Internet Attacks? Why?

Ganymede

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

I have no idea if that also applies in civil cases; 'suing the asshole into the ground for the remainder of his life' would be similarly appropriate.

Yeah, that's not going to work either.

I can see how a jury would see that a person online has a duty not to invite violence at another person's location. But I don't see how that person breaches that duty if he or she did not know, or had no reason to know, that violence would actually have occurred. I mean, people say a lot of shit about raping and murdering other players if they had a chance to meet them in person -- and how many actually take steps to do it, relative to the "threats"?

It is a jury question, but I don't see it coming out in favor of the decedent.

Why would giving someone a false address would indicate anything but a desire not to give his real one? It's like if a person asks for your number at a bar, and you give them a fake number; are you responsible if the person who asked for it calls that number, gets upset when the person on the other side refuses to acknowledge meeting them, and the jilted person subsequently takes action under the false pretense that such person was you?

(Say that five times fast!)

I'm sorry, Surr. I don't see a successful prosecution or civil suit here.

surreality

@ganymede It would indicate the desire to avoid that person actually following through. Which means they have to at least have considered the possibility that they might, if they had the real one.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

It would indicate the desire to avoid that person actually following through. Which means they have to at least have considered the possibility that they might, if they had the real one.

Unfortunately, possibility doesn't get you passed Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 any more. And I haven't even gotten into the causation issues.

I see what you're saying, but the claim just isn't plausible to me.

surreality

@ganymede It is very scary to think that the person who set this all in motion would have no consequences to face for it. Something is very, very broken here.

Ganymede

@surreality

Why?

Sure, A had a choice. He/she/it could have not said "come fite me bro."

But B didn't have to choose to Swat. He could've shown up there with a posse of Peruvian badger-herders, and sat in front of Address yodeling to Jim Croce's "I've Got A Name." But he chose to escalate the matter even beyond sending hired goons; he decided to get law enforcement involved.

And C could have chosen to refuse to Swat Address. Maybe she could have asked B for a name and a reason. I don't know. Again, she could have gotten Peruvian, yodeling badger-herders instead. But, she didn't: she chose to Swat.

Saying "come fite me bro" isn't a crime. Really, it isn't. They are words. And while they arguably are fighting words, I don't know a prosecutor that would go after a person for saying "come fite me bro." Would it have been any better if A used his own address? Of course not: then A would be dead, presuming the same circumstances.

The culpability rests with B and C. Neither were coerced to "come fite me bro." Or to "Swat." But they chose to Swat. And that arguably was the cause of death.

And that's why it's doubtful a jury would convict A.

If you go too far back along the chain, we might as well indict Z, A's teammate, who decided to get a blow-job from his boyfriend rather than party-up and take down B.

(Edit to add: the doctrine of intervening criminal acts also cuts off A's civil liability.)

surreality

@ganymede I still maintain that the act of giving someone else's address indicates an intent to avoid any potential consequences -- and got someone killed. Without providing an address, the other actions would not have occurred.

So if this guy has no consequences to face, why should the others?

Deal with it: I think that's really fucked up. Because it is.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Deal with it: I think that's really fucked up. Because it is.

Deal with what? You're welcome to your opinion. I'm simply pointing out that A will likely escape legal consequences.

surreality

@ganymede Then why continue to go on at me at length for saying I think it's fucked up and that something is clearly broken here? That sure doesn't sound like it's OK for me to have an opinion.

Ortallus

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

@ganymede Then why continue to go on at me at length for saying I think it's fucked up and that something is clearly broken here? That sure doesn't sound like it's OK for me to have an opinion.

I was more under the impression Gany was trying to show you the facts of why it's unlikely to happen, based on the laws as they stand.

Should something happen?

Debatable.

Is something likely to happen?

No.

surreality

@ortallus Yeah, that part I got -- it continuing well past the point it needed to is where we get into browbeating territory, and my eyes start rolling back into my skull with annoyance, and not without cause.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

Then why continue to go on at me at length for saying I think it's fucked up and that something is clearly broken here? That sure doesn't sound like it's OK for me to have an opinion.

Because you continued to respond and I'm lonely? Or, more to the point, you have provided different justifications for maintaining your opinion, and those justifications are worth considering and talking about.

Plus, I'm watching Captain Underpants for the eleven-billionth time, and your justifications are spurring other thoughts.

surreality

@ganymede Fair, fair. Apologies for jumping your shit.

It is pretty scary to me to think that someone could do this, this could be the result, and absolutely zero consequences would apply. Considering the type of person we're talking about who engages in these kinds of things (not especially stable/etc.) it seems like it would encourage more of this.

I have the world's most nebulous address. Not so nebulous I'll post it here, but nebulous enough that the postal sorting machines screw up more often than they don't, and we get mail for dozens and dozens of people.

I'll never really know if it was that, or someone randomly handing out our address falsely to folks, but I do know that one fine afternoon, two people showed up at my house and pounded on the door until I answered it. I was very lucky to have room mates at the time, one of which was home, and was a very tall, brawny guy, because this couple tried to force their way into my home, demanding to know where 'Susan' was. I don't know any Susans. No Susans lived at my address. It is inherited property; it has been in our family since 1979. They continued to attempt to kick in my door in search of 'Susan', and insisted they knew Susan was there because there were boxes in the foyer, and 'Susan had clearly just moved in, there are boxes!'

They did not stop kicking the door until they saw me holding the phone and talking to 911.

That shit is scary, even when it's 'you just have that kind of address'. That some little shit deliberately sent people to an address... <shakes her head> ...just ugh.

Ganymede

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

That shit is scary, even when it's 'you just have that kind of address'. That some little shit deliberately sent people to an address... <shakes her head> ...just ugh.

I know.

See, here's the thing I don't know: why did A use Address? Did he pick it at random? Or did he know Andrew Finch somehow?

Let's say he did know Finch. Did he specifically piss off B, knowing that B would take things too far? If so, did A do so to get back at Finch for something?

These are questions in my mind. If DickBagPlayer threatened to beat my ass, and I told him to go 123 Fake Street, I don't think I should be responsible for what happens if I don't know whether 123 Fake Street is an actual address or not. But if I knew someone at 123 Fake Street, and I picked that address for a reason, then there's some meat on the idea that I should be responsible for what happened. At least, insofar as the law (generally) is concerned.

Regarding your situation, this is why I'm a fan of reasonable gun laws. I'm happy to register and get a license to carry, if necessary. But after this one time we found a tweaker in our backyard, we knew that it was time to stop considering our monthly shooting sessions as only "fun."

Mm. SigSauer pistol.

surreality

@ganymede The most bizarre part of that whole thing? It was a couple in their... 50s? Early 60s? In cheesy neon velour jogging suits. In one of those bright aqua wee cars from the 90s, from Indiana.

These are not people anyone would normally consider scary.

Until crazy bullshit started flooding insistently from their mouths and they began kicking at the door and looking around the yard for something to break a window with.

I mean... what on earth did Susan do?!

(Probably got accused of something insane by these lunatics and fled for her damn life.)

ETA: We don't have guns in the house, but we do have a completely ridiculous prop broadsword right by the door. Hefting that fucker into view through the little central window in the front door has turned more than one person away from the property since.

Seraphim73

@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:

ETA: We don't have guns in the house, but we do have a completely ridiculous prop broadsword right by the door. Hefting that fucker into view through the little central window in the front door has turned more than one person away from the property since.

I firmly believe that waving around a broadsword is the second most effective non-violent home defense technique (after racking the slide on an unloaded pump-action shotgun). Our home defense weapon is a bastard sword under my side of the bed. If there's ever a home intruder, they're going to be treated to a naked 6'3" man coming after them with a bastard sword. If they don't run... they can have what they find in the house.

surreality

@seraphim73 See, I'm a 5ft heavy chick with rainbow green hair. Whoever is showing up may not be frightened of the kind of physical harm they may come to, but 'that weird woman is aiming a sword taller than she is at me, she is crazy, RUN FOR IT!' is definitely a thing I have no qualms merrily exploiting.

I mean, at a glance, the old couple in cheap velour track suits would scare no one. When they were screaming through the door, trying to kick it in, and looking for yard tools to bash in a window... they were pretty terrifying.

ETA: Joke's on them. As if we do yard work. Ha!

Three-Eyed Crow

I've been reading this thread and sort of batting a lot of thoughts around about it without fully being able to pull them together. Because I think MUers can be incredibly cruel to eachother and we all have tales of really shitty things we've either seen or experienced first-hand (I can, off the top of my head, remember two cases of players faking their deaths for no better purpose than ginning up sympathy to escape IC consequences/fucking with people. Humans be messed up). But I also think this is a pool of gaming that is less cruel than the worst of what you see in other quasi-anonymous online gaming venues. I think the relatively small size of the player pool helps. You can't burn your bridges TOO much, or else you'll have nowhere to play very quickly. I also think there's a separation in text and the slower pace where you can keep things from becoming as intense as you might get in a medium where voice interaction and interaction through graphical platforms is more normal.

But I was listening to this podcast on (among other things) the promise of virtual reality today, and it pulled together some things that kind of connected with me on this.

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-interview

This guy had a lot of what I found to be really interesting thoughts on the toxicity of some online platforms, and he talked about VR as - at the moment - a place where there was promise for a better kind of interaction. And a large part of that promise was how personally-driven (rather than pack-mentality driven) the experience was when you assume an avatar that you've created and invested in. And you're interacting with the other avatars that other users have created and invested in, in that same singular way. The lack of monetization/advertising as a driving behavioral force was also put forward as something that sort of leveled out the way players relate to each other. It keeps the experience personal, even in a very unreal way, and doesn't allow you to as easily dehumanize the other players.

This might be too starry-eyed a view of VR (it's not a platform I have a ton of familiarity with) but I found it a really intriguing conversation and it pulled at some threads that I think are applicable to MUing as well at its best (and its worst people are still sometimes terrible, but that's the nature of people).

surreality

@three-eyed-crow I don't know if I will be able to properly explain how my brain tangent-hopped from what you posted to where it landed, but I think there's a lot of truth in this, and it's actually one of the ways I've been working my ass off to build into the setup I've been kicking around for some time.

Mainly, allowing players to contribute elements of the game and make the 'build' of it more shared/communal on the whole. (My working theory is that non-asshat players are more likely to not kick over another player's sandcastle just because they can in the way they might kick sand around the sandbox broadly, especially if they can create a sandcastle of their own they observe other players enjoying and respecting in the same way.)

This actually ties in to that old thesis about the four types of players; one of the most illuminating aspects of it was that the 'killer' type isn't actually interested in destroying things, it's that they're interested in making a permanent impact on/have the ability to change the world, and are typically just as happy creating as destroying, if it serves that goal. Most places just block off the 'creation' ability or restrict it so heavily that 'destroy' is the path of least resistance by an enormous margin. (Over time, some things have become more open, others much more strict, yes, but on the whole even the 'more open these days' things are typically a maze of bureaucrazy and frustration to struggle through.)

Lithium

@surreality As a Killer archetype, I agree with this completely. If you won't let me /build/ stuff or /change/ stuff or do /anything/ that makes me feel like I have an impact on a game, then what else is there left to do? I hadn't thought of that in that way, I am not a rampant pk'er but I definitely do not have any qualms about it. I try to handle it ICly and via the nature of the character/splat, but I do not feel that Death ends stories, it only alters the participation. The story continues.

I do not however, tend to understand how assholish people can be on games though. It just boggles my mind when someone sets out to /fuck up/ everyone else's fun.

surreality

@lithium Yeah, I know what you mean. Well, also -- think of it this way: a grid square is part of the scenery. Blow it up, who gives a crap. People are typically much more hesitant to blow up another player's business that that player built on the grid, even if they exist in the same space, because that's a creation of someone on their same level of involvement/investment, rather than a staff-built 'part of the generic background noise'.

So giving people a real stake in being involved in creating the world/etc. has a lot of benefits, and they're benefits that improve things for everybody in some way. (Explorer now has new areas, socializer has less worry that someone they're being social with will vanish into a boredom PK, etc.) It starts to become 'our space' rather than 'a space' and people value 'our spaces' more than just spaces in general.