A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Add new tag

Paying for Fake Stuff

by Leave a Comment

The Future of Credit Cards - Earning virtual c...
Image by pt via Flickr

Like all WoW players, I’ve gotten the in game spam from people selling gold, power leveling and so on. However, I recently decided to actually look into these services. Not to use them, but just out of curiosity.

Looking at these sites, I learned that they do profess to sell a wide range of goods and services. The most obvious is the sale of game gold. For a certain amount of real money (via PayPal or credit card) a player can get fake gold for use in game. However, these sites also offered to level characters, get reputation for characters with various factions, and to get emblems (used to buy high end items) or gear. To do this, all a player need do is order the service (“add to cart”), pay, and then hand over his password for his WoW account so that the employees of the service can play his character.

Obviously, handing over the password to a WoW account is a rather bad idea. After all, when someone has the password to an account, he can strip the characters of gold, sell of gear, and often gain access to the guild bank (and strip that). Of course, services that make money by leveling characters and so on have an incentive to not screw over their customers, so perhaps a person can hand over his account password without finding that his characters have been stripped.

One thing that struck me the most about the sites was the cost of the services. For example, one site charged about $1000 for 500 emblems of Frost (the highest end emblem that is used to but top end gear). While getting that many emblems would involve a lot of time, that is a lot of money to pay for fake stuff in a game.

On one hand, if people want to spend that sort of money for fake stuff, then that is their choice. It might not be a wise decision, but there is no requirement that people must spend wisely.

Also, if someone would rather pay than play to get the levels, gear or gold, then that is fine. To use an analogy, it is fine to hire someone to paint a house or buy a pre-made computer. Sure, a person could do these things herself, but painting or assembling a PC is time consuming and not everyone enjoys it. So, if it is okay to pay people to do stuff like that, it seems fine to pay people to level characters and such. After all, it can be a real grind to finally get that geared up level 80 character to play in the high end content. Running the same damn instances over and over can actually get a bit tedious, thus making playing more like working. As such, it would seem to make sense to hire someone else to do the tedious grind. That is what people do in real life when they have the money to hire people to do such tasks.

Of course, it seems a bit odd to hire people to play a game. It seems a bit like hiring someone to play monopoly until they have gotten property and hotels, and then take over at the end of the game. But, if someone wants to do that, then that seems to be their choice.

On the other hand, hiring people to do this does seem to be a form of cheating.  Someone who pays others to get his gear for him is not earning his gear, which would seem to be wrong (but, obviously, a rather small and insignificant wrong).

While WoW can be played against the computer (PVE or player versus environment), there is also play against other players (PVP). Players who are willing to pay others to get their gear for them (and have the money to do so) will gain an unearned advantage over the players who will not do so or cannot do so. This, it would seem, would be a form of cheating.

Of course, it can be replied that a person who buys the gear has actually earned it by getting the money to pay for it. To use an analogy, if someone buys a better computer than the one I built, then it would be odd to say that he did not earn the computer and that I did.

However, it could be argued that this is not like buying a computer but perhaps a bit like buying a trophy. Just because someone has the money to buy a first place trophy does not mean that he earned that trophy.

It is, of course, tempting to say that it is just a game and hence this does not matter at all. The same can be said about all games and sports as well, which might be quite reasonable. After all, people do get rather carried away about sports and they probably really should not.

When I am playing WoW and run into people with complete sets of amazing top end gear I sometimes wonder if they earned it or just bought it. When the player begins an instance run or PvP battle by insulting everyone else about their inferior gear and then goes on to play stupidly, I really suspect that the person bought their stuff. Then again, people can play a really long time and still be very bad.

In my own case, I would not use such services. Laying aside the ethics of the matter, it seems absurd to pay someone else to play a game for me. Also, I have better things to spend my money on, mainly real things.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Immigration, Drugs, & Jobs

by Leave a Comment

Official Seal of the Government of the United ...
Image via Wikipedia

While the oil leak is grabbing the headlines, the matter of illegal immigration is still an important one. One major concern that people have about illegal immigration is that they associate it with crime (most often drug related) and also with economic woes (immigrants taking American jobs or at least depressing wages).

These concerns are legitimate. After all, drug violence has been on the rise in Mexico and seems to be spilling over into the United States. The impact of illegal immigration on economics also seems to make sense: if there are people who will work for less, then they would tend to get the jobs in question.

While people have generally been pointing fingers at lawmakers for the problems with immigration, the drug and economic problems are largely the responsibility of Americans. To be specific, Americans who purchase Mexican drugs and Americans who hire illegal immigrants are major causal factors in these problems.  If Americans did not buy drugs or hire illegals, then these problems would be significantly reduced. Without the vast market in America, there would be less income for drug dealers and hence less incentive for people to go into that field. If Americans did not hire illegals, then illegals would have little incentive to cross the border illegally.

Of course, it seems unlikely that Americans will stop consuming Mexican drugs or hiring illegal workers. New laws probably will not help much. After all, it is already illegal to buy drugs and it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. We already have rather harsh drug laws and these seem to not be working very well. However, perhaps harsher laws regarding the hiring of illegals would have more of an impact.

If harsher laws would not do much, then perhaps a different approach would be more effective. To be specific, the United States could legalize marijuana and perhaps other drugs as well. We have a clear historical precedent in regards to what happens when an illegal intoxicant is made legal. As such, this would hardly be a journey into new territory-we have a reasonably good idea of what would happen (although we could be surprised). American companies could then buy Mexican grown marijuana and sell it legally. This would, interestingly enough, provide jobs for Mexicans and also significantly reduce drug crimes.  This would, to change the old saying, stone two birds with one joint.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Helen Thomas

by Leave a Comment

Helen Thomas meeting students from Maxwell Sch...
Image via Wikipedia

While it took Helen Thomas decades to build her reputation and status, it took her mere seconds to mortally wound her career.  While I will not side with or against her in this matter, it is worthwhile to examine her remarks and the criticisms presented against them.

Thomas was asked  if she had any comments on Israel. Her response was “tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.” When asked for a better comment, she said, “remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not German’s. It’s not Poland’s.” When asked about where she thought the Jews should go, she made it clear that “they should go home”  and that she regarded their home as  “Poland, Germany … and America and everywhere else.”

These remarks led her to be accused of being an “anti-semitic bigot” as well as being ignorant of history.

In terms of the first charge, the main basis for this is an argument by analogy.  For example, Ari Fleischer claimed that  “If this isn’t bigotry, what is? What she said is as bad as someone saying all blacks should leave America and go back to Africa.”

This analogy does have some merit. After all, saying that people should go home simply because they are a specific ethnicity or faith would seem to be a prejudiced remark. However, the analogy does have some weak points.

One weak point is that the history behind the two compared situations is a bit different. The ancestors of many black Americans were forcibly brought to America.  In any case, the blacks who came to America generally did not willing chose to take an active role in the displacement of the native population. Nor did the blacks who came to America use military force to occupy land for the  (alleged) protection of a black nation in America. As such, there does seem to be some relevant differences between the two situations. After all, someone could argue that the Israelis who are not descended from the original inhabitants and who are occupying territory that belongs to descendents of other original inhabitants should go back to the lands of their ancestors. If so, a better comparison would, perhaps, be to someone who said that white people should leave America and go home to Europe and the land should be restored to the natives.

Of course, these differences might not be enough to actually break the analogy. After all, it could be argued that what matters is that a group of people were told they should “go home” based on a specific identity and perhaps that is enough to establish a claim of bigotry.

In terms of the second charge, it might be wondered if her remarks show that she is ignorant of history. On one hand, she is correct that many of the people who went to found the modern state of Israel came from other parts of the world including Poland, Germany, and America. As such, that aspect of the claim is accurate. On the other hand, her claim can be challenged. First, it could be easily argued that the Israelis are home. Using her own claim about America being a home, it would seem to follow that Israel is also a home. After all, America is composed of people from around the world and clearly acquired much territory via conquest. As such, if Americans are home in America, Israelis are at home in Israel.  Second, it can be argued that modern Israel has a link to the past that makes Israel the historical and legitimate home of the modern Israelis.

Of course, both these replies can be countered. After all, it can be argued that conquest does not make a land into a home and, of course, the notion that modern Israel has such a justifying link to the past can be debated. This does raise the rather large ethical question of what justifies a claim that a land is the home of a group. Is it history? Conquest? Purchase? Long occupation? Being the first there? Or something else (or nothing at all?). Unfortunately, while I have time to raise these questions, hashing them out would go way beyond the scope of this blog.

However, it would seem that the Israelis are legitimately at home-at least as legitimately as the people of many other countries. Which might not be very legitimate at all.

My own view is that Thomas’ remarks were (to say the least) rather unfortunate. However, I am not sure that they prove conclusively that she is a bigot or ignorant.  After all, I have learned not to judge a person’s character by a few words but to look at the overall patterns of behavior and expressed belief.  Thomas does not seem to have a record of bigotry or ignorance, so perhaps it is unfair to judge her harshly on this one incident. Or perhaps not-perhaps it is fair and just to judge a person on the basis of a single incident such as this.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Trading Information

by Leave a Comment

Facebook logo
Image via Wikipedia

While knowledge is power, information is now money. This is especially true in the case of Facebook. While Facebook presents itself as a social network site, it can probably be best compared to a gold mine. In gold mine, miners dig up gold for their employers and this is sold to make a profit for the corporate masters. In the case of the Facebook mine, the users’ information is the gold.

Of course, the mine analogy does break down a bit. Ina gold mine, people do not create the gold that is mined. It is just there to be found by whichever company or government that owns the land. In the case of Facebook, the users create the valuable resource.  As such, perhaps a better analogy is that the Facebook users are like chickens in an egg farm. The users do the main work, laying those informational eggs. Then Facebook gathers them up.

On the face of it, being a chicken for Facebook does not seem like a great deal. After all, Facebook is making money and the users are not. Of course, it could be replied that the users are getting something out of it. After all, Facebook does provide a service at no monetary cost to the user. Going back to the chicken analogy, the price of having a place to roost is giving up those informational eggs.

This trade (information for services) is hardly unusual. However, some folks are not happy with Facebook because of its approach to privacy.  In fact, some people have elected to deactivate their accounts rather than accept Facebook’s new approach to privacy. Others are aware of the policies and have decided to remain, while most people probably are unaware and do not care.

As with any economic transaction, whether it is reasonable to trade information for Facebook access depends largely on how much the person doing the trade values what is traded and what it is being traded for. If a person values his privacy less than access to Facebook, then it would seem to be a reasonable deal.

There is also the question of whether the person is making an informed decision about what is being traded. After all, a person might value his privacy less than he values Facebook access because she does not know how valuable her private data is or what the consequences might be for allowing that data to be sold or shared. Unfortunately, while there are clear ways to assess the worth of goods such as gold, oil, or wheat, assessing the value of private data seems to be a bit more complicated. I suspect that the experts are already hard at work developing theories and formulas for this (if they have not done so already).

If a Facebook user does not know the value of his private data, then trading that to Facebook is something of a gamble. To use an analogy, it would be a bit like handing over a lottery ticket as payment for a product. The lottery ticket might be worth more or less than the product, but this is not known.

Of course, people can make an estimate about how much their private data is worth. In most cases, probably not that much. However, depending on what the information could be used for (such as identity theft), then it could be worth a great deal to the person.

A person also needs to consider how much of this private data is unique to Facebook and how much is already readily available. After all, of the information is already not private, the user is not giving up any privacy in return for a Facebook account.

While I am concerned about how Facebook is operating, everything I have on Facebook is also readily available elsewhere. Part of this is due to the fact that my profession (professor) is rather public. Part of this is due to my hobbies and writing. As such, I am not too worried about Facebook leaking anything secret about me. Also, I make a point to ensure that nothing that I want to be kept private ends up on Facebook and I mainly just use it as a place to post photos for my friends to see.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Google Buttocks Game

by Leave a Comment

Female buttocks
Image via Wikipedia

A few days ago I was doing Google searches at the behest of Florence (no, that is not her pictured to the right). Despite the fact that I was searching for information about glass fusing and things she wanted to make out of fused glass, I noticed that pictures of naked buttocks would appear in the search results.  Now, if she had planned on making fused glass images of butts, this would not be a surprise. But, the searches were for things that had nothing to do with buttocks.

After a bit more searching on various non-butt related key words, I came to the conclusion that butts would appear in almost any Google search, even non-butt searches. For example, I did a search on a battlemech from the old BattleTech game, a Warhammer 6D (which looks nothing like a butt). On the second page of search results for images was, you guessed it, someone’s naked ass.

This gave me an idea for a Google game: get some friends together to play the Google Buttocks Game (or Google Ass Game, if you prefer).

Here are the rules:

  • Each player takes a turn picking a non-buttocks related word or words for the search.
  • Each player then writes down the number of the page in the search where s/he thinks an image of a butt will appear.
  • For each page a person is off, s/he gets a point.
  • If there is a question about whether the image qualifies as a buttocks picture, the matter is settled by a group vote. If the challenger loses the vote, he gets a penalty point added to his score.
  • At the end of the game (usually when the boss shows up and says “stop looking at asses!”) the player with the least points is the winner or “ass master” if you prefer.

The game can also be played using other “naughty bits” of the body. The game can also be changed so that the part (butt or whatever) has to be naked rather than clothed to count.

Enjoy.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Baseball Ethics

by Leave a Comment

The Major League Baseball logo.
Image via Wikipedia

Pitcher Armando Galarraga almost pitched a perfect game.  At the last moment a player got a hit and raced towards first base. The ball was hurled to the first baseman and it came down to one critical call by umpire Jim Joyce. Joyce judged that the runner was safe. Unfortunately, a review of the video showed that the runner was, in fact, out. Not surprisingly, Joyce has been savagely attacked in various blogs. Also unsurprisingly, some people have come to his defense.

While I find baseball to be really boring and was forced to endure years of Little League, I do find this situation interesting from an ethical standpoint.

One argument given against Joyce is that he should have decided a close call in favor of the pitcher, rather than the runner. One sensible reason for this is based on considering the consequences. In such a close call situation, a call in favor of the pitcher would yield an amazing achievement-the coveted perfect game. A call in favor of the runner would not provide such an achievement. As such, when the call is so very close it would seem to be right to let the tie go to the pitcher rather than to the runner.

What is, of course, rather critical here is the fact that the call is close.  That is, there are good grounds for going either way on the call.

However, the obvious reply to this is that the job of the umpire is not to judge based on which result will have the best consequences or be a “nice” or “generous” judgment. The duty of an umpire is, as the saying goes, to call it like he sees it. As such, each call must be considered in isolation, without such external factors coming into play. To do otherwise, to change judgment based on such factors, would be a failure of duty on the part of an umpire. Put into philosophical terms, an umpire must judge based on the rules rather than the consequences.

As such, Joyce acted correctly as an umpire. However, there is a rather serious matter to consider: the video showed that Joyce’s call was wrong. As such, the pitcher was unfairly denied his achievement. Or was he?

On one hand, the video shows that the call was mistaken. Oddly enough, the rules of MLB do not currently allow for a change in a call based on an instant reply. However, this situation shows that perhaps this is a good idea. After all, other sports use this and it hardly seems that it would sully the game. Rather, it would make the game more fair.

On the other hand, the game is based on a judgment by an umpire. Those are the rules and as such, that is how the game is to be played. Umpires will, of course, make errors. But, as long as the errors are honest mistakes, then that is all part of the game. Having umpires making calls in real time and not having a video review is part of the sport and to change this, it might be argued, would be to change the nature of the game.

My own view is that MLB should go to using such a review. After all, the technology is there and it would not seem to change the game in any negative way. Or would it? To be honest, I do not have a strong opinion on this aspect. However, I do have feelings about being “robbed.”

While I have never done anything as impressive as pitching a near perfect game, I do know what it was like to be denied an important accomplishment by a miscall. Years ago, I was racing a 10K on the track and set to run my fastest race ever. As you might imagine, 6.2 miles on a quarter mile track involves many laps and people have to carefully count them. In this case, the lap count was off and an official stopped the race early. I did not want to stop-I had been counting my laps. But, when the official calls it over, it is over. Even though it wasn’t. They had to sort out the results and this resulted in some bad feelings. After all, a lot can happen in a quarter mile. Also, since the race was not of the proper length the times did not count.

On the one hand, I was not very happy about this. After all, I had been “robbed.” On the other hand, I recognized that the official made an honest mistake without any malice. As such, I realized that although it was a bad situation, I had nothing against the official. Now, if there had been an attempt to shift blame or otherwise weasel out, then I would have been rather upset. But, an honest mistake is just that and the game must go on.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: