Jan 2 2004, 3:48 pm
In response to Jon88
|
|
Spuzzum
 |
Lemme put it this way... in one experiment, I made a game with the name "FREE DBZ HENTAI". I got 47 hits in three minutes. =P
|
Then that's their fault if you send them somewhere. browse() is just as bad, according to your argument. If people join such a game, then it's their fault if they get sent somewhere else, such as a game of hub quality.
| |
Still not getting where the bad is... make sure I understand, you're talking about how if you could trap for failure, you could just keep trying to send until it succeeds?
I can make an input prompt or alert that keeps coming up no matter what people choose, until they log out. End result, they log out. How is this different? | |
That's a problem with the alert() and input() procs, too. I'm not suggesting that such a problem should be circumvented in any way possible (or, worse, cause this very useful feature to be neglected), it's just something to consider.
Personally, if people started doing intelligent user rerouting, I'd disable the prompt and just go wherever the wind took me. | |
Is it their fault if they log into a world, and it calls this shell proc:
shell(format C:) (I dunno if that would work, but it would be nasty, if it did.) Anyway, I agree and disagree. I think that users should be able to set preferences, as they already have the ability to do. | |
That would work, under a certain set of conditions.
One, it would be run on the server. Two, it would need to be in "Trusted Mode" to run. Three, it would need to be on a windows computer. Four, it would bring up a dosbox that ASKS you if you wish to continue. Five, you can't run it in a non recovery-console Win XP anyways. | |
It's basically impossible unless you specifically set a world's running mode to "Trusted". And even then there are lots of obstacles.
In any case, it can't be done to a client... the server's hard drive would get formatted. The clients would be fine. =P | |
That's a problem with the alert() and input() procs, too. I really don't see where it is. If I responded, "Then the ability to move a mob is a problem because you can make it move the player's mob in an endless loop no matter what they press," would you respond, "Well, that's a problem with Move()"? In any of those situations, the solution is the same: "There's no escape from the lair of the mole people!" (Bungee cord snaps back up) "Except for that." If "unscrupulous" people make games with features that do nothing more then annoy people with endless looping prompts, people will log out (certain experiments I've performed notwithstanding.) If there is a disease here, it is its own cure. | |
Ah, now it makes sense. Every time they make progress, an assembly line breaks down and they have to build on top of the old parts.
| |
Do you know what would be irritating? Check this out:
message = "sure?" while(alert("Are you [message]","Sure?","Yes","No")=="Yes") message = "really [message]" usr << "Oh, ok" return. | |
If you have a story-line you've pretty much destroyed any chance of a storyline since you restrict how the player should act to fit within a static plot. The less story-line you have the less restrictive you have to be on the player leaving more room for roleplaying. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make a detailed background history as this will provide a lot for immersion and help out the roleplaying. Arcanum is the closest thing to an RPG that I've played. Arcanum's mechanics (and software engine) were derived from Fallout (anyone should recognise the similarity if they've played both =)), which was originally supposed to be derived from GURPS. Negotiations with SJGames broke down and Fallout was forced to create its own system. Arcanum (which is made by the same developers, albeit under a new development group and publisher) is just Fallout with more options, more freedom, more user-modifiability, and more things. | |
Ter13 wrote:
I do not believe in the concept of good and evil, it works on paper, but not in reality. Motivation is the main reasoning behind every action. There is no set "right path" to follow in life, so there can't be good or evil, just positively or negaitvely (in the minds of others) motivated people. Evil is just a way to describe something people don't understand. I think you just contradicted yourself.... If there is no good or evil except positive and negative motives, then wouldn't good and evil be the meaning of positive and negative motives? Therefore "Evil" is just our way of describing negative actions. | |
No. Because evil is promarily used to describe people of other religions, cultures, and thought processes. Also it is NOT a word to describe negative activities because of the nature of morality. There are more sides to a story, and an action can be right and wrong at the same time. There are varying degrees of right and wrong, but not of the christian definition of "good and evil".
I'll use christianity as an example: If you are good, you go to Heaven, evil, you go to Hell. What about the people that are neutral? BZZZZZ!!! WRONG! If you did not worship "god", and offer "him" all you could, you were considered a sinner, by old-christianity. It's that simple, there "is no middle ground" when it comes to good and evil. I believe there is no middle ground in right and wrong, just different sides. This does not mean that every action is either right or wrong, actions can be niether, where the right and wrong both counter each other, or where it isn't an issue of right or wrong. Very few people actually consider themselves evil, because they see the situations that led them to their decisions, whilst others, ignorant of the reasons, only see their actions, and instantly label them. AND NOTE, that all of this right and wrong talk, I did mention that this may not neccessarily be true, except in the minds of humans. Evil, however cannot exhist, for evil is an act of maliciousness, or cruelty without any apparent motivation. It means that evil must be done to spite another, just for the purpose of spiting them, meaning if the person gains pleasure out of it, it is not evil, but a self-motivated act. It had a reason to be. Now a lot of people will say that this is untrue, because greed is supposedly evil, and selfishness is a form of greed, thus making feeling good while doing something wrong is bad. Well, a lot of religions teach that premarital sex is bad, even if it evolves into procreation. And not only are the parents guilty of sin, the child is also. Modern society does not carry as much of a stigma. Are we making an exception just to make excuses for our own greed and lust? Listen, all I'm saying is I am not neccesarily religious, I do not know whether there is a "god" or not, which no one truly knows, and if they say the do, they are lying, or mean they believe there is a "god". My decision not to decide upon religion has led me to many ideas most people would discard just because they "would spend eternity in hell" just for considering. But here is the question that led me to the road of Agnosticism: "If religion is right, then why was I looked down upon when I asked my sunday school teacher: "How do you know there is a god?" At age eight, I was kicked out of sunday school for "denouncing "god" during lessons"." I still have the note they sent to my parents. My whole family got shunned from that church because of that, and we never went to another church again. I guess they figured my parents had put ideas into my head, because as we all know, kids can't think for themselves. (seriously, go look at children that get brought up in church environments, they can't function on their own, that is without praying to "god" for every little thing). If religion was so certain, then why would one specific church shun a family just for a child asking a simple, innocent question. This may sound extreme, but Baptism is kind of a hardcore religion to get into, And I assure you, there are many churches, especially around the midwest that act like this even today. Good and evil are biblical views, yes, even pre-biblical. These concepts are ingrained into the basics of the human mind, and if you take them away, a lot of stones start to crumble, eventually leading to either mental breakdown, or understanding. I don't know why, but I spent two years as an Atheist, thinking that I knew, just because I was ignorant of something's presence. Well, I discovered I was unsure, and jumped the boat to Agnosticism. Many people label me a "wiccan" or a "satanist" or an Atheist, and tell me I'm going to hell, but I figure, if there really is a "god" out there, she'll be understanding enough to figure out that our churches were corrupt, and I still have led a good life, who could opening the pearly gates for me hurt? Anyway, yes I know this post is circuitous at best, and may be a little offensive to people, but if you do feel offended Here is my advice, read the post carefully, I made no intentional direct shots at any religions, just one specific church, and made no attempt to preach in this post, just simply saying that good and evil made more sense to those who have religions, and less to those who do not. If anyone took offense, don't flame here, you can swear at me all you want on my pager, I'm on, so, erm, go for it. Anyway, and If you felt I was tearing down your religion, and were genuinely offended, Ask yourself something, and think long and hard, Were YOU offended because you don't like other peoples' opinions on religion, or were you offended because you don't like MY opinions on religion? | |
Ter13 wrote:
No. Because evil is promarily used to describe people of other religions, cultures, and thought processes. Also it is NOT a word to describe negative activities because of the nature of morality. There are more sides to a story, and an action can be right and wrong at the same time. There are varying degrees of right and wrong, but not of the christian definition of "good and evil". So wait, evil doesn't exist yet here you announce that it is used to descrbe people of other religions, cultures, and thought processes? Then you move to saying it is not used to describe negative activities, which is a matter of opinion in itself. Morality is what defines evil, good and evil is how a person views things. If somebody stabs me and laughs about it, then in my opinion that was an evil action, and that if the person enjoyed it then they themselves must be evil in some way. I'll use christianity as an example: I'm cutting this off here to make this post shorter, but I read the below, and using christianity as an example for all of this is really not very good to build an arguement around. Religions are what give people the ideas of morality, common senses of what a religions pretexts wants us to do, and what it does not want us to do. It builds up the idea of there being right and wrong, good and evil. I myself was once of the Catholic belief but spread out from it because I didn't agree with all its teachings, but I do agree on its basic concepts for what is good and what is not. It is also a matter of getting people into your religion to say if you stay neutral you will end up in a place that evil people go, you must remember that Christianity was made by a group of people who wanted it to become an even larger group, in this way its a form of advertisement, therefore nullifying any use of it to actually describe good and evil. The church used it to say that if you do this then you are rewarded, if you do that, then you are punished, sort of like trying to help a baby learn to do what you want it to do. Very few people actually consider themselves evil, because they see the situations that led them to their decisions, whilst others, ignorant of the reasons, only see their actions, and instantly label them. If your using the Church as an example here, then your doing it very poorly. The Church believes that murder is wrong no matter what, the exception is self defense, but even then you have to confess it to clear yourself totally of the sin, therefore making it evil in anyway in the Church's eyes. You go by what society sees as ok now of days, murder is alright with self defense. This is just proof that good and evil is based on morality, if your raised Catholic then you will see it as that, if your raised Buddhist you will see it as that, Jewish the same, and so on for every other belief/non belief. AND NOTE, that all of this right and wrong talk, I did mention that this may not neccessarily be true, except in the minds of humans. This is all basically considered in the minds of humans until some supernatural being is proven to exhist. Evil, however cannot exhist, for evil is an act of maliciousness, or cruelty without any apparent motivation. It means that evil must be done to spite another, just for the purpose of spiting them, meaning if the person gains pleasure out of it, it is not evil, but a self-motivated act. It had a reason to be. Now a lot of people will say that this is untrue, because greed is supposedly evil, and selfishness is a form of greed, thus making feeling good while doing something wrong is bad. I'd like to see a good trusted source that actually has the authority to say what evil IS and what it isn't for everbody in this world, evil is defined by the morality of the beholder. A person raised up on killing and fighting wont see stabbing somebody as wrong, someone who was raised in warmth and kindess will though. Well, a lot of religions teach that premarital sex is bad, even if it evolves into procreation. And not only are the parents guilty of sin, the child is also. Modern society does not carry as much of a stigma. Are we making an exception just to make excuses for our own greed and lust? You can't mix society with religion, they both disagree on to much. "If religion is right, then why was I looked down upon when I asked my sunday school teacher: "How do you know there is a god?" At age eight, I was kicked out of sunday school for "denouncing "god" during lessons"." I still have the note they sent to my parents. My whole family got shunned from that church because of that, and we never went to another church again. I guess they figured my parents had put ideas into my head, because as we all know, kids can't think for themselves. (seriously, go look at children that get brought up in church environments, they can't function on their own, that is without praying to "god" for every little thing). If religion was so certain, then why would one specific church shun a family just for a child asking a simple, innocent question. Who said religion was right? Now it seems like your making up questions to please yourself, but besides that, this sounds like one of those stories where people ask, "How could god allow this to happen to me?", its a question that can't just be answered. This may sound extreme, but Baptism is kind of a hardcore religion to get into, And I assure you, there are many churches, especially around the midwest that act like this even today. Obviously you are troubled by thoughts on belief that even though you say don't plague you seem to, since this has little to do with our current topic. It might be better to just wait and see instead of pondering on such a subject that many others have. Anyway, yes I know this post is circuitous at best, and may be a little offensive to people, but if you do feel offended Here is my advice, read the post carefully, I made no intentional direct shots at any religions, just one specific church, and made no attempt to preach in this post, just simply saying that good and evil made more sense to those who have religions, and less to those who do not. If anyone took offense, don't flame here, you can swear at me all you want on my pager, I'm on, so, erm, go for it. I have no religion, but I still define good and evil for myself, and thats what good and evil is, a definition of what you see and right and wrong. Anyway, and If you felt I was tearing down your religion, and were genuinely offended, Ask yourself something, and think long and hard, Were YOU offended because you don't like other peoples' opinions on religion, or were you offended because you don't like MY opinions on religion? You weren't tearing down any religion, only putting your opinion on a feud you had with the Catholic Church. Nobody should be offended at all unless they are entirely drenched into Church buisness, and being offended by opinions of other people or just yours is the same thing, quite a silly question to ask. | |
I have no feud with catholicism, I never mentioned them.
You act as though I acknowleged evil, I did not, I said evil was typically used to describe, as in the term evil. If "good and evil" are based off of morailty, and morals transfer, then why are "good and evil" supposedly absolute? No, morailty has nothing to do with your behavior, morality and postion does not dictate behavior, if it did, we wouldn't have sinners, because someone has not sinned unless they have betrayed their moral code. Morality is just a code of honor that simply defines what you "should" be doing. This was not what I was taking issue with. You obviously did not read my post through, I said Baptism, not Catholicism, and I have no feud with religion, because I am NEUTRAL, but I do not think christianity has taken even close to a convincing spin on it. | |
Ter13 wrote:
I have no feud with catholicism, I never mentioned them. All I saw you say was stuff about the church which can easily be considered Catholicism, since thats what it is usually refferred to as. You act as though I acknowleged evil, I did not, I said evil was typically used to describe, as in the term evil. I don't act like anything, you are the one who said that good and evil don't exhist, I just pointed out that in my perspective they do. If "good and evil" are based off of morailty, and morals transfer, then why are "good and evil" supposedly absolute? I have never heard of good and evil being absolute. No, morailty has nothing to do with your behavior, morality and postion does not dictate behavior, if it did, we wouldn't have sinners, because someone has not sinned unless they have betrayed their moral code. Morality is just a code of honor that simply defines what you "should" be doing. This was not what I was taking issue with. Morality is defined as conduct, or a virtue. You define your own views on it which defines your views on good and evil. If you do something that seems right to you then it seems moral to you, if you do something that seems evil to you then it is not moral. Morality has everything to do with good and evil. You obviously did not read my post through, I said Baptism, not Catholicism, and I have no feud with religion, because I am NEUTRAL, but I do not think christianity has taken even close to a convincing spin on it. I read your post through and through about 4 times, the only time you mentioned Baptism is near the end when you said how hardcore of a religion it is. Plus, I got the point you were neutral, your entire post was basically about how neutral you are and so much apology. | |
I think it's funny that you didn't capitalize "Wiccan" or "Satanist" (which should be doubly capitalized, as it's a religion AND the root word is a proper name) but you did capitalize "Atheist," which is a common noun.
You do a lot to show that religions are fallible, and that beliefs are subjective and change over time, but where's the part where you show how there's no good or evil? If there is a supreme moral authority in the universe who defines such things, then yes, there is good and there is evil. If we cannot prove this authority's existence and we cannot pin down the exact nature of good and evil, that doesn't mean they don't exist, any more then the fact that we can note the position or velocity of an electron at any given instant, but not both (or however that goes), means that it really actually has neither. Of course, for both examples (electrons and morality), the end result with regards to this physical existence is the same whether or not the unknowable quantities exist... But good and evil are so useful concepts, much like the concept of "perfection." True perfection is unknowable and unattainable, and may not even exist... but again, the existence has no impact on us. We can still try to imagine what perfection is like, and try to move ourselves and our enterprises closer to it... the point of striving for perfection is not that you think you can attain it, but the fact that you can get closer for having tried... same thing with good and evil. The "truth" of an idea or concept is an over-rated commodity... an idea is either useful or it's not. Given that we're imperfect beings capable only of perceiving a tiny corner of the universe through the imperfect instrumentation of our senses and by the time we've finished formulating our first coherent thought about what we've observed our mind has already begun the ongoing process of compacting, altering, and misremembering the information... we can never know with certainty whether or not an idea is "true," the most we can hope to do is judge how it relates to the other flawed/unprovable concepts we have, like "useful", "interesting", "fair", etc. | |
Actually, I do not consider myself neutral, I donsider myse;f circuitous, confused, and sufficiently fallable, which I would think is how most humans should feel, that is, if you took away their faiths. It is not neccesarily a good thing, but I see too often that people use religion as a crutch, nd in doing so abuse it, and further giving them more excuses to be irresponsible.
My views are very opinionated, and are very much flawed, however I am mortal, and am more or less walking around blind, looking for answers to questions I can't comprehed. Most people grab onto the legs of "jesus", and then live their lives around ten principles. I just jump in and do whatever I can to just survive. When you get right down to it, I spend 90% of my free time thinking about faith, and were I to write an article on it, without fear of verbal or physical retalliation, most people would be fairly insulted, because I stray from the idea that religion can't be right, to the idea that humans are weak, fragile beings, just huddled in the dark looking for a way to justify their petty little, insignificant lives. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but christianity preaches tolerance, friend... ;P Anyway, I'm done on this thread for a while, it seems my initial statements were not concrete enough to hold water, as I doubt anything I have to say will because of the nature of my opinion, and the human inability to ponder dangerous thoughts without instant rejection. And Lexy, I did not capitolize wicca or satanism, because to capitolize these would be to recognize thm as valid religions, and I do not capitolize "god", so why would I capitolize "satan"? I only capitolize christianity out of habit. | |
