please tell me when you're not absolving an individual of guilt, in whatever degree, when you level accusations of irresponsibility at Square Enix for the actions of a mere individual.
Given that my original post is, indeed, only discussing the organization and not the individual I would therefore myself
only discuss one party, and, their guilt. You falsely invoke a logical fallacy to say that my pointed finger at one party is an absolving wave of the hand for the other. This is not the case. The individual was simply not the question of my original post.
We live in a world of action and reaction. The individual responds to catalysts. The response and the catalyst are two pieces to a whole. I have chosen to focus and address the catalyst. That is a legitimate target for scrutiny given that the catalyst would indeed by the initiator for a random sequence of events.
—How is attributing partial blame to Square Enix for their 'flawed system' not absolution, in any degree, of an individual's culpability for what you are claiming is irresponsibility?
The OP addressed the issue of unhealthy gaming via a game that requires copious amounts of one's time. The attack is directed at the timesink design and the unhealthy playtime and lifestyle changes that result as consequence. Directing my attention to individual responsibility and accusing me of absolving guilt mandates that I answer a question about individuals acting responsibly as though there is choice in the matter.
The OP does not imply this. Instead I imply (and more or less argue) that to engage in FFXI [endgame] is inherently unhealthy activity because
it has been irresponsibly designed by SE.
So that we are clear, I have never explicitly argued that the individual is not completely free of guilt. However, they are not solely culpable either.
—When have I ever suggested you attributed full accountability to Square Enix, when my point has been only that Square Enix is not accountable, at all, in opposition of your view that Square Enix is partially accountable?
Then I am mistaken.
—When are you going to define "responsibility", particularly "social responsibility"?
Social responsibility is the obligation of a collective actor (ie corporations) to remain cognizant of society's welfare and when necessary, to act in a way that enhances that welfare, protects that welfare, or makes no impact on that welfare.
Or: That a collective actor—whose function is not to be corrosive to society—is not corrosive to society's general welfare by their actions. That is social responsibility.
Perhaps I can construct a better definition, but I am satisfied with both for the time being. Can you reject either of these? The act of defining requires one to enter into an epistemological morass. If you are asking the question, chances are, the listener isn't defining anything simple.
—Why are MMOs "flawed systems"?
I was referring to FFXI as a system and calling FFXI flawed. I was not calling MMORPGs, as a whole, flawed. If the post says that (and reading it, it does not appear to), the words were simply imprecise.
—What is the "political, social, and cultural context" of said system?
In a word: Much. Many elements intersect in Final Fantasy XI that build the environment. This is the case for all other things as well.
Bear in mind that I'm under no obligation to justify myself, yet. As the creator of your claims, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realize where the burden of evidence lies first
Surely. Though, perhaps our differences are not in the claim but in the foundation. It appears to me our philosophies for life are antithetical.
I'll worry about justifying myself as soon as I see a modicum of evidential support regarding your own position
Does a position that calls for caring from a contributing and significant party require "evidential support?" You're asking me to essentially prove God here.
We have seen the potentially destructive capabilities of video games. This is not up for debate. We have seen the time-consuming nature of FFXI. This is not up for debate—even less so because I am only operating off the testimonies of other current players, not myself. Do I need to therefore need to "prove" a call to SE to design a game that is more forgiving on irresponsible players? Can I do that?
I am making a philanthropic request for a company to narrow the margins for irresponsible play. This is a thread that recognizes gamers as human beings who can fail because external catalysts lead them to do so. If we reform or reduce these catalysts, fewer human beings are negatively impacted. We cannot hope to completely eliminate the catalysts, only to reduce them as I've stated. Therefore, I'm simply asking SE to make a game that has as little a chance to harm people as possible.
I return to my original point: That this is a debate of philosophies. I am arguing humanism. I am arguing that our strife should not be another's dollar or decision. If you can't agree with that I will admit to you now I am not willing to debate that point and I must agree to melancholically disagree. Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 1:00am by KPBeta