[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what an [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
Think you could be a little more specific?
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to make it socially acceptable to street race in crowded suburbs while smoking in public restaurants filled with children. Because all it takes is one determined person, and then a whole lot of sheeple who so want to fit into the "norm" to make it socially acceptable. Hence, when you disagree with me, but the majority of the community is on my side, because "The community decides what is and isn't socially acceptable," whether the laws support me or you, I win at all cost. Yeah, baby, The American WAY!
[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to undestand what you were saying, but your sentences don't parse well. The meaning gets lost in the rant... bad signal to noise ratio, I guess.
Laws are constantly being created, else why would we need legislators. Laws need to be tested and judged, sometimes reinforced or nullified. Its a living process, not an absolute one.
Most bad things happened, whether violent, exploitive, abusive, or undesirable to a community, before a rule or law was created to condemn it and prevent future such behavior if possible.
The rule of law plays catch-up w/ all the novel ways humans come up w/ to hurt each other. I imagine the first time a caveman went up to another and cracked his skull, (or the Cain and Abel story, if you prefer), the witnesses grunted to each other, "Ugh! That bad! me no want get conked on head like that. We need punish that."
This game is evolving too. The devs should anticipate and design so exploits are not possible. But they almost always fail. (Look at the green eggs and hami farming) Players will always test the boundaries of what's possible. Just cause its in the game or allowed by the rules doesn't ratify it.
Social consensus constrains behavior. Being a rebel, or breaching accepted behavior, can seem attractive. But consensus usually protects the majority.
For example, the old smoking regulations permitted smoking in restaurants because such places had non-smoking areas. In practice this was a joke. Restaurants are mostly one large area, w/ no way to isolate the air in specific areas. So the smoking/non-smoking areas were the same. Just an imaginary line between them. (A 3 or 4 foot booth divider between one area and the other still permitted air mingling, smoke travelling.) This farce was ended when no smoking at all was allowed in such places. That was community action against what was perceived as a noxious habit, yet w/in established rules at the time.
This game obviously changes over time. The community of players can and do decide what's accepted behavior. To be surprised by that is naive and very rigid thinking.
Agreed, and you have giving me somethings to think about and grow. Pretty much what you said is what I was trying to clarify in that last satirical point using an extreme. And from what you clarified for me, I must admit, even the rules for killing/murdering another is gray even though I/we wish to not accept or acknowledge it.
But another part I was trying to get across is that, for all intensive purposes, RV is a war zone And as we like to think, "All's fair in love and war." At which point is it appropriate to lure/drop/TP someone into a "no win scenario?" When you are on the wining side? When you are on the losing side? Only when players are involved? When no NPC's are involved at all? What is the cut off point? Is it really a case of when you receive the pwning, He sucks for doing that! (And I have been guilty of saying that myself.) But when you do it with friends, in the sense of when I was the MM, the heroes may have said amongst themselves, "That was awesome! Wish I could have seen his face!" Is it really trying to bend the rules? Is it really removing unfair game play in a "war zone?" Is it really a "war zone," a PvP/E zone, Winner Takes All zone, or just a larger arena with shanghaiing rules because we don't like someone or a team using the given environment and powers to their advantage? (Ironically, it is how we play the game against the non-emotional NPC's.)
[ QUOTE ]
The thing about academia is that you can find evidence to support and theory you feel like purporting.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's funny you should mention that. He happened to write a paper with the Orwellian premise that Bad is Good., that cheating, exploits, and griefing is equivalent to good, proper, and socially acceptable play.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing about academia is that you can find evidence to support and theory you feel like purporting.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's funny you should mention that. He happened to write a paper with the Orwellian premise that Bad is Good., that cheating, exploits, and griefing is equivalent to good, proper, and socially acceptable play.
[/ QUOTE ]
So not only are his conclusions obvious, they're also erroneous.
Maybe look for a day job, prof.
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
And you can use chemical weapons or nukes to make combat more efficient. The Universe (i.e. the game server for life) won't stop you. But, the population of Earth (i.e. the 'players') might do something about it... :P