 "Photo:")
It interests me to see how people react in the environments of cyberspace. The best place to watch interactions between the fake avatars of real people is in the electronic world of massively multiplayer, online games (MMOs).
An interesting aspect of these games is when the 'real' social contact of individuals begins to influence the virtual world, and vice versa. One infamous example happened in the MMO, EVE Online. In it, players are able to form alliances, called corporations, and war with other groups over fake resources in outer space. In April of 2005, a group called "Guiding Hand Social Club" (GHSC) infiltrated another group called "Ubiqua Seraph" (US). GHSC members attained positions of influence within the ranks of the US and were able to gain access to group-owned assets of US via relations developed within the game. At an appointed time, a message was broadcast to all infiltrators, who proceeded to empty the vaults of the group they had infiltrated, and went so far as to assassinate the leader of GHSC. All of this was imaginary, mind you. Nobody was actually killed, nor anything stolen.
Sort of. Had the GHSC traded the amount of in-game fortune stolen and destroyed that day for real-life cash, they would have been able to bring in an estimated $16,500.
This real loss was, however, well within the rules of the game. Nobody exploited the computers or cracked into any accounts. All in-game rules were followed, and the ability to 'steal' these items came from the fact that access those items was given to the 'thieves' (those in control of the corporation are able to protect company vaults and limit access).
The actions stated here were pretend, such that the thefts in this game were no different than a person attaining complete control in the game of Monopoly and getting everyone else's money. So long as the rules are being followed, the actions therein are legitimate. In Monopoly, you cannot simply take all of the money from others as that would be outside of the game mechanics and would break the rules - people would call foul and the game would likely end immediately. Likewise, in EVE, one cannot simply take another's stuff, but must use game mechanics to acquire it. Going outside of the game mechanics would be hacking, and the owners of the game world would boot you from the game and reset things back. Since no rule breaking happened in EVE, to the victors went the spoils.
It is interesting to look at the analogies between this game and the real world. In the game, a leader of the infiltrating GHSC issued a "press release" bragging about the in-game treachery. Other players responded to this news, usually somewhere in the spectrum of "Impressive!" and "You guys are jerks!". It is in this range of responses that one may catch a fleeting glimpse of the minds of people and reactions to events in reality.
One player, angry that GHSC was able to play the game well, said the players of US "put real money and real time into this game" and the players of GHSC are "scum" for what they did. That may be true - playing vicious games of Monopoly can also draw the venom of other players. But, so long as one is playing within the rules, any tactics are valid, and no moral or immoral actions exist, even if beaten players wish to say otherwise. The immoral thing, then, can only be those actions that are outside the rules. Further, real time spent in the game here is irrelevant - it is how well the game is played that is important.
The same player who called GHSC players "scum" went on to say that the real-life game company that produced EVE Online, Crowd Control Productions (CCP), should change the rules. The player claimed that, since GHSC admitted to beating others in the game, CCP should "help" and "pay back the months that these poor folk" put into the game.
This would be changing the rules of the game, as well as rewarding the people who failed to protect themselves adequately by risking to align with others. Reducing risk of failure would also reduce the very essence of the game itself - what would the point of Monopoly be if everyone got money all the time and never lost? Likewise, what would be the point of a game like EVE, where people fight for control of planets and solar systems, if everyone always won all the time?
This is where the real-life analogy becomes interesting.
There are losers in the game of life, usually those that do not wish to play as hard. They want to sit back and have life be comfortable without paying for it. Perhaps they think that, since they spend a good deal of their time doing whatever, they should be compensated by someone for the time, even if such time is poorly spent. If these losers do not get their way, they might call for the rules to be changed such that others must pay for them.
This is the view of the welfare parasite, seen in the poor that demands food stamps, the litigators that wish to sue producers of quality products, and the ultra-rich that lobby for and profit from the military-industrial complex. All are demanding that government step in to the natural, free market and make new rules that will allow them to win. Unlike in a virtual world, resources in the real world are scarce. Because of this, and because government cannot generate wealth but may only gather it from the sweat of others, government intervention by definition must make other people - who support themselves by working and following the rules - lose. This is cheating. This is immoral.
This is also but one analogy that can be drawn from the fictional conflict.
Another player, in response to the "press release", spoke of the foolishness of US, saying that the administrators of the group should not have had their riches put into common vaults for all of their members to access. The player wrote, in regards to the situation, the "only way to fight this sort of thing is to wise up" and "adopt an individualist approach to wealth and possessions and completely [eschew] common" ownership. This common ownership, the player said, is "an absolute fool's game and given that all of the [incentives] are with the infiltrators and betrayers it is impossible to protect yourself" when things are commonly owned. Private property would have solved this problem before it came up.
Be the first to comment on this article!