CingularDuality

Exactly.

It's amusing how the internet and online interaction is doing so much for breaking down international barriers until someone wants to write an article about tripe like this.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

E0_

I would have given you pretty good odds on that just by looking at who started the thread.

__________________


The time for calm and rational discussion has passed. Now is the time for senseless bickering.

johnflenaly

So if I spawn rape someone at a ucb am I going to be charged for murder, or "virtual rape"?

__________________

Server Rules and SOP | Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST!
Contact an Admin | Nominate your teammates for a ribbon

AMosely

Interesting - silly, but interesting. We've seen plenty of examples of the virtual world crossing paths with the real world - but a 'crime' in one should be punished in the same world, in my opinion.

It's occured to me many times that an admin is a virtual cop.

P8riot

Hrmm.. I feel the impending doom of arrest for my abhorrent guitar playing in Guitar Hero 2.

__________________





Age of Conan: Tharashk (Taxiarchos), Thaumiel (alt), guild Ars Tactika - Cimmeria

Tychandrus

If it was up to me, I'd have Second Life burned to the ground, both virtually and literally.

There are some things there that have crept out from the darkest corners of the human psyche that should not have been given form.

God damn furries...

__________________

Here is how you may call me:
Ty (Tie), or Tychus. (Tie-cuss)'. Full pronounciation: Tie-can-dur-us
-Tychandrus

Hambergler

Someone get the barf bag. I think we should have that word banned from TG.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

I find this topic fascinating myself.

What I would really like to see is a game that had a "law and order" feature beside the vigilante and "guns for hire" system in place in most games. A way to punish characters that broke laws. A way to make laws and participate in the enforcement process. Even allow corruption and ways to try and limit it. I don't even think it would have to all that complicated.

I find it fascinating mainly because while studding psychology it was near impossible to observe people in certain settings and/or set up the most interesting experiments. Many things simply are not permitted. These places may end up being a pretty good surrogate and allow the expansion of experimental possibilities.

Maybe not now. The environments are still pretty crude. Voice communication is very optional. Representation of individuals is caricatures at best. But give it another 10-20 years with photo realistic (or better) avatars and positional voices. Throw in some of the economic factors you see in

Still not real, to be sure. But very few experiments in psychology are "real". They are all staged. I can imagine a space created by experimenters that can be manipulated in very subtle or not so subtle ways to watch how these people behave.

And there are the very real question of what to do about child predators (or any predator for that matter) within these environments. Do these environment give these people valuable training? Do they encourage or provide an outlet? Should convicted predators be monitored while in these environments? Should they be convicted if they simulate un-lawful acts? Can people that simulate unlawful acts in these environments have this used against them if they are suspected of breaking real life laws?

To be clear I don't think they create so called bad people but nobody is really sure.

They could.

But this whole thing is so very new. I find the forums so much more interesting than the games themselves. It is there you see the social dynamic. Once that gets unimplemented in game they will have something.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

CingularDuality

I didn't have time to really get into it, but this was the main attraction of EVE Online for myself. The world was there, what you did with it was up to you. If you could pull off a scam that robs people of their game money (ISK), then more power to you. If you act aggressively against other people in government controlled space, a warrant or bounty is put out for you IF the police/navy doesn't just destroy you right then and there. The game lacks the personal interaction that a child predator could get off on, as all the action takes place from spaceships.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

E-Male

A very disappointing insinuation, Apophis. America is not the best of all things, and the issue of differing content laws and jurisprudence around speech issues are part of this debate over American exceptionalism. I see no reason to be dismissive of my intention to develop a thread exploring the ethical implications of online virtual culture, and I see no reason to dismiss the rather obvious point that not all nations have equal or admirable ethical codes of content regulation.

Furthermore, you appear to be questioning my intentions for starting this thread and have clearly cast them in a negative light. You may consider this little more than flame bait, but your comment appears to be the first flame. Step up and apologize. I see no reason for stepping in and announcing that my well reasoned comment on a well documented issue should be derisively labeled flame bait. You have no right to prejudge my intentions. You should be setting a better example than to be tossing around hurtful accusations. You may not like the implication, clearly seen, within the Post's article, but the point is very valid and is embedded in extant scholarly discussion. I don't expect agreement on these issues, but needlessly questioning motives and making disparaging comments about an otherwise valid point serves what purpose? To set an example? To scare people aware from discussing difficult and unpleasant things?

Also, the issue cannot be so easily dismissed as 'just a game' -- the whole point of the article and of the academic literature on the subject is that there are real-world consequences to virtual play, thus ethical implications. Our games can wound and kill.

Edit: It also rather sad that CingularDuality should announce that the article is 'tripe' -- thus again casting aspersions on the very investigation of the subject. Why would you say that? What is the tripe here -- the issue or the very disappointing response to the issue by those who are so quick to start tossing nasty labels around? Come on guys, is this the best it gets in the sandbox?

__________________
E-Male

Kerostasis

I disagree, America is totally the best of all things.

__________________

RandomGuy

O RLY?

Apophis

I would have no issues exploring the ethical implications of online virtual culture nor the issues that our global society faces dealing with hate speech within those online virtual cultures. That topic, as I describe above, would be of great interest to discuss.

What I do take exception to is the second paragraph of your post. That paragraph alone tainted the content of the entire article through an attempt to portray the USA as somehow inferior to Canada. The paragraph is cleverly written to provide an easy escape mechanism from being branded as anti-American rhetoric, but cleverly written text still has the same ultimate message.

I do apologize if you feel hurt over my response. My intent was not to produce any sort of emotional/hurtful response to your post. I just called it as I saw it.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Morganan

Just because this topic is "embedded in extant scholarly discussion" doesn't translate to an intelligent discussion. There is no "valid point" to this discussion, virtual rape? give me a break. I think anyone who has been the victim of a "non-virtual rape" would be insulted at the terminology. How would the "raper" control the "rapee" in this situation? Have they rigged their computer to not allow them to "ignore" the offender? Is the "rapee" somehow not allowed to log off? Since there is clearly no means of physical control or domination occurring in the "virtual world", how would actions like these be considered rape, since the "victim" allows it to happen since they always have the tools to stop it?

E-Male

The paragraph in question "the lax attitude towards virtual sex crime in the USA compared with other nations. This accords with American laws on expression, which allow for far greater levels of hate speech than Canadian and European laws and tend to place individual rights over collective welfare. American jurisprudence permits far greater levels of online hate and virtual child porn than other Western democracies"

I fail to see how raising the related and very relevant issue of the well documented difference between Canadian and America laws on speech and content constitutes dabbling in anti-American rhetoric. Unless one posits that the USA is superiour in all regards (an irrational and counterfactual claim), the issue of comparative jurisprudance cannot be avoided, nor can the issue of the consequences of different ethical choices made by a society be swept under the rug of American exceptionalism.

Again, you seem to be suggesting alteriour motives to my post by insinuaiting that it is a 'cleverly written' piece of anti-American rhetoric. You add insult to injury. I am certainly not claiming that Canada is in all things superior to the USA. The reverse would be an equally unsustainable claim. I am suggesting that there is a critical difference between the way these two societies approach speech and content regulation, and, as the Post article implies, the current American legal context is poorly suited to addressing certain types of deviant expression in cyberspace. There is an abundance of literature on this subject by scholars on both sides of the borders and, as far as i am aware, none of them are accussing the other of engaging in anti-American rhetoric.

Understanding the cultural differences in content regulation laws, and the consequences they hold for a national and the global community, is a key aspect of the study of virtual culture. Assuming that any one nation's laws are best suited to deal with the ethical implications of virtual culture is, well, and interesting manifestation of exceptionalism.

Surely these issues and the differences they imply can be discussed without retreating behind the rhetoric of anti-American accusations.

__________________
E-Male