Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Disillusionist · 05-10-2008, 02:45 AM

Just because you generalize cash in with actual GAME SKILLS as 'outside resources', and therefore no more or less inherently ooc simply doesn't wash with me.

Firstly:
It's my very strongly held opinion that there are only two kinds of people who would rationalize it that way.
Game moderators who wish to make a buck, not that I begrudge them this.
Game forum moderators who don't wish to aggravate paying advertisers.

And, to remain topical, that's fair.

To use that sports analogy of football, it's like one team practiced all summer, exercised, trained but can't afford helmets and pads but are issued maybe a nutcup by the little league, and are put on the scrimmage line with kids who had a little practice, learned a couple of plays, but have cleats, full pads and helmets, and were given in some cases steroids.
That's a far more accurate sports analogy than comparing it to someone with a 98 MPH fastball, which the guy didn't go to a vending machine and BUY.

Secondly, the entire basis of my argument was not simply that it's ooc. But that it's SO ooc that it takes a lot of mental contortions to arrive at the final conclusion that it is somehow 'fair'.

Still, it's my opinion, nothing more, and can be dissected. Bottom line, I wouldn't play a game that made the field thus unleveled. On and off in my playing career of three decades, I've been at varying levels of income and time. I've also seen games that try to strike a fair balance for both player types (time and money). In no case is that fairness achieved by allowing one player set access to features or gear that wasn't in some way achievable by the other player set.
So you're right, it is a preference, and it's a preference based on determination of 'fair' as I have always perceived it.

The 'it's in the rules and therefore fair' argument sounds like a lot of self-justifying rationalization to me.
Chess. White always goes first. Okay, it's an advantage in the rules, but it is pure luck of the draw, available to either player. The black player cannot somewhere down the line slip the officials a twenty and be given a second queen.

But, I realize that my opinion differs from the moderator's.
"targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others" equates to 'advantaging a certain group of people at the expense of others'. You can call it 'fair' if this is disclosed up front. It just doesn't have the ring of fairness I expect when I think of 'does that just -sound- fair?'

So perhaps you're right in the implication that I am not fair-minded, and that this is a huge blind spot in my reasoning, and sense of justice and fair play. On a given day, I could argue the position from your side, essentially adopting an 'all's fair if it's disclosed up front' position, and make a case.

My heart wouldn't be in it. Not as a player, a designer, a person. It just sounds like another way to 'commercialize' a word like 'free'. Words mean things. Free is free (although at this point FREE* should be added to the dictionary the way definition 14 of 'fair' was), fair is fair. Watering down a concept with caveats, disclaimers, rationalization and semantics only seems to make a subjective word, that most people consent to agree upon, meaningless.

The topic asked a question. I answered it.

05-10-2008, 02:45 AM	#42
Disillusionist Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 83	Re: What Does "Fair" Mean? Just because you generalize cash in with actual GAME SKILLS as 'outside resources', and therefore no more or less inherently ooc simply doesn't wash with me. Firstly: It's my very strongly held opinion that there are only two kinds of people who would rationalize it that way. Game moderators who wish to make a buck, not that I begrudge them this. Game forum moderators who don't wish to aggravate paying advertisers. And, to remain topical, that's fair. To use that sports analogy of football, it's like one team practiced all summer, exercised, trained but can't afford helmets and pads but are issued maybe a nutcup by the little league, and are put on the scrimmage line with kids who had a little practice, learned a couple of plays, but have cleats, full pads and helmets, and were given in some cases steroids. That's a far more accurate sports analogy than comparing it to someone with a 98 MPH fastball, which the guy didn't go to a vending machine and BUY. Secondly, the entire basis of my argument was not simply that it's ooc. But that it's SO ooc that it takes a lot of mental contortions to arrive at the final conclusion that it is somehow 'fair'. Still, it's my opinion, nothing more, and can be dissected. Bottom line, I wouldn't play a game that made the field thus unleveled. On and off in my playing career of three decades, I've been at varying levels of income and time. I've also seen games that try to strike a fair balance for both player types (time and money). In no case is that fairness achieved by allowing one player set access to features or gear that wasn't in some way achievable by the other player set. So you're right, it is a preference, and it's a preference based on determination of 'fair' as I have always perceived it. The 'it's in the rules and therefore fair' argument sounds like a lot of self-justifying rationalization to me. Chess. White always goes first. Okay, it's an advantage in the rules, but it is pure luck of the draw, available to either player. The black player cannot somewhere down the line slip the officials a twenty and be given a second queen. But, I realize that my opinion differs from the moderator's. "targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others" equates to 'advantaging a certain group of people at the expense of others'. You can call it 'fair' if this is disclosed up front. It just doesn't have the ring of fairness I expect when I think of 'does that just -sound- fair?' So perhaps you're right in the implication that I am not fair-minded, and that this is a huge blind spot in my reasoning, and sense of justice and fair play. On a given day, I could argue the position from your side, essentially adopting an 'all's fair if it's disclosed up front' position, and make a case. My heart wouldn't be in it. Not as a player, a designer, a person. It just sounds like another way to 'commercialize' a word like 'free'. Words mean things. Free is free (although at this point FREE* should be added to the dictionary the way definition 14 of 'fair' was), fair is fair. Watering down a concept with caveats, disclaimers, rationalization and semantics only seems to make a subjective word, that most people consent to agree upon, meaningless. The topic asked a question. I answered it.