Posted by SphereMaker(IMM) on July 14, 2000 at 11:18:44:
In Reply to: Proud Blade et al.: The Rules, Morality, and Immortality (VERY LONG) posted by The Arcane(VIP) on July 14, 2000 at 09:52:40:
I have to admit, I sort of sat in awe reading through all the chaos that resulted around the use of the word "morality" in my post. Maybe it was unclear what I was attempting to say, so I'll explain it better: If someone is explained a rule of a game and they willingly decide to break the rule, the question of "is this wrong" or "is this punishable" or "can I do this" is a moral question, not a game question. That's all. When you enter Carrion Fields there is an implicit understanding that you can play there so long as you adhere to the rules. Granted, the rules cover a lot of ground and are open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the more explicitly you state the rules, the more loopholes appear and frankly, I doubt any of the immortal staff wants to play word-lawyer and spend days trying to make the rules foolproof. My impression of the original post was that he wanted to come up with some scenario where permagrouping would be acceptable because it was somehow out of his hands. I got the same impression from Graham's post. Players do something similar all the time and it goes back to playing rules-lawyer. If that wasn't the intent of the post, then I was merely rambling. I still content when a PLAYER makes an outside-the-game decision of adhering to the rules or not, it is a moral decision. Does that make them a bad person overall? Certainly not. Does it violate the trust we attempt to have in the players that they will treat our creation with respect and not waste our time with enforcing the rules pointlessly? Yes. The rules aren't perfect, the players aren't perfect and the immortals aren't perfect. Why this has blown up into what it has is beyond me.
Is it windy in here, or is it just me? :p