12-19-2003, 06:29 PM
Let's focus on one interesting pivot to the whole thing: the mention of "pay-as-you-play". The plaintiff had to pay money to participate. The company gained revenue and continued to gain revenue from his participation.
Now, when you play and you lose within the established rules of the game, there's nothing you can do about reclaiming your purchased participation. You don't go complaining to the clerk at the arcade prize counter if your Pac-Man character got beat down by a bunch of pastel-colored apparitionsâ you knew the rules of the game, and your failure came about simply because you risked and found out you suck at PacMan. But when the game fails outside the parameters of ruled and fair gameplay (someone cheated), someone other than the gameplayer is liable for fault. More often, it is the gamemaker or the cheater themselves.
Now, when you play and you lose within the established rules of the game, there's nothing you can do about reclaiming your purchased participation. You don't go complaining to the clerk at the arcade prize counter if your Pac-Man character got beat down by a bunch of pastel-colored apparitionsâ you knew the rules of the game, and your failure came about simply because you risked and found out you suck at PacMan. But when the game fails outside the parameters of ruled and fair gameplay (someone cheated), someone other than the gameplayer is liable for fault. More often, it is the gamemaker or the cheater themselves.
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.