4 ms·

> This discussion is sloppy and failing to define or be careful with ethics and how ethics is distinct from competition rules Because I think what we are talki

> This discussion is sloppy and failing to define or be careful with ethics and how ethics is distinct from competition rules Because I think what we are talking about here is not ethics. Do note that I haven't used that term at all. What I'm talking about is the participants shared sense of "what goes" and "what doesn't". What I'm talking about is norms. Norms of the activity. vanderZwan uses the word "ethics" in quotes, but from the context, and the quotes, I think it is clear that it's not about literal ethics. > Anyway, there are no competitions where anything goes, they all have rules. Of course. The observation is about what kind of things are okay according to the shared sense of the participants. In some activities this space is very narrow, in some it ends up much more expansive. In my observation it seems speedrunning has a more expansive notion of "a-okay rules" than what I have experienced in other activities. I find this interesting. You don't find this interesting. It sounds like you want to litigate this and convince those who find this interesting that it is not interesting. That's a fool's errand.

dahart 2y ago
> Because I think what we are talking about here is not ethics. This is why I said your argument is a straw man in relation to mine. I am and always was talking about ethics, because that’s what the top comment said. The top comment used the word “ethics”. You jumped into a conversation about ethics and without being clear until now and tried changing topics to the ill-defined “norms”, which is why we have some miscommunication. I assumed incorrectly that your use of norms meant ethics, because we were talking about ethics from the start. > It sounds like you want to litigate this and convince those who find this interesting that it is not interesting. That's a fool's errand SMH You’re here debating too, I didn’t ask for you to misinterpret and try to contradict me. I’m not trying to convince you about what you find interesting, I’m pointing out that speedrunning is not interesting from an ethical point of view. I don’t think it’s particularly interesting from a norms point of view either, but you do you. I don’t feel like you’ve even demonstrated that speedrunning competition rules represent norms at all, your argument is making more unstated assumptions.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > The top comment used the word “ethics”. Yes. In quotes. Which I think means something other than ethics without quotes. > You’re here debating too, I'm not really. I'm chatting with you and others. Not everything is a debate. > I’m pointing out that speedrunning is not interesting from an ethical point of view And you won that argument. Your internet points will be transferred to your permanent record within one to two days.
  - dahart 2y ago
    The top comment did not use quotes around ethics. I used quotes merely to point out the exact word that was used, and I meant ethics, not something else. You’re absolutely right that not everything is a debate, but your very first sentence in reply to my comment was argumentative, and it was followed by several more. Feel free to reflect on that. > Your internet points Doesn’t using snark kind of undermine the claim that you’re just chatting? I would have loved to actually hear some definition around and justification about norms and get to something interesting. I finally feel like what I (and top comment) said was understood correctly and don’t have to keep trying to explain it.

dahart 2y ago

> Because I think what we are talking about here is not ethics. This is why I said your argument is a straw man in relation to mine. I am and always was talking about ethics, because that’s what the top comment said. The top comment used the word “ethics”. You jumped into a conversation about ethics and without being clear until now and tried changing topics to the ill-defined “norms”, which is why we have some miscommunication. I assumed incorrectly that your use of norms meant ethics, because we were talking about ethics from the start. > It sounds like you want to litigate this and convince those who find this interesting that it is not interesting. That's a fool's errand SMH You’re here debating too, I didn’t ask for you to misinterpret and try to contradict me. I’m not trying to convince you about what you find interesting, I’m pointing out that speedrunning is not interesting from an ethical point of view. I don’t think it’s particularly interesting from a norms point of view either, but you do you. I don’t feel like you’ve even demonstrated that speedrunning competition rules represent norms at all, your argument is making more unstated assumptions.

krisoft 2y ago
> The top comment used the word “ethics”. Yes. In quotes. Which I think means something other than ethics without quotes. > You’re here debating too, I'm not really. I'm chatting with you and others. Not everything is a debate. > I’m pointing out that speedrunning is not interesting from an ethical point of view And you won that argument. Your internet points will be transferred to your permanent record within one to two days.
- dahart 2y ago
  The top comment did not use quotes around ethics. I used quotes merely to point out the exact word that was used, and I meant ethics, not something else. You’re absolutely right that not everything is a debate, but your very first sentence in reply to my comment was argumentative, and it was followed by several more. Feel free to reflect on that. > Your internet points Doesn’t using snark kind of undermine the claim that you’re just chatting? I would have loved to actually hear some definition around and justification about norms and get to something interesting. I finally feel like what I (and top comment) said was understood correctly and don’t have to keep trying to explain it.