3 ms·

One possible counterargument in this particular case: if the game is balanced such that it's effectively pay-to-win (and pay a lot), one person who can afford t

by candu 10y ago

One possible counterargument in this particular case: if the game is balanced such that it's effectively pay-to-win (and pay a lot), one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families. This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both? If both, in what proportion? Is "gaming addiction" as dangerous / harmful as substance addiction? What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention? (For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above.) In other words: I'd say it's very difficult to make categorical statements about the "rightness" of complete economic freedom to do what you want with your money. We prohibit all kinds of purchases, services, etc. based on prevailing answers to questions like those above, and those prevailing answers inevitably change over time. (They also vary wildly between countries, states, or even cities.)

kbart 10y ago
Ok, let's counter your counter arguments. "one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families." Not everyone can afford gym, golf course membership, owning race horse etc., but more affluent people still do that, does that encourage other people to spend more as well? Maybe, but a sane man chooses his hobbies according to amount of money he has to spare. "This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both?" In my opinion, it's the addict. Addiction, first of all, is inability to control ones impulses, urges and overall lack of will to make rational decisions. We should have learned from "war on drugs" that controlling availability of addictives is not a solution and, arguably, makes problem even worse. "What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention?" We have criminal laws to deal with harming others: stealing, robbing, blackmailing etc. and spending legally earned money doesn't fall under any of these. "For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above." This is very specific, out of context problem, but it should be dealt at its roots (the country they are mined) and/or forbidding trading of such goods internationally by treaties (like ivory). Buying diamond itself doesn't hurt anyone directly. To sum up, we shouldn't ban something, just because there's a small group of people that abuse it. We should treat these rare cases when addiction reaches out of control levels just like any other disorder, because such people will find a way into problem anyway.

by candu 10y ago

kbart 10y ago

Ok, let's counter your counter arguments. "one person who can afford this level of spending could easily encourage less well-heeled players to spend similar amounts, which in turn could easily harm those players' families." Not everyone can afford gym, golf course membership, owning race horse etc., but more affluent people still do that, does that encourage other people to spend more as well? Maybe, but a sane man chooses his hobbies according to amount of money he has to spare. "This touches on several related questions, none of which have clear right answers. Who is at "fault" in addiction: the addict, the dealer, or both?" In my opinion, it's the addict. Addiction, first of all, is inability to control ones impulses, urges and overall lack of will to make rational decisions. We should have learned from "war on drugs" that controlling availability of addictives is not a solution and, arguably, makes problem even worse. "What constitutes harm to others, and how much harm needs to occur to deserve intervention?" We have criminal laws to deal with harming others: stealing, robbing, blackmailing etc. and spending legally earned money doesn't fall under any of these. "For instance: some argue that the purchase of luxury diamonds causes harm halfway around the world where they're mined, to take one of the "harmless" examples listed above." This is very specific, out of context problem, but it should be dealt at its roots (the country they are mined) and/or forbidding trading of such goods internationally by treaties (like ivory). Buying diamond itself doesn't hurt anyone directly. To sum up, we shouldn't ban something, just because there's a small group of people that abuse it. We should treat these rare cases when addiction reaches out of control levels just like any other disorder, because such people will find a way into problem anyway.