Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of my pet peeves. Some folks might find this article of interest.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There was something about reading US official killed in Libyan riots was senior Goonswarm member that made me really start to look at some of the things that go on in games and forums in a new light, this latest story has only reinforced that.
It makes sense that people who use these kinds of methods professionally would employ their knowledge and skills in the games they play, too. If you're practiced at infiltrating real-world organizations/communities with the intent of weaking/discrediting them, why wouldn't you use the same tactics in PFO?
It's one of the reasons I am so skeptical that it's just an "honest mistake" or a "difference of opinion" when someone consistently misrepresents something about PFO in the same way, over and over, after repeatedly being corrected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Use these methods professionally"? The article said he was doing IT work for the consulate hanging out on VOIP all day (unless that's just a cover story because he was a crafty spy sent to Libya to steal their entire mom fleet at 2am when other leadership is asleep).
Just an irony I noticed as you make a point about misrepresentation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense that people who use these kinds of methods professionally would employ their knowledge and skills in the games they play, too. If you're practiced at infiltrating real-world organizations/communities with the intent of weaking/discrediting them, why wouldn't you use the same tactics in PFO?
It's one of the reasons I am so skeptical that it's just an "honest mistake" or a "difference of opinion" when someone consistently misrepresents something about PFO in the same way, over and over, after repeatedly being corrected.
Not only is it possible that they would bring those skills to the game, they should bring them. It is probably not even in their consciousness not to, it comes naturally to them and they don't even think about it. It brings an exceptional aspect to the game.
I can only hope that PFO is deep enough for me, and others in my company, to bring our military training to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only hope that PFO is deep enough for me, and others in my company, to bring our military training to the game.
Games tend to be a very poor place for the implementation of military training. It's the whole being able to easily survive multiple swordings/bullets to the face that generally screws up military training, which assumes that people a fragile a die very quickly and easily.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Use these methods professionally"? The article said he was doing IT work for the consulate hanging out on VOIP all day (unless that's just a cover story because he was a crafty spy sent to Libya to steal their entire mom fleet at 2am when other leadership is asleep).
Just an irony I noticed as you make a point about misrepresentation.
There's a solid reason why all embassy employees are assumed to be spies when relations go south suddenly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of my pet peeves. Some folks might find this article of interest.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Not sure linking to (stolen?) top secret documents is the best idea. Especially for people in the five eyes countries where GCHQ probably now has us flagged :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure linking to (stolen?) top secret documents is the best idea. Especially for people in the five eyes countries where GCHQ probably now has us flagged :)It's one of my pet peeves. Some folks might find this article of interest.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Meh - they're watching you anyway - may as well have fun with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Use these methods professionally"? The article said he was doing IT work for the consulate hanging out on VOIP all day (unless that's just a cover story because he was a crafty spy sent to Libya to steal their entire mom fleet at 2am when other leadership is asleep).
Just an irony I noticed as you make a point about misrepresentation.
I've reread my post several times, and I still don't see how you could think I was saying that particular person used those particular methods professionally. Is it also ironic that you tried to publicly embarrass me about something so trivial based on your own incorrect assumptions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure linking to (stolen?) top secret documents is the best idea. Especially for people in the five eyes countries where GCHQ probably now has us flagged :)It's one of my pet peeves. Some folks might find this article of interest.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
If I had access to stolen documents that clearly proved that the Chief of Police in your hometown was using the officers under his command to extort and murder innocent civilians, I would not hesitate to share that with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure linking to (stolen?) top secret documents is the best idea. Especially for people in the five eyes countries where GCHQ probably now has us flagged :)It's one of my pet peeves. Some folks might find this article of interest.
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Can't really do much for linking them. Only the leaker is in any real trouble. None of us have NDAs and that good old freedom of speech. Besides, once it's on the internet if they went trying to penalize everyone that linked to it they would fairly quickly find themselves severely overwhelmed and under budget for the task.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guuuuuys...
Cialdini is mentioned: Worth a flick-through before going out to do some shopping.
Might as well profit from such information, personally.
I suspect the spooks are far from the only ones doing this... "Every body does it in America!" to quote Jamie-Lee Curtis in the film, "A Fish Called Wanda". :D What I mean, commercially, various forums for various groups, particular news and media (?) etc. Probably a bit more organized coming from a well-funded and staffed outfit however. Then there's just a helluva lot of irrationality out there, to mix in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of the reasons I am so skeptical that it's just an "honest mistake" or a "difference of opinion" when someone consistently misrepresents something about PFO in the same way, over and over, after repeatedly being corrected.
Assumptions being countered by assumptions, then Dev posts are quoted that express intentions = Nothing concrete until we actually see it in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not only is it possible that they would bring those skills to the game, they should bring them.It makes sense that people who use these kinds of methods professionally would employ their knowledge and skills in the games they play, too. If you're practiced at infiltrating real-world organizations/communities with the intent of weaking/discrediting them, why wouldn't you use the same tactics in PFO?
It's one of the reasons I am so skeptical that it's just an "honest mistake" or a "difference of opinion" when someone consistently misrepresents something about PFO in the same way, over and over, after repeatedly being corrected.
I agree, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. My point was that we shouldn't collectively act as if no one's using those kinds of deliberate tactics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It makes sense that people who use these kinds of methods professionally would employ their knowledge and skills in the games they play, too.
My rewrite: It makes sense that people who use these kinds of methods professionally would start thinking it is ok to use them also for private purposes.
I totally disagree with Bluddwolf that people should bring such skills into the game.
Simply put, I think lying and cheating in a game is immoral(*), that being a skilled cheater does not make cheating right, and the 'interest of national security' exception certainly does not apply in a game. Rather than bringing such skills, they should bring common decency.
(*) yes, I see that there can be other wiews here. Bluffing in poker is not immoral, and the whole premise of Eve is basically 'no holds barred'. But unless this type misinformation is clearly stated as part of the intended game, I will regard it as destructive to the game experience as well as to the community and the individuals involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of us have NDAs and that good old freedom of speech.
Not necessarily true of the NDA part, and freedom of speech (which is not universal) is not a protections against consequences of being able to freely express yourself.
In any case, I didn't want to turn this into a political or policy debate. Just simply pointing out that links to stolen documents can have far reaching ramifications (for some people). A spoiler of indication of where th link went might have been appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I mostly agree with you, randomwalker, except that I think it's perfectly acceptable to use any and all tools available to defeat your enemies. To me, ethics and morals apply to people, not actions. For example, "lying" isn't wrong when you're lying to Nazis about whether or not you've got Anne Frank hiding under your staircase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just simply pointing out that links to stolen documents can have far reaching ramifications (for some people). A spoiler of indication of where th link went might have been appropriate.
That's a very valid point, and I'll try to make sure I do that in the future.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I mostly agree with you, randomwalker, except that I think it's perfectly acceptable to use any and all tools available to defeat your enemies. To me, ethics and morals apply to people, not actions. For example, "lying" isn't wrong when you're lying to Nazis about whether or not you've got Anne Frank hiding under your staircase.
I disagree there-I just think that the result of someone getting murdered is worse than the result of someone getting deceived.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Morality is all about intent.
I would frankly disagree. There are many horrible acts done by people who do them because they legitimately think it is for a "greater good" or just for another person's personal good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Morality is all about intent.I would frankly disagree. There are many horrible acts done by people who do them because they legitimately think it is for a "greater good" or just for another person's personal good.
** spoiler omitted **
Are those people "morally" in the right if they decide that they have to harm others to achieve what they want? It is hard to judge what is "moral" when you include examples of unbalanced thinking. I don't think that they fit. YMMV
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone whose intent is to murder hundreds or millions is not a good person. They may think it's to "save them," but their intent is to murder people who have done nothing wrong. But then if your intent is to murder a known serial killer before he kills another 15 people, you've got a better intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... the result of someone getting murdered is worse than the result of someone getting deceived.
It's silly, I know, but it's really not possible to define things in such stark terms. If I lie to someone about whether or not I have valuable property to stop them from stealing that property, and as a result they murder someone else, would you say that I am somehow in the wrong? I don't think it's as simple as a mathematical analysis of the result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Use these methods professionally"? The article said he was doing IT work for the consulate hanging out on VOIP all day (unless that's just a cover story because he was a crafty spy sent to Libya to steal their entire mom fleet at 2am when other leadership is asleep).
Just an irony I noticed as you make a point about misrepresentation.
I've reread my post several times, and I still don't see how you could think I was saying that particular person used those particular methods professionally. Is it also ironic that you tried to publicly embarrass me about something so trivial based on your own incorrect assumptions?
From the context where you explicitly wrote that in your mind the event with the Goonswarm state department guy was directly linked to the OP. That's how.
The flow of ideas sounded as if you were crediting the guy with all sorts of real world devious subterfuge and manipulation training that you weren't surprised he would take to his gaming to make Goonswarm more successful with those same tactics. I was pointing out the irony that the article said his professional training and service was in IT so that can give the appearance you're using the names of state department and Goonswarm as a boogeyman to reinforce a personal narrative.
He might have been a spy. But how many spies with a wife and kids have the spare time to spend six years playing alliance leadership in EVE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Use these methods professionally"? The article said he was doing IT work for the consulate hanging out on VOIP all day (unless that's just a cover story because he was a crafty spy sent to Libya to steal their entire mom fleet at 2am when other leadership is asleep).
Just an irony I noticed as you make a point about misrepresentation.
I've reread my post several times, and I still don't see how you could think I was saying that particular person used those particular methods professionally. Is it also ironic that you tried to publicly embarrass me about something so trivial based on your own incorrect assumptions?
From the context where you explicitly wrote that in your mind the event with the Goonswarm state department guy was directly linked to the OP. That's how.
The flow of ideas sounded as if you were crediting the guy with all sorts of real world devious subterfuge and manipulation training that you weren't surprised he would take to his gaming to make Goonswarm more successful with those same tactics. I was pointing out the irony that the article said his professional training and service was in IT so that can give the appearance you're using the names of state department and Goonswarm as a boogeyman to reinforce a personal narrative.
He might have been a spy. But how many spies with a wife and kids have the spare time to spend six years playing alliance leadership in EVE?
Tbh, I read it the same way, Nihimon but figured you meant some other connection.
There was another story previously about spooks infiltrating mmos/online games communities additionally - I think more in connection towards hacktivist communities however anonymous etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... the result of someone getting murdered is worse than the result of someone getting deceived.It's silly, I know, but it's really not possible to define things in such stark terms. If I lie to someone about whether or not I have valuable property to stop them from stealing that property, and as a result they murder someone else, would you say that I am somehow in the wrong? I don't think it's as simple as a mathematical analysis of the result.
If you know can choose between an outcome where you lose a piece of valuable property and an outcome where somebody dies, then you make a choice between those two outcomes. If you're not at all consequentialist, then the outcomes aren't relevant, but we also don't have much common ground if you aren't at all consequentialist.
And no, I don't believe you or I are monsters for having nice things while strangers die due to relatively easily preventable causes. I think that I might be a monster for not having that belief, but in the level of meta required for that judgement to happen, there's nothing reprehensible about being a monster.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
But how many spies with a wife and kids have the spare time to spend six years playing alliance leadership in EVE?You'd probably be surprised. "Spy" is an awfully broad category.
Even if he was only an IT professional, having a Top Secret clearance (like one requires in order to be the guy who works on computers that have or might one day be in a room with a computer with TS information) is more than just a background check; it requires training in some degree of counterespionage, because it is assumed that everyone with TS clearance is being targeted by someone from one of the "other sides".
It rubs off at a little bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the result of someone getting murdered is worse than the result of someone getting deceived.It's silly, I know, but it's really not possible to define things in such stark terms. If I lie to someone about whether or not I have valuable property to stop them from stealing that property, and as a result they murder someone else, would you say that I am somehow in the wrong? I don't think it's as simple as a mathematical analysis of the result.If you know can choose between an outcome where you lose a piece of valuable property and an outcome where somebody dies, then you make a choice between those two outcomes. If you're not at all consequentialist, then the outcomes aren't relevant, but we also don't have much common ground if you aren't at all consequentialist.
And no, I don't believe you or I are monsters for having nice things while strangers die due to relatively easily preventable causes. I think that I might be a monster for not having that belief, but in the level of meta required for that judgement to happen, there's nothing reprehensible about being a monster.
It really boils down to whether you knew they'd murder someone if you didn't let them steal your stuff. I would not assume that would be the end result of hiding the fact that you have valuables. If you did know for a fact that that person would be going a murdering if you lied about your wealth, then it's a different argument altogether.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really boils down to whether you knew they'd murder someone if you didn't let them steal your stuff.
For me, it doesn't. If someone says to me "give me $100 or I'm going to murder someone in your home town", I'm not going to give them $100, and I'm going to do everything in my power to stop them. Depending on the credibility of the threat and my own capabilities, that might include preemptively killing the person making the threat. But it will never involve giving them $100.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really boils down to whether you knew they'd murder someone if you didn't let them steal your stuff.For me, it doesn't. If someone says to me "give me $100 or I'm going to murder someone in your home town", I'm not going to give them $100, and I'm going to do everything in my power to stop them. Depending on the credibility of the threat and my own capabilities, that might include preemptively killing the person making the threat. But it will never involve giving them $100.
Not the direction I was going in at all. I'm saying the acceptance or denial of letting them rob you is isolated from them murdering the guy down the street. If they say they're going to kill someone down the street and you choose to do nothing on that information, it's totally separate from them shaking you down for money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Drakhan, in the spoiler the people are intending to save or liberate people, not end their lives; though to an outsider it just looks like a homicidal maniac, that person's intentions could be entirely honest and goodnatured.
In your counterexample, it looks like motivation is more important than intent; it's not what you wanted to do (murder someone), but why you wanted to do it (because they were going to kill 15 other people). Which I still think is off, because either one means that every person gets to decide what is acceptable behavior based on their own perceptions and opinions, rather than the cultural norms or accepted practices. Personally I feel like what should be considered morally acceptable is not up to each person to decide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Drakhan, in the spoiler the people are intending to save or liberate people, not end their lives; though to an outsider it just looks like a homicidal maniac, that person's intentions could be entirely honest and goodnatured.
In your counterexample, it looks like motivation is more important than intent; it's not what you wanted to do (murder someone), but why you wanted to do it (because they were going to kill 15 other people). Which I still think is off, because either one means that every person gets to decide what is acceptable behavior based on their own perceptions and opinions, rather than the cultural norms or accepted practices. Personally I feel like what should be considered morally acceptable is not up to each person to decide.
Whatever your position on "means justifying ends" Ryan states PfOs stance clearly in the dev blogs:
"Alignment in the Pathfinder world is also a descriptor. Things don't just act in good or evil ways; they are good or evil. And when a person uses something which is strongly aligned, that person is engaging in an act which is definitively aligned as well. The whole "ends justify the means" thing doesn't apply in Pathfinder." From Respect: Find out what it means from me!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In other words the actions will preordained as one or another, and while there can be various factors affecting (e.g. random pvp vs feud pvp) the character has no say. The is no ambiguity here where "well my actions were actually done in order to". There is simply, you killed outside of strict legal bounds - evil/chaos
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I totally disagree with Bluddwolf that people should bring such skills into the game. Simply put, I think lying and cheating in a game is immoral(*), that being a skilled cheater does not make cheating right, and the 'interest of national security' exception certainly does not apply in a game. Rather than bringing such skills, they should bring common decency.
I don't think you took my meaning the way I meant it. I was not speaking to just the specific case of the link in the OP, which I did not even read. Instead I made a generic statement of belief that people should bring whatever professional skills they have to the game.
If you are a Field Agent in the FBI, bring your investigative skills.
If you're a Data Mining specialist, bring those skills.
If you're a soldier, bring that training.
And if you have been trained in infiltrating organizations and gaining confidence in order to destroy them from within, then bring that as well.
On the issue of bringing our real world moal conventions / beliefs to an MMO, that I completely disagree with. I intentionally separate my character's actions from what I would do in real life. I separate your character from the person on the other side of the computer monitor.
If someone can not separate themselves from their characters, I'd venture the suggestion that they mat not be emotionally secure enough to play an MMORPG. I'm in no way directing this at any specific person, just making a general suggestion.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It really boils down to whether you knew they'd murder someone if you didn't let them steal your stuff.For me, it doesn't. If someone says to me "give me $100 or I'm going to murder someone in your home town", I'm not going to give them $100, and I'm going to do everything in my power to stop them. Depending on the credibility of the threat and my own capabilities, that might include preemptively killing the person making the threat. But it will never involve giving them $100.
Serious business time: What if your choice was between donating $100 to an organization that provides childhood deworming treatment or mosquito netting in third-world countries, and not donating?
No person is threatening anybody, they are simply telling you how many people are expected to die in the status quo, and how many fewer are expected to die with various funding levels. The choice you are currently making is between having some more money for yourself, and causing some stranger in another country to not die from disease.
Cases involving frank extortion have a major confounding factor: Giving in to extortion makes extortion in the future more likely. The burden of increasing extortion in general is often greater than the direct burden of any individual act.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I totally disagree with Bluddwolf that people should bring such skills into the game. Simply put, I think lying and cheating in a game is immoral(*), that being a skilled cheater does not make cheating right, and the 'interest of national security' exception certainly does not apply in a game. Rather than bringing such skills, they should bring common decency.I don't think you took my meaning the way I meant it. I was not speaking to just the specific case of the link in the OP, which I did not even read. Instead I made a generic statement of belief that people should bring whatever professional skills they have to the game.
If you are a Field Agent in the FBI, bring your investigative skills.
If you're a Data Mining specialist, bring those skills.
If you're a soldier, bring that training.
And if you have been trained in infiltrating organizations and gaining confidence in order to destroy them from within, then bring that as well.
On the issue of bringing our real world moal conventions / beliefs to an MMO, that I completely disagree with. I intentionally separate my character's actions from what I would do in real life. I separate your character from the person on the other side of the computer monitor.
If someone can not separate themselves from their characters, I'd venture the suggestion that they mat not be emotionally secure enough to play an MMORPG. I'm in no way directing this at any specific person, just making a general suggestion.
On to the other serious business of gaming: Lots of people like to play characters who share the player's opinion on every subject. It doesn't make sense for them to separate their character's thoughts and opinions from their own. That's only a problem when the player starts adopting the social norms of a fictional setting, not when a character retains social norms from outside of the setting.
To a lesser extent, almost all of the characters I have ever played have had had a very strong "Play well with Player Characters" drive, even when it made zero sense. I've had to kick a -player- once because his character didn't have that drive. It sucked; far better overall if that character had simply experienced some cognitive dissonance and gotten along better with the other murderhobos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the issue of bringing our real world moal conventions / beliefs to an MMO, that I completely disagree with. I intentionally separate my character's actions from what I would do in real life. I separate your character from the person on the other side of the computer monitor.
If someone can not separate themselves from their characters, I'd venture the suggestion that they mat not be emotionally secure enough to play an MMORPG. I'm in no way directing this at any specific person, just making a general suggestion.
The only disagreement we have is where the boundary between game and player lies.
I prefer to err on the 'silk glove' side as I regard all interaction between characters simultaneously as a meta-interaction between players. (In tabletop gaming this is very clear and the meta-game is always more important than the game, in MMO I still tend to regard it as the same - the objective is for the players to have fun, character achievements is just a tool to achieve that).
I suppose, though, that in reality I will treat newbs and strangers with silk gloves but assume that members of certain settlement are 'emotionally secure' enough to enjoy being sabotaged.
Bluffing in poker is not lying at all. It is making the statement "I wager this amount."
Bluffing in poker is done with the express intent to deceive and mislead others to your benefit. How is that conceptually different from lying? If your reply is to defining 'lie' as meaning strictly counter-factual statements, then you should possibly consider a career in politics or law.
EDIT: or marketing...|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluffing is different from lying, because the expectation of your opponents is that you are not looking to reveal your true hand. A lie is a violation of the expectation that you can be trusted to tell the truth, this does not exist in poker.
This is why the "Call" is used to force the opponent to show his hand. It is also why, when you fold, you have no right to see what hand the bluffer actually had.
This is just my understanding of the rules of some variations of poker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Serious business time: What if your choice was between donating $100 to an organization that provides childhood deworming treatment or mosquito netting in third-world countries, and not donating?
Serious business, indeed. I worry a little that such heavily RL topics may not really be appropriate here, but I also find the question important.
For that specific case, I'm not likely to donate. In part, that's because I believe that the vast majority of money donated to such organizations is used to fund the relatively (to me) extravagant lifestyles of the "philanthropists" running such organizations, and that a significant portion of the remainder often ends up in the hands of local warlords who are actually oppressing the people I would be motivated to want to help. I also believe that the only way people can actually be saved from such oppressive circumstances is by democratic institutions, the rule of law (equality before the law), and strong property rights.
I'm also fundamentally resistant to such lines of argumentation (donate $100, feed a child for a year) because they're exploitative of emotions. The logical end of such arguments is that anything I do to improve my family's quality of life is done over the bones of dead children elsewhere that I could have helped otherwise.