On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:27 +0100, david blanchard wrote: > On 06/12/2010 15:22, Alex Vachon wrote: > > Well, this is interesting. I wouldn't want to do to others what I > > don't want to be done to myself. So, I would not participate in a > > game that would create any kind of damage or harm to any real > > entity. > Agreed, absolutely
It all goes down to the definition of "harm". Is criticizing harming someone? Is pointing out flaws or risks associated with someone's behavior damaging for that person? What about making fun or creating a caricature? For example, if we talk about oil companies. In our serious/realistic context, if we say that they eat babies for diner without proof, that's not ethical. But what if the mission points out their implication in destabilizing a country, based for example on wikileaks data? > What I want to do with these games is to generate questions among > players, I'm not here to impose any truth of mine. Hmm, I find this reasoning a bit flawed. The first thing we learn in sociology, when we have to conduct interviews, is that the way a question is asked greatly influences the answer. Whether you want it or not, you will push a part of your point of view into the game. For me, saying that you will just generate questions among players is as hypocritical as the so-called neutrality of journalists - the form always conveys meaning. Which doesn't mean there has to be *one* big meaning - you can present different points of views to give more freedom for the player to chose his own. This would be much more realistic to me, and more honest. Even if it will never completely solve the issue, as we remain the ones choosing the form of all of this. Xavier. _______________________________________________ Farsides mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://farsides.com/ List: http://farsides.com/ml/ Forum: http://farsides.com/forum/ Ideas: http://farsides.com/ideas/ Chat: http://farsides.com/chat/
