![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
Thank you.
I understand what it has come to mean, what it now symbolises for many people, but that is not where the term was born, its definition has changed.
Why I think player-driven slave trading should be removed from E:D
- Thread starter furiouslog
- Start date
- Status
I understand what it has come to mean, what it now symbolises for many people, but that is not where the term was born, its definition has changed.
And here's another study for him.
Again no link to increased aggressive behavior among Teenagers.
And another..
Study Finds No Evidence That More Violent, Difficult Video Games Spur Aggression
Some of the most popular video games feature violence of some kind -- psychological scientists are investigating whether violent in-game behavior actually impacts real-world behavior.
www.psychologicalscience.org
Last edited:
Hey, keep your facts out of this thread!And here's another study for him.
Again no link to increased aggressive behavior among Teenagers.
And another..
Study Finds No Evidence That More Violent, Difficult Video Games Spur Aggression
Some of the most popular video games feature violence of some kind -- psychological scientists are investigating whether violent in-game behavior actually impacts real-world behavior.
Because people that share OP's mindset might label me as a monstrous insensitive human being and they might seek retribution against me
So i will have to chose the political correct stance and not watch Gone with the Wind or at least not publicly admitting that i ever watched it.
And this can be easily extended to anything the Political Correct mob deems as inappropriate - a container label in ED, the idyllic representation of prison life in Shawshank Redemption and so on
Seems like a massive straw man.
Then again, I'm going to commit another discussional faux pas and eject this thread as debating about political correctness and "political correctness" is not something I want to do on a game forum.
not if you read the OP's posts from the other thread - when they said that whoever engages in slave trading in ED must also be a monstrous human being in real life too
The term has almost never been used to support a policy though, and is deliberately disparaging in origin. Almost everything attacked as political correctness IS just basic decency, with a very few counterexamples that people go wild about like it's the whole story.
He's fine with drugs and murder tho.
I don't mean that as a dig at him either, just pointing out that his argument that he can accept that as 'entertainment and gamey' doesn't hold up alongside his assertions that games affect behaviour. ie playing with slavery in game will make you more likely too accept it irl.
As you can expect, the ED Universe is comprised of civilizations in different stages of evolution so it is only normal that slavery should be represented.
But if anyone has a problem with trading a commodity named slaves in a game, then... they should probably not indulge in it. Case closed.
But if anyone has a problem with trading a commodity named slaves in a game, then... they should probably not indulge in it. Case closed.
The function of art is to hold a mirror to society and remind people of what does or might happen. Thus removing things that may offend or otherwise stimulate an emotional reaction is counter productive to maintaining a healthy understanding of all that is right and wrong in the world.
Up to you to decide if ED counts as an Art form, but I would argue that it ticks the box from a philosophical point of view.
Up to you to decide if ED counts as an Art form, but I would argue that it ticks the box from a philosophical point of view.
There are plenty of good reasons to watch, Gone with the Wind. It's a marvel of film making history and has some pretty good on technical merits. Gone with the Wind is also completely deserving of most of the criticisms levied against it and would be a must watch film for that aspect alone.
That it's a complete farce from a historical perspective, promotes stereotypes that were tired even when it was written, and romanticizes the Antebellum South, while serving as a pro-Lost Cause propaganda piece, doesn't detract from it's merits, but may well be deserving of a warning, unless those less well versed in history assume it's somehow an accurate piece of historical fiction, rather than fantasy coopting a pseudohistorical setting.
Personally, I don't see the addition of disclaimers here as any more problematic than anywhere else. Extreme violence or explicit sex scenes are considerably less offensive than half of Gone with the Wind. Some people don't want to see beheading videos without warning, some people don't want to see "Two Girls, One Cup", some people don't want to see the upper crust scum of a ty and hypocritical doomed society being placed on a sympathetic pedestal in a culturally revisionist piece that meanders along for almost four hours. No difference. I could do without these warnings, but their presence isn't particularly offensive and certainly isn't unprecedented.
Everything is art.
I think it's nollocks. Yes, the depiction of slavery is bad taste and I cannot imagine it being reinstated some time in the future. Yet we have modern forms of just the thing and I also don't agree with the whole Empire tosh in the Elite lore either. I simply don't buy it.
However - is fiction. It may be bad fiction but it still is just fiction. It is also bad taste to let players trade slaves but it still is just fiction.
However - is fiction. It may be bad fiction but it still is just fiction. It is also bad taste to let players trade slaves but it still is just fiction.
Considering that players own and carry way more devastating weapons, and are certainly not official or full members of any legal military/law enforcement organisations, selling some guns to civilians is pretty minor problem.
Though I have to say that "Elite - Gun Controll" would hinder quite much some play styles 
Quite agree, I've missed something there. If we're bringing real life sensibilities into it, we as civilians should not have guns on our ships at all either.Considering that players own and carry way more devastating weapons, and are certainly not official or full members of any legal military/law enforcement organisations, selling some guns to civilians is pretty minor problem.
Certainly adds to the point that not much of a game is left if you account for the real life opinions of everyone.
Wow someone writes an opinion piece and most of you want them censored or use the slippery slop argument or whataboutisms or strawmen or say you havent even read the post in the first place and thats something to be proud of? Then go on to say whatabout...which is covered in the OP you havent read? I have read the OP and to my shame all the comments as well. TY to the few who managed to discuss the actual subject and not the person.
Bonus points for mentioning Hitler on Page 2. A very early appearance there, one of the earliest Ive seen.
OP - This is not a personal attack but it may feel like one because these are your deeply held views, I am discussing the facts though.
'But because other...reasonable to speculate' - its reasonable to speculate but not to make any assumptions based on that speculation, this is pseudoscience, feelings are not fact nor are the proven outcomes.
Saying I feel is legitimate in its own right, its your opinion. It isnt fact and cant be treated as the same as fact, it is only proof to you that feel that way.
"On the up side, if this trend of space games trading slaves continues, we could be able to study any effects that might manifest."
This is science, we do not have any data yet and afaik noone is studying it specifically. To use it as a 'debating point' is trying to portray an emotional worst case scenario that has no data to support or disprove it is pseudoscience.
The irony of using an example of pre-game history to then show that the game must be what influences such human behaviour should also not be lost. This is much more indicative of a pattern of human behaviour throughout history and can be applied to any 'change' you care to think of. Someone will always use these arguments.
I highlight these because using pseudoscience weakens your 'argument' and opens it up to weak attacks of distraction. Same goes for the Studies.
For example in the first one linked these quotes were also available and yet the poster failed to highlight them. Its called Quote Mining if deliberate, failure to realise cognitive bias and confirmation bias if not a conscious decision. Note the distinction between causing aggression or anti-social behaviour and causing violence specifically. None of which are the topics anyway until brought up as strawmen but there you go.
"The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior (e.g., Moller & Krahe, 2009; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012)."
"Similarly, the research conducted since the 2005 APA Resolution using aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect as outcomes also shows a direct effect of violent video game use (e. g., Hasan, Begue, Scharkow & Bushman, 2013; Shafer, 2012). Researchers have also continued to find that violent video game use is associated with decreases in socially desirable behavior such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement (e.g., Arriaga, Monteiro & Esteves, 2011; Happ, Melzer & Steffgen, 2013)."
Warning Stickers -
Would I buy a game that said 'Depicts Slavery' with the same lack of care I would one that says 'Violence and swearing'? - Id probably not buy it without a lot more research into it. How does it depict slavery?
Would Frontier be happy with that label on their games ' Depicts Slavery' or 'Allows players to trade in slaves', is it the same as 'Drug Use' or 'Violence and Swearing'?. Would it affect the brand name and therefore the other games aimed more at children or the franchise games?
So Qs I ask myself -
Having bought the game for my Nephew would I be mortified if a news headline came up saying 'ED allows Slavery'? - Yes I would. My sister and BIL are not gamers and would have no understanding of anything but 'SLAVES'
Would I mind if Frontier just removed it? - Not in the slightest. Id like a reason in game though or preferably some gameplay as its such a massive event in lore.
Do I want Slaving removed from the game by Frontier? - Never really thought about it. I dont like it necessarily but in game its an opposable thing apart from the option to free slaves. I dont know if I feel strongly enough to say 'want'.
Should it be in game? - Depends how its portrayed....
In 100 years will ED be seen as anachronistic and downright degrading to humans in the same way we can look back 100 years? Should that matter today, 100 years from then? - Thats a whole separate debate
Bonus points for mentioning Hitler on Page 2. A very early appearance there, one of the earliest Ive seen.
OP - This is not a personal attack but it may feel like one because these are your deeply held views, I am discussing the facts though.
No scientific evidence...at least is scientific
'But because other...reasonable to speculate' - its reasonable to speculate but not to make any assumptions based on that speculation, this is pseudoscience, feelings are not fact nor are the proven outcomes.
Saying I feel is legitimate in its own right, its your opinion. It isnt fact and cant be treated as the same as fact, it is only proof to you that feel that way.
"On the up side, if this trend of space games trading slaves continues, we could be able to study any effects that might manifest."
This is science, we do not have any data yet and afaik noone is studying it specifically. To use it as a 'debating point' is trying to portray an emotional worst case scenario that has no data to support or disprove it is pseudoscience.
The irony of using an example of pre-game history to then show that the game must be what influences such human behaviour should also not be lost. This is much more indicative of a pattern of human behaviour throughout history and can be applied to any 'change' you care to think of. Someone will always use these arguments.
I highlight these because using pseudoscience weakens your 'argument' and opens it up to weak attacks of distraction. Same goes for the Studies.
For example in the first one linked these quotes were also available and yet the poster failed to highlight them. Its called Quote Mining if deliberate, failure to realise cognitive bias and confirmation bias if not a conscious decision. Note the distinction between causing aggression or anti-social behaviour and causing violence specifically. None of which are the topics anyway until brought up as strawmen but there you go.
"The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior (e.g., Moller & Krahe, 2009; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012)."
"Similarly, the research conducted since the 2005 APA Resolution using aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect as outcomes also shows a direct effect of violent video game use (e. g., Hasan, Begue, Scharkow & Bushman, 2013; Shafer, 2012). Researchers have also continued to find that violent video game use is associated with decreases in socially desirable behavior such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement (e.g., Arriaga, Monteiro & Esteves, 2011; Happ, Melzer & Steffgen, 2013)."
Warning Stickers -
Would I buy a game that said 'Depicts Slavery' with the same lack of care I would one that says 'Violence and swearing'? - Id probably not buy it without a lot more research into it. How does it depict slavery?
Would Frontier be happy with that label on their games ' Depicts Slavery' or 'Allows players to trade in slaves', is it the same as 'Drug Use' or 'Violence and Swearing'?. Would it affect the brand name and therefore the other games aimed more at children or the franchise games?
So Qs I ask myself -
Having bought the game for my Nephew would I be mortified if a news headline came up saying 'ED allows Slavery'? - Yes I would. My sister and BIL are not gamers and would have no understanding of anything but 'SLAVES'
Would I mind if Frontier just removed it? - Not in the slightest. Id like a reason in game though or preferably some gameplay as its such a massive event in lore.
Do I want Slaving removed from the game by Frontier? - Never really thought about it. I dont like it necessarily but in game its an opposable thing apart from the option to free slaves. I dont know if I feel strongly enough to say 'want'.
Should it be in game? - Depends how its portrayed....
In 100 years will ED be seen as anachronistic and downright degrading to humans in the same way we can look back 100 years? Should that matter today, 100 years from then? - Thats a whole separate debate
Alright here's my 2 cents.
1.) The comparison to other games is a false equivalency. Slavery in elite dangerous is neither graphic, sexual, nor violent.
2.) Elite is a dystopian game. Society has regressed. The Federation is basically run by corporate libertarians, the Empire is an Elitist oligarchy, and the alliance is a loose confederacy of independent systems that it has no regulatory oversight over, and is more similar to a defensive pact than anything. Between elitist oligarchs with indentured servitude and slavery, and corporate libertarian wage slaves who are being pacified and brainwashed for political and economic gain, I'd say that you can't get rid of it without SERIOUS lore overhauls to the point that you'd need to remove Zemina Torval as a power, completely rewrite AD as a power (since she's anti slavery, and with no slavery, she has no real platform), etc etc far beyond removing them as cargo.
3.) Slavery in game is not player driven. Players neither produce nor consume cargo (Apart from mined goods), and this is true for slaves as well. This means that players are glorified taxis. Is taking known and wanted criminals on sightseeing tours, or blowing up hundreds of thousands of wedding barges equally immoral? Those actions are actually player driven as opposed to being space taxi for cargo that for all it matters, could be unnamed.
4.) Narratively, its better if players can choose between being uptight and stuffy and goody two shoes, or being the malicious criminals. Funnily enough, one pays, the other doesnt. There's enough credit based punishment for outlaws, and removing another morally abhorrent deed we can commit is unnecessary. Hell, slavery should pay better considering how illegal and in demand they are, same way drugs and other illicit goods should cost more on black markets.
5.) See data on previous posts about how video games dont actually drive violent or sociopathic dispositions.
6.) If you dont like something in game, do something about it in game. Interdict people, scan their cargo for slaves, and if they have them, blow them up. Easy. Similarly, removing it from the game, also removes all conflict and options to fight it, so wouldn't by winning, you'd also be losing a motivator to commit piracy and steal slaves from the people who carry them?
1.) The comparison to other games is a false equivalency. Slavery in elite dangerous is neither graphic, sexual, nor violent.
2.) Elite is a dystopian game. Society has regressed. The Federation is basically run by corporate libertarians, the Empire is an Elitist oligarchy, and the alliance is a loose confederacy of independent systems that it has no regulatory oversight over, and is more similar to a defensive pact than anything. Between elitist oligarchs with indentured servitude and slavery, and corporate libertarian wage slaves who are being pacified and brainwashed for political and economic gain, I'd say that you can't get rid of it without SERIOUS lore overhauls to the point that you'd need to remove Zemina Torval as a power, completely rewrite AD as a power (since she's anti slavery, and with no slavery, she has no real platform), etc etc far beyond removing them as cargo.
3.) Slavery in game is not player driven. Players neither produce nor consume cargo (Apart from mined goods), and this is true for slaves as well. This means that players are glorified taxis. Is taking known and wanted criminals on sightseeing tours, or blowing up hundreds of thousands of wedding barges equally immoral? Those actions are actually player driven as opposed to being space taxi for cargo that for all it matters, could be unnamed.
4.) Narratively, its better if players can choose between being uptight and stuffy and goody two shoes, or being the malicious criminals. Funnily enough, one pays, the other doesnt. There's enough credit based punishment for outlaws, and removing another morally abhorrent deed we can commit is unnecessary. Hell, slavery should pay better considering how illegal and in demand they are, same way drugs and other illicit goods should cost more on black markets.
5.) See data on previous posts about how video games dont actually drive violent or sociopathic dispositions.
6.) If you dont like something in game, do something about it in game. Interdict people, scan their cargo for slaves, and if they have them, blow them up. Easy. Similarly, removing it from the game, also removes all conflict and options to fight it, so wouldn't by winning, you'd also be losing a motivator to commit piracy and steal slaves from the people who carry them?
Well I do not believe in human progress. At least when it comes to values and such. At best in some relatively prosperous societies, at peace times things may be easier for members of such societies. 100 years from now, we still have slavery and other generally bad things in some parts of world, in thousand years from now we still have slavery and other bad things is some parts of world or worlds...ED is in my opinion somewhat realistic in that regard. What ever future provides it most certainly will not provide some Star Trek utopy.
Personally I try to be good guy in game, I do not trade slaves, and what ever criminal stuff I do is quite small. At worst I have been weapon merchant, trading weapons to societies in brink of civil breakdown. (And well I do not have problems dealing weapons, in IRL I oppose gun controll)
Last edited:
- Status