Forums » General
Intentionally doing nothing to discourage harassment is the same as encouraging it. Anti-regulation positions are often selfish and ignorant of the greater good. And this is a serious issue -- people made bomb threats over this -- people in SUPPORT of retaining the right to cyberbully. That's a stark reminder of the danger cyberbullying poses: there are those who don't recognize a limit, specifically they see no difference between harassing someone in a video game and harassing someone in real life. Leaving cyberbullying unchecked fertilizes and cultivates this dangerous mentality and has risks that extend far beyond video games.
That said, to me it seems the prospect of effectively regulating online games (or other venues) for cyberbullying is just as feasible and realistic as the prospect of instructing every person on sensitivity training (i.e. learning to ignore/resist detractors). And even if either of those two things did happen, it doesn't really address the real problem, which is people behaving badly without accountability.
That said, to me it seems the prospect of effectively regulating online games (or other venues) for cyberbullying is just as feasible and realistic as the prospect of instructing every person on sensitivity training (i.e. learning to ignore/resist detractors). And even if either of those two things did happen, it doesn't really address the real problem, which is people behaving badly without accountability.
"Should people who publicly harassed others in online games be allowed to have a voice on a panel discussing the subject? Seems absurd really."
Depends. In general, people should be allowed to defend themselves. Just because one group calls something harassment doesn't mean that another group shouldn't be allowed to say, "No it is not!"
Now, if individuals can be shown to have committed or condoned real-world harassment (swatting, threats, etc.) then yeah, they should be denied the ability to participate. Of course, if somebody can be shown to have made bomb threats or whatever, they probably have bigger issues to worry about than whether they'll be allowed on a panel.
"Intentionally doing nothing to discourage harassment is the same as encouraging it."
Intentionally doing nothing to discourage politeness is the same as encouraging it.
Depends. In general, people should be allowed to defend themselves. Just because one group calls something harassment doesn't mean that another group shouldn't be allowed to say, "No it is not!"
Now, if individuals can be shown to have committed or condoned real-world harassment (swatting, threats, etc.) then yeah, they should be denied the ability to participate. Of course, if somebody can be shown to have made bomb threats or whatever, they probably have bigger issues to worry about than whether they'll be allowed on a panel.
"Intentionally doing nothing to discourage harassment is the same as encouraging it."
Intentionally doing nothing to discourage politeness is the same as encouraging it.
damn you rin, stop changing your posts
Intentionally doing nothing to discourage politeness is the same as encouraging it.
Discouraging good behavior is not something we do in our society.
Since you retracted your hitler trope I have nothing else to add, lol.
Discouraging good behavior is not something we do in our society.
Since you retracted your hitler trope I have nothing else to add, lol.
Discouraging good behavior is not something we do in our society.
Actually, deep down our psyche doesn't encourage good behavior. For instance, why do you think girls go after the jerks? Why do nice guys always finish last?
Actually, deep down our psyche doesn't encourage good behavior. For instance, why do you think girls go after the jerks? Why do nice guys always finish last?
Why do nice guys always finish last?
They're letting her get off first?
They're letting her get off first?
Funny, but you know what I mean. Niceness just doesn't mesh well with natural selection. Our most primal instinct is to simply survive.