The Azeroth Ethicist: Special I.W.I.N. edition, part 2
What guild out there can compete with someone who's rocking a true "I Win" button? There is no amount of skill, gear, or experience that's a foil to a cheat of that magnitude -- and if The Marvel Family had managed to beat everyone else to an Algalon kill solely because of Martin Fury, I get the feeling that fewer people would be interested in defending their actions.
So, innocent intent or not, no one from The Marvel Family who was cognizant of or heavily involved with the one-shot kills could realistically argue that their actions did not result in gain for themselves, or cheating others out of a great deal of hard work.
Does Karatechop deserve a permanent ban?
Maybe. What newer players may not remember is that something like this has happened before. Blizzard's handed down perma-bans in the past to people who deliberately made things a lot easier for themselves despite claiming justification for doing so, and the sole difference here is that players went from exploiting a vulnerability within an .mpq file to taking advantage of a GM's mistake. In this case, Blizzard bears a larger share of the responsibility for having sent the item in the first place, but The Marvel Family did everything else on its own steam. A mistake is a mistake, but one-shotting 14 raid bosses is most assuredly not a mistake. The former was not intended to occur, whereas the latter was very much intended to occur, so they are not morally equivalent actions.
Blizzard had no reason to believe that Karatechop and the guild would not have continued to use the shirt to amass server-firsts, gear, and guild progression far beyond what they could have done on their own. I've seen a lot of people argue that the guild bears no, or diminished, responsibility for what occurred because none of it would have happened if it hadn't been for Blizzard's error, or that the guild was somehow owed a joyride through raid content due to the slowness with which Blizzard dealt with Leroyspeltz's account issues.
That argument, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes progressively more and more untenable. Would Karatechop and the willing players among his guild also have been entitled to all Tier 9 world-firsts, Gladiator, and all subsequent world-firsts in future content just because a GM made a mistake returning items to a hacked player (especially when you consider that Blizzard isn't the bad guy when players compromise their account security)? One player got himself hacked, so his entire guild is inconvenienced and deserves a free pass through all present and future content? Of course not.
If there's a case to be made for leniency, it's this; I think Blizzard greatly underestimates the sheer hold that the game's plumbing and secrets have on player interest and imagination. Reading about players who managed to wall-jump to Hyjal or visit GM Island or what have you is fascinating, and most of us enjoy being able to peek behind the curtain on occasion. I don't blame Karatechop or The Marvel Family for their almost giddy reaction to finding an item that does not officially exist, although they are (as stated) entirely culpable for the pwn-a-thon that ensued. While Karatechop and Leroyspeltz bear an extra share of responsibility for having brought the item to the raids, every player who knew of Martin Fury's existence and was willingly present for the one-shots is equally guilty, so it's somewhat unfair to hand a ban solely to Karatechop. Either everyone involved should get the banhammer, or no one should.
So, innocent intent or not, no one from The Marvel Family who was cognizant of or heavily involved with the one-shot kills could realistically argue that their actions did not result in gain for themselves, or cheating others out of a great deal of hard work.
Does Karatechop deserve a permanent ban?
Maybe. What newer players may not remember is that something like this has happened before. Blizzard's handed down perma-bans in the past to people who deliberately made things a lot easier for themselves despite claiming justification for doing so, and the sole difference here is that players went from exploiting a vulnerability within an .mpq file to taking advantage of a GM's mistake. In this case, Blizzard bears a larger share of the responsibility for having sent the item in the first place, but The Marvel Family did everything else on its own steam. A mistake is a mistake, but one-shotting 14 raid bosses is most assuredly not a mistake. The former was not intended to occur, whereas the latter was very much intended to occur, so they are not morally equivalent actions.
Blizzard had no reason to believe that Karatechop and the guild would not have continued to use the shirt to amass server-firsts, gear, and guild progression far beyond what they could have done on their own. I've seen a lot of people argue that the guild bears no, or diminished, responsibility for what occurred because none of it would have happened if it hadn't been for Blizzard's error, or that the guild was somehow owed a joyride through raid content due to the slowness with which Blizzard dealt with Leroyspeltz's account issues.
That argument, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes progressively more and more untenable. Would Karatechop and the willing players among his guild also have been entitled to all Tier 9 world-firsts, Gladiator, and all subsequent world-firsts in future content just because a GM made a mistake returning items to a hacked player (especially when you consider that Blizzard isn't the bad guy when players compromise their account security)? One player got himself hacked, so his entire guild is inconvenienced and deserves a free pass through all present and future content? Of course not.
If there's a case to be made for leniency, it's this; I think Blizzard greatly underestimates the sheer hold that the game's plumbing and secrets have on player interest and imagination. Reading about players who managed to wall-jump to Hyjal or visit GM Island or what have you is fascinating, and most of us enjoy being able to peek behind the curtain on occasion. I don't blame Karatechop or The Marvel Family for their almost giddy reaction to finding an item that does not officially exist, although they are (as stated) entirely culpable for the pwn-a-thon that ensued. While Karatechop and Leroyspeltz bear an extra share of responsibility for having brought the item to the raids, every player who knew of Martin Fury's existence and was willingly present for the one-shots is equally guilty, so it's somewhat unfair to hand a ban solely to Karatechop. Either everyone involved should get the banhammer, or no one should.






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
NUMBERONESTUNNA May 5th 2009 2:07PM
OMFG another article on this same story, geez WI you guys are desperate.
buwong May 5th 2009 2:59PM
I have to agree Stunna, the subject has been done to death here.
WI seems to be in the business of creating conflict to drive the banner advertising revenue rather than using great reporting to do the same thing. The moral implications of that are deeply troubling to me. Perhaps we should spend days discussing that over a series of several articles by multiple authors.
Oh wait.
Adamanthis May 5th 2009 3:18PM
It's not required reading.
Personally, I have always found the ethical questions raised by the social interaction of the game to be its most interesting aspect, and this is an interesting discussion of it.
Nekudotayim May 5th 2009 5:23PM
TLDR. Sorry! =/
Quickshiv May 5th 2009 2:08PM
So have we beaten this dead horse enough yet? Do we some how need to zombify the horse so we can beat it some more? Leave it alone already.
Doodlin May 5th 2009 2:30PM
We'll need to invest in zombie horses.
Mmm, graaaaaassss.
Liltimmy May 5th 2009 3:00PM
Reminded me of a south park clip...
"Why doesn't anyone want me to give them AIDES?!
There he is, beating that dead horse!"
Sorry...
Link (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153287)
Joetheserviceman May 5th 2009 2:18PM
/sigh. Although I personally find the differing viewpoints interesting, could WI not drag this out into so many articles over so much time? Just a thought.
csdx May 7th 2009 11:17AM
simply put: yes.
Although they're playing against the machine, it's still competitive. If someone had a magic ball in golf that let them always get hole-in-one's are they harming anyone? By your standards no, since they're no directly competing, like say boxing would be, (PVP) with another, but they are competing against several others doing the same course each trying to see who's the best (PVE).
fauxgt4 May 5th 2009 5:07PM
I think this article is different from the other wowinsider articles on this scandal, on account of the author actually clearly stating an opinion.
The previous articles have been more informative or interrogative, but this is clearly an opinion piece. I think this is why this article is not "beating a dead horse".
emptyrepublic May 5th 2009 3:39PM
Agreed. I believe this was a necessary article to set a portion of the community straight. There was way too much sympathy towards Karatechop and his guild. The author makes it clear that once the guild discovered the mistake that was made they deliberately abused it. I hope those of you whose heart bleeds for Karatechop aren't surprised when the IRS arrests you after you spend that million dollar tax return you know was not yours to have.
Hal May 5th 2009 2:24PM
This kind of reminds me of Plato's dilemma of the farmer who finds a ring of invisibility. No one knows he has it, so what does he do with it?
Plato surmises that the farmer inevitably uses the ring to kill the king and take his place. After all, you have this item of magical wonder . . . who could resist such power?
Plato would probably place the fault with Blizzard in this case. It was their fault for allowing Martin Fury to fall into a player's hands; the player was only acting on his nature, and any player would eventually succumb to this same temptation.
I'm don't agree with Plato, but I think the parallel is interesting.
Hal May 5th 2009 2:42PM
I should point out that (IIRC) this wasn't Plato's original point; the point was to show that the only reason man doesn't do wrong is the fear of reprisal or punishment. If a man has the ability to pursue any action without said fear, there will be no checks on his actions. However, I'm not sure that point applies to this situation.
Allison Robert May 5th 2009 3:38PM
I wondered if anyone would recognize Plato in the article's picture, or if he'd get a mention. :)
Tuhljin May 5th 2009 3:50PM
First, saying it's "inevitable" that people will do the wrong thing when given the tools isn't true, as you seem to agree. I know for a fact it is not; history is replete with examples of people doing the right thing in the face of such temptation. Second, the point about people doing what's right because of fear of punishment does have a lot of merit, unfortunately, and does apply here: Of course Blizzard had to ban KC; to not do so would be to signal that Blizzard doesn't care if players take advantage of their mistakes even in extreme cases.
Hal May 5th 2009 4:08PM
You're right that I don't hold that point, Tuhljin, but I'll just play devil's advocate here and suggest that it could be a case of each person having a specific "breaking point." One person might need to be pushed further than others in order to succumb to such temptations. One man might not kill the king, but he might sleep with the queen; another might instead kill his rival, or perhaps he'd simply accumulate all the wealth he could. The point being, each man might succumb to a different temptation. In this case, one might not use Martin Fury, but what if Sarth3D glitched in the midst of combat and none of the bosses would attack? Some people might report the glitch to a GM, but some of those who chide the use of Martin Fury might just take the kill and all the benefit that comes from it.
Dogmeat May 6th 2009 7:27AM
What keeps escaping everyone here is this: Other than the achievements, which are easily undone and everyone knows are bogus, KC never used the item to screw anyone, which most of the examples cited here show, and that is the only way that any of this should have mattered.
The wonderful thing about playing a game set in a fake world is that, so long as you don't hurt a real person's fun, you can do whatever you want and there should be no consequences. What KC did was no different than exploiting a single player game hack, and no VG company would ban someone from buying their games for doing that.
And before you flame, read that carefully. If he'd taken that into PvP and used it, we'd be having a different discussion. But he was only playing against the machine.
So to extend the analogy, if the farmer found a magic ring that produced gold and John Deere equipment and used it to make himself and his entire moose lodge rich, is he evil?
Waryor May 5th 2009 2:27PM
Although I believe this subject has been quite played out, at least it was a very well reasoned and presented article. Props for using the word "culpable".
Daniel May 5th 2009 2:34PM
Well, you saved me a blog post because I was thinking about this exact issue this morning with just a slightly different take.
The reason they need to be perma-banned is not that they used the item. It's that they used the item in a way that defeated the core integrity of the game. Yes, they had fun; but that it is not an all saving justification. All players need to be responsible for the impact that there actions have on other players and on the game itself. Intent matters but so does pragmatic consequences. If they had killed 100 boars, no problem; no real harm, no real foul. But one-shotting the toughest bosses in the game was beyond the pale. Their fun does not triumph over people's fun. And it is for having the attitude that it does is the reason they deserve to be banned.
PeeDub May 5th 2009 3:20PM
I guess I have a little problem with the idea that their fun somehow destroys others' fun. The only way that's true is if your only real fun comes from getting achievements before others, which to me is a little sad.