THE GREAT DEBATE: SDC, LONGSWORD AND TRAITORS - LAST OF THE SERIES
•
by olivermellors
Forum laws should not take notice of any in game behavior since in-game rules regulate that behavior.
Sounds reasonable.
There was a recent enormous furor and desire to sanction a player for in game behavior. Entirely in-game behavior. The executive made a deal, the player was never charged and the matter did not come to trial. Yet this matter is continuously cited as reason to mistrust the court. Even by many who insist the court should never deal with in game behavior. Indeed, a presidential impeachment was proposed largely because of it.
Recently, a statute was proposed to deal with forum members who became “turncoats” in-game. This would be in game behavior. Entirely in-game.
Recently, a few players launched the Long sword rebellion. This was done on the forum. It could have been done entirely in-game. Should this have made a difference to the resulting discipline?
Buying, selling, donating, paying, voting, working, all happen in game. We don’t seem to have any difficulty enforcing forum rules about “illegal in game votes” or bribery. We don’t seem to have any difficulty accepting that donating from one org to another (or to a person) can be regulated by, for instance the Department of Finance Act. We don’t have any objections to requiring that closed door congress information be kept confidential, though in game rules don’t stand in the way of publishing it for all the world to see. You break no in-game rules by “spying” or effecting a PTO. Nevertheless, these are things we respond to on the forums. We check in-game behavior when determining whether to grant citizenship, or “threat” status.
I’m not sure the in-game/not in game distinction is entirely appropriate. All the time. As a hard and fast rule.
I came to the forum to gain the advantages it provides in-game. I remain on the forum because I benefit and because I feel an attachment to a group. I want to see us succeed. I am not surprised that, since the whole idea of the forum is to provide personal and collective advantage in-game, there may be connections between my in-game behavior and the willingness of forum members to continue helping me. In short, I get something from the forum and in return I am responsible for my behavior.
Of course I am completely open to changing my perspective. Many are accommodated on the forum. That is our strength and the source of important leverage when playing eRepublik. I think our stongest “team members” (I am indebted to Rigour6) will be those whose behavior demonstrates commitment to honesty and good faith. So let’s be honest. When you screw the team over, we don’t much care if you do it on the forums or in game. Real eyes perceive real lies. Did I get that right? Want less government, want something better than a nanny state hovering over your shoulder with its rigid code of written rules, want less bickering over absurd notions that exist only because sophistry is encouraged? If so: adhere to reasonable standards ordinarily expected of any decent person. Cuts down on the writing.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
"Real eyes perceive real lies. Did I get that right?"
Not quite, but close 🙂
Reasonable standards... according to whom? At whose whim are we to live by?
And, adhering to the whims of someone else is still no guarantor of less government, less bickering, and less nanny statism. The opposite is more likely, imo.
Well said as always Justice OliverMellors
Voted!
Tem:
No, I got it right. People will have read for understanding and perceived correctly.
When a father tells his child I’ll be there at 5, gets a beer and drinks in front of a t.v. with the words “there” written in magic marker, the child perceives dishonesty.
When a woman tells her husband I’ll pay the bills at the bank today, and puts a post-it on her purse with “the bank” written on it, she is perceived as untrustworthy.
When a student tells his teacher, I wrote the essay, then gives his friend the nickname “I”, we don’t excuse.
We value truth and know its opposite when we see it. Matter of perception and values. I don’t want to play on a team, be in a foxhole, or try to make a profit with people who can’t be trusted. Who lie to me repeatedly and think I don’t know. Who misinterpret courtesy for a weak mind.
Voted!
@oliver: your comment would make a good enough article on its own.😁
Let's use an obvious example:
As a sitting member of Congress (note: I am not one and am unlikely to become one, but we're supposing I have), I am entitled in-game to propose impeachment. In fact, unless I misundertsand it, I'll actually get experience for making such a proposal in-game.
It's not illegal in-game. It breaks no rules. The admins will never sanction me for it.
But doing it, for reasons which have been explained by others in other settings, definitely poses a risk to my team.
Do my teammates therefore have a right to extra-game attempt to inhibit me from doing something in-game which, while legal, hurts the team? Do they have the right to attempt to punish me if I do it?
Recognizing they can do nothing to me in-game.
Is it a moral defense to my actions to say there's no in-game rule against it? Is it a valid defense to say I reject the consensus opinion that there a risk posed by improper impeachment motions?
Am I entitled to say I will not abide by extra-game sanctions which attempt to influence my in-game behaviour? Yes, I believe I am. But the flip side of it is my teammates are entitled to ultimately expel me from the shared extra-game if I do not act as a proper teammate.
Now we can debate how the will of the group should be determined, how the sanctions should be considered and applied, etc for quite some time. I might in this case post a rigorous defense of why my impeachment proposal was proper and should not be sanctioned. But that's a seperate issue of whether the team is entitled to conduct some sort of internal discipline.