See, this is what I think is just kinda dumb. Like, I don't give a fuck what you wanna say with "good arguing" or whatever.
Well that's a shame. I feel like we should be putting a lot of critical thought into arguing when we arguing, so I also feel like we should be putting a lot of critical thought into what arguing is. If you have a problem, by all means make your points against what I'm saying. One way to start doing that might be to stop reducing down what I'm saying to one sentence and talking about that. Even if that's all you want to address looking at the entirety of what I'm saying is probably useful.
I'm just gonna lay out an opinion real quick. I think the game design issues on this have close to 0 bearing on what the actual issue is.
Well obviously you don't feel that, because of how you're choosing to look at the issue, just like how someone that thinks it's importance thinks it does have bearing on the issue.
As Steve said, if you don't like the design but lots of other people do, that's really on you. If people love lootboxes and think they are fun, then that's kind of just it. Whether or not you personally like that really does not and should not matter.
I agree with your first two sentences, but I don't see how you got to that last one from that. That warrant is key to what you're arguing here, it'd be useful to spell it out. Personally I think the moral issue is far more important here, but I'm not going to tell someone that cares about design that they are wrong to care about it. Moreover I'm certainly not going to say what people like should have no impact on the products we create, that seems odd.
What I would like to matter a whole lot more is specifically pinning down when and where the moral stuff kicks in.
Alright, but you're on a gaming forum that skews centre-right on economic issues. Just be aware of that. A good chuck of people here will ardently reject the idea that the moral sphere and the market have any overlap.
Where does it become the individual's responsibility, where does it become the publishers, and at what point does it stop being healthy to interact with.
These are all interesting questions, and I'd like to see people talk about them sure.
I don't see those arguments coming up.
I saw, I haven't had the chance to read past this post yet, those arguments coming up. What do you think vote with your wallet means? They could be better developed yes, but as it is, unthinking libertarianism and knee-jerk rejection offer the easiest paths for each respective side, so that's what you're going to see the most of.
The way the argument is framed is also not particularly conducive to asking these questions. Since the board, understandably, has generally understood the topic to be should they or should they not be regulated. That doesn't lend itself to questions of implementation and degree. Those are more relevant questions once we've accepted some regulation might be a good thing.
I do see a lot of all or nothing or hiding them behind games suffering or thinking of the children.
The former isn't an attempt to obscure it, it's fundamentally a different point. The later is lazy more than obscuring.
All I see is "this is morally bad" or "I never liked this" or something like that. If it's going to be a moral issue, talk about the specific morals.
I've seen some more complex arguments around than you seem to be thinking, but yes more nuance is generally a good thing. I certainly haven't been calling for less nuance anywhere on this board.