by Eluvatar
Spoiler: click to toggle
<Eluvatar> So, how to do this... I have some thoughts to share, and I would like to share them in something in between a lecture format and a dialogue.
[12:14:34] <Eluvatar> I will be welcoming requests for clarification, but I'd like to save debate for after I've described the whole.
[12:14:50] <Ananke> okay
[12:15:10] <Eluvatar> I may ask someone to help moderate if that becomes an issue, hopefully it won't.
[12:15:52] <Eluvatar> The title for this talk is On Ethics in Gameplay, which I hope isn't too much
[12:16:25] <Eluvatar> The first part I think of as "Back to Basics" -- the bare minimum of acceptable behavior.
[12:16:39] <Eluvatar> -- The first rule of ethical behavior in Gameplay is to respect Real Life ethics. This should not be up for debate, and should not require explanation.
[12:16:47] <Eluvatar> Unfortunately, it does require explanation.
[12:17:13] <Eluvatar> One ethical principle in online gameplay (in general, not just NationStates) is to respect personal privacy. I dont read this to mean that one should ignore information that is available to you, but that one must not share peoples personal information with others.
[12:17:42] <Eluvatar> The applicability of this principle to IP addresses has been debated a great deal, and Im not prepared to address it fully. I will say however that it is possible to do counter-intelligence in this game without violating this principle.
[12:18:20] <Eluvatar> The same most certainly applies to personal revelations given in private.
[12:20:07] <Eluvatar> Making sense so far?
[12:20:23] <Ananke> yes
[12:20:35] <Eluvatar> The principles derived from Real Life ethics are not limited to negative ones (prohibitions). There are also positive obligations (to do something) that we have, as people, interacting with people. Its sad to say, but in the modern world Suicide is a real and common problem. As in other cases with privileged information, if one has concerns that someone intends self-harm, one may be ethically obligated to act on t
[12:20:35] <Eluvatar> his.
[12:21:01] <Eluvatar> Due to the aforementioned principle regarding personal privacy, I will not be providing examples. I can however provide a related negative example, in a segue.
[12:21:51] <Eluvatar> This leads me to the second part, which I'm thinking of as "Connections" -- how that bare minimum expands to further expectations, at least when taken seriously.
[12:22:23] <Eluvatar> In 2004, after the ADN and ALL pulled off the Puppetmaster attack and ejected Francos Spain from The North Pacific, Francos Spain left the game. Certain leaders in the NPO, as it was becoming the PRP, chose to privately communicate to certain ADN members that he had ended his life -- as I understand it, so that The Pacific would be left alone to hand the Delegacy off from Poskrebyshev (an old Francos comrade) to Unli
[12:22:23] <Eluvatar> mited (who would lead the PRP). (Relevant: http://archive.nswiki.org/index.php?title=Francos_Spain )
[12:22:49] <Eluvatar> We now know that Francos Spain did not, in fact, die. Not everyone who spread the secret information of Francos death was in on the ruse: probably a small minority.
[12:23:13] <Eluvatar> (As I was not involved in Gameplay in 2004, I may be missing some relevant details -- if someone wants to pipe in with them that is entirely welcome).
[12:23:33] <Eluvatar> I, of course, view actions which aim to manipulate people holding to the above ethical principles, as some did in the example described, to be wrong. They threaten the integrity of the principle of respecting personal privacy and of acting on real life obligations, and so should be considered proscribed.
[12:25:39] <Eluvatar> A more general rule I try to follow is to not use other peoples' principles (that they hold to and I agree with) against them in a manner that undermines those principles. I think it's something we can all think on.
[12:26:05] <Ananke> Don't want to interrupt you, Elu, but I was privy to the info about Francos Spain you mentioned earlier than most, so if you want to talk about that later let me know.
[12:26:15] * Eluvatar nods
[12:26:47] <Eluvatar> If there's something in my narrative that is actually wrong, please do correct me, otherwise we can probably continue.
[12:27:07] <Ananke> Nah, sounds right to me.
[12:27:40] <Eluvatar> There are other connections one can make as well: destroying actual works by others is destruction of what can be described as their intellectual property (if you're of a 'propertarian' inclination) or their personal self-expression (if you aren't).
[12:28:35] <Eluvatar> This includes deletion of forum and RMB posts, removing access to forum posts, et cetera.
[12:29:20] <Eluvatar> It's a similar violation as plagiarism, in my view, of taking someone else's work away from them, whether you destroy it or pass it off as your own.
[12:29:54] <Eluvatar> And it is at the very least closely connected with "Real Life" ethics.
[12:30:43] <Eluvatar> The common view, on this point, is simply that "Forum Destruction" is a crime beyond the pale, and nothing else need be said. This is an oversimplification and like most such simplifications, wrong and somewhat damaging.
[12:31:13] <Eluvatar> For instance, the simple approach that "Forum Destruction" is wrong stumbles when faced with a forum root admin who destroys their own forum.
[12:31:37] <Eluvatar> In my view, the contributions of others are not that root admin's to destroy.
[12:32:40] <Eluvatar> I've also noticed a tendency by many to see the destruction of an offsite forum and the destruction of RMB history through the destruction of a region to be completely unconnected in wrongness.
[12:33:13] <Eluvatar> Certainly, in most cases there is more tied up in an offsite forum than in a Regional Message Board.
[12:33:47] <Eluvatar> Most definitely there is more investment from individuals: people simply don't write entire essays and stories and put them in the RMB.
[12:34:03] <Eluvatar> People don't create and index a region's legislative history in their RMB, generally speaking.
[12:34:10] <Eluvatar> And so on and so forth.
[12:34:45] <Eluvatar> But unfortunately real ethics are complex, there aren't nice clean lines that divide the realm of actions into "beyond the pale inexcusable evil" and "perfectly acceptable harmless fun"
[12:35:29] <Eluvatar> A field where people have, for whatever reason, said very little is the field of removing someone's access to their own works tied up in a forum.
[12:35:46] <Eluvatar> I think that is also the same kind of wrong.
[12:36:39] <Eluvatar> This is not to say that no one's access should ever be removed from anywhere -- forums and their access privileges serve a purpose -- but one should be cognizant of the rights people have to their works.
[12:37:33] <Eluvatar> It's been my perception that reasonable offsite forum administrators take this into account, and are willing to answer reasonable requests based in these rights.
[12:38:21] <Eluvatar> Any "Eluvian" confusion introduced so far?
[12:39:08] <Ananke> Not that I've noticed.
[12:39:14] <ANewCentury> shouldnt it be assumed that if you put something on the forum you save it for yourself as well?
[12:39:29] <Sev> I don't make copies of all of my forum posts.
[12:39:39] <ANewCentury> but they dont really matter do they
[12:39:51] <frattastan> I don't assume that mere posting puts me at mercy of whoever controls of the forum.
[12:39:53] <Sev> Don't they? I think that's what Elu is getting at.
[12:40:16] <Eluvatar> I don't think people generally do make copies of all their posts.
[12:40:30] <Eluvatar> There's a certain expectation of ethical behavior on the part of the forum administrators.
[12:40:33] <Eluvatar> There are other expectations too-
[12:40:42] <Eluvatar> that they won't edit your posts to say something different from what you meant,
[12:41:00] <Eluvatar> that they won't use your IP address to find out where you live and "dox" you...
[12:41:45] <Eluvatar> Here I come to something where I think there's a great deal of confusion. I might even be confused myself
[12:42:12] <Eluvatar> So far, I've discussed ethics which either /are/ real life ethics, or are closely derived from it.
[12:42:17] <Eluvatar> *them.
[12:42:45] <Eluvatar> Now, I'd like to turn to game-ethical principles which I adopt separately.
[12:43:18] <Eluvatar> I don't think it necessarily violates real life ethics to lie in an online game.
[12:43:38] <Eluvatar> Nonetheless, as Eluvatar I avoid doing this if I can.
[12:44:21] <Sev> Lie in terms of... ones identity?
[12:44:23] <Eluvatar> Why the caveat? Obviously game-ethical principles which are, as I'm describing them, constructed, cannot supercede "real life" ethical principles or connected ones, and must instead be superceded.
[12:45:11] <Eluvatar> Well, for a simple example, from time to time we will see certain players start onsite campaigns against a feeder delegate couched in lies.
[12:45:20] * Sev nods
[12:45:24] <Eluvatar> I.e. "McMasterdonia is actually Durkadurkiranistan"
[12:45:35] <Sev> I thought he was Guy?
[12:45:38] <Eluvatar> I see this as a violation of the game-ethical principle I've adopted against dishonesty
[12:45:53] <Eluvatar> But I don't see it as a violation of the more important principles I touched on earlier.
[12:47:02] <Eluvatar> I'll note that I also put a caveat on it myself -- "as Eluvatar"
[12:47:57] <Eluvatar> From time to time I've done covert operations, and as I don't think it's a violation of "Real life" ethics to lie in the online game of NationStates, under those other personas I have not generally had compunctions against lying about, say, whether I have other identities.
[12:48:19] <Eluvatar> I'm sure there can be arguments that that behavior is/was unethical.
[12:48:30] <frattastan> What are the limits to lying in NS?
[12:49:06] <Eluvatar> Well, I think that one can expect of personas in one's community that they not lie (except as obligated to, possibly, for real life reasons
)
[12:49:34] <Eluvatar> I think it's a legitimate community expectation, in-game, and that an in-game community can act to penalize violating that expectation.
[12:49:39] <Eluvatar> But again, penalize in-game
[12:50:08] <Eluvatar> In terms of real life ethics, I think that it's not okay to lie in-game in a manner so as to abuse other people in a real-life manner.
[12:50:39] <Eluvatar> In the example above with Francos Spain, I think it was wrong of some people who I'll leave unnamed (as that's not the point) to lie and say Francos was dead, for in-game advantage.
[12:50:45] <frattastan> Sounds reasonable.
[12:51:56] <Eluvatar> I also think it can be wrong to construct a character which inveigles people emotionally so as to manipulate them.
[12:52:28] <Eluvatar> This is much harder to discuss with clarity, however.
[12:53:54] <Eluvatar> Where I'm a little uncertain as to the dividing line myself is how much of my Gameplay stance against invading is extensions of real life ethics and how much is adoption of constructed game-ethics. They seem to combine, for me.
[12:54:52] <Eluvatar> For instance, earlier I mentioned that the destruction of an RMB is the same kind of wrong (though often less in material magnitude) as the destruction of an offsite forum.
[12:55:56] <Eluvatar> That definitely informs my general opposition to the destruction of regions -- this isn't an absolute, I didn't oppose the destruction of Nazi Europe, for instance. <_<
[12:56:14] <Eluvatar> And I do have to consider that I might be hypocritical there.
[12:57:51] <Eluvatar> I also, however, have a game-constructed principle that regions have sovereignty.
[12:58:44] <Eluvatar> It's a pretty straightforward notion, coming from the translation of basic ideas like the golden-rule into an ingame context.
[12:59:22] <Eluvatar> I adopt it in much the same way my habit in games like Civilization is not to attack unprovoked. I find it more fun that way
[13:02:21] <Eluvatar> Obviously, much like I have the game-construct principle against Eluvatar lying, I have a game-construct principle against breaking agreements.
[13:03:06] <Eluvatar> Just because these principles are game constructs doesn't mean that, within the game, I think it's okay not to follow them.
[13:03:25] <Eluvatar> I will, within a game context, view actions violating these principles as wrong.
[13:03:38] <frattastan> [I gotta go now, but will ask questions later]
[13:04:04] <Eluvatar> OK
[13:04:24] <Eluvatar> The confusion on this matter can be very problematic.
[13:04:49] <Eluvatar> And I think is related to how "moral defender" has come, paradoxically, to be an insult.
[13:06:21] <Eluvatar> The line of thought, I think (feel free to suggest otherwise), is that "moral defenders" apply ethical considerations where none exist, and that this is unethical.
[13:06:38] <Eluvatar> I have a hard time wrapping my head around this
[13:07:04] <Eluvatar> If no ethical considerations exist, how can it be wrong to create some?
[13:08:43] <Eluvatar> I'm certainly unprepared to adopt a constructed ethics which doesn't view non-Gameplayers as persons worthy of consideration.
[13:10:19] <Eluvatar> This is both because I find the historical parallels of such approaches pernicious, and I don't want to encourage such thinking if at all possible, and because I find gameplay which is in favor of regional sovereignty, democracy, et cetera to be much more interesting.
[13:11:34] <Eluvatar> I haven't explored all the details I might have liked to. I suppose that, like with real ethics, the work of figuring it out is definitely unfinished.
[13:12:16] <Eluvatar> I will, when I can, take the draft I worked from for this conversation, add in the additional discussion, and work from there to create a clear written document.
[13:12:25] <Eluvatar> At this time, I'm interested in any kind of questions or debate.
[13:12:31] <Sev> Appreciated, Eluvatar.
[13:12:37] <Sev> It's been an interesting read.
[13:13:10] <Ananke> How do you view ethics in regards to intel work in gameplay, Eluvatar?
[13:14:11] <Eluvatar> So I touched on this, lightly: I think it's okay, by real-ethics, to create a second persona and act in any way with it that doesn't violate the basic or connected real-life based ethics.
[13:15:25] <Eluvatar> I also think, currently, that it doesn't violate my constructed principles of truth, justice, and a hard boiled egg, to act otherwise in an intelligence capacity.
[13:15:39] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure why, exactly, I think this /must/ be in an unconnected, second, persona, but I do.
[13:15:55] <Eluvatar> Maybe it's enlightened self-interest: I want people to expect things Eluvatar says to be true, so I make sure that they are.
[13:17:13] <Ananke> okay
[13:20:04] <Sev> I find the duality thing to be particularly interesting. Thanks for your thoughts, Elu.
[12:14:34] <Eluvatar> I will be welcoming requests for clarification, but I'd like to save debate for after I've described the whole.
[12:14:50] <Ananke> okay
[12:15:10] <Eluvatar> I may ask someone to help moderate if that becomes an issue, hopefully it won't.
[12:15:52] <Eluvatar> The title for this talk is On Ethics in Gameplay, which I hope isn't too much
[12:16:25] <Eluvatar> The first part I think of as "Back to Basics" -- the bare minimum of acceptable behavior.
[12:16:39] <Eluvatar> -- The first rule of ethical behavior in Gameplay is to respect Real Life ethics. This should not be up for debate, and should not require explanation.
[12:16:47] <Eluvatar> Unfortunately, it does require explanation.
[12:17:13] <Eluvatar> One ethical principle in online gameplay (in general, not just NationStates) is to respect personal privacy. I dont read this to mean that one should ignore information that is available to you, but that one must not share peoples personal information with others.
[12:17:42] <Eluvatar> The applicability of this principle to IP addresses has been debated a great deal, and Im not prepared to address it fully. I will say however that it is possible to do counter-intelligence in this game without violating this principle.
[12:18:20] <Eluvatar> The same most certainly applies to personal revelations given in private.
[12:20:07] <Eluvatar> Making sense so far?
[12:20:23] <Ananke> yes
[12:20:35] <Eluvatar> The principles derived from Real Life ethics are not limited to negative ones (prohibitions). There are also positive obligations (to do something) that we have, as people, interacting with people. Its sad to say, but in the modern world Suicide is a real and common problem. As in other cases with privileged information, if one has concerns that someone intends self-harm, one may be ethically obligated to act on t
[12:20:35] <Eluvatar> his.
[12:21:01] <Eluvatar> Due to the aforementioned principle regarding personal privacy, I will not be providing examples. I can however provide a related negative example, in a segue.
[12:21:51] <Eluvatar> This leads me to the second part, which I'm thinking of as "Connections" -- how that bare minimum expands to further expectations, at least when taken seriously.
[12:22:23] <Eluvatar> In 2004, after the ADN and ALL pulled off the Puppetmaster attack and ejected Francos Spain from The North Pacific, Francos Spain left the game. Certain leaders in the NPO, as it was becoming the PRP, chose to privately communicate to certain ADN members that he had ended his life -- as I understand it, so that The Pacific would be left alone to hand the Delegacy off from Poskrebyshev (an old Francos comrade) to Unli
[12:22:23] <Eluvatar> mited (who would lead the PRP). (Relevant: http://archive.nswiki.org/index.php?title=Francos_Spain )
[12:22:49] <Eluvatar> We now know that Francos Spain did not, in fact, die. Not everyone who spread the secret information of Francos death was in on the ruse: probably a small minority.
[12:23:13] <Eluvatar> (As I was not involved in Gameplay in 2004, I may be missing some relevant details -- if someone wants to pipe in with them that is entirely welcome).
[12:23:33] <Eluvatar> I, of course, view actions which aim to manipulate people holding to the above ethical principles, as some did in the example described, to be wrong. They threaten the integrity of the principle of respecting personal privacy and of acting on real life obligations, and so should be considered proscribed.
[12:25:39] <Eluvatar> A more general rule I try to follow is to not use other peoples' principles (that they hold to and I agree with
) against them in a manner that undermines those principles. I think it's something we can all think on.[12:26:05] <Ananke> Don't want to interrupt you, Elu, but I was privy to the info about Francos Spain you mentioned earlier than most, so if you want to talk about that later let me know.
[12:26:15] * Eluvatar nods
[12:26:47] <Eluvatar> If there's something in my narrative that is actually wrong, please do correct me, otherwise we can probably continue.
[12:27:07] <Ananke> Nah, sounds right to me.
[12:27:40] <Eluvatar> There are other connections one can make as well: destroying actual works by others is destruction of what can be described as their intellectual property (if you're of a 'propertarian' inclination) or their personal self-expression (if you aren't).
[12:28:35] <Eluvatar> This includes deletion of forum and RMB posts, removing access to forum posts, et cetera.
[12:29:20] <Eluvatar> It's a similar violation as plagiarism, in my view, of taking someone else's work away from them, whether you destroy it or pass it off as your own.
[12:29:54] <Eluvatar> And it is at the very least closely connected with "Real Life" ethics.
[12:30:43] <Eluvatar> The common view, on this point, is simply that "Forum Destruction" is a crime beyond the pale, and nothing else need be said. This is an oversimplification and like most such simplifications, wrong and somewhat damaging.
[12:31:13] <Eluvatar> For instance, the simple approach that "Forum Destruction" is wrong stumbles when faced with a forum root admin who destroys their own forum.
[12:31:37] <Eluvatar> In my view, the contributions of others are not that root admin's to destroy.
[12:32:40] <Eluvatar> I've also noticed a tendency by many to see the destruction of an offsite forum and the destruction of RMB history through the destruction of a region to be completely unconnected in wrongness.
[12:33:13] <Eluvatar> Certainly, in most cases there is more tied up in an offsite forum than in a Regional Message Board.
[12:33:47] <Eluvatar> Most definitely there is more investment from individuals: people simply don't write entire essays and stories and put them in the RMB.
[12:34:03] <Eluvatar> People don't create and index a region's legislative history in their RMB, generally speaking.
[12:34:10] <Eluvatar> And so on and so forth.
[12:34:45] <Eluvatar> But unfortunately real ethics are complex, there aren't nice clean lines that divide the realm of actions into "beyond the pale inexcusable evil" and "perfectly acceptable harmless fun"
[12:35:29] <Eluvatar> A field where people have, for whatever reason, said very little is the field of removing someone's access to their own works tied up in a forum.
[12:35:46] <Eluvatar> I think that is also the same kind of wrong.
[12:36:39] <Eluvatar> This is not to say that no one's access should ever be removed from anywhere -- forums and their access privileges serve a purpose -- but one should be cognizant of the rights people have to their works.
[12:37:33] <Eluvatar> It's been my perception that reasonable offsite forum administrators take this into account, and are willing to answer reasonable requests based in these rights.
[12:38:21] <Eluvatar> Any "Eluvian" confusion introduced so far?
[12:39:08] <Ananke> Not that I've noticed.
[12:39:14] <ANewCentury> shouldnt it be assumed that if you put something on the forum you save it for yourself as well?
[12:39:29] <Sev> I don't make copies of all of my forum posts.
[12:39:39] <ANewCentury> but they dont really matter do they
[12:39:51] <frattastan> I don't assume that mere posting puts me at mercy of whoever controls of the forum.
[12:39:53] <Sev> Don't they? I think that's what Elu is getting at.
[12:40:16] <Eluvatar> I don't think people generally do make copies of all their posts.
[12:40:30] <Eluvatar> There's a certain expectation of ethical behavior on the part of the forum administrators.
[12:40:33] <Eluvatar> There are other expectations too-
[12:40:42] <Eluvatar> that they won't edit your posts to say something different from what you meant,
[12:41:00] <Eluvatar> that they won't use your IP address to find out where you live and "dox" you...
[12:41:45] <Eluvatar> Here I come to something where I think there's a great deal of confusion. I might even be confused myself
[12:42:12] <Eluvatar> So far, I've discussed ethics which either /are/ real life ethics, or are closely derived from it.
[12:42:17] <Eluvatar> *them.
[12:42:45] <Eluvatar> Now, I'd like to turn to game-ethical principles which I adopt separately.
[12:43:18] <Eluvatar> I don't think it necessarily violates real life ethics to lie in an online game.
[12:43:38] <Eluvatar> Nonetheless, as Eluvatar I avoid doing this if I can.
[12:44:21] <Sev> Lie in terms of... ones identity?
[12:44:23] <Eluvatar> Why the caveat? Obviously game-ethical principles which are, as I'm describing them, constructed, cannot supercede "real life" ethical principles or connected ones, and must instead be superceded.
[12:45:11] <Eluvatar> Well, for a simple example, from time to time we will see certain players start onsite campaigns against a feeder delegate couched in lies.
[12:45:20] * Sev nods
[12:45:24] <Eluvatar> I.e. "McMasterdonia is actually Durkadurkiranistan"
[12:45:35] <Sev> I thought he was Guy?
[12:45:38] <Eluvatar> I see this as a violation of the game-ethical principle I've adopted against dishonesty
[12:45:53] <Eluvatar> But I don't see it as a violation of the more important principles I touched on earlier.
[12:47:02] <Eluvatar> I'll note that I also put a caveat on it myself -- "as Eluvatar"
[12:47:57] <Eluvatar> From time to time I've done covert operations, and as I don't think it's a violation of "Real life" ethics to lie in the online game of NationStates, under those other personas I have not generally had compunctions against lying about, say, whether I have other identities.
[12:48:19] <Eluvatar> I'm sure there can be arguments that that behavior is/was unethical.
[12:48:30] <frattastan> What are the limits to lying in NS?
[12:49:06] <Eluvatar> Well, I think that one can expect of personas in one's community that they not lie (except as obligated to, possibly, for real life reasons
)[12:49:34] <Eluvatar> I think it's a legitimate community expectation, in-game, and that an in-game community can act to penalize violating that expectation.
[12:49:39] <Eluvatar> But again, penalize in-game
[12:50:08] <Eluvatar> In terms of real life ethics, I think that it's not okay to lie in-game in a manner so as to abuse other people in a real-life manner.
[12:50:39] <Eluvatar> In the example above with Francos Spain, I think it was wrong of some people who I'll leave unnamed (as that's not the point) to lie and say Francos was dead, for in-game advantage.
[12:50:45] <frattastan> Sounds reasonable.
[12:51:56] <Eluvatar> I also think it can be wrong to construct a character which inveigles people emotionally so as to manipulate them.
[12:52:28] <Eluvatar> This is much harder to discuss with clarity, however.
[12:53:54] <Eluvatar> Where I'm a little uncertain as to the dividing line myself is how much of my Gameplay stance against invading is extensions of real life ethics and how much is adoption of constructed game-ethics. They seem to combine, for me.
[12:54:52] <Eluvatar> For instance, earlier I mentioned that the destruction of an RMB is the same kind of wrong (though often less in material magnitude) as the destruction of an offsite forum.
[12:55:56] <Eluvatar> That definitely informs my general opposition to the destruction of regions -- this isn't an absolute, I didn't oppose the destruction of Nazi Europe, for instance. <_<
[12:56:14] <Eluvatar> And I do have to consider that I might be hypocritical there.
[12:57:51] <Eluvatar> I also, however, have a game-constructed principle that regions have sovereignty.
[12:58:44] <Eluvatar> It's a pretty straightforward notion, coming from the translation of basic ideas like the golden-rule into an ingame context.
[12:59:22] <Eluvatar> I adopt it in much the same way my habit in games like Civilization is not to attack unprovoked. I find it more fun that way
[13:02:21] <Eluvatar> Obviously, much like I have the game-construct principle against Eluvatar lying, I have a game-construct principle against breaking agreements.
[13:03:06] <Eluvatar> Just because these principles are game constructs doesn't mean that, within the game, I think it's okay not to follow them.
[13:03:25] <Eluvatar> I will, within a game context, view actions violating these principles as wrong.
[13:03:38] <frattastan> [I gotta go now, but will ask questions later
] [13:04:04] <Eluvatar> OK
[13:04:24] <Eluvatar> The confusion on this matter can be very problematic.
[13:04:49] <Eluvatar> And I think is related to how "moral defender" has come, paradoxically, to be an insult.
[13:06:21] <Eluvatar> The line of thought, I think (feel free to suggest otherwise), is that "moral defenders" apply ethical considerations where none exist, and that this is unethical.
[13:06:38] <Eluvatar> I have a hard time wrapping my head around this
[13:07:04] <Eluvatar> If no ethical considerations exist, how can it be wrong to create some?
[13:08:43] <Eluvatar> I'm certainly unprepared to adopt a constructed ethics which doesn't view non-Gameplayers as persons worthy of consideration.
[13:10:19] <Eluvatar> This is both because I find the historical parallels of such approaches pernicious, and I don't want to encourage such thinking if at all possible, and because I find gameplay which is in favor of regional sovereignty, democracy, et cetera to be much more interesting.
[13:11:34] <Eluvatar> I haven't explored all the details I might have liked to. I suppose that, like with real ethics, the work of figuring it out is definitely unfinished.
[13:12:16] <Eluvatar> I will, when I can, take the draft I worked from for this conversation, add in the additional discussion, and work from there to create a clear written document.
[13:12:25] <Eluvatar> At this time, I'm interested in any kind of questions or debate.
[13:12:31] <Sev> Appreciated, Eluvatar.
[13:12:37] <Sev> It's been an interesting read.
[13:13:10] <Ananke> How do you view ethics in regards to intel work in gameplay, Eluvatar?
[13:14:11] <Eluvatar> So I touched on this, lightly: I think it's okay, by real-ethics, to create a second persona and act in any way with it that doesn't violate the basic or connected real-life based ethics.
[13:15:25] <Eluvatar> I also think, currently, that it doesn't violate my constructed principles of truth, justice, and a hard boiled egg, to act otherwise in an intelligence capacity.
[13:15:39] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure why, exactly, I think this /must/ be in an unconnected, second, persona, but I do.
[13:15:55] <Eluvatar> Maybe it's enlightened self-interest: I want people to expect things Eluvatar says to be true, so I make sure that they are.
[13:17:13] <Ananke> okay
[13:20:04] <Sev> I find the duality thing to be particularly interesting. Thanks for your thoughts, Elu.
