On one hand, I'm against cheating and I expect all adults to be able to take responsibility for their own actions.
On the other hand, I do not feel I have the authority to tell an other person how they should live their lives. If you wanna cheat, go right ahead. I'll think you a piece of shit for it, but I won't stop you.
My only problem is when people get purposefully hurt, or their personhood is violated.
Have a read: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index...
"Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not)"
That is not true. It is more a case of people thinking that their singular effort won't have any effect and not wanting to put in the effort, for they have lives to lead. They have friends, family, jobs, etc... And they have enough things to do as it is.
It's not so much acceptance as the fact that talking about it makes people uncomfortable. So nobody talks about it, so everyone thinks that they're alone in the matter. And so they give up, saying "well, that's just how it is".
This doesn't mean they consider it "in bounds", it means they're unwilling to put in the effort, because it may affect their lives and their social circle. It may affect how they've grown accustomed to spending their free time and even how they spend their income.
"we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency."
That will achieve an opposite effect. You're dealing with people lacking in social graces to begin with. And you're going to respond by "shaming" them? Very ambiguous by the way. The description seems to come down to "telling them it's not acceptable and trying to reason with them".
The person who wrote all this clearly does not understand what a troll actually is.
Trolls are to be ignored. Saying that that isn't enough shows 2 things:
1. You don't want people being treated right, you want punishment for those who offend you.
2. You aren't ignoring them at all. Which is obvious from point #1
The hashtag might be dying. But the movement and the idea behind it is still going strong.
Anonymity enables people to voice their opinion without being subjected to some sort of legal censorship for it. Very true and useful. However, if you believe that, just because the message was anonymous, a government who is against it won't bother to go after it, you are sorely mistaken.
Anonymity also allows people to harass each other online, to abuse polls, to troll people and to commit various crimes on the net like phishing and DDOS attacks, all without any form of consequence, which is completely unacceptable. What's even worse is that if one such criminal is to be caught, the amount of resources required to do so is very expensive.
So, instead of planning very expensive ways of eliminating anonymity, how about we just stop valuing the words of people who write anonymous trollposts?
This all just comes down to people being offended way too quickly and demanding some sort of compensation because their feelings got hurt.
Anonymity seems to be the red line through all the examples here.
Once again I'm strengthened in my belief that there should be no such thing as online anonymity.
He said, 'We should use the ability of our medium to show players the issues first-hand, or give them a unique understanding of the issues and complexities by crafting game mechanics along with narrative components that result in dynamics of play that create meaning for the player in ways that other media isn't capable of.
It almost sounds like this man believes people are acting the way they are because they don't realize what they're doing to people. Which is kinda sad, someone being that ignorant of society. People know. They just don't care. That's the issue. And frankly, I don't like games making a system that work in such a way where you have to make a certain moral choice in order to progress or even get a better outcome.
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work, work till we die. -- C.S. Lewis
