No.

That the Earth is approximately spherical is a fact. The notion that the Earth was flat was not a fact, it was simply a belief. The fact that the Earth is, in fact, round is not something that can be disproved by additional observations in the future.

It would be correct to say that Science, generally speaking, does not deal much in facts, it deals in hypthoses which are eventually extended into theories; but you're using the word "fact" in an entirely incorrect sense with your examples. Earth round = fact. Earth flat = subsequently disproved hypothesis. The shape of the Earth is something that it was only reasonable to hypothesise about prior to the point when we were in a position to directly observe it. Now we are, it's no longer a hypothesis, simply a matter of direct observation.

But you yourself were arguing earlier that motive can never be determined, and therefore motive cannot ever be relevant when determining whether any given action is abusive or out of character. Nice bit of a self-contradiction, there.

Motive is, of course, extremely important. Motive is the only distinction between murdering someone and killing them in self defence: in both cases someone has been killed, the only difference is in why the killer did it. Of course, one can talk about the evidence of what happened - was the now dead man seen carrying a gun and aiming it at the person who claims to wrestled the gun away and shot him? - but this is simply evidence which helps us to determinemotive: the motive is what matters.

Motive is equally important in determining whether or not an act of repeated PK on an RP MUD is legitimately IC or illegitimately OOC.

Incidentally, if you really think that there's nothing wrong morally with stomping on sandcastles or with a bully mocking someone about his height, then I guess that tells us all we need to know about your personal morality (or the lack of it).


The difference between behaving in a way intended purely to make someone feel distressed, and behaving in a way intended purely to make someone feel miserable, does not seem to me to be a significant one.

You're obviously only going to infer what suits you best.



On the contrary; you're being quite insulting, condescending, and arrogant (and for no reason, either). The fact that you have no desire to explain your points-of-view lend little credit to your argument as a whole, so if you want to continue throwing around accusations and psycho-analyzations rather than participating in the debate, I'm no longer going to respond to you.

Yes; but I believe that you believe you have, if that's any consolation.



That's exactly the point. I was attempting to explain how extreme of a word "misery" is to be throwing around in this context. To find it distressing is probably rather common. For it to actually make one miserable is rather absurd.



No; the action has not changed. The kid still stomped on the other kid's sandcastle. That fact does not change based on why he did it.



If it's universal, then it is the same for everyone. I don't see how morality can be universal and mean different things to different people. That's a contradiction. Explain what you mean, though!



Yes, because I don't believe that morality is universal. If it were, people would not have different views of it, by definition.



Then for whom are you asking if it would be alright? People outside such a culture might or might not find such actions morally OK, but their opinions are just relative to their respective cultures. Even if everyone but those within that culture think it's wrong, that doesn't make it universally so and that culture immoral.



Morality cannot be innate and non-universal. It's just logically impossible.

I don't see what's contradicting about it. Please explain.



The difference between murder and killing in self-defense is not merely motive; it's circumstance.



We're done talking if you're going to continue insulting me; especially using out-of-context examples as your reasoning.



Well then I posit that you should be locked up with all the other rapists, muggers, abusers, and the like because of that one time that you teased <insert name here>.

Why do you say this:

but then say this:


I am telling you that I have encountered situations as the one I describe. Maybe people were absurd to feel so bad about it, but people did.


If you reduce all actions to nothing more than their direct consequences, ok, sure. But an action is more than just its consequence. In fact, this is shown by the fact that we have several action-words for the same consequence of somebody's death: murder, manslaughter, and so on.


I already tried to explain how this could be. Instead of repeating everything, I'll give the summary: our inability to see the truth of something does not make that truth go away. Our inability to see a universal truth does not make the truth universal.

With the above I have not really given an argument *for* universality, I am simply pointing out that what you think is a contradiction is not.

Perhaps the confusion lies in the difference between descriptive and prescriptive morality. While the former is clearly not universal (practices differ, after all) nothing in this discussion yet has addressed the latter.


I think I explained why this is not true by definition above. Shasarak and I have covered this in our explanations of fact vs. belief.


That however is what I am arguing might be the case. To throw in a theory of morality, I would refer you to e.g. Kant's categorical imperative.


I think this is covered by the descriptive and prescriptive difference.


You'll have to be more specific than "circumstance" but I think I can buy this for the time being. Even so, motive plays a crucial role, which was the point.


I don't think you were being insulted, drrck; it's a valid question to ask. You put forward an unusual moral theory, namely that the behaviors in question aren't really problems.


I realize that you are probably being facetious, but for the sake of the argument I will point out that there is the character of an act and then its magnitude. In the quotation above, you have equated acts of vastly different magnitude. Just because the teasing is wrong doesn't mean it should be punished the same way as the other crimes. So, what you say really doesn't follow from what shasarak said.

Does this thread even still have a connection to the originally posted topic beyond the clear fact that the "conversation" at this point has clearly pushed "too far" in forum member hostility towards fellow forum member? It seems to me that Drrck created this thread to discuss:



Which somehow progressed from the specific examples he'd cited to PK to abusive playing styles to legal/philosophical/sociological debates that seem pretty unrelated to the original questions..

Oh well, I guess Drrck is to be congratulated on managing to have created a thread that spiraled beyond 150 posts and appears to be well on it's way to the 200 mark.

The fact that you haven't suggested anything else is rather telling.



I explained my point of view, then I explained my example. Other people have stated that they understand my example, and my point, but you apparently follow neither. I find that suggestive of your lack of understanding, not my lack of credibility. Besides, I said that the outset that I wanted no part in the debate. I've made deliberate effort not to enter into the debate. I even stated, directly, that I was not entering the debate with you about this morality stuff. Unlike everyone else reading my posts, you simply don't get it. Unfortunately, I can't help you with that particular problem.

If you don't wish to respond to my posts anymore, so be it. You appear to be something of a narcissist anyway, and as such you are in all likelihood beyond help. You have my sympathy.

Well said.

And I think the participants in this discussion, myself included, could stand to apply the thread title to the direction of the conversation. This is definitely "too far" :)

Indeed it does. How could it not? When speaking of 'how far is too far', it naturally matters to think about the effects of bringing morality etc. into the game. In fact, we got started on this subtopic because we were talking about specific actions, and 'how far is too far' when it comes to those actions. It's how we got started talking about abuse: how much PK is too much PK? Sociological questions are quite relevant when it comes to determining what is "too far", especially when you are talking about game features that can have psychological repercussions on players (such as permanent death).

I will grant that the discussion has become slightly abstract (too much so for your taste, at the least, and perhaps others), but it is still related. Presumably drrck found it interesting as well otherwise he probably would have stopped already, or prodded us to return to the original question he asked. (Well, I suppose he just did, so perhaps he doesn't see the relevance either. Or has merely gotten bored, which would be quite understandable as well…)


I didn't think the discussion was hostile at all. Perhaps drrck will correct me if he felt otherwise (it was not clear from his brief post).

I find it very interesting, but I also find it highly irrelevant to the original topic at the same time. That's not to say that it's not relevant to some other topic that popped up somewhere along the way, but I suppose a new thread could be created to discuss that further if anyone was so inclined.



There was only one person on this thread that I felt was being hostile, and I made it clear earlier who that was.

Here we are 170 posts later… exactly what were you all talking about anyway?

Incorporating realism into MUDs, and how far was too far concerning trying to make game features more real.

What, wasn't it obvious? :lol: