|
|
|
|
#2
02-26-2011, 10:33 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
 "You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
02-26-2011, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
Refer to one of my previous posts about how I came to my conclusion on the situation and how I was (and still am) somewhat shaky in my position. And being responsible, I readily acknowledge that my position is not, as some say, "bullet-proof." Indeed, I find it hilarious that anyone claims to have 100% confidence in any opinion that they hold. Since, they are opinions, which cannot be held to the same scrutiny of being right or wrong, simply because of what they are. They are not facts, which can be checked and determined if they are true or false. Opinions may be true or false, but most often they fall into the gray area and can never really be proven one way or the other.
For example, I believe that Bud Lite is the worst beer ever made. It is an opinion I can back up with a few facts, but the truth remains that it is a mere opinion. I know in the back of my mind that I could be wrong, so (again, being responsible) I should not hold this opinion too ferociously. I could be wrong. As a different example, I (could) believe that Elvis never died. That his death was just staged and it is just one big conspiracy. This opinion could be right or wrong because we can go find Elvis' body and prove (as much as anyone can prove anything) that the King is indeed dead. Or I could believe that Americans never made it to the moon. But again, I could (conceivably) send a camera to the moon and see evidence of people having been up there. Morals tend to fall into the former category of pure opinions. So morals should not be professed with absolute certainty, because you should know, in the back of you mind, that you could be wrong. You can be confident that you have acted correctly, but it is hard (if not impossible) to be 100% sure. And as such, you may profess your opinion as loudly as you wish. What I have a problem with is simple arrogance that refuses to listen to anyone else, because you are so sure that your opinion is correct (and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong). If it isn't clear by now, I am a fan of ambiguities. to me nothing in life is EVER clear cut. No decision is ever 100% "just" or "right" from every angle. It is all a matter of degrees of what I personally view to be just or unjust, moral or immoral. I may be disappointed in how others see situations and the choices they make, and I can even vehemently disagree with them. However, I must always listen to their arguments and be ready and willing to defend my opinions. Because the doubt is always there, "You may be wrong." All I wish is that others would be equally as willing to listen, and based on the strength of the arguments presented, be willing to change their minds if the situation calls for it. My opinions do not define me. They are not so important that I cannot change them. In fact, if my opinions are mistaken, or if there are better options than the one I currently hold, I look forward to the time when I can correct myself. That is how I believe people grow. On another subject, I wonder how many people in P99 actively see their characters as an extension of themselves in a real social community vs. just a bunch of pixels with "people" who you will never, ever meet or talk to in RL. I personally view my toon as an virtual representation of myself, so I care deeply about making moral decisions. However, those who see this as "just a game" and their toon as "just pixels" will not make the same emotional connections. Therefore, it is much easier for them to make decisions that would (for me) tend to be more on the "selfish" or "immoral" side of the scale. Anyway, that's enough from me for now. Let's see what other people think. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#4
02-26-2011, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
I really wish you had started a new thread as this is a good topic and fascinating discussion point. I fear though that this thread has gone on far longer than necessary and will be hard for most people to put aside their personal bias.
Kraftwerk For the fact that the majority of posts in this thread discuss the definition of choices as right/wrong based upon subjective morality, I am surprised that only traditional morality is being discussed. Nobody has explicitly mentioned or gone into greater detail regarding rational morality. Since Yendor has been the largest proponent of subjectivity when it comes to the individual's actions, let me posit this to you: For use of the term morality in describing actions as right(moral) or wrong (immoral) that ensure evolutionary survival; our species and most species that exhibit group tendencies also exhibit actions which are defined as moral based upon the fact that the individual makes sacrifices and/or acts in a selfless manner in order to become a proponent of group life and thus improve odds of survival. You are defining the terms of Rational Morality as opposed to Religious Morality, Lawful Morality or Subjective Morality. Even though each has a different standard of determining what is Moral, they all can be quantified by the term Harm. Religious Morality – Harm against Belief Lawful Morality – Harm against Rules Subjective Morality – Harm against Majority opinion Rational Morality – Harm against Community Survival Good or Bad morality or behavior is then defined by what you are going to do when the Harm is Perceived, whether to act and try to remove or alleviate the Harm or to turn your head and ignore it. The perception comes from what view you take. If we look at this from Rational Morality we have to consider which group or community we want to look at each case be it Sever wide, Guild community, friendship community, or as individuals and each of its continued survival. Let me provide an example - Some groups of vampire bats have exhibited actions as eating a surplus of food while others eat none, the bats that enjoyed an excess amount have been seen regurgitating their food to prevent the starvation of others. This behavior and selfless act is accepted because the bats accept a morality that survival is essential, and sharing one night will guarantee the returned favor another night. If one accepts this train of thought for defining morality through rationality and survival it becomes much easier to remove the subjectivity from the situations presented earlier throughout the thread. For these situations view the continued existence of a server where there is a large playerbase as the evolutionary goal for survival, and the slow abandonment due to recurring unejoyable situations as the threats to the group's existence. There are two points that seem to be unanimous in this thread and that makes the previous assumptions valid - a) Having a camp stolen under similar circumstances is not enjoyable and b) playing Everquest with many other people on this server is fun. I am having a hard time with argument A – Using the word Stolen here implies a Lawful term of Harm. I haven’t seen unanimous agreement on that point. (I have no objections to including this as any community that wishes to prosper must have a set of Rules of conduct, to do otherwise invites anarchy) However the loss of said camp under similar circumstance is indeed un-enjoyable and I agree with that. Part B is to me self evident. Example 1 - Rilen dies, returns 10 minutes later and explains that he has been camping AC for the entirety of the day. Several un-related players in the same zone support this claim. The choice then falls upon the VD members to make a decision with the information presented to either act in the right (morally) - return the camp and make Rilen's time on the server enjoyable, with that expectation that at a future date Rilen would reciprocate and thus ensuring the survival (continued enjoyment of the server) for both parties - or act in the wrong (immorally) - deny Rilen the camp and cause a dissatisfaction with group life thus strengthening the threat to evolutionary survival. You provided an example of Vampire Bats earlier so I will answer this with one of my own. If you are waiting in line for tickets to the Superbowl for 12 hours and all of a sudden you have to go to the bathroom and leave your spot in line, no one really notices you leave, when you come back you explain to the person who was behind you that you are coming back for your place in line. I think most people would say you lost your chance you now need to go to the end of the line. If you argue then you involve everyone else in line wether they support that you were there or not. This has very little influence on the global society but does impact local society.. But back to your Example 1 Why is it incumbent on the VD members to make this morality choice. Did not Rilen have any responsibility for making the sound choice of not putting anyone in this position in the first place? How about the Druid who ported Rilen back to reclaim his camp? He was paid 125 PP to make this happen. I bet he enjoyed that. Would it not have been wiser to have said Druid hold the camp for you? But this part is pointless really because you wish to talk about the evolutionary survival of the community as it pertains to loss of interest due to a lack of the ability to enjoy the game, or my definition of Harm. Top that of with the limited scope of this one incident. There are too many other instances of goodwill and sacrifice to make this matter. Take a look at the post for Players you would like to thank. 390 Posts which is nice, now look at views – almost 38,000 at this posting. A lot of people are doing great things. By the views number I surmise that the number of people who do favors is astronomically higher than that. (I am assuming people look to see if their name has been mentioned.) If we use the enjoyment as a factor as to Community evolution then this event has soared beyond measure and all parties have done Good. To prove this point I point to this thread – 210 posts, 21 pages and almost 7,000 views. People have been enjoying themselves immensely. I know people in this thread who have made personal attacks on friends of theirs just for the fun of it. If we use Harm then, Harm was done by the server for killing Rilen. That is all. All of the rest of it is perceived unless you apply another morality standard of Religious, Lawful or otherwise. Example 2 - Yendor's group in Fearplane rez's several members of a guild to assist them, thus exhibiting the right (moral) action due to it strengthening the value of group life for the people who were rezzed. The guild of the rezzed players proceeds to camp upon the entirety of Mob_Type_A in order to gain all of the loot possible for themselves. In this scenario the guilds can be seen as individuals for the discussion. The Guild monopolizing Mob_Type_A is acting selfishly, preventing the enjoyment of the server and group life for the other members in Fearplane. The guild's selfless actions are thus threatening the survival of the server by preventing the desire for other members on the server to continue existing on the server. The guild's actions are thus wrong (immoral). This is by far a greater argument for community progression only in the fact that you are involving a greater number of people. However from a global perspective there is no threat to the at large Community only the Guild Community. If they can’t come to an agreement then one guild will probably lose out after a period of time. But others will replace it or absorb it or the members will move to a guild that will be more accommodating. By applying this reasoning Guild A while at the time may seem to be a threat to the community is actually Right (moral) as the perpetrators of said action (Raid leader) will be taken to task and will leave the Community thereby removing the influence that Harms the Global Community. So guild A is immoral to the guild community and moral to the global Community. If you really want to talk about Community progression, why are not all the guilds coming together and organizing a rotating Raid schedule? Would this not provide more enjoyment for everyone? (I doubt you will ever get this to work) It is entirely up to the individual to choose an action. Judgement does not have to play a role in deciding the morality of someone's actions, which then removes the subjectivity that has been championed throughout this thread. If you view the morality of actions more rationally and in terms of each individual's expectations for group life (Which have been widely agreed upon in this thread as a) Losing a camp within a 5-10 min period due to unforseeable circumstances is not enjoyable and b) The continuted existence of this server with a large playerbase is fun) as they relate to the server's evolutionary survival, then objectivity is much easier to determine. And through this the actions of many players can be seen as immoral or wrong. “Judgment does not have to play a role in deciding the morality of someone's actions”. Of course it does, you make Judgments all the time even when trying to analyze with a neutral objective. What is community? How does that relate to X? How to define the scale on which to make determinations. A good scientist will tell you that there is no way to remove all influence of the researcher no matter how much you isolate the study. Even while typing this I realize that I have also only brought up another question of subjectivity that I am sure will get jumped upon - who decides what is or is not enjoyable for the individual and thus perpetuates the survival of the server by each member's continuted existence on the server. What one may see as no fun, having a camp "acquired" by new parties within 5-10 minutes of "losing" said camp, another may enjoy wholeheartedly. But any argument in this thread is only going to raise more questions. This was more or less something for Yendor to ponder since he has been firm behind the idea that morality is subjective, and I wanted to show him that this is not entirely true. __________________ Kraftwerk Computerwelt Dark Elf Magician Leading Neriak into a new era of prosperity I still see this as an exercise in Harm no matter what brand of morality you wish to apply. Maybe I am Naïve in thinking that taking responsibility for my contributions to the Community start with taking responsibility for my own actions. In applying that brush I have to ask myself. Where is the Harm? | ||
|
|
|||
|
#5
02-26-2011, 11:23 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
That aside, great debating going here, glad it never went to RnF mode. Perhaps the trolls don't understand some of the words used, or the depth is too much. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#6
02-26-2011, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
Officially worse than the god thread.
__________________
I apologize for the prior sig gif. Here are some kittens.
 | ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
02-26-2011, 04:47 PM
|
||||
|
and almost as alluring.
__________________
Klaatu (RED)- Fastest Rez Click in Norrath
Klaatu (BLUE) - Eternal 51 Mage Klattu (GREEN) - Baby Cleric Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
02-26-2011, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
Why would you people spend this much time defending their beliefs and arguing against the other person beliefs if they truly felt this thread means nothing. People that keep posting book length posts on opinions and morality and right and wrong, please ask yourselves this question.
__________________
Malagar Dragon Order
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#9
02-26-2011, 08:44 PM
|
|||||
|
(Everything in this post precludes the server rules, I concede that the VD members were *right* under the letter of the law, opinions hereafter regard if they were *right* under my personal code of ethics)
Yendor - You're right, there is a line. One can't be 100% altruistic the entire time. It comes down to where one straddles that fence between selfishness and selflessness. Myself, I spent probably 80% of my time on the server farming. Probably during May-June I think, I found myself either in A) SolA camping 70% of spawns or B) CT camping pyramid, every spawn on lockdown. I concede that I was acting immorally and greedily with my monopolization of the items I was camping, mostly Raven/the SK armor I already forget the name of. I reached a point where I had enough platinum, I decided I wanted to make others enjoy the game/server. One night I put on a Roleplaying Event, bought ~4-5kp in items to give away and organized a grandiose 1-1.5 hour event involving three friends for a random group of 6 lvl 8-14's. Another night I offered 100p to lowbies who whispered me in certain time-frame. Another night I healed a group on my druid while waiting to get in, even though I could've been leveling elsewhere. Pretty much any night I'd offer DS's to anyone wanting them, mod rods, etc. The list goes on, and (against what some may believe) this was not meant to show how much better I am than you,it was only meant to illustrate that some people do draw that line of selflessness at a different place. You're trying so adamantly to prove that your VD members were in the right, they're decisions were fine, but you're not letting yourself view this from another's standpoint and see the immorality in their acquisition of the camp. I also concede that some of us from the opposing viewpoint aren't allowing ourselves to see how they were in the right and undeserving of the accusations and labels. I think the VD members were both right and wrong in this situation, I think that despite your firm stance in every post you too believe a little bit that the actions weren't bulletproof or you wouldn't be defending them so vigorously. Or, you're a great guildie to have who will defend his colleagues to the death. But more or less my posts are a desire for you to look beyond the blacks/whites of server law or your own previous beliefs and view this scenario from the opposing viewpoint since you seemed to be digging your trenches even deeper over there. Klyre - I knew when typing my response there were a lot of holes to be poked in my interpretation of rational morality as it relates to this scenario. We could use the term "re-acquired" rather than stolen if it removes the implication of law and better suits the argument. The football scenario could have larger global implications, that fan could now be so discouraged with football that he no longer invests in the NFL through purchasing clothing, tickets to games, other various fan items. The NFL has now lost out on a small investment over the life of the fan. Also, that fan could be vocal about how he dis-regards the NFL and a few others might take heed, etc. It could become something much larger/more of loss to NFL. The fan also becomes more discouraged the perceived immorality of other's actions. He becomes more cynical and in different scenarios in his life he behaves immorally, contrarily had he been able to return to line and had his faith in the group as a whole renewed and acts equally morally in other situations in his life going forward. I can see what could be considered a small event as impacting many people depending on how that one scenario resolves itself. As far as why it is incumbent upon the VD group to make the moral choice is exactly because of Rilen's misfortunes. It's easy to make the right choice when things are clear-cut, black and white. Rilen had left himself somewhat helpless, his negligence (possibly as a result of one lengthy session) resulted in a situation where the VD members could have made a moral choice to give him back the camp, but their line is drawn between selfishness and selflessness at a different spot than mine. As Yendor stated, not everyone agrees on where to begin being selfless and end being selfish. As far as your reference to the Thank You Post, you're right there is a lot of good taking place. Consider this though, the VD members could now be on that post rather than this one had they chosen to concede the camp back upon Rilen after hearing his circumstances. What if the other 390 member's who were referenced in posts on the Thank you thread had not made the moral choice? Just something to ponder is all. You are right, it does come down to harm. It comes down to where one determines if they are doing harm to another, and if they choose to prevent said harm or invoke said harm. Acillatem - I'm not going to deeply respond to you since, opposed to Yendor who has addressed arguments head-on, you've chosen to create a different scenario with which we have 0 facts. You're scenario involves an assumption that Rilen was depriving this camp from individuals, we have no way of knowing who or how many people came to SRo during the day and were dissuaded upon finding the camp taken. Since we don't have enough evidence your argument is moot before the discussion even begins. At the risk of being flamed, I also find your attitude as it pertains to others a bit frightening. You've drawn the line between selfishness and selflessness entirely too close to selfishness, and made personal rules for yourself regarding when you will exhibit selflessness (Friends, guildmates). If you alienated all strangers, you're alienating potential friends/guildmates. You have the right to play however you want, I find your attitude detrimental to the server as a whole and if it is reflective of your behavior in real life than I am glad I don't know you. Quote:
__________________
Solsek - Wizard of the Advisor Robe
 Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#10
02-26-2011, 10:26 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
People trying to make a moral judgment on the scenario can do so all they want... its their opinion. But I am trying to show that it is unrealistic, when all opinions of what the "right" thing to do are so individualized and usually kept to oneself, to hold any one person or group of people on this server to what amounts to some stranger's own individual personal convictions. Here is where I think you guys are going with this, and I completely understand this from an "Everquest is a virtual world/community" standpoint: Even though we have laws in real life (i.e. similar to "server rules"), we still conform to societal standards just so we don't become outcasts (i.e. "get called douchebags on the P99 forums"). I totally get that, don't get me wrong. But that is only true for those who hold the "Everquest is a virtual world/community" viewpoint. For those of us who hold the "Everquest is a game" viewpoint to a greater degree, we're just playing the game by the rules set forth by the administrators of the game, dude. Quote:
Let me throw one more scenario out there for people to discuss, and I'm just gonna throw generic Player and Guild names in there to continue this discussion in a more generic/hypothetical manner so no one else is getting drug through the mud: If this were a PVP server, and the members of Guild B ganked Player A at the AC camp because he was a member of an opposing guild, and then took over the AC camp that way... would we be having this same debate on whether that was morally right or wrong? Of course not... it's part of the game. And the enchanter has a chance to call upon his guild to do the same back. There would be no philosophical debate on whether Guild B did the morally right thing or not, because there is inherently more competition on a PVP server and this sort of situation is commonplace. It's a way of life. Might makes right. That is why you organize into guilds and compete for equipment. So what's the difference? Because the server rules ALLOW for the PK'ing of Player A in that situation, and the server rules ALLOW for retribution, why are there suddenly no moral implications? Or are there? Is it morally wrong on a PVP server to PK someone at the AC camp? Isn't it part of the game? Are those with stronger moral convictions at a disadvantage playing on a PVP server because they limit their own actions, whereas others do not and thus have more of an advantage? I don't know, I've never played on a PVP server. Certainly there's some consequences to those actions (i.e. those Guild B members would stand a higher risk of getting ganked themselves at a camp, or simply on sight), but I don't think there's a "right or wrong" aspect to it. It's just how PVP is played. Take the PVP rule set away and look back to our PVE server. Now suddenly some of us want to enforce a moral code on what is right and wrong, because we are unable to play judge, jury, and executioner in game to dispense with those whose actions we have judged immoral. All we can do is call each other out on this forum, and blacklist each other. So where did the aspect of morality now come from? Furthermore, Player A in the PVE situation has the same opportunity to take back the AC camp from the Guild B members if they die. Granted, there is less of a chance of this happening because a) there is just more than 1 person there for AFK support, and b) they were much higher level. But that is not the fault of Guild B's members, so why should they be judged on that level? Interesting debate...
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
"You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | ||||
|
Last edited by YendorLootmonkey; 02-26-2011 at 10:29 PM..
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
