Hope Chest said:
What's funny--and by funny I mean sad--is that this kind of dialog would be the whole thread at one time on these forums: check the discussion around the "Will Bobba for Furni" article, as part of that article was a similar instance of avatar...whatever you want to call it.
I, unfortunately, just waded through this entire thread to see if anyone had linked that article yet, because it was so relevant, and *gasp* mature. For those interested, it is a great article: [a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_101/559-Will-Bobba-for-Furni]Will Bobba for Furni[/a]
One, I agree with the general sentiment that this whole thing is better classified as "harassment" than "assault", but that's just splitting hairs. The larger question is whether this sort of thing
matters in the grand scheme, and whether the individual in question is justified in being annoyed/hurt/upset. So, for argument's sake, why don't we ditch the term harassment?
Second, don't confuse the question of "should someone be punished for this?" with the question of "is it valid that someone might be hurt by this?". It is possible for someone to be harassed, and harmed, without their necessarily being criminal culpability on someone else's part. As a mirror to the concept of the victimless crime, I put forth that you can have a criminal-less victim. Whether or not the person in question was harmed has nothing to do with there being no physical damage or interaction, and everything to do with how emotionally invested they were in the situation. This whole "it was all virtual" thing sounds like a sibling saying "I'm not touching you" as a defense for being annoying.
Yes, Sony should've made a better social space, less prone to griefing and harassment. No, we shouldn't just accept that the internet is an evil, griefing-prone, harassment-filled space.