But of course you cannot seperate the two. You do not suddenly turn into another person that has no affect on your real person when you log on. Like I said, I would never ever kill a miner or missioner UNLESS they are in enemy corporation I'm in war with and thus it's part of agreed combat. And how can you say there are no real consenquenses, each player devotes his time, which is the single most valuable asset any human has to this game, and you can bet the missioneer who lost his brand new cnr because you felt the kill mail would look nice does not feel good.

Sure, that was a gross exaggeration but I think it's kinda scarey how people stop being moral just because they and the other guy are anonymous.

Well, thats you. Some of us others what to be something we aren't in real life. I believe they call it escapism.

Because e-honor is a sack of **** created by carebears so pirates could have morals, If i was a immortal space ship flying pirate IRL i would not give a **** about "morals"

Well, maybe if they stopped complaining about how the rules made them lose and actually showed the trait of sportsmanship called being a good loser, the tears wouldn't be around any moreGǪ

The fun thing about people doing it GÇ£for tearsGÇ¥ is that they're so ridiculously easy to win against.

If I decide that I want to gank a miner, I would go and find a miner and gank him, I would even possibly offer a ransom or something but I would do it in game terms, I would make it seem like something that would exist in the game setting.

What I would not do is tell them that I love listening to them complain and that it makes me want to do it more, I would not go on the forums and act like I am some sort of anarchist messiah who "gets EVE", I would not go out of my way to make other players think I want them to not have fun anymore.

I will say it again, I do not care about illicit actions in EVE, I do care when players take it too far and go out of their way to hurt other players or just make them want to quit.

Point is, tis a natural thing to enjoy making others suffer, deal with it.

EDIT: Also, Genghis Khan was a badass, and you would do well to listen to advice he gave.

In the societies of any social creature, it is the dominant male who gets to mate, and therefore, produce offspring. .

Anyone who isn't a member of the church of Scientology or a creationist should realize that all humans are animals. As all humans are animals, they are driven by animal reflexes at their core (Humans do give into their basic instincts much more than some animals, as much as we like to feel we do not.) . It is therefore foolish to argue that humans are unaffected by the drive of their ancestors.

I left my caring bag at home.

No, I think people should not advertise such things in a game that is know to mercilessly exploit any weakness. When people advertise such things, they are saying 'Please be nice to me, I'm fragile' which is not something you want to say in Eve. We are not nice people.

Also, if someone did such a thing to me, I would not go crying, I would set about destroying them. Thats kinda the point of the lack of morality in eve. If someone wrongs you, hit them back.

I have seen people, professional people in position of real power, use the death of a rivals loved one to tear them down within the company. Was it nice? No. Was it moral? Questionable, most businessmen will tell you there is no morality in business. Was it legal? Yes, it was.

Don't think because something isn't 'nice' that its wrong.

Just contract all your stuff over to me before you unsub.

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true. "



Socrates(BC 469-BC 399) Greek philosopher of Athens

Exactly.

There is no such thing as morality because it is all relative to your own beliefs, one mans opinion is another mans argument..

What you believe to be imoral, would be to a "greifer" (who's the greifer? the one killing someone or the one telling him not to?) acceptable social behaviour.

Socrates understood this thousands of years ago.

I dissagree, people only "understand" right and wrong because they are told and brought up to believe this and that is right or wrong, case in example, in the UK a person is deemed old enough to have intercourse at 16, although under 18 it is still frowned upon by some people, in some of the "less developed" countries children are expected to have been married and produced their first child by the time they are 15. Which is wrong moraly? Either side would argue hteir case qith equal conviction. It's all to do with perception and how you are tought to behave.

Exactly, in our culture we have been lead to believe that, in other cutlures it has been bred into them differently, they have one moral code and we have another. The concept of right or wrong is different depending on your perspective and how you have been trained to think. but even within the same cultures there are discrepencies in what we think is morally acceptable. which is exactly what Socrates was trying to say, a moral code is only as moral as it is perceived by the individual.

Granted there are certain moral prohibitions that are almost universal to a degree, but they only have that status because they have been bred into us over hundreds of generations, if those who set the precident originaly perceived things differently then we would have different morals today, which is why there is so much difference in the way that we all perceive morality on a general basis.