« Coldwell Banker selling homes in Second Life | Main | The face of information »

Mar 27, 2007



Ugh. I hate the idea of griefers sanctifying themselves by giving to charity. This is being done now as W-hat whitewashes itself by running a relay team for the American Cancer Society. It completely overlooks the very real damage and crime they do; it artificially sets up a situation of emotional blackmail where if you object that criminals shouldn't be allowed to reinvent themselves and have their crimes forgotten in this facile way, you're told that you are causing cancer patients to die, or you are harming the raising of money for cancer.

Hell, no, that's false logic. You can donate blodd, and encourate the donation of blood in a million ways, you don't have to whitewash and sanctify griefers on the way do doing that. Ditto cancer fundraising.

It's disingenuous; it's false; it's the big lie; it's yet another example of bad faith in the Metaverse.


Are you prehaps taking this a little too seroiusly Neva?

The company obviously has a rather wiry sense of humour, and has addressed a pressing RL social issue in China is a new and inventive way.

Like any company, they have a social responsibility, this company though has obviously decided that it is the gatekeeper to a game which a number of individuals (who've cheated) now want to regain access too.

Making them literally pay with blood is both comedic in it's intention, socially responsible in it's intent..

... and rather worrying in it's ethics!

It's the corporate ethics of the situation which is worrying. Obviously the company holds great sway over these former players, to the point where they are literally willing to cash in blood to regain access.

What the company is doing could be termed socially responsible yes, and funny, yes... but does it also show a degree of power?

Power over whom?

People literally willing to pay in blood to regain access! :-)

Which brings me to the question: should we be concerned about the ethical treatment of these types of companies to players who have gone beyond mere customers onto the side of fanatical supporters?

In the UK we see this often with Plc football clubs. The supporters of the football clubs aren't just paying customers, many are fanatical supporters (indeed fans!) and I'm sure this is seen time and time again thoughout a number of sports.

Would we be concerned if a football club allowed supporters formerly banned from the stadium due to misconduct back into the ground if they gave donated blood? Yes.

Would we be concerned about the ethics of such a move? Yes.

Would it be funny? Probably yes too! :-)


Prokofy wrote:

Ugh. I hate the idea of griefers sanctifying themselves by giving to charity. This is being done now as W-hat whitewashes itself by running a relay team for the American Cancer Society.

Yeah, there's nothing worse than letting people do a good deed to help make up for past misdeeds. I know I gnash my teeth whenever a judge sentences someone to community service rather than just exiling them.

It is truly a crime that someone's life might be saved by donated blood when instead we could get all polemic about the donator's horrible, terrible crime. Why, I bet some of those people violated the EULA! Wait...wait...can you hear it? It's the sound of Lady Justice weeping, for surely there is no crime so terrible as the breaking of the holy EULA. Murderers may be occasionally granted shortened sentence through good behavior and contributions to society but god forbid we treat breaking a EULA with some sense of perspective.



It's kinda harsh, but no one's forcing these people to donate blood. If they want to break the rules, then repent by doing a good deed, then like Matt I don't see a problem. If they're truly bad apples, then they'll get banned soon again anyway.

Good idea, IMO, though a little draconian.

The comments to this entry are closed.