- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,601
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Japan
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- Raizen in the Sun
- FFXIV
- Muriyari
This convo between sneaky and I happened pre-lock, figured it might add some nice reading material. It starts with sneakypants and then me and so on.
Just some reading material.
Either you missed this, or you've misunderstood me completely.
"I'm not trying to break through the dense shell of the people that are amused by this in any way. You people are fucked. Gone. Dead. The lot of you are worthless. You're in the same boat, circle-jerking each other."
That would be you...
Posts like yours are hilarious to me more than any other in the thread. My lengthy post didn't take much effort at all, but you feel I'm trying to come off intellectual and profound?
Like I said, maybe you didn't get it at all.
If you need to argue that a post like mine is unnecessary and isn't profound or intelligent, then you must feel that it comes off that way at least a little bit, and sheds a certain light that you'd like to denounce and play off as a silly waste of time.
From where I'm standing, I'm perfectly comfortable putting my opinion out there, calling a spade a spade. That's all I'm doing is providing perspective for those that clearly are in dire need of it.
I do see that some are just having fun. I'm not aiming this at them, or really anyone in particular. It's just a reaction statement / "fond" farewell to a shithead that put way too much time into hacking and cheating. He was always a dick, and yet people sing his praises. Silly fun is one thing, but some people come off serious enough about it that I felt like putting my piece out there...Much like my posts have inspired you to retort.
I'm not too sure why I'm keying this message in, on one hand, because if you're bright, you'd know that I already don't care for the likes of you and those that share your opinion.
I think the thread is locked now...That's why we're at PMs.
If you want to chat more, reply. If not, that's fine too.
I missed that original post. And I am fairly sure of my ability to read and comprehend so I am sure I got the point of your post.
I suppose the best way to put it was another PM conversation I had with Valle:
"I vote Mary Ann Glendon for Libertarian President of Van a Diel."
"I had to google that name to see wtf you were on about....and I'm still not sure. Since I'm not american and all that, can you tell me the general view on her/what she has said and done? (To make you draw parallels between me and her that is.)"
"They wrote a book called Rights Talk: somethingsomethingdiscourse, I read it and wrote a debate case based on it a few years ago.
The premise is that people's tendency to frame rights as a wholly individual thing (individualism in general) ignores the second aspect of rights which is their impact on others. IE claiming the right to property and doing what you please on it in order to make a bonfire of some old leaves. This act negatively effects your neighbor's right to property due to smoke or possible fire damage. Basically, your individual rights only are legitimate when not infringing on anothers; all rights have two sides: what they offer you and the protection they offer society. People tend to only focus on what benefits them and not the other side.
This in the end devalues rights completely in rhetoric and reality because people begin to make erroneous claims of individual rights without regard to their effect on others, negating the purpose of a right.
Google "Communitarianism" which is very similar to Libertarianism."
"Ah right. That's just what I was getting at, and you've just done a quarter-page summary of a 60-page thread. Conratulations!
Well, almost summary anyway, we mustn't forget the people posting in there just to be funny and add posts to the thread. Pictures and stuff. But yeah."
"Yeah I just think it is funny really so I am posting in it. I have definitely been known to not have any issues with people botting, hacking, cheating in general, but it is reasoned and I would uphold the same thing in real life it was the case. It pretty much stems from the fact that an online environment and game is so easy to infiltrate and manipulate and that people responsible for keeping order are so often not fit to do so that such activities are logically justifiable.
I had a thread on it somewhere, mainly my Game Theory on botting thread.
To me Chasym's reasons are the most justifiable in that he mainly did it just from a programming standpoint and was not very malicious about it. The worst thing he did was just give it to the masses.
BTW: Communitarianism and Glendon are easily refuted by saying democracy relies and thrives on opposing discourses and creating a standard that automatically negates one before discourse can take place chills fruitful discourse in democracy even more."
Trust me I understand people's arguments. I did not take debate for 4 years and go to nationals in it multiple times to not be able to break down internet forum posts.
The big thing my post was originally pointing out I suppose is to me no one there was like you are all of a sudden a saint because you told us as much of "well at least you admitted it". So going around making posts saying that people ARE in fact doing that is only perpetuating the idea that he is in fact a martyr or whatever rhetorical choice people were using. This is probably better worded than it was.
It only seems to come off as intellectual or profound because it deems the opposite of its target. Therefore it appears to be debunking the opinion of the forum masses and Chasym's supposed intent, when to me...it really isn't.
Rather than quote everything, since that's getting lengthy, I'll say there is logic and there is legal. I agree with you logically, conceptually.
However what's good on paper....
You know how this one goes, right?
In the end, my opinion on the matter is one that find itself merely looking downfield at the opposing moral standpoint.
It's very important to consider/remember that there is a key difference in talking about one's opinion as it relates to a truly and strictly moral issue, versus a moral issue surrounding legality.
In this case, we're not talking about RL legal, pound you in the ass type of consequence...We're just talking about ToS. And yes, that is insignificant compared to RL illegal activity. However, breaking the known rules is exactly that no matter how you slice it and dice it.
You say he's not all bad as he's not done this out of malice, but rather more discovery of sorts as he hacks his way through FFXI, other various systems and his life....He takes it light hearted and that's good for him and the obvious counterpoint in the debate on what one has the rights to do.
In this case, calling him wrong is justified, as it goes beyond a moral issue and breaks actual rules. He also knew damn well what he's doing. That's intent, and enough to bury and semblance of a defense he could have. Malicious? Maybe not. In the wrong? 100%, no buts about it.
Here's an example of 2 forms of cheating. One will go against the ToS, and the other will not.
1. Player buys mass quantities of an item at the AH, reselling for much higher. This pattern continues.
It's a form of cheating in that, others are buying what they need and moving on. It's artificially creating an economy surrounding a specific item, monopolizing it, and reaping the benefits. Sure it's doable and you won't get banned for it, but it is morally very questionable. Why do it? Why put the effort in to begin with?
I guess that's kind of where the "to each his own" argument plays in. Again, this is strictly a moral issue. No clearly defined rules have been broken.
2. Player implements 3rd party programs designed to cheat and offer a distinct advantage, and even creates and distributes hacks to the gaming community. This player and others go on to use the tools which are a clear violation of defined rules. What precisely is done with these hacks is of course widely varied, but the point is that it is cheating and it does cause problems for legitimate players, hence it's against the rules.
The reason I take the stand I do is that Chasym is Player number 2, and there is an individual choice in the issue when it comes to the morality of it all...He made that choice. "Scum" sums that up just fine from anyone in my position.
However, the big picture here is that when you break the rules, the morality of it really doesn't matter at all. The rules are the rules and it doesn't matter what side you are on, morality and the manner in which the rules were broken has no bearing on the fact that you broke the rules.
It's a yes or no, black or white issue. Morally, who cares? We know who thinks hacking is neato and who thinks it's shitty. The point is that he IS wrong and he did break the rules.
The reaction of some makes me sick, because it proves just how many people have low standards and little to no morals. Still, I realize they are entitled to that opinion.
I got upset when dickless referred to me as a hacker, even if it is just to get a rise. That's bullshit. I get pissed at friends that play with moat carp bots. They always justify it, as you say, as it benefits them...
"But some people just find this a better way to spend their time rather than actually fishing the moat carps."
Okayyyyy. Do ya like fishing? No? Why are you fishing then? That's a good question.
Hacking has a very negative effect on this game. You are well aware of the trouble it causes. He hacked as badly as anyone has hacked. Yet I post from the opposing viewpoint, and you find issues with what I am saying. That takes me back to the black and white nature of this beast.
You are with them or you are against them.
Morality, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with this. It doesn't matter what someone thinks is good for them. It doesn't matter how they view the world. They broke the rules, period.
The clear fact that breaks the ToS has been something I have often been handed, not saying it isn't a good argument or point, because really it is the only point for me. Moral issues hold no weight since my views about morality are well...radical.
To me a law in a legal sense is important because it is a mechanism of justice. If a particular action is taken a particular punishment follows. It means that if you choose to do an action (which is freely your choice - this is big for me because a law doesn't physically control your actions; it gives consequences) you will be punished or at least an attempt will be taken.
To me SE fails at upholding the ToS concerning cheating, hacking, botting, RMT etc. and therefore SE's contract with me is moot whether or not I am upholding it or not. And any sense of legality is awash. I am not saying a legal system has to be perfect, I am only saying that it should go beyond "we will look into it" aka Im playing EQ2 don't bother me to really hold any weight.
I pretty much just summarized what I saw as your point instead of doing point by point. Think it works though.
Again, I would agree with conceptually and idealistically where you are coming from, but please don't summarize my points. They seem distorted now.
Valandil just posted something along similar lines.
No disrespect to you, but if your thinking is as radical as you say, I don't think we'll ever come to any agreements on this until you forfeit radical thoughts for more straight forward ones, or vice versa.
We both make sense in our own ways of course, but it's our opinions of what applies here that is getting in the way.
I don't see this issue as one that even calls for radical thought. I am a fan of outside-the-box thinking, but there is a time and a place for everything...Even cheating if you are the kind of person that can justify it to yourself.
The only thing that is radical I said are my morals, or view on moral structures. Not my views on legality and contracts.
You boil it down to this imo - he broke the ToS, he broke the rules. That is not commendable. All the moral things you bring up you say really do not matter in the end because we should just focus on the black and white fact that he broke the rules. Correct me if I am wrong? How is this a distortion of your point?
Now my point is that to break a rule and have that matter at all in a legal sense the rule broken or contract broken must hold weight. What gives a law or contract weight - a mutual agreement to uphold it. SE fails at upholding that in a majority of cases, and therefore all that Chasym is guilty of doing is ignoring a pointless contract.
IE. We make a contract to collude on a price for a good we both sell, but I choose to back out of it to get better business w/o informing you. Would you continue to honor that contract?
OR
Stealing is against the law because of our values concerning property. Now people steal all the time and are hardly ever arrested for it. How much weight does that law actually hold in a legal or contractual sense. Hardly any. But it still holds moral weight due to your value in property. This is exactly the scenario faced by many people when cheating and ToS breaking is occuring. The law itself means hardly anything, but people do not break it solely because they still put faith in the value of not cheating...a moral principle vs. a legal one.
This is extremely black and white. A law or contract not upheld reasonably by one side holds no legal weight.
Just some reading material.
