One thing i think is interesting in this thread is that nobody brought up the point of what ethics are. They seem to be talked about here as a sure scale as to what is good and what is bad. And as much as ethics want to be that, until we can agree on a standard they are not. Lets look at Roping Secret Pallys under just a few different ethical systems and see which under which it is ok.
First we will look at Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. Super simplified version to suit this scenario boils down to if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action. So here we would need to ask"Is it ever not ok to rope someone?" I assume most of us would say there are places where roping is wrong, so it is wrong to do that no matter the situation.
In Ann Rand's ethical egotism of course it is ok to rope secret pallys. As this systems denotes ethics to be entirely dependent on what is the best for you in both the long and short term. If the benefit of making this wait is worth the cost of waiting and any mental anguish making them wait causes you, then it is ok. But in the end if it isn't worth it to you, then it is not ethical.
In Mill's Utilitarianism things get a little harder. Like ethical egotism we are dealing with happiness. Unlike ethical egotism it is bringing the greatest amount of net happiness. Often misused, but essentially the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. While impossible to calculate i will make the assumption that the loss of the Pally's happiness is offset by the amount of happiness you gain. So it comes down to how the rest of the community's happiness is influenced by your roping the Pally. Again this is a generalization, but from looking at the responses in the thread it would appear they seem to gain less happiness by roping the Pally then by not roping. So very tentatively Utilitarianism seems to say roping the Pally is not morally sound.
Care ethics is similar to ethical egotism because it is relative. But rather than happiness for just you, it is happiness for everyone. But unlike Utilitarianism the weight of everyone is not equal. Those closest to you are weighed more. So if you and your friend group are ok with it, it outweighs the more people on hearthpwn who seem to be against it. And if you and your friend group are not ok with it, then it is not ok.
There are a lot more ethical systems out there, and the ones i talked about were overly simplified. But the very nature of the question is it ethical to rope secret Pally's is a very loose question. Just at the quick look I did it would never be ok in deontological ethics and utilitarianism, but could go either way in ethical egotism and care ethics. So to answer the question in the topic of this thread, yes it is ethically defensible to rope a secret Pally, it just depends on how you define ethics.
Really man, I don't give a shit about this phillosophical crap (or whatever it is) about ethics you are talking about, the only important thing here is that he is doing something that is not normal just to harm others. He is a terrible person and a far worse kind of player than those he loves to harm.
I don't see how qualifying a statement in attempt to avoid having this turn into a discussion about whether or not a particular deck is 'overpowered' in order to allow for a discussion about how and why people react when playing against that deck qualifies as using weasel words. Is it not in fact the case that many people have expressed frustration about Secret Paladin (or Undertaker Hunter etc)? Does having any small bit of consideration for the enjoyment of other players while making your deck selections mean that you are a scrub? You seem to want to read an intention into my original statement simply isn't there.
It's a minor point in how you put forward your original post, but you might as well come out and say that "I think other players are having a bad time." If not it makes you sound like one of those people. People complain about losing to specific decks all the time, but most of the time this is because they have trouble coming to terms with the fact that the every game has a winner and a loser.
Yes, considering the other player's feelings makes you a scrub because you're no longer playing the game, you're trying to be popular amongst imaginary friends. When I play with my real life friends I play fun decks because they don't have full collections and we're playing to have a laugh. When you play casual, you're playing against people doing quests and testing out random stuff, sure you can frown at netdeckers here because they might as well take their skills to ranked, but you can always concede with no consequence if you don't want to play them. When you play ranked, you play the gauntlet, and if your precious snowflake is worse than secret paladin, then it deserves to get beaten into the ground down to rank 20.
Thank you for the correction. Your formulation does have the benefit of being more direct. I'm sure that the original comes of sounding like something that a lawyer or a politician would say.
Roping sucks no matter how offended you feel by your opponents´ deck choice. It might be defensible when a) the opponent spams emotes or b) ropes himself but as a general "punishment" for Secret Paladins (...Aggro Shamans, Face Hunters, or whatever may rise next that you happen to disapprove) it is simply childish and pathetic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
I do want to preface the last time i studied Kant in depth was about 6 or so years ago, so i am a little rustier on him than others. But from what I can see, yes some Secret Pally players may well be treating their opponents as a means to an end, which Kant would deem not morally sound. But not all Secret Pallys are looking just for sheer wins without concern for the other player, some are just people looking to complete a quest with the only Pally deck they can make( I have not crafted or opened a single Mysterious Challenger, I am not trying to defend myself). Kant would look at the act of roping an opponent as the punishment for the crime of not seeing the other player as anything but a means to winning, but without knowing if the other player is truly looking at the other player as just s means to get a win, it would not be ok to punish them. To quote Kant from something he wrote called "Science of Right":
"For one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another, nor be mixed up with the subjects of real right. Against such treatment his inborn personality has a right to protect him, even although he may be condemned to lose his civil personality. He must first be found guilty and punishable, before there can be any thought of drawing from his punishment any benefit for himself or his fellow-citizens."
So I guess with Kant you would need to determine the guilt of the individual Secret Pally before delivering punishment. And i am not familiar with how Kant goes about proving guilt. But assuming he is ok with a single person( ie the person playing the secret Pally) determining the guilt, it would then be up to you to determine if the current secret Pally you are playing against truly does not see you as anything but a means to an end.
Thanks for the insightful comment and helping me re-evaluate my stance on Kant, and re look up some of what he has to say.
Edit, I forgot to quote post #98 in this tread, by the OP acosper.
If you are someone who ropes intentionally, you are literally scum that should die a pathetic death like the degenerate you are. It wastes time, and accomplishes nothing.
One thing i think is interesting in this thread is that nobody brought up the point of what ethics are. They seem to be talked about here as a sure scale as to what is good and what is bad. And as much as ethics want to be that, until we can agree on a standard they are not. Lets look at Roping Secret Pallys under just a few different ethical systems and see which under which it is ok.
First we will look at Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. Super simplified version to suit this scenario boils down to if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action. So here we would need to ask"Is it ever not ok to rope someone?" I assume most of us would say there are places where roping is wrong, so it is wrong to do that no matter the situation.
In Ann Rand's ethical egotism of course it is ok to rope secret pallys. As this systems denotes ethics to be entirely dependent on what is the best for you in both the long and short term. If the benefit of making this wait is worth the cost of waiting and any mental anguish making them wait causes you, then it is ok. But in the end if it isn't worth it to you, then it is not ethical.
In Mill's Utilitarianism things get a little harder. Like ethical egotism we are dealing with happiness. Unlike ethical egotism it is bringing the greatest amount of net happiness. Often misused, but essentially the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. While impossible to calculate i will make the assumption that the loss of the Pally's happiness is offset by the amount of happiness you gain. So it comes down to how the rest of the community's happiness is influenced by your roping the Pally. Again this is a generalization, but from looking at the responses in the thread it would appear they seem to gain less happiness by roping the Pally then by not roping. So very tentatively Utilitarianism seems to say roping the Pally is not morally sound.
Care ethics is similar to ethical egotism because it is relative. But rather than happiness for just you, it is happiness for everyone. But unlike Utilitarianism the weight of everyone is not equal. Those closest to you are weighed more. So if you and your friend group are ok with it, it outweighs the more people on hearthpwn who seem to be against it. And if you and your friend group are not ok with it, then it is not ok.
There are a lot more ethical systems out there, and the ones i talked about were overly simplified. But the very nature of the question is it ethical to rope secret Pally's is a very loose question. Just at the quick look I did it would never be ok in deontological ethics and utilitarianism, but could go either way in ethical egotism and care ethics. So to answer the question in the topic of this thread, yes it is ethically defensible to rope a secret Pally, it just depends on how you define ethics.
Really man, I don't give a shit about this phillosophical crap (or whatever it is) about ethics you are talking about, the only important thing here is that he is doing something that is not normal just to harm others. He is a terrible person and a far worse kind of player than those he loves to harm.
I wasn't even sure if i should respond to this, but as you can see I did decide to.
First I am a little sad that you don't care about "phillosophical crap" as in judging him as a terrible person you are using some sort of ethical system to do it. But rather than looking at the criterion you are using to judge him in an external way so others can critique them, you are keeping them internalized. Looking at how others define ethics can help you express why you think he is a terrible person, and what standards you are basing it on. As there has been no perfect ethical system proposed yet, maybe you hold some insight on the matter others do not, and through research and expressing it you could further how we all look at ethics. And even if you don't, knowing the ethical systems out there can help you understand why people do things you think are terrible, but they believe to be just fine. This could help you when talking to them and trying to show them why you believe what they are doing is terrible and what basis you have for it.
I try to play as quickly as i can to get it over with. Like any well adjusted adult would do.
"I try to give them the victory as fast as possible, so that they may enjoy themselves the most possible and face other unlucky souls. Like any cowardly slave who won't fight for what is right."
Okay. But some people *do* care, and roping cancer is one of the few tools Blizzard has allowed us to utilize to make the world a better place; If everyone took responsibility and roped the cancer, people would stop playing it, or at the very least -- it would take so much time that other decks hit legend faster.
I myself don't like secret pally but played it anyways last season to get to 5, sorry! But at the same time, I wouldn't mind playing against a secret pally because I believe in the Hodge Twins philosophy--> "Do whatever the **** you wana do"
A little Sartrean perspective always helps!
As specialized on Sartre's ontology and ethics, this is the biggest misinterpretation ever…
As a Hearthstone player, roping appears to be quite gentle compared to the inconvenient generated by this amount of identical OP-SP decks. Even Tetris seems now to be more diverse than this card game because of these guys, seriously. Also, if an opponent is being disrespectful (whatever deck he is using), I see no problem with remembering them that they are being dicks and roping is sadly one of the only way to do so. Briefly, my point is: as a reactive move, roping is fine.
Anyone has the right to play whatever they want since they paid (or grind) their cards. If you dislike the deck so much play with it's best counter or build a deck to counter it.
Roping is the kid's act.
The obvious answer to an obviously troll thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
12 wins in ArenA with: Mage and Paladin, first time legend with Rogue
1. There will always be an intentionally OP flavor-of-the-week, players will chase the shiny object, and it will always be nerfed and/or replaced by something even more annoying and OP.
2. The game still has to be accessible to new players, meaning autopilot aggro decks will never really go away.
This is how Blizzard makes money, and is a fact of life. It will not change no matter how angry you get or how many opponents you troll. Just wait a couple months and everybody will be crying over Dragon Rogue or Secret Warrior or whatever OP deck comes next. Adapt your game. If you don't like it, go play Starcraft or chess or something.
1. There will always be an intentionally OP flavor-of-the-week, players will chase the shiny object, and it will always be nerfed and/or replaced by something even more annoying and OP.
2. The game still has to be accessible to new players, meaning autopilot aggro decks will never really go away.
This is how Blizzard makes money, and is a fact of life. It will not change no matter how angry you get or how many opponents you troll. Just wait a couple months and everybody will be crying over Dragon Rogue or Secret Warrior or whatever OP deck comes next. Adapt your game. If you don't like it, go play Starcraft or chess or something.
If you are getting angry because of someone play something you dont like, you are personalizing too much. It's not about you. That being said, roping is fine by the game rules and im pretty sure there can be personal-ethical justifications. But it means you are screwed up.
I don't consider roping to be a thing. It's on your turn, it's your time to use. If it's turn 7 and you need time to consider, you have every right to take that time.
I myself don't like secret pally but played it anyways last season to get to 5, sorry! But at the same time, I wouldn't mind playing against a secret pally because I believe in the Hodge Twins philosophy--> "Do whatever the **** you wana do"
A little Sartrean perspective always helps!
As specialized on Sartre's ontology and ethics, this is the biggest misinterpretation ever…
As a Hearthstone player, roping appears to be quite gentle compared to the inconvenient generated by this amount of identical OP-SP decks. Even Tetris seems now to be more diverse than this card game because of these guys, seriously. Also, if an opponent is being disrespectful (whatever deck he is using), I see no problem with remembering them that they are being dicks and roping is sadly one of the only way to do so. Briefly, my point is: as a reactive move, roping is fine.
A few minutes before I made the original post, my last opponent sent me a friend request. Since I almost always play unorthodox decks, most of the requests I get are genuine. I accepted the friend request. Sadly, this gentleman offered to shit in my mouth and then unfriended me before I had the chance to thank him. Why do I bring this up? To reinforce your point that 'roping is sadly one of the only way to' disincentivize bad behavior. Of course, it is far from ideal. But I do think that this lack of any sort of constructive way to influence the game is at least partially responsible for the negativity we see on forums, chat and streams.
PS "Do whatever the **** you wana do" strikes me as an odd interpretation Sartre as well. I would be interested to hear how we can get from "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does" to "Do whatever the **** you wana do." There has got to be a serious dialectic going on behind the scenes. ;-)
Really man, I don't give a shit about this phillosophical crap (or whatever it is) about ethics you are talking about, the only important thing here is that he is doing something that is not normal just to harm others. He is a terrible person and a far worse kind of player than those he loves to harm.
I wasn't even sure if i should respond to this, but as you can see I did decide to.
First I am a little sad that you don't care about "phillosophical crap" as in judging him as a terrible person you are using some sort of ethical system to do it. But rather than looking at the criterion you are using to judge him in an external way so others can critique them, you are keeping them internalized. Looking at how others define ethics can help you express why you think he is a terrible person, and what standards you are basing it on. As there has been no perfect ethical system proposed yet, maybe you hold some insight on the matter others do not, and through research and expressing it you could further how we all look at ethics. And even if you don't, knowing the ethical systems out there can help you understand why people do things you think are terrible, but they believe to be just fine. This could help you when talking to them and trying to show them why you believe what they are doing is terrible and what basis you have for it.
This is like saying we should forgive murderers because maybe they think killing people is OK. Are you serious?
I can't believe there are people actually posting serious stuff about philosophy. I've taken a few philosophy courses in my day too, but to wank my academic dick in people's faces in a troll thread would just be sad. It's not even a philosophical topic, it's a societal one. Do what you want as far as unnecessary roping goes, but don't be surprised by the negative reactions from people.
I can't believe there are people actually posting serious stuff about philosophy. I've taken a few philosophy courses in my day too, but to wank my academic dick in people's faces in a troll thread would just be sad. It's not even a philosophical topic, it's a societal one. Do what you want as far as unnecessary roping goes, but don't be surprised by the negative reactions from people.
I'm not sure that I believe that your claim to have taken a few philosophy courses. If I am mistaken, please enlighten us about the distinction between societal and philosophical topics.
This is like saying we should forgive murderers because maybe they think killing people is OK. Are you serious?
It may surprise you to know but this is an actual occurrence. It is most often achieved through a plea of insanity, whether guilty or non guilty it greatly reduces charges in many cases and can result in the dismissal of others. I'm sure there are other ways with out court system to slip murder as well. So in the eyes of federal and state law the response would be yes, he is serious. If you were regarding ethics in your reply it seems odd given your previous comment disregarding the sect entirely. As a moreover the OP never even stated directly he roped for the purposes you imply.
Edit: On a somewhat unrelated note, your alliance to Ramsay Bolton is confusing at its least.
This is like saying we should forgive murderers because maybe they think killing people is OK. Are you serious?
It may surprise you to know but this is an actual occurrence. It is most often achieved through a plea of insanity, whether guilty or non guilty it greatly reduces charges in many cases and can result in the dismissal of others. I'm sure there are other ways with out court system to slip murder as well. So in the eyes of federal and state law the response would be yes, he is serious. If you were regarding ethics in your reply it seems odd given your previous comment disregarding the sect entirely. As a moreover the OP never even stated directly he roped for the purposes you imply.
Edit: On a somewhat unrelated note, your alliance to Ramsay Bolton is confusing at its least.
The legal issues you speak of don't condone the murder because of mitigating circumstances, they simply inform the way it is punished. If mental illness led to a genuine belief that the murder was right, the sentence is changed, but the ethical stance on murder remains the same. Nobody is forgiven when proven to have committed murder, extenuating and mitigating circumstances just change the way the punishment is handed down. A plea of insanity never removes all repurcussions either, and will at least lead to court-mandated treatment.
These are subtle differences, and the argument over whether or not there is a higher code of ethics all people adhere to is a deeper question, but murder is never considered ok because of a deviant worldview except to the murderer himself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trying Real Hard To Keep Hunter Relevant
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Roping sucks no matter how offended you feel by your opponents´ deck choice. It might be defensible when a) the opponent spams emotes or b) ropes himself but as a general "punishment" for Secret Paladins (...Aggro Shamans, Face Hunters, or whatever may rise next that you happen to disapprove) it is simply childish and pathetic.
I do want to preface the last time i studied Kant in depth was about 6 or so years ago, so i am a little rustier on him than others. But from what I can see, yes some Secret Pally players may well be treating their opponents as a means to an end, which Kant would deem not morally sound. But not all Secret Pallys are looking just for sheer wins without concern for the other player, some are just people looking to complete a quest with the only Pally deck they can make( I have not crafted or opened a single Mysterious Challenger, I am not trying to defend myself). Kant would look at the act of roping an opponent as the punishment for the crime of not seeing the other player as anything but a means to winning, but without knowing if the other player is truly looking at the other player as just s means to get a win, it would not be ok to punish them. To quote Kant from something he wrote called "Science of Right":
"For one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another, nor be mixed up with the subjects of real right. Against such treatment his inborn personality has a right to protect him, even although he may be condemned to lose his civil personality. He must first be found guilty and punishable, before there can be any thought of drawing from his punishment any benefit for himself or his fellow-citizens."
So I guess with Kant you would need to determine the guilt of the individual Secret Pally before delivering punishment. And i am not familiar with how Kant goes about proving guilt. But assuming he is ok with a single person( ie the person playing the secret Pally) determining the guilt, it would then be up to you to determine if the current secret Pally you are playing against truly does not see you as anything but a means to an end.
Thanks for the insightful comment and helping me re-evaluate my stance on Kant, and re look up some of what he has to say.
Edit, I forgot to quote post #98 in this tread, by the OP acosper.
If you are someone who ropes intentionally, you are literally scum that should die a pathetic death like the degenerate you are. It wastes time, and accomplishes nothing.
I wasn't even sure if i should respond to this, but as you can see I did decide to.
First I am a little sad that you don't care about "phillosophical crap" as in judging him as a terrible person you are using some sort of ethical system to do it. But rather than looking at the criterion you are using to judge him in an external way so others can critique them, you are keeping them internalized. Looking at how others define ethics can help you express why you think he is a terrible person, and what standards you are basing it on. As there has been no perfect ethical system proposed yet, maybe you hold some insight on the matter others do not, and through research and expressing it you could further how we all look at ethics. And even if you don't, knowing the ethical systems out there can help you understand why people do things you think are terrible, but they believe to be just fine. This could help you when talking to them and trying to show them why you believe what they are doing is terrible and what basis you have for it.
Okay.
But some people *do* care, and roping cancer is one of the few tools Blizzard has allowed us to utilize to make the world a better place;
If everyone took responsibility and roped the cancer, people would stop playing it, or at the very least -- it would take so much time that other decks hit legend faster.
As a Hearthstone player, roping appears to be quite gentle compared to the inconvenient generated by this amount of identical OP-SP decks.
Even Tetris seems now to be more diverse than this card game because of these guys, seriously.
Also, if an opponent is being disrespectful (whatever deck he is using), I see no problem with remembering them that they are being dicks and roping is sadly one of the only way to do so.
Briefly, my point is: as a reactive move, roping is fine.
12 wins in ArenA with: Mage and Paladin, first time legend with Rogue
This is a F2P MMO, meaning two things:
1. There will always be an intentionally OP flavor-of-the-week, players will chase the shiny object, and it will always be nerfed and/or replaced by something even more annoying and OP.
2. The game still has to be accessible to new players, meaning autopilot aggro decks will never really go away.
This is how Blizzard makes money, and is a fact of life. It will not change no matter how angry you get or how many opponents you troll. Just wait a couple months and everybody will be crying over Dragon Rogue or Secret Warrior or whatever OP deck comes next. Adapt your game. If you don't like it, go play Starcraft or chess or something.
Stop being bad. Get better at the game and maybe you'll feel less hate towards popular decks.
Bad players whine.
Good players adapt.
If you are getting angry because of someone play something you dont like, you are personalizing too much. It's not about you. That being said, roping is fine by the game rules and im pretty sure there can be personal-ethical justifications. But it means you are screwed up.
Double the trouble
I don't consider roping to be a thing. It's on your turn, it's your time to use. If it's turn 7 and you need time to consider, you have every right to take that time.
I can't believe there are people actually posting serious stuff about philosophy. I've taken a few philosophy courses in my day too, but to wank my academic dick in people's faces in a troll thread would just be sad. It's not even a philosophical topic, it's a societal one. Do what you want as far as unnecessary roping goes, but don't be surprised by the negative reactions from people.
It may surprise you to know but this is an actual occurrence. It is most often achieved through a plea of insanity, whether guilty or non guilty it greatly reduces charges in many cases and can result in the dismissal of others. I'm sure there are other ways with out court system to slip murder as well. So in the eyes of federal and state law the response would be yes, he is serious. If you were regarding ethics in your reply it seems odd given your previous comment disregarding the sect entirely. As a moreover the OP never even stated directly he roped for the purposes you imply.
Edit: On a somewhat unrelated note, your alliance to Ramsay Bolton is confusing at its least.
10/10 BM
Trying Real Hard To Keep Hunter Relevant