If you rarely play then how could provide an informed answer?

It wasn't so long ago that you were concerned with determining an answer through an appropriate sample size.

I'd say your sample size, in this instance, was pretty small.

So do you think that someone new to the server is going to think that our server is unfriendly and unmemorable purely because those green haired guys didn't taunt them every single time they killed them? If so, then I wasn't aware that this is what people looked for in a good game of TF2.

How is someone aware of something not happening?

No, I'm saying they won't care much about sticking to our server and adding it to favourites if they can't remember anyone in it. It's no less ludicrous than the idea that a very small number of deaths being followed by a taunt will make them feel as though they are being specifically victimised by the HH gang.

Could it be that it's more likely that people favourite a server because they had a good game of TF2 on it?

Several people, including myself, can see it as a potential, fair from ludicrous issue.

It's an issue that would be very difficult to measure and difficult for some to perceive.

How could someone be aware of something not happening?

I am using a methodical approach to gauge whether any action should be taken on this subject. To take action on this subject a certain sample size is needed and that is the point I am bringing across but you believe that somehow play time correlates into devaluation of this approach.

We have a hypothesis and we need a methodical approach to answer whether to reject it or accept it for the time being. The methodical approach I have suggested so far is encourage players to get involved with any issue they have on the server, either through the forums or a plug-in with predetermined answers.


That is the point I am bringing across. We need data to measure the extent of this subject.

In this case the particular people we would need to engage are brand new to the server and maybe not be around long enough to be engaged.

They don't have to be aware for it to have a negative effect.

Server with no memorable players - 'that game was fun. Oh, dinner's ready, I'll quit the game now.'

Server with memorable players - 'that game was fun. These people seem fun, and they were here last time I played. I'll add the server to favourites so I can play with the same people next time'.

Yes that sounds a bit hokey. But seeing people that I remembered the second time I played on the server is exactly why I joined HH back in 2008. Now with Valve putting in QP it's harder to find communities with regulars, and so the value of having that is greater.

Then what is the purpose of any plug-in that limits taunting? This is one of the variables I brought up previously.

Pax, the purpose of the plugin would be not to put them off the first time they play.

iRPAx, given that the question you were asked was "So you guys don't think that there is a clique of people doing a particular type of regimented taunting behaviour then?", and the issue you've cited was "whether any action should be taken on this subject", I think it's fair to say we're talking about different things.

Put your scientific method back in your pants