# Online gaming ethics and mores... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253 "2016-06-01T19:45:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/61 "2016-06-02T19:15:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It absolutely means that the killer style, unfettered, is invalid. Again, if you’re playing in a way that you know others don’t want to play, if you’re playing in a way that’s only made possible by the fact that most people aren’t playing that way, if you’re playing in a way contrary to the way that people who entered the game decided to enter it, that’s not okay, no matter what the rules are. > > People entered UO with fundamentally different objectives, as your taxonomy shows. That’s not really how tag football works: people who play tag football all agree to the fundamental zero-sum-game approach. That’s why your analogy to that fails, and the analogy to a park–where people enter with different objectives–succeeds. If the game is sold as a game that includes PvP and PvP occurs there is an implicit consent. A random person’s desire is sort of irrelevant when the nature of the game is known ahead of time. This is like saying using a combat grid in 4th ed D&D, pbui, is unethical because it ruins the fun of those who want a purely narrative combat. Imo, they are playing the wrong game. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/62 "2016-06-02T19:19:09Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > This might be a good point to bring up the [Bartle Taxonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types) for those that haven’t heard of it. > > The short description is that there are different player types, which are usually dubbed Achiever (they want the high score, top of the leaderboard, whatever), Explorer (they want to find the lost temple or wield the rarest loot), Socializer (they want to chat and roleplay), and Killers (they, um, want to kill others). > > It should be noted that these archetypes are not limitations - an Explorer can also have Achiever characteristics (like wanting to have explored 100% of the gameworld or owning one of each kind of loot), and a Killer can have have socializer characteristics (like a PKer that wants to roleplay a bandit… hmm). To have a healthy game ecosystem, the game needs to support all four of these archetypes. For example, if the game doesn’t have a chat interface, no socializers will want to play - and that means the Explorers won’t have people to show off too, the Achievers won’t be looked up to, and the Killers won’t have someone to gank. > > If the game doesn’t accommodate all of these (say, not accommodating socializers by not having safe zones or PvE servers) eventually the game devolves somewhat (or is a somewhat single focused game). UO had technical problems that made it hard for achievers (no monsters to kill so I can level? what to do) or socializers (no safe zones to chat with my guild? Why stay), which is why it turned into a Killer craze toward the end. But that doesn’t mean the killer playstyle is invalid, it just means that not everyone has a playstyle they want. UO solved the non-consensual PvP problem by giving people an option of where to play. I don’t think they were obligated to but it was the smart move as non-consensual PvP was terribly unpopular. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/63 "2016-06-02T19:20:35Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > In both cases, to play the game within the rules of the game, for enjoyment or bragging rights or to stop Timmy from hogging the ball or whatever reason appeals to you. No. That’s not the objective. The [objective of football](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_rules#Objective_of_the_game) is > [@](#): > > to score more points than the other team during the allotted time. That’s what a game objective looks like. Now that you know what a game objective looks like, what is the objective of Ultima Online? Edit: [here’s another statement about the object of the game](http://football.about.com/od/football101/a/football101obj.htm): > [@](#): > > The object of the game is to outscore your opponent by advancing the football into their endzone for as many touchdowns as possible while holding them to as few as possible. There are other ways of scoring, but a touchdown is usually the prime objective. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/64 "2016-06-02T19:21:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No. That’s not the objective. The [url=[American football rules - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_rules#Objective_of_the_game)]objective of football is > > That’s what a game objective looks like. > > Now that you know what a game objective looks like, what is the objective of Ultima Online? To play your character as you wish within the rules of the game. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/65 "2016-06-02T19:23:43Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Nowadays a PvP only game would be fine, because it would be known as a PvP only game, and only people who wanted that sort of game would sign up for it. You would think so, but look at the survival genre, specifically games like Rust or Ark. These are games with PVP as a core component to the point where you’re not even safe when you log out but actually LESS safe since your body remains to be found and killed, looted or worse\*. Despite this, you still have a significant percentage of the player base who wants to treat the game from aspects like exploring the map, building houses and otherwise basically treating it like Minecraft. To some extent this can be alleviated by private servers where the admins flip PVE-Only toggles or keep a small private population that all agrees to play by their own house rules (consensual PVP, no off-line raiding, etc) but you still see all sorts of complaints when the developers change the core game from a PVP perspective and other players get caught in the mix. In a simpler world, you’d tell the guy complaining that someone riding a Gigantasaurus ate his house while he was asleep “Yup, PVP bitch!” but the developers still try the juggle the desires of various disparate player types in a nominal PVP game so it doesn’t get a reputation as a waste of money for all but the Alpha Clan hardcore types. \*Edit: “Worse” here being the ability to imprison a character so they can’t even just quit out or die. In Ark, it was possible to keep someone in a cage and if they tried to kill themselves by punching the walls, tranquilize them and keep them in a forced stupor, unable to act. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/66 "2016-06-02T19:24:42Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If the game is sold as a game that includes PvP and PvP occurs there is an implicit consent. A random person’s desire is sort of irrelevant when the nature of the game is known ahead of time. This is like saying using a combat grid in 4th ed D&D, pbui, is unethical because it ruins the fun of those who want a purely narrative combat. Imo, they are playing the wrong game. Not really. It’s like saying that sitting down to a one-shot game at a convention and deciding to turn on other PCs and murder them at the climactic moment in the game is okay, because hey, the rules allow PVP! Nobody disputes that the rules allow it. The question is whether, in an open-world game like UO or D&D, in which people may genuinely enter it with vastly different objectives, and which may be played as a positive-sum game, it’s appropriate to force others to treat it as the zero-sum game you want to play. The rules allow it. That doesn’t mean it’s okay behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/67 "2016-06-02T19:29:11Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > To play your character as you wish within the rules of the game. Right. Which is much more like the objective of a park (“To enjoy yourself how you wish within the confines of park rules”) than to the objective of a game like football or tennis or poker or tic tac toe. Since there are a variety of ways to play your character how you wish, or enjoy yourself how you wish, within UO or a park respectively, there’s a general understanding that you won’t choose a way of enjoying yourself that’s predicated on making other people unable to enjoy themselves how THEY wish, UNLESS they agree to enter into a zero-sum-game with you. It’s a bit sociopathic to say that, since you’re allowed to enjoy yourself as you wish, you don’t need to take other folks’ enjoyment into account. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/68 "2016-06-02T19:32:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not really. It’s like saying that sitting down to a one-shot game at a convention and deciding to turn on other PCs and murder them at the climactic moment in the game is okay, because hey, the rules allow PVP! > > Nobody disputes that the rules allow it. The question is whether, in an open-world game like UO or D&D, in which people may genuinely enter it with vastly different objectives, and which may be played as a positive-sum game, it’s appropriate to force others to treat it as the zero-sum game you want to play. > > The rules allow it. That doesn’t mean it’s okay behavior. I get that. I do think that a table top RPG with explicit or implicit social conventions is fine to disapprove of jackassery. The result of which can get said jackass banned from the gaming group. Online I think it’s different. Maybe I’m wrong. When I play at the table my goal is maximum fun for the group. I don’t play games or with gamers that RP seriously deviant behavior. Online, I play for my objectives while avoiding anything that looks like an exploit. So I do attack guards on rare occasions. But, imo, it’s not fun for me or the others if there is no challenge. I honestly don’t understand the grieved mentality. But the devs could easily fix it. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/69 "2016-06-02T19:34:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Right. Which is much more like the objective of a park (“To enjoy yourself how you wish within the confines of park rules”) than to the objective of a game like football or tennis or poker or tic tac toe. > > Since there are a variety of ways to play your character how you wish, or enjoy yourself how you wish, within UO or a park respectively, there’s a general understanding that you won’t choose a way of enjoying yourself that’s predicated on making other people unable to enjoy themselves how THEY wish, UNLESS they agree to enter into a zero-sum-game with you. > > It’s a bit sociopathic to say that, since you’re allowed to enjoy yourself as you wish, you don’t need to take other folks’ enjoyment into account. I agree it is sociopathic to knowingly play that way in certain games. But it’s not sociopathic to acknowledge that others paid to play in a game that allowed it so it’s allowable and should be expected with what we all know of human nature. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/70 "2016-06-02T19:40:00Z")
Except if you’re playing in a D&D tournament game, and you tell the DM that you’re backstabbing your party members, you’re only allowed to do that “within the rules” if the DM allows it. He can just say “No you don’t,” because the rules are whatever the DM decides. Or he could allow it. The point is that either the DM/developers create rules that don’t allow PvP griefing, or there has to be some sort of extra-game social expectations that can’t be enforced within the game but can be enforced outside the game. If people care about their reputation in a group and they want to keep playing with the group, then those extra-game enforcement mechanisms will work. “Keep playing like this and we don’t invite you back next week.” Either the player conforms to the norms, or they don’t get to come back next week, either way problem solved. The problem is that these norms are impossible to enforce in games that are open to everyone, and/or won’t be repeated. In a one-off tournament game where you’re playing with strangers from across the country that you’ll never see again, there’s no way to enforce social norms by threatening to never play with the player again. And so it’s up to the game master for that game to enforce norms, and if they won’t do it then the norms get violated. And if norms never get enforced they stop being norms. So if the game masters of UO don’t have any mechanism to stop annoying PvP, and the other players don’t have the option of not playing with the PvPers, then annoying PvP is just part of the game and the only option is to stop playing the game…which is why modern game developers try to balance the expectations of people who want PvP and those who want PvE. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/71 "2016-06-02T19:42:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not really. It’s like saying that sitting down to a one-shot game at a convention and deciding to turn on other PCs and murder them at the climactic moment in the game is okay, because hey, the rules allow PVP! That would really be up to the GM to decide. If he or she decides to allow it, then so it goes and if the rest of the group has a miserable time then the ultimate issue is a GM who is doing a poor job of running their game. Next convention, if you see them on a list, you skip their adventure. Not unlike deciding to cancel an MMO subscription because the developers are handling the needs of the player population poorly. That said, by its very nature, an MMO isn’t much like a single-shot adventure. If you get killed in an MMO, you respawn somewhere and start over and find someplace else to be where you’re not getting killed. If you get killed in a one-time game campaign, it’s over and done with. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/72 "2016-06-02T19:44:00Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > If the game supports PVP then PVP play is entirely valid. It’s up to the developers to make sure other play styles can be accommodated by making PVP-free zones or servers or some other option so people who don’t like PVP can avoid it. Or, for players to develop an in-world culture that resists it. Look, the real world “supports PVP,” right? People work out ways to deal with it. If people inside a virtual environment are acting in ways that many others there dislike, isn’t the natural response is to develop structures _in that world_ to control it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/73 "2016-06-02T20:07:10Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I think the style of ‘fix’ you propose is part of the problem, though. If you don’t want low-level questgivers wiped out, just flag them as unattackable (like children in the game) or make them turn into a ghost that still gives out quests when they’re dead. Putting in guards signals that it’s OK to kill the questgivers if you can deal with the guards (either kill them off, have someone distract them, or use stealth/range to one-shot the questgiver), and makes the problem recur when people gear/level past the guards. I think that if you don’t want X to happen in a game, just make it so that X can’t happen and be done with it, instead of doing this weird sort-of-blocking it. See, these are even better ideas than mine. Within less than a day I proposed a design change and you proposed a vastly superior one. What the makers of a MMORPG face is that there are a bazillion design decisions like this and\* you cannot get all of them right.\* I loved EQ, but in retrospect so much was wrong with that game as compared to any modern MMORPG that it’s hilarious to even think a bout everything that was wrong. But at the time, it was revolutionary and amazing. The makers of MMORPGs have had to learn from a billion mistakes and millions of players who all have different agendas. [QUOTE=Peremensoe] Look, the real world “supports PVP,” right? [/QUOTE] Not really. In the real world, open hostility to other people will get you imprisoned or killed; it is exceptionally difficult to be a criminal and the sort of open personal warfare allowed in PVP games would mean your lifespan would be measured in hours. The real world is like World of Warcraft if there were fifty thousand elite-level guards, and they were everywhere, that not only KOS’d you but would chase you forever and ever and you can never get away or run to another zone, and when other players see you they can call the guards and they come running, and you can’t log out. I guess you could get on a boat and escape onto the high seas but then you’re a pirate and anyone is allowed to kill you. If a game has PVP, it’s there for a reason. Lots of MMORPGs don’t have it specifically so one needn’t deal with it. I never played a PVP WOW server and never will. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/74 "2016-06-02T20:19:29Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Or, for players to develop an in-world culture that resists it. > > Look, the real world “supports PVP,” right? People work out ways to deal with it. If people inside a virtual environment are acting in ways that many others there dislike, isn’t the natural response is to develop structures _in that world_ to control it. That’s a good mechanism if players have that power. Usually they don’t. And permenant death in real life stings a bit more than in the virtual world where an alt character may be botted to a high level while one sleeps. The asymmetry in time and knowledge and willingness to cheat is a huge turn off for many. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/75 "2016-06-02T20:57:55Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What the makers of a MMORPG face is that there are a bazillion design decisions like this and\* you cannot get all of them right.\* I don’t agree at all - I think it’s generally that they genuinely don’t think that your version of right is actually right, or that the problem isn’t worth spending even a miniscule effort on. Back to your example, WOW has allowed killing lowbie quest givers for over a decade, and they have plenty of tools that could prevent it already in the game - my suggestions are all things that have been done with some questgivers in the game. Since they’ve left it in as a possibility for so long through so many patches and so many changes even though it would take someone a short time and little effort to fix, I think it’s obvious that they intend for that to be a part of the game. It’s even more pronounced in a game like EVE, where the developers have specifically said that they want players to gank, rob, and scam each other and write the game to support such play. This is part of why some people want to condemn people for playing the game by the rules, and why I object to such condemnation. The owners of the game through the developers and GM staff decide what the rules of the game are, and often have a vision that doesn’t match up with that of any random player. They are the ones who decide what is OK in the game, and condemning someone for playing in a way that the people running the game approve of is not reasonable. You’re assuming that anytime a game allows what you consider greifing the game developers consider it ‘wrong’, but that generally doesn’t appear to be the case, and in some cases is explicitly against what the developers have said. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No. That’s not the objective. OK, now you’re just engaging in silly redefinition games. I’ve made my argument, it appears your only counter is word games, so my best course of action with regard to you is pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/76 "2016-06-02T21:01:37Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Look, the real world “supports PVP,” right? People work out ways to deal with it. If people inside a virtual environment are acting in ways that many others there dislike, isn’t the natural response is to develop structures _in that world_ to control it. It’s generally not possible to develop such structures, because you can’t take the psycho-killers out of the game, they’ll just respawn and do it again. In the real world if you have someone who goes around attacking people at random, or, to fit better with ‘death’ in MMOs, taking people’s stuff and forcing them into timeouts, you can imprison, exile, enslave, or kill them. But you don’t have any of those tools in the game, the other guy will just respawn. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/77 "2016-06-02T21:46:20Z")
Right. The game equivalent to jail/execution is to permaban the griefer’s account. And players don’t have that ability, only the game admins do. So the player’s only option is to report the griefer to the admins, who have the decision. The players can’t form a self-protection posse and ban the griefer, they can just kill him, which means he respawns to grief again. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/78 "2016-06-02T21:58:52Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > But you don’t have any of those tools in the game… Sounds like a market opportunity for a new game. > [@Pantastic](#): > > The owners of the game through the developers and GM staff decide what the rules of the game are, and often have a vision that doesn’t match up with that of any random player. They are the ones who decide what is OK in the game, and condemning someone for playing in a way that the people running the game approve of is not reasonable. You can’t argue with the creator gods of the universe. Fortunately, with virtual worlds, you can opt out and look for another. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/79 "2016-06-02T22:02:46Z")
Yes, but if players have access to tools that can permaban other players, then those tools become the ultimate griefing tools. How does it go again? Ah yes: > [@Hobbes](#): > > During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. > > To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues. > > No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253/80 "2016-06-02T23:04:07Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > OK, now you’re just engaging in silly redefinition games. I’ve made my argument, it appears your only counter is word games, so my best course of action with regard to you is pretty clear. Not a word game. You keep suggesting MMORPGs are like other games and not like parks. This is fundamentally incorrect, because of the shared agreement of what’ll happen when playing football vs. what’ll happen when playing UO. The object of football is clear, and anyone playing is tacitly agreeing to that. The object of UO is much less clear, which makes it more like a park than like football. That’s not a word game, that’s at the heart of my point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-gaming-ethics-and-mores/756253.md?page=5)