Virtual harassment - Is it a real thing?

[apl68]

After thinking about this, and seeing the responses so far, I realized that this situation allows a virtual exploration of many theological questions.

One of the most common challenges atheists make to theists is the problem of pain:
Why would a loving God allow people to hurt or kill each other?

This gaming situation allows that question to be examined virtually.

If a "loving God" (i.e. game developer who cares about people) restricts "creatures"' (players in the virtual world) possibility of harming others, does it come at the cost of reducing the richness of "life" (the potential game experience) so as to make it not worth "living" (playing)?

Other possibilities:

Does "divine retribution" for "sins" make people so fearful that they aren't motivated to actively participate? Or does leaving much of the enforcement of "justice" to "creatures" make the world seem less arbitrary?

This could be fascinating.

The only theological application I can see in this, and in much other behavior that we see online, is ongoing evidence of humanity's fall from grace.

[marshwiggle]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

But there's essentially nothing online that can't be invaded by trolls and spoiled for others through harassment.  It's not reasonable that society, or certain members of society, should have to cede vast stretches of the online world to trolls.  Lines have to be drawn. 

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

[Hibush]

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

If this experiment gives somewhat anticipated results, could one then apply that to improving the overall environment for nice people? 

A honeypot to lure the trolls and keep them distracted might be helpful. Specificallly, one creates a game in which there are many rule-following players for a troll to victimize. They react in ways that keep the troll engaged. The essential element is that those players are all bots. The trolls are real people. (Someone will find a way to monetize the concept.)

[marshwiggle]

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

If this experiment gives somewhat anticipated results, could one then apply that to improving the overall environment for nice people? 

A honeypot to lure the trolls and keep them distracted might be helpful. Specifically, one creates a game in which there are many rule-following players for a troll to victimize. They react in ways that keep the troll engaged. The essential element is that those players are all bots. The trolls are real people. (Someone will find a way to monetize the concept.)

How would you keep "nice people" from joining the game, not knowing that the only people who are supposed to join are trolls? How would you keep trolls from running across the information that tells nice people to stay away?

[Hegemony]

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

And indeed this has been the case. The number of women who play interactive online video games is much less than the number of men, and the number of women who reveal themselves to be women, even fewer. Because they are harassed so persistently. So I guess it's working out in the way you approve.

In fact the number of women who play electronic games actually exceeds the number of men. But women play single-player games, so they don't get harassed.

I guess it all works out with complete freedom to enjoy the games — except for women. Oh, and members of minorities who reveal their race.* I guess it all works out with complete freedom for white men to enjoy the games. And they're the ones who count.

*Yes, I can cite voluminous scholarly studies for all of these points.

[aside]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

Classic victim-blaming logic.
ETA:  As I now see Mamselle called out.

Right.

Don't do something that's usually simple fun, if everyone follows the rules, because someone who doesn't care about the rules, or likes breaking them, or both, might decide to hurt you while doing it.

Where have we heard these instructions before?

Oh, yes....

M.

.

[dismalist]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

Classic victim-blaming logic.
ETA:  As I now see Mamselle called out.

Right.

Don't do something that's usually simple fun, if everyone follows the rules, because someone who doesn't care about the rules, or likes breaking them, or both, might decide to hurt you while doing it.

Where have we heard these instructions before?

Oh, yes....

M.

.

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

[marshwiggle]

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

And indeed this has been the case. The number of women who play interactive online video games is much less than the number of men, and the number of women who reveal themselves to be women, even fewer. Because they are harassed so persistently. So I guess it's working out in the way you approve.

I didn't specifically "approve" anything. What I'm interested in is what's most popular. Since 50% of the population is female, then it stands to reason that a game that can't retain a significant proportion of female players is not the most potentially popular.

Unless trolls make up the majority of the male population, then non-troll men along with women should make a huge possible audience for a game. The question that interests me is whether the measures taken to get rid of trolls actually make the game less attractive to non-trolls, including women.

[Parasaurolophus]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

Classic victim-blaming logic.
ETA:  As I now see Mamselle called out.

Right.

Don't do something that's usually simple fun, if everyone follows the rules, because someone who doesn't care about the rules, or likes breaking them, or both, might decide to hurt you while doing it.

Where have we heard these instructions before?

Oh, yes....

M.

.

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

[dismalist]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

Classic victim-blaming logic.
ETA:  As I now see Mamselle called out.

Right.

Don't do something that's usually simple fun, if everyone follows the rules, because someone who doesn't care about the rules, or likes breaking them, or both, might decide to hurt you while doing it.

Where have we heard these instructions before?

Oh, yes....

M.

.

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

I can't help you on this one, either.

[marshwiggle]

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

So I'm curious. Do the complaints by cis-women athletes getting destroyed by trans-women athletes that it's unfair "track the real world", or are they based on "empty platitudes"?

[apl68]

The issue is competition and choice.

No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.

But on-line it's free to not get harassed -- don't play the game! Choose a different game. More expensive in real life, where there's only one game.

Classic victim-blaming logic.
ETA:  As I now see Mamselle called out.

Right.

Don't do something that's usually simple fun, if everyone follows the rules, because someone who doesn't care about the rules, or likes breaking them, or both, might decide to hurt you while doing it.

Where have we heard these instructions before?

Oh, yes....

M.

.

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

I don't even do any gaming, and the problems with seeing harassment in gaming situations as essentially victimless seem obvious enough to me.

[Parasaurolophus]

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

So I'm curious. Do the complaints by cis-women athletes getting destroyed by trans-women athletes that it's unfair "track the real world", or are they based on "empty platitudes"?

They're pretty bullshit, once you investigate the facts. The math of the distribution of physical properties based on chromosomal sex doesn't care about their feelings. But athletes aren't selected for their mathematical prowess.

[ergative]

What I was alluding to in my post above is that game popularity will be a test of this; virtual worlds with more and less strict rules of conduct will be a natural virtual experiment to determine what kind of world most people want. If a workable process exists that can prohibit all "bad" behaviour while allowing all "good" behaviour, then it should be wildly popular. However, if it turns out that the more a process limits "bad" behaviour, the more it restricts lots of "good" behaviour as well, then the most popular world may indeed be one that allows the presence of "evil".

If this experiment gives somewhat anticipated results, could one then apply that to improving the overall environment for nice people? 

A honeypot to lure the trolls and keep them distracted might be helpful. Specificallly, one creates a game in which there are many rule-following players for a troll to victimize. They react in ways that keep the troll engaged. The essential element is that those players are all bots. The trolls are real people. (Someone will find a way to monetize the concept.)

There's a plotline about exactly this in Mythic Quest.

Regarding the question about popularity: If women are persistently harassed and hounded until they stop gaming, then the fact that they're 50% of the real-world population is irrelevant. What's relevant is the proportion of the gamer population that are women. And if only 10% (or whatever) of gamers are women, then measures that make games attractive to the 90% of male gamers are going to win out over measures that make the games attractive to the 10% of female gamers.

That's why raw numbers and 'rational' approaches that draw on ideas like a free market of gamer attention won't work. I mean, they don't work so well in the real world, but in the real world we don't have the option to withdraw. We need to eat. In gaming, however, we do have the option of dropping out. So the consequence of favoring one segment of the population over another aren't going to result in a market correction. They're going to result in the disfavored population dropping out.

[marshwiggle]

There is no victim!

Different games will have different rules. Leave one one doesn't like and enter one one does.

Variety is the spice of life.

For the record, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your empty platitudes don't track the real world.

Try gaming for a while, then get back to us.

So I'm curious. Do the complaints by cis-women athletes getting destroyed by trans-women athletes that it's unfair "track the real world", or are they based on "empty platitudes"?

They're pretty bullshit, once you investigate the facts. The math of the distribution of physical properties based on chromosomal sex doesn't care about their feelings. But athletes aren't selected for their mathematical prowess.

So why bother having separate leagues, events, etc. for male and female sports? Is the lack of mathematical prowess responsible for that as well?