Topic: Thread of Nifty Internet Things

[Crystal]

I was following that up until my brain literally rebelled reading the math and refused to process anymore, phobos.  I could almost literally hear it say "We haven't done this in 13 years, are you nuts?"  And it looked like they simplified it the fuck down, too.  Time to re-math the brain apparently.

[Tamsin]

Play a game and confront ethical issues of gaming. Honestly serious warning: the name is accurate. Read the text on the page before you even think of playing it. Seriously. I am posting it not because I think you should play it, but because I think it'd be cool to talk about the ideas it raises.

Lose/Lose

[S*S]

Call me dense, but I don't understand the ethical or philosophical implications of a game that punishes you for playing, so that the only winning move (as in, the option that will lead to the least personal vexation) is to commit suicide without firing a shot?

What are we supposed to discuss, here? That messing around with programs that randomly delete your files is bad plan?

<_< Autistic brain is literal.

I mean, I've played Newsground games that are more thoughtprovoking then this.

[Tamsin]

We're supposed to discuss stuff like how the game punishes you for assuming that it's okay to kill things, even in fantasy. Or the relative value of a virtual reward (points) vs. your virtual possessions (files). Or the intersection of the two.

Cogitate upon these two quotes:

Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right?

The aim of a whoooole bunch of games is essentially "kill these creatures to get rewards". Is this truly without any sort of ethical implications? I'm not exempt from this. I play games where I have to defeat or kill living things in the game.

But think of this example: I really love Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life. When the sequel came out, friends were all, "Oh wow you have to play this! It's so great, there are more plants and you can play as a girl oh and there's COMBAT now too! You can fight these monsters in caves and when you defeat them they come work for you!"

And I said, "Um, I don't think I want to play it, then. I want to grow awesome crops and make amazing butter and woo girls and discover shiny things. Why'd they have to put combat in? That's not what being a happy little farmer is about..."

So yeah. Combat is pretty pervasive in games. But what if you suffered negative consequences for being aggressive and murderous in games, the same way as you do in real life?

Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?

So what do you think? If your gut, trained reaction is to fire at the aliens, what's that indicate? Does it mean anything? What if your gut reaction is to sneak around the aliens and try not to interact with them? What does that mean?

Then finally, the questions at the end:

By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data? What implications does trusting something so important to something we understand so poorly have?

I think they should ask less "What does technology mean?" and ask more "What kind of culture, what kind of ethics are emerging from the culture that technology creates? And how does that effect how much we value our virtual possessions, our virtual rewards? Do these things have any relation to real-world ethics?"

[S*S]

But it is stated that "You play the role of a space captain on a seemingly endless quest to destroy attacking aliens." They're attacking, and all we know about them is that they're apparently streaking past our single armed ship in vast numbers, to parts unknown. The scant story provided hints at some kind of higher authority that has bestowed upon us a rank in their military, and sent us out to intercept a vast fleet of ships.

All videogames since the dawn have time have usually stated that the things you're shooting deserve it, usually because "they started it", or because they're imminently about to execute a plan that will result in the annihilation of children and puppies, and therefore have to be pre-emptively sought out, engaged and destroyed, for the good of all.

More modern videogames attempt to flesh out this plot somewhat, or present morally complex protagonists and/or parent organisations, where the morality of what you're doing is moonlighted, even if it's not clearly explored. Some games even encourage you to make these independant moral choices: the Splinter Cell games, for instance, make no bones about the fact that what you're doing is against international law, morally questionable, and that your employers certainly arn't the selfless guardians of truth and virtue that they make themselves out to be. But it's subtle: early in the series, it was presented in an unsettling comment or two made by Lambert.

Later in the series, there's a hidden secondary objective you can complete if, upon being ordered to call in an airstrike on a downed stealth bomber to prevent it's capture by the enemy, you as a player take it upon yourself to decide that it might be a nice gesture if you were to carry the wounded and unconcious pilots away from the wreckage before you called in the airstrike that would surely annihilate them. Your bosses don't tell you to do this, and in fact bitch you out for wasting precious time for doing so; while the game is set up to handle this eventuality, your character won't actually talk about it until you've actually started doing it and have been criticized by your mission control for even attempting it. The decision is entirely yours to make and you're not prompted into it in any way.

So yeah, the backstory says that they are aggressors and bad guys and gives me no more reason to doubt that then it gives me reason to doubt it's claims that the space bar really IS the fire button. You assume that the backstory is going to update you with all the information that your character is in posession of; if the space captain we play had any reason to doubt the motives of his superiors, or the rectitude of his mission, they would have been mentioned.

There's also the fact that if the only controls you're given are "Move" and "Fire", then you assume that's all you need. Joysticks don't have a "don't fire" button. Lots of games have a "talk/interact" button as well as a "KILL THEY ASS" button, anyway. The player can only project their own personality and motivations onto their in-game avatar, in as much as you make it mechanically possible for them to do so.

For instance, checka dis: http://armorgames.com/play/4046/how-to-raise-a-dragon

And tell me what your final result is.

[Anumati]

http://fxb.worth1000.com/contests/23916/punk-animals-tg-2/1#entries

[Tamsin]

http://baszottbanda.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-should-say-it-is-most-complicated.html

Astronomy: it works, bitches!

[Lorelei]

Paper Craft Museum!

http://www.papercraftmuseum.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZ9iJ5B5_w
	Small | Large

And more fun with paper, although kinda violent, so maybe NSFW.

VIDEOGIOCO by Donato Sansone

[K]

...a life-size papercraft Link?

*mindbreak*

[Lorelei]

Mega Man Chain Mail!



http://chainmailbasket.com/projectdetails.php?ID=118

And Chain mail Chess Set!
http://crimsonlinks.com/?McDmVhNg

[machiavelli33]

And more fun with paper, although kinda violent, so maybe NSFW.

VIDEOGIOCO by Donato Sansone

That was frigging awesome!  Hahahaahha~

[Tamsin]

New Moon in lolcats.

[Tamsin]

Blame white people on cereal.

[The Revolution]

Blame white people on cereal.

I already freaking did!

[Tamsin]

When?

[007bistromath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tama_%28cat%29

Oh, Japan.

[Tamsin]

The only female in a managerial position in that company is the cat?

Freaking depressing and cute at the same time.  I'll get back to you which one is more dominant.

[Bunner]

Blame white people on cereal.

B-buh-but I thought it was an outward manifestation of the purity of my soul!

Actually that is pretty damn nifty.

[stargazer2]

http://www.magic-city-news.com/Entertainment_8/Debating_Dr_Laura_Schlesinger12743.shtml

In which a lost soul seeks the advice of Dr. Laura, to live biblically in the modern age.  Full text behind the spoiler tag.

(click to show/hide)

Debating Dr Laura Schlesinger
By Unknown Original Author
Dec 19, 2009 - 7:35:16 PM
Dr Laura Schlessinger ("Dr Laura") broadcasts a 3 hour long, radio program each weekday on a network of over 500 radio stations in the U.S. and Canada and has an estimated audience of 20 million people. She holds a Ph.D. in physiology (study of the functions of living matter), not psychology as some assume.

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger has said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response was posted on the internet and is best regarded as an essay clearly meant for a wider audience than just Dr Laura. It is a general reminder that many belief systems pick and choose their way through biblical teachings in determining what is "right" and "wrong". Authorship has been attributed to several, but remains unconfirmed.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

[Lorelei]

I was gonna post this too! Haha. Hubby, kidlet and I all got a good laugh about it.