The Mana World Forums

What can we learn from the tree? Is the tree teaching us anything? What can we learn from the sky? Is the sky teaching us anything?

Teaching is active, kinetic. Teaching is an intervention. Exposure is not the same as teaching.

Wombat wrote:What is teaching steve? Teaching is active. I have to want to teach someone something to teach them. People can learn from their environment, which isn't the same as teaching...in fact, it is an antonym.

Well first of all, this is semantic technicality. My point remains regardless of it. Namely that children will learn something, hence it is our responsibility of considering that while setting the policy of the environment. Secondly I could argue that regardless of your intentions, if a person does an act from which people learn, that this can also be considered as teaching (albeit unknowingly).

Exposure is not the same as teaching.

But in this case it's not simply exposure, but exposure to actions. I could as argument ad absurdum claim that a teacher doesn't teach either. Instead children in a classroom are exposed to his words, and exposure is not the same as teaching. Obviously here you see the flaw of that argument. The exposure is to an act, an act of the teacher teaching. Just as the exposure in tmw is an exposure to a "behaviour" or to a "policy" or to a "chosen name". There is always some form of activity involved, both for the devs setting the policy, as well as for the players behaving and choosing names for their characters. So it could just as well be considered as teaching. But like I said, this is a technicality, my point remains regardless.

We don't have a shared responsibility to do anything for children. You are attempting to assign this responsibility upon others.

Well that is your opinion, I could counter it by saying, we do have this responsibility, you are simply attempting to deny it. We could most possibly debate for weeks about what consists responsibility, what the most correct definition is, and which conditions trigger it. We would possibly touch the fields of ethics, philosophy and morality in doing so. And as interesting as such a debate might be, it is completely irrelevant here. If you object to my usage of the word responsibility, then let me short-cut this whole debate by rephrasing my earlier statement:
If at any time a person or group comes in a position where their actions/decision have an influence in the outcome of another person or group their well-being, then the state of the well-being of the later is partly the result of the choice of the former.
So now with this alternative claim, we don't have to debate on whether or not one thing being the result of the other is sufficient ground to claim "responsibility". And it now is sufficient to point out that apearently the devs did interpret it as responsability, and have chosen to act accordingly. And as I have pointed out many times before, it is the developers prerogative to choose.

I refuse to follow your standards. We have a "responsibility" to "treat others as you would like to be treated" (rule #6).

This can be extrapolated to: you have the responsibility to treat another person's children as you would treat your own. If to this extrapolation you reply that different people might treat their children differently, then I reply in return that this is not a flaw in the extrapolation, but rather a flaw in the original rule. For people might also have different/conflicting views on how they would like to be treated themselves.

On setting examples, do we not set examples to adults as well? Arguments for child exceptionalism is an attempt to impose one worldview of how children should be raised on people that might not share those same values.

Again, it's the dev's choice.
Also note, in the case of two views, where one considers it acceptable for his children to be exposed to such content, and the other not. Then choosing to allow it is more damaging to the no-exposure view as opposed to choosing not to allow it would be damaging to the allow-exposure view. If you want your kids to be exposed, you can always expose them outside TMW, whereas if you do not wish them to be exposed, you can't "undo" or compensate it outside TMW.

The attempt to use children in these types of arguments is a "logical fallacy" to impose stricter standards on all people because "children" are treated as exceptions to how all individuals should treat each other.

This is not a logical fallacy. Children are different from adults, so it logically holds that they are treated differently than adults. You might disagree, which is your right, but that is an opinionated disagreement, that doesn't mean the view is logically flawed.

We probably shouldn't be trying to moderate language, content or meaning without the context of what constitutes "abuse of fair play", which is how the rules of the game have been done.

Who said anything about fair play? The rule is no abuse, period. As for what constitutes abuse, each case should be judge separately as rotonen said. If we create an abundance of rules and technicalities, and make tmw-moderation overly bureaucratic, then rather then making it more just, we would simply paralyse gm's.

Because there is no strict line for this, as Rotonen was stating in regards to people's names, we should handle each on a case-by-case basis.

Yes I agree.

ps: edited and rephrased to make my points more clear

We don't have a responsibility to children. Your values say that everyone does and mine say everyone raises their children how they like (and children raise themselves far more than parents or other active outside influences do). This game has no responsibility to children as an exception to anyone else that plays this game.

You are abusing words in order to impose your moral values on others. Teaching is a form of exposure, but it is done with intent and purpose. The actor willfully imposes teaching on subjects. If you want to say that anything a child is exposed to is teaching, the meaning of "teach" is lost and I can find more value in being more descriptive and specific with the word without the loss of meaning.

If the chosen name is directed to a particular subject, perhaps it is teaching...was the intention to teach? If it was the intention to teach someone with a chosen user name, who was it supposed to be teaching? These things are not explicit enough to know if someone is simply exposing a username or teaching someone with their username.

"If at any time a person or group comes in a position where their actions/decision have an influence in the outcome of another person or group their well-being, then the state of the well-being of the later is partly the result of the choice of the former."

You are arguing for causality and I deny this as well as your moral propositions.

You keep going on and on about child exceptionalism. I don't have a responsibility to treat other people's children as I would treat my own and this is not implicit in the rule #6...based on the golden rule. The goldern rule is not a rule of imposition and judgment. It is meant for an individual to take pause and think about how they act can make others feel...not how others feel should make an individual act.

"This is not a logical fallacy. Children are different from adults, so it logically holds that they are treated differently than adults. You might disagree, which is your right, but that is an opinionated disagreement, that doesn't mean the view is logically flawed."

Appeal to exception is a logical fallacy. How are children so different from adults that exposure to moral standards you find unacceptable but others don't change anything? Why do you want there to be a moral hierarchy in your life and why must your moral hierarchy be imposed on others? I find this unacceptable.

"Who said anything about fair play? The rule is no abuse, period. As for what constitutes abuse, each case should be judge separately as rotonen said. If we create an abundance of rules and technicalities, and make tmw-moderation overly bureaucratic, then rather then making it more just, we would simply paralyse gm's."

It is not "no abuse, period" either. The context of rule #6 is based on concepts of fair play. Also, based on prior standards on how cases have been ruled, there is no rule that rules must be followed, "period". Your moral absolutism is not my moral skepticism. You fear bureaucracy being imposed in the game without need as do I. However, you are the one that is proposing a further imposition of rules, which requires more arbitration by the GMs on what constitutes child abuse in the game.

/equip Paper Bag

Wombat wrote:We don't have a responsibility to children. Your values say that everyone does and mine say everyone raises their children how they like (and children raise themselves far more than parents or other active outside influences do).

There is a difference in-between raising and teaching. I'm not suggesting we should raise every-bodies kids, I am merely suggesting we should be extra careful with the example we set. there's a huge difference.

This game has no responsibility to children as an exception to anyone else that plays this game.

Not according to you, but as I said, we could debate endlessly over wheter or not their is responsibility. What is clear though, is that our actions and policy matter, and do influence what children will learn. For me that is enough grounds for responsibility, for you perhaps it isn't. Be that as it may, I'm not "forcing" my worldview. I merely have a different semantic view of the word responsibility.

You are abusing words in order to impose your moral values on others. Teaching is a form of exposure, but it is done with intent and purpose.

According to your definition, I see no reason why one would have to exclude any actions that are not with the intention of teaching as teaching. If I don't have the intent of killing someone, but end up doing it anyway, does that mean I didn't kill him, because I didn't have the intent?

The actor willfully imposes teaching on subjects. If you want to say that anything a child is exposed to is teaching, the meaning of "teach" is lost and I can find more value in being more descriptive and specific with the word without the loss of meaning.

Perhaps "your meaning" is lost, but my meaning isn't lost at all. Again wombat this is merely semantics, please focus on the point I'm making, not on the words I'm using for that point.

If the chosen name is directed to a particular subject, perhaps it is teaching...was the intention to teach? If it was the intention to teach someone with a chosen user name, who was it supposed to be teaching? These things are not explicit enough to know if someone is simply exposing a username or teaching someone with their username.

Like I said, what one wills is irrelevant to the issue, the effect remains even if it was not the intention.

"If at any time a person or group comes in a position where their actions/decision have an influence in the outcome of another person or group their well-being, then the state of the well-being of the later is partly the result of the choice of the former."
You are arguing for causality and I deny this as well as your moral propositions.

I am not arguing for causality. I said "IF" ... has an influence "ON" ... then one is the result of the other. This is a simple observation. It's just as much as saying: If there is causality, then there is causality. Stating the obvious if I may. Denying this won't do you any good.

You keep going on and on about child exceptionalism. I don't have a responsibility to treat other people's children as I would treat my own and this is not implicit in the rule #6...based on the golden rule. The goldern rule is not a rule of imposition and judgment. It is meant for an individual to take pause and think about how they act can make others feel...not how others feel should make an individual act.

Well, first of all you're the one who brought the rule up as imposition and judgement. You claimed that since the issue at hand doesn't fall under it, we should disregard it. (Or at least that's what I read between the lines). -1 point on style for now using that against me ^_^

Appeal to exception is a logical fallacy.

Only if they are not truly an exception.

How are children so different from adults that exposure to moral standards you find unacceptable but others don't change anything?

First of all, I never said it is ok to subject adults to this content either, I simply didn't state my views regarding that because I think that is irrelevant here. Secondly to answer your question, children are an exception because unlike adults they are much more susceptible to this form of behavioural indoctrination. Secondly as we can learn from psychology, children go trough different phases in regard to recognising good/bad. With the final stage being considered as adult.

Why do you want there to be a moral hierarchy in your life and why must your moral hierarchy be imposed on others? I find this unacceptable.

I don't need/want/desire a moral hieracrhy. I am however in favour of morality by itself. I never did impose such a hierarchy though. This is a strawmen argument.

It is not "no abuse, period" either. The context of rule #6 is based on concepts of fair play.

Perhaps, but the gms/devs have already stated that they consider this issue to be under rule #1, not rule #6. Rule number one is "Do not abuse other players".

Also, based on prior standards on how cases have been ruled, there is no rule that rules must be followed, "period". Your moral absolutism is not my moral skepticism.

That's not what I meant. I meant, there's no clausule about fair play in the "do not abuse" rule. Hence it is "do not abuse period", instead of "do not abuse unless fair play". As for absolutism, I have on many occasions stated that I consider it a good thing to leave gm's with room for judgement. the subject of this topic is not where do we draw the line, instead the subject of this topic is should we draw a line. Your earlier arguments suggest you don't want this, yet now you argue that I draw the line in the wrong place. Your arguments thus contradict themselves.

You fear bureaucracy being imposed in the game without need as do I. However, you are the one that is proposing a further imposition of rules, which requires more arbitration by the GMs on what constitutes child abuse in the game.

No I don't, I never said that the rules need to be changed, I like them as they are. And currently the "bad names" fall under rule #1, thus I am happy. My only purpose for posting here was to reply to those who claimed that this was an unfair interpretation of the rule, and a limit to their "freedom", and to explain why their arguments were either flawed or irrelevant.

Why "extra careful"? Why are you this concerned about children? Can you explain whatever ideas your are implying throughout this conversation? What happens to a child that is exposed to whatever it is you think is bad? How is this different than what happens to an adult? Are we just to give up on adults as lost causes? To me, your logic is one where adults pander to other adults opinions on how they raise their children. Meanwhile, half the children that play this game are the biggest culprits on abusing others with language. WTF is up with that? Maybe they already were exposed to whatever conditions you fear and are also lost causes. Maybe you shouldn't make child exceptionalism into an issue when the issue is one of fair play? You want to claim we are only talking about rule #1, but we are also talking about rule #6. In fact, I'd say we are talking more about rule #6 because we aren't using the language of citations and prior cases, but rather the justification for how individuals treat each other.

Causality would mean that there is a connection between cause and effect. I deny that this is necessarily the case. Your position appears to imply that there is a larger connection between cause and effect to make a special case for children, yet you haven't explained how this could be so nor why I should value this, beyond that it has some moral effect on children..which I disagree with and do not see necessarily.

Do you think a few naughty words is indoctrination? Do you think attitudes outside a video game would have a far larger impact on how a child is developed? Do you think everyone in the world needs to "think of the kids" in the same way you do? In one way, you say no, but the way you approach this issue, it is yes. You think children are easily influenced by what they are exposed to versus adults (I disagree) and this game could be the biggest culprits of them all (I disagree)?

The moral hierarchy you implied is based on your concepts of child exceptionalism and you have gone on at length about why this hierarchy should exist and how we should be subservient to child exceptionalism.

The use of "period" implies and end to discussion, an end to any sort of discourse on the matter and I disagree with such absolutist language. We can and do discuss these things all the time.

"Fair play" is based on prior rulings. If you want, I'll spend a few days building the case with full quotations on where and how players, gms and devs have defined the concept of "fair play", but for now I must move on with my day.

Wombat wrote:Why "extra careful"? Why are you this concerned about children? Can you explain whatever ideas your are implying throughout this conversation? What happens to a child that is exposed to whatever it is you think is bad? How is this different than what happens to an adult? Are we just to give up on adults as lost causes?

As I explained already, teh difference between an adult and a child is their mechanism that allow them to differentiate between good and bad.

To me, your logic is one where adults pander to other adults opinions on how they raise their children. Meanwhile, half the children that play this game are the biggest culprits on abusing others with language.

All the more reason to censor them, to teach them that this is not acceptable.

Causality would mean that there is a connection between cause and effect. I deny that this is necessarily the case. Your position appears to imply that there is a larger connection between cause and effect to make a special case for children, yet you haven't explained how this could be so nor why I should value this, beyond that it has some moral effect on children..which I disagree with and do not see necessarily.

So what you're saying is, the way people behave around children has no impact on the moral standards they develop?

Do you think a few naughty words is indoctrination? Do you think attitudes outside a video game would have a far larger impact on how a child is developed?

Of course not, please don't oversimplify my p.o.v. I already explained in my previous posts to kinwa that it's not so much of an issue what they are exposed to, but more a matter of what message we are sending by tolerating vs. not tolerating that behaviour.

Do you think everyone in the world needs to "think of the kids" in the same way you do? In one way, you say no, but the way you approach this issue, it is yes. You think children are easily influenced by what they are exposed to versus adults (I disagree) and this game could be the biggest culprits of them all (I disagree)?

No of course not, where did I say that? In fact again, in my previous posts to kinwa I already said that I recognise most children know all these bad words and so on, and that my points are not about covering these up for them, but rather about making a stand and teaching them that these things are not acceptable.

The moral hierarchy you implied is based on your concepts of child exceptionalism and you have gone on at length about why this hierarchy should exist and how we should be subservient to child exceptionalism.

Then explain to me where I have suggested any hierarchy. I merely suggested that each person act responsably. There is no hierarchy in that. Also "childexceptionalism" as you calli t is not a matter of hierarchy. Children are different from adults, therefore different responsibilities emerge when dealing with children. There's nothing hierarchal about that.

The use of "period" implies and end to discussion, an end to any sort of discourse on the matter and I disagree with such absolutist language. We can and do discuss these things all the time.

I already explained in what context I meant it, so please stop splitting hairs about it and try focussing on the message of my posts, and not the words I use.

"Fair play" is based on prior rulings. If you want, I'll spend a few days building the case with full quotations on where and how players, gms and devs have defined the concept of "fair play", but for now I must move on with my day.

Did these "prior rulings" involve cases with insult/racism/overly sexual content? Because I can't see how in any of those three "fair play" could be an exception.

St3v3, what you are suggesting is that parents are obsolete. The sole purpose of a parent is to teach and nurture their child. That makes it their responsibility to check out a video game or something that their kid wants to do. I do not have legal claims to any children, and I am not obligated by law to care for them. Society is not required to care for anyone, and it should be the parents' responsibility to get off their asses and do their jobs as parents!

On top of that, your arguments the very definition of fascism. You are pushing your ideals onto other people. You believe that cuss words are bad, and therefore, they should be removed from the game. What I am trying to do is preserve this game as a neutral place. Your ideals are the same ideals that eventually cause the runaway stupidity in our society. You baby your children for so long that when they get into the real world, they are unprepared for anything that they see! The world is tough and you must deal with it!

And so what if they learn that cussing is ok? Does it harm them in any physical way? Does it damage them mentally? If yes, how so? Is there a study that shows that bad things happen to people who use profanity? No.

This may shock you, but the real world is full of profanity, and you need to get out of your sheltered world for three minutes and smell the hot coffee. Cussing is nothing other than a way to express deep frustration to an audience. Who does this hurt? No one.

If children learn to cuss more, then profanity will naturally lose its shock value and become worthless.

I am not the parent of a child, and it says nowhere, not in the law, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Torah, or anywhere else that matter that I am responsible for someone else's children!



I hope that your freedoms are stripped from you entirely. You take for granted the true meaning of freedom, and you should lose it all. Our forefathers fought for the freedom of speech and you want to wipe it away in one foul swoop! You should be ashamed.


Let me share with you a quote from one of the greatest American writers ever to live:

Mark Twain wrote: Censorship is like taking a steak from a grown man and telling him that he can't have it because a baby can't chew it.

St3v3, what you are suggesting is that parents are obsolete. The sole purpose of a parent is to teach and nurture their child. That makes it their responsibility to check out a video game or something that their kid wants to do.

Logical fallacy: Just because it is a responsibility of the parents, doesn't exclude that it can be someone else's responsibility as well.

I do not have legal claims to any children, and I am not obligated by law to care for them. Society is not required to care for anyone, and it should be the parents' responsibility to get off their asses and do their jobs as parents!

Responsibility goes beyond mere legal obligation and beyond mere "requirement".

On top of that, your arguments the very definition of fascism.

ROLF I'd like to see you try and build arguments to support that claim. Do you even know what fascism means?

You are pushing your ideals onto other people.

This again, where did I push my ideals onto anyone? honestly. Can you show me where?
Perhaps it was when I said to Kinwa:"You obviously have your viewpoint of how the world should be, and I have mine."
Or was it when I said (multiple times): "it's the developers prerogative to judge which concept they desire for their game"
Or perhaps it was when I said: "No I don't, I never said that the rules need to be changed, I like them as they are."
Or perhaps some other position I took, I am a bit lost here, could you pinpoint where exactly I have been forcing my opinion onto others? Or perhaps you consider the mere act of building an argument as "forcing ones opinion"? In that case you are equally guilty as I am.

You believe that cuss words are bad, and therefore, they should be removed from the game.

That is a simplification/ straw-men argument of my stand.

What I am trying to do is preserve this game as a neutral place.

What's neutrality got to do with anything? What your earlier post tried to preserve was simply the right for everyone to use any word that pretty much pleases them. That's hardly attempting to preserve neutrality.

Your ideals are the same ideals that eventually cause the runaway stupidity in our society.

Oh really, again, I would like to see you construct an argument to back up that baseless statement. You can start by telling me what my ideals are in the first place, cause judging from your latest post you haven't got the faintest idea.

You baby your children for so long that when they get into the real world, they are unprepared for anything that they see! The world is tough and you must deal with it!

That is so not me, you've got me all wrong. If you'd actually attempted to read my post you'd have seen that I stated (more than once even) that I am not in favour of covering everything up, but that instead the point I was making was to teach them that some things are not acceptable.

And so what if they learn that cussing is ok? Does it harm them in any physical way? Does it damage them mentally? If yes, how so? Is there a study that shows that bad things happen to people who use profanity? No.

I never made such claims, stop trying to place words in my mouth. I never claimed that this directly harmed them, however what I did say is that I prefer to build to a society were diplomacy and courtesy are valued higher. So now I'm a fascist for being an idealist? lol...

This may shock you, but the real world is full of profanity, and you need to get out of your sheltered world for three minutes and smell the hot coffee. Cussing is nothing other than a way to express deep frustration to an audience. Who does this hurt? No one.

[sarcasm]Lol yeah huge shock there, I rly didn't know that. [/sarcasm] I haven't been living in a cave or anything, no need to be so condescending just be cause we have different opinions. I am not in a sheltered world, and I do witness these kind of things on a daily basis. However that doesn't mean we should allow offensive names in games. Basicly the gist of that argument is, the world is already messed up, so there's no point in trying to make it any better?

And I'll have you know you're completely wrong when you say it hurts nobody. My stepmother and baby sister are of African origin, and I can still see, today in 2009 the racism they face on a daily basis. So don't tell me they shouldn't be offended when they hear the n-word. And that they should just get used to it, and see this as nothing more then a casual way to express deep frustration. I can think of plenty more examples where people get genuinely, emotionally hurt, by something which other people consider as mundane. So don't give me that "political-correctness-is-fascism". Did you know almost all western countries, including your precious USA limit freedom of speech with rules against slander/racism and so on? So what they are all fascist countries to for doing so? Have you ever even heard of terms like "diplomacy" and "social contract"? Things aren't as black-and-white as you make them out to be...

If children learn to cuss more, then profanity will naturally lose its shock value and become worthless.

You honestly believe that? Well, tell me then, how many years do you think should it take before the n-word will lose its shock value and isn't found offensive any more to people of African origin? How many years do you think it will take before it will no longer hurt people when somebody makes sexual jokes about their mother or stuff like that? Again you are over-simplifying the complexity of this issue.

I am not the parent of a child, and it says nowhere, not in the law, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Torah, or anywhere else that matter that I am responsible for someone else's children!

Responsibility comes hand in hand with choice. From the moment somebody has the choice to either make something better for someone or worse, then as of then that person obtains responsibility; and is expected to act accordingly. And that can be found in all religions.

I hope that your freedoms are stripped from you entirely.

Oh that's very nice. Well I hope that yours aren't because to be honest you don't sound like you'd have mental strenght to cope with such a thing.

You take for granted the true meaning of freedom,

No I don't. I don't take it for granted one bit. You simply don't understand freedom. Remember this is not your server. The owner of the server (in this case platyna) gets to choose the rules, that is her freedom! If you come as guest on her server you are expected to follow her rules. If you come here complaining about freedom of speech, than you are the one who takes your freedom for granted, you take it for granted so much, that you expect to find it everywhere without even realizing where it is yours and where it is not!

and you should lose it all.

Again, I thank you for your kindness.

Our forefathers fought for the freedom of speech and you want to wipe it away in one foul swoop! You should be ashamed.

As I explained I'm not touching your freedom in the slightest, in fact, I am in a way protecting platyna's freedom from your wrongfull claims. (Not that she really needs protecting, but that's another issue altogether). Like I said in my first post, blatant abuse of the word freedom. If you can't understand that, than you're the one who should be ashamed. If not for your misunderstanding, then at least for your kindness towards me.

Also I couldn't care less about your "forefather" and "American patriotism". Go read your patriot act and amnesty international reports about guantanamo bay.

As for quotes, I see your Mark twain, and I raise you a Kierkegaard:
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

In case you don't understand for what reason I'm posting this here: just because I make an argument to defend my point of view, doesn't mean I'm "pushing" my views onto you. You still have the freedom of thought to reject it. If you feel as though my argument are pushing my views upon you. Then perhaps that simply means you aren't using your freedom to the most of your abilities. (lol, surely I'm allowed this one cheap shot don't you agree? I mean, after all the nice things you wished upon me)

5t3v3 wrote:Logical fallacy: Just because it is a responsibility of the parents, doesn't exclude that it can be someone else's responsibility as well.

The way you are putting it sounds as if it is the community's responsibility and not the parents'. Not once did you mention the parents' responsibility, you only stated the community's about 100 times.

Responsibility goes beyond mere legal obligation and beyond mere "requirement".

But my point: I still am not required to, and I'm not going to do someone else's work without getting paid.

ROLF I'd like to see you try and build arguments to support that claim. Do you even know what fascism means?

[url="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascist"]

1. Of or relating to fascism.
2. Supporting the principles of fascism.
3. (informal) Considered to be unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict.

This again, where did I push my ideals onto anyone? honestly. Can you show me where?

Examples of how you said things that you think should be the way things are. Hence, pressing your ideals on someone else.

Example 1 wrote:Again I disagree, the children of our society are every-bodies responsibility.

Example 2 wrote: This attitude of "it's not my problem" is exactly what's wrong with modern society.

Example 3 wrote:once you create a free game, it's your responsibility to either make it child-friendly, or alternatively ban children from playing. Whether you like that responsibility or not.

Example 4 wrote:if you notice one of your classmates has psychological issues, simply the act of noticing gives you the responsibility to try and talk to him.

Example 5 wrote:By the way, nobody is asking people here to babysit, all we are asking people is to behave/be descent. If people consider that by itself a burden, then perhaps they need to reconsider/reassess their habitual behaviour.

Example 6 wrote:What I am saying is, that if we allow children to play here, it automatically becomes our responsibility to teach them good manners. And teaching them starts with setting a good example ourselves.

Example 7 wrote:This can be extrapolated to: you have the responsibility to treat another person's children as you would treat your own.

Or perhaps you consider the mere act of building an argument as "forcing ones opinion"? In that case you are equally guilty as I am.

I am trying to preserve our freedom, not take it away.

You believe that cuss words are bad, and therefore, they should be removed from the game.

That is a simplification/ straw-men argument of my stand.

It's still one of your "ideals".

What's neutrality got to do with anything? What your earlier post tried to preserve was simply the right for everyone to use any word that pretty much pleases them. That's hardly attempting to preserve neutrality.

The neutrality of freedom.

Oh really, again, I would like to see you construct an argument to back up that baseless statement. You can start by telling me what my ideals are in the first place, cause judging from your latest post you haven't got the faintest idea.

Find some evidence that I'm wrong. Show me a study that proves that babying people for too long isn't bad.

Also, take a note how one woman spilt a drink that is prepared HOT (coffee), and then sued the coffee company for not potting a "this is hot" label on it, even though heat is radiating from the cup, along with steam. Now there are these labels on this and this is a result of an over-babied society.

That is so not me, you've got me all wrong. If you'd actually attempted to read my post you'd have seen that I stated (more than once even) that I am not in favour of covering everything up, but that instead the point I was making was to teach them that some things are not acceptable.

Using that archaic dribble known as British English, I see.

Anyways, how is getting in trouble for cussing or making a "bad" name not covering something up? Btw, the part that states that they are "not acceptable", totally an idealistic opinion.

I never made such claims, stop trying to place words in my mouth. I never claimed that this directly harmed them, however what I did say is that I prefer to build to a society were diplomacy and courtesy are valued higher. So now I'm a fascist for being an idealist?

A strong part of fascism is pushing the ideals of one onto another. And how can profanity stunt diplomacy and courtesy? The "N word" as you put it later, is actually a greeting in some parts of the United States.

so there's no point in trying to make it any better?

Better? Why is using profanity making things worse? In my opinion, they help foster freedom.

My stepmother and baby sister are of African origin, and I can still see, today in 2009 the racism they face on a daily basis. So don't tell me they shouldn't be offended when they hear the n-word.

Then ignore the people. Racial slurs are a sign of ignorance when directed in an abusive way.

Did you know almost all western countries, including your precious USA limit freedom of speech with rules against slander/racism and so on? So what they are all fascist countries to for doing so? Have you ever even heard of terms like "diplomacy" and "social contract"? Things aren't as black-and-white as you make them out to be...

Actually, almost all laws in the United States that limit speech have been shot down by the Supreme Court on account of breaking the 1st Amendment. Old 1800s rules against them are now non and void. You can say any cuss words you want in the United States almost anywhere and not get in trouble. Find me an account of a man who went to jail in the United States in recent times for saying slander.

You honestly believe that? Well, tell me then, how many years do you think should it take before the n-word will lose its shock value and isn't found offensive any more to people of African origin? How many years do you think it will take before it will no longer hurt people when somebody makes sexual jokes about their mother or stuff like that? Again you are over-simplifying the complexity of this issue.

The word "Yankee" used to offend many people in the Southern United States during Civil War times and a few decades after that, but now no one takes offense to it, other than 2 or 3 rednecks in Texas.

Responsibility comes hand in hand with choice. From the moment somebody has the choice to either make something better for someone or worse, then as of then that person obtains responsibility; and is expected to act accordingly. And that can be found in all religions.

Find me a quote in each of the books that I mentioned that states that I must care for someone else's child. Not just that, but earlier you did say as an absolute that it is a responsibility, and not a choice, and you also went as far to say as that is what is wrong with the world today.

Oh that's very nice. Well I hope that yours aren't because to be honest you don't sound like you'd have mental strenght to cope with such a thing.

You're right, I wouldn't, because I would fight for my freedoms peacefully like I am in this very topic.

No I don't. I don't take it for granted one bit. You simply don't understand freedom. Remember this is not your server. The owner of the server (in this case platyna) gets to choose the rules, that is her freedom! If you come as guest on her server you are expected to follow her rules. If you come here complaining about freedom of speech, than you are the one who takes your freedom for granted, you take it for granted so much, that you expect to find it everywhere without even realizing where it is yours and where it is not!

1) Platyna said that she wants the game x-rated herself.
2) If it's not our choice, then why are you arguing with me in the first place and even posting in this topic?

Also I couldn't care less about your "forefather" and "American patriotism". Go read your patriot act and amnesty international reports about guantanamo bay.

Privacy != Freedom

The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights for U.S. Citizens, P.O.W.s are not citizens.

5t3v3 wrote:

no, we dont need any good manners. prafanities are indeed acceptable.
breeding is cruel.

And with that statement you have lost the right to debate any further. I will not even dignify that with an answer.

You obviously have your viewpoint of how the world should be, and I have mine. Looking at the current rules, and choices in the development of the game, the view of the developers obviously lies closer to mine as opposed to your view. There's not much point in taking the conversation any further than that.

lol, why do i lose my right to debate just because you dont want to debate anymore? and its not just a matter of different opinions.

but right, the rest of the discussion is too boring to continue.

kr0n05931 wrote:The way you are putting it sounds as if it is the community's responsibility and not the parents'. Not once did you mention the parents' responsibility, you only stated the community's about 100 times.

Not at all, that is the way you chose to interpreted it, because you were obviously prejudiced, not just towards that single sentence, but to all my post. My words were well chosen. I didn't mention the parents responsibility simply because that is not what this thread is about. This thread is only about the game, not about the parents. If I was repetitive, that only was because people kept misquoting me and using strawmen-arguments.

But my point: I still am not required to, and I'm not going to do someone else's work without getting paid.

Well first of all this isn't really a job, It's not like I'm saying members should "entertain" or "care for" the younger players. Secondly if everybody only does things they are paid for, it would be a very sad and bleak world.

ROLF I'd like to see you try and build arguments to support that claim. Do you even know what fascism means?

1. Of or relating to fascism.
2. Supporting the principles of fascism.
3. (informal) Considered to be unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict.

That's hardly proving anything, all yo ... sm]fascism means:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian, collectivist[1], corporatist, and nationalist ideology.[2][3][4][5] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[6] Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8]

Show me where I fall under those criteria, or else you owe me a huge apology.

This again, where did I push my ideals onto anyone? honestly. Can you show me where? Examples of how you said things that you think should be the way things are. Hence, pressing your ideals on someone else.

So merely voicing my opinions means I am "pushing" my ideals? Then like I said, you are equally guilty of that.

Examples of how you said things that you think should be the way things are. Hence, pressing your ideals on someone else.

All you do is quote sentence where I make a claim/opinion/analasys/and so on. It's up to the reader to accept it or reject. If I were to take you by the throught and say: accept this, or I'll beat the **** out of you, then I would be "forcing" my opinion on you. BTW: All I'm doing is explaining the concept of responsability. I am not "apointing" responsability. I am merely showing, by defenition which cases involve responsability. If you disagree with that, fine that is your right. But know then that you are not disagreeing with me, or my interpretations, rather you are disagreeing with the concept/doctrine of responsability itself (which is of course your fair right, but a whole different discussion). I am merely explaining what the concept means, based on it's defenition, by giving practical examples.

Or perhaps you consider the mere act of building an argument as "forcing ones opinion"? In that case you are equally guilty as I am.

I am trying to preserve our freedom, not take it away.

First of all, the intention makes no difference on to wheter or not you are "forcing" your opinion. Even if it were true that you are to preserve freedom, if you use the same methodology as I do, and yo consider my methodology as "forcefull" then you are equally forcefull. Even if your opinion would be more liberal then mine. Second of all, I disagree with that in the first place. As I have explained in my previous post, I am not limiting anyone's freedom (nor am I suggesting that it should).

You believe that cuss words are bad, and therefore, they should be removed from the game.

That is a simplification/ straw-men argument of my stand.

It's still one of your "ideals".

No it's not, it's an oversimplification of one of my ideals. Just because my views are to complex for you to understand, does not give you the right to simplify them and attack me based on those simplifications.

What's neutrality got to do with anything? What your earlier post tried to preserve was simply the right for everyone to use any word that pretty much pleases them. That's hardly attempting to preserve neutrality.

The neutrality of freedom.

Freedom and neutrality are two different things. Freedom isn't neutral by default, and neutrality isn't "free" by default. Neutrality of freedom, is a very specific form of freedom. One that I have actually been defending, and that you have been attacking? So by your own logic, you would be the fascist! To explain in more depth, if you were 100% free to use whatever words you desire in game, then there is no neutrality between you and the owner of the server. The owner of the server can be held responsable for the content whereas you cannot. The owner of the server works/pays/maintains it, whereas you do not. So if the both of you, even though you have different interests and responsibilities over the server, have the same rights, then there is no neutrality of freedom. Neutrality of freedom would be, that you are free to set the rules on your serever, and platyna is free to set the rules on her server. And you have to follow the rules set by her on her server, and she has to follow the rules as set by you on your server. That is true neutrality. If you come here on this forum making claims that you should be allowed to say/do things, then you are the one who is attacking her freedom that comes hand in hand with ownership. So (by your own logic) you are the fascist! See, I can use fancy colors to ^_^

Your ideals are the same ideals that eventually cause the runaway stupidity in our society.

Oh really, again, I would like to see you construct an argument to back up that baseless statement. You can start by telling me what my ideals are in the first place, cause judging from your latest post you haven't got the faintest idea.

Find some evidence that I'm wrong. Show me a study that proves that babying people for too long isn't bad.

First of all I have to repeat myself again, I am not in favour of "babying" children. Things aren't as black and white as you claim. It's not a decision between either shielding them of or exposing them. There is a middle way, where you don't shield them off, however you do teahc them that some things are unacceptable, and you limit them in copying that behavior.
Secondly, this is not how things work. If you want to make personal attacks, and attack my character (rather then my arguments) then the burden of proof lies on you, and not on me. So I'm sorry, but you can't weasel yourself out like that.

Also, take a note how one woman spilt a drink that is prepared HOT (coffee), and then sued the coffee company for not potting a "this is hot" label on it, even though heat is radiating from the cup, along with steam. Now there are these labels on this and this is a result of an over-babied society.

Has nothing to do with my viewpoints.

Anyways, how is getting in trouble for cussing or making a "bad" name not covering something up?

1. Because it is not with the intention to cover up/shield.
2. Because you are not placing any limitations (like language-filters and auto-cencorship) hence the community is still exposed to it. Instead putting reprocusions after the behavior took place, so that after exposure, children are thought it's not ok.

Btw, the part that states that they are "not acceptable", totally an idealistic opinion.

Yes, and I have admitted that from the first post I made. I never said that everybody should have the same opinion. I merely said that people should accept the opinion of those who make the policy.

A strong part of fascism is pushing the ideals of one onto another.

It's also a strong part of nazism to be overly-agressive. You are overly agressive, therefor you are a nazi? And again, I am not pushing my ideals, and you are still welcome to show me wrong.

And how can profanity stunt diplomacy and courtesy? The "N word" as you put it later, is actually a greeting in some parts of the United States.

Just because some people accept it and are ok with it, doesn't mean that its suddenly not a problem. Maybe some people are ok with being raped too, but that doesn't mean that all other rape-victims that file charges are cry-babies who should just grow up. By the way, even in those communities where it is accepted and used on a daily basis, I'd like to see a white person whom they don't know greet them like that. I think you know well enough what will happen then.

so there's no point in trying to make it any better?

Better? Why is using profanity making things worse? In my opinion, they help foster freedom.

Profanity can never "create" freedom. You don't acquire new freedom by it. But you on the other hand there is a big chance that you limit freedom. It is among most philosophers agreed that it is also a fundamental right/freedom, not to be abused. So by using profane language, there is a change that you are abusing something, and hence a chance that you are limiting freedom.

My stepmother and baby sister are of African origin, and I can still see, today in 2009 the racism they face on a daily basis. So don't tell me they shouldn't be offended when they hear the n-word.

Then ignore the people. Racial slurs are a sign of ignorance when directed in an abusive way.

I'm sorry but things just don't work that way. You can't just tel people when they are a victim of something that they should simply ignore it. I mean imagine, if you go to the police and report your carstereo 's been stolen, and the police just tells you: yeah ignore those thiefs, their are just stupid people. Or what if the cop catches the thief, and the thief would say: "hey wait a second, it is my right to take this stereo, and you are a fascist cop for limiting my freedom!". Obviously that line of thinking is flawed.

Actually, almost all laws in the United States that limit speech have been shot down by the Supreme Court on account of breaking the 1st Amendment. Old 1800s rules against them are now non and void.

No they aren't. There's still activly used laws. Suprume court has shot down some. And it's not plainter-friendly, but the concept of slander, and it's limitations to fredom of speech are still accepted.

Find me an account of a man who went to jail in the United States in recent times for saying slander.

That's ridiculous. Slander would not result in incarsenation but rather in a fine. And I imagine that in most cases the plaintif and the accused make a deal before it ever gets to a ruling. I also imagine, that even though it is an accepted law, that due to American culture, not many victims consider going to court, even though it's their right. So your request is pointless.

You honestly believe that? Well, tell me then, how many years do you think should it take before the n-word will lose its shock value and isn't found offensive any more to people of African origin? How many years do you think it will take before it will no longer hurt people when somebody makes sexual jokes about their mother or stuff like that? Again you are over-simplifying the complexity of this issue.

The word "Yankee" used to offend many people in the Southern United States during Civil War times and a few decades after that, but now no one takes offense to it, other than 2 or 3 rednecks in Texas.

Sweeping generalisation, just because one word, intended as an insult, missed it's purpose, doesn' mean that all insults, would eventually become meaningless.

Find me a quote in each of the books that I mentioned that states that I must care for someone else's child.

Again an unfair demand. I never said that there were such quotes. What I said was: it is fuond in all religions that people should act responsibly. Again, just because my arguments are to complex for you to understand, doesn't give you the right to simplify them and attack me based on those simplifications.

Not just that, but earlier you did say as an absolute that it is a responsibility, and not a choice, and you also went as far to say as that is what is wrong with the world today.

Yes, responsability is never a choice. Responsability is an abstract concept, which according to it's defenition comes linked to a certain status/position/power. You either have it or you don't. What you can choose, is wheter or not to "act responsable".

You're right, I wouldn't, because I would fight for my freedoms peacefully like I am in this very topic.

That must be some defenition of "peacefull" that I am currnetly not aware of.
* I don't see how wishing ill on someone could be seen as peacefull.
* I don't see how calling someone a fascist simply because he states his opinions could be seen as peacefull.

1) Platyna said that she wants the game x-rated herself.

Yet platyna is the one who made the rules.

2) If it's not our choice, then why are you arguing with me in the first place and even posting in this topic?

I was arguing with you because you were arguing that it should be your freedom. My arguing was thus simply a counter to your wrongfull claims.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights for U.S. Citizens, P.O.W.s are not citizens.

First of all, many inmates in guantanamo weren't even combatants of enemy forces (go watch the road to gaunatanamo bay)
Secondly, Under the patriot act, even US citizens could be shiped to guantanamo for the mere "suspicion" of terrorism.
And thirdly, even if they are P.O.W; doe that make it ok... ???

0.o

All jokes aside, that actually is fascism !!!!

Steve, my man. I want to continue this discussion with you, but you want to refuse my points on language which confuses what I'm saying. I don't believe in absolutes, causality does not necessarily exist. In simpler terms, there might not be a "slippery slope". Many factors come into play that challenges our views on what we might otherwise agree to abstractly. I will also say that maybe a slippery slope does exist or maybe a slippery slope can exist at the same time as it doesn't. You don't want to discuss things on this level, which is fine, but what I think are substantial points, you posit are simply semantic points. I guess we will have to agree to disagree or continue this discussion at length sometime in the future.

To turn this point back into the context of discussion: I think most people can tolerate how people treat each other in the game as the game community exists presently. I think the exceptions to this have been responded to between "very aptly" and "somewhat aptly" by GMs from Platyna to our present GMs. I think how they'd banned insult/racist/sexist characters in the past is agreeable and would like to maintain the status quo on how these cases have been ruled on. I was less accepting of the "plynpom" character being banned because, to me, this is a silly name. However, I am also willing to trust Katze on this issue because, given the context of what has been explained about this case, I also somewhat agree that "plynpom" was created for little to no other purpose than to "abuse" other characters. If another character named themselves "plynpom" and didn't aim to abuse people, I would think it was more silly and acceptable than "I hope your mom dies of cancer" or "my god rules over you". But I also am just speaking theoretically and wouldn't want to build an absolute rule just to ferret out a few bad characters/players.

Hi,

I never saw a rule on names working, anywhere...

But...
Without explanation from that person and a check of ip at minimum, any kick or ban is abusive to some people consideration. Prevention kill or ban makes the people more incomfortable from one side and another.
Information on names (to use not to use) needs to have a page related to what is acceptable or not.

So...
To my point of view, it should always requiere intervention of Moderators in order to have an explaination from the person and then have a decision from the moderator team or the only GM decision in agreement to the guidelines defined in the page related to names issue and also in agreement regarding the behavior of that person while explaining and understanding fully the issues from both parts (char owner and GM), but also sometimes with people who feel abused or attack through a char name used.
There is a nice room for that in which 2 persons involved in a name chars issue could be taken by GM and this from the entry in server with certainely a message to explain the problem and that this person has to go on forum or wait that a GM comes.

just ideas.

Regards

Yes Wombat, I agree to disagree with you ^_^
And like you I'm also quite happy with the current way the community is moderated.