Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:08 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
[UPDATE] New blog 10/5
View previous topicView next topic
Page 5 of 8 [108 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
Dreadnort
Boot

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 20

 		the line is being drawn the sides dividing
_________________
When there is no more space in hell the dead shall walk this earth

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
GabrielBlade
Decorated

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 202
Quote:
krystyn said:
Until we get more information about Dana, we absolutely need to view Melissa's unreasonable hatred for Dana as just that, unreasonable.



Absolutely. To the people considering giving Dana up: If she was your family, would you feel the same? She is someone's family, you know. Not just a piece on the chess board you can sacrifice for checkmate.[/b]
_________________
Gabriel Blade::Lord of the Asylum::Emperor of Insanity
---»For Whom the Bell Tolls.. Time Marches On«---

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:36 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
SuperJerms
Unfettered


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

 		I don't think they are trying to divide us.

Dana's posts are almost always serve a side function of being a thinly veiled message from the PM's. We get tired of phones, Dana rallies the troops. We start schisming over Crew vs. SParmy, Dana tells us we're all in it together. We hack hotmail, she tells us to cut it out. We betray her trust and turn her ove to a homicidal maniac, getting her stranded without any money on the opposite side of the globe...


We have people looking at the game from a far too meta standpoint. I would say you know who you are, but you clearly don't. So instead, I'll just say that everyone else knows who you are.

Justifying yourself by saying you aren't fully comitted, it's personal preference, or that it's just a game...that's not compelling. Because it is a game, you have to play by it's rules, regardless of your strategy. We may disagree on what many of these rules are, but one thing is very clear: you have to treat characters as the type of character that they are.
This means that, at the very least, human players garner the same human respect with which you treat other humans in real life. Dana is human. Some of you need to get it through your thick skulls.

If you really would give up another human for death, you need to do some soul searching. As it were, only certain people in society are allowed to make that sort of decision. I am 99% sure that, if you are reading this, you do not qualify as one of these persons.

Even these persons have accountability. There are court martials for military, checks and balances for government, and laws for civilians. If you treat dana as a human, the logical conclusion to her getting killed would be that the police investigate, find out about Melissa, and come back to you as an accomplice. At the very least, you should behave in a matter that would reflect this, and treat the decision to help kill Dana as if it meant you would be going to jail as an accomplice to murder.
_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:50 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
GloryFish
Boot


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 44
Azaketh wrote:
This might be a bit far fetched, but has anyone ever really thought "Hey, what if we ALL refuse to give Melissa anymore information about Dana". Personaly, I'm thinking more on the lines of forcing Melissa to listen to us... I mean, if we put her into a situation where her whole entire crew was about to commit mutiny, wouldnt that send a powerful message? Maybe enough of a message for her to think this over?


Remember The Beast? The endgame involved a class action lawsuit against a company.

Very little of what we've accomplished so far, particularly the Mega-Axon Hunting, could have been accomplished by one or only a few people. We have had to work together as a group in our individual capacities (spec, answering phones, solving puzzles, writing software, managing forums and wikis and blogs) to "advance the plot." It would make sense that the final task would involve a group effort, rather than a single email or phone call saying "look look I have the answer!" (BTW I'm not singling anyone out with this).

What do you think of this?
_________________
Non illigitamus carborundum.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:55 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago
GloryFish wrote:

Remember The Beast? The endgame involved a class action lawsuit against a company.


*polite cough*

I think yer thinkin' of Lockjaw. The Beast ended with a vote.

But yes, with Lockjaw, we totally worked the players' legal document into our endgame, mos def.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:57 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
GabrielBlade
Decorated

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 202

 		Krystyn, I know this has probably been mentioned hundreds of times before, and I'm sure I deserve a trout for this, but is there any resource out there that will detail - for those of us who have only recently been hooked on the ARG craze - what happened in the The Beast? I mean fully, in some sort of decent depth, readable (preferably chronological) order, similar to some of the Wikis and such for the Haunted Apiary?

(And yes, I probably could have searched for it, but it's ten past eight in the morning, I've been up all night alternatively working on Uni projects and furtively checking Recepie4 to see if Thin_Kinkles_Playground was unlocked yet.. so I'm rather wasted right now..)
_________________
Gabriel Blade::Lord of the Asylum::Emperor of Insanity
---»For Whom the Bell Tolls.. Time Marches On«---

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
GloryFish
Boot


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 44
krystyn wrote:

*polite cough*

I think yer thinkin' of Lockjaw. The Beast ended with a vote.

But yes, with Lockjaw, we totally worked the players' legal document into our endgame, mos def.


Thank you krystyn. My apologies. All of my knowledge of prior ARGs was obtained on the night I first saw ILB. I crammed so much into my head in three hours.

Come to think of it, that explains why I couldn't find a link to the actual document on cloudmakers.org . I knew there was a lawsuit, somewhere...


So yeah, ILB, how `bout that?
_________________
Non illigitamus carborundum.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:12 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice


Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago

 		This is a snippet for the results from the Mann Act:

http://cloudmakers.org/guide/index4.shtml#10.2mann

You can root around from there ...

[/ot]

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:15 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Oea
Boot

Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 53

 		Hah!
I think this recent blog entry was made for us to reflect (Well, *some* of us) on our willingness to give information to a psychotic AI

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:29 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[META] In-game and out-of-game morality
First of all, I want to say that I personally believe that any move to "give Dana up" to Melissa would be premature at this point. I think that if the PMs want that to happen, they'll make it clear.

The rhetoric in here has gotten a little heated, and people are throwing around accusations, so I just want to step back and make a few comments here.

GabrielBlade wrote:
To the people considering giving Dana up: If she was your family, would you feel the same? She is someone's family, you know. Not just a piece on the chess board you can sacrifice for checkmate.[/b]


I don't think it's too [META] a comment to point out here that Dana *isn't* someone's family. She's a fictional character in a game, folks, and while your scruples convince me you're all nice people, if giving her up is what's required to advance the plot, then that's what we should do.

It wasn't exactly ethical to attempt to convince a damaged, lonely, and confused AI that we were members of her beloved crew just to get information out of her, but obviously it would have been silly to refuse to answer the axons because of it.

In-game morality is not the same as out-of-game morality. Outside of a game I consider concealing the location of an innocent from someone who wants to exterminate them one of the few clear-cut situations where lying is more ethical than telling the truth. However, out-of-game, I would not consider lying to Melissa the way we have been to be at all ethical -- there are other ways to help Dana, and taking advantage of someone's mental or emotional damage is, in my mind, repulsive. Yet in-game, I'm there getting my axon with everyone else.

Similarly, this horse hasn't been so much beaten to death as exhumed, revived and beaten to death multiple times, but:

Clearly, in an out-of-game situation, it was in no wise ethical to betray the SP to Melissa. In-game, however, it has become apparent that it was part of the plot, and if weephun hadn't done it, the PMs would have found another way to make it happen.

There's been speculation on another thread to which I frequently post as to whether an AI like Melissa would have a soul. Right now, it remains idle -- if interesting -- speculation. But if the speculation regarding "kill switches" becomes more than speculation, that is, if the question of whether to terminate Melissa, or the SP, or Durga comes up, than it will become an important ethical question. Right now, I'd say no, a program, no matter how sophisticated, cannot have a soul. But the point is, I don't know for sure, so in a real-life situation, I would not find it ethical to terminate an AI unless leaving it active would result in loss of innocent life and there was no possible way to confine it or render it harmless.

In-game, however, if the plot requires us to terminate Melissa to save Earth, or save Dana, or save someone, fine.

In-game morality is different. In some ways, we even lack free will, here, as it's unlikely our actions will truly have any effect on the major arc of the storyline. We may be able to alter things in a tiny way by solving puzzles more quickly or more slowly than the PMs had estimated, but for the most part, our choices are limited to whether we participate and how much. Beyond that, the PMs are pulling our strings as well as the in-game characters'.

I disagree that in-game characters must be treated as if they were real humans. Clearly, we must treat Dana as Dana, but that doesn't mean that we should forget, as someone else pointed out, that she is a thinly veiled mask for the PMs. Our direct interaction with her should be governed by the same rules as with real humans, but that doesn't mean our [META] decisions as to how to proceed should necessarily view her as legitimate human being.

Quote:
If you really would give up another human for death, you need to do some soul searching.


I frankly feel that while this is obviously true as applied to real human beings, it may be overly dramatic as regards in-game characters. And I disagree that

Again, your scruples speak well as to your personal morality, but I'm not sure that comments like this (essentially, whether you intended it that way or not, an implication that those who disagree with your opinion as to the appropriate next move, are morally defective) actually help us reach any sort of consensus. As an emotional appeal, it's very effective, but it's based on what I feel is a faulty premise:

Quote:
Because it is a game, you have to play by it's rules


You assume that "play[ing] by it's [sic] rules" means behaving as if the characters are real people and that the way each of them behaves is the whole story. But the facts to support such an assumption are not in evidence.

In a chess game, you don't assume that a bishop is *thinking* the way the rules allow it to *act.* You respond to it within the rules governing how it's allowed to act, i.e. you don't put your piece on a diagonal from it, but you *know* that the mind governing the overall picture is not seeing just the bishop, and may move the bishop in front of your rook in order to accomplish something unrelated to the bishop, like queening a pawn.

Clearly it's not an exact analogy, because we're not playing *against* the PMs, we're playing *with* them. But still, we don't know that they won't sacrifice Dana for the larger picture (the plot as a whole). Or maybe they'll sacrifice Melissa to save the SP. Who knows?

But ultimately, I don't think that continuing to attempt to keep the big picture in mind is failing to "play by the rules of the game."

And I think that impugning moral failure to those who disagree with you on the strategy of a game is unnecessarily divisive.

So please, let's remain civil, forego the high-flown rhetoric about "soul-searching" and "blood on [people's] hands", and the insults about "thick skulls."

Do you realize, that for all your interpersonal ethics, you're putting the well-being of a fictional character above the feelings of real live human beings?

This is a game. Its primary purpose is to be fun. When people are impugning other people's morals, when they're calling them boneheaded, when there seems to be actual anger behind posts, that's a good sign that something out-of-game has gone very wrong.

If the PMs force us to divide, which, thus far, they have not (despite the apparent eagerness of various players to form factions) then I should hope we can do so with sportsmanlike attitudes and respect for our opponents.

But the point remains, that thus far there has been no express need to divide, and I think we should remain united for as long as possible.

Giving Dana up seems inadvisable at this point. Melissa already trusts us somewhat, and I don't think simply saying we don't know where Dana is is going to prevent us from getting information. As of yet, I can think of no good reason to rat out Dana, and plenty of good ones to keep her location secret (not least of which is that, yes, in-game, as far as we know she's an innocent).

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:54 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
SuperJerms
Unfettered


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

 		That hinges on the assumption that Dana is not a real person. If she is a real person, then all the talk of strategy, expedablity, and morality is indeed warrented.

Otherwise, you end up in the very same shoes of those who participated in Milgrim's famous obedience experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:04 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[META] Respect for others
SuperJerms wrote:
That hinges on the assumption that Dana is not a real person. If she is a real person, then all the talk of strategy, expedablity, and morality is indeed warrented.


SuperJerms, with all due respect, if you honestly believe there actually is is a woman hiding out in China because Melissa crashed into her server, you need a reality check of a major sort. It's a game.

The people whom you called "thick-skulled," on the other hand, are real. And therefore, they come first. Period. It is simply not acceptable to insult them on behalf of a character in a game.

Quote:
Otherwise, you end up in the very same shoes of those who participated in Milgram's famous obedience experiment.


Good grief, man. I don't think anyone remotely familiar with psychology, Holocaust studies, or ethics is unfamiliar with Milgram. But there's a qualitative difference; the nature of what they participated in was not clear to Milgram's subjects. The subjects were fictionally hurting people, but they believed the people were real, while we know who's real and who isn't. Milgram is irrelevant to the question of whether it's all right for you to insult other players like that.

It's not, and I'm shocked that you would argue otherwise.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:21 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
daboking
Unfettered


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 486
Location: 2nd star to the right

 		I did not take SuperJerms comment that way at all... I may be way off base, but it seemed to me that as players of the game we must play as if we are just as much a part of Dana's fictitious world as she is... with said laws governing morality, etc. If anyone believes she is a real person who fled to China, then I sure got a great bargain for you....and for only a limited time with this special TV/chatter offer, I can offer you a flash clone of YOUR favorite celebrity that really DOES act, sing, play, just like the real deal... no metabolic cascade failures here. No sir! So, if you wanna buy, PM me and I will sell ya the details. Rolling Eyes
_________________
meedley meedley meedley meedley meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:28 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
HitsHerMark
Unfictologist


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1521
Location: Austin, TX

 		Re: [META] In-game and out-of-game morality
I agree that people should remember that we're all real here...

I don't agree about keeping Meta things in mind, like how Dana et al aren't really real. The point of the game is to pretend it's not a game. It's alternate reality, not artificial reality. It is very meta to point that out because we know very well that she at least has an Aunt and a Mother.

Just doing something merely to "advance the plot" is a silly reason to do anything. Are we playing a game here or are we just chickens pecking at a button for feed?

One of the attractions for something like this is that we are all real people, and there are real people on the other side of the curtain. They have a plan, but there is something of an unspoken understanding that something can happen to muck those plans up. Maybe we muck things up for them, or they muck things up for themselves... Who knows? That's the point, I think.

I've come across this in other types of... I guess you'd say "interactive fiction". And it always kind of rubs me the wrong way. I saw large groups of incredibly smart people doing incredibly silly things simply to "advance the plot", and it would usually degenerate to the point that nobody really had any goals, while they all just did stuff because they thought the people running the game wanted them to do it...

And maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that Weephun and The Adam's actions were totally out of character... The impression I got was that they were two guys who gave (what I considered to be) vague information and underestimated Melissa's ability to do something with it. So, no guys, I'm not saying your actions were "silly"...

ANYWAY.

If it's all really just about advancing the plot and not having some kind of focus on a goal that you work towards... They why aren't we all just reading a book right now? It's much less driving around.

Oh yeah, interaction, reality, immersiveness...

That sort of thing.

[Holds out her stick for the next person to take a whack at the dead horse.]
_________________
"COVERED IN BEES!"
GirlInFocus
flickr

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:33 pm
Last edited by HitsHerMark on Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
KirstenS
Veteran


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 107
Location: Loveland, Ohio

 		This is an Alternate Reality Game. The whole point is to play as if we were actually living this. There's no point in playing if you're not going to pretend it's real. I believe the PMs are asking us to question our morals through Dana's blog post. Are we really willing to sacrifice a fellow human being just to appease a psychotic AI?

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:36 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 5 of 8 [108 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group