If empathy or guilt were not taught to somebody in their early years, they will not care how people feel. Where do you think murderers and rapists come from? They weren't taught societal norms or how to restrain themselves from such actions. And in fact, they could have been taught that such behavior is completely fine. A man will operate on impulse and primal emotion until he learns why or why not to do something. The consequences aren't important to them when it doesn't affect them, or at least if they perceive it doesn't affect them.
Guilt and any social-related reactions are responses trained via mimicry and consequence. You'd be surprised how many people out there don't give a damn about your well-being or state-of-mind and will happily say it to your face.
In other words, being a jackass might be symptomatic of another type of cognitive impairment?
Possibly. But if being a jackass was incurable, we wouldn't shun people for it.
Down's Syndrome and other such impairments that cannot be cured post-birth are unfortunate. But I'm not sorry that I won't take them into special consideration if they frustrate situations. They'll get the same treatment as anyone else.
Equal rights does not mean they get to be exceptions to rules.
You're forced to take their mental abilities into consideration. Would you be mean to a nine year old? If a mentally impaired person has the abilities of a nine year old would you say the same things? I've worked with mental disabled people first hand and you can't treat them the same. You have to treat them with a dignified reservation. Also, many mentally impaired people don't get equal rights at all and are instead obliged to go wherever they are told.
If you don't wish to party with them, fine, but make sure you at least have the decency to let them down easy. They are mentally impaired but still feel and act, just on a smaller scale.
If a nine year old told me in an online game that they were nine years old, and I had no reason to question their age up until that point, I would be completely fine with their participation. They didn't cause any trouble before or after the fact I knew who they were.
If a person with Down's Syndrome (or their guardian) told me that they had a mental disability, and I had no reason to question it until they made it a point, I still would be completely fine with their participation. If they don't cause problems and are helpful, I consider them an asset regardless of anything.
The ESRB rating of most online games are Teen or Mature. I expect the people who play to fit those ratings - and if they ("young-minded" people) decided to buy the game knowing full well what the rating indicated, then I would not feel sorry for them if they got hurt feelings.
If empathy or guilt were not taught to somebody in their early years, they will not care how people feel. Where do you think murderers and rapists come from? They weren't taught societal norms or how to restrain themselves from such actions. And in fact, they could have been taught that such behavior is completely fine. A man will operate on impulse and primal emotion until he learns why or why not to do something. The consequences aren't important to them when it doesn't affect them, or at least if they perceive it doesn't affect them.
Guilt and any social-related reactions are responses trained via mimicry and consequence. You'd be surprised how many people out there don't give a damn about your well-being or state-of-mind and will happily say it to your face.
In other words, being a jackass might be symptomatic of another type of cognitive impairment?
Possibly. But if being a jackass was incurable, we wouldn't shun people for it.
Down's Syndrome and other such impairments that cannot be cured post-birth are unfortunate. But I'm not sorry that I won't take them into special consideration if they frustrate situations. They'll get the same treatment as anyone else.
Equal rights does not mean they get to be exceptions to rules.
You're forced to take their mental abilities into consideration. Would you be mean to a nine year old? If a mentally impaired person has the abilities of a nine year old would you say the same things? I've worked with mental disabled people first hand and you can't treat them the same. You have to treat them with a dignified reservation. Also, many mentally impaired people don't get equal rights at all and are instead obliged to go wherever they are told.
If you don't wish to party with them, fine, but make sure you at least have the decency to let them down easy. They are mentally impaired but still feel and act, just on a smaller scale.
If a nine year old told me in an online game that they were nine years old, and I had no reason to question their age up until that point, I would be completely fine with their participation. They didn't cause any trouble before or after the fact I knew who they were.
If a person with Down's Syndrome (or their guardian) told me that they had a mental disability, and I had no reason to question it until they made it a point, I still would be completely fine with their participation. If they don't cause problems and are helpful, I consider them an asset regardless of anything.
The ESRB rating of most online games are Teen or Mature. I expect the people who play to fit those ratings - and if they ("young-minded" people) decided to buy the game knowing full well what the rating indicated, then I would not feel sorry for them if they got hurt feelings.
It seems like you want to be belligerent and purposefully mean because you can. The ratings on the box say I can be! So why you playing if you don't like being insulted! No the warnings on the box are there for what may happen. Just because you have the opportunity to be an ass doesn't mean you should be.
They react negatively because they are behind computers. In reality, I don't think many people would have the stomach to deny someone a pleasure which doesn't effect you in any way. Such is cruelty over the web.
Exactly, the things I see people doing/saying in games would never exist in the real world. They would litterally be locked up for life. I don't know why most people fail to see that they are still interacting with people even if it is over the internet. Your actions still create the same reactions, only difference is you don't have to deal with them face to face.
Right. They may not see the results of their insults or cruelty or lack of empathy. Thus, they have no remorse. If they knew how their behavior effected the other, they may have a change of heart. As it stands, that rarely happens.
You really don't know what you're saying.
Human beings are not inherently good or evil, so anything goes in this clusterfuck of neutrality we call life.
If empathy or guilt were not taught to somebody in their early years, they will not care how people feel. Where do you think murderers and rapists come from? They weren't taught societal norms or how to restrain themselves from such actions. And in fact, they could have been taught that such behavior is completely fine.
A man will operate on impulse and primal emotion until he learns why or why not to do something. The consequences aren't important to them when it doesn't affect them, or at least if they perceive it doesn't affect them.
Guilt and any social-related reactions are responses trained via mimicry and consequence. You'd be surprised how many people out there don't give a damn about your well-being or state-of-mind and will happily say it to your face.
For one, when did I say anyone was good or evil? Putting words into my mouth.
Actually murderers and rapist, most of them grow up in completely normal enviroments. Your forgetting the classic nature vs. nuture. Peer and enviromental effects have a lot more to do than what your parents say.
Also, I know people will say insulting or mean things because it doesn't effect them. But, on the flip side, they have to see that things do effect people. The person insulting though, doesn't want to acknowledge this because it would hurt their ego or way they've been playing. It would make them feel ashamed for saying such things. They don't want this human tie to others. They would much rather play a detached game. It's a way for them to be mean without gaining the resulting consequences for their actions: embarassment, shame, etc. This is something we need to kick from the game sphere because whether people like it or not, their actions do effect the others playing the game. Yet no one wants to see this.
I'm not advocating being super nice to people but sometimes some people have to tone it down. There's no reason to be so cruel.
I didn't say you said anything about good and evil, I mentioned it as I thought your post had an underlying implication about it.
Cruelty is seen as evil by society. By the cruel one, it is not. It's perception.
I also didn't talk about how people were raised or anything about parental guidance. So now who's putting words into who's mouth!? Of course the implication was there in my post, but I said nothing specific. [sarcasm] Try to be more tolerant and understanding before pouncing at the chance to "internet win!" [/end sarcasm]
All factors taken into consideration, people are taught. You learn from everything around you. A teacher could be that person from your 9th grade English class who ignored the bullies in the back of the class as they filled your backpack with soda. A teacher could also be that pot-hole in the road that caused your father's bike to flip over its front wheel while he wasn't wearing a helmet. We are taught and learn from everything.
So we can be taught to murder by observing nature. We can be taught to be loving and caring to others uncondintially. We can also be taught to ignore the point of a forum post out of indignant rage.
Moving on...
[low, bassy movie-trailer announcer voice] In a world.... [/end voice] where we have no apparent consequences for our actions, we will tend to to act differently than normal. Why do we do that? I couldn't tell you because I don't know exactly why, so my answer would dissatisfy you.
I personally think it's fun to be anonymous. That's just my opinion.
Now I suppose the real question is: should the denizens of the internet conform to the standards of real life society? Or should the denizens of real life society, when using the internet, conform to the standards already set?
It's a whole new world out here in the internet. People speak a different language and have different customs. Do you want to invade them and eventually conquer / integrate them into real life society through force? Or would you set aside your "superior beliefs" and spend this moment to learn about why people behave the way they do in this environment?
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion.
Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion. Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
I've been commited before and I have bi-polar disorder, so I'm pretty sure I count as having impaired cognitive abilities. If you meet me somewhere I'd be confident that nine times out of ten you couldn't even tell. The morale of the story is simple, don't judge a book by it's cover.
This has become a very articulate and intelligent discussion, i feel i must express my admiration for the two main posters as its been enjoyable to reflect upon the points they have presented. It's also been pleasant to find a generally open and welcoming atitude from most of the posters, regardless of how much leeway individual members would be willing to provide potentially impaired gamers, the fact that giving them a fair chance does not seem to be an issue i think speaks highly of the maturity in at least some sectors of our comunity.
Just to make things clear... I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion. Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion. Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
I can see where Plasuma is coming from; regardless of a person's cognitive abilities, if they are unable to game the way that I like gaming (depending on the game and mood), then I'm not going to group with them. Plasuma never once stated that they would harass/spam/flame/tease/torture, etc a person with less cognitive function than them. Neither would I. Just because I wouldn't want to group with someone like that doesn't mean I'm going to become hostile towards them.
Plasuma is also not disregarding a person with decreased mental capacity as fodder, they are stating that they wouldn't group with them. Should everyone be forced to group with someone that could possibly decrease their enjoyment with a game? I don't think so. Should those with a disability have an identifying icon in their name so that everyone knows that this person has special needs and requires to be treated different from the rest of the players?
The reason why we can do pretty much what we want on the web without consequence is because there really are none (barring specifically illegal activities i.e. piracy, certain forms of pornography, cyberbullying, etc).
I'll illustrate what I mean:
Person A pisses off Person B - Person B iggy's Person A. Person B never has to listen to Person A again and Person A is not affected by the iggy because there's plenty of people out there.
If Person A happens to possess the capacity to get ignored by an entire server, there are other servers for Person A to annoy.
If Person A manages to get ignored by every single player on every single server then there are other games for Person A to play (and should be put in the Guiness Book of World Records for this amazing accomplishment). This is also not taking into account the multitutes that join games each day.
In other words - "It takes all kinds."
There are people out there that are not going to want to group with said person, yet there are people out there who would want to group with said person. No one is really saying that those with decreased cognitive function are unwelcome in any MMO. There are people saying that they're not going to group with certain people based on a certain criteria. The criteria is going to be different for everyone but the basis is still the same - "Will this person hinder my enjoyment?"
Different people qualify their enjoyment of a game based off different standards. Some may enjoy running through instances as fast as possible, others may enjoy taking their time. Those that like to take their time will group with like minded individuals, same goes for those that speed through.
Everyone has a different view of the world, be it virtual or reality. What one person experiences is often not what another person experiences. A person with reduced cognitive function may not even notice the reluctance of someone not wanting to group with them.
Basically put, people should be allowed to play the game how they want to play it without too much restriction/control placed on a player (some restriction should be placed on griefers, spammers, cyberbullies) because those restrictions and controls make it increasingly difficult to suspend disbeleif and enjoy the game.
For those that are saying it's "just a game", you're absolutely correct. It is just a game, so why get so upset over how another person plays the game?
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion. Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
I can see where Plasuma is coming from; regardless of a person's cognitive abilities, if they are unable to game the way that I like gaming (depending on the game and mood), then I'm not going to group with them. Plasuma never once stated that they would harass/spam/flame/tease/torture, etc a person with less cognitive function than them. Neither would I. Just because I wouldn't want to group with someone like that doesn't mean I'm going to become hostile towards them.
Plasuma is also not disregarding a person with decreased mental capacity as fodder, they are stating that they wouldn't group with them. Should everyone be forced to group with someone that could possibly decrease their enjoyment with a game? I don't think so. Should those with a disability have an identifying icon in their name so that everyone knows that this person has special needs and requires to be treated different from the rest of the players?
The reason why we can do pretty much what we want on the web without consequence is because there really are none (barring specifically illegal activities i.e. piracy, certain forms of pornography, cyberbullying, etc).
I'll illustrate what I mean:
Person A pisses off Person B - Person B iggy's Person A. Person B never has to listen to Person A again and Person A is not affected by the iggy because there's plenty of people out there.
If Person A happens to possess the capacity to get ignored by an entire server, there are other servers for Person A to annoy.
If Person A manages to get ignored by every single player on every single server then there are other games for Person A to play (and should be put in the Guiness Book of World Records for this amazing accomplishment). This is also not taking into account the multitutes that join games each day.
In other words - "It takes all kinds."
There are people out there that are not going to want to group with said person, yet there are people out there who would want to group with said person. No one is really saying that those with decreased cognitive function are unwelcome in any MMO. There are people saying that they're not going to group with certain people based on a certain criteria. The criteria is going to be different for everyone but the basis is still the same - "Will this person hinder my enjoyment?"
Different people qualify their enjoyment of a game based off different standards. Some may enjoy running through instances as fast as possible, others may enjoy taking their time. Those that like to take their time will group with like minded individuals, same goes for those that speed through.
Everyone has a different view of the world, be it virtual or reality. What one person experiences is often not what another person experiences. A person with reduced cognitive function may not even notice the reluctance of someone not wanting to group with them.
Basically put, people should be allowed to play the game how they want to play it without too much restriction/control placed on a player (some restriction should be placed on griefers, spammers, cyberbullies) because those restrictions and controls make it increasingly difficult to suspend disbeleif and enjoy the game.
For those that are saying it's "just a game", you're absolutely correct. It is just a game, so why get so upset over how another person plays the game?
And I agreed, if you don't want to play with someone you don't have to. Never advocated to putting up with people you don't want to.
What he did bring up was the internet as a wild wild west type area where anything goes without consequence and user beware. Which I feel is essentially saying: I can be an ass because no one can stop me or force me to.
The other problem is that yes, the virtual worlds may be more real to others than to you. Just as you say. So wouldn't want you do and how you act affect them more then? I'm just using your point to show that what doesn't effect you might have grand consequences or worse for someone else. Someone killing themselves over what transpired online. Been done before.
I'm not saying I want to legislate anything, god no. More just a general consesus of the gaming population to show a little more decency toward their fellow human beings. When did we start caring for ourselves so much that showing a little kindness to others was a crime.
This thread got switched a little from just those mentally disabled to encompassing everybody. So it derailed a bit.
xanphia, for what's worth, what I said answered all your questions, but you're far too stubborn and impatient to make the connections. So I'll go back to short, concise answers.
I don't care that somebody has a disability. That is their problem, not mine. If they don't have anything to offer me, literally or in my perception, I don't care about them.
I don't care about people I don't know. You think the same way, too. Other people are all nobodies (unless they're in your circle), but they're no threat to you, so you ignore them.
When you have to change what you do in order to allow someone - someone you don't know and don't care to know - to join in what you do, they become a possible threat. Depending on their ability (not disability)is what determines if they are friend or foe.
For example::
If you were working on a project, say chiseling a marble statue, and somebody randomly decided to drop by and "help" by picking up a hammer and swinging away at your work, how would you react to it? They obviously don't have the skills you do, and if you let them continue, they may destroy all your hard work up until that point.
Do you say "Oh, I see you're not an experienced artist and may never have the ability to become one, but please continue, I believe we can make a great statue together regardless of anything you do wrong."
Or do you say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?! GET AWAY FROM THERE!!!!"
Needless to say, it took you 5 years of work to procure that marble slab. Do you mind that 5 years of work was destroyed by somebody you don't know - and possibly never cared to know?
Disability or not? I think that's the wrong question.
The question is "ability or not?"
If somebody does not have the capability to be productive in your group, why would you have them aboard? You will find this philosophy to be very prevalent in the business world - people with better skills are hired over those who lack them. The only reason a business would hire anyone who is not properly prepared for the job is if they're getting some kind of benefit for doing so.
The only reason I would have somebody with inferior skills work with me is if it gave me a specific advantage. Either an outside bonus just for "having them" or to use them as a scape goat.
If they're not fit to help, and I don't know them, I will not make any compensation for them and would prefer if they stay away. That's the central meme of progress: improve what can be improved, fix what can be fixed, ignore what doesn't concern you, and throw away or avoid what is broken or detrimental.
Now about assholes.... what makes them that way? That's either how they respond to possible threats, or just part of their culture. Internet culture is full of people who seem like jerks, but are actually nice folks once you get to know them.
You know why they do that? One reason is because they only want friends who are able to take jabs in stride and return them equally (or better) with good humor. If you're not able to take the hits, you're not fit to be in their group (one with Down's may not understand this concept and be hurt by it). There are other reasons, too. Some more logical than others.
You should learn about other people before deciding that everyone should think like you, because that's never going to happen.
My neighbor was over one day with her son, and he saw my WOW dungeon companion on my desk and begged and begged to see my video game. He is about 5 years old. I didn't think he would really understand the game, but as I showed him the controls and how to get quests he started playing. Yeah, he was asking a million questions, but the little bugger was absorbing information and learning the game very quickly. It was very interesting and depressing at the same time, lol.
I'm sure mentally disabled folks could play as well, depending on their degree of impairment and the difficulty of the game.
Comments
In other words, being a jackass might be symptomatic of another type of cognitive impairment?
Possibly. But if being a jackass was incurable, we wouldn't shun people for it.
Down's Syndrome and other such impairments that cannot be cured post-birth are unfortunate. But I'm not sorry that I won't take them into special consideration if they frustrate situations. They'll get the same treatment as anyone else.
Equal rights does not mean they get to be exceptions to rules.
You're forced to take their mental abilities into consideration. Would you be mean to a nine year old? If a mentally impaired person has the abilities of a nine year old would you say the same things? I've worked with mental disabled people first hand and you can't treat them the same. You have to treat them with a dignified reservation. Also, many mentally impaired people don't get equal rights at all and are instead obliged to go wherever they are told.
If you don't wish to party with them, fine, but make sure you at least have the decency to let them down easy. They are mentally impaired but still feel and act, just on a smaller scale.
If a nine year old told me in an online game that they were nine years old, and I had no reason to question their age up until that point, I would be completely fine with their participation. They didn't cause any trouble before or after the fact I knew who they were.
If a person with Down's Syndrome (or their guardian) told me that they had a mental disability, and I had no reason to question it until they made it a point, I still would be completely fine with their participation. If they don't cause problems and are helpful, I consider them an asset regardless of anything.
The ESRB rating of most online games are Teen or Mature. I expect the people who play to fit those ratings - and if they ("young-minded" people) decided to buy the game knowing full well what the rating indicated, then I would not feel sorry for them if they got hurt feelings.
In other words, being a jackass might be symptomatic of another type of cognitive impairment?
Possibly. But if being a jackass was incurable, we wouldn't shun people for it.
Down's Syndrome and other such impairments that cannot be cured post-birth are unfortunate. But I'm not sorry that I won't take them into special consideration if they frustrate situations. They'll get the same treatment as anyone else.
Equal rights does not mean they get to be exceptions to rules.
You're forced to take their mental abilities into consideration. Would you be mean to a nine year old? If a mentally impaired person has the abilities of a nine year old would you say the same things? I've worked with mental disabled people first hand and you can't treat them the same. You have to treat them with a dignified reservation. Also, many mentally impaired people don't get equal rights at all and are instead obliged to go wherever they are told.
If you don't wish to party with them, fine, but make sure you at least have the decency to let them down easy. They are mentally impaired but still feel and act, just on a smaller scale.
If a nine year old told me in an online game that they were nine years old, and I had no reason to question their age up until that point, I would be completely fine with their participation. They didn't cause any trouble before or after the fact I knew who they were.
If a person with Down's Syndrome (or their guardian) told me that they had a mental disability, and I had no reason to question it until they made it a point, I still would be completely fine with their participation. If they don't cause problems and are helpful, I consider them an asset regardless of anything.
The ESRB rating of most online games are Teen or Mature. I expect the people who play to fit those ratings - and if they ("young-minded" people) decided to buy the game knowing full well what the rating indicated, then I would not feel sorry for them if they got hurt feelings.
It seems like you want to be belligerent and purposefully mean because you can. The ratings on the box say I can be! So why you playing if you don't like being insulted! No the warnings on the box are there for what may happen. Just because you have the opportunity to be an ass doesn't mean you should be.
Exactly, the things I see people doing/saying in games would never exist in the real world. They would litterally be locked up for life. I don't know why most people fail to see that they are still interacting with people even if it is over the internet. Your actions still create the same reactions, only difference is you don't have to deal with them face to face.
Right. They may not see the results of their insults or cruelty or lack of empathy. Thus, they have no remorse. If they knew how their behavior effected the other, they may have a change of heart. As it stands, that rarely happens.
You really don't know what you're saying.
Human beings are not inherently good or evil, so anything goes in this clusterfuck of neutrality we call life.
If empathy or guilt were not taught to somebody in their early years, they will not care how people feel. Where do you think murderers and rapists come from? They weren't taught societal norms or how to restrain themselves from such actions. And in fact, they could have been taught that such behavior is completely fine.
A man will operate on impulse and primal emotion until he learns why or why not to do something. The consequences aren't important to them when it doesn't affect them, or at least if they perceive it doesn't affect them.
Guilt and any social-related reactions are responses trained via mimicry and consequence. You'd be surprised how many people out there don't give a damn about your well-being or state-of-mind and will happily say it to your face.
For one, when did I say anyone was good or evil? Putting words into my mouth.
Actually murderers and rapist, most of them grow up in completely normal enviroments. Your forgetting the classic nature vs. nuture. Peer and enviromental effects have a lot more to do than what your parents say.
Also, I know people will say insulting or mean things because it doesn't effect them. But, on the flip side, they have to see that things do effect people. The person insulting though, doesn't want to acknowledge this because it would hurt their ego or way they've been playing. It would make them feel ashamed for saying such things. They don't want this human tie to others. They would much rather play a detached game. It's a way for them to be mean without gaining the resulting consequences for their actions: embarassment, shame, etc. This is something we need to kick from the game sphere because whether people like it or not, their actions do effect the others playing the game. Yet no one wants to see this.
I'm not advocating being super nice to people but sometimes some people have to tone it down. There's no reason to be so cruel.
I didn't say you said anything about good and evil, I mentioned it as I thought your post had an underlying implication about it.
Cruelty is seen as evil by society. By the cruel one, it is not. It's perception.
I also didn't talk about how people were raised or anything about parental guidance. So now who's putting words into who's mouth!? Of course the implication was there in my post, but I said nothing specific. [sarcasm] Try to be more tolerant and understanding before pouncing at the chance to "internet win!" [/end sarcasm]
All factors taken into consideration, people are taught. You learn from everything around you. A teacher could be that person from your 9th grade English class who ignored the bullies in the back of the class as they filled your backpack with soda. A teacher could also be that pot-hole in the road that caused your father's bike to flip over its front wheel while he wasn't wearing a helmet. We are taught and learn from everything.
So we can be taught to murder by observing nature. We can be taught to be loving and caring to others uncondintially. We can also be taught to ignore the point of a forum post out of indignant rage.
Moving on...
[low, bassy movie-trailer announcer voice] In a world.... [/end voice] where we have no apparent consequences for our actions, we will tend to to act differently than normal. Why do we do that? I couldn't tell you because I don't know exactly why, so my answer would dissatisfy you.
I personally think it's fun to be anonymous. That's just my opinion.
Now I suppose the real question is: should the denizens of the internet conform to the standards of real life society? Or should the denizens of real life society, when using the internet, conform to the standards already set?
It's a whole new world out here in the internet. People speak a different language and have different customs. Do you want to invade them and eventually conquer / integrate them into real life society through force? Or would you set aside your "superior beliefs" and spend this moment to learn about why people behave the way they do in this environment?
You seem to be forgetting that what seperates us from animals is our ability to grieve the dead. With that comes the concept of compassion.
Now, on the internet you can be anonymous but in reality these are real people you are speaking with. In turn, your actions effect them just as they would in person. Perhaps in different ways but whose to say they would be less detrimental? You're taking out the personal responsibility aspect. As a firm believer in existenialism, your actions whether you know it or not effect other people. Thus you have to watch what you do and say in all and every medium.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
I've been commited before and I have bi-polar disorder, so I'm pretty sure I count as having impaired cognitive abilities. If you meet me somewhere I'd be confident that nine times out of ten you couldn't even tell. The morale of the story is simple, don't judge a book by it's cover.
This has become a very articulate and intelligent discussion, i feel i must express my admiration for the two main posters as its been enjoyable to reflect upon the points they have presented. It's also been pleasant to find a generally open and welcoming atitude from most of the posters, regardless of how much leeway individual members would be willing to provide potentially impaired gamers, the fact that giving them a fair chance does not seem to be an issue i think speaks highly of the maturity in at least some sectors of our comunity.
Just to make things clear...
I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
I can see where Plasuma is coming from; regardless of a person's cognitive abilities, if they are unable to game the way that I like gaming (depending on the game and mood), then I'm not going to group with them. Plasuma never once stated that they would harass/spam/flame/tease/torture, etc a person with less cognitive function than them. Neither would I. Just because I wouldn't want to group with someone like that doesn't mean I'm going to become hostile towards them.
Plasuma is also not disregarding a person with decreased mental capacity as fodder, they are stating that they wouldn't group with them. Should everyone be forced to group with someone that could possibly decrease their enjoyment with a game? I don't think so. Should those with a disability have an identifying icon in their name so that everyone knows that this person has special needs and requires to be treated different from the rest of the players?
The reason why we can do pretty much what we want on the web without consequence is because there really are none (barring specifically illegal activities i.e. piracy, certain forms of pornography, cyberbullying, etc).
I'll illustrate what I mean:
Person A pisses off Person B - Person B iggy's Person A. Person B never has to listen to Person A again and Person A is not affected by the iggy because there's plenty of people out there.
If Person A happens to possess the capacity to get ignored by an entire server, there are other servers for Person A to annoy.
If Person A manages to get ignored by every single player on every single server then there are other games for Person A to play (and should be put in the Guiness Book of World Records for this amazing accomplishment). This is also not taking into account the multitutes that join games each day.
In other words - "It takes all kinds."
There are people out there that are not going to want to group with said person, yet there are people out there who would want to group with said person. No one is really saying that those with decreased cognitive function are unwelcome in any MMO. There are people saying that they're not going to group with certain people based on a certain criteria. The criteria is going to be different for everyone but the basis is still the same - "Will this person hinder my enjoyment?"
Different people qualify their enjoyment of a game based off different standards. Some may enjoy running through instances as fast as possible, others may enjoy taking their time. Those that like to take their time will group with like minded individuals, same goes for those that speed through.
Everyone has a different view of the world, be it virtual or reality. What one person experiences is often not what another person experiences. A person with reduced cognitive function may not even notice the reluctance of someone not wanting to group with them.
Basically put, people should be allowed to play the game how they want to play it without too much restriction/control placed on a player (some restriction should be placed on griefers, spammers, cyberbullies) because those restrictions and controls make it increasingly difficult to suspend disbeleif and enjoy the game.
For those that are saying it's "just a game", you're absolutely correct. It is just a game, so why get so upset over how another person plays the game?
Elephants grieve their dead. That's nothing special.
So actually, nothing separates us from animals except that we believe we aren't animals.... so there is one other thing, maybe. One tiny little thing.
Our memes.
The powerful beliefs and ideas that get passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as memes, are what separates us from animals.
You should watch this talk about memetics, as the presenter explains this better than me: clicky.
The way we think in societal norms is usually condusive to collective species survival. Why has this way of thinking been successful? Well, if nobody believed that cooperation was better than going it solo, we'd all be hunter-gatherers. Possibly looking a bit more ape-like, living in trees instead of apartments. Definitely wouldn't be as prolific as we are today.
Our memes (namely a belief in abstract things that don't exist - first of religious meaning and now of scientific / mathematic meaning) is an evolutionary advantage and has got us to where we are now. Animals can't think in abstracts and don't collect more memes over time than what their brains are capable of holding. So how did we get here? Following evolution, it would make sense....
It would only make sense that members of our species with brains of greater capacity outlived others who did not - they could have more memes, and thus were more fit to survive. Different cultures had different memes based on their environment (The Mayans or Australian Aborigines are clear examples) because they developed different coping mechanisms that were passed down by mimicry. Language, religion, societal organization and management, etc.
Now, on the internet, we have a separate culture. An entirely different nation and perhaps what you could classify as a divergent species of human. We develop split personalities on the internet sometimes... is that a psychological disorder that should be treated, or is it part of a consequence of the environment, where people learn that it's best to be a different person to handle the issues of working in such an environment?
The internet isn't safe for everyone, just as the jungles of South America or the deserts of Africa aren't safe for everyone. The environment is hostile to people not properly suited to it, even though it is man-made. People without the proper memes to handle the internet will find it very unfriendly.
What I just said shouldn't be a damning conclusion. It should be a prompt for you to observe the internet and learn about the culture it has spawned. What better way to adapt to a culture than to learn the customs?
Of course, you could always make like the early Spanish settlers of America and berate or conquer everything you don't believe in. But doesn't that make you just as bad as the internet bullies?
Anyways, back to the point: a person with Down's Syndrome likely has a hard time absorbing new memes, and so becomes unfit for certain environments. The internet may be one such environment, but like all other worlds, it has places one can go to avoid predators. They need to be taught where these safe places are and stick to them if they wish to "survive." Which games are safe, which ones are not.
If the person (regardless of what they've been diagnosed with) knows how to handle the environment and people they're around, I'm sure things will work out fine.
So I read everything and I completely understand the whole harsh enviroment and the natural selection, etc, etc.
My only problem though is that these occurences don't happen consciencesly. They all happened as a matter of consequence rather than someone forcing them to die out.
My point is, we like to say we are a highly developed culture. Elephants grieve their dead but they don't hold ceremonies or bury their dead thus they have no human characteristics. Our closest biological cousins, homo-erectus, were they human?
What makes us human then?
My point is that a person with disabilities, is yes a leg down on the evolutionary track. But, as humans, why should we fall to a lower level and not show compassion for someone who is cognitively lower than us rather than disregard them as fodder. It seems like you're saying that we can be mean just for the sake of it. You say to stay in safe places, but why are those places even unsafe to begin with? Why do we feel we can do whatever we like without consequence over the web. I've seen it happen to many times were things said online are caught up to people in life and then they have no excuse but to say sorry and realize the effect of their words or actions.
I can see where Plasuma is coming from; regardless of a person's cognitive abilities, if they are unable to game the way that I like gaming (depending on the game and mood), then I'm not going to group with them. Plasuma never once stated that they would harass/spam/flame/tease/torture, etc a person with less cognitive function than them. Neither would I. Just because I wouldn't want to group with someone like that doesn't mean I'm going to become hostile towards them.
Plasuma is also not disregarding a person with decreased mental capacity as fodder, they are stating that they wouldn't group with them. Should everyone be forced to group with someone that could possibly decrease their enjoyment with a game? I don't think so. Should those with a disability have an identifying icon in their name so that everyone knows that this person has special needs and requires to be treated different from the rest of the players?
The reason why we can do pretty much what we want on the web without consequence is because there really are none (barring specifically illegal activities i.e. piracy, certain forms of pornography, cyberbullying, etc).
I'll illustrate what I mean:
Person A pisses off Person B - Person B iggy's Person A. Person B never has to listen to Person A again and Person A is not affected by the iggy because there's plenty of people out there.
If Person A happens to possess the capacity to get ignored by an entire server, there are other servers for Person A to annoy.
If Person A manages to get ignored by every single player on every single server then there are other games for Person A to play (and should be put in the Guiness Book of World Records for this amazing accomplishment). This is also not taking into account the multitutes that join games each day.
In other words - "It takes all kinds."
There are people out there that are not going to want to group with said person, yet there are people out there who would want to group with said person. No one is really saying that those with decreased cognitive function are unwelcome in any MMO. There are people saying that they're not going to group with certain people based on a certain criteria. The criteria is going to be different for everyone but the basis is still the same - "Will this person hinder my enjoyment?"
Different people qualify their enjoyment of a game based off different standards. Some may enjoy running through instances as fast as possible, others may enjoy taking their time. Those that like to take their time will group with like minded individuals, same goes for those that speed through.
Everyone has a different view of the world, be it virtual or reality. What one person experiences is often not what another person experiences. A person with reduced cognitive function may not even notice the reluctance of someone not wanting to group with them.
Basically put, people should be allowed to play the game how they want to play it without too much restriction/control placed on a player (some restriction should be placed on griefers, spammers, cyberbullies) because those restrictions and controls make it increasingly difficult to suspend disbeleif and enjoy the game.
For those that are saying it's "just a game", you're absolutely correct. It is just a game, so why get so upset over how another person plays the game?
And I agreed, if you don't want to play with someone you don't have to. Never advocated to putting up with people you don't want to.
What he did bring up was the internet as a wild wild west type area where anything goes without consequence and user beware. Which I feel is essentially saying: I can be an ass because no one can stop me or force me to.
The other problem is that yes, the virtual worlds may be more real to others than to you. Just as you say. So wouldn't want you do and how you act affect them more then? I'm just using your point to show that what doesn't effect you might have grand consequences or worse for someone else. Someone killing themselves over what transpired online. Been done before.
I'm not saying I want to legislate anything, god no. More just a general consesus of the gaming population to show a little more decency toward their fellow human beings. When did we start caring for ourselves so much that showing a little kindness to others was a crime.
This thread got switched a little from just those mentally disabled to encompassing everybody. So it derailed a bit.
xanphia, for what's worth, what I said answered all your questions, but you're far too stubborn and impatient to make the connections. So I'll go back to short, concise answers.
I don't care that somebody has a disability. That is their problem, not mine. If they don't have anything to offer me, literally or in my perception, I don't care about them.
I don't care about people I don't know. You think the same way, too. Other people are all nobodies (unless they're in your circle), but they're no threat to you, so you ignore them.
When you have to change what you do in order to allow someone - someone you don't know and don't care to know - to join in what you do, they become a possible threat. Depending on their ability (not disability) is what determines if they are friend or foe.
For example::
If you were working on a project, say chiseling a marble statue, and somebody randomly decided to drop by and "help" by picking up a hammer and swinging away at your work, how would you react to it? They obviously don't have the skills you do, and if you let them continue, they may destroy all your hard work up until that point.
Do you say "Oh, I see you're not an experienced artist and may never have the ability to become one, but please continue, I believe we can make a great statue together regardless of anything you do wrong."
Or do you say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?! GET AWAY FROM THERE!!!!"
Needless to say, it took you 5 years of work to procure that marble slab. Do you mind that 5 years of work was destroyed by somebody you don't know - and possibly never cared to know?
Disability or not? I think that's the wrong question.
The question is "ability or not?"
If somebody does not have the capability to be productive in your group, why would you have them aboard? You will find this philosophy to be very prevalent in the business world - people with better skills are hired over those who lack them. The only reason a business would hire anyone who is not properly prepared for the job is if they're getting some kind of benefit for doing so.
The only reason I would have somebody with inferior skills work with me is if it gave me a specific advantage. Either an outside bonus just for "having them" or to use them as a scape goat.
If they're not fit to help, and I don't know them, I will not make any compensation for them and would prefer if they stay away. That's the central meme of progress: improve what can be improved, fix what can be fixed, ignore what doesn't concern you, and throw away or avoid what is broken or detrimental.
Now about assholes.... what makes them that way? That's either how they respond to possible threats, or just part of their culture. Internet culture is full of people who seem like jerks, but are actually nice folks once you get to know them.
You know why they do that? One reason is because they only want friends who are able to take jabs in stride and return them equally (or better) with good humor. If you're not able to take the hits, you're not fit to be in their group (one with Down's may not understand this concept and be hurt by it). There are other reasons, too. Some more logical than others.
You should learn about other people before deciding that everyone should think like you, because that's never going to happen.
My neighbor was over one day with her son, and he saw my WOW dungeon companion on my desk and begged and begged to see my video game. He is about 5 years old. I didn't think he would really understand the game, but as I showed him the controls and how to get quests he started playing. Yeah, he was asking a million questions, but the little bugger was absorbing information and learning the game very quickly. It was very interesting and depressing at the same time, lol.
I'm sure mentally disabled folks could play as well, depending on their degree of impairment and the difficulty of the game.