|
|
|
|
#3
11-16-2014, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
Yeah Buhbuh lol you could have ripped on me for that one, but you see, im able to admit i was wrong, i spoke too quickly etc...
So i corrected my mistake, made amends, changed my viewpoint instead of entrenching myself in my initial position See the difference | ||
|
|
|||
|
#5
11-16-2014, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
Another analogy.
You share your account with someone that uses hacks. Accounts banned, no ifs, no buts. You are at fault for sharing the account, pretty simple. You share your account with someone that strips you. You are at fault for sharing the account, end of story, pretty simple. Why should GMs spend more than a min on this, the time it takes to read and close down the petition? Convince me. No, "youre a bitch" and "Jesus" isnt argumentation. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
11-16-2014, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
Why should players who dont share their accounts be penalized with less GM time for events, for actual petitions, because you shared your account after getting told for years not to do it? Staff is wasting time on bad apples, something im sure youre sick and tired of.
By investigating stripping, the staff is sending mixed signals. Dont share your accounts, but if you do, theres a chance we will spend time investigating it and penalize the stripper, because its "fraud" and you are not the first responsible for sharing your account. People will smart up about this and will install EQ on their grandmas computers, strip accounts from there, its such a huge waste of resources. Just stop dealing with account sharing petitions. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#9
11-16-2014, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
Heres some more moranic paragraphs to not read
"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process. Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach, and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3] Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and thus is perhaps better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group. " | ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
