[the_logos]

Molly wrote:

I wasn't aware that the topic was restricted to that. I actually thought that we were supposed to discuss various things that could make a game unfair ......

But of course, if the topic is going to be that restricted, it also makes it less interesting to me.
[/quote]

I see. You would like to see a discussion on a variety of topics that factor into various people's idea of fairness...

That's an example of those arguments that seem to be lobbed out just to muddy the waters.

...unless, apparently, you don't want to discuss that issue. If it's too hard it's because someone is just "muddying the waters."

How about instead of addressing your perceived motive of the poster, you address his argument? We'll get a lot further if we stick to criticizing ideas instead of people.

There are some German or Spanish-based and, I suppose, Chinese-based Muds out there.

Huh. So, just like there are MUDs that mandate different languages, there are MUDs that mandate different business models and because of that, they're fair? Sounds reasonable to me.

To people seeking one of those, the information that a Mud is solely English-based is just valid info, for instance in a search engine. 'Fair' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What does a search engine have to do with this thread, entitled, "What does fair mean?" The search engine doesn't define what fair means. Whether a MUD is english-based is no different from whether a MUD sells placemats or whether it has orcs from a search engine's point of view except insofar as whether it's english based is far more important than almost any other aspect of it in most likely consumer's minds, including the business model. Being purely English-based is, by any reasonable standard, FAR more "unfair" (by the definition you seem to be using) to non-English speakers than a "pay for perks" mud is to people without much real-life money. At least those people can reasonably play the game. Non-English speakers face discrimination from the moment they log into the game.

The thing is, of course, that there's nothing wrong with that.

And if you read the threads, I think that you will find that the complaints are not primarily directed at the pay-for-perks concept, but the fact that some pay-for-perks Muds are painting themselves out as 'Free to play' in their adverts, (which may be true in a very literal sense, but also is misleading).

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I never mentioned pay-for-perks or free-to-play, nor did I refer to them specifically any more than I did to "roleplay enforced" or "allows half-orc characters" or any other subset of the complete rulset of a game world.

But since this is already covered in that other thread, how about we stick to various things that make a game unfair to the players in this one?

Exactly why I bring up the issue of language competence. That's an OOC resource (just like money!) that nonetheless can have an effect of varying level on the success of players in-game. That seems to be why people cry 'unfair' about the virtual asset sales model.

I've watched many a player for whom English is not a first language struggle because of their language deficiency. There is no feasible suggestion for their disadvantage but that they don't bring the OOC resource of English fluency to the game. No different, at all, from not having the monetary resources to pay WoW's subscription or buy a virtual sword in Achaea, or whatever. You can spend the time to learn English (if you have the time), just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the money to pay WoW's subscription just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the gold to buy credits to get a virtual sword in Achaea.

--matt

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Atyreus 6. Is it fair that Player Y can acquire 'the Sword of Uber Slaying' through extended grinding and camping and kick Player X's behind in a PvP fight, even though Player X is a much better player (she is a better problem-solver, she is better at fighting npcs/players within her level range, she is more efficient at locating gear) and lags behind solely because she hasn't been able to put in geologic amounts of time into the game like Player Y?

Umm...
How did player Y access 'the Sword of Uber Slaying' in your example?
Through extensive grinding and camping?

That seems to me to be an example of very bad Game design.

Originally Posted by Threshold For some reason, most games seem to have no problem with unfairness that benefits people with a lot of time. The grind model of advancement and the growing trend of no (or a very small) death penalty just make this worse. When dying does not set you back, skill is even less of an asset and sheer time becomes even more the only thing you need to get ahead. At least in older games, incompetent players would die a lot and lose levels frequently. This would give better players with less time an opportunity to "catch up."

This is a very good point.

I have noticed the generally diminishing death penalty myself, (even in my own Mud), and it irritates me. But since it seems to be a general trend, muds that apply harsh death penalty actually are put at a disadvantage. Players, who are used to dying every five seconds without any more penalty than having to re-wear their gear, are not likely to stay long in a game where death sets you back a lot, or even is permanent. I guess you could say that those are not the type of players you'd like anyhow, but let's face it, if all the players were of the ideal type, our Muds would be very empty.

"In the old days, young whippersnappers, dying would set you back so may levels that it would take weeks to catch up again, and we didn't have any of those 'portals' or 'transport items' or fancy swords either..."

There is actually a general trend of making a lot of things easier in Muds nowadays. Not just death penalties but almost everything gets smoothed out, so that players get babysat and led by the hand and skill becomes less and less of an asset. So even the foolhardy or downright dumb players can advance like crazy nowadays, where in the old days they'd go down in a blaze of fire and have to recreate, because they were so far in the negative that recreating would be a quicker way. (Nowadays I guess they'd just quit instead of recreating, and find themselves an even easier game). :P

It's sad, really.

There are of course ways to counteract this tendency and put some sort of challenge into the game, but they are not always effective, and they are almost always made at the expense of a large playerbase.

Our own method is to offer alternatives to grinding, as ways to get ahead. Above all we use Quests that are not just 'fetch-and-carry, but actually require a lot of attention and at least some thinking to solve. This is where the best equipment comes from in 4D. On top of that we put wear-flags on the quest equipment, so that you can only use it if you have done the quest yourself.

Of course this makes the players who are unable to solve the Quests on their own very frustrated, and I bet they are saying that it's 'unfair'...

[rendekar]

Originally Posted by the_logos The same logic some posters are using here to lob complaints of 'unfair' against specific sets of game rules could be equally applied to, for instance, any MUDs that insist that English be the language of choice. Those rules create an incredibly uneven playing field (insofar as success in a MUD ever requires active communication with other people, which is the case in most text MUDs and many graphical ones) for people who don't speak English. That doesn't make those MUDs (which include my company's) unfair even if non-English speakers are at a huge disadvantage. It just means that the rules (both hard and soft) that define the MUD are oriented toward permitting success for people with certain real-life advantages or proficiencies. Or rather, it does make it unfair if you prefer, in which case unfairness is not a negative.

who is/are that 'some' posters? can you give a name please? if that's me, read that post again carefully.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by the_logos Exactly why I bring up the issue of language competence. That's an OOC resource (just like money!) that nonetheless can have an effect of varying level on the success of players in-game. That seems to be why people cry 'unfair' about the virtual asset sales model. I've watched many a player for whom English is not a first language struggle because of their language deficiency. There is no feasible suggestion for their disadvantage but that they don't bring the OOC resource of English fluency to the game. No different, at all, from not having the monetary resources to pay WoW's subscription or buy a virtual sword in Achaea, or whatever. You can spend the time to learn English (if you have the time), just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the money to pay WoW's subscription just as you can spend the time (if you have it) to earn the gold to buy credits to get a virtual sword in Achaea. --matt

By all means, let’s discuss language then, if you find it that important.
I am not an English major myself, so I can appreciate that it has some impact, but to me it’s a minor one, compared to many other problems.

By playing – and above all by building - in Muds, I have increased my own vocabulary, spelling, grammar and general language skills a lot. Sure, there were times in the past when I encountered words in Muds that I didn’t know the meaning of, and having to look them up in a dictionary slowed me down a bit. (For instance I didn’t have a clue what 'jerkin' or 'coif' meant).
But I don’t see that as a major handicap, compared to many other bigger issues.

Perhaps a better example would be a group of players we had from one of the former Soviet satellite states. Their English was so bad when they first started playing with us, that they seemed almost illiterate. But this did not perceptibly slow them down in advancing, in fact they were all typical ‘power players’ and they had obviously played other Muds before ours. Their main problem was that some other players mistook their bad English skills for stupidity, and started to banter them. This lead to mutual resentment, and eventually to some disastrous clashes that affected the entire Mud.

In spite of all this, the players stayed on, and their language skills steadily increased over the years. Today you cannot immediately perceive that they are not English, by ‘listening’ to them on the open channels. I don’t know how much part the Mud had in that, but it certainly had some. In fact you could argue that they didn't just 'waste' their time by playing a computer game - by playing that game they also increased their English skills. So maybe we even helped them to a ‘fairer’ life.

Incidentally I find players that drop capitals or punctuation, or use expressions like ‘R U stoopid?’ or ‘ I pwn U’ a lot more of a problem than those that don’t have English as their native language. Even in a RP enforced Mud, you could get past the problem by roleplaying a visitor from a foreign country. Since many roleplayers already adopt phoney accents, what’s wrong with playing a French Knight or a Bulgarian Ambassador?

And speaking of communication problems, we also have a couple of players that are blind. They never ask for any extra favours to compensate their handicap, (apart for some technical code things that could make things easier for them, like a toggle to turn off battle-spam and ascii maps). In fact I am amazed and impressed by how well they get along in the game.

Related to the communication issues is typing skill, which I see as a much larger handicap than limited English. My own typing speed has increased a lot by mudding, but I still have to look at the keyboard, which undoubtedly puts me at a disadvantage against skilled typers in most situations, not just combat. But I regard this as my own fault for being too lazy to learn to type by the touch method, and not something that makes the game unfair.

[Newworlds]

Personally I think typing speed is much more of an advantage than lanquage ever could be. We have many foreigners on NW that have no problem competing in the game world both in combat and in roleplay. But typing...now THAT is a huge advantage. I have one player that types 140 WPM which is almost double my typing speed on a good day. Thankfully she is a grand roleplayer and a merchant at that, so she can whip out items, clothing, etc. very fast. I also understand she normally plays 3 muds at once, so just because she types fast, may not make her fast on our game unless focussed specifically at New Worlds.

Which brings back the issue, is anything really fair? Not really, because it is so hard to gauge.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Molly But I don’t see that as a major handicap, compared to many other bigger issues.

Ok, so if I find a Finnish mud for you to play you think you'll not have a major issue playing that, even though you won't be able to understand the first word? I suspect you're wrong. I think you'll find that not speaking the language is, aside from not having access to a computer or internet connection, the most fundamental requirement for playing a text MUD.

Perhaps a better example would be a group of players we had from one of the former Soviet satellite states. Their English was so bad when they first started playing with us, that they seemed almost illiterate. But this did not perceptibly slow them down in advancing, in fact they were all typical ‘power players’ and they had obviously played other Muds before ours.

So you mean they could actually speak English, at least to a rudimentary level. Most people in the world cannot speak English to any level at all.

Their main problem was that some other players mistook their bad English skills for stupidity, and started to banter them.

That is indeed unfortunate and I see it happen a lot. In WoW, players who seem like they may be Chinese get a lot of grief from Westerners.

And speaking of communication problems, we also have a couple of players that are blind. They never ask for any extra favours to compensate their handicap, (apart for some technical code things that could make things easier for them, like a toggle to turn off battle-spam and ascii maps). In fact I am amazed and impressed by how well they get along in the game.

Yep, we have blind players too. They're at a huge disadvantage in combat. Does that make our games unfair as a whole? I don't think so. It just makes them unfair to blind players.

My point is mainly just that almost every design choice that you choose or which is pushed on you (if you only speak English chances are you're not going to be developing a Bulgarian MUD) is "unfair" to someone. That doesn't make your MUD unfair in general, it just means that it's targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others.

--matt

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Hephos I believe for some hardcore people muds might start coming into play even from the bottom of the pyramid :P Hehe. It might be their way to get sex... eww.

We know that there are humans that exist outside of a normal "model" at any given time, so I'm sure that in some cases, this is true. It would explain why so many people will game to the detriment of their RL obligations. For some, gaming IS the way they meet someone they will ultimately love/have sex with.

I think for most, though, taking care of what they already have comes first, and gaming wouldn't come into the bottom of the pyramid.

Originally Posted by Hephos And the safety sphere definately must be mud related. Some people might argue that their characters, equipment etc are their "property" much like any IRL item would be. Since some games use cash to buy these items, it just makes sense i guess. Just some observations

Again, you do see this with extreme gamers. They will actually put their virtual property before their RL ones. I don't believe this is the norm, though, which is why it actually makes headlines. (Normal stuff just doesn't make headlines.) Yes, every now and then we get the story of the Korean dude who went and killed his buddy because his buddy sold off an uber sword from their mutual account, but again, that's not normal! Obviously, that dude threw physiological safety out the window real fast.

Life moves on. For me personally I have a wife, a 3 year old daughter, a home to maintain and a number of contracted projects to complete. You could argue that I "choose" to do those things so shouldn't expect to compete with someone in a game that has 12 hours a day free. I'd argue the point on "choose". It is the equivalent of arguing that those with no money could ""choose" to make more money and buy perks so they have just the same options as anyone else.

I highlighted "choose" because I believe that this is the basis of fairness in a gaming system. As long as everyone has the same ability to CHOOSE the same things, it's a fair system. One of the biggest reasons that life isn't fair is because we don't all have the same choices. Someone in Sierra Leon can't just choose to move out of the country to escape slaughter. Someone born in Asia can't just choose to change the color of their skin when they move to the US in order to fit in better. In gaming, we get to choose these things down to the type of game we choose to play. The only "unfairness" that really comes into gaming, imo, is when each player gets a different set of rules or options based on their relation with the devs. For example, if player X asked to purchase some XP from the devs and was told that this option is "not available", but player Y was allowed to purchase XP from the devs at the rate of 1 xp per $1,000, that would be unfair because player X obviously isn't allowed the same options as player Y. In gaming, the most "fair" you can be is to allow everyone the same choices.

Granted, there are a lot of things that can seem unfair in a game due to game balance, game design, etc. One could argue that it isn't fair that a healer class can't level as easily as a warrior class via solo combat. At the same time, a warrior class could argue that it wasn't fair that they couldn't gain xp by healing safely from town like a healer class could. Unfortunately, if things like that were "fair", then everyone would be playing the exact same class with the exact same power, allowed to make the exact same coin and XP in the exact same amount of time. At that point, why even have a game? Arguments about fairness in payment systems, game balance, etc. are all based on SUBJECTIVE fairness. It's a matter of opinion, and opinions obviously differ vastly. The real "fair" factor is the fact that all players have the same CHOICES available to them in the game, and I'm not really sure that the word "fair" really applies. Can Player X and Player Y both choose to level to 100 through pure time? Can Player X and Player Y both choose to pay $1 dollar for 1 xp? Can both players choose to roll up a healer? Can both players choose to go through the steps to create a Jedi of Badassedness? If so, then that's about as fair as you can get. Trying to enforce the definition "fair" across all games in regards to game design is futile and a bit presumptuous.

[Disillusionist]

Sometimes, a thread title seems only a dictionary page-flip away. It was with this confidence that I went to Dictionary.com, in order to have a definitive basis for my reasoning.

Start here:
'56 results for: FAIR':
Right off the bat, I'm in trouble...
First problem, easily overcome...the page only actually defines the word 'fair' 31 times, the rest of the entries being devoted to related terms, usually defined with the word 'fair' in them. So scratch those. Some, of course, deal with skin complexion. I can safely say that many games have pimples, so most of them aren't fair.

The in-betweeners, I devote to humor.

1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
This one is worthy of three new threads. "What is bias, dishonesty, and injustice?" IMO if perks can be bought with RL cash that cannot be obtained with game-time pursuit, the rules are unfair. It can be semanticized into 'undesirable for my condition set of enjoyment', all day long. I'll simplify it to a very easily understood concept. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If I don't sense that level playing field, I don't play.

2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
These have been covered. I don't think any of the extreme examples of favoritism posted on earlier NEED to be mentioned as unfair.

3.moderately large; ample: a fair income.
Now THIS makes sense. Only the largest games, making the largest incomes are fair. Here, all we need are some ledger books, and a definitive boundary of population and income, and we can know right then and there which games are fair. I love dictionaries.

4.neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.
Oho! Modify #3. Now even the middling 80% of MUDs, this time, determined by game quality, are fair. This just gets fairer and fairer all the time.

5.marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.
EXCELLENT! Now even the games that play favorites are fair, or any game 'marked' by people as playing favorites. I think by now, we've hit 99.999999% of all MUDs out there. The one MUD that hasn't been accused of favoritism being the NEXT one to be started. We've managed to be fair in calling almost every single game out there 'fair'.

6.Meteorology. a.(of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy. b.(of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy.
7.Nautical. (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel.
Also, if your game has a sky or an ocean, it's fair, unless the weather is crappy. It has to be REALLY crappy, though, or your game is still fair under rule #3.

8.unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.
If people can log into your games, then you have a fair game! This is really covering all but the most infinitesmal fraction of all games! Wow!

9.without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.
10.free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip.

WHOOPS, back to square one. NO GAMES ARE FAIR. Damn, we were doing pretty good up to this point.


11.
easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.
12.of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.
13.pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.
Okay, these are font, coloration and aesthetic issues. I can't be fair about this one. I have poor eyesight.


14.seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches.
Oh HELL yes! Now even the DISHONEST MUDs are fair! God Bless Clarity In Speech! We're back on track, since now all a mud has to do to be fair...is lie.

15.courteous; civil: fair words.
The only fair word that can be expressly defined here is 'fair', so if your mud has the word 'fair' in it, it's a fair mud. Partial credit will be given for the word 'courteous'.

16.Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state.

EXCELLENT! All muds are fair again.


17.Dialect. scarcely; barely: It was just fair daylight when we started working.
So, even if your game is still in Alpha, barely coded, scarcely legible, it, too, is still fair. Fair is a really awesome word!

–adverb
18.in a fair manner: He doesn't play fair.
Whoops, it looks like we might have to start alllllllll over.

19.straight; directly, as in aiming or hitting: He threw the ball fair to the goal.
20.favorably; auspiciously.
21.British, Australian. entirely; completely; quite: It happened so quickly that it fair took my breath away.
–noun
22.Archaic. something that is fair.

19-21: If your game has aiming or hitting, and does so auspiciously, especially if it hits Brits and Australians until they can't breathe, and has something within its content that someone, somewhere, might call 'Archaic', you have what is referred to as "Fourfold Fair" and may check that box on the TMS mudselector menu.

23. A woman
Okay, there we go. If your game has women....


On the other hand, I did find in this thread what I've believed my entire life was the single best-worded definition of 'UNFAIR'.

"targetting a certain group of people at the expense of others."
Divide a room of kindergardeners right down the middle. Tell the ones on the left they get a treat, while the ones on the right do not, and for no other reason than because one group was on the left, and one group was on the right. Ask them what they think of that.

They won't be hyper-semantic about it.

In that sense, NO game is fair.
And still, I do believe most people know intuitively what fair means. Buy Ubersword that cannot be brought in game unless RL cash is paid? Not only is it unfair....GAH, IT'S SO OOC!

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Disillusionist Not only is it unfair....GAH, IT'S SO OOC!

Any roleplaying game in which player skill has any effect on the game is already involving OOC factors. Personally, I think that keeping everything in-role (ie completely dependent on the character rather than the player) makes for one heck of a boring game. I like to be able to use my knowledge, intelligence, skill, etc in games even if they're OOC resources (just like free time and money are).


--matt

[Disillusionist]

Semantics:

I'll amend:
"SO HORRIBLY OOC AND POTENTIALLY HIGHLY DIVORCED FROM DESIRABLE SKILLS TOWARDS GAMEPLAY THAT LUMPING 'FOUND $20 IN A DUMPSTER' CAN EQUATE TO 'STUDIED ENGLISH, TYPING, HISTORY, LITERATURE, PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ACTING FOR 30 YEARS' BELEAGUERS CREDULITY".

That's what I really should've said.
I'm sure that can be semanticized and rationalized into triviata, but it also something easily and intuitively understood by most people. Ask the kindergardeners.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Disillusionist Semantics: I'll amend: "SO HORRIBLY OOC AND POTENTIALLY HIGHLY DIVORCED FROM DESIRABLE SKILLS TOWARDS GAMEPLAY THAT LUMPING 'FOUND $20 IN A DUMPSTER' CAN EQUATE TO 'STUDIED ENGLISH, TYPING, HISTORY, LITERATURE, PROBLEM-SOLVING AND ACTING FOR 30 YEARS' BELEAGUERS CREDULITY". That's what I really should've said. I'm sure that can be semanticized and rationalized into triviata, but it also something easily and intuitively understood by most people. Ask the kindergardeners.

There's absolutely nothing inherently more OOC about real-life cash than other real-life resources such as typing skills or language mastery. In both cases, they are literally "out-of-character" resources. If your justification for opposing OOC in blanket terms is simply that something is OOC, then there's really not a lot of room to distinguish between the two. A more nuanced view of things is probably in order.

It strikes me that you seem to feel that money is a special resource, different from all sorts of other resources that are equally OOC. Why? All MUDs/MMOs require different OOC resources from people that different people possess in varying amounts. You yourself may prefer that one or another OOC resource is highlighted as being important, but of course that's not 'fair' to anyone who doesn't possess that resource. I'm at a huge disadvantage if I go play a Chinese MMO, because I don't possess the OOC skill of speaking Mandarin or Cantonses well, but that doesn't mean the Chinese MMO is unfair (or perhaps it does, in which case I stop caring about that definition of 'fair' given that it's a silly one).

I'd suggest that in any game, what's fair is what's allowed by the rules. Complaining that something that's within the rules is unfair is like claiming that it's unfair for a pitcher to throw a 98 mph fastball just because you can't.

--matt

[Disillusionist]

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.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Disillusionist 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.

Well, that's simply not true unless you're suggesting that, for instance, virtually all South Korean gamers (the most MMO-mad culture on earth) are game moderators or game forum moderators.

You're just exercising cultural bias, which is fine, but is fairly arbitrary.

--matt