A day or so ago, Jester made a post about some poor chap in a Hel who got scammed by some corpmates who convinced him to by GTCs for the sole purpose of pimping out his Hel so they could kill it. Needless to say it elicited some interesting responses and spawned this reddit thread.
While I would have to say that that level of meta game scamming is past even what my own desensitizeed EVE persona finds acceptable, I want to state that it was still an in-game action and as such, real life consequences should not be applied. Outside the whirlwind of media frenzy that Jester spawned lies a mob people who have gotten on this moral high horse spree, down voting anyone who suggests that a game is just a game and people should only be protected from their own stupidity to a certain degree. I'm sorry, but suggesting that stupid gamers should be protected from their own stupidity via real life consequences for those who might take advantage of them is absurd.
According to Jester-logic, if you ransom someone and they buy GTCs to pay for the ransom and you blow them up anyways you should be banned and possibly recieve real life punishment.
This is dangerous thinking, because within the greater context of gaming and cyber bullying these attitudes can have some rather serious slippery slope ramifications. At what point does a game cease being a game? At what point do real life consequences begin for in game actions? While people say that this is different because the scammers had him buy GTCs for the sole purpose of them killing the mods he bought with them, its a very thin line that has the potential to cross into all other aspects of EVE "scamming". Imagine making a post informing people they should buy Zydrine since its about to shoot up in price, trying to get people to create a speculation bubble that you can cash in on, and then gettting banned from the game and going to jail for a year because your in-game action caused all the people who invested in your attempt to cash in, real life loss. I know thats an extremely extreme example, but the thing to remember is that often times once you show you're willing to set a certain precedent, you throw the floodgates wide open.
Imagine a world where you can potentially face jailtime for typing something in game sarcastically or with a tone that got lost due to being written. Imagine a world where trash talking in Xbox can potentially get you real life jailtime. Imagine a world where sitting down to play your favorite video game can end with a police car showing up at your house and taking you away.
A lot of people are getting behind Jester's post and reddit is downvoting the shit out of anyone who suggests that a game is a game. This is disturbing because it reminds me quite a bit of the ultra conservative groups of mothers out there that would love to see video games super regulated in the same manner these people are suggesting. I hear in Arizona they're trying to make trolling a punishable crime, true story.
One last thing, am I the only one who noticed that Jester is arbitrarily choosing his sense of morality and justice despite his sensationalism of the article?
"EDIT (13/Apr/2012): Just to be very clear: my accusation of fraud and EULA/TOS violations extends only to those players -- if any -- who talked this pilot into spending real money on GTCs and then spending the resulting ISK on his super-cap fitting. Helicity says that he is not one of those people and I believe that. The pilots of Stop Exploding You Cowards should be examined more closely."
Sure the people directly involved are bad, but Jester defends Helicity because he wasn't one of the people talking the guy into buying GTCs, he just supported them blowing the guy's ship up despite knowing about the scam. I'm pretty sure if you're going to get into an extreme morality discussion chock full of accusations, being an all knowing accomplice makes you just as bad as the actual perpetrator.