KEEN1.EXE

[spikey]

I don't think Lass has ever been opposed to the notion of modding. Each of her posts is a rich baklava of commentary. Layers and layers of flaky, delicious facetiousness and irony must be cut through to decipher her true opinions.

On the original topic, renaming keen1.exe is a bad idea and you should feel bad about it. Even if only because it'll break ckpatch.

I was kinda wondering after I posted that this morning, was her post one big ironic dessert sundae. Now I think it is, and I feel silly. But you shouldn't post something that requires a degree in reading your posts to be able to decipher it, that's just obtuseness for the sake of it!

[Levellass]

The point is that for something to be morally wrong (other than say, legally wrong), it should be causing a party harm.

There are two issues here. Firstly, is 'legally wrong' automatically 'morally wrong'?

Many religions and ethics systems say yes, an adherent is obliged to obey any and all laws in their locale as long as those laws do not contravene the 'deeper' laws of the system. Islam for example has a specific 'opt out' principle for when obeying the law would cause harm to other believers and a separate one saying they don't have to obey laws that would harm their own belief.

The second issue is the definition of 'harm'; putting aside legal=moral, what IS harm? We reccently had an issue on this forum that illustrates this.

Ceilick released an 'abandoned' project of which Paramultart had invested a lot of effort. Paramultart was aggrieved at this, but it is difficult to see where the harm lay; he was not physically injured in any way and it would be hard to argue that he should have felt any mental distress at the disclosing of what was a rather open project.

However harm had been done; this action had transcended a boundary that Paramultart had taken on trust. Apologies were given and the issue settled.

So it is with the spreading even of modified shareware or assumed abandonware. The entities involved could very well claim harm to their intellectual property or to the integrity of the series.

Which brings us right back to 'nobody cares'; this is a terrible, TERRIBLE argument against anything not only because it is ethically unsound, but because we are often very poor at discerning what constitutes 'caring'. Where I worked there was, several years back, an atrocious breach of trust. One individual was taking some of the pain medication of a terminal patient for personal use, and their excuse when finally caught basically boiled down to 'They're in a coma, it's not like they care'

History is littered with cases where people found out, often to their great surprise, that others do in fact care and are ready to assert that fact with great force. (The most reccent that I can note is the spat between Hasbro, Youtube and the Mentally Advanced MLP paradoy series.)


It's not hard to get open permission from 3D Realms, all it takes is an email.

[spikey]

LL, thanks for your reply.

Firstly, is 'legally wrong' automatically 'morally wrong'?

No.

The second issue is the definition of 'harm'; putting aside legal=moral, what IS harm?

It's very hard to define this, but I would say financially or emotionally, broadly speaking.

However harm had been done; this action had transcended a boundary that Paramultart had taken on trust. Apologies were given and the issue settled.

This isn't really a moral or legal issue, it's a trust issue, and it seems (from my limited point of view, where I don't know the people involved) like a simple mistake between two people who implicitly trust and care for each other.
I'm glad it was resolved, however, both are important parties in the community.

So it is with the spreading even of modified shareware or assumed abandonware. The entities involved could very well claim harm to their intellectual property or to the integrity of the series.

In theory, I have no problem with this point, but it assumes a few things that are in my view, not valid. In reality, there are a few points that have to be clarified:
1. Timelines. The series we are referring to are 20 years old, and although legally still being sold, they are not a 'new to market' product that is depending on current sales to produce future games, or keep the viability of a company or that represents someone's livelihood. They are legacy products.
2. Harm. Harm to someone's IP should be demonstrable, although legally in the US (not sure about NZ) I'm sure it doesn't have to be. I don't see personally that modifying a 20 year old game executable in a way that isn't insulting the creators or owners of said IP, or reaping unlawful profits, is harming anything. But that's another story altogether.
3. Assumed abandonware. This implies that if Keen was abandoned, whether formally, legally or in some kind of de facto way, then morally we would be at a higher ground using the IP or related creations, than at the current time. That smacks to me of moral inconsistency. Why even have fan communities. That's Joe Siegler logic again.

Which brings us right back to 'nobody cares'; this is a terrible, TERRIBLE argument against anything not only because it is ethically unsound, but because we are often very poor at discerning what constitutes 'caring'. Where I worked there was, several years back, an atrocious breach of trust. One individual was taking some of the pain medication of a terminal patient for personal use, and their excuse when finally caught basically boiled down to 'They're in a coma, it's not like they care'

It depends what you mean by this. I don't agree about doing things because 'nobody cares' if you mean 'nobody notices', that's like saying stealing is only if you get caught, and I don't stand by such principles or lack thereof.

Once again, you're using a seriously immoral example and comparing it to something that is in my view, perfectly harmless. This is at odds with your role in the community, IMHO?

The real point has nothing to do with the world of medicine, and not too much to do with morals or ethics either, IMO. It's that these are old games, that people care about, and that's people who played them 20 years ago, not people that had anything to do with them at the time.

It's that fans need to keep working with the oldies. If rights holders have a legit complaint and want to talk it over, then we can have that discussion. But the point is, *they don't care*. Now the difference between your argument about not caring and my view of reality is that I'm not arguing doing something shadowy while the former Apogee/3DR folks look the other way, the point is that they don't appear in the picture at all, they are the ones not caring, not fans. In Keen's case, neither of those companies own the rights at all! So they (the company beginning with a V) can venture into the foray if legally needed.

Where fans do what they do, and don't distribute for profit or claim credit for things they didn't do, or distribute non-shareware games illegally, they're not economically hurting people, and not ruining reputations or hurting legacies. I don't see the issue.

With respect, I'm still not sure quite what your point is. Full disclosure from fans with companies that essentially don't exist or care about the old IP in question, or quitting every fan effort known because you find it morally hairy, or..?

Anyway. I apologise if any of this comes off as rude or condescending, and I've been listening to a NZ band lately, so I hate having a tiff with a fellow Australiasian. This is just a pet issue with me, and I feel very strongly about it. Apogee/3DR have been a company known for foolish dealings with their IP, and poor treatment of the fans over the last decade, so I'm happy for it to be over, not for the fans to police each other ala 3DR.

[KeenEmpire]

None of your examples actually work:

Next door has an annoying cat. It's part stray and keeps coming over my yard. I could poison it with cyanide, (as potassium ferrocyanide.) which isn't illegal and be rid of a problem.

As long as I don't draw attention to it, nobody will care. This makes the morality of this action moot!

Don't you think the cat cares? Many moralities are not completely human-centric.

Paramultart was aggrieved at this, but it is difficult to see where the harm lay

History is littered with cases where people found out, often to their great surprise, that others do in fact care and are ready to assert that fact with great force.

So people can be mistaken about an action harming another or not. This does not contradict the axiom that non-harmful actions are not immoral. All it really does is point out that we sometimes make mistakes (which is not a basis, by the way, from which we can extrapolate explicit inquiries on any sort of trivial harms. It's true that, for all I know, my comments on Windows 8 may lead to severe harm on your part, for which I would indeed feel guilty, but most moralities would still not dictate I ask beforehand).

we are often very poor at discerning what constitutes 'caring'. Where I worked there was, several years back, an atrocious breach of trust. One individual was taking some of the pain medication of a terminal patient for personal use, and their excuse when finally caught basically boiled down to 'They're in a coma, it's not like they care'

So there are cases in which whether or not a person is being harmed is unclear. Again, this does not contradict the axiom. It does not even suggest a course of action (some moralities may be inclined to "play it safe", while others may be willing to compromise a certain amount of uncertain harm for certain positives).

[Levellass]

Don't you think the cat cares? Many moralities are not completely human-centric.

The example itself was reductio as absurdium, however you would be surprised how often we reduce morality to only our viewpoint. We pirate the song because we won't care and don't wish to consider that others might. (Or we reason away their viewpoint.)

So people can be mistaken about an action harming another or not. This does not contradict the axiom that non-harmful actions are not immoral. All it really does is point out that we sometimes make mistakes (which is not a basis, by the way, from which we can extrapolate explicit inquiries on any sort of trivial harms. It's true that, for all I know, my comments on Windows 8 may lead to severe harm on your part, for which I would indeed feel guilty, but most moralities would still not dictate I ask beforehand).

Indeed it does not contradict the postulate that nonharmful acts are not immoral, but it raises the problem of defining harm and this is not a trivial issue. Take for example the 'stolen generations' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations ; there were perfectly moral reasons for some people to do this, raising a child in a better environment say, but the action itself was usually quite harmful indeed.

Most morality systems do indeed have a mandate to ask someone beforehand if you are unsure of causing harm. Usually this is under some form of 'consideration'; generally we should think of others before engaging in an action that would affect them, and I doubt that you will find a moral code that says 'If you are not sure if you will harm someone, act anyway without consulting them.'

I would therefore postulate this: An act can only be called harmless if all parties affected by it agree it is harmless.

This isn't really a moral or legal issue, it's a trust issue,

Breach of trust (purposeful or accidental) is an ethical issue and can be quite severe legally.

Accidentally breaking someone's trust often causes emotional harm to them. While the first individual involved has not transgressed morally (done anything wrong.) they would often be said to be doing wrong by not attempting to fix this harm. If they were aware before hand that harm would be caused they would most certainly be in the wrong.


The following three points all do the same thing; they place a higher value on your perspective than that of others. (They claim that you are more 'right' than another individual or group of individuals.) This is a complex subject. (In order for a moral system to BE some actions must render an individual less right than others.)

The first two posit that nothing of value is being affected, the third is more complex.

1. Timelines. The series we are referring to are 20 years old, and although legally still being sold, they are not a 'new to market' product that is depending on current sales to produce future games, or keep the viability of a company or that represents someone's livelihood. They are legacy products.

I hold to the legal definition that copyright is still in place, however I also would not like it if someone were to say, distribute my childhood drawings on the internet because it had been x years since I drew them. It also raises questions about intrinsic value.

This point is of course debatable and not an easy one to answer either way. But I would stick with the IP holder unless they were behaving immorally (For example having laws passed to extend copyright past its original expiry date.)

2. Harm. Harm to someone's IP should be demonstrable, although legally in the US (not sure about NZ) I'm sure it doesn't have to be. I don't see personally that modifying a 20 year old game executable in a way that isn't insulting the creators or owners of said IP, or reaping unlawful profits, is harming anything. But that's another story altogether./quote]

This is partly why 'fair use' and related concepts exist, these govern the circumstances under which it is decided no harm to IP is occurring and thus use is permitted. You may even have a case for modding under fair use, though I am not sure. At any rate it argues that your view that no harm is being done is the more correct.

3. Assumed abandonware. This implies that if Keen was abandoned, whether formally, legally or in some kind of de facto way, then morally we would be at a higher ground using the IP or related creations, than at the current time. That smacks to me of moral inconsistency. Why even have fan communities. That's Joe Siegler logic again.

My neighbor has a plum tree. I like her plums and have acquired some from her before. On walking home one day I see some and taken them from the tree without permission. Am I morally equal if I had been told I could take some, THEN taken them?

Or possibly I see a movie I like by a local film maker. I download it and give copies to my friends without any permission. (This is a big issue here where a local film may only make a few thousand dollars profit.) Would I be morally equal if I had done the same with something the developer had given open permission to copy and spread?

I would argue that indeed we would be on a higher moral ground working with permission than without it. And permission is not hard to get, just ask.


The question of fan communities is an interesting one. The core of a fan community is the original work, and if an individual does not support that work, then i would argue they are not a fan.

A fan's creations and derivative works are just that, derivative. They owe a part to the fan themselves, but also a part to the original and its creators. Ceilick did not have to make TUIT a Keen game, it could well have used a different engine and characters, and it likely would have been quite good. But it IS a Keen game containing elements of Keen games and as such owes a debt to that original work.

The point of fan communities is to show and spread the enjoyment not of fanworks, but of the original, core elements and ideas. To build a community that takes something and spreads it. I think Team Four Star puts it best: 'Please support the official release.'

It depends what you mean by this. I don't agree about doing things because 'nobody cares' if you mean 'nobody notices', that's like saying stealing is only if you get caught, and I don't stand by such principles or lack thereof.

Once again, you're using a seriously immoral example and comparing it to something that is in my view, perfectly harmless. This is at odds with your role in the community, IMHO?

Exaggerated examples can be quite illuminating because they starkly illustrate the principles involved. In essence they are simpler, like the basic math problems used to illustrate a theorem.

The difference between 'nobody cares' and 'nobody notices' is less stark than you would think. For one, if nobody cares, it is unlikely anyone will notice. But it can also be hard to tell if somebody notices but does not care, or does not care because they haven't noticed something.

And I have seen this happen many times, especially online. Creators of tumblrs and blogs and youtube accounts have done things under the assumption that people don't care then found out, much to their surprise, that they DO.

To illustrate, until recently it was possible to acquire the entirety of a brilliant Australian children's show on youtube, uploaded by a fan who, several times, mentioned your argument nearly word for word. The series was old, hard to buy, surely not making any money and there were many videos up, so obviously they did not care.

It was some time after the last episode was uploaded that the producers of the series actually discovered the existence of the youtube channel in question, made a formal complaint and had all of the videos on that channel removed. They also took time to track down several torrent sites that had been mentioned in various conversations and talk tot hem. (I do not know to what end.)

The uploader whom I spoke to was rather surprised about all of this as they had assumed that a truly interested party would have noticed, or taken more steps towards making the series available to the public.

The second thing I posit then is It is not up to the IP holder to have a discussion with you, the burden is on you to contact THEM when doing something. And in our case it really, really, REALLY isn't that hard to ask, really. An email will do it. heck, they have openly applauded some fan creations in the past such as Dopefission. Heck, I'm wondering if we couldn't get blanket permission from someone in the company.

[KeenEmpire]

The example itself was reductio as absurdium

That's my point: the reduction doesn't actually work. Many moralities take into account harm done to stray cats, and those that don't probably belong to people who wouldn't be affected by your example anyway.

it raises the problem of defining harm and this is not a trivial issue. Take for example the 'stolen generations' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations ; there were perfectly moral reasons for some people to do this, raising a child in a better environment say, but the action itself was usually quite harmful indeed.

No it doesn't: we all agree on the harm being done to Paramultart's psyche. If anything, it's the third example, of the man in the coma, that raises that problem.

Neither are the "stolen generations" a good example; it would've been fairly obvious, to anyone who considers taking away of children, what the sources of harm would be there. The issue there was whether the positive results would outweigh that harm.

So as to avoid suspense, I doubt a comprehensive definition is even possible, similarly for most vague terms in use. Maybe there's a neurological classification that can prove me wrong, however.

Most morality systems do indeed have a mandate to ask someone beforehand if you are unsure of causing harm.

You're always unsure of causing harm. As I've pointed out, I might very well cause harm to forumgoers like yourself by my comments on Windows 8. And yet, almost no sensible morality would dictate that I ask everyone beforehand.

I would therefore postulate this: An act can only be called harmless if all parties affected by it agree it is harmless.

You were breathing today; this affected the wind currents in my location, and I disagree that said effect was harmless.

[KeenEmpire]

As an interesting note, it seems that this just got a lot more legal in Europe.

[Levellass]

That's my point: the reduction doesn't actually work. Many moralities take into account harm done to stray cats, and those that don't probably belong to people who wouldn't be affected by your example anyway.

Reductio aren't supposed to work, that's the point of the 'absurdium'; using your reasoning that cats are a special case we could then argue that any act is moral IF nobody notices\cares AND there is no specific treatment of it in your moral system. (Put lead paint in his coffee? Well, the bible doesn't mention anything about lead poisoning specifically.)

Of course a better argument would be 'harming a cat is actually harmful whereas what I was talking about isn't'; but then we're reduced to discussing harm again.

Neither are the "stolen generations" a good example; it would've been fairly obvious, to anyone who considers taking away of children, what the sources of harm would be there.

Aah, OBVIOUS! Of course, like black people and women being inferior it's one of those things we don't need to think about because everyone knows it's true.

The issue is indeed whether the good outweighs the bad, ALL actions have upsides and downsides, and how they balance determines if an act is itself good or bad. In that example many people believed the act itself to be, in general a Good Thing, that the harm was outweighed or even minimal. Not everyone everywhere shares your 'obvious' moral perspectives; it is entirely possible to think about a 'just rape' for example though many (but not enough1) in our society would find the subject obviously wrong.

You're always unsure of causing harm. As I've pointed out, I might very well cause harm to forumgoers like yourself by my comments on Windows 8. And yet, almost no sensible morality would dictate that I ask everyone beforehand.

Indeed, however most moral systems would have you take ADEQUATE measures, there would be situations where you MIGHT ask everyone involved, or at least consider them. The question there is 'What is the chance of causing harm and how severe harm, and what precautions are acceptable to try and prevent this happening?'

If you were to walk into my house and use my kitchen I would be quite upset and i doubt that 'Oh I could cause offense all the time, why should I ask you about anything?' would suffice as an explanation.

You were breathing today; this affected the wind currents in my location, and I disagree that said effect was harmless.

'The flowers by the bedside use up oxygen, we want it hospital policy they be removed' 'That balloon is dangerous too, please remove it.' http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental- ... spital.htm

'Those wires\that microwave\the internet\cellphones\plastic packaging causes cancer, we want it removed from everywhere.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_pho ... and_health

And yes, 'You are breathing in my direction, please stop' http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/29/influ ... nsmission/ (Don't get me started on chi, where the way you breathe apparently CAN affect the currents in your location negatively.)


Yes, oh yes situations can arise where an activity that you would assume is surely totally harmless can cause offense, or even real harm (NOT WASHING HANDS! GIVING CHILDREN USED STUFFED TOYS!) to certain individuals. This illustrates my point exactly and I'm glad you agree.

[KeenEmpire]

Reductio aren't supposed to work, that's the point of the 'absurdium'

Sure, but reducios are supposed to correspond to the scenario at hand; yours' does not, because the cat cares.

If you blatantly ignore this fact, you might as well replace the cat with a human or a population of humans. In all cases, "nobody cares", because you're just going to blatantly ignore those who do care.

Aah, OBVIOUS! Of course, like black people and women being inferior it's one of those things we don't need to think about because everyone knows it's true...Not everyone everywhere shares your 'obvious' moral perspectives

The "obviousness" I'm referring to is not in regard to moral tenants, but rather causes of harm. I would think that the harms caused by forcibly separating parents from children would be obvious - though feel free to disagree with me, of course.

I did acknowledge that there are cases in which harms are not well-known, so you really don't have to try pressing the above point.

Indeed, however most moral systems would have you take ADEQUATE measures

This is indeed part of our point. "Adequate" measures do not imply asking everyone about any minor possible harm, contrary to your earlier assertion that this must be done to satisfy morality.

Yes, oh yes situations can arise where an activity that you would assume is surely totally harmless can cause offense, or even real harm (NOT WASHING HANDS! GIVING CHILDREN USED STUFFED TOYS!) to certain individuals. This illustrates my point exactly and I'm glad you agree.

Of course arbitrary situations can cause offense; offense is free, as I've demonstrated by finding your breathing harmful.

But no, I did not agree with your characterization. I think that actions can be harmless even if someone claims they aren't - for example, if that someone is trolling. (But it doesn't even take trolling; the problem is that offense is free, and people will claim arbitrary degrees of offense to gain an advantage, even if they don't really care.)

[Levellass]

Sure, but reducios are supposed to correspond to the scenario at hand; yours' does not, because the cat cares.

If you blatantly ignore this fact, you might as well replace the cat with a human or a population of humans. In all cases, "nobody cares", because you're just going to blatantly ignore those who do care.

Or I could do fish, which people don't seem to think are animals deserving of proper treatment. But I could argue that cat doesn't care at all, it certainly doesn't know it is going to die, though it has instincts to prevent this happening. If you kill someone so fast they have no time to even be aware of it, can they be said to care or have an opinion on the matter?

Moral codes and animals are a complex subject, often centering around the fact that while animals are a 'life', they are not equal to human life.

The "obviousness" I'm referring to is not in regard to moral tenants, but rather causes of harm. I would think that the harms caused by forcibly separating parents from children would be obvious - though feel free to disagree with me, of course.

You would think so, but again, it is amazing what obvious things can be ignored by an entire culture. As I noted, rape is a good example. To many people rapes only occur when the victim 'asks for it' and this is obvious to them. (Thus revealing clothing is obviously harmful and only an idiot would wear it.) At other times it has been obvious that slavery was moral, mentioned in the bible even.

We like to think that our perspective is everyone's perspective, that things we see as obvious are obvious to all, but this is often not the case. We would like to think that the people who did these things thought much like we would, that they knew what they were doing would seriously affect the individuals involved. But it's entirely possible that it was obvious to them that there was nothing but benefit, that they were taking children away from a terrible situation to one that was far better. They may well have seen it as the only moral choice.

This is indeed part of our point. "Adequate" measures do not imply asking everyone about any minor possible harm, contrary to your earlier assertion that this must be done to satisfy morality.

Indeed, but neither does it mean not asking anyone ever. The measure is so simple, so easy to do, what prevents you? (Guilt? It's guilt isn't it? From the dark corners of your soul. WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING?!)

But no, I did not agree with your characterization. I think that actions can be harmless even if someone claims they aren't - for example, if that someone is trolling. (But it doesn't even take trolling; the problem is that offense is free, and people will claim arbitrary degrees of offense to gain an advantage, even if they don't really care.)

This would fall under the umbrella of 'lying' Most moral systems presuppose that in order for a 'correct' action to be taken those involved must be acting according to the rules of that moral system.

So it is wrong to steal in most contexts, (and most moral codes say that stealing has only occurred if someone, stealer or stealee admits theft has occurred.) but if I take something with permission, then its owner accuses me of stealing for their own advantage, I have not committed an immoral act, as the accuser is not operating according to the moral system.

So when harm is said to be caused, but the claimant is acting dishonestly they could be said to agree (with themselves) that harm has no been committed, but not be telling others this. This restores the integrity of the definition.



Also, I'll just leave this here: http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2013/01/03

[Levack]

People don't care? Do you care about what is put into your food?

Do you really want cattle to eat manure? Do you want chickens to eat guts?

Do you want hormones in your milk? I could go on...

People DO care what goes into their food, so why would people not care about copyrights?

[spikey]

The point is, who CARES what ID/Venimax/apogee/whoever thinks of the copyright? I like that ID made an awesome game series, Keen. I do not illegally download the games, I have bought them several times over the years.
But if all the rights holders use their legacy 20-odd years later for is stopping fans using copyrighted materials, for the fans' no personal gain other than tribute and potential community kudos, and the rights holders NOT making future games or using the IP in any useful way to anybody, then that in itself tells you how much copyright is worth.

I think the morality debate is nothing more than an ironic situation where fans police themselves, and does little for the community except for a lot of awkward conversations where people berate each other about copyright and the views of such instead of doing something useful in said community.

Just keep making fan games, releasing art/music/whatever, if somebody has a problem with it they will let us know and we will resolve it in due course.

[Levellass]

The point is, who CARES what ID/Venimax/apogee/whoever thinks of the copyright? I like that ID made an awesome game series, Keen. I do not illegally download the games, I have bought them several times over the years.

I would note that the entire community cares. This is why we have CKPatch; directly modifying and distributing modified executables is illegal. Ergo a program was created that keeps things legal by modifying the game in memory and allowing anyone with a copy of the game to play mods. That's a whole lot more care than most communities, as far as I have seen CKPatch's method is unique.

But if all the rights holders use their legacy 20-odd years later for is stopping fans using copyrighted materials, for the fans' no personal gain other than tribute and potential community kudos, and the rights holders NOT making future games or using the IP in any useful way to anybody, then that in itself tells you how much copyright is worth.

Possibly, but you seem to have just assumed this. I am not sure what kind of trust issues plagued your childhood, but not everybody, even massive corporations are here to limit everyone's freedom just because. *I* asked, and it was an easy thing, and I got blanket perission. All you need to do is try.

I think the morality debate is nothing more than an ironic situation where fans police themselves, and does little for the community except for a lot of awkward conversations where people berate each other about copyright and the views of such instead of doing something useful in said community.

I would argue that the morality of a community is central not only to how it operates but what kind of people it attracts and what it produces. I would say it is not a stretch to say our behavior as a fan community is top quality and that other communities could certainly do with following our example.

When we toss aside our standards as a community we betray that which we profess to like. We throw away what keeps us from just being more 4chan rabble with odd interests, we abandon a great reputation and record of exemplary conduct.

Just keep making fan games, releasing art/music/whatever, if somebody has a problem with it they will let us know and we will resolve it in due course.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why not head problems off before they start? (Besides which, there are very few lawyers who will tell you 'I figured I'd break the law first before checking it was illegal.' is a good excuse.)

[KeenEmpire]

Of course arbitrary situations can cause offense; offense is free, as I've demonstrated by finding your breathing harmful.

But no, I did not agree with your characterization. I think that actions can be harmless even if someone claims they aren't - for example, if that someone is trolling. (But it doesn't even take trolling; the problem is that offense is free, and people will claim arbitrary degrees of offense to gain an advantage, even if they don't really care.)

Recent example (and some evidence that she's actually okay with such jokes).

This would fall under the umbrella of 'lying'

Think about it less as 'lying' and more as 'inflation'. If money (i.e. something that has value, such as offense) were free, then people would just print more and more of it until it doesn't really have value anymore.

[MoffD]

Think about it less as 'lying' and more as 'inflation'. If money (i.e. something that has value, such as the appearance of offense) were free, then people would just print more and more of it until it doesn't really have value anymore.

And then those people would have their own government