EVE General Discussion

But if the consequences of an action differ based on whether the action happens in a game or not, then the decision-making which led to the action may be different as well.

So, let's make an extreme example:
- The consequence of losing your property in a game is that you need to do some more quests/missions to regain the property, but you are having fun doing missions anyway.
- The consequence of losing your property outside the game is that you fall in debts, need an additional job and suffer a considerable loss of your quality of life for a long time.

Then stealing from you in a game can be considered a trivial offense compared to stealing from you outside of the game.

Now while the example was extreme, there is still a difference, so imo you can't necessarily reason that people choosing to do the first, would also do the latter.

You only showed that the first step of your statements are not prejudiced. You conveniently skipped over the part where you turn these contextual observations into a judgement of the real-world character and moral of the person.

Aside from…
“ if you're willing to attempt to try and inflict losses on other people who are not looking to competitively wager their resources against yours, then you are also capable of trying to inflict losses on people offline as well.”
“Thief in game, thief out as well.”
“I think it's pretty obvious the type of person you are. One not worth interacting with.”
“When you choose to force unwanted pvp on someone, that's what defines you as negative, lesser person.”
“[ı] believe that your desire to be mean to others, based on you making those choices in a game that is all about choices, is a perfectly valid platform for me to make an assumption on your character as a person.”
“I, while standing in the middle of the pile of garbage that is the personas you wish to project, will consider myself above you for choosing to partake in the actions of the petty.”
“You are the representation of your actions.”
“It makes you a terrible person because you don't have to do it.”
“if you're a person who's objective is to inflict misery and suffering on others for your personal gain, you are lesser human being, an animal unworthy of this gift of consciousness and human intelligence.”
“I'll concern myself with those who've proven to be good, worthy, respectable people.”
“People who do bad things are bad people.”

…and I'm not even a quarter through the list. All of these are made without evidence. All of them are just you spouting your deeply ignorant and unproven assumptions in the form of judgement over people's character. All of it is prejudice.

…about what they do in game. It tells you nothing about the character of the person unless you can provide a plausible and solid causal chain that connect the two. You can't. You just assume. You pre-judge based on something irrelevant.

…about their actions in a game. Those actions have no bearing on their character outside of the game. If you want to claim something about their character based on their in-game behaviour, you have to establish a connection between the two, which you can't.

You are correct. I cannot state that someone who has stolen from me in game will steal from me out of game.

I cannot possibly predict the future. I cannot possibly know absolutely everything someone is capable of.

What I can do though, is say that based off of all the interactions I've had with a certain person, that at a specific point of time, they chose to exploit me for their personal enjoyment or benefit. At my expense. Now, as we've established, I cannot "know" that they will do this to me in person.

What I can know is this:

That this person is the type who makes the choice to exploit me. How far does it stretch? Is it a gaurantee he'll do it out of game as well? No, of course not. But so far, he's evidenced to me once already that he's capable of dehumanizing me in one context. Knowing I can't know everything, how can I say for certain that he will not do it "again" out of game as well?

It's playing it safe. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... well sorry, there will be no twice, you've proven you're not worthy of an opportunity for a "shame on me" ever under any circumstance. We're done. In and Out.

…in the game, all in accordance with the established rules of that game, which provides you with no basis for rendering any kind of judgement about the morals or character of the person.

His choice to do exploit you in this game is no different from his choice to bluff you in poker, and tells you exactly as much about his out-of-game character: squat.

“Could be” isn't good enough to render any kind of judgement. You just flat-out assume that they are with no basis for it. This makes your conclusions and your claims prejudiced.

grr tippia, asking for people to substantiate their statements, and giving them every opportunity to do so

…and no matter how much you try to dodge the fact, you still can't render any judgment on the character of the person based on this in-game event.

Not unless you can establish a solid connection between the two, which you can't.

…and that would be a neat coincidence. Coincidence and “not necessarily” are not a solid foundation for making generalised claims about people across the magic circle. You have to establish that there is an actual connection and that it holds true for everything but the most exceptional and exceedingly rare cases. Until you do, all you have is assumptions that such a connection exists — coincidences don't make them any less so — and any judgment you make is inherently prejudiced.

Since there is no reason to suspect that you're not a moral and upstanding person with a sense of right and wrong, I'd say that you wouldn't for much the same reason I don't go around assuming that random people would steal from me.

No. You've only demonstrated that you beat me in a game.

I cannot be goaded into linking an even larger wall of text than I already have. There is far to much content on the interwebs to do so.


Anyone who has even a passing interest can read all about sociopaths and their interactions on the Internet. You can find it here on the Internet or at your local library. Pretending that it does not exist does not make it not exist. The information is there. If you have a differing opinion than I suggest you state your reasons why instead of trying to make others think that the reference material is non-existent.

So I take it you don't actually want to prove your claim, then.

The original assertion was that gankers and scammers only do it to humiliate other players. You offered a treatise (of dubious origins) about “sociopathy” on the internet. You then insinuated without proof that the two are connected, and now you're trying to shirk the responsibility to establish that one actually exists.

Good. Then you should have absolutely no problems providing it.

Is that what he does? Sit around and pretend he's oblivious? I see his name all over the forums. He would have to have something wrong with him if he doesn't see what is staring him in the face.

Is this for real?

…and no-one has claimed otherwise. What I'm saying is that if you take your observations on some specific characteristic and transpose those into a judgement of something completely unrelated, that judgement is prejudiced. It is based on nothing but your assumptions about the transposition itself.

If you want to make it something more than prejudice, you have to demonstrate that the transposition is actually accurate and that the two characteristics are somehow related.

No, you really haven't. You've hypothesised that there might be just that: a potential for a connection. That is about as weak as it gets.

Yes you have to, or you will have to accept the fact that it's baseless; that you're only making assumptions; that it is pure prejudice.

…except, of course, that that's not my logic. That's just some strawman you just erected. The Wall Street trader can invest because he has established a pattern. The meteorologist can predict the weather because he's done the same. But more importantly: both are aware of their model and express it in terms of likelihoods.

They do not render judgement — they predict with a degree of certainty.

Why wouldn't I? It was a game, after all, and I can trust my friends just fine even though they do that on a weekly basis.