Forum ‘right givers’

As a supplement to my thread here.

Looking at the D&D forums, they also have a little forum culture where they start granting themselves rights. Like ‘Oh, the GM can’t cheat’ and such. And they have a thread where they all agree with each other that that is the case. And ‘thus’ it’s the case for their group. Except it’s only the people on the forum who have agreed with that, not their group.

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. 3 November, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Yeah, it is pretty risky affair; the rules of conduct around any given table should be decided there so that the risk of conflicts is lessened.

    Actually, this makes a whole lot of “to fudge or not” discussions seem entirely different; some people, there, are arguing for the right to play as they do, others are making more general points.

  2. Callan said,

    4 November, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Yeah, but who gives them the right to act upon other people in a certain way, without those peoples consent?

    Some sort of gaming god? Or the right just somehow exists?

  3. 8 November, 2009 at 6:29 am

    I don’t anyone can give that consent, as far as morality is concerned.

  4. Callan said,

    8 November, 2009 at 10:58 am

    In an absolute sense there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence that people can give consent (nor evidence they can’t), I’ll grant.

    But these people obviously want to preserve something in themselves over the long term. Yet the idea of a right is, in it’s logistical form, is that you preserve someone elses qualities for the benefit of having the same qualities preserved in you. You protect their resource, they protect your similar resource.

    Here they aren’t – not even just at a moral level it’s dumb. It’s dumb logistically, because they all pat each others backs and say so and so quality about them should be preserved. Yet at the gaming table they expect these qualities preserved in exchange for them protecting nothing similar in regards to the qualities the people who happen to be players have.

    I’ll grant there’s no evidence consent can be granted. But treating it as possible to give has a fairly large amount of evidence for being beneficial to all organisms involved (and here were not talking land being ‘given’ for glass beads, either).

    This is neither moral, nor is it even a cold hearted and cynically logistically sound. It’s just retarded, whichever lobe of your brain you look at it through.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: