Best Server Community Sin--Wait, Nevermind

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Mcbard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

acting offended

lol

[Kassel]

This threads tags are fantastic

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This threads tags are fantastic

Truly they are

[atropine]

People who go through life expecting others to do nice things for them because they did something nice first will be disappointed. Doing something nice for someone else shouldn't be about "what will this person now do for me?" Either you give your kindness freely or it's just a weak bribe.


~ Kerrilea

[Bubbles]

The most impressive thing about this thread is the fact it never got moved to RnF.

[Kraftwerk]

For the fact that the majority of posts in this thread discuss the definition of choices as right/wrong based upon subjective morality, I am surprised that only traditional morality is being discussed. Nobody has explicitly mentioned or gone into greater detail regarding rational morality. Since Yendor has been the largest proponent of subjectivity when it comes to the individual's actions, let me posit this to you:

For use of the term morality in describing actions as right(moral) or wrong (immoral) that ensure evolutionary survival; our species and most species that exhibit group tendencies also exhibit actions which are defined as moral based upon the fact that the individual makes sacrifices and/or acts in a selfless manner in order to become a proponent of group life and thus improve odds of survival.

Let me provide an example - Some groups of vampire bats have exhibited actions as eating a surplus of food while others eat none, the bats that enjoyed an excess amount have been seen regurgitating their food to prevent the starvation of others. This behavior and selfless act is accepted because the bats accept a morality that survival is essential, and sharing one night will guarantee the returned favor another night.

If one accepts this train of thought for defining morality through rationality and survival it becomes much easier to remove the subjectivity from the situations presented earlier throughout the thread. For these situations view the continued existence of a server where there is a large playerbase as the evolutionary goal for survival, and the slow abandonment due to recurring unejoyable situations as the threats to the group's existence. There are two points that seem to be unanimous in this thread and that makes the previous assumptions valid - a) Having a camp stolen under similar circumstances is not enjoyable and b) playing Everquest with many other people on this server is fun.

Example 1 - Rilen dies, returns 10 minutes later and explains that he has been camping AC for the entirety of the day. Several un-related players in the same zone support this claim. The choice then falls upon the VD members to make a decision with the information presented to either act in the right (morally) - return the camp and make Rilen's time on the server enjoyable, with that expectation that at a future date Rilen would reciprocate and thus ensuring the survival (continued enjoyment of the server) for both parties - or act in the wrong (immorally) - deny Rilen the camp and cause a dissatisfaction with group life thus strengthening the threat to evolutionary survival.

Example 2 - Yendor's group in Fearplane rez's several members of a guild to assist them, thus exhibiting the right (moral) action due to it strengthening the value of group life for the people who were rezzed. The guild of the rezzed players proceeds to camp upon the entirety of Mob_Type_A in order to gain all of the loot possible for themselves. In this scenario the guilds can be seen as individuals for the discussion. The Guild monopolizing Mob_Type_A is acting selfishly, preventing the enjoyment of the server and group life for the other members in Fearplane. The guild's selfless actions are thus threatening the survival of the server by preventing the desire for other members on the server to continue existing on the server. The guild's actions are thus wrong (immoral).

It is entirely up to the individual to choose an action. Judgement does not have to play a role in deciding the morality of someone's actions, which then removes the subjectivity that has been championed throughout this thread. If you view the morality of actions more rationally and in terms of each individual's expectations for group life (Which have been widely agreed upon in this thread as a) Losing a camp within a 5-10 min period due to unforseeable circumstances is not enjoyable and b) The continuted existence of this server with a large playerbase is fun) as they relate to the server's evolutionary survival, then objectivity is much easier to determine. And through this the actions of many players can be seen as immoral or wrong.


Even while typing this I realize that I have also only brought up another question of subjectivity that I am sure will get jumped upon - who decides what is or is not enjoyable for the individual and thus perpetuates the survival of the server by each member's continuted existence on the server. What one may see as no fun, having a camp "acquired" by new parties within 5-10 minutes of "losing" said camp, another may enjoy wholeheartedly. But any argument in this thread is only going to raise more questions. This was more or less something for Yendor to ponder since he has been firm behind the idea that morality is subjective, and I wanted to show him that this is not entirely true.

[Acillatem]

Example 1 - Rilen dies, returns 10 minutes later and explains that he has been camping AC for the entirety of the day. Several un-related players in the same zone support this claim. The choice then falls upon the VD members to make a decision with the information presented to either act in the right (morally) - return the camp and make Rilen's time on the server enjoyable, with that expectation that at a future date Rilen would reciprocate and thus ensuring the survival (continued enjoyment of the server) for both parties - or act in the wrong (immorally) - deny Rilen the camp and cause a dissatisfaction with group life thus strengthening the threat to evolutionary survival.

Another way to look at it would be like this:

Example 1A - Rilen dies after monopolizing one of the most highly contested spawns on the server for almost an entire day. He returns 10 minutes later to see that someone has besieged his open camp. The choice then falls upon Rilen to either act in the right - realize he has had more than his fair share of time at the camp and see this as a sign to wrap it up and try it another time (allowing both parties the opportunity for enjoyment on the server) - or act in the wrong - make a huge deal out of a situation that was brought upon himself by his own doing (dying, not being bound anywhere near the camp, etc) and thus cause a dissatisfaction with the group life of the others involved.

Now....if they had stood by and watched him die and THEN took the camp? Ya - that's fuked up.

If they were camping the AC solely to MQ the ring for greed when Rilen needed the ring himself? Ya - that goes against the NBG principle and I'd consider that fuked up as well.

But this particular situation just reeks of someone who's pissed off they lost a camp and nothing else.

This group walked into Sro, saw an empty camp, and set up shop becuz one of them needed their JBoots. They offered to /tell him when they were done. They continued to buff n00bs in Sro while they camped the Jboots themselves. They didn't do anything wrong.

I don't play EQ to please everyone else. I enjoy seeing my friends and guildmates succeed etc - but when it comes to perfect strangers? Sorry but my game satisfaction/time is more important than yours.

I'm a WIZ and I spend SOME of my down time porting helpless n00bs becuz I do enjoy helping others. But when it's time to raid? Sorry but my time > your time.

[Humerox]

rational morality breaks down on a fundamental level. i could give you scenarios that would sicken you, but they would be rationally moral. Or not.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Icaro]

Reading the post from Acillatem scared me a bit.

I shiver to think what kind of person MIGHT be IRL someone who has this beliefs for a game.

I am prolly so naive...

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Icaro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I shiver to think what kind of person MIGHT be IRL someone who has this beliefs for a game.

Why, though? It's... just a game.

And mostly in response to Kraftwerk and others that I haven't directly responded to yet, because now this thread has moved moreso to a philosophical discussion of "how one derives enjoyment and why is it subjective to the individual, and how that relates to morality":

I guess it all depends on where on the following spectrum you fall: On one extreme, Everquest is a game. On the other extreme, Everquest is a virtual world/community. Some might veer towards one extreme or the other, or fall somewhere in the middle.

On one hand, Everquest is a game. Of course, there's no "winning Everquest", but there are certain goals you have for yourself, whether it be leveling X number of toons to max level, being the person in your guild everyone can count on for help, gearing up your own toon with best in slot equipment, being known on the server for having the most skill at your class or most knowledgeable about the game, for playing vigilante and training the big bad guilds until you're banned repeatedly, being the most popular person on the server, having the most unique name, wtfever. And whatever goal you have, there is a set of means to an end. There is a way to get from point A to point B. Unfortunately, for some "ways to play the game", this takes investment of your time. And since loot just doesn't get handed out when you hail a NPC, there is a certain degree of competition for that loot. And that loot isn't always for show... a lot of it, especially in the case of melee classes, helps make your toon more effective in its role.

So the question becomes, how much of my personal time do I want to invest in reaching my goals in this game? For some, that means tying themselves to a pager or batphone and being able to log in for a raid at all times of the day. For others, that means a few hours a night, casually. Most fall somewhere in between.

Games have rules. The rules for this game are posted here on the forum. This helps players objectively decide which actions in the game are "legal" or "illegal". Just as you wouldn't move a particular chess piece in a way not set forth by the rules of chess, lest the other player accuse you of "not playing fair" or "cheating", you wouldn't train the shit out of a particular camp to get the loot that you want so you can reach one of your personal goals, lest the other players cry foul, petition you, and you get banned for not following the rules.

And, as in any game, you don't make up rules to suit your particular situation when your back is against the wall, and expect other players to follow them. When you are in a position of checkmate in chess, you don't magically move your queen in some weird jacked up route that places you out of checkmate. Because you can't just make up rules to benefit you after you've been placed at a disadvantage. You don't suddenly decide "well, the rules say I lost my camp because I died, and I don't like those rules, so here guys... here's my new 'rules' that I should get my camp back, and if you don't let me have the camp back, you're all douchebags."

Imagine if you were playing chess and just put your opponent in a position of checkmate, and he's like "Well, I'm going to move my queen way over here so you can't win the game, because I don't like the particular rule that states I can only move my queen in a certain way. And if you don't accept that, you're a douchebag." Granted, it's not very parallel to the situation the OP is talking about, except the similarity is: games have rules, and all players are expected to follow them out of respect for playing the game fairly and consistently, so all other players know what to expect, and you don't just make up rules to benefit yourself in certain situations. There's no moral code when you are playing a game and just plainly following the rules. Is it immoral to not let your opponent move his queen in a weird squiggly pattern in chess to get out of checkmate? Of course not.

Then, on the other hand, there are those who view this as a virtual world/community and treat this as a microcosm of life. I get that, because I kind of straddle the fence between both extremes. I like to buff out some newbs or give them some plat once in a while. I like it when my guild helps CR another guild in a plane. I like being the good guys. I like having a good reputation on the server.

But, when I read what Kraftwerk said, I couldn't help but say to myself "Well, if the morally right thing to do is to ensure the enjoyment of everyone on this server, then wouldn't it be immoral to do anything but spend all of your time buffing newbies and give them plat?" Where do you draw the line between helping others, and doing things for yourself? What about the person who spends 99% of the time helping others, but that 1% of the time they do something for personal gain, they're suddenly immoral or selfish?

And if people are THAT concerned about always doing good towards others and helping out other people in a game/virtual world, then I would challenge them to take that one huge step forward... if you think doing what is morally right in a game community is THAT important, and we should all strive to make it a better place with no exceptions, then put your money (well, time... but time = money so I did an algebraic substitution) where your mouth is... and take the time you're spending playing Everquest in an idealistic fashion, and go volunteer your time helping others in REAL LIFE who truly need help. Wouldn't THAT make more sense from a morality point of view?

But no, we're all sitting here in this game/virtual world, judging other people for our own subjective versions of enjoyment of the game.

It's all subjective opinion. Just like Ace said above... if you want to call the people who claimed the camp after the enchanter died as greedy for not surrendering the camp back to the enchanter, you can just as easily call the enchanter who monopolized the camp all day and then died greedy for expecting he should get it back after he lost is claim. Neither opinion is "right", except for in the eyes of the person who holds that opinion.

If the enchanter loses the camp and then leaves the server and that you are worried that somehow weakens the community, why are you not concerned that the people coming to claim the camp get frustrated that they felt compelled to surrender the camp back, and then leave the server because they felt that person was being selfish? Wouldn't that also weaken the community? Or is one reason to leave the server valid, and the other is not?

Only one of those scenarios is backed up by the game's rules.

It all depends on how you play and what you play for. Just don't expect everyone else to play the same way, or derive enjoyment the same way. It's all subjective. And if you're gonna be that altruistic in a game, spend that time being altruistic in real life where people derive real, life-changing benefit from it. Don't waste that time looking down on a bunch of strangers in an internet game, please.