Yes, but.. I would hazard to say that carebears treat Eve as a PvE game instead of a PvP game. They're more than happy to beat up on NPCs and rocks, but draw the line at direct, in your face, competition with other players.

To get back to the OP's question, publicly carebears are "scum" because there are so many of them and because their popular PvE attitudes (i.e. sub money) run the risk of adding more PvE elements into a PvP game, e.g. tears about ninja salvagers and hulkageddon, suggestions for instanced missions, etc..

However, IMHO, privately, carebears are considered "scum" because because they should be easy to bully (i.e. they're easy targets because they don't fight back) however, game mechanics (CONCORD, CCP) protect them from bullies. Whenever someone figures out how to harvest carebears (hulkageddon, boomeranging, suicide ganking, etc.) CCP "always" seems to step in on the side of the carebears and increases their protections (e.g. insurance no longer pays out for suicide ganking, boomeranging is bannable, miners got new tankier ships even though you had to choice to fit for tank instead of yield, etc..) This in turn offends the "I'm entitled to kill/bully/cull/harvest the high-sec carebears" and invokes their "righteous" indignation while stoking cries of individual responsibility, HTFU, reward versus risk, etc.. (Yes, the hypocrisy is lost upon them.)


edit: tl;dr Carebears are many, so anyone who fights against carebears is in the minority. Being a successful underdog makes one elite. Ergo, killing easy targets makes one elite.

Then why didn't you just try a dictionary?

Carebear
n.
a nice person who is against violence and disputes. (Especially in the domain of computer games. From the name of a set of lovable children's characters.) : These carebears don't want us to play the really good games!

You're asking a question to something you seem to already have an answer to.

What you are looking for is the opinionated "definition" that you have already pre-approved. You are not interested in hearing definitions outside of that one you already think is the correct one.

In other words, you are trolling.

Well played.

Most of the time superior numbers is a good way to hit multiple targets. Simply bringing them all to the same fights is just a waste of resources.

Because, for one thing, this is not a dictionary. My Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which is a book (you know, those things with pages), doesn't even contain the word.

Dictionary
noun, plural dic-+tion-+ar-+ies.
1.
a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary.

It's pretty obviously a dictionary.

Printed peer-reviewed materials are the only thing that I care about, not some open-sourced anyone-can-edit fora

I had a look at the printed Oxford and there's a glaring omission in the 'dictionary' entry - it only mentions printed dictionaries. At best this is an oversight which is unchangable for an entire year due to their use of outdated technologies. At worst, this is a deliberate attempt not to inform their readers of the competition. So much for academic integrity! This website, however, does list printed dictionaries. They need to remain unbaised, of course. If they lost readers, they'd lose the advertising revenue they need to operate! I see no reason to use outdated, slow and clumsy methods of looking up the meaning of words. And you yourself mentioned the lack of a definition of the word 'carebear' in this clearly biased, incomplete and poorly managed Oxford dictionary. The choice of who to trust is obvious to me.

So. Why do you ask people for a definition and then refuse those they offer?


You're not interested in open source? Why did you start a topic asking people to give their opinions on a definition instead of writing to a university? That website isn't editable by anyone, by the way. Which you'd know if you looked at it. Which you didn't.

Well then I want to hear from the pvpers why where the term came from, not someone who has a clear personal problem against them.

Therefore, research for such a definition must begin with qualitative research

I know the online dictionary websites quite well

It's like asking the k-k-k for the objective definition of the n-word. Real objective there, Mr. Journalist.

This thread smells like another attempt at justifying carebear hate with "objective" reasoning.

Good luck with that.

god alone knows what that is but it's probably not carried out by a biased git via an anonymous internet forum where you know nothing of the participants
and yet somehow managed to mistake the most prominent of those for "some open-sourced anyone-can-edit fora"

You're insulting anyone that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notion of what the definition of "carebear" is. You've already made it clear that you will only accept the definition of those that regurgitate the derogatory term in a fashion that you deem acceptable and accurate. At this point it has become blatently obvious that you're trolling.

I'm calling morons what they are because they can't keep up...

Keep it up with the personal attacks and ad homs. You're thread is going places.

Care-bears are racist against us nullsec dwellers. They think we should use separate asteroid belts and call me funny names. They use CONCORD to repress anyone who dares to speak out in their homeland. I ask you: who is the real monster here?

It was before you brought your stupid in here.

You just won't stop it with the insults.

You're just picking semantics - this is a strawman and you haven't actually offered anything substantial or categorically objective to the thread's topic except for what defines a dictionary.

... what or who a carebear is referring to ...

This is a slang term. Given the name has a conceptual root (Encapsulated by the essence of the Carebear characters from the TV series) it would seem natural for different groups to hear of it's use and, without knowing the original and first use definition, to apply it to their own viewpoints.

So how will you deal with those different definitions as we've seen from this thread it can be wildly different? (Especially as you appear to reject or ignore a number of options)

I reject or ignore the opinions that are emotionally biased. That is all.

You have not answered the question. There will be multiple definitions based off the natural, concurrent evolution in its use by disparate groups. Especially as the original definition was not set down and accepted as a root. How will you deal with these different and potentially emotive definitions?