STOP before you make another life changing UPDATE,READ THIS!

[Alsatia01]

the "reason" is logic based its not an evidenciary matter.

I see the reason of how you made the connection.

What I fail to see, is why it's an issue.

I'm not really against changing the button label, nor am I for it. I was simply asking for a cognitive reason why it should be changed.

I canonlyhope yournot asking me to come up with evidence to explain the negative social impacts of slavery inthe real world.

I was not asking you for reasons why slavery is bad.

What I asked for is -

demonstrate how any of these 'issues' have any demonstrable harm.

Specifically, having a button labeled as 'sell' instead of something less ethically questionable.

More importantly, what you're advocating for wouldn't exactly solve the problem you're trying to fix. It's something spincycle brought up here -

In a virtual game in a virtual world such as WT is...a eudi is an inanimate object. Call it a "kid" or a "eudi" it is virtual. You refer to it as a "kid" and as a rl "kid" who is being sold...and should be dismissed instead. My question is...why are you dismissing the "kid" from your family? Dismiss means to allow them to leave the table or some thing.

The argument could be made that child abandonment is a larger issue than slavery, effecting the lives of over 143 million orphans (by a UNICEF report), as apposed to the 30 million slaves ( as calculated by the United Nations ) in the world.

What label could they conceivably change it to, to make it less egregious?

So, in other words, you come in, make all sorts of accusations and claims, refuse to back them up when asked, and basically say that you are not going to respond to calls for evidence nor reveal your method of thinking because you don't entertain people who don't agree with you?

Essentially, yes.

The problem is self evident for me. You think I needed evidence to confirm the conclusion I came to when I saw that button?

Seems like circular logic to me. You don't need to explain why you feel the way you do; I was just asking for why you see it that way.

[AdaJames]

Essentially, yes.

He's a frakking greenie...

[R27377783]

So, in other words, you come in, make all sorts of accusations and claims, refuse to back them up when asked, and basically say that you are not going to respond to calls for evidence nor reveal your method of thinking because you don't entertain people who don't agree with you?

Bravo! You're a greenie, aren't you?

hmm "greenie" sounds like more political **** to me. Here is the TOS http://forum.r2games.com/showthread.php?8-R2Games-Rules
Anyway if thats how you need to reinterpret my posts I'm not going to dispute it. I generally flesh out my logic on the spot and thats one of the reasons the posts are so long. These games you and your friends are playing to try and read deep within the lines and figure out what kind of ideology you can accuse me of harboring and do more character assassination attempts don't much interest me. If I wanted this thread to be so much about me I would have written the OP alot differently and fleshed out my profile a little better so you could see what I'm about. Most of my ideas are meant to be taken at face value.

[R27377783]

I see the reason of how you made the connection.

What I fail to see, is why it's an issue.

use your imagination then, I wonder what you'll come up with. Let me edit this retort. Its MY position that because you "fail" to see THAT which is arguably more important than HOW I arrived at the conclusion, your better off on the other side of the debate..no sensitivity to the human equation.

I'm not really against changing the button label, nor am I for it. I was simply asking for a cognitive reason why it should be changed.

I already gave one reason in my OP and these replies, I don't know if there are others. Your mining for underlying reasons that I'm not prepared or interested in extrapolating..and I believe I know what your doing. I know you are argumentative and being easily paranoid, I feel this is likely a tactic get me to narrow the significance/scope of my position and give you something specific to attack besides the nebulous morality of the issue..something concrete with numbers and mission statements..no its not there at least not in my debate team's war chest. Much like you probably feel about my argument, without a wider context I feel that putting slavery into the game is immoral and unnecessary. That there for me at least is enough to call for getting rid of the implication if it is indeed just an oversight. I can't or am unwilling to make it enough for you with facts, figures or social consensus. So apparently you'll need more reasons to pick a side let alone take that same position on the hot button issue. While I suppose it'd be nice to have someone argumentative like you on "my" side, I'm not that interested in the actual decision making process of every individual here as to recruit from within this terribly ambivalent forum culture for a major campaign on this issue. Anyway why should it matter to you why its so important an issue for ME? I raised the issue, you now claim you understand the connotation. we each get to decide for ourselves where it exists in our priority spectrum and why. I can't even convince you to take a position at all on the issue. I'd be more likely to write you off as a potential ally for that reason alone. In my view its safe to assume your not going to be inclined to promote satisfying the objection with a change because even though you don't seem so very much prone to unnecessarily offend common sensibilities, your passion is in sticking up for those who would chose to offend even popularly held ideals for one thing. You've made that pretty clear to me in other posts...but I don't know you that well, surprise me. I already think your social sensitivity level at least as far as gaming and in such where it relates to the institutions or the mechinations of slaving operations is kaput. Thats what I gather from just your dire need for a vulcan explanation of why this button issue is so objectionable. I'm not going to draw up a term paper to convince the Vulcan's why I think they should be laughing at the joke.

More importantly, what you're advocating for wouldn't exactly solve the problem you're trying to fix. It's something spincycle brought up here -
The argument could be made that child abandonment is a larger issue than slavery, effecting the lives of over 143 million orphans (by a UNICEF report), as apposed to the 30 million slaves ( as calculated by the United Nations ) in the world.

What label could they conceivably change it to, to make it less egregious?

almost any other, but I already advocated a second alternative "release" (not because of spincyle's ridiculous sidestepping analogy that solely hinges on the characters' nickname..but because of other considerations including the possibility that there actually could be some story driven intent by devs to imply some contact or bond does exist.
SPincyle essentially took my own essentially unnecessary straw man observation/argument turned it into an opposing new strawman about dismissing actual kids. Which dismissing kids is common and doesn't automatically mean abandoning them either..they can be dismissed from the dinner table, dismissed from school dismissed from their chores,dismissed from the room so the grown ups can talk..by contrast there are very few socially acceptable instances where a child can be sold for a few crystals. SO the difference in the wording between "dismiss" and "sell" can be pretty dramatic when your talking about a "person" or something that is meant to be a representation of a person. Not sure which I prefer between "release" and "dismiss" I'm leaning toward "release" because it sounds better to me and also covers the both the contract and slave/bondage possibilities pretty well and leaves it open for more mundane explanations "release" from a promise or curse..and yet devs are still free to include slavery into the game at a later date preferably while providing more content and context.

[Splinterz]

Eudaemon's are Greek mythological beings. In mystical approaches eudaemon is sometimes defined as a symbol of "higher self". According to psychologist Carl Jung there is no eudaemon or cacodaemon, but only the daemon, which is a unique independent spirit neither good nor bad, living in everyone. A sort of Inner self, Soul or Inner Child. Therefore the sell button could be viewed as selling part of your self or letting go of part of yourself. Players have chosen to refer to their Eudaemons as kids simply out of convenience and with affection. Any perceived correlation between the "sell" button and slavery is a well meaning but misguided inference.

[Alsatia01]

Its MY position that because you "fail" to see THAT which is arguably more important than HOW I arrived at the conclusion, your better off on the other side of the debate..no sensitivity to the human equation.

Yes, I'm the one with the insensitivity to the human equation.

Except that by your own logic, you wish to exchange a label denoting slavery, for a label denoting child abuse and abandonment.

Your mining for underlying reasons that I'm not prepared or interested in extrapolating..and I believe I know what your doing. I know you are argumentative and being easily paranoid, I feel this is likely a tactic get me to narrow the significance/scope of my position and give you something specific to attack besides the nebulous morality of the issue..something concrete with numbers and mission statements..no its not there at least not in my debate team's war chest.

I've never seen someone call me paranoid, in such a paranoid fashion before. At the very least, that's a very... conspiratorial statement.

So apparently you'll need more reasons to pick a side let alone take that same position on the hot button issue. While I suppose it'd be nice to have someone argumentative like you on "my" side, I'm not that interested in the actual decision making process of every individual here as to recruit from within this terribly ambivalent forum culture for a major campaign on this issue.

Having no opinion, is the default position. You believe that having a sell button for the eudaemon is similar to the concept of owning slaves. I do not. It does not mean I believe the contrary.

Thats what I gather from just your dire need for a vulcan explanation of why this button issue is so objectionable. I'm not going to draw up a term paper to convince the Vulcan's why I think they should be laughing at the joke.

Yes, a 'dire need' for explanation. I asked "why you believe that's a problem?" - so very dire indeed.

almost any other, but I already advocated a second alternative "release"

Release and dismiss are just as bad though, have you looked at the synonyms?

let go, reject, abolish, banish, boot, chase, chuck, clear, deport, dispatch, divorce, eject, relinquish, repel, repudiate, rid, shed, brush off, cast off, cast out, dispose of, drive out, force out, lock out, kick out, let out..... I could go on.

There are no good labels for what you're trying to accomplish. Maybe you could say that some labels are worse than others, but that is an extremely arbitrary, subjective opinion to have.

[Alsatia01]

Addendum - Your posts aren't exactly easy to follow, so I'm going to make a number of assumptions. You can tell me how accurate you believe my assumptions to be.

If I'm understanding you correctly; You believe that in the context of eudaemon being 'kids', it is less objectionable to 'dismiss' them, than it is to 'sell' them, because there are a number of situations where you would 'dismiss' a child, without necessarily abandoning them.

The problem I have with this argument, is that eudaemon are not children (as Spliterz just talked about). Not in the context of the game, nor in the context of reality. Since you aren't willing to 'put in the effort' to demonstrate why this could be potentially harmful in any form whatsoever, I think we are just going to have a difference of opinion.

You are going to believe this is a real issue that should be tackled in some form or another, and I just don't happen to see it the same way you do. I think that's more or less, all that needs to be said.

[R27377783]

Eudaemon's are Greek mythological beings. In mystical approaches eudaemon is sometimes defined as a symbol of "higher self". According to psychologist Carl Jung there is no eudaemon or cacodaemon, but only the daemon, which is a unique independent spirit neither good nor bad, living in everyone. A sort of Inner self, Soul or Inner Child. Therefore the sell button could be viewed as selling part of your self or letting go of part of yourself. Players have chosen to refer to their Eudaemons as kids simply out of convenience and with affection. Any perceived correlation between the "sell" button and slavery is a well meaning but misguided inference.

well done..but still, unless you got this from a dev or moderator speaking for the devs your conjecture about why "sell" is the button is as good as mine..and quite frankly I'm pretty sure if any one of us had led the original post with: "selling Eudaemons is tantamount to selling your soul!!" We'd have gotten a much more viscious reaction..and probably a demerit from the moderators for religious talk in the forums. Its interesting though another player I personally polled about this subject indicated they thought(without having your information) that Eudaemons were some kind of extension of the main characters "will" I found that to be a really appealing and insightful take on them. I didn't find it likely but if what you say is true that makes her idea rather intuitive.
I thank you for this insightful reply though.

[R27377783]

Addendum - Your posts aren't exactly easy to follow, so I'm going to make a number of assumptions. You can tell me how accurate you believe my assumptions to be.

If I'm understanding you correctly; You believe that in the context of eudaemon being 'kids', it is less objectionable to 'dismiss' them, than it is to 'sell' them, because there are a number of situations where you would 'dismiss' a child, without necessarily abandoning them.

The problem I have with this argument, is that eudaemon are not children (as Spliterz just talked about). Not in the context of the game, nor in the context of reality. Since you aren't willing to 'put in the effort' to demonstrate why this could be potentially harmful in any form whatsoever, I think we are just going to have a difference of opinion.

You are going to believe this is a real issue that should be tackled in some form or another, and I just don't happen to see it the same way you do. I think that's more or less, all that needs to be said.

your both putting too much emphasis on my original kid correlation it is not a lynchpin of my argument to change the button and is more or less a straw man(trust me I AM getting tired of using that expression) I put in for effect and to inspire some additional moral examination. I also don't believe anyone seriously thinks I think these pixels are real, but whether I do or not is only relevant to my own psychological development..that doesn't diminish the possibility that: as a concept it could still be a "real" moral issue for someone. But I agree with what your saying about difference of perspective leading to difference of how considerable the issue is. I'm not happy that you can't give it any weight but I'm not sad about it either. Its your perspective, its yours to have.

[R27377783]

Yes, I'm the one with the insensitivity to the human equation.

Except that by your own logic, you wish to exchange a label denoting slavery, for a label denoting child abuse and abandonment.

to be fair to me I need to point out here that the connotation of child abuse and abandonment was not MY logic that logic was put forward by Splinterz and now it seems you Alsatia have also adopted it..I don't adopt it..though I do see how you could arrive at that connotation in association with the term "kid".

I've never seen someone call me paranoid, in such a paranoid fashion before. At the very least, that's a very... conspiratorial statement.

it was poorly written, I was calling MYSELF paranoid.

Having no opinion, is the default position.

not quintessentially true for "moral" questions.

Release and dismiss are just as bad though, have you looked at the synonyms?

let go, reject, abolish, banish, boot, chase, chuck, clear, deport, dispatch, divorce, eject, relinquish, repel, repudiate, rid, shed, brush off, cast off, cast out, dispose of, drive out, force out, lock out, kick out, let out..... I could go on.

There are no good labels for what you're trying to accomplish. Maybe you could say that some labels are worse than others, but that is an extremely arbitrary, subjective opinion to have.

...and yet you don't have a problem with the effect of the purpose of the button that each of these synonyms could be used to accomplish that is essentially to get rid of the Eudaemon from your character's army? ..and no the dismissal or rejection of "kids"(not necessarily children) is common normal and socially excepted, and very widely believed to be part of their de-nesting process. Do I intentionally advocate it? NO I personally believe the opposite..I would be on the side of clan building meaning there is no automatic "kick'em out" age for offspring based only on age.

[R27377783]

By the way I've never advocated for the continued use of the term "kid" I find it nonsensical and I don't consider it a part of the game itself (unlike the sell button which is an observable part of the game)..but I also find it to be cultural and therefore there is no real recourse..the community seems to have come up with the term organically and it has stuck..I don't often use it myself so your accusation that my suggestion to change the button to dismiss or release is an advocacy of abuse or whatever is in reality(though you'd have no way of knowing that fact) far fetched..but I suppose you still have a point if we are going to continue to accept the use of the term "kid". If we follow that line of reasoning to its fulfillment then it is abusive/immoral to bring them into battle with our main characters or anywhere in the game for anyone who uses the term in its most obvious frame of reference as related to child. The immorality there would fall most heavily on the person who first coined the term while knowing we would be using them for battle and pitting them against each other in Arenas(I saw an LAw and Order SVU episode about that once). In that line I should be advocating for the removal of the Eudaemons from the game so long as the "kid" term is allowed to persist..I'm not doing that..perhaps I'm a hypocrite..I'm okay with that..because I too can comp0artmentalize my priorities.. Again though the whole "kid" angle of my argument was a straw man argument(and a bit of a comic relief to myself) to illustrate an additional moral implication, and give weight to my suggestion to change the button..it was never intended to be a lynchpin. I Never thought dismissing kids was an implication of "wrongdoing" and I still don't for the reasons I've already illustrated. I wouldn't use the terms or do some of the things described with some of the synonyms you found to a "kid" but a synonym does not always carry an exact same meaning either. As long as it is your ultimate goal to argue with me and not reach any kind of consensus I can't expect to reach one with you.

[R27377783]

If I'm understanding you correctly; You believe that in the context of eudaemon being 'kids', it is less objectionable to 'dismiss' them, than it is to 'sell' them, because there are a number of situations where you would 'dismiss' a child, without necessarily abandoning them.

Yes absolutely..and even in the context of abandonment it still less morally objectionable than enslaving them..for profit.

Since you aren't willing to 'put in the effort' to demonstrate why this could be potentially harmful in any form whatsoever, I think we are just going to have a difference of opinion.

how potentially harmful does it have to be to be cause for a forum post? By your logic noone should ever complain about anything with a game not even strictly mechanical issues because ..its just a game and..ostensibly..can bring no harm..I don't believe that, but this is Your logic(or at least my interpretation of it) I'm referring to. I don't seriously believe you when you say you don't see the "harm" I personally think you just find it preferable to disagree with my conclusion..but thats my opinion and I stand by it.

[Splinterz]

I'd like to point out that initially there was no way to release or sell an Eudaemon. It's only after feedback from players that the sell button was added. The developers quickly realised that with judicial use of hot events, players could have an unlimited supply of Eudaemon resources. So they reduced the resale value of Eudaemons and optimised the hot events, yet another oversight on the part of 7 Road. The word sell is wholly appropriate because you receive value from the transaction.

It's clear the developers intended for Eudaemons to be an extension of the player by choosing to call them Eudaemons. Otherwise they would have called them something else. I am beginning to understand how the developers intended for Eudaemons to work. Where by skills, stats and resistances are permanently unlocked through development. The Player then has the choice of how their Eudaemon (spirit or soul) appears to others and also chooses which skills and stats are developed. It could have been implemented in a similar way to dragon soul or clothing. But the developer has chosen a different mechanic. It was the players that then demanded for a way to remove duplicate Eudaemons.

I will also add, that saying well done to me, is coming across as arrogant, patronising and condescending. It's not helping your case for making this a decent philosophical conversation. And after NOT reading most of your work, it's much more likely in a professional capacity that I would be the one grading your work and not the other way round.

[Meikura001]

You obviously DO give a flying -bleep- or you wouldn't be discussing it. Its not political, your calling it/making it political. Your problem is that for some abstract reason YOU DON'T want anyone else to care about it either and because I DO you want to make a war with me. So how is it you can claim you don't care when your willing to go to war with me over it? Right now my only concern is with the game. I don't feel it belongs in the game as is. You don't agree or rather you don't care that its in the game...but also because you believe that ideals are separate from the game, you don't think I should mention it. I've mentioned it. What I've mentioned is still in the game so its relevant to the forum. So what if YOU believe that everything else is separate or irrelevant to the game. This separation of ideals and gaming is not true in ANY case, and its also just your shallow opinion. Its your IDEAL that social responsibility has no place in the game just as much as its mine that they DO have a place in it. HOW IS IT POLITICAL? Ideals are not political until they are politicised. For discussing it in the game's forum to make it political it would have to be a political forum. I don't have a problem with politics, but they are not allowed in the forum. I am not aware of any current political debate in real life regarding slave trade. As far as I know slavery has been just about unanimously condemned by most political movements that have any real influence in geopolitics. So how is bring it up opening a political debate? Thats what I mean when I say its not really a subject of political debate. You are politicising it just by saying its political.. The reality is that I think your tying it to some raging political debate happening elsewhere about political correctness. I don't participate in that debate because I believe its a misnomer and a strawman/cop out argument from the outset. I'm not the one bringing that topic of debate about political correctness, YOU are. If you really didn't want me or anyone else to discuss this subject and compare anything in the game to anything SOCIALLY controversial you would be against having anything SOCIALLY controversial in the game. In other words you would effectively be on the "change the button" side of that topic, if for no other reason than that its now become a cause for discussion about its sociability in the forum. Which seems to be a sore spot with you (to discuss the social acceptability of game features) and yet you still feel compelled to participate in such discussions for reasons that must be your own. The only other conclusion I have is that you simply wish it didn't **** anybody off for social reasons but theres nothing anybody can do about that reality because it already DOES **** off at least one person who is willing to ask that it be changed.
I really I don't get what you expect anyone to do to change THAT fact: It already pisses someone off. You can hate me for that I guess..but theres really nothing anyone can do about that, not even me. It already pisses me off and your outspoken ignorance somewhat pisses me off...does that mean there should be something I can do about it? No. I'm sure everyone will agree that just because you **** me off doesn't mean that there should be something I can do about it. I have to accept it...you need to accept that this button pisses me off..Even if it doesn't **** you off or you think it should make everyone see rainbows.. Just like you think I'm an ahole for having that opinion I think your an ahole for having yours. You know this already so if you really don't care what the button says and...I don't get the impression that you'd like to affect my rationale, what are you hoping to gain by discussing it? I suppose I'm curious.
Conclusion: I don't consider it realistic that your angry at the fact that it pisses ME off. I sure don't see how you could give a rats bottom about what pisses ME and apparently anyone else given your attitudes and assertions in the previous posts I've had with you...therefore the first conclusion is the logical one..You wish to politicize this subject by tying it with the ridiculous popular debate about "political correctness". That topic is a straw man debate and filled with cop out reasoning, I don't follow that debate and I wont participate in it here in this thread. Either you see the implications of slavery here on the sell button or you don't. I'm not going to try and describe why the implication is objectionable its very plain for me and I can't relate to those who don't see it as plainly(therefore I'm not the ideal person to explain it to them.) Nor am I going to try and convince anyone that slavery itself is objectionable..if your not sure if its an objectionable activity then you need to work that out in your head or utilize a search engine. I'm not going to debate about my "right" to post my opinion about a feature of the game. I don't see anything about not being able to discuss moral objections to features of the game in the forum rules. Where do you get off creating that rule?

No, it's just comedy gold as I am getting a laugh in a somewhat boring forum. I mean keep 'em coming if you feel it should. Maybe you will get a spot at the Improv or Apollo.

Okay back on topic, it's political because you voiced your objections like any other p<beep> who is a bleeding heart when something doesn't sit well with them. Like I have said, you should have stopped about somewhere in page 1 instead of making a "tele-novella" about it. Not one damn soul on this forum have regarded the "sell" button on a Eudaemon as a form of slavery, exploitation, or human trafficking. Not one. You are making a mountain out of a molehill in typing in all of this diatribe. Just enjoy the game. If you don't like it, then don't play. Simple as that.

Now get off your f<beep>in' high horse as now you are trolling.

[AdaJames]

This guy is reminding me of Sean Penn and his refugee p**n movie: stupid bleeding heart loon who wants to "help" by making something utterly stupid and then get in a huff when that something was slammed to hell by all and sundry and laughed out of the cinema.