The application of the Stand and Person object

General discussion about your experience with the game.
Locked
User avatar
ACM
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:33 am
Location: United Kingdom

The application of the Stand and Person object

Post by ACM »

This was a discussion that was held in a thread on the Tracks forum, where I only found out there is a rule about not posting tracks with stands and people as track obstacles. This rules goes into context about how the driver must have a higher percentage chance of clearing the obstacle and it must be done in 'good taste'. I still feel this is worth discussing, and I hope it's allowed to continue here.

Personally, I think this rule is ridiculous and pointless, and is worrying over something which could very well not be an issue at all. I've heard the points made from the other side, but I'm still not completely satisfied with them. These are the points I want to make/have made, in the vein hope that this will change some minds.

1. It's something that was deliberately programmed into the game to behave in a certain way. Having it programmed into the game while forbidding it on the forums is inconsistent.

You can argue about the intentions and application of having these objects programmed into the game; that the blood effect is only there to warn players not to drive over them. The truth is however you can't possibly know what the Räbinä brothers' intentions really were(the guys practically never talk to the community.) In fact, I'm willing to bet they had no proper intentions when they put it in the game, and didn't really care how it should be used. But If you have talked to them though and can prove me wrong on this then please do so.

2. No it's not the same as drawing explicit imagery on the track or swearing, and no it's not common sense.

These two things I would say require an element of deliberateness on behalf of the track maker in order to be accomplished, you can't draw phallic symbols on a track or swear on message boards unless a: you're perceptually aware it's offensive and b: you're deliberately putting forth the effort to be offensive.

On the other hand, any person can look at these objects, which were preprogrammed into the game to behave in a certain way, and see its potential to use as a track obstacle, just because it's fun. Remember this is a video game, so the laws of reality do not apply here and so it's not obvious it shouldn't be done. In fact I bet everyone has done this at one point or another. You say this is forcing drivers to slaughter, but remember you can choose not to download these tracks if you really don't want to, whereas you can't unsee explicit images or unhear swearing. Either way I find it hard to imagine this is a problem for anyone because...

3. The 'gore' in this game is a simple effect that turns some objects red and is practically non-existent.

Really, in terms of blood effects the ones in GeneRally are so cartoonish and unrealistic they might as well not be there, and you don't actually kill anyone.

Still though, I hear the argument that it's not the blood that's the problem, but the intentions behind these tracks; that they are created in bad taste and are abusive. If that's the case, then...

4. In order for something to be abusive, and for anti-abuse laws to be applicable, somebody in the real world would have to have been abused.

I'm no stranger to anti-abuse laws and I know their purpose. There are anti-abuse laws in the world I can agree with, there are anti-abuse laws I don't particularly agree with, but still at least understand why they exist.

Here on the other hand, I just don't see the application of such a rule, because I can't imagine anyone ever being offended by this. All I hear is the hypothetical situation that someone might be offended by these tracks, which are supposedly 'abusive', or that parents might be offended because their child downloaded these tracks(Really, if the parents are that squeamish, it's their responsibility to monitor what their child is downloading, not the community's,) but I have yet to see who this 'abused person' is. Can anyone tell me who exactly is being offended?

I don't want hypothetical situations or lessons on world politics. I want real, factual names. Who is being offended?

Please, just tell me who it is that's being personally offended by this. Give me tangible examples to back up your claim, and I'll happily shut up. Even if it's one of the moderators who's personally offended, then just tell me the moderators are personally offended and I'll happily shut up.

If however no one knows of anyone ever being offended, then what's the problem?

Yes, while the moderators do have a final say on site rules and policies, I still believe such rules can be discussed upon within the community and re-evaluated from time to time, and we can explore the applications and purposes of these rules, as long as we are not directly violating them while doing so. Please know that I'm not trying to be a jerk by typing this, I just want to engage in discussion, and possibly extract more information out of this.
User avatar
Trigger Happy
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 7134
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:54 pm
Location: CZE
Contact:

Re: The application of the Stand and Person object

Post by Trigger Happy »

'I can tell you, that the discussion in moderator team started few weeks ago on initiative Tuomo after he discussed this possible problem with James Burgess (developer of game and former RSC admin) too, so I can tell, that this policy in general is in unity with intentions or wishes and past practice of game developers.

For other things I'm afraid, that you just repeat, what you already told and I already answered you (and I would point out mainly 1nsane's additional info there too) in this thread, I don't see any reason for continuing in repeating identical arguments and points of one or other side of the discussion again and again, so I lock this too.
Last edited by Trigger Happy on Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: wrong formulation changed
Locked