Originally Posted by TempIar
In potentially dangerous situations, I can observe people using their devices without care for the safety of others or themselves.
Such is the difficulty presented in allowing people to take responsibility for their own actions. It's not possible to force someone into being sensible.
Originally Posted by TempIar
If there is a situation that can be fixed, and there is reason to do so, which would you say is easier to subvert?
In this situation, I would think that the participants, rather than the medium, is responsible for resolving the conflict.
Member
Originally Posted by Toolfree
Any form of addiction is bad. But, if technology is used in a self-controlled manor, I see no problem with using it as a primary method of social interaction.
But have you seen that there are a rather large group that are consistently "addicted" to technology? Granted, there are addictions throughout the ages, but this one seems particularly dangerous. I'm trying to say that there are people addicted to technology, and that they are not controlling themselves. Social interaction is fine, but not when it takes precedence over your life.
-----
Originally Posted by Wight
Such is the difficulty presented in allowing people to take responsibility for their own actions. It's not possible to force someone into being sensible.
In this situation, I would think that the participants, rather than the medium, is responsible for resolving the conflict.
Granted that the people involved are more of a contributing factor, but in the case of, hypothetically, the same situation between the same people in the 2 different communication mediums, which is more effective?
Last edited by Templar; Jan 25, 2014 at 12:52 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
FREE-SPEECH CAUSE FUCK YOU
ONLY COMMIES CHANGE AVVYS
ONLY COMMIES CHANGE AVVYS
As I was preparing for D&D, I had found this page, detailing a conversion of the D&D alignments to real-world equivalents. There was an interesting point made about the naming schema; that while "lawful" and "good" are generally positive labels, "chaotic" and "evil" characters tend to have more complex motivations than their labelling would suggest.
What is your opinion of this? Some of these values are considered more important to society in general, and some are more important to different individuals, yet while all of these traits can be both positive and negative, the green and yellow half is generally seen as being more positive than the other half.
For those interested, you may also want to consider how the D&D alignments correspond to this spectrum. Do you agree with how they are represented?
Spectrum of values
What is your opinion of this? Some of these values are considered more important to society in general, and some are more important to different individuals, yet while all of these traits can be both positive and negative, the green and yellow half is generally seen as being more positive than the other half.
For those interested, you may also want to consider how the D&D alignments correspond to this spectrum. Do you agree with how they are represented?
Member
Originally Posted by Wight
As I was preparing for D&D, I had found this page, detailing a conversion of the D&D alignments to real-world equivalents. There was an interesting point made about the naming schema; that while "lawful" and "good" are generally positive labels, "chaotic" and "evil" characters tend to have more complex motivations than their labelling would suggest.
Spectrum of values
What is your opinion of this? Some of these values are considered more important to society in general, and some are more important to different individuals, yet while all of these traits can be both positive and negative, the green and yellow half is generally seen as being more positive than the other half.
For those interested, you may also want to consider how the D&D alignments correspond to this spectrum. Do you agree with how they are represented?
Now granted, evil characters may have more complex motivations for their actions, but I do believe that characters that are "evil" are decided ultimately by their concern for other beings. It matters whether or not their actions take into account fellow beings. Generally, Holy characters also have a flaw here too, at least the ones overtaken in their "gods warpath". But most rational characters have a sense of morality about them. I don't think that you can call a king evil because he decides to wage a war, but if he has no regard for his own troops and little care of whether they die or not, then I'd consider him evil. I don't think it's a perspective thing in theses cases. Granted, there should be a way to identify this characteristic in D&d, but I don't think the system is all that flawed at the moment. I don't find chaotic very negative, just random. Evil is supposed to be negative. Power and Ambition are not always bad things, but they tend to spawn evil intentions in their pursuit.
FREE-SPEECH CAUSE FUCK YOU
ONLY COMMIES CHANGE AVVYS
ONLY COMMIES CHANGE AVVYS
