Game Discussions Whiskey's Guide to Not Being Salty

[ethelred]

Don't play gambling games.
I mean there is actually good risk/reward games. And I always drone on how I dislike the "ironman"-like gameplay of ED. It sucks balls. I don't want to play ED like that. I want my save game. That's what I usually say about the so-called "risk" in ED

In the end both games might be for the "long run" gameplay, but it's just that I play The Long Dark exactly for that experience, while I have no interest in such gameplay in Elite.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Don't play how you don't want to, that would be insane. Click on Open ONLY if you're happy with people potentially disrupting your gameplay.

Yep, all this☝AND don't gank the noobs, for the love of the frag cannon. You don't hit women, unless you're a woman yourself, and even then you just don't. I guess it's sexist to say so these days, but it's still a good rule of thumb.

Gank noobs, don't gank noobs it's all the same to me. You can't apply RL rules to ED as they are not the same.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

You can't apply RL rules to ED as they are not the same.

What exactly is the difference then?

 

[ethelred]

What exactly is the difference then?

One's a game? Therefore the moral framework of RL has no bearing?

 

[WeComeInPeace]

One's a game? Therefore the moral framework of RL has no bearing?

Why not? Look philosophers have been trying for thousands of years to figure out what ethics and moral is. They still haven't agreed. I don't say that you can't act immoral in the game and get away with it, I do that frequently, but when I do I know I'm bad. We are playing the game. We are responsible for our actions. Also in the game. We can chose not not give a duck, but you could do that in real life as well. The idea that you can get rid of your responsibility by acting something out in a game is a misunderstanding. You can chose to be immoral and gank noobs, and I won't stop you, but don't come crying when someone tells you it's not the right thing to do. Or what?

Can you really tell right from wrong?

 

[ethelred]

Why not? Look philosophers have been trying for thousands of years to figure out what ethics and moral is. They still haven't agreed. I don't say that you can't act immoral in the game and get away with it, I do that frequently, but when I do I know I'm bad. We are playing the game. We are responsible for our actions. Also in the game. We can chose not not give a duck, but you could do that in real life as well. The idea that you can get rid of your responsibility by acting something out in a game is a misunderstanding. You can chose to be immoral and gank noobs, and I won't stop you, but don't come crying when someone tells you it's not the right thing to do. Or what?

Can you really tell right from wrong?

Interesting point. For me games, are about enjoyment first and foremost. I don't see a moral responsibility in games in the same way as RL, but perhaps I'm missing your point? What do you mean?

So acting as a baddie (e.g. ganking noobs) may be enjoyable and therefore would take precedent over "moral responsibility".

The right thing in terms of what? In a game the right thing is playing within the ruleset of that game, no exploits, cheats etc. I wouldn't complain about how other's see my play, because why would I care? I don't have a responsibility to others in the game, save playing within the ruleset as defined by (in this case) FDEV.

 

[Stigbob]

Why not? Look philosophers have been trying for thousands of years to figure out what ethics and moral is. They still haven't agreed. I don't say that you can't act immoral in the game and get away with it, I do that frequently, but when I do I know I'm bad. We are playing the game. We are responsible for our actions. Also in the game. We can chose not not give a duck, but you could do that in real life as well. The idea that you can get rid of your responsibility by acting something out in a game is a misunderstanding. You can chose to be immoral and gank noobs, and I won't stop you, but don't come crying when someone tells you it's not the right thing to do. Or what?

Can you really tell right from wrong?

I really enjoyed Dungeon Keeper (1&2) where the idea was to be as horrible as possible. Spanking those imps to make them dig faster and the odd spot of torture haven't altered my moral compass at all. IIRC the tag line was "Its good to be bad". I never felt I'd been bad as that was idea of the game so that's not really wrong.

In RPG's even if I set out bad I end up good as I forget to roleplay being evil when it comes to choices and go with my own moral compass.

I'd also say its morally wrong to judge someone's character just by how they play video games, but I'd add that no other metric really matters when you are talking about people you only know via the game. So even though its morally questionable its sensible to judge people by how they behave towards you and others in the only way you'll ever interact. Nothing else is relevant really.

So I can tell right from wrong and know when context dictates its applicability.

I very rarely shoot the noobs.

 

[Speedcuffs]

forget to roleplay being evil

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I'd say we don't know diddly about right and wrong, neither in any game, nor in RL. In RL there are two general ways of looking at right from wrong. One is to do as your told (by scriptures or your gut feeling), the other is to try and calculate your actions utility. Both fail miserably in countless paradoxes.

So instead we lean towards culture, being what everyone else think, because we're somewhat social animals. Game theory can tell a few things about how that works, and if you combine it with evolutionary biology, you might come as close to knowing right from wrong as you'll get.

That's all pretty complicated to contemplate everytime you need to chose, so instead we use that good ol' golden rule. Don't do it, if he can't. That rule also goes for RPG and open in ED. However, we are more or less social individuals all of us, so we even disagree on the golden rule.

You can try and split your personality entering the artificial reality of the game, but honestly I don't believe you can. We don't even know what defines a person. All this just to say, that the division of game ethics and RL is just like discussing the color of warm air. We can't, so instead, let's just accept that some are less empathic than others, and the rest of the group will always tell you, when you misbehave. Then you can chose to misbehave, but that definitely doesn't make it morally acceptable, when you look at right or wrong from the standard points of view. Some people in RL also go "Yeah, you know what, those are your rules, not mine, so you abide as much as you wan't, I won't", which is a genuine argument, but they also normally know the consequences of not fitting in.

 

[Stigbob]

I'd say we don't know diddly about right and wrong, neither in any game, nor in RL. In RL there are two general ways of looking at right from wrong. One is to do as your told (by scriptures or your gut feeling), the other is to try and calculate your actions utility. Both fail miserably in countless paradoxes.

I don't think scripture counts for anything at all to be honest, from my perspective its just an outdated form of political control that should have died out with the people who applied it a couple of thousand years ago. I'd also say any choice to do the "good" thing because of fear of being seen by a mythological character isn't really good its just fear.

Wheatons law or treat others as you'd like to be treated is more sensible I think, and gut feeling works for the majority of us.

So instead we lean towards culture, being what everyone else think, because we're somewhat social animals. Game theory can tell a few things about how that works, and if you combine it with evolutionary biology, you might come as close to knowing right from wrong as you'll get.

That's how societies operate though, you get the protections if you contribute. If you only take then you don't receive, it gets a bit messier as societies grow and you end up protecting some who really don't deserve it. That's the cost of providing protection to those who do deserve it though. The people deciding who deserves it need watching as the protections can be misused.

The internal norms of that society change and evolve over time in minor ways but the really basic stuff of don't kill, maim and steal remains a constant (with exceptions).

Externally its different as you can see from drones being commonly used for extra-judicial execution now along with torture, which would have been unthinkable before 911 and would still be unthinkable internally (with exceptions).

That's all pretty complicated to contemplate everytime you need to chose, so instead we use that good ol' golden rule. Don't do it, if he can't. That rule also goes for RPG and open in ED. However, we are more or less social individuals all of us, so we even disagree on the golden rule.

I'd argue that a video game is essentially escapism so the normal rules don't apply. In Skyrim if someone tried to rip me off I can kill them on the spot loot their corpse and chuck them in the river just above a waterfall without consequences or more importantly any harm to anyone else. So Wheatons law doesn't come into effect.

In RL I'd report them to trading standards/law enforcement whatever, the whole murder waterfall routine just isn't on the cards.

You can try and split your personality entering the artificial reality of the game, but honestly I don't believe you can. We don't even know what defines a person. All this just to say, that the division of game ethics and RL is just like discussing the color of warm air. We can't, so instead, let's just accept that some are less empathic than others, and the rest of the group will always tell you, when you misbehave. Then you can chose to misbehave, but that definitely doesn't make it morally acceptable, when you look at right or wrong from the standard points of view. Some people in RL also go "Yeah, you know what, those are your rules, not mine, so you abide as much as you wan't, I won't", which is a genuine argument, but they also normally know the consequences of not fitting in.

In a video game there are no consequnces or actual harm to others (with exceptions). So I'd say its fine to be a total Richard as you are not being a real total Richard. People playing them should bear that in mind as getting mad about someone else's actions in a video game is daft, the only reason we are there is escapism really so normal rules don't apply.

At the same time objecting to people blocking you for being a Richard is also daft, as people can choose who they spend time with.

A Richard will allways be a Richard, but not everyone being a Richard in a video game is a Richard.

*no offence intended to named Richards

 

[Ca$hback]

Oh boy, do I have a lot of toxic things to say and they're all about you>

 

[Stigbob]

Oh boy, do I have a lot of toxic things to say and they're all about you>

Sorry if you are called Richard .

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I don't think scripture counts for anything at all to be honest, from my perspective its just an outdated form of political control that should have died out with the people who applied it a couple of thousand years ago. I'd also say any choice to do the "good" thing because of fear of being seen by a mythological character isn't really good its just fear.

Wheatons law or treat others as you'd like to be treated is more sensible I think, and gut feeling works for the majority of us.



That's how societies operate though, you get the protections if you contribute. If you only take then you don't receive, it gets a bit messier as societies grow and you end up protecting some who really don't deserve it. That's the cost of providing protection to those who do deserve it though. The people deciding who deserves it need watching as the protections can be misused.

The internal norms of that society change and evolve over time in minor ways but the really basic stuff of don't kill, maim and steal remains a constant (with exceptions).

Externally its different as you can see from drones being commonly used for extra-judicial execution now along with torture, which would have been unthinkable before 911 and would still be unthinkable internally (with exceptions).



I'd argue that a video game is essentially escapism so the normal rules don't apply. In Skyrim if someone tried to rip me off I can kill them on the spot loot their corpse and chuck them in the river just above a waterfall without consequences or more importantly any harm to anyone else. So Wheatons law doesn't come into effect.

In RL I'd report them to trading standards/law enforcement whatever, the whole murder waterfall routine just isn't on the cards.



In a video game there are no consequnces or actual harm to others (with exceptions). So I'd say its fine to be a total Richard as you are not being a real total Richard. People playing them should bear that in mind as getting mad about someone else's actions in a video game is daft, the only reason we are there is escapism really so normal rules don't apply.

At the same time objecting to people blocking you for being a Richard is also daft, as people can choose who they spend time with.

A Richard will allways be a Richard, but not everyone being a Richard in a video game is a Richard.

*no offence intended to named Richards

I agree with much of it, but...

Let's imagine that I take my Mamba, and go find an explorer returning from outer space with all those lovely data he spent months collecting. Can I kill him? The laws of the game say yes. Is it ok to kill him? I don't know, and so does nobody else. Instead I could use the golden rule. I think it's ok to shoot him dead, because he's welcome to try killing me. Simple as that! However, that is not what the golden rule means. I have to try and empathize with his emotions as well. If I was him, would I think it would be ok that a crazy Martian in a Mamba kills me just for the enjoyment he gets for a few seconds, compared to the endless hours of my life I've spent out there in the black, all for the good cause of science? Probably I would think the Martian acted immoral. My point here is that you might hurt someone more than you think, and I don't see any good arguments that this is ok. I also don't see arguments that it's not, so instead I turn towards what I think everyone else think is right, forgetting that they are equally confused.

The social contract thingy that we all agree upon, do we really? Have you ever signed it? Have you even seen it? Did we have a chance to have changes made to it? Could anyone possibly say they wouldn't be part of it without consequences? No, no, no, no and no.

I also agree that ED is excellent escapism. That was my main reason for buying both VR and ED, and we also agree that the RL rules don't apply in the game. But what about the RL code of conduct? Can you hurt someone in the game, without having any responsibility towards that person, just because you're separated by a cable? I'm not so sure about that. I could chose to do it anyhow, but I would be lying to myself if I thought my actions didn't have consequences for the guy I killed. Could I live with that in the long run? No I couldn't, but I accept the reality of someone else being able to. And then I deserve my 100% subjective right to judge and kill them

 

[Stigbob]

I agree with much of it, but...

Let's imagine that I take my Mamba, and go find an explorer returning from outer space with all those lovely data he spent months collecting. Can I kill him? The laws of the game say yes. Is it ok to kill him? I don't know, and so does nobody else. Instead I could use the golden rule. I think it's ok to shoot him dead, because he's welcome to try killing me. Simple as that! However, that is not what the golden rule means. I have to try and empathize with his emotions as well. If I was him, would I think it would be ok that a crazy Martian in a Mamba kills me just for the enjoyment he gets for a few seconds, compared to the endless hours of my life I've spent out there in the black, all for the good cause of science? Probably I would think the Martian acted immoral. My point here is that you might hurt someone more than you think, and I don't see any good arguments that this is ok. I also don't see arguments that it's not, so instead I turn towards what I think everyone else think is right, forgetting that they are equally confused.

The games rules say you can if you want, but you'll get a bounty and notoriety maybe ATF if you go on a spree for whatever you think that's worth.

However my personal moral compass says definitely don't ever consider doing that, specifically because its done through wanting to cause distress. Further I'd take on the attacker if possible and eat a rebuy as being somehow worth it and advise the explorer not to do that in open in future, plus advice on high-waking and how to block the attacker if they wanted.

I'd also think the explorer was more than a little bit daft, out of consideration for him I probably wouldn't say it in those words. I'd think the attacker was a sick little monkey and would be willing to say that since he'd opted out of empathy.

I'd consider blocking the attacker myself as unworthy of the courtesy of being allowed to play games with me, weighed against the temptation of taking him on repeatedly.

The social contract thingy that we all agree upon, do we really? Have you ever signed it? Have you even seen it? Did we have a chance to have changes made to it? Could anyone possibly say they wouldn't be part of it without consequences? No, no, no, no and no.

It works through expulsion based on personal standards, as I described above most people loosely align so overall its pretty consistent. You behave in an acceptable way or you wind up excluded and lonely, in games and RL.

I also agree that ED is excellent escapism. That was my main reason for buying both VR and ED, and we also agree that the RL rules don't apply in the game. But what about the RL code of conduct? Can you hurt someone in the game, without having any responsibility towards that person, just because you're separated by a cable? I'm not so sure about that. I could chose to do it anyhow, but I would be lying to myself if I thought my actions didn't have consequences for the guy I killed. Could I live with that in the long run? No I couldn't, but I accept the reality of someone else being able to. And then I deserve my 100% subjective right to judge and kill them

View attachment 161166

My personal code of conduct always applies, which boils down to treat as you find and other peoples opinions are interesting rather than offensive.

I'd never make a ganker, just not my thing.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Yes, we agree that the explorer was daft, but does that give anyone the right to kill him? Should we transfer that to real life and kill anyone with an IQ less than a certain value? Don't think that thought is very popular, and I certainly consider it very wrong, but then again I might be wrong:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaN_-vipsg


Human pretentiousness has no limits.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, we agree that the explorer was daft, but does that give anyone the right to kill him? Should we transfer that to real life and kill anyone with an IQ less than a certain value? Don't think that thought is very popular, and I certainly consider it very wrong, but then again I might be wrong:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaN_-vipsg


Human pretentiousness has no limits.

In ED the strong dictate to the weak. This is true for the individual, BGS, Powerplay, anything. People respond in one of two ways- either 'thats not fair!' and never improve themselves or their ship (or get organised with like minded people)- or they themselves become stronger and learn.

Conan had it right, well, Thulsa Doom did.

"My child, you have come to me my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. "

 

[Stigbob]

Yes, we agree that the explorer was daft, but does that give anyone the right to kill him? Should we transfer that to real life and kill anyone with an IQ less than a certain value? Don't think that thought is very popular, and I certainly consider it very wrong, but then again I might be wrong:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaN_-vipsg


Human pretentiousness has no limits.

Killing them is definitely wrong, allowing them to vote however is a different kettle of fish.

He said less than a week post Brexit whilst listening to the news about the PM trying to dictate what the papers could report after being twice sacked for lying in the past, talking legal action to conceal how many illegitimate children he has and currently living in number 10 with his mistress while his wife suffers through cancer.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

In ED the strong dictate to the weak. This is true for the individual, BGS, Powerplay, anything. People respond in one of two ways- either 'thats not fair!' and never improve themselves or their ship (or get organised with like minded people)- or they themselves become stronger and learn.

Conan had it right, well, Thulsa Doom did.

"My child, you have come to me my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. "

View attachment 161170

Fair has to do with ethics, which we don't know what is. Fair seems to be subjective, but honestly we don't really know what subjective is either. We know a lot about atoms, but we actually know very little when it comes to some very everyday things, including moral.

"In ED the strong dictate to the weak". As I like to say, this game reflects reality in so many ways. Including the illusion of knowing right from wrong. We are animals. All of us. We try to survive and reproduce, sending along our genomes, so that others don't get the chance. We try to maximize our own chances, typically involving gathering and claiming resources when they're not abundant. If you look at the dude in the middle of the image, I'm pretty sure he realized that The other two, meh. But when it rains on the priest, it drips on the parish clerk.

 

[AkenBosch]

We try to maximize our own chances, typically involving gathering and claiming resources when they're not abundant. If you look at the dude in the middle of the image, I'm pretty sure he realized that The other two, meh. But when it rains on the priest, it drips on the parish clerk.

What neither of the three surely did grasp, is the importance of a good looking hairstyle.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fair has to do with ethics, which we don't know what is. Fair seems to be subjective, but honestly we don't really know what subjective is either. We know a lot about atoms, but we actually know very little when it comes to some very everyday things, including moral.

"In ED the strong dictate to the weak". As I like to say, this game reflects reality in so many ways. Including the illusion of knowing right from wrong. We are animals. All of us. We try to survive and reproduce, sending along our genomes, so that others don't get the chance. We try to maximize our own chances, typically involving gathering and claiming resources when they're not abundant. If you look at the dude in the middle of the image, I'm pretty sure he realized that The other two, meh. But when it rains on the priest, it drips on the parish clerk.

ED is not fair- Powerplay, the BGS, ships, nothing. Expect anything other than that and you are setting yourself up to fail really when you can stack the odds in your favour in so many ways.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

ED is not fair- Powerplay, the BGS, ships, nothing. Expect anything other than that and you are setting yourself up to fail really when you can stack the odds in your favour in so many ways.

I expect fairness from MP games.