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Steampunk]

Snowy, my question is this: why is calling someone casual offensive? What is wrong with casual play?

This misses the point. People aren't annoyed with the term because they hate casual play. They're annoyed because of what you implied by your usage of the word. Do you honestly not understand this? I'm not being a dick here, I'm asking you seriously. If you truly don't get it, then all the people in this thread can explain it to you for another twenty years and it still won't make any more sense to you than it does now because you honestly cannot see what the problem is or you choose not to.

[Chiki]

This misses the point. People aren't annoyed with the term because they hate casual play. They're annoyed because of what you implied by your usage of the word. Do you honestly not understand this? I'm not being a dick here, I'm asking you seriously. If you truly don't get it, then all the people in this thread can explain it to you for another twenty years and it still won't make any more sense to you than it does now because you honestly cannot see what the problem is or you choose not to.

I was asking what was implied by the usage.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[RJWalker]

Clearly you're doing it on purpose. I refuse to believe anyone could be that blind.

[Redwall]

When you presumed eclipse to be a soccer mom, you obviously meant nothing by it.

However, eclipse made you aware that you hurt her feelings. By continuing to deny her an apology, you are deliberately allowing her feelings to remain hurt.

Do you see the difference?

[Chiki]

When you presumed eclipse to be a soccer mom, you obviously meant nothing by it.

However, eclipse made you aware that you hurt her feelings. By continuing to deny her an apology, you are deliberately allowing her feelings to remain hurt.

Do you see the difference?

I know what I'm doing is immature, but it feels wrong for me to apologize to anyone who calls me a chauvinist pig when all I did was guess what someone was trying to say--which is something that everyone does every single time they interact with someone.

Clearly you're doing it on purpose. I refuse to believe anyone could be that blind.

I think I know why people think the term casual is offensive. According to the theory of moral dumbfoundedness people judge before reasoning their beliefs. So, for example, they can't explain why incest is wrong and act like it's wrong for no reason at all.

I think there's the same issue here. You clearly can't explain to me what's implied when you call someone a casual player, and perhaps this is why casual is considered offensive--because it feels that way, for whatever reason.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Redwall]

eclipse has taken responsibility for calling you a chauvinist pig. Although you obviously meant nothing by your post, there wound up being unintended consequences: namely, eclipse feeling hurt. Now that you're cognizant of those consequences, denying her an apology for presuming her to be a soccer mom (when she may or may not even have kids; I wouldn't know, and I'm not going to guess) is a deliberate attempt to spite her.

[Chiki]

eclipse has taken responsibility for calling you a chauvinist pig. Although you obviously meant nothing by your post, there wound up being unintended consequences: namely, eclipse feeling hurt. Now that you're cognizant of those consequences, denying her an apology for presuming her to be a soccer mom (when she may or may not even have kids; I wouldn't know, and I'm not going to guess) is a deliberate attempt to spite her.

I never presumed her to be a soccer mom. She was debating with Narga Rocks about that. I know she's a college student.

Actually, she got mad at me for assuming that she used the following argument form:

1) Something makes me uncomfortable.

----

2) Therefore it is false.

She didn't deny it so I'm assuming I was right all along.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Chiki

[Redwall]

Assuming that she adopted that argument form could have had any number of unintended consequences, with one of them being the implication that you believe her to be a soccer mom (I suppose in light of the fact you know her to be a college student, this is somewhat less likely, though still possible). Reading the posts again, another possible unintended consequence is that she may have felt you were oversimplifying her argument, and that her argument was more nuanced than that. Regardless, her reaction suggests that she was offended, and that your attempted summary of her argument may not have been what she was thinking.

She didn't deny it so I'm assuming I was right all along.

eclipse has asked you not to assume what she is thinking; I don't think it's productive to continue with that assumption.

[Snowy_One]

Hence the distinction between "Casual Player" and "Casual Playstyle". If you play the same way as the child who doesn't understand that Sage is Raine's last name, then does it really matter if you understand the game better? Even if your skills are a little, or a lot, better than that child's, if you don't impose any differences in goals or whatever on yourself, does that do enough to differentiate your label?

This is the problem with applying two labels to a spectrum anyway. As I said so long ago with the right wing/left wing and male thing, labeling people with two different labels is going to cause this problem.

Let's look at this another way. Casual player A does not want to be associated with Casual player B because casual player B is an 80 year old Wii Sports player. So we rename Casual Player A "Hardcore Player A". But now Olwen, who sometimes is a casual player but other times is Hardcore Player B, does not want to be associated with someone who can't even break 200 turns in a game he finishes in under 100. Is it any worse to dump player A with CPB than it is to dump HPB with A? In other words, why do we care more about A being offended than HPB being offended? In other words, why does the casual player's rights matter more than the elitist hardcore player's rights? Shouldn't everyone have equal rights?

Note, for the record, no idea whether Olwen would care where you categorize him or who you lump him with. Maybe he'd be offended for being associated with a 200+ turn player and maybe he wouldn't. Whatever. The point is, with a two-label system, you are GOING TO OFFEND SOMEONE. Why should we care more about someone not wanting to be associated with his grandma than someone who doesn't want to be associated with a 200+ turn person?

Indeed. Which is why I dub you 'Narga of the Narga playstyle' which I happen to disagree with on some issues. Also, Chiki is now 'Chiki of the Chiki-is-an-elitist-hypocrite' playstyle which I spurn.

For the record Chiki, when you first posted here, I wasn't biased against you. Then you kept talking. Now I am biased against you.