Karma Revisited · 11:20am Dec 12th, 2014
A while ago, I blogged about morality systems in games. As I pointed out, the Karma system in the Fallout games suffers from single-sum mathematics: everything “good” you do adds to your pool of Karma and every “bad” thing you do subtracts from it. Your character’s status in the world as a force for good or evil is based on your current total.
Giving pure water to a homeless man is worth a tiny amount of positive karma. But this means with enough water, you can “make up” for blowing up a town full of innocent people. Killing enough designated evil monsters will allow you to become Wasteland Jesus no matter how horribly you have acted.
Any moral system based on a zero-sum moral game is going to produce similarly flawed results. I submit that a person’s life is more like a painting than a math problem. Each action is a stroke of the brush, permanently adding to the portrait -- not a number to be added or subtracted to a whole.
This week on the news, the CIA director John Brennan complained that during the time when the agency engaged in the torture of terrorism suspects, they also "did a lot of things right." Brennan also noted, "We know we have room to improve."
Every act, every deed, becomes part of who you are. It doesn’t matter if nobody knows – if a deed was done anonymously or in private. Charity you give secretly is still charity that you have given. Comments made under a pseudonym are still your comments and are reflective of the person you are. There is no such thing as “I did that, but I’m not really that sort of person.” If you did something, then you are that sort of person.
But there is more to you than that.
You can try to change, strive to become a better person, but that will never wash away your past. No amount of good deeds will ever make the bad ones have not happened. And just as importantly, no screw-up or bad deed will ever erase the good things you have done or the positive qualities that you bring to the world.
A person is not the sum of their behaviors but a gestalt of them. It is a fallacy to treat someone as if some action or belief negates everything else about them.
You can laud a person’s wisdom and good works without ignoring or condoning their objectionable deeds and beliefs. I have used quotes in past blogs attributed to people including Mother Teresa and Theodore Roosevelt. This does not mean I favor any particular belief or action of those whom I quote beyond what I have quoted; I do not approve of Mother Teresa’s repulsive attitude towards homosexuals, for instance. On a broader and more current note, you can criticize police brutality and still praise and honor the heroism and sacrifice of police officers.
We must be careful not to focus on only one aspect of a person, disregarding all others. We must not fall into the trap of believing that approval or disapproval for specific beliefs or actions of a person (or group) necessitates approval or disapproval of that person’s (or group’s) every belief or action.
And we must likewise remember to always strive to do better. Not because doing so will wash away our past, but because doing so will make us better people – the final image formed by that gestalt of our behaviors will be better than that which we have now – and because in being better, we help make the world around us better as well.
this made me think a bit.
I love see people think like I do.
Heh. I don't think we'll soon find a game with such an in-depth karma system
but can one be forgive for those acts, can you mass slaughter and try to be forgiven for it. many people who leave prison aren't the same person as they went in, can't someone change.
wow, this was wonderful to read.
In terms of game systems, there really aren't very many good video games out there for this kind of thing. Role Playing Games usually do this a lot better. I've played in a lot of games where your actions have real consequences, and I have ran a lot more of these kinds of games. Role Playing is a great way to have this kind of stuff in.
Please keep writing these blog posts, Kkat. You give all of us a lot to think about.
So instead of zero sum you'd be better off keeping track of the total good / evil committed? Yeah, that could work. Nuke a town and get 1000 evil karma, permanently. To even out 90% good you'd have to get 9000 good karma. You'll never get 100% good unless you do every single thing right in the entire game. So you can be "forgiven" with enough good work, but the moral scars will never go away.
You are brilliant, you make us think, and you are a fantastic person.
2648777
People can change, and should always strive to be better.
You can seek forgiveness, but it is not something you can attain for yourself; forgiveness is a gift given by the grace of others. Forgiveness is an act very much in tune with the virtues of harmony -- particularly kindness and generosity -- and something we should strive to practice. Likewise, we use the phrase "forgive and forget" because we recognize that they are not the same. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, and forgetting is a willful act to ignore an event in the past, not an erasure of the deed itself.
Wake up, see this...
A bit of a thought piece is not a bad way to start a Friday.
You have a very interesting perspective. Can't say I completely agree with it, but I understand what you mean.
The virtue of a person cannot be justly displayed on a number line, lest the person too be of but a single dimension.
Wow... just wow.....
That was amazing, and.. so true.
>mfw kkat actually references current events
But in all seriousness, wow. Once upon a time I followed you because I enjoyed the story you told and the community built around it. Now, I am continuing to follow you because I like thought provoking things, and you are a voice of reason when I open my feed. Or at the very least not filled with 'X was added to group Y', 'Finals!', 'I am writing X', or stupid things like that.
Thank you for giving me a nice thing to think about.
I've always been a fan of the moral choices in The Walking Dead be Telltale Games.
Save a cute girl that can shoot but hardly knows anything else from a single zombie grabbing her ankle, or save a dude that is a complete nerd but is being grabbed by about twenty zombies at the moment.
Kill the cannibal resonsible for cutting off your friend's legs, or let him suffer as zombies close in on him.
Let a useless teenage boy that got someone's family killed fall to his death, or give him another chance.
2648819
You talk of morality and the ability to forgive any transgression as though it were as simple as any other. That is not what I am going to challenge, so much as the amount of those people you care about having the ability to realize such a simple revelation. Not everyone thinks the same, and it is near certain they won't in the future. "Forgive and Forget" is something I find synonymous with "Love and Tolerate.", the phrase by which I have dedicated myself to living by. There are already too few people who do the same, it can be maddening frustrating when you're as paranoid and reclusive as I, that even the few friends you cling to for sanity end up fighting amongst themselves for the most petty of reasons.
With so many who will never see the thoughts and actions of others above their own, never feel what it really feels like to sacrifice your livelihood for a people who never appreciate it, cast you down, even... why bother anymore?
You raise interesting points, but there are some fronts I disagree with. I'm rather fond of the Roosevelt family, particularly Theodor. I also disagree with the notion that no matter how much good you do, if you act like a bit of a jerk, somehow you're the villain. Honestly, there are a lot of people who could die, and there deaths would only do good for the world. I'll use a quote I'm sure we're both familiar with:
"In order to save everyone, I have to become the villain of the piece." -Kkat
2648996
"Love and Tolerate." If you're a depressed, high school outcast, whom can not figure out how to appropriate yourself within one of the countless 'cliques' that inhabit a given school, what would you rather turn to? Mindless self-destructive tendencies that usually end in even greater depression and scars, both physical and mental that likely will always haunt you through life? Perhaps a more outward aggression, blaming all those around you for what may or may not be their fault, and turning them into an emotional sponge to wipe away the hurt. No matter the person, everyone has a story. That story can be the difference between a "Jerk" and a hopeless soul desperate for attention and the help they truly need.
2648819
Is forgiveness needed to be a better man?
How do you define better?
What values should we follow and why? One man's paradise is another man's hell. This is why there can never be true peace in this world no matter how much we strive for it. 7 billion people on this planet.
I like the way you think kkat. I agree on many points, especially the way you define how a man's worth should be judged.
But regarding the torture subject being debated in the USA, I believe that you need monsters to kill monsters. Most people in this world we live in only did good for others for the sake of themselves. Disregarding other consequences of their mercy just to make themselves feel the better man. How many criminals released continues to hurt others, how many are reformed to "better" men? If I were to add my two cents, the merciful and charitable saints are just as guilty as the damned devils in making this world such a hellish wasteland radiating with pain and despair, in their own perception that they are never as low or will never stoop to their level. Nothing more than hubris if you ask me.
2649002 What does that have to do with what Cynical said, exactly?
I have to ask, did you ever read the Kenshin magna? Because that applies so much here.
Another interesting blog post, as usual.
Hmmm...Thinking on how you mention on how Life is more like a painting.
I can't help but think depending on the action, changes the image as a whole in different ways.
Very thought provoking stuff Kkat,
hi hi
Possibly relevant.
People tend to want simple, easy answers, but life is complicated. Sometimes the only good answers are complicated ones, that cannot be condensed into easily digestible sound bites. As the saying goes: "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
Brava, Kkat, brava.
Very few video games can properly implement a morality system that would give such a complex representation of the totality of all choices made. This is where tabletop role playing really shines over the flashier counterparts on various digital storage mediums.
As a fellow author, I can clearly state that it is hard to write a genuinely evil character that knows and believes that what they do is evil. Unless the character in question is a complete sociopath, there is always some manner of justification for their actions. Even if this justification only makes sense to the character; it still serves to somewhat center them around a basic theme. Writing insanity is one of the simplest things to do, but making it believeable is a challenge. Insane is easy to overdo and turn the character from a being that tragically misunderstands things into a caricature.
That being said, there are a few genuinely evil characters that can be almost fun to write. I say almost because there's always something uncomfirtable about indulging the darker side of your mind when intentionally writing an irredeemable asshole.
By intention do I believe that our morality is based not on what we do but why we do it, as such; what others see in us is often the exact opposite of what we believe. For all intentions may end badly, but realize that they may benefit someone outside of our realm of perception. While I fundamentally recognize that this is my opinion, others may perceive it as fact. By order, does this leave its roots in the fact that by nature we are a conflict of interest to each other.
By no means do I know where I was going with this...
I have the same problem with karma in Fallout series as well. Like I can kill anyone I want but I'm a good person because I'll keep on giving a homeless water? Just no. If everything it seems like every action you take in the game doesn't have any outcome because of that. I hope they fix this in Fallout 4.
2648819
thanks, I believe that anyone can be redeem under the right conditions, they just have strive to achieve it. even Hitler could have been redeem.
After having read both this blog and the previous blog regarding video game morality, I wonder if you've played any of the Mass Effect series Kkat. While the series itself has many problems I could go through, I feel like the second installment has some really good examples of moral choices that are actual choices. The game may label them as "Paragon" or "Renegade", but they're far more complex in my opinion.
In particular, I feel like Mordin Solus may be one of the most ethically complex characters in recent gaming. When we first meet him, he's an individual that fiercely believes the actions he's taken in the past to be the "best" option, an alternative to complete genocide. He knows that by his hand, he may have saved the galaxy from another Krogan Rebellion, which likely would've ended with the galaxy completely wiping out the Krogans ("Save galaxy from Krogan, save Krogan from galaxy"). Yet as we get to know Mordin, it becomes increasingly clear that underneath his "happy-go-lucky" facade is a soul tortured over guilt (or "responsibility" as he calls it). Guilt that there could've been some better option, that he wasn't good enough to find a real solution. In case you haven't played the game, I won't drop any spoilers, but the Player is forced to help Mordin make some very serious moral choices during the final mission in his side plot.
Mordin is a man who is, as you said, not the sum of his actions, but a gestalt of them. He has both good and bad, and he's so much stronger of a character for it.
Not gonna lie, I have a small "Expo" board on a wall in my bedroom and I wrote in all caps "Do better." See it every morning and night, helps to keep my mind in the right place I suppose. "The fighting has never truly been about race or money, about wealth or any religion. You cannot group such large populaces together when we are all individuals. The real war of humanity is between those who are trying everyday to be better, and those who aren't. That is and always has been the greatest division of man.
2649582 Mordin, oh mordin is just someone that is a perfect character for all intents and purposes. I cannot heap enough praise to his design.
2649731 Well said.
Keeping this to video games and such only, zero sum morality has no place, but is often used anyway. What we need to look at in terms of morality is principle. For example, you get told you can earn a large sum of money, or a unique item, but doing so, you would sacrifice something you hold dear, or something of someone else's. If a game really makes you feel bad enough about doing it, that's the only moral system they need. You stay away from what makes you feel terrible, even at personal sacrifice, either out of compassion or selfishness. No number needs be assigned, only that you remember the choice you made.
I want to
dobe better.I think the problem is not so much zero-sum morality, but rather poor accounting. Describing somebody in one word or number is always going to be a huge simplification, but it has its uses, and zero-sum morality is not a terrible way to go about it. The problem comes in when you connect an action, particularly one that gives diminishing returns, directly to changing that score, without any regard for intentions or effects. If you regret your previous destruction, and devote yourself fully to ensuring that as many people as possible have access to clean water, then you may have been a bad person when you were younger, but you're a good person now. If you give one homeless guy enough pure water for an Olympic swimming pool because you know it makes you look good and allows you to get away with more questionable behavior, you're probably not a good person at the moment. You are neither intending nor achieving much good by giving so much water to a single person. A simple sum doesn't perfectly capture this, since what you did yesterday is a better indication of who you are than what you did a decade ago, but if you're using a less simplistic method of evaluating individual actions, you could do a lot worse than adding everything up.
Of course, there's another way to view this: morality scales in games are often primarily used to determine how NPCs view you. So don't view it as a measure of how good you are, view it as how good you look. Real people aren't going to fall for tricks as easily as a game does, but it's still clearly possible to have way better PR than you deserve in real life. If you treat morality scores as measures entirely of your reputation and not at all of your character, then it's quite possible that the only problem you run into is that everybody has to be rather gullible to fall for some of what you're pulling.
2649937 "Unacceptable experiments. Unacceptable goals. Won't change. No choice. Have to kill you."
Still one of the most emotional and poignant moments in any fiction for me, and the fact that the player is given the choice to intercede... this is the reason why ME2 is one of my favourite games, for all it's shortcomings.
2650711 The world wasn't ready for him, and his death. I still tear up with him and all his moments.
2650316
What you are describing is, by definition, not a zero-sum system, if for no other reasons than you are assigning variable value to actions.
If you subtract one from bad, and add it to good, the sum between the two columns remains zero. If you are adding diminishing returns to one column, while the other column is still adding variable amounts based on individual needs, and in the case of giving water probably getting exponentially worse as you take water away from a larger number of people, then the sum no longer adds up to zero. Diminishing returns makes it a negative-sum system.
Karma in the Fallout games is an oversimplification of what should have been a more complex system. NV improved on this system vastly in terms of faction reputation. In NV, karma has no reason to exist, because reputation does the job better, more convincingly, and more personalized. It can still be improved, but it's vastly better than karma.
All that needs to happen to completely replace karma is have everyone belong to at least one faction (possibly more than one, if you can handle it correctly), whether this be as simple as a Merchant or Wastelander generalized faction (though better yet would be factions based on geographic location and affinity to different regional groups, or even a system of subfactions, where changing your standing with the Mojave Brotherhood of Steel would slightly increase overall BoS standing, and would slightly affect DC BoS standing, but overall they'd be much less swayed by how you helped the Mojave chapter). This way actions can affect everyone to some degree, because everyone is aligned to /some/ faction.
Interesting a thought provoking as usual.
I really like your idea of treating people as a "gestalt" (shape?) rather than just a sum of their actions.
Yet most people tend to ox other people into one single feature or action.
It is easier to consider a bad person bad as he once did something bad rather than ctually taking the time to analyse his motivation, and other actions.
And i thing we can agree that defining a person based solely on one action, moment or feature is a worse idea than a zero sum system.
Now on to my two bits about gameplay.
I am sure everyone here knows that morality system in games are a modern invention, or at least got popular just recently. And most of them are overly simplified. I think the reason is that we have not quite figure out how to make a convincing system and besides there are technical issues still to be solved.
Most morality system are basically glorified decision trees* because they are simple to code and to keep track of. Keeping a sound register of everything your character has done, good or bad, and making the world you play in respond acoordingly would be a herculean task, no short of programming real A.I **
Also most "realistic morality systems" aren't in Telltale games , for example, most "decisions " will led to the same outcome, but they add enough flashes and sparkles inbetween so you won't realize.
And in most other games descicions don't really matter. Mass Effect ending basically said: "Remember all those descicions you made? Good, becasuse they had really little impact." And a more modern game Far Cry 4 has you choosing between 2 ambigous paths and regardless of what you choose you choose the bad side. The only meaningfull choice is the last one and really lacks much of a moral. And in the Elders Scrolls, doing bad or good stuff just increases or decreases a counter with little to no impact.
But there are a few exceptions, Red Dead redemption keep your progress throught two bars. Honor is your fallout-like morality system, good deeds increase it, bad deed decrease it. But you also have the Fame bar, which always goes up, no matter what you do. So in a very primitive way the game keeps track of all the stuff you have done, good or bad. It also fits the game since it has to do about Redemption.
Yet it also provides you with an item, called bandana, wear it, and Fame nor Honor will not alter no matter what you do.
There is this other game, which name i don't remember, that had a morality system without having one. Tipycal apocalipse game, whit a "The last of us Feel" to it, you could help people, but you would gain nothing in return, no bars to keep track of it, no rewards or penalties (gameplay wise) just knowing that you were a jerk or weren't.
Well and i hoped i could keep this post small. Yet nothing as invigorating as a blog post that makes you think
*Not sure if that is the proper phrase, sorry, Basically lots of nested "if's"
**Probably exagerrating a bit
2653935
The thought of Kkat is actually similar of what I thought except I still think we are the sum of hour past, but you don't have to think of it as a fatality and all you do after words doesn't have to be similar, it's just choices and most of the population tend to still think "once a thief, always a thief" and the ones who amplified that was generally government or extremist (ex:cold war (communist vs capitalism)).
This is the problem of a overly-simplified the combat good vs bad there is no middle in this line of thought, no third parties, to continue the example of the cold war, communism never tended to be was it was, Stalin distorted what Lenin and Karl Marx wanted it could be a good solution like what capitalism is, also a good solution, actually a lot of ideologies are good solutions but the problem is the humans factor if someone can have more than someone else, in most of cases he will take the advantage (like most of the people in the fallout series) Sometimes I wonder if people who do that think if there choice will impact others and sometimes I think that they can't now that or even if they think that people have there own desire to live without being shitted on.
On good example of this is the movie Joyeux noël.
Then we could discuss why people react like this but I'm just going to say "in engineering the shorter a process is the better it is (not always true), in human behaviour the simpler you'll try to explain it the higher probabilities to be wrong you'll have(still not always true)".
There are some many variables.
Back to the video games now.
The things is whit video games if you didn't notice is the unfinished parts of it, fallout 3 and fallout nv aren't the only ones but I'll stick whit them.
To begin one of the most obvious quest that isn't finished in fallout 3 is the one in the Moriarty saloon whit "Gob the ghoul" he ask you to transmit a message and that is all ?, so you transmit the message at underworld and that all if you came back at the Moriarty saloon there is no more dialogue, I would have liked if you could have freed him from is slavery buy him back or whatever but no the only thing that you can do is to kill Moriarty and the only change (still no new dialogue) is the Moriaty's saloon board in megaton changed by Gobs Saloon.
So why is it unfinished ?
To know this we need to know how do we process a video game I'm going to simplify it and try to make it short.
Commissioned game -> Get your budget -> assemble team -> search backstory of the games franchise (talking about fallout series) -> what kind of game it will be (FPS RPG etc...) ->work on the WWWWW scenario (where, who, when, what, why) -> creation (coding animating etc...) -> when the work is at like 75% done you make a add campaign (trailer, E3, beta test etc... -> then normally if there is no problem whit these steps (which never happens) you can have a really good game but generally the script and all the ideas in the game are always to much to be due date.
Examples of recent games that where pushed by investors or other groups was X-Rebirth, Assasins creed unity or the sims 4 (not really for the sims 4 that's just EA (chuckles)).
Actually a lot of games get published today while there aren't finished, in fallout 3 it's really minor things, some secondary quest that are not finished.
But it's frustrating, in new vegas it's the same, for example the brotherhood of steel cannot not be destroyed if you go with Mr.House, and normally in the games it was planned to be, line of code proves it that normally that you could convince Mr.house to let the brotherhood alive.
Still in new vegas the map is hell of a lot smaller and there is lesser thing location than in fallout 3, you could say it's because it's a desert and yes it's logical but it's because (I think) the scenario was very extended when you look at the possibilities compared to fallout 3 there are a lot more of them.
Now to go back on the karma system
)
I think the karma system/ reputation system is good, but to basic, but you must think also of the time when those games where made.
Remember fallout 3 was made for Microsoft windows OS and consoles in 2008 and the majority of system where still on XP, or vista when you make a video games you must think also about the resources of who you're going to sell it and most pc sold on the market are shit or not well maintained by there owners the resources on pc in that time was mostly dual core cpu (if not monocores) whit 2 gigabytes of memory and quad core cpu whit 4 gigabytes of memory was just emerging.
So when you have to make a games whit decision influences you have to think about the resources that it will take (especially whit the engine of Bethesda or more likely BugThesda
For example I'm working on a karma/reputation/Faction system
You have three gauge of karma (Good, Neutral, Bad) and one gauge of reputation and a faction classes.
Each karma gauge go from 0 to 1000 the karma start is dependent on what character you create at the beginning and evolves.
The reputation Gauge goes to 0 to 1000
The more reputation you gain when you complete a mission, completing the objectives as ASKED the more likely people will trust you and give you mission more risky or only they need someone who is trustworthy, but it's not only in one way depending on how you complete a mission you gain a certain type or karma, karma that can influence on faction or people.
Faction are composed by people who as the same karma/reputation/Faction system and they can change, evolve if you prefer the term.
The faction system is very simple:
- you can work for one of the factions and help it
- you can work for it and sabotage it ( whit stealth or not )
- you work for it and stay neutral (you help them but they don't expand)
that's why you have a three karma gauge, reputation is not here to say if you good or bad whit a faction it's here to say what you've screwed up or not (on purpose or not) and tasks given to you is depending on it and your karma.
But just for this the creation of a scenario is really big and they studios like Bethesda won't expand it like that because of the cost.
In computing nothing is impossible.
Have a nice day everyone.
2650863 Every action is taken in a context. Giving water to a thirsty homeless man is not the same action as giving water to a well-watered homeless man. But the sum is the same whichever order you do them in; it's just that one order is more convenient.
2656776
That's fine, but that still isn't a zero-sum system. Yes, it is a aggregate system, like positive, negative, and zero sum systems are, but someone is still taking away water from the whole at an equal rate, regardless of whether they are giving it to someone or pouring it down the drain, so the sum is not zero.
There are a lot of other problems with zero-sum thinking and other aggregate moral systems in general. Yes, one could do worse. I could do worse than stealing candy from a baby, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. And any time someone is reducing information down, they are sacrificing accuracy for the benefit of expedience. These very simplistic systems are useful, and occasionally very accurate, in short term transactions with a small scope, but once they start getting applied to big things like an entire person's life, their utility gets progressively worse.
First of all, reducing a person to a single numerical value is inherently dehumanizing. It tends to lead to Self-Licensing behavior, where people feel that because they've done good, they are allowed some indulgence to be bad as a result. What's more, black and white thinking is linked to depression, and is perhaps most pronounced in splitting.
Second, as you indicated, context is important. However, the relationship between the context at the time of the act and the present context is not always static, and when you aggregate someone's actions into a one dimensional continuum, the context can be lost, both in terms of applicability and current relevance.
In terms of applicability: if someone goes out and saves a bunch of people's lives, they are probably an amazing and good person. However, it does not follow that they should be trusted to build a bridge that does not collapse, based on that fact. Nor should it be expected that they will be able to safely land an airplane, thus saving lots of lives, if their previous actions were something like rescuing people from fires. Conversely, If someone is known for cheating at poker, it is questionable whether that has any relevance to how good a person they would be to go drinking with.
In terms of current relevance: Boiling someone down into a one dimensional aggregate is going to make assessing the differences between past context and current context difficult. The majority of people's behavior is dependent on their environment, and so not only does zero-sum or aggregate morality make the Fundamental Attribution Error more difficult to avoid, because it incorporates the context into an attribute which becomes an inherent characteristic, it makes also makes it more difficult to overcome the Confirmation Bias as it establishes a set moral identity based on necessarily limited information about the broader contexts, which then becomes more difficult to disprove, even when new evidence appears. So even if an apple thief eventually gets their own apple farm and no longer needs to steal to eat, they may not be able to positively prove themselves.
But even without considering the issues of contextual relevance, it is just poor policy to aggregate the entirety of someone's moral identity in terms of the ability to predict future behavior. Simply by keeping the actions separated into a histogram, there are significant returns in predictability.
Say you are evaluating someone based on a set of 10 actions they have performed in the past, on a scale of -10 to 10. With -10 being the worst, and 10 being the best.
Candidate A scores: 0 every single time.
Candidate B scores: -10, -9, -8, -7, -5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
When you aggregate their moral scores together, both of them are exactly the same. Zero. However, their likelihood of doing something immoral is clearly different when you look at the histogram of their past behavior. If someone was trying to decide which of the two to trust for a simple task, not aggregating their behavior would probably be a good idea.
2656925 It deeply hurts me to admit this, but too long; only skimmed. Because you missed the point: that it is better to start with good data and then strongly reduce than to start with barely relevant data and keep all of it. Now, if you want to debate me on that, and say that a complete list of actions with no record of contexts or consequences is a better measure of a person than the summation of the actual utility of all those actions with no record of what those actions are, I'm down for that, at least to the extent I can spare free time for the debate. I can point out that somebody with a high utility score would be quite unlikely to misrepresent his or her abilities when lives are on the line, as a small initial offering, and we can go from there if you want. But if you're looking for somebody who will argue that oversimplification is the best thing ever, you'll have to look further. I'm not in the mood to argue patently false theses.
If you want to debate my other claim, that video game morality systems generally represent reputation, not actual ethical character, that might also be interesting.
2672443
Or you could start with good data, and then continue to accumulate data as time permits. That might work too, especially since reducing or keeping data has no bearing on the initial data collection. And since evaluating context is going to involve processing nominal data, which is necessarily subjective and cannot naturally ordered with a non-arbitrary zero point.
Anyways, I suppose I can stop here. Not much point in talking to myself.
2711070 Yep.
Very true, but a realistic karma meter is really hard to program.