Why I think player-driven slave trading should be removed from E:D

[Chaparral]

'Said' is not the same as credible scientific research. And you missed out rock n roll.

Seems like a lot of hand wringing about slavery being removed, all the hysteria is one sided.

Aggression and anti-social behaviour, including a lack or loss of empathy, is clearly stated in those reports as a direct result of playing violent video games. Acts of violence are proven to have no link.

Aggression and violence are 2 different things.

So aggression is evil?

Lack of empathy compared to what? Children given Barbie dolls instead of toy swords?

Do you suppose the empathy levels of children soldiers in the Ivory Coast are higher or lower than those of 16 year olds playing Warzone?

This fretting about digital entertainment is cancer. It ends with everyone in grey suits, eating grey food, saying "double plus good".

Go shoot a deer, dress it, eat it. If you have a mouth, aggression and violence are required for your survival.

Think of video game slavery as a possibility if society is broken, not that it is a goal of society - or that it promotes actual slavery in society.

 

[Hoopes81]

'Said' is not the same as credible scientific research. And you missed out rock n roll.

Seems like a lot of hand wringing about slavery being removed, all the hysteria is one sided.

Aggression and anti-social behaviour, including a lack or loss of empathy, is clearly stated in those reports as a direct result of playing violent video games. Acts of violence are proven to have no link.

Aggression and violence are 2 different things.

There are also plenty of studys to show there are no links but people will only point to the ones that back their point of view, I believe it's called confirmation bias.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

I'm with the OP, there's no need for slaves as a commodity in this game, it's puerile, ill-thought out, and reeks of bad seventies sci-fi writing. People supporting it go straight on my ignore list as I have no interest in conversing with anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

Sometimes when I'm feeling down I will load up my type 9 with slaves and bring them to Maia to liberate them. I find a nice lonely thargoid and just feed them the slaves. Usually I'll start off with the standard 20 and then give a nice steady trickle of 5. Sometimes they will even call for their friends to come eat too. It's a joyful feeling when you see that little thargy skipping away with a full belly. It just brings a smile to my face. Sometimes I like to feed the slaves 1 by 1. I imagine down in my hold they are all tense with fear wondering who will be next. Who will be next? Boom the guy next to me. I could be next. The horror.

 

[FlyingBrick]

Fighters for all good against all bad have already reached the ED

 

[Several Puffins]

I’m not permitted to view that.

Second class forum peruser here I guess.

Nor am I!

It's... It's just a Blake's 7 gif.

 

[cmdr milesred]

again...

sadly you are not the first one to be so against a 'GAME' feature..killing and narcotics is ok though..nice selectivity...

I was close friends with one ant-slavery in games dude.

He couldn't let it go either, so eventually fdev let him go and makes sure he does not come back.

Spouting an opinion on game content once or twice is normal.
Making it your reason to live is childish and selfish and says more for your ego than your common sense.

its a game feature, game content.
play or don't, its a very simple choice.
if anyone agrees with you that its bad, they either also live with it or they don't play. of us that play because we DO enjoy the game as is, who cares?
remove all the bad things and all the things that offend and you have a million identical boring games.

 

[furiouslog]

There are also plenty of studys to show there are no links but people will only point to the ones that back their point of view, I believe it's called confirmation bias.

So clearing up a misunderstanding here that is not explicitly covered in the OP.

I assumed that I had addressed that concern by quoting a meta-analysis of the issue, as all studies pertinent to such an analysis are reviewed regardless of their conclusions, and are gathered and examined in order to draw a broader conclusion, or to aggregate trends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis As such, I push back on the idea that I have confirmation bias with respect to communicating that particular finding.

I know that there are studies that appear to show no link, and I looked at those as much as the ones that show a link (meaning I scanned abstracts for methods and conclusions), but the APA had included them in their meta-analysis and concluded otherwise from the available evidence. I'm not claiming that's definitive proof, either, but I reasonably have high confidence that their conclusions are true. Any statisticians among you will know what I mean. If you find something in your own research that shows that the APA's conclusions have been impeached, fair enough, but I made an effort to be intellectually honest about the issue in anticipation of this exact kind of criticism. If confronted with similarly conclusive aggregated evidence to the contrary published that post-dates the APA's guidance, I'll agree that the jury is still out. I didn't see any such academic peer-reviewed publications that met those thresholds. Also of note: the exact cognitive nature of the behavioral changes and the physiological root causes of those changes are not explicitly known. I will certainly stipulate that if anyone finds it to be contentious, but that is not a core aspect of the logic underlying my position.

Aside from Hoopes81's comment: the rest of the counterpoints in this thread, universally, are either logically fallacious (check out this helpful guide to see where you might fall: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ but tu quoque, ad hominem, and slippery slope are among the most prevalent I observed in my reading of the thread), or their counterpoints are already addressed in the OP. I know it's a massive amount of text, but if you're not going to read the whole thing before you post you are unlikely to add value to the discussion, which is what I would hope to be the primary motivation for all of its participants. If you feel that I have unfairly characterized you and actually want a response, feel free to PM me and link to your post, and I'll address it if it is a fair and non-redundant criticism.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Personally, I consider one's right to arm one's self as one sees fit as fundamental as one's right to breathe. Relegating firearms to sport/country management reason is classist and, in my own society, an expression of racism...arbitrary licensing restrictions, grandfathered weapons, import restrictions, etc exist largely to further repress marginalized groups, by keeping them disarmed.

I'm very much aware that this isn't a black and white issue and different circumstances and cultural backgrounds etc. mean this isn't something I would impose on anyone else. It's purely an opinion. I mention it from a point of view that there are plenty of things in games, films, TV shows that are distasteful if you take a real world perspective on them. There are likely plenty of things that may have affected people personally that games deal with. Odyssey will no doubt give me the option of shooting innocent bystanders in the face, just as other games have done. In no way does this glorify this kind of act in real life or encourage me to get involved in it.

I take this view because saying something I morally disagree should hidden away isn't dealing with it. Doubly so in a fantasy environment when the opinions deriving from my background no longer apply.

Slavery is not viewed in any way positive. It's illegal all lawful systems, defined in game as a trade in misery and for me, that's fine. We're told this is bad. Repercussions for being involved in it could be more severe, but that can be said for all criminal activity in game.

CMDR's in the Elite setting, especially as it's presented in this game, are hardly civilians. They are a privledged overclass, knights errant at the very least, if not veritable demigods, given deference even by hostile locals...who often employ them in a military capacity.

True, we're not directly employed in navies or in law enforcement in any official capacity is what I meant here.

However our position is possibly another reason why taking a real life view of entertainment isn't practical.

 

[Sole Trader]

The horror's of slavery happened, you just cant pretend it didn't happen and hide it from history like it was never there. Unfortunately slavery in one form or another will always be with us lurking beneath the surface, now and in the future, so from that point of view I think Frontier should leave slavery in the game and increase penalties to those caught participating in this abhorrent trade.

 

[Vetinari]

So which specific kinds of evilness are ok to depict in videogames (and entertainment in general like movies or tv shows) and which are not? And what defines the divide between acceptable forms of evilness depiction, and unacceptable forms of evilness depiction?

That is the question. Theres obviously a line somewhere, where is that line?

There are also plenty of studys to show there are no links but people will only point to the ones that back their point of view, I believe it's called confirmation bias.

Show me the studies, saying 'there are plenty' doesnt mean Jack. I only read what was put on here and they proved that aggression and lack or loss of empathy is linked and violence is not, a distinction I am capable of making but those linking the studies already here seem to have missed. I didn't go searching for studies to back up 'my point of view', I read the ones that were posted to 'prove' someone elses point of view. I merely pointed out the fallacies in the argument as they backed up the OPs claims of desensitisation. My own POV on that particular topic hasn't been stated anywhere, and still hasnt, Ill give you a clue though, Ill read the studies and then make my mind up based on the evidence. Ive seen too much hysteria on both sides when the studies I have seen show there are distinctions.

All the Why does OP say this then Qs...they said in the OP they werent replying so you'll probably never know.

All the 'I cant understand how someone can be horrified by this but not that'. Really? You find it hard to understand that everyone has a line and some things are on this side of the line and some things are on that side. The alternative is to be for everything or against everything, otherwise there has to be a line somewhere. The OP did say they had been desensitised to violence and drug use, perhaps they havent been desensitised to slavery yet, perhaps they dont want to be.

 

[askavir]

That is the question. Theres obviously a line somewhere, where is that line?

In my honest opinion, each and every one of us has his own line.

For instance, I personally have low tolerance for extreme and gratuitous violence, that's why I personally avoid movies like "Saw", "Hostel" and the likes (some people call these kind of movies "torture p00rn"). Yet I don't want to have those things banned from movies nor I necessarily believe everyone who watches such movies are serial-killers in the making.

It's perfectly ok to have "lines". We all have our own personal "line" and our limits to what we're able to stomach even in fiction. What I don't think it's ok, is to impose our own lines on other people when we're talking about fictional works of art (IMO videogames can be seen as a form or art, just like movies, tv shows, books etc). And neither going to the point of judging people based on their enjoyment of fictional works of art. (I keep using bold in "fiction" because I think it's important to make it clear that what I'm saying only applies because we're talking about fiction)

The overwhelming majority of people knows the difference between reality and fiction, and the few who don't already have serious issues in the first place. Nobody sane will begin to tolerate slavery in real life just because they played ED or saw North and South, nor will they open puppy mills for profit because they played Planet Zoo, neither they'll become racist just because Leonardo di Caprio did such a great role in Django Unchained, or anti-semithic because Christoph Waltz diz such a stupendous character as a in Inglourious B@sterds.

IMO creators and artists should be allowed to produce whatever fictional works they want to do, books, movies, videogames, then it's up to us consumers to decide if we want to purchase their work or not. A kind of "vote with your wallet" thing. But trying to change some creators work for everyone else, just because it crosses our own personal boundaries for what we are able to stomach in fiction, is quite selfish and presumptuous IMO.

Anyway, my honest 2 cents about the matter. Peace!

 

[Drelthar]

Games aren't films. Games have interactions. If you can be the guy freeing slaves, someone else needs to be able to be the one trading them in a well made interactive multiplayer environment. Games are art. Art shouldn't pander to feelings, it should evoke them.

Seems like this game did well at being art by evoking the OPs feelings

 

[Vetinari]

I dont get 'Art', I get paintings and realistic sculptures or of shapes that for some reason I like. But I dont get Art and when they tell me my 'its just rubbish' is an actual response to it and therefore it has evoked a feeling in me and is Art....well. I dont get that either. I mean stuff like a white canvas or half a cow or an unmade bed, I just dont get it but each their own.

IMO creators and artists should be allowed to produce whatever fictional works they want to do, books, movies, videogames, then it's up to us consumers to decide if we want to purchase their work or not. A kind of "vote with your wallet" thing. But trying to change some creators work for everyone else, just because it crosses our own personal boundaries for what we are able to stomach in fiction, is quite selfish and presumptuous IMO.

Peace

Generally 'censorship' happens as a result of societal 'norms' and morals. And the line moves over time as does acceptable language. Sometimes things get 'left behind' or become anachronistic or are seen in a new light. Sometimes its hard for the ones where its normal to have to adjust to where its not normal anymore. Whats acceptable in a game today or 3 years ago even, may take on a new light when it is exposed as exactly what it represents and how it is represented*, which is why in 1984 I was more worried my parents would see 'Narcotics' and stop me playing the game than I was about the word 'Slaves'.

Im not saying thats where we are as a society with slavery and Imp Slaves in games but it may also be the canary in the coal mine and who wants to be the first headline to make the 6 o'clock news? Especially as we cant argue we can rescue and save them as players, just trade anonymous cargo canisters?

*Gone With The Wind has been withdrawn from quite a few outlets recently after certain events, To Kill A Mockingbird wasn't withdrawn. Celebrities have lost contracts due to statements on Twitter etc Its not the subject matter its the portrayal of it and the message it sends out. And the only reason really is 'I don't want to be associated with that anymore'. But thats how progress works. Its always better to be at the front leading change than at the back digging your heels in I find. And always better to at least keep both ears open to at least hear the other side.

 

[Chaparral]

So clearing up a misunderstanding here that is not explicitly covered in the OP.

I assumed that I had addressed that concern by quoting a meta-analysis of the issue, as all studies pertinent to such an analysis are reviewed regardless of their conclusions, and are gathered and examined in order to draw a broader conclusion, or to aggregate trends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis As such, I push back on the idea that I have confirmation bias with respect to communicating that particular finding.

I know that there are studies that appear to show no link, and I looked at those as much as the ones that show a link (meaning I scanned abstracts for methods and conclusions), but the APA had included them in their meta-analysis and concluded otherwise from the available evidence. I'm not claiming that's definitive proof, either, but I reasonably have high confidence that their conclusions are true. Any statisticians among you will know what I mean. If you find something in your own research that shows that the APA's conclusions have been impeached, fair enough, but I made an effort to be intellectually honest about the issue in anticipation of this exact kind of criticism. If confronted with similarly conclusive aggregated evidence to the contrary published that post-dates the APA's guidance, I'll agree that the jury is still out. I didn't see any such academic peer-reviewed publications that met those thresholds. Also of note: the exact cognitive nature of the behavioral changes and the physiological root causes of those changes are not explicitly known. I will certainly stipulate that if anyone finds it to be contentious, but that is not a core aspect of the logic underlying my position.

Aside from Hoopes81's comment: the rest of the counterpoints in this thread, universally, are either logically fallacious (check out this helpful guide to see where you might fall: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/ but tu quoque, ad hominem, and slippery slope are among the most prevalent I observed in my reading of the thread), or their counterpoints are already addressed in the OP. I know it's a massive amount of text, but if you're not going to read the whole thing before you post you are unlikely to add value to the discussion, which is what I would hope to be the primary motivation for all of its participants. If you feel that I have unfairly characterized you and actually want a response, feel free to PM me and link to your post, and I'll address it if it is a fair and non-redundant criticism.

Yeah - you have no evidence that slavery mentioned in Elite Dangerous leads to slavery outside of Elite Dangerous.

You give no evidence that slavery in Elite Dangerous leads to aggression or lack of empathy.

You cite NO studies that reference Elite Dangerous in particular.

I guess that would be a "slippery slope" and a category error. Maybe I should give you a link to logical fallacies.

 

[Backelaer]

If you feel that I have unfairly characterized you and actually want a response, feel free to PM me and link to your post, and I'll address it if it is a fair and non-redundant criticism.

Nope. You come across as a smart guy, so you know where the word 'forum' finds its origin.
You have put your opinion out there, and people might disagree. You can refute those answers in public or not respond at all, but I think nit-picking which answers you want to refute via PM is not what a forum is about.

 

[gorankar]

I dont get 'Art', I get paintings and realistic sculptures or of shapes that for some reason I like. But I dont get Art and when they tell me my 'its just rubbish' is an actual response to it and therefore it has evoked a feeling in me and is Art....well. I dont get that either. I mean stuff like a white canvas or half a cow or an unmade bed, I just dont get it but each their own.



Peace

Generally 'censorship' happens as a result of societal 'norms' and morals. And the line moves over time as does acceptable language. Sometimes things get 'left behind' or become anachronistic or are seen in a new light. Sometimes its hard for the ones where its normal to have to adjust to where its not normal anymore. Whats acceptable in a game today or 3 years ago even, may take on a new light when it is exposed as exactly what it represents and how it is represented*, which is why in 1984 I was more worried my parents would see 'Narcotics' and stop me playing the game than I was about the word 'Slaves'.

Im not saying thats where we are as a society with slavery and Imp Slaves in games but it may also be the canary in the coal mine and who wants to be the first headline to make the 6 o'clock news? Especially as we cant argue we can rescue and save them as players, just trade anonymous cargo canisters?

*Gone With The Wind has been withdrawn from quite a few outlets recently after certain events, To Kill A Mockingbird wasn't withdrawn. Celebrities have lost contracts due to statements on Twitter etc Its not the subject matter its the portrayal of it and the message it sends out. And the only reason really is 'I don't want to be associated with that anymore'. But thats how progress works. Its always better to be at the front leading change than at the back digging your heels in I find. And always better to at least keep both ears open to at least hear the other side.

This is literally, one the most cowardly things I have seen written in some time. Remove it because it might lead the cancelers to the game? That is you. You go on and lead the charge to censorship. You go right on ahead and regress back to the stage of book burning. You go right on ahead and embrace the idea that modern mores should be applied to past works of fiction. You go right on and pretend that this is something else. Pretend you are trying to "save" this game even if that is what you want. I ain't buyin it.

Your views regarding censorship, and capitulation with cancelers, are the problem, not the depiction of slavery in this game. And I give not a hoot what people, especially movie stars, politicians, or the new morality police, have to say about slavery depictions in a game while they stand aside, say and do nothing while real life slavery goes on in Africa and parts of Asia.

Fdev, give an inch, and they will take a mile. No way it stops with just getting rid of slavery depictions in the game.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

I’m of the same mind as many others, which is that there’s no justification for excluding slavery from the game without also excluding the other abhorrent activities. I would argue that terrorism if anything should be the target of such a campaign if the “too soon” principle is applied, as that is occurring everyday in a state-sponsored way, by the governments of probably the majority of players of this game. But I don’t think any of it should be removed.

I think it’s a pretty hard sell telling life-long gamers that video games influence violent behaviour, or could desensitise us to things like real-life slavery. I’d find it more plausible that violent people are drawn to violent video games, which if it acts as an alternative outlet to real-life violence, might be a good thing.

Moreover, it seems to me that video games are often the targets of attempted censorship that doesn’t get applied to other mediums such as books, TV shows, and movies, in which such things are often unapologetically depicted.

 

[Captain Willard]

My god. It's full of stars.

 

[Robert Maynard]

This thread has been closed to ensure the well being of the forum and forum rules.