Best Server Community Sin--Wait, Nevermind

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Officially worse than the god thread.

[Humerox]

and almost as alluring.

[maegi]

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.

[Kraftwerk]

(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.

Originally Posted by maegi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I don't feel this thread means nothing. Who stated the thread means nothing? I feel there was some interesting discourse in this thread. I enjoy bringing up counter-points and I felt that Yendor was digging his trenches even deeper and I wanted to maybe shed light on how things aren't so black and white. Maybe he'll change his opinions a little bit, maybe someone reading this thread will decide to help rather than harm in the future based upon the opinions presented here. But what it does all come down to, is how a person chooses to play this game. It's hard to define the morality of actions in these gray scenarios, the people responding should see that they shouldn't champion the black and white conclusions they've come to so steadfast. The VD actions were both moral and immoral. People will continue to enjoy this server in their own personal ways, and draw the line between selfish and selfless in different places. Everyone has the right to behave how they see fit. My personal opinion is that one will garner more enjoyment and fulfillment (yes it is possible to be fulfilled while playing a video game) through selfless acts and making decisions that do more to help than harm.

[Messianic]

I would like to the most relevant and insightful tag on this post:

"My poop > your philosophy"

Sorry, carry on philosophizing. I just felt this was worth pointing out.

[Icaro]

Some quite famous guy said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"

Shouldn't be enough?

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Actually, to sum up most of my posts, I have been adamantly stating that the members of my guild acted in accordance with the server rules, and that it is ridiculous to hold them (or any player on this server for that matter) to everyone else's standards of what is morally right and wrong since, in fact, those standards are subjective.

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.

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

I believe 100% that the actions were bulletproof, only because I'm not drawing emotion or morality into the equation. That is something people from the "EQ is a virtual world" viewpoint do. I am strictly reviewing the rules of the game and pointing out that the person who lost the highly-coveted AC camp, who was bound on another continent, by the way, lost claim to that camp when he died. This is a game. There are goals. There is competition because there is not enough loot to go around, and because you sacrifice personal time to farm or earn that loot.

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...

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Rais [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus stop typing and log in yendor

I typed all of that from my Droid X while I was on the shitter.

[h0tr0d (shaere)]

Why, though? It's... just a game.

Because it is still real people behind the toons.

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.

[Odeseus]

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.