Duplicating Bellonas

[Johny Reb]

Of course now that the patch is up the clarification I requested is unneeded.

[Jim]

Now with new patch you guys decided to punish ppl for not using the exploit.

 

With demotion in rank ppl need to farm kills witch are almost not posible to get wihout exploiting, if we would exploit before that patch we would get points not to be demoted. 

Thats really wrong - it killed all amusment from better graphic and better ai behavior.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Jim

[Johny Reb]

I'm gonna defend the admin and devs here Jim.

 

In the very early iteration of Sea Trials, before 95% of you even had access, the method to unlock ships was through victories and not through xp gained by damage. The admin not long ago, and before the duping of ships began, said that certain rare ships would only be attained by cashing in honor points. My guess is, that the plan to add this feature into the game has nothing to do with the duping of ships but rather something that was needed to be tested.

 

It of course sucks if you lost rank in this patch but I imagine this will happen more than once before we see a release of the game. We must simply be mentally prepared for that so we are not so upset when it happens. In the mean time, take the time to give valuable feedback on the new leveling mechanic.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I'm gonna defend the admin and devs here Jim.

 

In the very early iteration of Sea Trials, before 95% of you even had access, the method to unlock ships was through victories and not through xp gained by damage. The admin not long ago, and before the duping of ships began, said that certain rare ships would only be attained by cashing in honor points. My guess is, that the plan to add this feature into the game has nothing to do with the duping of ships but rather something that was needed to be tested.

 

It of course sucks if you lost rank in this patch but I imagine this will happen more than once before we see a release of the game. We must simply be mentally prepared for that so we are not so upset when it happens. In the mean time, take the time to give valuable feedback on the new leveling mechanic.

 

Mr. Reb is entirely correct.  Admin has been discussing this very change long before the "duping" thread was created, and long before duping was even a thing.  In point of fact, requiring success in smaller ships against same-larger targets is key to preventing fail to the top or guaranteed win grinding to advance.  As with Sea Trials, it also allows the gathering of more data for particular ship types that may be underserved at the moment (and yes, the fact that they're underserved does indeed concern me and has been the key point in quite a few of my posts).

 

The advancement change wasn't a punishment, it was simply the implementation of an idea Admin has had for months now.  Our job is to test it, and provide constructive feedback in the proper thread so that it can be adequately evaluated and, if necessary, tuned.

 

Thank you.

[Powderhorn]

Now, we all have a nice new patch to test.  This is good.  Many of the more recent posts address that.

 

The duping thing happened, and, while it shouldn't've been abused as an exploit, we have bigger fish to fry.  It seems that admin had more pressing concerns with getting the patch out the door, which I think most of us can understand.

 

That being said, I don't think that invalidates the concerns voiced for 129 posts on the thread.  It seems that this was in fact an exploit (getting rare ships in a method not intended, and circumventing the crafting process and throttle placed upon these vessels) that people did materially gain from.  We cannot go back and selectively wipe, as it would be an ex post facto law.

 

And so, we must look to the future.  What consists of an exploit?  Is the onus of resolving these issues on the developers to patch, or on the players to self-police?  I argue for the latter, as then every exploit merely becomes something everyone races to do so as to not fall behind, further favoring those who lack integrity.  The goal should be two-fold:  Minimize possible exploits while building a player base that does not abuse exploits once reported.

 

With development being very time consuming, and with (I think) all of us wanting admin to post on game development things rather than disciplinary things, I would again suggest a player-ran tribunal, with those marked for thoughtfulness and integrity passing judgment.  To prevent abuses of power, the ability to pass judgment would be separate from the ability to execute punishment, enshrined within different people.  This would free up the development team to develop the game, while allowing for a more self-policing player base.

[Johny Reb]

With development being very time consuming, and with (I think) all of us wanting admin to post on game development things rather than disciplinary things, I would again suggest a player-ran tribunal, with those marked for thoughtfulness and integrity passing judgment.  To prevent abuses of power, the ability to pass judgment would be separate from the ability to execute punishment, enshrined within different people.  This would free up the development team to develop the game, while allowing for a more self-policing player base.

Disagree entirely. Its a paper idea only! First, how do you plan on learning enough about a persons character on this forum to mark them as "thoughtfulness and integrity passing judgment?" Do you feel you should be on that panel? I for one wouldn't want you or most of the "exploit" crowd in this thread on that panel. Not because I have differing views, and not because I have contempt for any of you, and not because I don't respect your opinion about how people should play the game but it doesn't seem like any of you can accept the admins decisions.

 

I do agree with you though that their is certain kind of activity that must be player enforced. No tribunal is needed for that. Its done by refusing to group with a person, or denying them guild membership, through public rebuke or choosing not to reinforce them when they are tagged or by kicking them out of your TS channel. There are many ways to pressure a player straight then some arbitrary tribunal court that I would pledge no allegiance to.

 

Tribunals are stupid anyway. Make a solid list of "don't do's", make sure it is clear and not broad. Report people who violate them and let the admin administer punishment in private.

[Powderhorn]

Johny Reb, you and I have a fundamental difference in how we view exploits, which we've discussed in the past. You believe the onus should be on the developers to code good game so there are no exploits, I believe that it is impossible to code a game with no exploits, and so the onus, in my opinion, must rest upon the players. Please do not use this difference as a way to paint me a demagogue.

Justice, as such, does not change whether a patch is pending or not. That a patch fixed the exploit does not mean the issue is resolved. If the development team needs to have the execution of justice as secondary to developing the game, a position I can understand, I do not see why it would not make sense to farm out the meting out of justice to the players. This is a situation that will only grow worse as we add more people.

We have rules and precedent clearly laid out and referenced heavily in this thread. When enforcement becomes whimsy, they cease to be law, and fall to the merist "if you please." The issue within this thread has ceased to be the duplication of ships, and is now "How do we handle exploits?" That is why I push for it to be ran by people whose primary purpose would be understanding things like ethics, morality, justice, law, and other such concepts, lest their judgment be clouded by simple expediency.

If I were pressed for at least one name, I would suggest maturin.

[akd]

There is no justice in Alpha. Eventually we will all be summarily executed, even Maturin.

However, I'm glad this happened, as it reinforces the idea that allowing players to sail captured AI ships is going to cause ongoing problems with game balance, since the spread in capability is so much less than the spread in ease of acquisition.

[Johny Reb]

Powderhorn...

Sorry about my tone in that last post. It was late when I wrote it and I was tired. I reread it and I see it comes off as a little harsh.

 

Our philosophies aren't as far apart as you might think, I just don't get judgmental about those who use systems to their advantage by calling them immoral or unethical. There are true cheats and their are those that use poorly developed mechanics to their benefit and there is a wide gap between them. Let me tell you, I've read the Bible multiple times through and I've yet to see any moral judgments placed on people who use a video game this way. I think the moral superiority should be saved for the true cheaters like hackers and packet bombers.

 

The reason I pointed out you and others as people that I would not want to be on the board was because the impression I'm left with in these posts is that your judgments would come from your own opinions and not the rules set down or implied by the developers. For the life of me, I can't understand why you all refer to ethics and morality after the admin gave everyone a pass, even if only temporary. The only answer I can come up with is that you all simply don't like it so your gonna stick to your guns and double down on the terminology and the character insults on people that are using a mechanic essentially allowed by the admin for a time. If the admin went as far as saying that there are no rules and even hacks are allowed then you might not like it and you may not play the game because of it but you would have no moral authority to call people that hacked are immoral or cheaters since the admin would have said it was encouraged.

 

I think any honest person would evaluate the duping event when done with friends on the other side that will never be sunk to be an exploit. I don't doubt your judgment on that part but once it was brought up and once the the admin gave the thumbs up, then calls for resets, and judgments against character should have stopped. So, if we made a tribunal right now out of those that persist in calling people unethical and had a judgment passed on the players in question, then what do you think the outcome would be, honestly? Would they come to the conclusion that since the admin allowed it, there is no case or would they double down on their anger over the issue and find the players guilty in spite of the admin? I think the later and I think its made obvious by the comments made after the admin passed his own judgment.

 

Full disclosure: As you have a passionate view about exploits, I have a passionate view against tribunals.

[Powderhorn]

I appreciate and accept your apology.  While I can be firm in my stance, I don't want to come off as overly bellicose either.

 

That being said, your response makes me think you're reading into things I'm not saying.  I make no allusions to the Bible, and have never read the book from cover to cover myself.  My own views come from a compilation and distillation of many different philosophers from many different eras and backgrounds.  When I say that an act is immoral or unethical, I do not put the same label upon a person who perpetrates such an act.  The two can, and I think should, be separated.

 

As to why I am still sticking with this:  Though amnesty can be granted, what was seen here was not simple amnesty.  It was a recital of the rules which were then not applied, and justification only provided by conjecture through the player base.  I would invite everyone to instead read some of the majority and minority opinions from the US Supreme Court cases.  I link one I particularly enjoy and is pertinent to the board here - the Prize Cases from the opening of the US Civil War:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/67/635  (Why I enjoy it so much is that the majority opinion seems to state that the blockade is a de facto act of war which in turn justifies the blockade, a bit of wordsmithing in order to avoid using "war" in regards to the Confederacy, as a "war" can only exist between nations, and the position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a nation, but I digress.)

 

As for an actual tribunal made at this point, I outlined repeatedly that it would be unjust to do so for the very reason you cite earlier.  A decision had already been rendered legitimizing it.  We do not want ex post facto laws.  I will add that we do not want double jeopardy.

 

The issue, as always, is moving forward.  What do we expect out of tribunals?  I argue that we do not want punishment, rather we desire explanations, consistency, and cogency.  Rules often need to be interpreted, and that is where I call for people who do think in terms of morality, ethics, law, reason, and all those other more ephemeral modes of thinking that attempt to hold people to universal truths.  Everything else is simply shades of nihilism.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Let's drift away from mentioning specific religious bases/books for our views please.  

[Johny Reb]

I appreciate and accept your apology.  While I can be firm in my stance, I don't want to come off as overly bellicose either.

 

That being said, your response makes me think you're reading into things I'm not saying.  I make no allusions to the Bible, and have never read the book from cover to cover myself.  My own views come from a compilation and distillation of many different philosophers from many different eras and backgrounds.  When I say that an act is immoral or unethical, I do not put the same label upon a person who perpetrates such an act.  The two can, and I think should, be separated.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. There is a difference between an immoral act and an immoral person. We are human and all fall short of perfection so we are all bound by deficiency of character that prevents us from always making the best, moral and ethical decisions according to our own understanding of right and wrong, much less someone else's.

 

The point I make is about judgment. Consider what you said here a couple of posts ago...

 

"And so, we must look to the future.  What consists of an exploit?  Is the onus of resolving these issues on the developers to patch, or on the players to self-police?  I argue for the latter, as then every exploit merely becomes something everyone races to do so as to not fall behind, further favoring those who lack integrity."

 

Here you don't judge a person's action you judge their character by insulting their integrity and all over a game not their actions against you within that game. Do you see what I'm saying? If the players are going to judge anything than it should be the interpersonal relationships within the game and by this I mean things like, betrayal, cross-teaming, aiding the enemy, pirating. It should be those things. These are things that the devs can't control without being irritating dictators that will drive people from the game and not to it. All other in game exploits should be handled simply by having a well written set of rules and expectations, a warning to someone who violates a grayer area of those "rules and expectations" (such as duping ships) if the devs don't sanction it, followed by a wipe or ban or whatever if the offenders continue.

 

See, this so simple and it leaves out a bunch of self-righteous player-judges from calling into question people's integrity. This is what I'm really bothered about by this whole tread. I know that you are a reasonable guy and I can see that you are trying to have a productive conversation about the issue but as I've shown above, this judgment on people's character creeps into even your posts, even after the initial behavior was given a pass. And I argue this from your side for the most part. The particular exploit in question needs to disappear because it does the game no good. I personally, did not participate in that exploit even though I was very tempted to do so.

 

As to why I am still sticking with this:  Though amnesty can be granted, what was seen here was not simple amnesty.  It was a recital of the rules which were then not applied, and justification only provided by conjecture through the player base.  I would invite everyone to instead read some of the majority and minority opinions from the US Supreme Court cases.  I link one I particularly enjoy and is pertinent to the board here - the Prize Cases from the opening of the US Civil War:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/67/635 

 

The issue, as always, is moving forward.  What do we expect out of tribunals?  I argue that we do not want punishment, rather we desire explanations, consistency, and cogency.  Rules often need to be interpreted, and that is where I call for people who do think in terms of morality, ethics, law, reason, and all those other more ephemeral modes of thinking that attempt to hold people to universal truths.  Everything else is simply shades of nihilism.

Even those with the harshest opinions of the ship dupers didn't doubt the interpretation that the admins were saying that the duping was ok so although I agree with you technically that it wasn't simple amnesty, in all practicality it seemed pretty straight forward and so people argued about the decision and not the interpretation.

 

Moving forward... I think if tribunals were used more as a way for the admins to clarify a grey area of their rules and not to punish then I think the tribunal could be used in a very effective way. Players brought up in the tribunal could simply receive a warning by the mods or admins after the decision has been made and the new clarification can be added to the larger document of rules. That would be much more acceptable to me then the crying about being ganked or the complaining that someone called them a bad word.

[admin]

 

Moving forward... I think if tribunals were used more as a way for the admins to clarify a grey area of their rules and not to punish then I think the tribunal could be used in a very effective way. Players brought up in the tribunal could simply receive a warning by the mods or admins after the decision has been made and the new clarification can be added to the larger document of rules. That would be much more acceptable to me then the crying about being ganked or the complaining that someone called them a bad word.

 

Thats exactly how we view tribunals. We use roman law case system where new cases will update the rules we use and enforce (formally or informally). Sometimes decisions take longer but they are inevitable anyway and problems will be patched or rules will change.

[Powderhorn]

The point I make is about judgment. Consider what you said here a couple of posts ago...

 

"And so, we must look to the future.  What consists of an exploit?  Is the onus of resolving these issues on the developers to patch, or on the players to self-police?  I argue for the latter, as then every exploit merely becomes something everyone races to do so as to not fall behind, further favoring those who lack integrity."

 

Here you don't judge a person's action you judge their character by insulting their integrity and all over a game not their actions against you within that game. Do you see what I'm saying? If the players are going to judge anything than it should be the interpersonal relationships within the game and by this I mean things like, betrayal, cross-teaming, aiding the enemy, pirating. It should be those things. These are things that the devs can't control without being irritating dictators that will drive people from the game and not to it. All other in game exploits should be handled simply by having a well written set of rules and expectations, a warning to someone who violates a grayer area of those "rules and expectations" (such as duping ships) if the devs don't sanction it, followed by a wipe or ban or whatever if the offenders continue.

 

See, this so simple and it leaves out a bunch of self-righteous player-judges from calling into question people's integrity. This is what I'm really bothered about by this whole tread. I know that you are a reasonable guy and I can see that you are trying to have a productive conversation about the issue but as I've shown above, this judgment on people's character creeps into even your posts, even after the initial behavior was given a pass. And I argue this from your side for the most part. The particular exploit in question needs to disappear because it does the game no good. I personally, did not participate in that exploit even though I was very tempted to do so.

 

Even those with the harshest opinions of the ship dupers didn't doubt the interpretation that the admins were saying that the duping was ok so although I agree with you technically that it wasn't simple amnesty, in all practicality it seemed pretty straight forward and so people argued about the decision and not the interpretation.

 

Moving forward... I think if tribunals were used more as a way for the admins to clarify a grey area of their rules and not to punish then I think the tribunal could be used in a very effective way. Players brought up in the tribunal could simply receive a warning by the mods or admins after the decision has been made and the new clarification can be added to the larger document of rules. That would be much more acceptable to me then the crying about being ganked or the complaining that someone called them a bad word.

 

So, the difference between doing something that is unethical and being unethical is, I think, repetition.  Someone who was exploiting something, got warned, and stopped doing it is not, in my opinion, an unethical person.  However, if people are repeatedly pushing every exploit that they can (as in my hypothetical example), at that point I think we are in a realm of "lacking integrity."  Yes, this is a character judgment, but it is one that is built upon a pattern of what would typically be viewed as individual unethical acts.

 

The point on betrayal, cross-teaming, aiding the enemy, and piracy of being unethical acts and pointing to unethical individuals is, I think, misplaced.  Here, these are aspects of playing the role of a character.  As an age of sail game, betrayals may well happen.  Piracy falls under an entire faction, and one can turn pirate if one so desires.  (Cross-teaming does not fall under the role of a character, rather the role of a player-as-character, a really weird distinction inspired by Heidegger.)  Much as I play an assassin in Dungeons and Dragons, I do not actually assassinate people in real life (as I am, in fact, a paramedic).  My playing of an assassin in no way reflects upon my actual qualities as a human being.

 

However, when you step outside of the bounds of the game to alter what is within the bounds of the game, you are realizing your own qualities as a human being, not the qualities of character or qualities of player-as-character.  This, then, is something that I think puts us in a position to pass judgment upon actions, and then through repetition of such actions upon the player.

 

Now, the question, as I keep driving at, is not the particular exploit.  That topic is long passed.  The question, instead, the universal of how we want tribunals to be ran.  It seems that yourself, myself, and admin are all on the same page.  We want both reason as to why something is or is not against the rules, and we want those rules to reflect what is or is not acceptable behavior.  The question becomes how to do it.  This is where I push for a reworking of the tribunal system.  Instead of simply a thumbs up or thumbs down for a player, an actual analysis of the situation and the implications behind it rooted in ethical thought is preferable.  Instead of passing judgment and executing sentence, those sitting in judgment should merely be fully exploring the problem, and making a recommendation as to how to proceed.  If punishment should happen, it should be the realm of another, thus alleviating the risks of petty tyrannies.  After all, there are cases even in the US where the Supreme Court is simply ignored.

[Johny Reb]

Now, the question, as I keep driving at, is not the particular exploit.  That topic is long passed.  The question, instead, the universal of how we want tribunals to be ran.  It seems that yourself, myself, and admin are all on the same page.  We want both reason as to why something is or is not against the rules, and we want those rules to reflect what is or is not acceptable behavior.  The question becomes how to do it.  This is where I push for a reworking of the tribunal system.  Instead of simply a thumbs up or thumbs down for a player, an actual analysis of the situation and the implications behind it rooted in ethical thought is preferable.  Instead of passing judgment and executing sentence, those sitting in judgment should merely be fully exploring the problem, and making a recommendation as to how to proceed.  If punishment should happen, it should be the realm of another, thus alleviating the risks of petty tyrannies.  After all, there are cases even in the US where the Supreme Court is simply ignored.

On the broad spectrum of your statement here I am on board. I only constructively question how it would be managed.

If...   we use the forums, as is, then each debate becomes long and tedious and ultimately mob rule. If a group of players are selected then how is that selection made? I think for the second part, the admin should choose. He best knows, through years of conversation, which players are best suited to help support the goals of the game. I know I harp on this a lot but its not really about ethics, its about rules. The game needs to run smoothly and certain actions by players effect the smooth operation. All games have regulations and their is no reason this game shouldn't. but these are not ethical issues. They are simply gameplay issues. We don't make a rule against duping ships because those that dupe ships are #$%holes but because allowing the duping of ships unbalances the game and forces everyone to do the same in order to compete. Now if those people then choose to break the rules than they become cheaters and some moral judgment may be necessary as well as punishment.

I'd like to use the forums more as a place to bring up the grey areas so that the admin can clarify or refine existing rules for the benefit of all. If the admin wants advice then it would be his choice to ask trusted members or ask an opinion from the AUSL or the player base at large.

 

 

Since you have argued philosophically I will respond with a philosophical question that I think is required to be answered in order to apply your idea. What defines "unethical" in a game environment where players are simply out to entertain themselves? Many would define power leveling as unethical and some may even call it an exploit. I would not. I would call it industrious, ambitious, mentoring and ultimately meaningless. On what authority would a player be able to label what I think is fine as unethical?

So, the difference between doing something that is unethical and being unethical is, I think, repetition.  Someone who was exploiting something, got warned, and stopped doing it is not, in my opinion, an unethical person.  However, if people are repeatedly pushing every exploit that they can (as in my hypothetical example), at that point I think we are in a realm of "lacking integrity."  Yes, this is a character judgment, but it is one that is built upon a pattern of what would typically be viewed as individual unethical acts.

So, I think your statement here is reasonable. If a rule is listed and violated repeatedly than questioning someones character may be warranted, but what if the rule doesn't exist or is ill defined? You have brought up the Supreme Court a couple of times and I think there is something I can drawl from it. There are different kinds of right and wrongs. Generally, you have absolute right and wrong and you have civil rights and wrongs. Absolute right and wrongs would be killing someone or raping someone. These are obvious wrongs that 99% of the world would agree with. Exploits would fall under what I would call civil rights and wrongs. As a civilization we decide that certain laws are necessary for a healthy society. For example, speeding laws. If I break the speed limit, am I unethical, immoral, or lacking integrity? Hell no. I'm just simply breaking civil code and for that I will face a punishment if caught.

As a community in NA we have a right to enact civil rules that define a community standard of right and wrong within the game separate from what the game prescribes and we can enact penalties for violators of these community expectations but we have no authority to make those decisions so it is ultimately mob rule but it works. With this being the case then people who break the communities rules are not unethical they just play the game different. Where I think my opinion starts to change is when it becomes personal towards the goals of the game. So if I'm sailing with you and we attack a single ship that could beat either of us alone but not us together and I just sail off so that you get killed and I do this because I made a deal with the bad guy to sucker you into the fight, then I have betrayed you and your anger and judgment is warranted. Don't you think?

Cross teaming is the same thing. We are fighting on the same team. It is a team "sport". If I find out that when no one is looking you are jumping on your pirate and sinking my nations ships then once again, you have betrayed me and sabotaged my nations ability to win the game. Your not just playing a game but you are effecting my personal goals and abilities in a back handed callous way. Now, you brought up roll playing and that is an honest distinction when talking about cross teaming. I used to always tell people on Potbs that I could accept some betraying if the guy was role playing. I would find it fun game play as long as they didn't use a mechanic I had no defense against. Unfortunately, the vast majority of cross teaming had nothing to do with role playing.

 

Anyway I find myself rambling cuz I want to take a nap. I feel our conversation is broadening, not narrowing. We may have better luck keeping the discussion here to just tribunal ideas and try to finish the deeper conversation on TS.

[Powderhorn]

So, power cannot simply be seized in such a manner as this (and judgment is definitely power), it must instead be granted.  Mob rule would never work, which is why I suggest just three.  They would have to be by appointment of the development staff, as they run the development of the game.  I deviate from you at this point, however, as rules are important, but ethics within the rules are as well.  Rules are mere wordings of intent, and one can follow the letter of the rule without following the intent, and ruin the point of the whole thing.  It is here that a strong basis in ethics and morality helps, as these can in turn help a judge find wisdom in decisions.  We make rules against duping because we don't want people to unbalance the game.  We make rules against exploits and harassment and the like because we want a positive environment for people to enjoy the game in.  This, I think, is where ethics shines.  The game is one that by design pits players against one another, and yet, we can fight it out on the open seas and still "laugh and have a drink about it afterwards."  It is ethics that allows us to weave a path between acceptable in game and out of game behavior.

 

As to what defines unethical behavior - if it could be simply worded, mere typed rules would suffice.  For a game such as this, I am uncertain what would be the best, but utilitarianism comes to mind - within the framework of the mission statement of the game.  (That would be another interesting topic of discussion.)  When a rule does not exist or is ill-defined, I think this is another place where a strong basis in ethics does well.  We aim to codify acceptable universal behaviors.  Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal, things like that are obvious.  There are others that are less obvious.  However, I'm not certain criminal v. civil law gives a good parallel here.  Merely larger and smaller infractions, coupled with repetition, those for our hypothetical judges to decide.

 

The lack of authority that you cite is important, and, as I said, these hypothetical judges would have to be appointed by the development team, as power in these situations must be granted, and can not be taken.

 

The various examples you offer as unethical(?) I disagree with.  Roleplaying is one aspect which we can agree legitimizes those actions, but also the very poorly described Heideggerian "player-as-character" I think also legitimizes these individuals.  These people are playing the game in a way many of us would find underhanded, but I'm not certain I would agree is unethical.  Instead, it is playing extremely selfishly.  Boorish, perhaps.  Someone I'd share a drink with?  Likely not.  But amoral?  I'm not certain.  We have numerous examples of those who have done these things in real life.  Some we revile (Benedict Arnold), some we revere (Nathan Hale), and some we accept as merely doing their job (Major Andre).

[Johny Reb]

So we agree on who would appoint a tribunal panel.

 

I think are differences about ethics and rule making in the confines of a video game stem from 1) a difference in foundation, 2) mere semantics and 3)

minor variations in tolerance.

 

Foundation:

I am a believer in God but for Henry's sake will not tell you which one. This means I believe in unchangeable moral absolutes. Morality is a narrow concept to me so applying its concepts to a video game is tricky because motivations are at times different then in real life. I am adverse to call behavior I don't like as being immoral because in a game environment, fantasy exists.

 

You have lately, been using the word ethics instead of morality. I appreciate this. Although ethics is a judgment of morality it takes into account morals that are not absolute and may be different in different communities. We have things like business ethics and medical ethics and such. So a community like NA, can develop its own set of ethics that are particular to this game. These ethics may incorporate moral absolutes or simply rules to improve game play interpersonal relationship dynamics. Naval Action community ethics may borrow from real life absolutes but bend them to fit the intent of the game. But these ethics are tricky if you are to take them to a level that starts labeling people's character as a result as you and other have already done. This is why I try to only imply morality on those things that have a direct impact on me. There must be a real life connection or we should try to avoid disparaging someone's character.

The role player is an interesting study with regards to the trickiness of applying ethics in Naval Action to a person's character and the possibility of having a drink with someone in real life or not. How much of his betraying and backstabbing is an indication of who he is in real life and how much of it is fantasy role play?

 

You'll have to explain in more detail this "Heideggerian "player-as-character"" concept. My first reaction was to think, "I could careless about what some guy I don't know says" If it just means that role playing can legitimize normally unacceptable behavior then I would agree in part but it leaves the question unanswered as to the reason this game style would be selected and if it somehow, in many cases, is extension of their real life selves.

 

I guess I'm saying all this to say that 1) (We agree) that any kind of tribunal panel should be chosen by the admin, 2) that the ultimate purpose of a tribunal panel would be to help the admin to redefine and enhance the quality of its rules, 3) The development of player ethics in the game Naval Action should be left to the players and the administration should stay out of it, 4) Until, player ethics in Naval Action have been fully developed by the player group then judgments and statements about a players character should be limited to the most egregious errors.

[B4NGSPL4T]

Are you guys still going? xD

[GrapeShot]

They could solve it all by putting me in charge of whatever it is they're planning. After all, if you can't trust your Uncle GrapeShot, who can you trust?

Edited November 5, 2015 by GrapeShot

[Powderhorn]

I think that, in broad strokes, we agree. However I suspect you may disagree with "player-as-character."

In an attempt to refine the term, we see players role playing as characters - the whole "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum" bit. However, players themselves still play roles withing the larger metagame. There are those who do econ stuff, those who hunt down other players, those who manage guilds, and more. These roles are, in my mind, examples of "players-as-characters."

Within that grouping, you see people playing a role within the game. Perhaps it is the same role they play in every game, perhaps they change it up from game to game. Within this tier of "playing," unsavory acts can happen, but are, I would argue, not necessarily indicative of the player as a person.

A controversial example might be those playing Eve who set up large corporations and then abscond with the money. Here, they are being unsavory "players-as-characters," but are they necessarily bad as players-as-people? I'm not so certain. I don't even think they got punishment outside of being reviled within their communities after stealing tens of thousands of real world dollars worth of game currency.