When Gaming Gets Personal

ajqtrz wrote: JodaMyth wrote: ajqtrz wrote:        Now of course you could say, "I'm practicing this in a game where it is allowed" but if you did, that would be the rational part of you mind reminding you that what you are practicing belongs only in the game.  Sadly, the more you practice the less likely your mind is to remind you that it's only allowed in a game.     Over the years I have stolen countless cars and killed more "people" than I can count in games. Should I be concerned about turning into a car stealing murderer because of these actions?   After a bit under 2 years of Illy I've never went outside and thought, "My neighbor is too close, I should get some catapults to destroy his house"  or attempted to build a collection of thieves to plunder the surrounding area.  I have not tried to do any mining or harvest herbs growing wildly. I would think the same applies to the ones who have played for more years than myself or across various games for decades. I'm very glad that GTA (I assume) has not turned you into a car thief.  I will rest assured tonight that my car is safe.  However, you confuse specific actions with attitudes and claim that because you don't engage in a specific action the game is not having an affect upon your attitudes and thus will have no effect on other related actions. If you take the average person and put them in a violent gaming environment for a few hours, when they come out they will inflict more pain on another subject than if they had not played the game.  This is a test that has been done over and over.  In other words, if you practice insensitivity to others in a game where the insensitivity can be extreme, you will find yourself less sensitive to the pain of others immediately after the game when in the off line world.  How long the effect lasts and how significant the change may be a product of the length of time you've played and the duration of your sessions.  Scientists are still trying to figure that out.   Thus, while your personal experience has not had an extreme effect upon you, causing you to go out and steal cars, it may have had some short-term effects of which you are not aware.  BUT before you go get to upset, do remember that the effects may be positive as well.  Again, the jury is still out as to the effects of on-line gaming on off-line behaviors.

ajqtrz wrote: JodaMyth wrote: If you cannot differentiate in game actions from real life experiences or impulses then you may want to seek professional help.   Sadly there is just too much evidence to simply pretend their is a magical wall between on-line and off line "worlds."  I suspect it's because the differences are pretty thin.  Take, for instance, a horror movie.  You know the monster isn't real.  Your intellect tells you it can't come off the screen and eat you, but your body still reacts and you still get frightened...the same chemicals are released in our brain as would have been if you had been in a truly dangerous situation.  Should all those who get frightened at horror movies, or on roller coasters, or bungee jumping seek professional help?  The problem here is not that I haven't given ample evidence that the player is present in the game, it's more that you don't want them to be so because it opens a whole can of worms regarding morality and how you treat real people.  You don't wish there to be any interaction between the "real" world and the "game world" because then players can just go along doing things in the imaginary world they wouldn't do in the "real" one while pretending that the harm they cause people is their own fault and that therefore, they are the ones who should seek "professional help."  Pretending other players are not real is a far more serious thing than pretending an imaginary city is real.  If you forget real players are real people and are present in the game you risk doing unnecessary real harm to a real person.

JodaMyth wrote: In regards to the game from previous pages on this thread, I took a page out of your playbook and have declared myself the winner.     I hope you are graceful in defeat.

It's quite easy to be graceful in defeat when you are playing different games.  The nicest thing about Illyriad is that if you are left alone to play whatever game you wish, you can generally win without declaring anybody else a loser. 

AJ

Hello AJ

Dear AJ

ajqtrz wrote: You see the problem here? You want me to do what you don't wish to do...you don't wish to leave and go to a true warfare game and I don't wish to go to a truly peaceful one.

As has been pointed out several times, the game's front page devoted advertising space to the military aspect of the game. Many wars have happened in the past, so while this game is not purely about war, it is beyond doubt that war is a part of the sandbox, and was very much intended as an option by the developers.

At the risk of stating the completely obvious: if one of you is determined to be left alone, and one of you is determined for war, the person who is determined for war is going to get their way, because it's a possible option in the sandbox, and there are no real moral implications to exercising that desire.

Sargon wrote: Dear AJ Well, the main point behind my postings could be broken down to: I think (due to my education and experience) that the world(s) we are living in are just to a limited extent a fruitful field for the application of syllogistic logics, because on the 'ontological' level (e.g. quantum-physics that f*ck up the basic rule that you can´t at the same time and in the same respect think/be two different contradicting things), on the human level (syllogistics was a human product of certain social and historic circumstances and only worked its way through history in certain spheres under certain circumstances) and on the level of the modern condition of humanity (a loss of shared certainties, for wich my claim of your unshared premise was an example) the basic structural needs for syllogistics are usually not met to a very high degree.

I agree that syllogisms are rarely used in debates exactly because it is rare that the terms used and the logic of the arguments fit so nicely into a syllogistic approach.  That's one of the unusual things about my arguments.  The rarity is often do to the lack of definition in most arguments.  When they are used though, they are used effectively because they are not culturally biased or based.  They have been used for over two thousand years all across the globe, but generally not in debates for the reasons just stated.

The thing is, when one considers his or her audience, it is important to start with premises you believe to which they ascribe, not all cultures or all people.  Rhetoric is, as Aristotle claimed, "the ability to find in the given case what are the available means of persuasion."  If you use compelling logic, start from premises to which your audience subscribes, and you reach a conclusion they wish to avoid, you can only conclude that they are acting irrationally.  The premises with which you begin do not have to be universal to all peoples at all times, but only to most people in your audience at the current time.  I believe I begin with those moral principles.
  

Sargon wrote: My aim is not to force my basic principles upon you here, especially as persons over a certain age tend to have their own system of thought that is tuned for their own education and experiences und is thus almost never directly changed in absence of a greater crisis. I am happy to learn some stuff from you and gain nice insights here and there from your missives, but I am totally distressed by the way you treat people with differing viewpoints and opinions under the cover of 'just doing logics, everyone against me is against logic'. In my opinion you stain your own valid points and admirable ideals with your overbearing zeal.

How do I treat people?  Do I denigrate their character?  Do I call them names? Do I use a lot of sarcasm?  I do, on occasion, point out to them where they are being irrational, but that's because in a debate, rationality is king, or at least is supposed to be so. How, exactly, should one treat people in a hotly contested debate?  I try to stick to my reasons and my arguments and a logical approach.  I use evidence, reasoning, and analogies.  You seem to think I think everybody is "against logic" but I do believe that my posts say that their arguments are "against logic" not they themselves.  In fact, I would be a pretty poor debater if I used logic and reason to persuade an audience I thought incapable of logic and reason.  My confidence in their rationality is proven by my using rational argument to try to persuade them.

Sargon wrote: To use Aristotle against you: there is an too much even for virtues, you can be brave, but if you are too brave you are reckless and get yourself and/or other needlessly killed. My critique for you would thus be, that you overdo your good principles and thus aren´t able to get more weight for them in the game, because you value the ideals over the slightly dirty reality of a compromise.

I've suggested in a number of locations, that the land claimers replace their land claims with a Declaration of Homeland (DoH).  Thus, while they give up the jurisdiction over the area they claim, they get everything they wish AND the respect of the community for doing so.  Compromise is a two way street.  I have no authority to offer a compromise because I'm not in charge of the anti-land claiming forces, but I can say that if the land claimers were to switch to a DoH they would find themselves in much better shape.  They would be able to spend all those resources currently spent defending on growing their cities and founding new ones, and thus arrive at total control of the area they wish (via the 10sq rule and settlement) much faster.  They would be less threatened, there would be more respect of them, and I wouldn't have to write so many wordy responses...LOL.

Sargon wrote: To entymeme: the problem seems more to be, how to understand this word in the context of De Anima, as your proposal as a faculty of the mind as THE meaning of the word doesn´t hold true for the cited instances (there is no nice english word for Belegstelle?  ), see for the example the quote from Analytica Posteriora where is written, that entymeme is a (kind of) syllogism. Obviously a faculty isn´t a syllogism. I would even guess that De Anima wasn´t given as an instance/quote in the dictionary due to it´s untypical usage and contested meaning there [totally just a guess]. Aristotle isn´t prone to use neat unambigious definitions conctantly for his concepts. But that is why we have so many nice commentaries on him :) .

You are correct that Aristotle does not present an unambiguous definition of enthymeme.  That is one of the reasons people have missed what an enthymeme is for so long.  But it does fit into his discussion in De Interpretatione and that is the source of the key passage.  And my argument is that it is, in fact, a kind of syllogism, in that it takes place within the person.  It is the "heart and soul" of persuasion.  And yes, "faculty" is a difficult and ambiguous term in De Anima.

Nevertheless, my discussion of the enthymeme was not central to my claim that syllogisms are useful tools in showing logic.  Most people recognize intuitively the logic a properly formed syllogism conveys and there is not real need to discuss why it is they recognize it as logical.

Sargon wrote: For intimidation by threats: They are the basis for most societies, we have laws, they threat us with fines and punishment, and we have lawenforcers walking around with intimidating weapons on their belt. Obviously most humans don´t have problems with a state using them for aims that are considered legitimate. I would gues we both don´t have any problems with the threat of prison for murderers and the coercive and intimidating measures taken by our states to treat them. So next to the obvious cases where most people would subscribe to that rule, there are also many instances in wich threats and intimidation aren´t even seen as such for the most time, because they are percieved as legitimate (or even 'natural). Next to those easy cases are the contested ones, like the extent to wich you can use those means in foreign policy, like against regimes that wan´t to get an atom bomb or threaten/killing their own people. So I think it is totally clear that just a small fraction of the playerbase here would subscribe to such a universal validity for your rule you need to make your syllogisms forceful.

You are, again, correct, that the basis of all legal societies is that of the right of enforcement.  That is jurisdiction.  The land claimers have claimed jurisdiction over parts of the Illyriad map and have overtly stated that they will use force if their jurisdiction is challenged.  Since the devs have give all players the right (in the non-restricted ability) to settle wherever they wish (since the game mechanics do not restrict that ability), the land claimers have decided that the use of intimidation by threats of coercion is necessary to that right.  And it is.  Thus, the argument is over if they have the right to take from all of us what the game mechanics have given us freely, the right to settle in those areas without being "removed" (meaning the game mechanics will not remove us).

Against this legal discussion is a counter or at least tangential idea that the legal is not necessary if all parties agree.  Laws only come into existence where differences of opinion and action exist and are causing friction.  My preference is to have the land claimers agree to withdraw their claim of absolute jurisdiction over their area and simply rely upon the good graces of the other players to respect their declaration of homeland (DOH).  All my arguments have been to avoid the use of intimidation by threats of coercion by anybody by having everybody agree on a formula by which everybody gets just about everything they say they want.

Thankfully I do not have to have universal agreement with my starting moral principles, I only need most people playing Illyriad, and I'm willing to bet that most people do, in fact, subscribe to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "avoid any unnecessary harm to others."

Sargon wrote: To ethics in games: as I said, your proof and everydayexperience just shows a partial, mediated presence of the 'real' person in a game, with that, you can at least quite convincingly argue for a certain restraint in here. What you can´t forcefully do is to argue for the maximum set of ethics, because you just have the basis for a partial one. And we have that already here with the restraint the landclaimers are showing, even in 'their' war against you. Otherwhise, see Brandmeisters post.

The "partial, mediated, presence of the 'real' person" is inaccurate in my opinion.  I've yet to see a person not be here or be here only "partially," while engaged in this game.  Most people bring their body to the keyboard, are here emotionally and mentally, and thus, are here completely while playing.  The mediation is not in the person, but in the recognition that he or she is using toys to play an imaginary game.  You might note that in the military they run simulations to test and train exactly because sometimes that which you rehearse in play prepares you for that which you may face in life.  The imagination of the human mind is able to train the "real" mind to think and thus to act in certain ways.  And the more you practice in play the easier it gets when you need to do it, or when you choose to do it outside the bounds of play.  Athletes know this, psychologists know this, and you and I both know this.  Why then, is it so hard to accept the idea that if you practice using intimidation by threats of coercion in a game that you will find it easier to use the same outside the game?  The thing which mediates while present in the game is the conscious mind.  But if you practice something long enough you bypass the conscious mind and respond as you have practiced.  But of course this is, to some degree, an overstatement.  I don't believe that after five minutes of Illyriad you are going to run down to the local playground and beat up some little kid or threaten to do so if he doesn't give you the swing.  But you will develop a more comfortable sense of the use of intimidation by threats of coercion than if you had not imaginatively engaged in it use. 

My opponents wish to use reductio ad absurdum and claim that because they don't go out and bully kids on the playground there is no effect on the psyche of the players in rehearsing the use of intimidation by threats of coercion.  But the studies have shown that people who practice violent activities in gaming do exhibit an increased willingness to cause pain to others.  The only questions are: what level of violence in the game; is if the impact is significant; and for how long the effect lasts.  Granted, Illyriad is not Call of Duty, but using intimidation by threats of coercion is a socially negative technique in many, and most cultures.  In the end we don't really know enough to declare it bad, but we do know enough to see it could be bad and since it's not needed, we should avoid it.

While I can agree with you that we could rely upon "restraint" as our hope, it has not proven to be an effective deterrent in the past.  I've acknowledged many times that the current crop of users of intimidation by threats of coercion" are not overly aggressive, or haven't been to those who do not oppose them anyway, but relying upon the hope that we will never see players who would go "too far" in their use of intimidation by threats of coercion, is a bit naive.  Once you allow a technique that technique justifies whatever it justifies.  To some restraint is natural, but to others, the lack of restraints just sets them free to run amok. 

Sargon wrote: To the can-problem: you previously subscribed to freedom, and just because there is the possibility of missbehaviour you want a mutilation of freadom, really? Freedom is always also the freedom of the other(s), and the landclaimers leave the nonclaimers a big bunch of freedom on the map, so at least in my ethics with my understanding of freedom I see for myself even the moral obligation to grant them their freedom to play with landclaiming, as long as they respect and grant freedom to others, what they are doing right now in my perception and I have no valid reason do fear an escalation of things.