Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Here's some news that seems to be all over the internet already, but happily won't impact, well, probably any of our regular readers. However, for those of you with ties to South Korea, note that the next time you visit you might not be able to play some games in the wee hours of the day.

The Korea Herald reports that the government is going to shut down various online games for six hour windows every night, with the windows being selected from three choices by each household. Apparently, homes in Korea have unique identifiers that are used for any sort of online registration, and this will allow the central government to shutter access as the central clock ticks over to the start of the selected window.

The government in South Korea is testing the system out now on four games, with another fifteen to be included in a few months. The entire list is unclear to me at the moment, though with the nineteen total games inclusive of "79 percent of the online gaming market," it would not surprise me to find that at some point Square Enix' online entries might soon find themselves under the restriction.

Source: Korea Herald

I'll ask my girlfriend to find an article in Korean about this in the morning. Every foreigner in Korea knows their isn't a less reliable newspaper in Asia than the Korean Herald.

However, if this does have truth to it I can't see it going over well in Korea. We're talking about a culture who's parliament broke out into a fist fight in the middle of a court because a law banning free online data exchange was passed.

To be honest, I don't really see why they need this kind of thing at all. There are of course, some people who spend 90% of their lives in PC rooms, but the majority are pretty serious about making sure their children study a lot, and personally limiting the video game time their children have. This whole thing seems extremely ridiculous to me.

Also, I can't see the owners of PC rooms taking this very lightly either, as their are more PC rooms in Seoul than churches in the bible belt. Or will they just be limiting households? Last time I was in Korea the rooms were about $1 per hour. It would be pretty easy to skip the six hour void if they don't limit the PC rooms.

You said it's been all over the Internet. Are their other news groups covering it?

This post has been edited by Sephiroth on 14th April 2010 05:26

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

Quote (Sephiroth @ 14th April 2010 00:19)

You said it's been all over the Internet. Are their other news groups covering it?

Korea Times published it, as did BBC, as did a number of gaming sites like Kotaku. Have your girlfriend look it up, if you like (as I hear she's Korean), but I don't see any reason to question its validity.

I don't know, I remember some times where my own parents put limitations on my gaming twenty years ago because it was impacting my studies. I don't necessarily disagree that it should be handled at the household level rather than at the governmental level, but if even 10% or parents are neglecting their duties in this regard, then perhaps they shouldn't be trusted.

Also, I'd like to mention that the concept of renting a PC that was most recently played by a MMOer grosses me out a bit.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Rangers51 @ 14th April 2010 09:13)

I don't know, I remember some times where my own parents put limitations on my gaming twenty years ago because it was impacting my studies. I don't necessarily disagree that it should be handled at the household level rather than at the governmental level, but if even 10% or parents are neglecting their duties in this regard, then perhaps they shouldn't be trusted.

The problem is that your parents didn't use a police force to impose those rules. And if you broke those rules, you didn't get jail time. I think it is up to parents, and you can't prevent bad parenting with this type of law.

But the real problem is that they have the power to shut off the games themselves. That seems like the bigger issue that just some games that people aren't able to play. I mean, its one thing to not be able to play something when you want, but does the government really have the right to do such a thing? That's not really individual freedom. I know it's a different culture, but civil liberties should be a universal thing.

I'm not sure how much this will affect those game publishers' profit, but I would also think that they are also outraged. Because for some people there that was the only time they could play.

Overall, this just seems to be an authoritarian, foolish law.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

BlitzSage I don't think individual freedoms are universal. As far as I understand SK is a very rigidly structured society. For example the schools have a much stricter attitude to behaviour and studying, more than any other country in the world. It's understandable that a law like this would come into force in a country where the people are used to rules and regulation. Maybe they like it, I don't know, but remember with authoritarian laws comes criticism of them if they don't work how the people want, so just because it's a tough law doesn't mean it's automatically bad or undemocratic. I can't find any proof that breaking the law will result in jail time, or that it's enforced by the police. Also, it says there have been calls for such a law following a number of headlines on the issue, presumably calls from the public.

I think the law makes sense from what I've read. My interpretation is that Korean people spend so much time on online games that it's become a national issue, not just something that can be left to individuals to sort out when they're not doing so. Also as far as I know Korean people are more prone to complaining about public services, especially schools, and so if another case were to crop up where a woman left her baby to starve while taking care of an online baby, there would be a national outcry and the government would be blamed. They have to make a positive effort. I might have got this wrong but that's how I see it.

Yes, in short, the government does have the right to act in the interest of its people, even if it is denying them something that they want.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Just because it is an aspect of their society doesn't make it right. In the United States, if you're openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Our country has a strong religious background, but does that make it right? Government is instituted to protect people's liberties, and in many cases, to protect them from themselves. Should we go about with no government whatsoever, as some libertarians would wish? No, but this law does not appear to protect the people. In this case, it should be the individuals and/or the parents that decide how much time they spend on games. If you spend six hours playing instead of studying, that is called being stupid. And that's how natural selection works.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th April 2010 23:58)

Just because it is an aspect of their society doesn't make it right. In the United States, if you're openly gay, you cannot serve in the military. Our country has a strong religious background, but does that make it right? Government is instituted to protect people's liberties, and in many cases, to protect them from themselves. Should we go about with no government whatsoever, as some libertarians would wish? No, but this law does not appear to protect the people. In this case, it should be the individuals and/or the parents that decide how much time they spend on games. If you spend six hours playing instead of studying, that is called being stupid. And that's how natural selection works.

This is a much more dubious ideological line compared with discharging openly gay soldiers. It's not really fair to say that your interpretation of what's right is better than theirs in this case. Like I said before, maybe people like authoritarian governments because they are more effective and create a more stable society. Just because action is tough doesn't mean it's unaccountable and undemocratic.

I don't agree with leaving people to languish in their problems just to prove and ideological point. We all know that if you leave people to play six hours of games at night instead of sleeping they'll do worse in school, but that achieves nothing. It's not really a celebration of individual freedoms.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Well, Blitzsage, you said:

Quote

Because for some people there that was the only time they could play.

but the original post mentioned that they have a choice of three possible 6 hour windows, so I guess that wouldn't be an issue.

I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have, though. I think it's probably easy for most people to switch over their addiction to some other game to fill the gap. It should be interesting to see, though, and I hope it will have a healthy impact on people who need it. It seems the smaller democracies and republics of the world (very loosely termed here) seem to be pretty creative about what they try to achieve with their legislation, or to put it into rpg terms, with lightness comes agility .

Quote (finalalias @ 15th April 2010 19:22)

Well, Blitzsage, you said:

Quote

Because for some people there that was the only time they could play.

but the original post mentioned that they have a choice of three possible 6 hour windows, so I guess that wouldn't be an issue.

I didn't notice that. You're right, what I said is wrong. But the real problem, that the central government can shut people's internet off, is still the issue that I think is ridiculous.

Now, I agree with sweetdude, that it's not the best example of individual freedom. But nevertheless, the principle is still there. Now, I am aware that I'm about to use a slippery slope argument, but I think it sticks. Give people that amount of power, problems can occur. Complete idividual freedom can cause problems (US), so to can the opposite.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 15th April 2010 23:55

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I'd agree that this is hardly comparable actually. General sexual policy in the military could be reasoned to establish a professional atmosphere under the risky, high duress, violent, sometimes subversive, usually demanding and primal situations war is prone to. While one could say it's biased against gays, I'd suggest it might not be, as policies are in place to prevent similar situations with heterosexuality too, via the more readily identifiable means of gender segregation. While the manner of fact is that as practices of general policy these are by no means perfect ideals, one could say they're necessary evils in such an especially sensitively specialized case.

That being said, there are no interpersonal relations necessarily made with people to online games. The only person you stand to harm directly from playing an online game too much is yourself, so it's nobody else's business how much or little you play. I realize that playing games too much may leave some more prone to negligence of obligations you've set for yourself elsewhere. However the real problem there is that you're shirking off your obligation. Imposing a widespread curfew upon game playing does nothing to expressly prevent that.

In the particular case where the child had starved, it seemed like the parents weren't prepared to undertake the responsibility in the least. This is suggested by the fact that all they felt was necessary for the sustained well being of their child, was one feeding per day. Anybody holding this belief could easily distract themselves with any number of things they'd rather do than care for their actual child and lend themselves to similar incidents, provided they have the means to procrastinate. Restricting such means of procrastination is by no means going to solve the problem of negligent parenting though, as the root cause lies deeper than that. All in all, if this action is solely aimed at an outcry to deal with that one manner, I'd say the efforts are hopelessly misaimed and oppressive.

Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing.

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 16th April 2010 17:01

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48)

Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing.

America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 13:39)

Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48)

Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing.

America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others. Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives.

Exactly right. In fact, our Declaration of Independence and Constitution was basically a collection of ideas from English and French political thinkers that believed that people's rights are universal, and that a government that does not protect those rights should be abolished.

It should be noted that Article 17 of their Constitution states that "the privacy of no citizen may be infringed." Telling someone when they can indulge in a form of entertainment should be a violation of that article.

Also, not everything that is popularly supported is right. It was popular with many conservatives to restrict military access to people with a different sexual orientation. It was popular to invade Iraq, wiretap without warrants, segregate society, enslave members of society, remove Native Americans, and so on.

But it should be said that it's really not the restriction of games that is the problem. What if they decide that it wasn't video games, but the internet itself that is affecting studies or workrate? They have shown that they have the power to shut down video games, and they can shut off the rest of the internet too.

But ultimately, you're right sweetdude. I look at it and say it is wrong, but I don't live there, and the majority of South Koreans apparently have no problem with it. While I do not think that popularity judges what is right or what is just, the entire idea of democracy is to run by consensus, majority, and even popularity. I myself am often at odds with what most people here think, but I live here, and I live with it.

And with instances like what might happen with Uganda's proposed legislation, there are definitely more troubling matters regarding individual freedom than video game restriction.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 19:32)

It should be noted that Article 17 of their Constitution states that "the privacy of no citizen may be infringed." Telling someone when they can indulge in a form of entertainment should be a violation of that article.

I noticed that too. I'm not sure whether it would be in violation. Just on what's there I would say no. Protections on privacy are never the be all and end all of law. There was a major case in the European court, Laskey v UK, that dealt with whether men could agree to hurt eachother in private if they all consented, relying on a European convention and a human rights act. Just because it was in their private lives doesn't mean the law cannot affect them. I'm almost sure that SK courts would see it the same way. I mean, it's an absurdity if that article is solid base law, it means that someone watching child porn cannot be prevented on the basis that he's doing so in private, and the government cannot infringe upon his rights. The argument against this might be that child porn is much worse than games on any level, and that's true, but on the question of privacy there is no difference.

I agree that not everything popular is right. But, interestingly, you're contradicting the basic principles of civil liberties. Theoretically, if half the people in a nation want to sleep during the day and play games at night, I assume you would agree that they have the right to do so. However, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. So what's left is a crossroads where we have to decided between civil liberties and keeping a country running, for the betterment of the state and its people. It's against liberal principles to deny their rights when they aren't harming others, but liberals agree that sometimes popular opinion is very wrong. It's bizarre. I understand liberals acting to prevent harm, that's a given, but when you take out harm and still see a wrong, liberals believe that people will just learn for themselves, or they throw everything they believe out the window and act like conservatives on the issue.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 15:43)

So what's left is a crossroads where we have to decided between civil liberties and keeping a country running, for the betterment of the state and its people.

Well, that's the difficulty. It is so complex that it is hard to decide which way is right. It is the most basic civil liberty to have an opinion, but what if that opinion oppresses others? Furthermore, what if your freedoms harm others, which is often the case? I can definitely see why you objected when I used the "to each his own" argument, because it is rather primal, or Darwinistic. I mean, I even used the words natural selection to describe it. The rule of law exists to partially take away our freedoms for the good of all people.

Now, in the case of those men that consented to fight each other, what a difficult case when you think about it. One might say that both men agreed, so they basically said we'll accept the consequences, such as injury or death. But can a government allow its people to kill each other if they agree to? You might not think so, but what do you call boxing, or any other sport with violence? Isn't boxing that very agreement this case is speaking of?

But that's what it so difficult. If the Korean government is going too far with this, or if they're not, where is that line? That's an argument that has been really going on since before the Magna Carta was signed.

Edit

Even more strange, is that I was reading about the Magna Carta, and basically King John was forced to sign it. So these freedoms were brought about by force, or essentially, violating King John's freedoms as the ruler of England at the time. All of this is just too complicated.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 16th April 2010 20:22

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 21:19)

Now, in the case of those men that consented to fight each other, what a difficult case when you think about it. One might say that both men agreed, so they basically said we'll accept the consequences, such as injury or death. But can a government allow its people to kill each other if they agree to? You might not think so, but what do you call boxing, or any other sport with violence? Isn't boxing that very agreement this case is speaking of?

I don't know about anywhere else, but here consent is not a defence for assault. Boxing and sport that has rules is allowed. Even UFC has rules, although it says they don't, the big liars. Although a million die-hard liberals will complain about rights and liberties, domestic abuse victims will be glad that their partners cannot force them to say that she or he consented to the abuse, or she doesn't want her partner to go to jail so lies on her own accord. This just goes to show the same point that I hold strong to, we have to sacrifice our civil liberties for the betterment of others in society. And FWIW, the Laskey case was about sado-masochistic gay men doing truly horrible things to eachother for sexual pleasure. Look it up if you're interested... in the case.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th April 2010 21:19)

Edit

Even more strange, is that I was reading about the Magna Carta, and basically King John was forced to sign it. So these freedoms were brought about by force, or essentially, violating King John's freedoms as the ruler of England at the time. All of this is just too complicated.

Wot? So the Declaration of Independence was a violation of the King's rights too?

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 16th April 2010 21:56

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 10:39)

Quote (Tonepoet @ 16th April 2010 16:48)

Insofar as individual freedoms go, the only problem I see with them is that they're often self-conflicting. I'd say the primary role of government to provide fair grounds for when these exact instances conflict, like when somebody want to kidnap someone else. I fail to see how video games could pose any threat except that of cultural severance, in which case, it's I fail to see how it's anybody else's business, as others can still live their lives how they please. Granted, there might be some degree of cultural bias speaking here, but in this case, I feel such expectant imposition can only be a good thing.

America isn't the only country with a written consitution. Civil liberties and human rights were being codified hundreds of years before America was even discovered. Have a look for yourself. Surely, by now, we've all learned that 'expectant imposition' isn't fair, especially on the basis that you believe your culture is better and should therefore be imposed on others.

In your quoted text, I hadn't said that any of the Americas were the only place with a written constitution, nor had my claims been baselessly made. My first of my two links, if you hadn't noticed, was to the French Rights of Man. It actually quite readily tells us why imposition is often necessary in

Quote (Point 16:)

A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

Which is to say no legal system unless it can be imposed upon others, as anybody would be able to freely ignore it otherwise. Regardless of the thought's origins, this holds equally true everywhere, be it The United States, Briton, Australia or Japan unless you are to assume everybody's naturally compliant. The mere existence of criminal activity, no matter how little there is, serves as evidence that they're not.

Quote (Sweetdude")

Basically, in response to you saying that 'others can still live their lives how they please', you might want to take into account that maybe the law is popular and there have been calls by the public to make this law, and therefore it is how the people want to live their lives.

This is really quite a trickier proposition to handle, especially when believing the above to be true. The only answer I can give is that when you have belief in basic human rights, one has to recognized that they have to be protected from external threats, otherwise these rights aren't really rights at all. Sure, it may say the individual has the right to personal safety on paper and the general public may even assent to it but if nobody does anything to prevent an attacker from killing them, their mortality won't care. Similarly, are rights that can be taken away really rights at all, or are they simply privileges that the powers that be allow you to have?

With these thoughts in mind mind, one has to realize that the democratic process, however well evolved it may be, is quite imperfect like everything else. Surly there are times when even the those in power misuse it whether they have the best of intentions in mind or not. Since the public is composed of individuals, its prone to all the same fallibility as anybody else. The best way to show this is to ask a question:

What if the public wanted to have slavery? It has happened many times in the past in all manners of time period and cultures. I'd say there is certainly no justifiable reason for one person to baselessly exhibit power over another, since with all things otherwise considered, they're innately equal. It's just not a fair expectation to be had. If all people are innately equal, which we have no reason to disbelieve, no one person in this case deserves to have the servitude of the other more-so than the other way around.

With our Korean case here, the issue is kinda similar. All the person is doing by playing the game is pursuing their own personal happiness, which I now know is a right expressly allowed by article 10 of Korea's own constitution. So it's rather undeniable that even with cultural boundaries considered is "Why should the public be allowed to do this?" rather than "Why shouldn't the public be allowed to do this?" In fact unless the former of these questions is asked, I don't think there is any such thing as rights at all, for reasons I addressed above.

There might be a fairly acceptable reason here though. What I'd failed to do here is read the source article and see that the shutoff primarily applies to people who're underaged. People who from a legal viewpoint are those who have to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions, if not only because they haven't been given a fair enough chance to develop their skills at doing such. Such could be said to be a right as much as it is a demand, depending on the way you view it. I'm unsure of the slowdown portion though.

P.S. What does playing games on a publicly accessible server have to do with privacy rights? You're kinda making open declaration of your actions. This is why I don't play Wesnoth anymore, ever since they introduced the public replay archive. I just don't want everything I say in a game to be on permanent public record, regardless of its nature...

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 17th April 2010 02:00

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

But it's not fair to say either the Rights of Man or the Declaration of Independence should be binding either intellectually or legally on SK. You said you're culturally biased, and then presented two conventions, both of which SK have their own equivalent for, so maybe your cultural bias isn't unique to America. That's the point I was making. Countries can be seen as oppressive or dictatorial when laws like the one here comes into being, but that's only from your perspective. Maybe they see rights and freedoms protected, ironically, by authoritarian laws.

And, again, about popularity, you're preaching to the choir. I don't hold popularity as having any persuasive quality when deciding things. I'm just saying that liberal democracies hold people's opinions in great esteem, and are fundamentally flawed as a result.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 22:42)

And, again, about popularity, you're preaching to the choir. I don't hold popularity as having any persuasive quality when deciding things. I'm just saying that liberal democracies hold people's opinions in great esteem, and are fundamentally flawed as a result.

Well, yes, but all nations share that problem, because all of them are created through the consensus of the people. If SK believes in this, then that's the consensus of the people.

Quote

Wot? So the Declaration of Independence was a violation of the King's rights too?

Yes, we betrayed England by declaring independence. We as colonies were not allowed representation, so we broke English law to create our own country. But I do guess rights or freedoms are not the correct words, perhaps priviliges of authority is better.

But I agree that it is wrong to hold their wishes to yours as if they're better or worse. You or I, or any of us might do things differently, but they are in this case acting in the interests of their people.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th April 2010 19:42)

But it's not fair to say either the Rights of Man or the Declaration of Independence should be binding either intellectually or legally on SK. You said you're culturally biased, and then presented two conventions, both of which SK have their own equivalent for, so maybe your cultural bias isn't unique to America. That's the point I was making. Countries can be seen as oppressive or dictatorial when laws like the one here comes into being, but that's only from your perspective. Maybe they see rights and freedoms protected, ironically, by authoritarian laws.

There are some rather good points made there which I cannot deny. The right to sovereignty is indeed quite important because being distanced from the situation, we cannot know the totality of factors that apply with it nor can we purport to know what will necessarily make the people of Korea happiest. For all I know they could be suffering from more pressing issues like electrical shortages or cases of severe internet dropouts, in which case electronic media is of secondary concern to people's daily livelihood. People cannot be brought to harm just for the sake of another's leisure.

Another factor to take into consideration is that some things that seem morally abhorrent aren't innately so but rather are so due to the dissent of the effected. In our scenario here, as crazy as it sounds, MMORPG players might want something like this as a sort of fair play law. Why? To throttle the rate at which other characters level-up in their game of choice. The ill-effects of having a game community of disjointed effectuality could be detrimental and falling behind the curb may not be so appealing a prospect. Yet all players still have to sleep and may struggle with themselves between making the choice of doing so or keeping up with everybody else. By throttling the amount of time by which all players are able to play, a person faced with such poor prospects is free to enjoy the benefits of both sleep and adequate levels to play with their peers, theoretically anyway.

I may this theoretical line of reasoning both doubtful and anti-competitive but then again it isn't necessarily any of my or anybody else's business what multiple largely assenting parties so choose to do. For these reasons the rights to independent sovereignty are indeed quite important since the other societies should theoretically know what's best and most desirable for them and their people, whilst not needing to meddle in our affairs. By allowing for the most diverse rule-set that is possibly compatible with societal bonds, you may achieve optimal states of happiness for all, which can only be a good thing.

However on a solely intellectual level, abuse is still abuse no matter where it happens. This means anybody believing in these liberally democratic constitutions will feel some level of empathy on the behalf of those who they'd consider abused. To say the ideals of other cultures need not apply elsewhere somewhat neglects this basic sense of human compassion. Legally speaking these thoughts shouldn't be necessarily applied unless a great need arises but moralistically to expect basic standards to be upheld is rather fundamental. This sort of thought is a major part of the political atmosphere today and are a large portion of why we have things like the United Nations and the Geneva Convention today (whether they work or not ). I'd also like to add that this is entirely a two way street; I'm sure every culture does some things that the others would find absolutely abhorrent as well, due to certain levels of values dissonance.

With this in mind and the fact that abuse of power exists, we have to ask ourselves then, we must ask ourselves a few questions: "Just what constitutes this abuse of power to be begin with?" "What doesn't?" and "Why?" While I cannot speak for others, my own simplified barometer for this is rather a simple one. Essentially the party who's effected most drastically by any said policy, should be the one able to veto such changes with their rights, unless they've indicated otherwise with their actions. This is primarily because they're the party which to which the other is most seemingly nonexistent to the other and the last time I checked, the nonexistent could not be manipulated, made requests of or relied upon.

Now the exact specifics behind which party this is may be vary greatly upon the situation and sometimes compromise is necessary. However, at least since the last time I checked, fictional entertainment media in particular never had a directly profound effect upon any non-participant's lives. So with the situation as it's presented to me currently, it'd lean more towards the side of discomforting. This goes especially so since I'm a video game player who likes to indulge in a bit of late night playing myself. There are many interesting people I'd just not simply be able to have met or play with or meet if I had to bar myself from any particular time slot while playing Wesnoth. I really should look more into this manner though.

Quote (Sweetdude)

And, again, about popularity, you're preaching to the choir. I don't hold popularity as having any persuasive quality when deciding things.

Ah yes. Quite sorry about that. I'd been going back and forth between that post quite consistently and once I'd seen the issue had already been addressed, the thought was quite integral to making it a fully comprehensive thought. It's quite important for such a pertinent ideological discussion, I'd think.

Also errant thought on a new tangent: The people who stay up 24+ hours playing an MMORPG are the most likely to be longest term customers, don't you think? I wonder how many months and/or years this'll add to the obsessive compulsives who just simply must max out every level, every spell, every stat and the whole list of ultimate accessories? Maybe there was some lobbying on Gravity Corp's behalf?

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 18th April 2010 18:13

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (Rangers51 @ 14th April 2010 08:13)

Quote (Sephiroth @ 14th April 2010 00:19)

You said it's been all over the Internet. Are their other news groups covering it?

Korea Times published it, as did BBC, as did a number of gaming sites like Kotaku. Have your girlfriend look it up, if you like (as I hear she's Korean), but I don't see any reason to question its validity.

I didn't mean to sound like I didn't believe any of the story, but the Korea Herald is know for it's vast fabrications of the truth, and lack of quality control. Not that I didn't think anything like this restriction was actually happening, it's just that I would prefer to read the story from a more reliable source so that I can get more accurate details. If I came off sounding rude, that certainly was not my intention.

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

No worries, but even the garbage papers get it right sometimes. Good thing to keep in mind whatever country you're in.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?