 Malek wrote:
ajqtrz wrote:
Don't be shy, lay out your logic and definitions and show me how I'm in error. Either that or be consistent and honest and change you mind and agree with me. Come on, it won't hurt too much.
AJ
|
Now you are just belittling people.
|
more than that, he's set up the false dilemma again. either we must convince him or we are wrong and must change our minds. and as he glosses over the challenging questions being asked of him, he will not be persuaded, and so, by being unwaveringly dogmatic, he "wins". i think this is a far more serious theft of rights than anything that's been done in game. i am fairly sure players can think what they like without having to answer to ajqtrz for it or justify their positions to him.
ajqtrz wrote:
If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated? |
no one has answered because the question is meaninglessly broad and without context. how ought one treat a real person at all? now we have the entirety of religion and philosophy to discuss, as humanity has been trying to answer that question for more or less its entire existence. what i suspect you want is the tautological "like real people". but that answer doesn't actually help anything, because ILLYRIAD IS A GAME. the players of poker are real people, which doesn't stop one from taking the other players' money when one wins. are the other players upset by the loss? perhaps. is winning poker, then, tantamount to robbery? to assault? is it indistinguishable from a fistfight over the result because the loss of all that money causes the players (emotional) pain? law certainly doesn't equate the two. if the game is played online where a fistfight is no longer convenient, does that change the morality of winning? i think not.
some players spend real money and all spend real time in illyriad building their digital empires. when they suffer reverses, things don't go as planned, they encounter resistance, some of those assets will be lost. this is all the "fault" of other players; there is no other agency. but that is the nature of the sandbox. it is a risk, a gamble...and as in other gambling games, do not bet what you cannot bear to lose. a gambler who cannot obey that maxim is not being victimised by anyone but him/herself.
so my answer is this: If the players of Illy are real people, they ought to be allowed to play a game as a game, within the rules and otherwise according to their own consciences, without being shamed because another player is not mature enough to manage his/her own wager.
your misaligned metaphors are all in the service, not of a better discussion, but of channeling readers toward the answer you have ordained for them. shame on you for using only the trappings of logic rather than the substance of it.
Tweet
Meta Discussion
Topic Options
