Shattered Kingdoms

I completely disagree. The only problem with the golden rule is that people simply don't follow it. There are very few "dealbreaker" ethics rules in SK that the vast majority of the pbase wouldn't agree to be "wrong," like raging or flying OOC at the tip of a handle or cheating, for example.

OOC raging doesn't really seem like an ethical problem in itself. To me, that's a symptom that occurs when player 1 feels that player 2 isn't acting towards him or her as s/he would would act unto others.

It seems to me that it usually just happens when someone's pissed, regardless of the underlying reason.

Besides, the rule isn't "Treat others like they would treat you" it's "treat them the way you want to be treated." There's a world of difference between the two, one that decides to treat someone well not because of something they did or might do, but solely because of a decision you are making. This means that no matter what you think of the other person, you treat them well. I'd also say that I don't think anyone possesses the ability to do so perfectly.

Level 0: do unto others whatever you want.
Level 1: do unto others as they do unto you.
Level 2: do unto others as you would have done unto you
Level 3: do unto others as they would have done unto themselves

One could theorize that your level 3 definition is a pretty fair extension of level 2. The problem you run into is that people aren't mind readers so they cannot know for sure how someone else would like to be treated. More often than not, that sort of reasoning typically results in hypocritical arguments like "Well obviously he PKed me without any interaction so I should roll a character to FS his characters and then delete. After all, that's what he'd like."

There's actually quite a big difference between 2 and 3. It manifests itself in relationships a lot where you treat someone according to your preference rather than understanding theirs. Hard to reach that level of understanding of other individuals on an online game, though.

The point I was trying to make is that if Player A goes around and PK's without RP and does not mind if other players PK him without RP, then he is abiding by the Golden Rule because he is doing unto others as he would have them do unto him. He is not violating his own ethics because he does not mind being PK'd senselessly. However, Player B whom he has PK'd with no RP would never do such a thing to someone because it is against their ethical code to act that way to another player. So they feel that Player A has in fact broken the Golden Rule. It is all a matter of perception.

Alshain, one person may not "mind" being PK'd into the dirt without RP. The counterpoint I offer comes from the MOTD and what Edoras said. We all ignore it - every last one of us - when we log in. But, if I recall correctly, the first line has been the same pretty much since the dawn of time. Dulrik wrote the biggest cornerstones of the game well over fifteen years ago, and they're still ignored to this day.
If you log into a game where role-playing is emphasized, and seek to PK without RP, and don't mind being PK'd without RP - you're a textbook troll. You are a person who runs onto the court of a basketball game in progress with a football and tries to slam dunk it. Sure, you might be the kind of person who would giggle if someone did that to you. In essence, however, you're trolling. You might appreciate a good troll here and there, sure. However, no one - especially trolls - want to BE trolled. So a person may not mind this or that, but it's still completely disregarding the first and golden rule. You have to take it up a few layers to find the application of the golden rule, but the golden rule still applies - and is being broken - in that circumstance.

The golden rule is eternal, so long as you contextualize appropriately. The golden rule is a simple failsafe - no one wants to harm themselves, unless first irreparably harmed. People may have different definitions of harm, depending on how mentally #&*$ed they are - however, one of the basic biological imperatives of life is protection of self. One's subscription to subjective ethics, objective ethics, natural law, or any other number of further branches is inconsequential to that basic fact.

I don't think anyone has a dichotomous ethical code. The only difference between 'see or touch' and through the ether is consequence - emotional or physical. This is why the internet gaming scene is the perfect 'ethics in a vacuum' to study. It's a lot of peoples' raw ethics - unmitigated by normal senses of social, emotional, or physical consequence. More mitigation comes into play with more perceived consequence. Our brains have been hardwired by many years of survival to be able to read body language - the body language responses to our statements are one of the biggest consequences we witness. They are instantaneous indicators of our reduced social standing or potential threat against us.

Everyone should be playing by the golden rule. Everyone. The problem is there's more immediate benefit short selling SK's stocks than there is in long-term investment, and there's no honest way to change that. Unfortunately, if people haven't already perceived this a lot like being around a gaming table with acquaintances who just want to play a game for fun - I would heavily wager they can't.

I agree with most of what jerinx just said. I especially like what he mentioned about reading body language, and I think tone is a big one was well. We are having to learn to communicate in a completely different way now- hence smiley faces and colors. But that digresses into language and communication class- do you have to take that class Sadal?