Buidling A Devil That You Might Want To Worship: An Ethical Model For Mod Communities

[DavidW]

Intellectual discussion is ultimately useful only as a tool of self-reflection and a means of influencing others. The only law with any binding force is the Law of Might. He who is stronger (and bear mind that phsyical strength is only one part of strength) prevails. This is an inescapable truth of our reality as human beings.

 

The problem with this kind of argument is that it's self-defeating. If argument isn't a route to truth, how are you going to convince me of that - i.e., why should I be convinced to accept, by argument, a position which entails that argument isn't truth-tracking?

 

We now return from the strong program in the sociology of science to our regularly scheduled modding discussion.

[Guest Thomas Kuhn]

Curse you, DavidW - or should I say, Karl Popper!

 

I'll not be defeated by your critical rationalism!

[Sorrow]

You don't explicitly state Option 3: Ignore the conditions and play/mod anyway. Option 3 is illegal, and on those grounds I agree it's unethical

Are you one of those lawful types or something like that?

 

Ah, Sim, you wound me deeply... or not.

 

Each remark was meant as a humorous reminder of the fact that I am fighting this battle for the sheer thrill of being your Devil rather than for the sake of any deep-seated, pre-existing conviction. You of all people should understand humor as it seems to be your primary contribution to a large number of threads.

So, basically, you're just trolling?

[Icendoan]

Meh. Trolling can be fun.

 

Icen

[Wounded_Lion]

It's also vastly ineffective if you're TOO much of a prick, as I know probably better than anyone else. People are a lot more susceptible to being influenced if you're not constantly trying to tell them what a failure they are as a human being. The fact that I'm sitting here typing this rather than saying "hey, WL, great point!" is an excellent testament to the fact that your "influence" does nothing but piss me off. "But it's caused you to respond emotionally!" you reply. Yes. But about you as a person and your style of delivery, not the points you make, rendering the "intellectual" discussion worthless.

 

First and foremost, it's not my fault that you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment of my arguments.

 

But in regards to most of what you say, I agree. Suprised? You shouldn't be.

 

I underlined the following:

 

...also as a means to have fun through friendly intellectual combat with others.

 

because it is my present motivation. Playing the Devil is irresistibly fun (for me).

 

I do not seek to influence anyone. Why? I have no vested interest in this topic because my IE mods do not now nor will they ever include an explicit denial of permissions.

 

That I am a prick (which I do not contest... ) has no bearing on the validity of my argument. (Btw, to be clear, Sim did not commit an ad hominem attack because he did not attempt to use my being a prick to attack the validity of my argument.)

 

Also, like me or not, I am performing a necessary function. A discussion of mod ethics is rather useless if it is one-sided.

 

Maybe this subject matter would be better discussed in a new topic, started by someone who doesn't use 'Bring it' and 'You've been blooded'. Such bollocks.

 

Screw you. You lack the "bollocks" to establish an forum identity. You hide behind the veil of anonymity and suggest that my character is a valid reason to disregard my arguments. Come back to me when you've grown some balls. (I think that my tone here is entirely justifiable, but at request of the moderators I will remove the insult if asked).

 

So, basically, you're just trolling?

 

Trolling? I might be a troll if I weren't genuinely contributing to the debate at hand. Or if I lived under a bridge. As it stands, neither applies.

 

On an almost related note, Neil Gaiman wrote an excellent short story about a troll living under a bridge. I can't recall the title at this time, but I highly reccommend it.

 

@DavidW: My apologies, but I've spent what time I have right now fending off the sabers. I'll come back to your response soon.

 

aWL

 

EDIT: spelling

[SimDing0]

That I am a prick (which I do not contest... ) has no bearing on the validity of my argument.

Correct. But it renders your debating style near worthless. If you aren't aiming to serve any purpose beyond your personal satisfaction with your posts then effectively you might as well be trolling--this is a forum for us to productively discuss issues relating to IE modding, not for you to suck yourself off because of some perceived victory over whoever you've declared your adversary in some "intellectual" sparring match.

If you're REALLY concerned that the debate is one-sided, I invite you to discuss in a manner which will encourage an even playing field. As it is, the debate is remaining one-sided because you're too much of a cock for anyone to want to agree with you--and as you mention yourself, "[you] do not seek to influence anyone". That's not sounding good if you want to promote another angle of the argument.

I've laid things out, and if you're willing to be sensible then I'll gladly come in on things. However, if you proceed just the same, I strongly encourage everyone to take no further notice of this thread.

[Wounded_Lion]

Correct. But it renders your debating style near worthless. If you aren't aiming to serve any purpose beyond your personal satisfaction with your posts then effectively you might as well be trolling--this is a forum for us to productively discuss issues relating to IE modding, not for you to suck yourself off because of some perceived victory over whoever you've declared your adversary in some "intellectual" sparring match.

If you're REALLY concerned that the debate is one-sided, I invite you to discuss in a manner which will encourage an even playing field. As it is, the debate is remaining one-sided because you're too much of a cock for anyone to want to agree with you--and as you mention yourself, "[you] do not seek to influence anyone". That's not sounding good if you want to promote another angle of the argument.

I've laid things out, and if you're willing to be sensible then I'll gladly come in on things. However, if you proceed just the same, I strongly encourage everyone to take no further notice of this thread.

 

I find it near unbelievable that I've provoked a strong enough emotional reaction in everyone but DavidW that they would ignore a legitimate challenge to the integrity of their position.

 

Why have you taken a handful of provocative comments so seriously? I crossed the line exactly once, for which I apologized both publicly and privately. All of these great sins that you lay at my door are nothing but a handful of remarks that could be easily ignored by anyone with enough wits to realize that I'm having a little fun with this topic. I've managed to continue this discussion without becoming overwhelmed by my emotional responses to various jibes, insults, baits, etc. I expected the same capability out of the brighter candles among you.

 

I'm laying down my sword. Not because you've defeated my arguments, but because we've devolved into arguing over our personalities rather than the topic at hand.

 

If you want to continue the discussion, we can discuss (publicly or privately) the manner in which we should proceed.

 

@DavidW: If you want to continue in private, e-mail me. If not, don't. Thank you for playing the Devil to my Devil. It's been fun.

 

aWL

 

EDIT: typo

[WizWom]

In point of fact, it is not illegal to modify your game data, program, or to distribute tools or prepackaged modification files that do not include the original data. Copyright covers the distribution of material created; modifications to that material are solely at the discretion of the user. For instance, once you get a book, you may write in it, black out sections, cut out pages, or even use it for a non-intended purpose, such as tearing out pages for lavatory use or burning. What you may not do under most copyright laws is duplicatye the book and sell the copy.

 

Modding is ethical and legal, as long as it does not redistribute copyrighted content.

 

Now, as far as explicit denials of permission to mod a mod: they are a request with no legal backing at all. Politeness suggests that you honor the request, but it is only politeness.

 

Now, most modders do not claim copyright; however, copyright is a natural consequence of creation; copyright may be enforced in the absence of notice. This means that redistribution of a mod's content is not stritctly legal. This can also apply to code. Some fair use is allowable, but what constitutes fir use of code is still a vague area.

 

Ethically, it is least objectionable to honor requests not to mod; legally, such a request is empty. Legally, it is unlawful to copy without consent; practically, once an entity is not capable or willing to prosecute, their product becomes fair game. And once something is placed in the public domain explicitly, of course, it is fair game.

[Guest a question]

Do WL's motivations really matter as much as Sim says? Isn't disregarding the argument because of the personality of the guy who brings it to the debate table a little absurd? Regardless of why he's doing it, it's still useful if it's a legit contribution. Not looking for a fight, just saying what comes to mind.

[Wounded_Lion]

Correct. But it renders your debating style near worthless. If you aren't aiming to serve any purpose beyond your personal satisfaction with your posts then effectively you might as well be trolling--this is a forum for us to productively discuss issues relating to IE modding, not for you to suck yourself off because of some perceived victory over whoever you've declared your adversary in some "intellectual" sparring match.

If you're REALLY concerned that the debate is one-sided, I invite you to discuss in a manner which will encourage an even playing field. As it is, the debate is remaining one-sided because you're too much of a cock for anyone to want to agree with you--and as you mention yourself, "[you] do not seek to influence anyone". That's not sounding good if you want to promote another angle of the argument.

I've laid things out, and if you're willing to be sensible then I'll gladly come in on things. However, if you proceed just the same, I strongly encourage everyone to take no further notice of this thread.

 

Do WL's motivations really matter as much as Sim says? Isn't disregarding the argument because of the personality of the guy who brings it to the debate table a little absurd? Regardless of why he's doing it, it's still useful if it's a legit contribution. Not looking for a fight, just saying what comes to mind.

 

Although he avoided doing so in earlier posts, Sim is using an ad hominem attack against me now. I wasn't going to mention it because I've put my blades away, but what the hell:

 

Ad hominem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

 

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted.

[Guest EarthquakeDamage]

"Hay guyz I just joined the school debate team and want to show off my mad debate skillz!"

 

The above is not a good way to initiate/continue a meaningful discussion.

[Icendoan]

But, first we must ask the question; was this a meaningful discussion to start with, and, with the precedents of that post, was it when that was posted?

 

Icen

[DavidW]

In point of fact, it is not illegal to modify your game data, program, or to distribute tools or prepackaged modification files that do not include the original data. Copyright covers the distribution of material created; modifications to that material are solely at the discretion of the user. For instance, once you get a book, you may write in it, black out sections, cut out pages, or even use it for a non-intended purpose, such as tearing out pages for lavatory use or burning. What you may not do under most copyright laws is duplicatye the book and sell the copy.

 

It's not particularly relevant for this discussion, but just for the sake of accuracy: I don't think that's quite true for computer software. The main legal constraint isn't the general law of copyright, it's the end-user agreement you typically have to tick "agree" to before installing.

[SimDing0]

Do WL's motivations really matter as much as Sim says? Isn't disregarding the argument because of the personality of the guy who brings it to the debate table a little absurd?

Oh, yes. Completely. I'm saying it affects my interest in participating, not the validity of the argument.

[Guest Guest]

Careful, he may get his blades out and blood you some more.