NWN2 - Mysteries of Westgate Official Release Date!

That is possible in theory. In practice? Not too often, I would say.

Really? In practice I'd say it's the norm and absolute black to white with nothing in between is pretty rare. Take abortion, possibly the most polarising political issue there is. All but the most die hard pro choicers will have a grey area around maximum time limits or people using it as a form of contraception. All but the most die hard pro lifers will have grey areas around rape babies.

Almost everyone on almost every issue will have some specific circumstances in which they have no unequivocal moral absolutes while having other aspects on which they feel very strongly that something is clearly right or wrong.

Honesty isn't a factor here.

Maybe not entirely the right word, but honesty is still a factor IMO because (if the internet is anything to go by) most pirates justify their piracy by lying to themselves about how it's okay.

Well, to be honest, I don't have ethics as a firm concept in my head. I try to look at every decision I make with as many factors as I can. I don't like restricting myself to principles, because they tend to confuse truth with perception of truth.

I think we have different concepts of principles as opposed to laws. Principles are general moral compasses that one uses as a frame of reference when analysing individual circumstances, they're not absolute "if you obey them you're right regardless of the manner in which you obey and if you don't then you're bad whatever your reasons"

Yeah, that's the trouble with principles. They're simple. The truth isn't always that simple.

I think piracy is more simple than most. There's no "But what if they had to steal that video game to feed their starving family" type dilemmas.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
I regularly pay for movie tickets without really knowing ahead of time that I'll enjoy the film. Am I weird?

I don't know if you're weird.

I do know that I find the system horrible and illogical. I've had a few debates in which I've detailed alternative ways of compensating movie makers - but I don't think it'll catch on in Hollywood.
 
It's not your decision to make. If you don't want to play or buy fine, but you don't have the right to decide if you should pay for something that you acquire just because you don't like where the money is going.

I'm not too concerned with what rights you think I have.

Which means you have very loose ethics.

I might not even have ethics - it's hard to say.
 
Really? In practice I'd say it's the norm and absolute black to white with nothing in between is pretty rare. Take abortion, possibly the most polarising political issue there is. All but the most die hard pro choicers will have a grey area around maximum time limits or people using it as a form of contraception. All but the most die hard pro lifers will have grey areas around rape babies.

Yes, I agree.

That's why I think it's rare to be able to find black and white issues. So, what are we arguing about again?

Almost everyone on almost every issue will have some specific circumstances in which they have no unequivocal moral absolutes while having other aspects on which they feel very strongly that something is clearly right or wrong.

I'm the exception in terms of the latter point. Meaning, I have very VERY few things that I can say are clearly right or wrong. Maybe I don't have a single one.

Maybe not entirely the right word, but honesty is still a factor IMO because (if the internet is anything to go by) most pirates justify their piracy by lying to themselves about how it's okay.

That's an interesting statement that's entirely irrelevant to my point. Whether you pay for something or you don't - has nothing to do with honesty in itself.

I think we have different concepts of principles as opposed to laws. Principles are general moral compasses that one uses as a frame of reference when analysing individual circumstances, they're not absolute "if you obey them you're right regardless of the manner in which you obey and if you don't then you're bad whatever your reasons"

No, I don't agree that's what a principle is.

A principle is actually a kind of law that you make for yourself - and being a principle, it's fundamental. People have sets of these and some use them to guide their own conduct.

My problem with principles is that they don't evolve along with your understanding of humanity.

Incidentally, I have much the same problem with the laws of society - but I can accept them more easily - because they serve a pragmatic purpose that I can appreciate is necessary. Well, something like them is necessary, anyway.

I think piracy is more simple than most. There's no "But what if they had to steal that video game to feed their starving family" type dilemmas.

I think it's a very complex issue with so many factors that I couldn't begin to comprehend them all.
 
Yep, A full blown Piracy debat is now up and running. Hide the children, lock the doors, get the shotguns because a flaming twister is on its way :)

Good luck guys, I'm all raged out from discussing nutjobs in the P&R section. Can we have a winner this time though?
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Yep, A full blown Piracy debat is now up and running. Hide the children, lock the doors, get the shotguns because a flaming twister is on its way :)

Good luck guys, I'm all raged out from discussing nutjobs in the P&R section. Can we have a winner this time though?

Hehe, you're right.

Wrong place and most likely as pointless as ever.

I'll gladly concede that we're all right and super sexy to boot :biggrin:
 
Hehe, you're right.

Wrong place and most likely as pointless as ever.

I'll gladly concede that we're all right and super sexy to boot :biggrin:

First sensible thing I've read since the "Flaming Twister" sirens went off. :) Good on you DArtagnan.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Yes, I agree.

That's why I think it's rare to be able to find black and white issues. So, what are we arguing about again?

Sorry, didn't really read your post like that . . . I was saying that on any particular issue some forms of behaviour will fall into grey areas and others will be clearly in the black or white camps, and you said that was rare. I agree it's rare to find entirely black or white issues, but it's the norm for people to divide each issue up into black, white and grey.

I'm the exception in terms of the latter point. Meaning, I have very VERY few things that I can say are clearly right or wrong. Maybe I don't have a single one.

I agree that saying that things are clearly right or wrong is difficult given moral relativism, but presumably in most cases there'll be things that you feel are right or wrong?

That's an interesting statement that's entirely irrelevant to my point. Whether you pay for something or you don't - has nothing to do with honesty in itself.

Actually, take some definitions of honest from the net, google dictionary search here throws up: "gained or earned without cheating or stealing;" and "not disposed to cheat or defraud;" both of which I would say could perfectly reasonably justify my use of the word honesty in this context.

No, I don't agree that's what a principle is.

A principle is actually a kind of law that you make for yourself - and being a principle, it's fundamental. People have sets of these and some use them to guide their own conduct.

I think you're contradicting yourself there. You use principles to guide your conduct, not as laws to unequivocally mandate your conduct. Different things.

My problem with principles is that they don't evolve along with your understanding of humanity.

Why can't they? Right here and now I would say that the principle I expressed earlier with regard to piracy is entirely appropriate and I can see no circumstances under which it would be readily invalidated in the immediate future. Doesn't mean I can't or won't change my mind if and when the circumstances do change.

I think it's a very complex issue with so many factors that I couldn't begin to comprehend them all.

Really? Very occasionally maybe, say in russia or china where local economic situations make legal imports prohibitively expensive and developers haven't responded by differential pricing structures. The vast majority of the time? It's not complex. People like free shit and in these circumstances they can just help themselves without needing to worry about the indirect damage they're doing. Everything else is just bullshit that people make up to pretend that they're not stealing.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
hm, why did Ossian choose to have Atari distribute their mod? Were they truly blind to Atari's drm 'obsession'? Can't see how that' s possible - unless they've been living under a rock for trhe last few years. So, if they willingly jumped into bed with them, then they surely bought into Atari's DRM model - and should not be overly surprised when people get annoyed with them. Yes, I know Atari is a big distributor (And obviously attractive to a newbie) but if you hop into bed with the devil.... I have bought other DRM-free Indie games directly from their creators and I was happy to pay for those - and a lot more than $10 too. Surely that direct (private - not d2d etc) digital online distribution would have been sensible for a small startup? Or are people not allowed to make money off mods for the NWN engine? As for the low cost - that's irrelevant: whether it's $10 or $100 it's the constraints imposed by Atari's (And other) DRM model that I object to. I have many old games and expansions which I haul out now and then - no DRM, no problems (as long as you have appropriate hardware - something *I* control).
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,128
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
Because Atari owns the rights to NWN2, and I'm fairly certain the terms of service of the toolkit include clauses that forbid you from selling your mods independently.

Now, if NWN2 was an OSS game engine...
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
I agree that saying that things are clearly right or wrong is difficult given moral relativism, but presumably in most cases there'll be things that you feel are right or wrong?

Sure, I have feelings like anyone else. But I'm quite used to separating my feelings from my opinions, so it's not as often the case as you'd think.

Actually, take some definitions of honest from the net, google dictionary search here throws up: "gained or earned without cheating or stealing;" and "not disposed to cheat or defraud;" both of which I would say could perfectly reasonably justify my use of the word honesty in this context.

You're right and I'm wrong.

I think you're contradicting yourself there. You use principles to guide your conduct, not as laws to unequivocally mandate your conduct. Different things.

No, I don't think I'm contradicting myself.

I could link a definition of the word, but you've proven you already know how to find this stuff ;)

You said that principles are different from laws, in that they serve as a frame of reference. I'm saying they ARE personal laws that serve as (potentially) strict rules, and those rules tend to guide people in their overall conduct. Just like the laws of society tend to guide our conduct as members of society.

Not that I would presume to speak for everyone, and I don't really know what you do with your principles. That's just my experience, and I find that having too many principles can cloud an otherwise open mind and leave too many decisions to past conclusions which might not be consistent with reality or your current (updated) perception of reality.

Why can't they? Right here and now I would say that the principle I expressed earlier with regard to piracy is entirely appropriate and I can see no circumstances under which it would be readily invalidated in the immediate future. Doesn't mean I can't or won't change my mind if and when the circumstances do change.

Good on you. Unfortunately, I've had many experiences where people refuse to change their principles according to new and fresh information. In effect, they hinder themselves because they've become too invested or attached to their principles.

Do you know what I'm talking about here, or it is a completely foreign concept to you?

Really? Very occasionally maybe, say in russia or china where local economic situations make legal imports prohibitively expensive and developers haven't responded by differential pricing structures. The vast majority of the time? It's not complex. People like free shit and in these circumstances they can just help themselves without needing to worry about the indirect damage they're doing. Everything else is just bullshit that people make up to pretend that they're not stealing.

Again, you speak with so many curse words that I can't really accept you are being entirely neutral or objective. Clearly, you have a very negative perception of piracy, and you don't seem open to it being a grey area.

As such, I think we can conclude that we simply don't agree on the matter and move on?
 
Did you guys spot this?

Alan said:
Hi Everybody,

I wanted to clarify for you what Atari is intending with regard to the 3 activations for MoW. So I’ve consulted with them to get some specific details and prepared a list of clarifications.

Firstly, please note that entering your serial key when installing MoW is NOT the same thing as MoW automatically authenticating with the Atari server in order to activate.

- With 3 activations you can install MoW on 3 different PCs.
- If you reinstall MoW on the same PC with unchanged hardware (see below for details), you can do this an unlimited number of times. You can do this on 3 different PCs.
- If you uninstall MoW and reinstall it, the westgate.key file (generated from the authentication) in your NWN2 folder won't have been removed, so your new MoW installation will not count as an activation.
- If you uninstall MoW and NWN2 (on the same PC), and then reinstall them, you can either have backed up your westgate.key file (to copy back into your NWN2 folder so MoW doesn't have to authenticate again) or not backed up the key at all and let MoW authenticate again (in this case, it will detect that this machine has activated before). In either case, this will not count as an activation.
- If you change your RAM or video card (and likely sound card too) and play or install MoW, this will not count as an activation. I don’t have 100% confirmation from Atari on this next part, but I would expect that changing your CPU, motherboard, or hard drive where MoW is installed would count as an activation.
- If you reformat your hard drive and reinstall your OS, NWN2, and MoW, but without changing your hardware configuration, then this “normally” shouldn’t be another activation. I say “normally” because that is the wording that Atari told me.
- Apparently, for some retail games, a user can revoke their usage of it in order to resell it, so that the slate is wiped clean for a new user to install and activate (I think this is termed an “installation reset”). Atari has said that can’t be the case for a digitally-distributed title like MoW.
- If you surpass 3 activations, then you can contact Atari tech support in order to get another activation.

I hope this has helped answer your questions about activations.
- Alan
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
Sure, I have feelings like anyone else. But I'm quite used to separating my feelings from my opinions, so it's not as often the case as you'd think.

Indeed, I was talking about people feeling that certain aspects are right or wrong though rather than people knowing that they are.

No, I don't think I'm contradicting myself.

You said that principles are different from laws, in that they serve as a frame of reference. I'm saying they ARE personal laws that serve as (potentially) strict rules, and those rules tend to guide people in their overall conduct. Just like the laws of society tend to guide our conduct as members of society.

I think we disagree on the semantics here then, I don't think of laws and rules as things that guide my conduct, I think of them as things that stipulate the scope of my conduct if I am to obey the laws.

Probably a rubbish & obscure example here but the one that springs to mind for me is the key difference between US and UK financial regulation - the US has a rules based system with fairly explicit laws on what is and isn't allowed (and an army of lawyers working to shoehorn all manner of dodgy stuff into the letter of the law) and the UK has a principles based system with comparatively few underlying principles of good behaviour with any case able to be judged against those principles (and an army of lawyers arguing if it ever comes to such a case).

Similarly for my (actuarial) profession, there's about 4 key principles (that I really should know off by heart, but they escape me at present) supplemented by a load of guidance notes that suggest a general consensus on an acceptable way of meeting those principles.

Not that I would presume to speak for everyone, and I don't really know what you do with your principles. That's just my experience, and I find that having too many principles can cloud an otherwise open mind and leave too many decisions to past conclusions which might not be consistent with reality or your current (updated) perception of reality.

Good on you. Unfortunately, I've had many experiences where people refuse to change their principles according to new and fresh information. In effect, they hinder themselves because they've become too invested or attached to their principles.

I think that's less an issue with having a set of principles and more an issue with people believing that their principles are a set of moral absolutes handed down by a power greater than themselves. A more frequent issue when people adopt principles from others rather than developing them themselves.

Do you know what I'm talking about here, or it is a completely foreign concept to you?

I do, I just find it odd that your reaction to some people being dogmatic in adherence to inflexible principles is to view having principles at all as a negative.

Again, you speak with so many curse words that I can't really accept you are being entirely neutral or objective. Clearly, you have a very negative perception of piracy, and you don't seem open to it being a grey area.

As such, I think we can conclude that we simply don't agree on the matter and move on?

Where did I say I was neutral about piracy? And why does a lack of neutrality mean a lack of objectivity, presumably you're not neutral about e.g. rape but could still be perfectly objective in that non-neutral stance?

It probably is going nowhere and we should move on, but before we do - please can you make some arguments as to why I shouldn't be very negative about the vast majority of piracy? I promise to really try and be objective, even if that doesn't mean I agree with your arguments.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
Indeed, I was talking about people feeling that certain aspects are right or wrong though rather than people knowing that they are.

Yes, I got that.

But the way I see it, emotional responses can often be very unfortunate when trying to determine the objective truth - assuming there is one. We can have very strong emotions based on very wrong information, for instance.

The emotional power can be extremely hard to overcome, and it's been my experience that human beings are very hard to reason with if they let their emotions guide them.

This is often the case for myself when dealing with people I love, for instance, and I find myself behaving in a way that I'm not proud of - which is why I always try my best to separate my emotions when discussing whatever topic.

I think we disagree on the semantics here then, I don't think of laws and rules as things that guide my conduct, I think of them as things that stipulate the scope of my conduct if I am to obey the laws.

Well, the difference between principles and laws in this case would be that the upholding of principles isn't enforced by any external power. But other than that, yes, I think we disagree on what they mean to people. Whether that's a semantic issue or not, I can't say.

I think that's less an issue with having a set of principles and more an issue with people believing that their principles are a set of moral absolutes handed down by a power greater than themselves. A more frequent issue when people adopt principles from others rather than developing them themselves.

Now I'm starting to see how we might disagree on semantics. For something to be a principle in the first place, it IS an absolute. I don't think people necessarily see them as being handed down by a power greater than themselves, and in fact I'm sceptical that's even the norm.

But it's for sure that many adopt their principles from others - and if you view, say, parents as a "power greater than oneself" then I guess we can agree there. It's just a term I would apply in a religious context more than anything else.

I do, I just find it odd that your reaction to some people being dogmatic in adherence to inflexible principles is to view having principles at all as a negative.

I've never stated having principles is negative. I've just said that I try to avoid having them, or too many of them. It's because I find it a very human tendency to adhere strictly to what I consider fundamental self-induced laws. That's what principles are to me - and I think it's pretty close to the official definition as well.

So, I've been guilty of this myself.

People who can have these laws for themselves, and ignore them at will, probably shouldn't worry about it. But in that case, I think it's a semantic issue and in reality it's not the kind of principles I'm talking about.

Where did I say I was neutral about piracy? And why does a lack of neutrality mean a lack of objectivity, presumably you're not neutral about e.g. rape but could still be perfectly objective in that non-neutral stance?

I'm not talking about intellectual objectivity or neutrality. I'm talking about emotional objectivity. Now, you haven't said that you're emotionally neutral - nor would I ever expect that of you.

I'm simply sensing that your emotional investment is too strong for us to have a fruitful debate. Maybe that's unfair of me, but when people constantly add "shit" and "bullshit" when referring to the opinions of others - then my interest in pursuing a serious debate wanes. Sorry about that.

It probably is going nowhere and we should move on, but before we do - please can you make some arguments as to why I shouldn't be very negative about the vast majority of piracy? I promise to really try and be objective, even if that doesn't mean I agree with your arguments.

I would never impose on your opinions like that. It's none of my business how you feel about it.

I'm simply saying that if you want to have this debate with me, you're going to have to appear reasonably emotionally neutral. Not necessarily a fair request, but there it is.
 
Now I'm starting to see how we might disagree on semantics. For something to be a principle in the first place, it IS an absolute.

Then we definitely disagree, I view at least my principles as the end result of asking myself "what do I (currently) feel is the right thing to do on this issue" rather than absolutes. Changeable by new information & persuasive debate from others, and always subject to compromise where they conflict with other principles.

But it's for sure that many adopt their principles from others - and if you view, say, parents as a "power greater than oneself" then I guess we can agree there. It's just a term I would apply in a religious context more than anything else.

Parents, general social consensus, peer group acceptance etc I agree "greater power" has religious overtones but I think it all ties into the same bit of the brain.

I'm simply sensing that your emotional investment is too strong for us to have a fruitful debate. Maybe that's unfair of me, but when people constantly add "shit" and "bullshit" when referring to the opinions of others - then my interest in pursuing a serious debate wanes.

:lol: I think you're probably more sensitive to magic words than I am, I greatly dislike pirates but don't really view the s word as being remotely emotionally charged.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
Then we definitely disagree, I view at least my principles as the end result of asking myself "what do I (currently) feel is the right thing to do on this issue" rather than absolutes. Changeable by new information & persuasive debate from others, and always subject to compromise where they conflict with other principles.

Yup - I agree to disagree ;)

Parents, general social consensus, peer group acceptance etc I agree "greater power" has religious overtones but I think it all ties into the same bit of the brain.

It's hard for me to say, because I'm lacking that particular bit of brain. As in, I've never encountered a person or being I recognised as being a greater power.

:lol: I think you're probably more sensitive to magic words than I am, I greatly dislike pirates but don't really view the s word as being remotely emotionally charged.

That's possible.

But it's interesting that you've - so far - only used these words in direct connection with pirates or the act of piracy. I think the reason for my reaction is that you seem very neutral and calm everywhere else.

If these words are in no way emotionally charged, one might have expected them to be used in other instances.

Just a thought.
 
But it's interesting that you've - so far - only used these words in direct connection with pirates or the act of piracy. I think the reason for my reaction is that you seem very neutral and calm everywhere else.

If these words are in no way emotionally charged, one might have expected them to be used in other instances.

Just a thought.

Not quite sure where else I'd be using them here (and I do most certainly use them elsewhere), that's pretty well all we're talking about! Short of calling you or your arguments shit of course, but firstly that wouldn't reflect what I think and secondly whatever the emotional charge words hold for me when using them in the abstract, using them about someone else directly has to be more sensitive to the emotional charges they could potentially attach to those words.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
Not quite sure where else I'd be using them here (and I do most certainly use them elsewhere), that's pretty well all we're talking about! Short of calling you or your arguments shit of course, but firstly that wouldn't reflect what I think and secondly whatever the emotional charge words hold for me when using them in the abstract, using them about someone else directly has to be more sensitive to the emotional charges they could potentially attach to those words.

I gotta ask, though.

You say you dislike pirates.

Does this mean you actually dislike everyone who pirates?
 
I gotta ask, though.

You say you dislike pirates.

Does this mean you actually dislike everyone who pirates?

:lol:

It means that I think less of those my friends who do pirate as a result of their piracy.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
2,351
Location
London
Back
Top Bottom