Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
William Pierce
Caldari Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 23:14:00 -
[31]
Interesting question, I'll be thinking about it.
And if I ever become a pirate I'll probably spend a good amount of time doing ransoms in this way, just so I can see what people do.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 00:48:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle That does not make you a victim any more that loosing any other competitive activity.
No, but in the context of a pirate attack I think it is fair the call the guy being shot at the 'victim'.
Originally by: Cpt Tackle why is OK to break a promise about paying ransom later but it is not OK to break a promise about letting someone go after ransom is payed?
Because it isn't about honesty, ethics or honour, as previously discussed. -
Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know! |
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:00:00 -
[33]
Originally by: N'tek alar I don't really know about the chances of it being honored generally as i don't normally do it.
That said, I did allow a target to pay half at the time of ransoming and half later as he claimed not to be able to afford the ransom for his hulk.
Couple days later the second half dropped into my wallet, Just as he promised.
I wonder if your target has a pirate alt/main.
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:07:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Cpt Tackle why is OK to break a promise about paying ransom later but it is not OK to break a promise about letting someone go after ransom is payed?
Because it isn't about honesty, ethics or honour, as previously discussed.
What is it about then?
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:14:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle What is it about then?
Profit. -
Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know! |
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:22:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Cpt Tackle What is it about then?
Profit.
If it is all about profit, you'd think it would make sense not to encourage people to simply blow you up instead of negotiating?
|
Lt Forge
Pilots From Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:25:00 -
[37]
Some things are only applicable in real life, some things only in EVE.
Taking someone hostage in real life, letting them go in order to make them pay often works. However in EVE it doesn't work at all, for the exception of some bad dumb eggs. _________________
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:32:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle If it is all about profit, you'd think it would make sense not to encourage people to simply blow you up instead of negotiating?
That depends on the specifics of the situation. Anyway, this isn't about paying or getting blown up, it's about paying after you are freed. -
Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know! |
Sir Carnage
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 02:20:00 -
[39]
I love how you pick and choose. Seriously, taking lines out of context and addressing them however you please is just pathetic. Why not address what was actually written.
Just admit that you are looking for people to agree with you. We all know you were stupid enough to let someone go like this, otherwise the question would not have come up. support the parrot
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 02:29:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 02:35:14
Originally by: Sir Carnage I love how you pick and choose. Seriously, taking lines out of context and addressing them however you please is just pathetic. Why not address what was actually written.
Once again, look who is talking.
Seriously, post your Blatant Sophistics on some other forum or go back to your cave already, will you? You are obviously outmatched since you are resorting to personal attacks instead of logical (albeit circular) reasoning.
|
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Squirrel Team
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 04:05:00 -
[41]
There is no honor among thieves.
I guess what I don't understand is that you can "give money" to anyone while in space. If someone does not give you the ransom on the spot, they don't have the money.
MY analogy...you (pirate) are a gunslinger running around the wild western 19th Century US. You come across a scruffy miner (victim) digging up gold on land claimed by the Apaches (NPCs) as their homeland. You put a gun to his head and demand money. He has a couple of nuggets on him, but says that he has much more back at his cabin. If you kill him you can just take the nuggets. You tell him you'll let him go, but he has to bring back a big bag of nuggets. He agrees. You wait in the woods, holding your...gun.
Who's the 'bad guy?' Seriously, as someone stated previously...when you disabled him, he was the potential victim. As soon as you let him go, YOU became the potential victim.
This is fun! MOM...look at me o/
KB
=vinur allra manna
My blogs: Tastes Like Chicken EvE Meta-Gaming |
Sir Carnage
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 04:57:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 03:05:08 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 02:42:30 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 02:39:42 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 02:37:05 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 25/04/2010 02:35:14
Originally by: Sir Carnage I love how you pick and choose. Seriously, taking lines out of context and addressing them however you please is just pathetic. Why not address what was actually written.
Once again, look who is talking.
Seriously, post your Blatant Sophistics on some other forum or go back to your cave already, will you? You are obviously outmatched as you are resorting to personal attacks as a substitute for logical (albeit circular) reasoning.
One a more serious note, I am not going to waste time studying a logical structure that is based on an obviously incorrect assumption/interpretation. You can only have have a meaningful discussion if you actually understand what the other person is saying.
Also, you may want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
At what point did I take something out of context? Go ahead, point it out. Also, please point out the fallacy. The so called personal attack was an attack on your argument being based on taking things out of context in order to make them seem like something they weren't. Now, you're resorting to a Red Herring.
Every response you give is a fallacy. Heck, your initial set of premises for your argument were based on an assumption that Eve, a game based around economics where you join corporations and fight each other for the sake of profit, would not be a Hobbesian, Egoist universe with profit at its core. This isn't More's, Rouseau's, Voltaire's, nor any other benevolent, virtue ethicist's world. It is materialist, if anything. The so called moral dilemma you propose does not exist in Hobbes' Egoism. Heck, even this ethical system doesn't really belong as it is just a game. A game based on profit.
Acting like I don't understand that you're trying to apply something akin to a universal syllogism about lying to a released hostage not paying a ransom and how it's in some way comparable to dishonoring a paid ransom, which it isn't, just boggles the mind. The only similarity between the two situations is that the parties involved are the same.
Since you persist to assign real world values to a video game I'll go ahead and use a hypothetical real world situation that would correlate. Arguing that the two situations in Eve are similar is like saying that committing armed robbery and being robbed at gun point are similar. If you rob somebody at gun point, and they tell to you that if you let them go they'll mail you a check, would you expect to ever see that check? However, if you're being robbed at gun point, your options are limited. Let's say he catches you at an atm and tells you to withdrawal all your money or he'll kill you. You can believe him and give him the money, or you can expect that he'll kill you anyways and tell him to "eat my guns" as it were. Now, in this situation, outside of a purely egoistic, profit driven system, where is the morality issue residing? I don't know about you, but I'm going to have to put that on the guy doing the robbing.
But let's not end there. Let's say this is an area that, if you go to, you should expect to be robbed at an atm. This time, however, it's known that there's an almost 100% chance that you're dead anyways. In this situation, do you give the robber the money? Now here's the same thing, but almost 100% of the time, when money is given over, they let you go. What do you do now?
Now, let's say you're the one being robbed. Do either of the previous two situations fit yours? Are they in anyway similar to your situation? support the parrot
|
Sir Carnage
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 05:06:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Sir Carnage on 25/04/2010 05:10:00 Now, let's say you were a staunch Deontologist. In this case, yes, this would be a breach of a universal maxim, however, Kant did talk about major and minor laws through the universal maxim. I'm pretty sure that the act that precedes the ransoming would be viewed as a far greater breach than not paying that ransom. Also, as a Deontologist, you probably shouldn't be attacking and ransoming others to begin with.
As for its application in virtue ethics you're looking at a similar situation, but not paying that ransom would not be seen as unethical in any way.
And as I already stated, Egoism doesn't recognize morality anyways and would be the only system that could even be remotely applied to Eve. So again I come to my previous statement, The conflict between hono(u)ring and dishono(u)ring of ransoms by the party doing the ransoming is one purely based on the economics of it and has nothing to do with an ethical system of morality.
Edit: oh, and again, everything above here is moot anyways as it's a game. A game about profit. The fact that you believed somebody would pay you a ransom afterwords is your own fault. There is no double standard to be addressed as there is no similarity in the two situations, and it's a game. support the parrot
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 05:08:00 -
[44]
Couldn't be arsed to read the thread but ima chime in anyway. AFAIK, carebears or 'victims' are the most twofaced dishonourable people i know. Sure they go on about how pirates and stuff are all bad but let them go on the promise that they'll pay the ransom when they sc**** some cash together... and you'll never hear from them again.
HYpocrites the lot of them and soz i IZ drunk cat
Originally by: salva dore Cloak should not be AFK solution. What do you think?
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 05:29:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Sir Carnage Also, please point out the fallacy.
Well... I guess you are going to say that I took this out of context as well. But here you go:
Mostly it is "Straw Man" as in purposely misinterpreting and then refuting someone's statement. "Demanding negative proof" is pretty high on the list -- you want me to prove things, but you did not provide a single shred of proof yourself. Ah yes, most importantly it is "Argument from repetition".
|
Sir Carnage
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 06:03:00 -
[46]
I'm pretty sure I've laid out my argument fairly effectively and have even gone so far as to include examples, name the ethical systems, explain at least a small portion of them, given enough information to allow anyone to research my argument further if they're unfamiliar with the ethical systems involved, and I've shown why your argument is invalid given the false premises necessary to make it valid, that being your equating two dissimilar things. Demanding negative proof would mean that I didn't provide an argument, with support, to the contrary (which I did) and then required you to prove yours (which you haven't). Straw man would mean I misrepresented your argument. I haven't, I showed that your argument included false premises (you left them out, we call these smuggled premises) and was invalid. I used my argument, with easily available support, to prove that your conclusion was wrong. These are two separate issues and I addressed them both. Finally, your assertion that it's an argument from repetition is just you trying to get away from your own post because, I suspect, you lack the ability to admit that maybe you posted as an emotional response what you thought was right at the time. support the parrot
|
N'tek alar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 08:26:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle
Originally by: N'tek alar I don't really know about the chances of it being honored generally as i don't normally do it.
That said, I did allow a target to pay half at the time of ransoming and half later as he claimed not to be able to afford the ransom for his hulk.
Couple days later the second half dropped into my wallet, Just as he promised.
I wonder if your target has a pirate alt/main.
Who knows :p
I was just happy to see the second half at the time as i didn't expect him to actually come through with it, At the time i figured even if i only got half the amount i asked for it would still be better than whatever loot would drop.
Of course this was something like two years ago, Never tried it again. It was still nice to see that some people do stick to their word when they give it. ------------------------- I'm not shirtless damnit! |
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 08:56:00 -
[48]
Cpt Tackle your question has been answered by multiple people you just keep ignoring the answer. Honoring ransoms is a part of a business model that many pirates choose to adopt. It is about how people choose to play eve.
1: As a pirate I do not want the nearby high sec local to read "TOW just podded me after I paid the ransom" as I want to ransom the locals. I would rather read "TOW just popped my mission runner and ransomed by pod".
2: I enjoy the game more playing this way
I'm not sure what successful business model involves letting people go and then expecting them to pay a ransom. Doesn't sound much fun from a gaming perspective either.
You seem to suffering from a serious case of "I can't see the forest for all the trees!" Either that or this is a really dumb troll.
|
seany1212
Stylo Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 09:28:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Yakov Draken Cpt Tackle your question has been answered by multiple people you just keep ignoring the answer. Honoring ransoms is a part of a business model that many pirates choose to adopt. It is about how people choose to play eve.
1: As a pirate I do not want the nearby high sec local to read "TOW just podded me after I paid the ransom" as I want to ransom the locals. I would rather read "TOW just popped my mission runner and ransomed by pod".
2: I enjoy the game more playing this way
I'm not sure what successful business model involves letting people go and then expecting them to pay a ransom. Doesn't sound much fun from a gaming perspective either.
You seem to suffering from a serious case of "I can't see the forest for all the trees!" Either that or this is a really dumb troll.
Really dumb troll, hes dragged it out 47 more posts than it should have been, there should not be a situation where this occurs, if there is then you have one really dumb pirate
You guys make squeeky noises when you pop, and that's enough motivation as far as I'm concerned. |
Arvano
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 11:21:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 23:03:59 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 23:01:34
Originally by: Arvano You're the one being a C word in the first place by demanding they pay you not to kill them, so if they don't honour a payment after you let them go they aren't dishonouring anything, they're simply carrying on about their business now that the threat is gone.
No double standard there.
FYI I am not a C(arebear)
I didn't mean carebear, I meant ****, and I wasn't referring to you personally, just in general. The person demanding the ransom is the only one doing wrong in this situation, so when ransom is demanded, no matter how the event may transpire, no matter what the person being extorted does, the pirate is still the only party doing something wrong.
|
|
Prostheir
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 15:47:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Prostheir on 25/04/2010 15:51:17 Edited by: Prostheir on 25/04/2010 15:50:47 A crow watches a fox chase a hare.
After a few hours without success, the fox abandons the chase, and lets the hare escape.
As he trots back to his den, the crow mocks, "What's that say about a fox, outrun by a hare?"
Over his shoulder, the fox replied, "It says I was running for my dinner, he was running for his life."
-Some Greek Dude
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 16:00:00 -
[52]
Originally by: N'tek alar . It was still nice to see that some people do stick to their word when they give it.
...or at least don't break their word just to avoid paying a few ISK.
|
N'tek alar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 16:12:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Cpt Tackle
Originally by: N'tek alar . It was still nice to see that some people do stick to their word when they give it.
...or at least don't break their word just to avoid paying a few ISK.
Fair enough :p ------------------------- I'm not shirtless damnit! |
Shaedyn
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 16:21:00 -
[54]
If no one ever honoured ransoms, people would stop paying. That's why they need to be honoured. I only payed ransom twice but I only did that because I've heard EVE pirates often honour them. If I had no heard that I would have laughed in his face.
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 22:37:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Arvano
I didn't mean carebear, I meant ****, and I wasn't referring to you personally, just in general. The person demanding the ransom is the only one doing wrong in this situation, so when ransom is demanded, no matter how the event may transpire, no matter what the person being extorted does, the pirate is still the only party doing something wrong.
So if someone wrongs your character in some way -- no matter how minor, then anything goes when it comes to retaliation?
|
Drendel
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 00:21:00 -
[56]
Why people pay ransom ill never understand. I've never payed and never will. But to answer your question tricking any thief out of taking your money or in this case isk is far better then stealing it in the first place.
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 00:51:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Drendel But to answer your question tricking any thief out of taking your money or in this case isk is far better then stealing it in the first place.
Unless you stole it (as in taking something that does not have you name on it) yourself.
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 01:04:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Drendel Why people pay ransom ill never understand. I've never payed and never will. But to answer your question tricking any thief out of taking your money or in this case isk is far better then stealing it in the first place.
whether or not to pay the ransom is more of a financial issue.. (taking my pov, i only ransom ships, since my lock speed isn't good enough for pods)..
if your ship + mods + rigs is worth more than the ransom amount, then why not? it will save you $$$. however, if you're ship is worth less, then !@#$ it.
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 01:12:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Feng Schui
if your ship + mods + rigs is worth more than the ransom amount, then why not? it will save you $$$. however, if you're ship is worth less, then !@#$ it.
You don't understand. Everything valuable in low sec is his and we have no right to interfeer when he takes it. It is a matter of principle and all that.
|
Cpt Tackle
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 02:07:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Sir Carnage I'm pretty sure I've laid out my argument fairly effectively and have even gone so far as to include examples, name the ethical systems, explain at least a small portion of them, given enough information to allow anyone to research my argument further if they're unfamiliar with the ethical systems involved, and I've shown why your argument is invalid given the false premises necessary to make it valid, that being your equating two dissimilar things.
Your logical reasoning was very interesting and educational. The only thing that i really objected to is that you based it on a claim that I projected real world values onto EVE universe even though I did everything i could to point out that all my reasoning is from character's perspective -- as opposed to player.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |