This is Peter Crowther's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Peter Crowther's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Peter Crowther
Recent Activity
I like your poetic description, actually - how one thinks/speaks of oneself is probably closer to what I was getting at. OK, so to bring this back towards the original discussion, how about "There's a new World of Warcraft expansion coming out in a couple of weeks and I, as a member of a world-leading guild that gains fame and fortune by its successes, will take all reasonable steps in my power to make sure I'm in on the world-first clear of the first raid." Is that an end? If so, might they be affected by rights?
Toggle Commented Nov 3, 2014 on Can Players Have Rights? at Only a Game
1 reply
"To will something is to commit to taking all steps in your power to bring it about (as far as Kant is concerned)." By that definition I have no ends*, and never have had. I will take *reasonable* steps in my power, subject to re-evaluation of priorities in the future. I may want something, but I do not will it in that sense. Part of me's saying "why the bloody hell would anyone ever be that crazy?" Regarding the transience of ends, might we perhaps approach a definition based on the end being sufficiently significant to the person that they will remember the event in the future and attach significance to that memory? * Arguably one: to protect my wife. The argument is beyond the scope of this comment ;-).
Toggle Commented Nov 2, 2014 on Can Players Have Rights? at Only a Game
1 reply
You seem to be making a qualitative distinction that I consider to be a mere difference of degree. Given that an end need not be a goal that lasts the remainder of your life (you cite getting a degree as a legitimate end), where does an end stop and why (for example) is aiming for a cold beer not an end? I admit that I've not (yet!) read Chaos Ethics, which may clarify that, so feel free to point me in its direction. Blizzard has forced an unexpected quasi-end on me recently: I've stopped playing WoW without reaching my own desired quasi-end of settling my characters somewhere peaceful, because it has become clear that in order to maintain what they refer to as a "hero crucible" that peaceful place must not exist in the game. Because WoW is an evolving world controlled by the developers, it's possible for a games company such as Blizzard to change the game world so that one's ends are unachievable. Whether or not this meets any sensible definition of "rights" can be debated, but to the person at the sharp end it does rather feel like the laws have been arbitrarily changed!
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2014 on Can Players Have Rights? at Only a Game
1 reply
There's presently this dichotomy between centralised networks (Facebook, Twitter) that provide rich cross-linking but require centralised money (advertising money) to maintain, and decentralised networks (Diaspora, blogs) that are paid for by their users but have much poorer linking and search facilities. I'm working on (OK, thinking how to implement) a decentralised platform that allows rich linking, potentially removes single points of failure, provides strong identity guarantees (that two items come from the same account or from different accounts, not who holds those accounts) and where service nodes can be placed anywhere you like, with users storing content across any nodes with which they can negotiate an appropriate legal agreement. Oh, and where users are actively encouraged to use a wide variety of readers, which are explicitly allowed to transform what they display (for example, to remove advertising). Service nodes could, for example, be Raspberry Pi-sized (or one of the wall-socket micro-servers), and hence very affordable. In that environment, advertising is much less advantageous and there is no requirement to have it.
Toggle Commented Oct 15, 2014 on A Social Intelligence Network at Only a Game
1 reply
Earl Grey, please...
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2014 on Warming the Teapot at Only a Game
1 reply
Still here. Posting on Week 1 as I was out of mobile coverage due to holiday, otherwise I'd have seen this!
Toggle Commented Jun 16, 2014 on Week One: Lurkers and Loyalists at Only a Game
1 reply
Yay! I'm still around, but many of your recent pieces are so far away from my areas of competence that I'm simply not equipped to comment.
Toggle Commented May 16, 2014 on I'm Getting the Band Back Together at Only a Game
1 reply
Hmm. You've now got me wanting to look out the source of "do not bite the fan that heeds you". One of Arthur C. Clarke's fans to him after a grumpy comment I *think*.
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2013 on Always Feed the Fans at Only a Game
1 reply
Oh, good. I much preferred the blog when it was somewhere I felt I could join in the discussion rather than admiring the finished works.
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2013 on Skimming Stones at Only a Game
1 reply
Moore's Law has not been kind to the console. Once upon a time, expensive dedicated hardware was essential in order to obtain any useful performance out of many games. These days, a multi-hundred MIPS processor costs cents in bulk and tens of gigaflops of GPU power costs little more - look at the economics of the Raspberry Pi for a fascinating example. Once you can embed something that's "good enough" for many users for many games as a tiny cost as part of a general-purpose device, whether that's a phone, tablet, TV or smart glasses, the economics change completely.
Toggle Commented Dec 7, 2012 on The Console Wars Are Over at ihobo
1 reply
I'm not planning to enter the competition, but would appreciate it if you'd sign my copy at some point.
1 reply
"moral values intimately entail facts" Sure? My own entailment arrow would be the other way round. But then, maybe I'm just a positivist :-).
Toggle Commented Sep 21, 2012 on Positivist Mythology at Only a Game
1 reply
Yowch! All the best for a swift recovery. Must be catching, by the way. For the first time in... oh... three decades or so? I fell out of bed last night, via a rather sharp drawer edge.
Toggle Commented Aug 29, 2012 on Falling Down the Stairs at Only a Game
1 reply
I suspect if you asked people on each side to define the word "marriage", you would get different definitions. Asking the question "should group X be allowed to marry?" without agreement on the definition of marriage will produce heat, but little light as the two sides aren't answering the same question.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2012 on Unmarriage at Only a Game
1 reply
As a mere thought experiment that's probably been done: what happens if you add (let's say) a distance measure of "relatedness" or "careness" to the "number" measure of a consequentialist ethics, such that different people can calculate different answers to the same question based on their relationships with the people involved? Certainly this can neatly solve the Repugnant Conclusion if the measure is designed so that any number of low-careness individuals can be outweighed by one high-careness individual. If one assumes that Deep Judge could be built with such a framework, I think some very interesting discussions ensue :-).
Toggle Commented Mar 22, 2012 on The Ultimate Moral Computer? at Only a Game
1 reply
So move to Chorlton Village :-).
Toggle Commented Mar 8, 2012 on Social Media Crisis at Only a Game
1 reply
Amazingly or amusingly, I'm *still* playing and enjoying World of Warcraft five years on, and it's still all about the people and the exploration. Oh, hang on, Brainhex has me tagged as a seeker/socialiser...
Toggle Commented Mar 8, 2012 on What Are You Playing? at ihobo
1 reply
Necro-comment - sorry! "Sometimes people cheat, but in order to cheat you must already have acknowledged that there were rules that could be broken." Mmm. I'll point to relativism again. Who asserts that the person has cheated? Can a person who believes that they're playing a game to different rules than another legitimately believe they haven't cheated when the second player believes they have?
Toggle Commented Jan 25, 2012 on Life Amidst Moral Chaos at Only a Game
1 reply
The large rights holders are leeches and can, as far as I'm concerned... how to put this politely... go and die in a fire. That said, I quite appreciate the small fractions of a cent Albireo gets for each listen to a track over a legal streaming medium. Between that and online track and album purchases, we've racked up... ooh... tens of dollars. Total, not each. It's still fun.
Toggle Commented Jan 25, 2012 on Common Errors about Music Piracy at Only a Game
1 reply
I'm puzzled. Why do you think that studios will feel they have to support multiple input schemes on one title if they can guarantee that the console ships with their controller of choice?
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2012 on Sony and Microsoft's Controller Crisis at ihobo
1 reply
That's unfortunate, as it sounds like Parfit's definition has some nuances that (for example) my working definition doesn't have explicitly. Rational has to be rational-to-the-individual due to perception, but I'm interested to know how Parfit would class an act performed because "the voices in my head made me do it".
Toggle Commented Dec 18, 2011 on Are Smokers Rational? at Only a Game
1 reply
I'd rather allow co-ops and let them grow as necessary, but that's me!
Toggle Commented Dec 18, 2011 on Financial Games: The Ethics of Money at Only a Game
1 reply
Sounds like one might need a pretty good definition of "rational" to stack this up against. I assume Parfit has a suitably wordy one?
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2011 on Are Smokers Rational? at Only a Game
1 reply
Chris, have you just reinvented co-ops?
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2011 on Financial Games: The Ethics of Money at Only a Game
1 reply
I give as counterexamples the Magic: the gathering cards in Unglued, and the SJG "Momentous Unmasking" T-shirt produced for Munchkin. Both of these contain rules that are sufficiently funny that I laugh as I read them.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2011 on No Tears for Mario at ihobo
1 reply