Harrassment during RP

By the same logic there is no point to any forum discussion. Most forum posts are just as you describe them, attempts to draw attention to the OP.

If you take that away what am I going to do at work?!?!

People are offended by a shorthand version of the word continued? to be cont.

No, it's the other name for a penny that they are offended by: cent.

money is the root of all evil supposedly.

Three cheers! Awesome

"Sorry bucko, but CoH and CoV are the same game." -BackAlleyBrawler
"Silly villain, CoX is for Heroes!" -Saicho

Except the original version claimed it was the love of money, not money itself that is the root of all evil.

I can certainly smell something.

OP, I think there have been some fine suggestions in this thread as to how to handle the situation and I don't think there is much more you could have done. As such, unless you get a redname post to clarify what kind of griefing gets the GM's attention (not likely) the thread has served its purpose. I think I'll step away now before it degenerates into random babble.



*sigh* Too late.

Agreed.

<QR>

If someone is talking in a public channel in a sexually inappropriate manner, petition them, plain and simple. RP or not, it's highly against the rules of the game. Don't argue against ERP and extend it to all RP. I'm primarily a RPer, but I've never ERPed. Frankly, I find it creepy and inappropriate for this game. If people want to do it in private consensually, then more power to them. But as soon as it hits a public channel or is sent in an unsolicited manner, /petition, period.

Rand, to my understanding, essentially stated that "Selfishness is a virtue." In her view, a person always acts out of self-interest; there is no such thing as altruism. The enlightened person is aware of this, acknowledges it, and proceeds to act in such a way to maximize their own benefit, which includes minimizing 'costs.' Acting outside of normal socially accepted bounds is permissible under such a thought system, if the subjective benefit outweighs the subjective costs.

This is frequently misunderstood, however. It does not say that you are allowed to run roughshod over others freely; it simply says that you can if the benefit outweighs the costs. A suitably powerful, rich and connected person can do things that an average person cannot, because they have the wherewithal to ignore the outcry of those below them -- the cost is not high enough to consider. In other words, the subjective repercussions of ones actions determine their legitimacy.

As a philosophy, that's pretty dark, though it goes a long way toward describing the corporate mindset.

In real terms, this is semi-sociopathic behavior on the part of the person being discussed in the OP (and, to some degree, PK's behavior.) Being a bully and seeking to ruin other peoples entertainment for your own pleasure is not excusable behavior to most people. It shows a significant lack of empathy, at the very least. The argument that "it's just a game, don't take it so seriously" is used frequently by those who engage in this behavior and they are correct, it is just a game and it is one that has rules, both written and unwritten. As a game, certain behavior is expected -- players must play according to the written rules, and, in the cases where a rule does not cover a given aspect, the players should play according to mutually agreed upon rules. In a face to face game, a player who chooses to break those unwritten rules is likely to find himself not to be invited to return to the game. In an MMO, such isn't really possible. In such cases, reporting the player for harassment should be used if asking them to stop does not.

The GMs may or may not respond in a timely manner, and may or may not do anything about it. This is what allows people who behave like this feel they can get away with it -- the odds of there being any repercussions to their actions are slim.

To give some examples, and this is in no way, shape or form saying the degree of this form of behavior is equivalent, the same thought process that leads to people harassing others in game is the same as that which leads to gay bashing or race attacks. The target of the harassment is weak, cannot do anything about it and deserves to be mocked, made fun of, attacked or whatever because *they* are not *us.* I'm not sure if it was this thread or another one where someone posted the Mel Brooks quote "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." This idea is what he was talking about -- it's ok to laugh at something that isn't directed at "us" with "us" being whatever group you associate with yourself, be it your family, your friends, your race or just, "everyone but those damned RPers!"

Anyway, this post is far too long already, and I'm sure I'm going to get grief for it. I'm ok with that; I'm pretty sure the benefit outweighs the cost.

EDIT: BTW, if people are cybering in local chat, report them. This is a family game and that is inappropriate, too.

Uh oh, I'm semi-sociopathic.

Yeah, but you already knew that.

i was reading the thread earlier and it's rather surprising how much this mirrors my own thoughts. The comparison that actually came immediately to mind for me was how similar Objectivism and LeVay's Satanism are in their core beliefs. Both basically elevate selfishness and self-interest as being the primary guide to behavior. (Old Anton called it Satanism mostly to piss off the Christians all around him due to what he perceived as their hypocrisy. It's a big middle finger to conventional values and involves no actual Satan or demon worshiping, just worship of the self and ego.) More interesting to me is that a rather large body of research suggests that in many animals altruism and cooperative behavior actually offers significant advantages over selfishness both for the population and the individual.

And annoying. Also sometimes funny.

The primary difference lies in the intended application of the philosophy by its proponent. Ayn Rand intended for objectivism to be a political and economic philosophy designed to be applied to political and economic life. As Westley's quote indicates, Rand felt that the potential for the state to enroach upon the individual was a far more dangerous threat than any individual evil act that one person could commit.

She also believed that society was essentially driven by the selfishness of individual actors and that without those actors, there would be no societal progress. Hence, for example, the advance of technology during the 1990's could be viewed as the accomplishment of thousands of individual actors that only appeared to be a cohesive whole if viewed from the outside.

On that level, because individual achievement was necessary for societal achievement, on an economic and political level, any action, whether it impinged upon the well-being of another actor, was justified and proper.

Note that this does not imply that Ayn Rand would support the notion that actions are justifiable if they do not result in a net gain for the individual actor.

La Vey's satanism, on the other hand, viewed any action that advanced one's personal pleasure as justifiable in and of itself. La Vey's phiolosophy certainly mirrored certain 19th century thinkers as Aleister Crowley, who probably codified this belief system more than La Vey did. But what it boils down to is that unlike objectivism, which is intended to be applied to a relatively narrow spectrum of facets of life, the humanistic/satanistic philosophy is intended to be applied to all facets of personal life.

Most modern proponents of the ideology that behaviors are justified at the expense of other people routinely mis-apply Ayn Rand's objectivism, when the personal philosophy more or less resembles Crowley's humanism, (or La Vey's satanism), though whichever it is labeled has far more negative connotations than most are comfortable with.

Way to respond to my response to someone else that wasn't you as if I was personally attacking you. That always makes me feel awesome. Had I thought for a second that any response in this thread would've been taken seriously unless it was anything other than in support of your righteous indignation, I assure you I would've made a more serious post to begin with.

I'm not sure quite where you're going with this line of thought considering I was quoting someone else and referencing a point made by someone other than yourself.

Incorrect, and herein lies the meat of the issue. You HAD a grievance with the person, but as soon as you petitioned them you officially lost your grievance with them as you put it in the capable hands of NC Soft Community Relations. As such, if anything is done regarding the matter it's solely at the discretion of NC Soft.

Had your post simply been the first paragraph or two inquiring about the rules on the matter instead of a lengthy description of the events, I'd say you were simply looking for clarification. Considering the nature of your original post and your subsequent posts in the thread, I can only conclude that you're not seeking clarification but instead looking for support. Hence why I didn't think you'd take an honest differing opinion seriously and instead opted for the more humorous and fun for me route in posting.

Just because it's in local doesn't mean people can't see it. Depending on the server population at the time and their location in a zone, local can be seen by just as many people as broadcast.

You mention the EULA, so that's a nice segue into responding to your initial post, which I will do below.

Right there is where your post should have ended, with perhaps a slight bit of background information. Say a sentence or two.

In response to your inquiry regarding the stance held by NC Soft on harassment during RP in game, I'd say that there isn't an official or unofficial stance considering Roleplaying is an uncovered byproduct of the service NC Soft provides and as such, NC Soft is not liable. There are, however, rules in the EULA and the Rules of Conduct regarding harassment.

From the EULA:

From the Rules of Conduct:

As you've pointed out, only you are privy to the conversation between the two of you, so we only have your word to go off of regarding the situation and how things were handled. I'll merely point out that powers and emotes are content supplied and supported by NC Soft, while Roleplaying is not. While everyone's fun in this game is subjective to themselves, they were using aspects of the game and you were not, so the situation is quite murky.


A nice afterthought and a good way to try and cover for yourself, but you've already supplied through your post a) a time, b) a server, c) a zone, d) a location in said zone, e) an archetype and f) a situation tied solely to the player in question. While not quite as concrete as giving out the character or global name, it's certainly enough to bring that person to light. Combined with this public thread you made detailing things, I'd say you yourself have risked breaking the EULA and the Rules of Conduct regarding causing "distress and/or unwanted attention" to the other person.

I always found Thelema to be a fascinating, if obscure and disjointed, belief system.

By the way, Castle, that was me.

I suppose it really depends on how much credence you give to the mystical overtones prevalent throughout his essays. They presume a lot of things based on mysticism and if you don't believe in, say, the mystical power of sex, then it basically boils down to a more selfish version of secular humanism.