Forced emotes - worse than ever

[Rakshilady]

As per an earlier post, I've never seen anyone in 5 years of kinchat, global, region or local chat respond negatively to someone doing a forced emote, especially ones such as the minstrel group dance that's been in the game practically from the beginning. These forums and specifically this thread, is the first I've seen of anyone caring about it.

As a result of that, I find it hard to believe that those who care enough are anything other than a tiny (yet vocal) minority across the entire playerbase.

*laughs* Everything on this forum is a matter of opinion, including the things you say!

You cam SAY no one has ever complained to you, and you may be telling the truth, who knows? I only wish you'd been around the other night to hear me flame out some FE jokester who was spamming me with his (or her) nonsense. I told them in spades what an unmitigated *&&&&&&&* they were and put them on ignore.


And if this is the first you've ever heard about folks not liking this stuff, I'm not sure where you've been for the past 5 years. Many, MANY people on this forum and off of it have complained about this ridiculous nonsense ever since it was introduced. We may be vocal, but I doubt we're in the minority.

I refer you to these links to get you started. A search on 'forced emotes' will add to your reading list. Enjoy!

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...=forced+emotes

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...=forced+emotes

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...=forced+emotes

[maxjenius]

I think that's an arguable point. Merely by putting the forced emote (either consumable or skill) on a skill bar indicates intent to use it.

Just because someone intends to use it at some unknown point in the future does not mean a given use was not an accident.

You could argue that it isn't intentional in a given instance, but the overarching intent is still there or it wouldn't be on the bar.

Irrelevant. Intent would be based on each use. By your logic, if someone intentionally put some food on the floor for dog A to eat and then accidentally let dog B into the house and dog B ate the food, the person actually intended dog B to eat the food, since he put the food on the floor intentionally.

[Whart]

I don't think that would be an accurate way of gauging how many people think it's rude.

There's an opt out option for someone sending you fellowship requests. That doesn't mean if someone has selected that opt out option that they think everyone who goes around inviting people to a fellowship is being rude and "attacking" people.

I happen to think that blind fellowship/kinship invites (i.e. the ones where nobody says a word to you before inviting) are rude. If you want me to join you, the polite thing to do would be to introduce yourself first. That's why I have turned off invite options. Same with spar invites. Maybe I'm in the minority...there's no way to know for sure.

Unless you have statistics from Turbine that prove that the majority of players love FEs, there really is no way to know who is in the majority or minority. And that really shouldn't be an issue. We can all express our opinions for or against, and only Turbine knows the true numbers and what decisions will work best for them. Your opinion and mine are of equal value. So perhaps what would be best would be to simply state your opinion on whether or not there should be an option to opt-out of them, the same as there is to opt out of invites and spars.

[Hessli]

I happen to think that blind fellowship/kinship invites (i.e. the ones where nobody says a word to you before inviting) are rude. If you want me to join you, the polite thing to do would be to introduce yourself first. That's why I have turned off invite options. Same with spar invites. Maybe I'm in the minority...there's no way to know for sure.

Unless you have statistics from Turbine that prove that the majority of players love FEs, there really is no way to know who is in the majority or minority. And that really shouldn't be an issue. We can all express our opinions for or against, and only Turbine knows the true numbers and what decisions will work best for them. Your opinion and mine are of equal value. So perhaps what would be best would be to simply state your opinion on whether or not there should be an option to opt-out of them, the same as there is to opt out of invites and spars.

I've already stated that I'm for the removal of FEs or at least an opt out system.

My points in this thread have purely been that other players shouldn't be the target of abuse or blame for doing something that is allowed, encouraged and rewarded by the people in charge and that I believe (based on my own experiences) the majority of people in the game think is acceptable.

Other people feel differently. That's fine, that's up to them. Unfortunately I've been verbally "attacked" somewhat for having a differing point of view on the subject by the very people who don't like being "virtually attacked" in game. I'm sure there's some irony there.

I only wish you'd been around the other night to hear me flame out some FE jokester who was spamming me with his (or her) nonsense. I told them in spades what an unmitigated *&&&&&&&* they were and put them on ignore.

Personally, I don't think a player doing something within the game rules that's annoyed you is a fair enough justification for you to be rude or personally abusive to them.

[Glenwin]

What, exactly, is a "cursor key"? I'm familiar with "mouse buttons" and "keyboard keys", but I can't seem to find a "cursor key" anywhere.

Sorry for the late answer. Cursor Keys are the keys with which you move the input mark (= cursor, often times it is blinking) in text editors like Word or notepad. They have arrows on them to move the cursor left/right and up/down. On a standard PC keyboard they are located between the alphanumeric keys and the numeric keypad. On a laptop they are often times located on the lower right corner of they keyboard layout.

In Lotro they can be used to move your character and when you /sit or /liedown (or someone forces you to lie down) you can use one short tap on a cursor key to stand up again.

[Methoriel]

The people who think forced emotes are rude are a minority group

Cite the research for this conclusion, otherwise it's just a meaningless statement.

[Dworin]

If a minority of real life people thought something was rude that not only the majority or society thought was acceptable, but the government were encouraging and rewarding people for doing. I'm afraid the minority are the ones that would need to deal with it and not abuse or blame people for carrying out those actions.

I will determine whether someone's actions offend me or not. I will determine if someone is treating me disrespectfully. I will decide how I will relate to that particular someone. I will determine who goes on my ignore list, and I will determine who I believe is acting like a jerk. Not you, not society, and not the government.

It's not Turbine that forces someone to cast a forced emote on my character. It's the player at the keyboard who makes that choice. And if that someone makes that choice without my permission, then I'll treat him/her accordingly.

You are welcome to your opinion.

[Rampagingdeath]

Cite the research for this conclusion, otherwise it's just a meaningless statement.

/devilsadvocate true, however in exactly the same vane, cite research that disproves that conclusion /devilsadvocateoff

Ultimately it's all just opinion/beliefs and interpretation, only Turbine knows how many players are out there, only Turbine knows how many of those players have viewed this thread, if we knew that then there would be merit in the suggestion (or not), that's probably why this discussion will run and run (and run) until Turbine make a decision one way or the other.

[Tiempko]

I don't think that would be an accurate way of gauging how many people think it's rude.

There's an opt out option for someone sending you fellowship requests. That doesn't mean if someone has selected that opt out option that they think everyone who goes around inviting people to a fellowship is being rude and "attacking" people.

If you are looking at a linguistics test to determine the number of native speakers of a particular language will apply a particular noun 'rude'(n) to the situation in question, this may indeed be a poor test.

If you are looking for a test of as to whether the people who are the victims of such behavior consider whether or not their overall experience is improved or diminished by being the victims of these pranks, it is a very good test. And that is the test that I think is relevant to this discussion. It is also the relevant test for measuring the qualities of those people who find their enjoyment in diminishing the quality of experiences for others. The specific noun one then applies to the person having those qualities ultimately makes little difference.

[Hessli]

Cite the research for this conclusion, otherwise it's just a meaningless statement.

I have explained that it's my opinion and that is based on my experiences. I think it's a relevant opinion with regards to the discussion rather than a meaningless statement, but feel free to disregard if you so wish.

I will determine whether someone's actions offend me or not. I will determine if someone is treating me disrespectfully. I will decide how I will relate to that particular someone. I will determine who goes on my ignore list, and I will determine who I believe is acting like a jerk. Not you, not society, and not the government.

It's not Turbine that forces someone to cast a forced emote on my character. It's the player at the keyboard who makes that choice. And if that someone makes that choice without my permission, then I'll treat him/her accordingly.

You are welcome to your opinion.

My statement still stands. As someone who is opposing society and the governing body, you should be the one to change your reactions, not other people to change their actions.

If you are looking at a linguistics test to determine the number of native speakers of a particular language will apply a particular noun 'rude'(n) to the situation in question, this may indeed be a poor test.

If you are looking for a test of as to whether the people who are the victims of such behavior consider whether or not their overall experience is improved or diminished by being the victims of these pranks, it is a very good test. And that is the test that I think is relevant to this discussion. It is also the relevant test for measuring the qualities of those people who find their enjoyment in diminishing the quality of experiences for others. The specific noun one then applies to the person having those qualities ultimately makes little difference.

Severity is relevant in this discussion point though, as it was raised as a result of me specifically saying that those who find it rude are in the minority, not "those who find it a mild inconvenience and would possibly turn off the option if it was available".

[Whart]

/devilsadvocate true, however in exactly the same vane, cite research that disproves that conclusion /devilsadvocateoff

Ultimately it's all just opinion/beliefs and interpretation, only Turbine knows how many players are out there, only Turbine knows how many of those players have viewed this thread, if we knew that then there would be merit in the suggestion (or not), that's probably why this discussion will run and run (and run) until Turbine make a decision one way or the other.

Of course, you're absolutely right. They know who does or does not use the emotes and who does and does not view or comment in these threads. Everyone on either side or somewhere in the middle of the argument have equal rights to express their views on the issue, and I dislike hysteria or hyperbole on either end. What matters is that players express their likes/dislikes/experiences so that we can discuss the issue amongst oursleve, and so that Turbine can see all sides of the issue.

[paintpixie]

I think that's an arguable point. Merely by putting the forced emote (either consumable or skill) on a skill bar indicates intent to use it. You could argue that it isn't intentional in a given instance, but the overarching intent is still there or it wouldn't be on the bar.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

It may be weird, but I'm secretly hoping that THIS argument takes over the thread.

I find it more interesting.

And so I'm going to give it a go.

Let's say I get up to take care of something...and my hubby comes along and changes all my skills around, BUT he does it SO sneakily that I don't even realize it until it's too late.

(This is hypothetical, of course. My hubby wouldn't dare touch anything having to do with my game...for fear of his health. XD)

Then...it's not intentional...at least by ME. : D

[paintpixie]

I want to play MY game.. not someone elses.

Welcome to MMOs.

[Dworin]

My statement still stands. As someone who is opposing society and the governing body, you should be the one to change your reactions, not other people to change their actions.

You need to prove I'm in opposition to society. You can't. And it wouldn't matter anyway. Your opinion changes nothing, it's still action/reaction. Player "A" can choose whatever action he wants. I will choose to react in whatever way I want. Casting forced emotes on my character is not against the rules, but then, neither is it against the rules for me to put player "A" on ignore. And neither you nor Turbine get to tell me what I say or think about player "A" in my house.

[Hessli]

You need to prove I'm in opposition to society. You can't. And it wouldn't matter anyway. Your opinion changes nothing, it's still action/reaction. Player "A" can choose whatever action he wants. I will choose to react in whatever way I want. Casting forced emotes on my character is not against the rules, but then, neither is it against the rules for me to put player "A" on ignore. And neither you nor Turbine get to tell me what I say or think about player "A" in my house.

Putting someone on your ignore list is an acceptable reaction.

Being verbally abusive to someone (as advocated by some people in this thread) isn't an acceptable reaction.

[Dworin]

Putting someone on your ignore list is an acceptable reaction.

Being verbally abusive to someone isn't.

Oh, well, thank you. I'm glad I have your approval. *rolls eyes*

[whheydt]

It may be weird, but I'm secretly hoping that THIS argument takes over the thread.

I find it more interesting.

And so I'm going to give it a go.

Let's say I get up to take care of something...and my hubby comes along and changes all my skills around, BUT he does it SO sneakily that I don't even realize it until it's too late.

(This is hypothetical, of course. My hubby wouldn't dare touch anything having to do with my game...for fear of his health. XD)

Then...it's not intentional...at least by ME. : D

An ex-spook of my acquaintance used to claim that a truism in his former line of work was:

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.

Now, IF forced emote actuators have been put on a skill bar, then there is a clear intent to use them.

IF a forced emote is used without intent, then it behooves the user to apologize.

IF no apology is forthcoming, then one can only conclude that either (a) the user of the forced emote is indifferent to effects of his own action and is also indifferent to others (lacks empathy), or (b) is too careless in his personal actions to be let out of the house without a keeper.

If someone did re-arrange your skill bars, and you are at all observant, then it should be very quickly apparent what was done and the prudent thing to do is stop and put the skills back where they belong.

Note that I agreed that it is possible to accidentally use a forced emote if it is already present on a skill bar. But the question remains: What is it doing on the skill bar if it isn't there with the intent to use it? If the forced emote actuators are not on the skill bar, then they won't be accidentally triggered.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[whheydt]

Putting someone on your ignore list is an acceptable reaction.

Doesn't have any real effect, though. Unlike a forced emote.

Being verbally abusive to someone (as advocated by some people in this thread) isn't an acceptable reaction.

So long as it doesn't cross the lines that Turbine has laid down, why not?

Believe me, I have a pretty decent supply of invective to hand which wouldn't violate any of Turbine's rules. Are you asserting that I am barred from using it? On what basis?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[Hessli]

Rule number 1 on the Lotro Code of Conduct:

1. While participating in the Game or on the Game Website you must respect the rights of others to play and enjoy the Game world as intended by Turbine.

[manstan]

"That is simply untrue, as are most statements with "always" in them. Usually, yes, but unless you say it's impossible to accidentally click the wrong icon on a hot bar, then you can't say it's always intentional." maxjenius

Yes I can, watch me. It's always intentional. Nothing is imposable, just improbable. For your scenario to work there has to be several preset factors. Of coarse you have to have the emote or consumable. You have to have it in your HUD. Emotes require you to target some one. Once you target some one the only way you could call hitting them with it an accident is if you had meant to target someone close by; and you had better have a someone to back you up.

Next you have to question why the person clicked any buttons to begin with. Which button was the person that accidentally hit someone with an emote, intending to click?

And I wont by the "it accidentally went off all on it's own" story. lol


"I think that's an arguable point. Merely by putting the forced emote (either consumable or skill) on a skill bar indicates intent to use it. You could argue that it isn't intentional in a given instance, but the overarching intent is still there or it wouldn't be on the bar."--W. H. Heydt

Yup.

"The people who think forced emotes are rude are a minority group," RossMcColl2

Oh you really can't say that one way or another with out actually asking people. I know the forum isn't a good representation of the people playing LOTRO, but people that think they are rude out number those that don't by a few.

"As per an earlier post, I've never seen anyone in 5 years of kinchat, global, region or local chat respond negatively to someone doing a forced emote, especially ones such as the minstrel group dance that's been in the game practically from the beginning. These forums and specifically this thread, is the first I've seen of anyone caring about it." RossMcColl2

I'm not giving anyone the explanation for that yet again. If you haven't read a few, then you haven't read the thread.

"As a result of that, I find it hard to believe that those who care enough are anything other than a tiny (yet vocal) minority across the entire playerbase." RossMcColl2

Never assume anything because it makes an as of U and me. I find it hard to believe people don't find emotes annoying, so I guess we're even

"I don't like forced emotes. I think they should only be allowed in the festive areas!" Sinful69

Yes, and why I avoid festivals like the plague.

"There's an opt out option for someone sending you fellowship requests. That doesn't mean if someone has selected that opt out option that they think everyone who goes around inviting people to a fellowship is being rude and "attacking" people." RossMcColl2

That is a rather ludicrous argument. To start with it's apples and pomegranates. The two just aren't comparable.
And also a reason why people are aggravated by Turbine for not already having an FE opt out.

" By your logic, if someone intentionally put some food on the floor for dog A to eat and then accidentally let dog B into the house and dog B ate the food, the person actually intended dog B to eat the food, since he put the food on the floor intentionally." maxjenius

No. That is rather fuzzy logic and not at all an applicable analogy.

"I've already stated that I'm for the removal of FEs or at least an opt out system". RossMcColl2

Thanks we are glad you are on that side, but that isn't the point in contention.

"Unfortunately I've been verbally "attacked" somewhat for having a differing point of view on the subject by the very people who don't like being "virtually attacked" in game. I'm sure there's some irony there." RossMcColl2

No one has attacked you, we have attacked your argument. I don't feel any animosity toward you at all, I just disagree with the point you have presented. In order for me to attack you you would have to have done something to agitate me, but you haven't.

"Personally, I don't think a player doing something within the game rules that's annoyed you is a fair enough justification for you to be rude or personally abusive to them." RossMcColl2

I'll agree with that. Mostly because it's a waste of time. Oh I may toss an "DA" in the chat, but the way the chat works I never know if they read it.

"Believe me, I have a pretty decent supply of invective to hand which wouldn't violate any of Turbine's rules. Are you asserting that I am barred from using it? On what basis?" --W. H. Heydt

Wish I could say that. My father was a marine corp drill instructor, so my language can be quite colorful, lol And why I am not so sure about using the voice chat.

Dude, you made me actually have to look up a word; just to verify my assumption. You know how often I have to look up a word? lol

Sorry folks, long day driving and I just had to get caught up

[Dworin]

Rule number 1 on the Lotro Code of Conduct:

1. While participating in the Game or on the Game Website you must respect the rights of others to play and enjoy the Game world as intended by Turbine.

Glad you brought that up. Since Turbine intended for me to be able to /dance at a concert, yet player "A" can come along and knock my character to the ground with a forced emote, effectively stopping me from playing and enjoying the game as intended by Turbine, doesn't that mean player "A" is in violation of rule number one? Of course it does.

[Glenwin]

All right. This discussion diverges more and more. There is not much more to discuss here anymore, it has been discussed for too long in many many threads already and the opinions and arguments are set and clear, methinks.

Instead of putting your energy into discussing issues amongst yourselves start talking to Turbine and their community managers Sapience and Celestrata. They are the ones whose task it is to bring forth issues of the playerbase to the actual game developers and thus they are your address to turn to.

The best way to get a response is to send them a PM. Allow a week for a response.

And I remind you of this petition:
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...-Forced-Emotes

Add your /signed there too if you agree with the opt-out solution to forced emotes. It has 7 pages already and about 7000 hits. It's one of the current top 5 issues discussed in the Suggestions forum.

[Gripn]

We're all tired of griefing. But, this isn't about griefing. =/

It's just about something--one of many, many somethings--that a griefer can use.

Which is sad. We could have started a revolution to change the policy on how griefing is monitored and handled. ALL TYPES OF GRIEFING. Not just this. It'll never happen, though, because the community just cares about this.

The original post was specifically about griefing. The OP was complaining about other players using forced emotes to disrupt his concerts. There have been other reports on this forum of griefers disrupting Weatherstock and a memorial service for a player who had died in RL. These all seem to me to be clear violations of the LOTRO Code of Conduct: "1. While participating in the Game or on the Game Website you must respect the rights of others to play and enjoy the Game world as intended by Turbine".

We don't need Turbine to change the policy on griefing. We just need Turbine to start enforcing their existing rules.

I agree with Iorothel that there needs to be a revolution in how all kinds of griefing are monitored and handled. I'm sick and tired of Turbine's failure to take effective action against griefers and exploiters. I'm *extremely* dissatisfied with the poor level of support provided by the Turbine GM team. I don't know whether they're under-resourced or whether they just don't care. All I know is that we used to get far, far better support from the Codemasters GM team.

The situation that the OP was describing is a violation of the existing LOTRO Code of Conduct, and should be handled accordingly (but isn't). The grey area is the legitimate (in the sense of 'as intended by Turbine') use of forced emotes that many posters feel detracts from their enjoyment of the game. I would personally be in favour of an in-game option to opt-out of forced emotes.

[Whart]

The original post was specifically about griefing. The OP was complaining about other players using forced emotes to disrupt his concerts. There have been other reports on this forum of griefers disrupting Weatherstock and a memorial service for a player who had died in RL. These all seem to me to be clear violations of the LOTRO Code of Conduct: "1. While participating in the Game or on the Game Website you must respect the rights of others to play and enjoy the Game world as intended by Turbine".

We don't need Turbine to change the policy on griefing. We just need Turbine to start enforcing their existing rules.

I agree with Iorothel that there needs to be a revolution in how all kinds of griefing are monitored and handled. I'm sick and tired of Turbine's failure to take effective action against griefers and exploiters. I'm *extremely* dissatisfied with the poor level of support provided by the Turbine GM team. I don't know whether they're under-resourced or whether they just don't care. All I know is that we used to get far, far better support from the Codemasters GM team.

The situation that the OP was describing is a violation of the existing LOTRO Code of Conduct, and should be handled accordingly (but isn't). The grey area is the legitimate (in the sense of 'as intended by Turbine') use of forced emotes that many posters feel detracts from their enjoyment of the game. I would personally be in favour of an in-game option to opt-out of forced emotes.

Very well stated. I think that the anti-griefing issue is one that we can (or should) all support wholeheartedly.

The tricky part is that any discussion of what GMs can or will do is automatically closed with the statement that players will never know the outcome of a report to a GM. They don't allow discussions about GM interactions or enforcement of the CoC unfortunately, regardless of whether we're trying to get clarification on whether something is an allowable behavior, or ask questions about how the system works, or whatever. I'm not sure how we'd get around that in a discussion of how to resolve griefing problems.

[SalionOfBrothers]

Doesn't have any real effect, though. Unlike a forced emote.



So long as it doesn't cross the lines that Turbine has laid down, why not?

Believe me, I have a pretty decent supply of invective to hand which wouldn't violate any of Turbine's rules. Are you asserting that I am barred from using it? On what basis?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Well using the logic others have persented in this thread, since you can do it under Turbines rules, you must do it