The same person who got chided for being too serious in a computer game, paradoxically uses the same reason (that it is just a game) to shun a consequence he didn't expect he would get after he started whining, spreading negativity around the persons over the game he lost. Then on retrospect, I looked at why I would stooped DOWN TO their level to spar in an argument over pixels. I find myself silly, disgusted at the fact that they could have had accomplished what they wanted - preventing me from my own fun thanks their losing ritual. Anonymity is one interesting element, and to test the notion that it removes discipline and fuzzies accountability from negative play is an easy one. You can find many articles dedicated to explain the psych involved (sources here) and to see it play out in a harmless game pretty much seals the deal. To visualize it simply, in game 2 you observe that same dickhead behaving in a 180 degree flip from his previous game after a negative consequence was introduced. Almost like a second persona (I must add that it was overcompensating and pretentious) - one that is encouraging, cooperative and forgiving for another's noobness. What a relief because it just shows the boy behind the screen is learning. In both games our team lost so what could possibly be the reason for this stark change? Didn't anyone see this difference?
Can't anyone see how potent a negative consequence is in decreasing negative behaviour, and (what we really want) eliciting positive change?
Cowards reign the online world because there is no consequence for what they say or do. It is hard to nip them in the bud, especially when there is only so little you can do to bridge in-game negativity to out-of-game consequence. So from this day on, I'll just squelch. I shall be saintly and ignore such pests.