Woman claims she was 'groped' in Meta's virtual reality metaverse (https://canoe.com/technology/gaming/woman-claims-she-was-groped-in-metas-virtual-reality-metaverse/wcm/a8edd95a-7337-43a1-8e4e-06719c800d79)
And if virtual harassment is a real thing, should it be tried in virtual court with virtual sentencing?
I think any domain in which people can interact with each other will include people being dicks. So, yes, virtual harassments is absolutely a real thing.
Whether it is so severe a thing as to warrant any kind of penalty is of course a different question. I can imagine that a service that provides an interactive domain will have some sort of terms of service that say 'don't be a dick', with penalties such as blocking from the service if you violate it. This may serve as the thing that you're facetiously referring to a virtual court with virtual sentencing.
However, given the tone of your post, I get the sense you're not terribly interested in the actual issue of how to prevent people from being dicks to each other.
Quote from: ergative on December 21, 2021, 02:58:37 PM
I think any domain in which people can interact with each other will include people being dicks. So, yes, virtual harassments is absolutely a real thing.
Whether it is so severe a thing as to warrant any kind of penalty is of course a different question. I can imagine that a service that provides an interactive domain will have some sort of terms of service that say 'don't be a dick', with penalties such as blocking from the service if you violate it. This may serve as the thing that you're facetiously referring to a virtual court with virtual sentencing.
However, given the tone of your post, I get the sense you're not terribly interested in the actual issue of how to prevent people from being dicks to each other.
I have no proof to back this up, but it would not surprise me in the least to find that there are cave paintings dating back to the dawn of humanity that prominently feature BOOBS!!!! I'm seriously dubious that sexual harassment is a modern creation.
Quote from: ergative on December 21, 2021, 02:58:37 PM
Whether it is so severe a thing as to warrant any kind of penalty is of course a different question. I can imagine that a service that provides an interactive domain will have some sort of terms of service that say 'don't be a dick', with penalties such as blocking from the service if you violate it.
Doesn't sound like the King's English to me.
Of course virtual harassment is real harassment.
Virtual sexual harassment is also clearly a real thing (e.g. revenge porn, to take a more extreme example of how it can manifest).
I take it that the general question you're interested in is not whether virtual or virtual sexual harassment is real, but whether virtual sexual assault is real. On that (general) score, it seems to me that, as things stand, sexually assaulting someone in a gamespace is not at all equivalent to sexually assaulting them IRL. What it does seem to be, however, is sexual harassment.
As for the specific article in question: I don't know whether current VR interfaces are at the point where a virtual grope is sufficiently similar to an IRL grope to count as an assault. I suppose it depends on the haptic feedback and first-person immersion and stuff, but I don't know. It's certainly plausible, but I'd hesitate to venture a stronger opinion without better information and perhaps some firsthand experience of the VR platform. Certainly, what the woman reports--a groper with a supportive audience--is not at all OK, and "Meta's" response that she should have enabled safety mode is just jarringly tone-deaf.
If it's virtual, it's not real.
One lovely thing about on-line social games is that there can be many. Some may allow virtual harassment, some may not. People can self-select into which game -- under which rules -- they wish to play. Some games will prosper, some will die. We do not need an on-line game Directorate to allow people their desired degree of whatever on-line.
It's different if we are forced to use an application, such as e-mail. There have to be agreed on rules for that.
Alas, we can't do that with reality. We are stuck with the single one.
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 04:51:13 PM
If it's virtual, it's not real.
One lovely thing about on-line social games is that there can be many. Some may allow virtual harassment, some may not. People can self-select into which game -- under which rules -- they wish to play. Some games will prosper, some will die. We do not need an on-line game Directorate to allow people their desired degree of whatever on-line.
It's different if we are forced to use an application, such as e-mail. There have to be agreed on rules for that.
I don't think you've done much gaming. Are you familiar with griefing? Because it's rampant and can be
really fucking awful. It can completely ruin your day. Even though you
aren't in a PvP game.
I remember spending hours back in the day trying to play
Diablo and, later,
Diablo II, and being unable to do so because people and their hacked gear kept showing up and murdering me over and over and over (and taking my gear...)
even though the game was set to PvM. It's just not fun.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 04:51:13 PM
If it's virtual, it's not real.
One lovely thing about on-line social games is that there can be many. Some may allow virtual harassment, some may not. People can self-select into which game -- under which rules -- they wish to play. Some games will prosper, some will die. We do not need an on-line game Directorate to allow people their desired degree of whatever on-line.
It's different if we are forced to use an application, such as e-mail. There have to be agreed on rules for that.
I don't think you've done much gaming. Are you familiar with griefing? Because it's rampant and can be really fucking awful. It can completely ruin your day. Even though you aren't in a PvP game.
I remember spending hours back in the day trying to play Diablo and, later, Diablo II, and being unable to do so because people and their hacked gear kept showing up and murdering me over and over and over (and taking my gear...) even though the game was set to PvM. It's just not fun.
If it makes you sick, why do it?
The issue was that intruders wielding awful, intrusive hacks were making a player sick, not that the game, properly constructed and played as intended, would do so.
Picking off the very last statement, taking it out of context, and then decrying a lack of logic that is only generated when the statement is taken out of context only shows that de-contextualized statements can be made to sound illogical, which is a known thing.
It's a kind of empty algebra.
Stop it.
M.
The issue is competition and choice.
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
The issue is competition and choice.
No. It's harassment and possibly assault. Keep up.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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. This is why I could never be a libertarian. Whatever its merits in theory, libertarianism in practice always ends up serving as an invitation to the most ruthless and amoral among us to victimize everybody else.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 04:39:28 AM
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.
Quote from: apl68 on December 22, 2021, 06:26:37 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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".
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 06:36:17 AM
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.)
Quote from: Hibush on December 22, 2021, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 06:36:17 AM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
Quote from: mamselle on December 21, 2021, 10:20:59 PM
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.
.
Quote from: aside on December 22, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
Quote from: mamselle on December 21, 2021, 10:20:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 22, 2021, 08:40:38 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: aside on December 22, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
Quote from: mamselle on December 21, 2021, 10:20:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: aside on December 22, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
Quote from: mamselle on December 21, 2021, 10:20:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
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"?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: aside on December 22, 2021, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 21, 2021, 07:43:45 PM
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.
Quote from: mamselle on December 21, 2021, 10:20:59 PM
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.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Hibush on December 22, 2021, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 06:36:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
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?
QuoteThat'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.
You'd think.
But for someone(s), Keynes was clearly divine, so we can't do anything but bow anytime markets are mentioned.
Maynard is in retrograde.
M.
Quote from: ergative on December 22, 2021, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 22, 2021, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 06:36:17 AM
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.
Isn't this a "chicken and egg" problem? If only 10% of gamers are women
because women have been hounded out, then that doesn't address a game that
doesn't hound women out, and thus should have more equal proportions (or be able to attract them over time.)
Quote
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.
But if another game can appeal to and retain that "disfavored population", then they should have that market to themselves.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 11:56:51 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2021, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 22, 2021, 09:36:23 AM
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?
They're primarily historical artifacts. I think the whole thing is stupid (remember when Hailey Wickenheiser had to got to Russia to play in a more competitive men's league?) but nobody elected me Consul of Sport, so.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: ergative on December 22, 2021, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: Hibush on December 22, 2021, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2021, 06:36:17 AM
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.
Isn't this a "chicken and egg" problem? If only 10% of gamers are women because women have been hounded out, then that doesn't address a game that doesn't hound women out, and thus should have more equal proportions (or be able to attract them over time.)
Quote
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.
But if another game can appeal to and retain that "disfavored population", then they should have that market to themselves.
That's precisely the point!Entry of games with different rules is guaranteed by the greed of game developers. Nothing to worry about there.
Compare gaming to going to public school. In school, you're stuck on a
single playground. Bad rules then create bad outcomes, such as bloody noses. One can't exit the school, so one is guaranteed a bloody nose, or some other physical violence.
In games there is no bloody nose, and one can exit. Just switch games if one doesn't like the rules.
There is no problem here.
In principle, yes, it could work that way. But that assumes your reaction to harassment is to switch games, rather than to quit gaming. But in practice, people do quit gaming, and it's a tall order to sell a product to an unwilling market. It's a lot easier to sell chocolate chip cookies to someone who already knows they like cookies than it is to sell chocolate chip cookies to someone who, every time they've had a cookie in the past, has been attacked by face-eating leopards. How willing are they to believe the marketing claims of 'Oh, no, our cookies are different.'
And, for that matter, how many game marketers are going to straightforwardly say, 'Yes, you are usually harassed by dicks, but we'll prevent harassments, and that's what makes us different from other games'? And really, how much of a draw is that going to be even if they do acknowledge it? Gamers want to play good games. Avoiding harassment is the minimum bar for a game to surpass. It should not the sole goal.
Quote from: ergative on December 22, 2021, 12:55:47 PM
In principle, yes, it could work that way. But that assumes your reaction to harassment is to switch games, rather than to quit gaming. But in practice, people do quit gaming, and it's a tall order to sell a product to an unwilling market. It's a lot easier to sell chocolate chip cookies to someone who already knows they like cookies than it is to sell chocolate chip cookies to someone who, every time they've had a cookie in the past, has been attacked by face-eating leopards. How willing are they to believe the marketing claims of 'Oh, no, our cookies are different.'
And, for that matter, how many game marketers are going to straightforwardly say, 'Yes, you are usually harassed by dicks, but we'll prevent harassments, and that's what makes us different from other games'? And really, how much of a draw is that going to be even if they do acknowledge it? Gamers want to play good games. Avoiding harassment is the minimum bar for a game to surpass. It should not the sole goal.
Quit gaming? Do people have a
right to game on their own terms? Absolutely not!
As for the rest, that's just the everyday challenges of a market economy, which get solved every day.
Trust in greed.
Quote from: ergative on December 22, 2021, 12:55:47 PM
And, for that matter, how many game marketers are going to straightforwardly say, 'Yes, you are usually harassed by dicks, but we'll prevent harassments, and that's what makes us different from other games'? And really, how much of a draw is that going to be even if they do acknowledge it? Gamers want to play good games. Avoiding harassment is the minimum bar for a game to surpass. It should not the sole goal.
This gets back to my point. Does making a game which avoids harassment
implicitly prevent it from being "good"? That's the question which can, in principle, be answered by experimenting with virtual worlds. In any area of life, freedom can be used for good or ill, and restricting freedom to avoid the "ill" part consequently avoids some portion of the "good" as well. This can be tested in virtual space by being able to play around with rules at will to see what provides the most enjoyment with the least harassment.
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 21, 2021, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: ergative on December 21, 2021, 02:58:37 PM
I think any domain in which people can interact with each other will include people being dicks. So, yes, virtual harassments is absolutely a real thing.
Whether it is so severe a thing as to warrant any kind of penalty is of course a different question. I can imagine that a service that provides an interactive domain will have some sort of terms of service that say 'don't be a dick', with penalties such as blocking from the service if you violate it. This may serve as the thing that you're facetiously referring to a virtual court with virtual sentencing.
However, given the tone of your post, I get the sense you're not terribly interested in the actual issue of how to prevent people from being dicks to each other.
I have no proof to back this up, but it would not surprise me in the least to find that there are cave paintings dating back to the dawn of humanity that prominently feature BOOBS!!!! I'm seriously dubious that sexual harassment is a modern creation.
Check out the "Venus of Willendorf." 'Nuf sed.