Then the question here sounds like it is if the policy itself is a bad one. And thus the staff, by supporting it are bad. I disagree that it is bad because it protects the greater good. We are economy server. This means that our 'society' literally hinges on the 'health' of our economy. Considering all the points I outlined about the harm caused by a 'no grief everywhere' policy. I feel that staff, as always, has the good of everyone in mind. We do this to protect ECC. Yes, a few people will be harmed because they won't take the precautions. That being said, do you blame the US government irl when you get your wallet stolen that you left on a bench in the middle of a crowded park? If you do... we have a problem. The fact is, you shouldn't put things that are important to you in the middle of an unprotected zone.
The server provides a means of grief protection that is not difficult to attain, and such information is publicly available and actively promoted. I kinda think that ends the concern of unjustliness-ness-ssss.
I've collected that your argument is founded on the ideas of Benthamite Utilitarianism, therefore you've managed to answer my original question in a way that is not logically fallacious. However, by accepting the Benthamite Utilitarian model, you've contradicted yourself by declaring that the staff does, in fact, follow the moral standards as outlined by Jeremy Bentham. Saying that what staff does is for the good of the server recognizes that the staff seeks to do good and is therefore bound to the laws of ethics. Essentially, you've established, contradictory if I might add, that the staff is motivated by good will and is therefore not morally neutral. Any person that acts of good will, even if the consequence is unfavorable, can be considered an institution that seeks the good, and is therefore not entirely bad. revanrose6
...Okay I think we are missing the point lol. I believe that the staff, when moderating i.e.: Dealing with a situation, must be neutral and go entirely based off of the rules as provided at the time. When it comes to the writing of the rules itself, which are written by certain members of staff, as this is a government, the government itself must consider what is best for the society to continue running smoothly, preferably to avoid an attempted revolution... Therefore logically we must aim as a government for the good of all while aiming as arbitrators for the answer that falls within the rules. Considering that the rules are written for the good of all, one could argue that the rules are leaning more towards good. But that does not affect the neutrality. One must, as an arbitrator attempt for neutrality when listening to both sides of the argument... I hope this made sense.
How about we give that person compensation. That way they will both feel better. But as long as that person doesn't put valuables in the wild again for their own good.
Surely the arbitration process is of good will and for the greater good of the server (following the utilitarian model), therefore this quote must be false: "Morals is such a terribly subjective concept that if every moderator was enforcing based on morals we would have different rules depending on the moderator on duty. Thats just stupid and unpredictable. Therefore, morality is irrelevant." .. hence the contradiction. revanrose6
Not necessarily. Morality is irrelevant when you are moderating lol. Note the following is an Example and not necessarily true to my beliefs: I feel that it is morally wrong to steal from an unlocked chest. I cannot, nor will I, enforce that moral will upon the server. I will abide by the server rules, despite my belief that Player A should be forced to return the stolen items. My personal morals are not relevant. No moderators personal morals should be relevant when handling a situation. Note the following is an example and not necessarily true: I could think he should be forced to return items. While Kuke thinks it doesn't matter if someone steals from an unlocked chest. And finally Zard thinks anyone caught stealing should be banned on sight. Out of the three of us, only Kuke's morals would line up with the rules. While the rest of our morals need to be set aside. They are irrelevant. Kuke's are also irrelevant, he just happens to be lucky that his align with what he has to do.
Just like Onscene, you've constructed a Ignoratio elenchi argument by failing to refute my previous assertion. You established morality to equate to preference, which is fallacious, when I simply wrote that the arbitration process sought the greatest good for the greatest number, and was therefore justified under the precedent of Utilitarianism. This assertion denies your claim that the staff acts in a way that is morally neutral. In order to logically refute my assertion you must prove that the arbitration process does not seek the greatest good, otherwise you dodge my assertion entirely and prove nothing new. revanrose6
Arbitration is a process where two different groups explain and show their dispute to a person or group, who will make a judgement. If you don't completely understand his complex terms and words you can look them up.
All this "moral" and "Benthamite Utilitarian model" aside, this is simply not a good idea. Grief should be allowed in the wild for two reasons, keeping it short and sweet: Sparing mods from tons of grief reports flowing in, being mining world/wild is one of the few places new players start, and to keep plots desirable and worth more.
Your argument will only gain limited support because when plots are worth more it only benefits people that are Mayor Rank or higher because if plots are worth more, Mayors+ will end up collecting more Revenue.
And to keep them above being near $0 there would need to be demand for protected areas. Otherwise, towns are nothing more special than the wild.
Never mind, I think agent hare meant to say "keep plots' their worth" Because people buy plots in towns because they know towns are protected.
Then you shouldn't have said, "make plots worth more" and instead say, "to make plots be worth money."
