You are making a game based around a School Shooting. How would you design it?

[blazearmoru]

To make things worse, I highly doubt that the shootings were entirely the fault of the shooter and those at fault such as bullies and stuff are probably either dead, or definitely not going to own up to their responsibility and tell the truth... this makes a legit story very difficult.

Whenever anyone escalates a conflict, they are entirely at fault for the escalation. When you respond to bullying with mass murder, you are 100% to blame.

I think saying that the shooter is always "100% to blame" is a rather sweeping statement to make.

If you kill innocent kids then you're 100% to blame. No excuses. No rationalization. Fuck me, if you kill kids, you stop being human.

"If you kill innocent kids then you're 100% to blame. No excuses. No rationalization. Fuck me, if you kill kids, you stop being human."

Disclaimer : This is addressed to all those who agree with the above, not simply the one stating the above.

What makes us human in the first place is the capability to understand. Does that make sense to you?
What we commonly call animals are people who are devoid of reason.
What we call machines are those who are devoid of emotion.
What we call human are those who are capable of understanding!
We are human because we can relate! That is it. That is all.

Where do you get off calling the kids innocent? They're not all innocent, they're not all guilty, and best of all is that they all could of done something about it HAD THEY KNOWN.
YOU REFUSE THEM THE KNOWLEDGE.
Who is to blame?
All they need is to UNDERSTAND.
Yet it is you who STEAL their hope.

What here, I ask you, is the monster?
The one trapped in the corner but with hope?
Or the one creating the monster by taking away it's hope piece by piece until none is left?
We all eat to survive. In all of us are monsters, but with reason we contain our monsters.
You refuse them the ability to control their monsters. You create it. You are Frankenstein.


Mob mentality. Everyone believes this so instead of trying to fix the problem I'll just follow everyone else and kill the ************, because I'm the special one who can follow my own feelings and beliefs. People, starving, dying, ready to kill themselves, and people who are already dead inside, no they're not the victims... Yes I can help, but I'd rather kill the villain and be the hero. I learned that heroes are awesome from CoD you know?
You who do not know of despair, don't you dare claim that you are righteousness.
"The people dying of starvation are just too lazy to find a job..." Sound familiar?

Do any of you know why you believe any of the things you believe?
Do ANY of you know why you feel the things you do?
Do any of you even think? I know you're capable of thinking, we are all capable, but do you?
Or perhaps you are all exactly like the suicide bombers but lucky enough to be born in a different environment, brainwashed by something less suicidal?
If so, why do you think you're so special?


Edit : Those are the terms for everyday usage and conversation. I actually think animals are pretty damn smart, emotional, and understanding. I also believe that one day machines will have more perfect emotions, reasoning, and understanding than humans.

Edit2: It seems some people misunderstand. It is you people playing the blame game, I'm busy trying to explain the difference between fault and responsibility. If it is blame, fault and punishment you wish to see, then it is already dead. Schoolchildren dead and scared for life for bullying, the shooter lived a life described only as complete and utter hopelessness and too is dead. This is the outcome you all wish for and it is reality. I simply propose to change it and yet you are all still scapegoating saying that it is the fault* is on the bullies and the shooters, and that they are to blame*. They have taken their punishment even if their crime was simple ignorance. It could be different, it should be different, but people too busy placing blame rather than take responsibility is what runs the world it seems.

Refer back to my first post if you need a reminder that all I'm advocating is a game based not on the core element of fun, but drama, based not on fantasy but reality, for the purpose of not enjoyment but education, not for enjoyment but for necessity. This medium, of gaming is by nature one of interaction. Through this interaction, the bully can be the bullied; The bullied can be the bully; The caretakers can be the troubled children; And the ignorant can be the scapegoat. So the question really is, to blame the children or to have them take responsibility? Blame is punishment, which we can all do simply by sitting on our arse. Responsibility requires them to be alive, and as a result has to occur before the shooting. Responsibility? or the high we get for blaming?

 

[blazearmoru]

You are making a game based around a School Shooting.

No, I'm not. Because such a notion is irredeemably repugnant. People who are capable of the most basic levels of human empathy do not attempt to derive fun from real people's tragedy and suffering. I have to believe anyone who would even attempt such a game is on some level mentally/emotionally broken.

Just curious, but do you feel the same way about war games? I mean, there are more than a few games centered around Iraq/Afghanistan at this point. Certainly, war isn't the same as a school shooting, but games about it certainly involve deriving fun from the suffering of others.

Honestly I would argue that the poster you're responding too is on his high horse and suffers from a narrow viewpoint.

Just because something is a sensitive topic does not mean it can't be discussed or brought up in an artistic means. Though I do feel it would be best done with a bit of class.

It can be done but it will have consequences depending on how it's presented. People are stupid and easily influenced, which we all know through our understanding of psychology and sociology. So the question is, how to present this game? is this an fps during the shooting? a horror game of a person in hiding? or a drama about the shooter before the shooting?

The thing is depending on the purpose of the game... for money, or for education, or one's personal gain such as convincing people to join the military... that's what ought to be the focus. The motivation, purpose, goal, reason. Also yea, war fps games that keep portraying non-whites as evil are sorta fucked up if you think about it. Do you think about it?

 

[blazearmoru]

To make things worse, I highly doubt that the shootings were entirely the fault of the shooter and those at fault such as bullies and stuff are probably either dead, or definitely not going to own up to their responsibility and tell the truth... this makes a legit story very difficult.

Whenever anyone escalates a conflict, they are entirely at fault for the escalation. When you respond to bullying with mass murder, you are 100% to blame.

I think saying that the shooter is always "100% to blame" is a rather sweeping statement to make.

He had a choice to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger. Barring clinically diagnosed insanity indicating he was not in control of his actions, there's no way around that. I will not accept any attempt to blame his bullies as having any ethical validity. Yes, bullying is absolutely wrong, and schools need to take much stronger steps to stop it. But the moment you choose to retaliate with murder, you are 100% responsible for your choices. Period.

I suppose it comes down to what you define as being deserved of "blame". There are multiple reasons behind the actions of a school shooter, and whether you choose to place blame there or not is, in my view, down to individual opinion.

I cannot conceive of a valid ethical system where a person who does not murder is deemed to be in any way to blame for themselves being murdered. It simply doesn't work. This is just victim-blaming, akin to saying that rape victims shouldn't have dressed provocatively. Now yes, the bullies at Columbine shouldn't have bullied and authorities at the school should have put a stop to it, but at the end of the day they didn't decide to murder 12 people who may not have even been involved in the bullying. Two boys made that choice, and they are 100% responsible for it.

Yes. If that is your position then you must be happy that the suicide shooters killed the bullies then died himself as the bullies lives have ended, and the killer himself lived a miserable hopeless life evident by suicide. In fact most people seems to be very happy about this outcome. Most people got what they deserved for their crime of being stupid children... Actually since all of their crimes was that of being stupid children, some of you might be fully content. After all given your understanding of psychology of environmental learning, biological understanding of human emotions and reaction, as well as neuroscience in the human decision making department based on processed information in the FUCKING BRAIN. You guys must be some damn hotshots.

I on the other hand is a minority that seems to dislike this outcome. Anyone else thinks explaining to stupid children that bullying is wrong, AND SAVING LIVES is better than being happy on their ass about a dead shooter who only lived in complete and utter misery finally dead while taking stupid children bullies with him? I'd like to hear some thoughts on this actually.

 

[Xan Krieger]

As someone who played Super Columbine Massacre RPG and enjoyed it at times (even laughing when something funny happened) I do think the game got a few things wrong. The forced stealth section near the start of the game killed a bit of the fun as did the repetitiveness of the enemies (how many jock types can you defeat before you get bored?).

Game spoilers follow

Spoiler

I think one of the best things that could've been done is to let you actually battle the police outside of the building because by that point in the game you've leveled up so much that the kids aren't a threat anymore (I almost lost to a jock in the parking lot at the start of the game) so it would've been nice to fight someone who could actually kill you. The section in Hell had too many enemies and not enough ammo and medkits, especially once you got the plasma gun. More varied attacks on the part of the students would've been good as well.

 

[lacktheknack]

You are making a game based around a School Shooting.

2. It's not a "fun" game. Extra Credits did a video about this where they talked about Spec Ops: The Line and pointed out that games no longer need to be fun, in the same way other forms of art sometimes provoke emotions other than fun.

Damn man, look how far we have gotten, now games dont need to be fun...

Sigh- In those kind of times I actually miss the older gaming.

What's the problem? We have "un-fun" movies and books, too, that receive accolades.

OT: I set the computer on fire.

If I can't do that, then I play it entirely straight, and berate the player the whole way. With luck, no one will play it. If they do, it should evoke the feelings of disgust I'm aiming for.

 

[Windcaler]

Everytime I saw the title of this thread I thought how incredibly stupid the mere idea was. Then I had an epiphany a moment ago as I thought about how many times I wish news shows would make shooting stories about the victim. What I would do is make it about the victims. I would start it with simple character creation, letting the player make a character that was a student and I would let them live in that world as if it were a high school simulator

Then, out of nowhere they would become a victim. There would be no warning signs as one of their fellow students (chosen at random) opened fire one day. They would get to see that person for what they really are, a monster, as they saw friends/family die in front of them before the weapon was turned on them. They would get an option to fight back, to run, to hide, but eventually they would die like those around them.

That seems the most morale way to handle such a game. Make it about being a victim

It would still recieve the same reactions from the public but at the very least I could take a morale high ground and also say I tried to effect change so the next shooter can feel what its like to be one of his victims. Then maybe, just maybe, they'll reconsider their actions

 

[Wing Dairu]

Simple. As a few people have stated, make it survival horror. However, I'd make it like a 1v1 match, in a large, complex building. You play as a lone wannabe-hero who heard gunshots and kicked in the door before the police arrived. Your goal is to down the shooter with as few casualties as possible; a counter in the corner of the screen keeps track of how many students and staff are in the building and safe.

You have only one handgun; who carries anything else? Different difficulty levels give the attacker different loadouts and/or body armor, you always have only two full magazines of ammunition. The game is played with high score as the goal; players are scored on a combination of students/staff remaining, time it took to eliminate the shooter, and ammunition spent. Harming anyone other than the shooter results in an instant game-over and does NOT award an achievement.

Controls would be mapped similarly to Metal Gear Solid 2's, with the ability to press against walls and clear corners.

Please don't take this out of context, I know it sounds exactly like how the pro-gun nuts argue, but the question was "how would you make this game", and playing as the person who tries to stop it from happening is the only morally stable position to take in order to do it. It's still insensitive, but at least you're the good guy.

 

[blazearmoru]

I cannot conceive of a valid ethical system where a person who does not murder is deemed to be in any way to blame for themselves being murdered. It simply doesn't work. This is just victim-blaming, akin to saying that rape victims shouldn't have dressed provocatively. Now yes, the bullies at Columbine shouldn't have bullied and authorities at the school should have put a stop to it, but at the end of the day they didn't decide to murder 12 people who may not have even been involved in the bullying. Two boys made that choice, and they are 100% responsible for it.

Yes. If that is your position then you must be happy that the suicide shooters killed the bullies then died himself as the bullies lives have ended, and the killer himself lived a miserable hopeless life evident by suicide.

Why would I be happy about any loss of life? Your comment makes absolutely no sense, and has nothing to do with what I said.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this actually.

Honestly, I'd give you some thoughts, but you need to tighten your writing to make it more comprehensible. I don't mean to insult, but I have no idea what train of thought you're trying to convey. And given that out of two replies you've made to me, in one you seriously insulted me and in both you've made fairly radical claims about what I must think that have had zero basis in reality, I'm not too inclined to be charitable.

If your position is one seeking blame, then you have gotten what you wanted have you not? If so why are you not happy? Are you saying that you actually hold a position where everyone is unhappy and that is it morally right to hold a position where everyone gets what they deserved rather than attempt to prevent disaster? First and foremost this is not victim blaming because it tries to prevent the shootings in the first place, fault is a secondary thing but instead it is looking at the consequences of actions but even IF it were victim blaming, are you telling me that you honestly believe that it is immoral to tell someone who's about to walk into a shady district 1 in the morning with barely any clothes on is not a good idea? Also please ffs address the part about psychology and learning, biology and emotions, neuroscience and decision making explaining to me exactly how children, a product of both nature and environment, in an age where rational thinking almost always is overpowered by emotion, and best of all, their current level of understanding of the world given their situation, is at fault if they are powerless. You sound like you'd be satisfied if the shooter had instead shot himself in the beginning without turning his anger to the bullies, and as a result scaring the bullies lives as well as their reputation causing even more stress than they have already given they already bully to let out stress. Yes, less damage but you do sound satisfied with it, of course unless you're not and then as a result take my position that it'd be nice maybe if you explained to the bullies that bullying can cause them to die. You wana just skip all that and go straight to the finish because it sorta fixes everything? I don't think you do though, I think you just wana flex what you learned in philosophy 101 Where anyoone who has control over their actions are to blame for their actions and the results are of no consequences to morality, even if everyone were to die. (I took that class years ago and I forgot the philosopher that talked about this)

In a chain of events where more than 1 person participated in causing a catastrophe, it's not about who's the last on the chain whilst everyone else has a free pass. The only thing you are saying, and I know, is that the entirety of the fault lies with the last person in the chain... which is funny because you ignore 1. biology. 2. pscy 3. neuroscience. 4. the concept that there are consequences to actions. How much more clearly do I have to put it when YOU'RE the one stating who we should blame and I'm stating that bullies created the shooter? I never said bullies DID the shooting. Just like Hitler never killed a Jew during his reign as the Fuhrer. That's your argument and I get your position, but I don't think you understand your own position. because that would mean Hitler's only crime was talking to people. It would be those people who were murderers.

If you put a time bomb on someone, and they happen to be a place with people around when it goes off, who's responsible? The guy strapped with a bomb chose the location, he could of very well killed himself alone right? Actually when can you tell if someone is forced into such a decision? Do you look at his biology? Do you look at his environment as he grew up? Do you look at the situation and all the information thus all the options available to him, at least ones he could FUCKING FATHOM or do you state that by your words, he was a free man because you decided it? When did you become god? When was there ever, a god? We're ALL responsible for each other's well being. You don't live in a bubble. I thought we all knew that already. Maybe you haven't noticed, or maybe you haven't thought about it, but your actions change the people around you. Maybe they would of changed on their own, except they wouldn't.

I don't blame the woman being raped. My finger is pointed at the reason why rapists rape in the first place. Their mind, and all the influences that caused the decision to be made. ALL OF IT.

 

[sageoftruth]

I have some ideas, but I'm a bit reluctant to release them. I understand that this is all most likely hypothetical, but I just can't run the risk of someone using them to make an actual school shooting game.

 

[Thanatos5150]

It'd have to be a short game, and I'd split it into phases. It'd have some misleading/vague name like "Assault" or "The Plan"
Phase One: The Plan
The Player is dropped into the game, and told to construct a "plan" for an assault. Their assets? One person, and a small array of firearms. Their goal in the assault? Kill Target X. They are given little to no other instructions beyond this and a blip on the map asserting Target X's probable location and a map. At this point, the player constructs their plan, choosing to be as ball-out or as stealthy as they want. Clever/observant players may note that the layout of the area looks rather school-like. The game will invisibly assign a "Stealth score" to the player's plan.
Phase Two: Practise
The Player is dropped (First person) onto a tutorial/shooting range area, modified according to the planned assaults. There will be padlocks and lockpicking minigames, a shooting range, and the only weapons available are those included in the player's plan. The player will be forced to stress-test somehow, machines throwing softballs or something at them as they aim and fire. The game will take metrics behind the scenes and assign the "Player" a difficulty rating and an Action Score, used to modify your stealth score.
Phase Three: Contact
A cut-scene plays of the PC leaving the shooting range and loading a fresh magazine. The camera will pan over to an obvious school, and the sun will rise. A bell will ring, and the player will be shown to be a teenager, equipped for the murdering. We will see his school ID, complete with name and photograph.
Phase Four: Calculations
The Game, based on the "stealth score" it tabulated will then decide at which point your plan falls apart and/or police are sent to the school ("Perfect stealth" has Target X dead, stealth scores of zero will have it happen almost immediately).
Phase Five: Response
At this point, the player will take control of a police officer/first responder who has decided to go against orders and meet the shooter in combat, hopefully rescuing the civilians and/or distracting said shooter long enough for SWAT to arrive (This timer ticks invisibly). The difficulty/evasiveness of the shooter will be based off metrics taken in the tutorial.
Phase Six: Finale
The game will cut to a news report, detailing the massacre at Small Town, USA's High School, with the death toll, and the actions of the "Heroic Policeman" taken into account (How many people were saved? Did you die? Did you pin down the shooter until SWAT arrived?). At the end, the families of the victims will be shown in mourning. Candlelight vigils will be held.
The Shooter will, at all points in time, be referred to as "What's-his-name" or a similar moniker.

The game will be terrifyingly brutal and realistic in the "response" phase of the game. Realistic and high-res blood spatter, internal organs, those works. We're talking "May possibly induce vomiting" levels of realism and photorealism.
The writing team will go at great lengths to make the player feel like a monster, and point out that all these deaths and sadness was THEIR fault. THEY constructed the plan, and they will be erased from History, so great is their crime.

 

[blazearmoru]

If your position is one seeking blame,

It's not. I claimed who has responsibility for murder- the murderer. I'm not "seeking" anything.

Are you saying that you actually hold a position where everyone is unhappy and that is it morally right to hold a position where everyone gets what they deserved rather than attempt to prevent disaster?

I am not saying anything of the sort. And I suggest if the only way for you to respond to me is to make up a bunch of things I never said, that you stop responding. Have a good night.

I don't keep an eye on this forum 24/7 >_> scroll up. I responded. Also if I said something along the lines of "let's push him off that cliff" it's safe to assume it meant something along the lines of "let's kill him." so let's dissect our conversation so far.

1. I stated that a game could be where you would live in the shoes of the shooter before the shooting. I stated that way people could see the actions leading up to the consequences. (This includes problems at home, problems at school, and problems in the mind as well as age related problems) Basically we would watch the victim and soon to be villain, break mentally until he desired death more than life.
2. You stated that the one responsible was the shooter, and none other had any part in it. By contrast to what I have said, and in disagreement would be seen as stating that actions don't have consequences. The reasons, actions, and all things leading up to the final catastrophe meant nothing aside from the last person. [ just as hitler never killed any jews, only himself and what's her face during his reign as the Fuhrer so basically Hitler's not at all responsible for the death of the Jews ]
3. Then I respond by saying something along the line of you really like to blame instead of fixing the problem, also uneducated in the fields of biology, psychology, neuroscience and only care about who's to blame. I further state that the one you blame lived a life of misery evident by suicide, and because of suicide is dead and so by relation what I am trying to say is that the one you blame got what he deserved. I end with, that's kinda sick.
4. You state that the position you have stated is not your position, and that your position ended with the just blame part.
5. My response : so you're advocating scapegoating with blame rather than responsibility as if it's not anyone's problem. Also I kinda call bullshit on that and you haven't thought it through.

I'm tired too man. Continue this shit tomorrow? Also I'm sorry for my harshness toward you.

Edit : There's no reason to limit the PoV only to the shooter. Bullies bully for a reason as well, shift the camera to them. Everyone involved is responsible.

Not for the sake of offending but seriously fuck you for throwing all the blame (different from responsibility) onto a single person [who's both a victim and a villain]. Enough with the scapegoating Jesus mentality. There is no blame, only consequences. Blame is a notion used for justice, to quench the frustration of the victims, a sadistic and primitive ritual where joy arises from the suffering of another. I can't be the only one to find that sickening... I hope...

 

[Loonyyy]

If your position is one seeking blame,

It's not. I claimed who has responsibility for murder- the murderer. I'm not "seeking" anything.

Are you saying that you actually hold a position where everyone is unhappy and that is it morally right to hold a position where everyone gets what they deserved rather than attempt to prevent disaster?

I am not saying anything of the sort. And I suggest if the only way for you to respond to me is to make up a bunch of things I never said, that you stop responding. Have a good night.

I don't keep an eye on this forum 24/7 >_> scroll up. I responded. Also if I said something along the lines of "let's push him off that cliff" it's safe to assume it meant something along the lines of "let's kill him." so let's dissect our conversation so far.

1. I stated that a game could be where you would live in the shoes of the shooter before the shooting. I stated that way people could see the actions leading up to the consequences. (This includes problems at home, problems at school, and problems in the mind as well as age related problems) Basically we would watch the victim and soon to be villain, break mentally until he desired death more than life.
2. You stated that the one responsible was the shooter, and none other had any part in it. By contrast to what I have said, and in disagreement would be seen as stating that actions don't have consequences. The reasons, actions, and all things leading up to the final catastrophe meant nothing aside from the last person. [ just as hitler never killed any jews, only himself and what's her face during his reign as the Fuhrer so basically Hitler's not at all responsible for the death of the Jews ]
3. Then I respond by saying something along the line of you really like to blame instead of fixing the problem, also uneducated in the fields of biology, psychology, neuroscience and only care about who's to blame. I further state that the one you blame lived a life of misery evident by suicide, and because of suicide is dead and so by relation what I am trying to say is that the one you blame got what he deserved. I end with, that's kinda sick.
4. You state that the position you have stated is not your position, and that your position ended with the just blame part.
5. My response : so you're advocating scapegoating with blame rather than responsibility as if it's not anyone's problem. Also I kinda call bullshit on that and you haven't thought it through.

I'm tired too man. Continue this shit tomorrow? Also I'm sorry for my harshness toward you.

Edit : There's no reason to limit the PoV only to the shooter. Bullies bully for a reason as well, shift the camera to them. Everyone involved is responsible.

Not for the sake of offending but seriously fuck you for throwing all the blame (different from responsibility) onto a single person [who's both a victim and a villain]. Enough with the scapegoating Jesus mentality. There is no blame, only consequences. Blame is a notion used for justice, to quench the frustration of the victims, a sadistic and primitive ritual where joy arises from the suffering of another. I can't be the only one to find that sickening... I hope...

Seriously, cut this out. No-one has said anything of the sort, and you seem to be projecting onto others opinions they haven't expressed so you can berate them, swear at them, and insult their mental faculties. Acknowledging that the shooting is wrong does not mean affirming that bullying is good. Both can be bad.

You need to calm down and actually pay attention to what people say, and not what you hope they say, or you'll continue being reported to the moderators, and you'll end up with a ban.

 

[blazearmoru]

If your position is one seeking blame,

It's not. I claimed who has responsibility for murder- the murderer. I'm not "seeking" anything.

Are you saying that you actually hold a position where everyone is unhappy and that is it morally right to hold a position where everyone gets what they deserved rather than attempt to prevent disaster?

I am not saying anything of the sort. And I suggest if the only way for you to respond to me is to make up a bunch of things I never said, that you stop responding. Have a good night.

I don't keep an eye on this forum 24/7 >_> scroll up. I responded. Also if I said something along the lines of "let's push him off that cliff" it's safe to assume it meant something along the lines of "let's kill him." so let's dissect our conversation so far.

1. I stated that a game could be where you would live in the shoes of the shooter before the shooting. I stated that way people could see the actions leading up to the consequences. (This includes problems at home, problems at school, and problems in the mind as well as age related problems) Basically we would watch the victim and soon to be villain, break mentally until he desired death more than life.
2. You stated that the one responsible was the shooter, and none other had any part in it. By contrast to what I have said, and in disagreement would be seen as stating that actions don't have consequences. The reasons, actions, and all things leading up to the final catastrophe meant nothing aside from the last person. [ just as hitler never killed any jews, only himself and what's her face during his reign as the Fuhrer so basically Hitler's not at all responsible for the death of the Jews ]
3. Then I respond by saying something along the line of you really like to blame instead of fixing the problem, also uneducated in the fields of biology, psychology, neuroscience and only care about who's to blame. I further state that the one you blame lived a life of misery evident by suicide, and because of suicide is dead and so by relation what I am trying to say is that the one you blame got what he deserved. I end with, that's kinda sick.
4. You state that the position you have stated is not your position, and that your position ended with the just blame part.
5. My response : so you're advocating scapegoating with blame rather than responsibility as if it's not anyone's problem. Also I kinda call bullshit on that and you haven't thought it through.

I'm tired too man. Continue this shit tomorrow? Also I'm sorry for my harshness toward you.

Edit : There's no reason to limit the PoV only to the shooter. Bullies bully for a reason as well, shift the camera to them. Everyone involved is responsible.

Not for the sake of offending but seriously fuck you for throwing all the blame (different from responsibility) onto a single person [who's both a victim and a villain]. Enough with the scapegoating Jesus mentality. There is no blame, only consequences. Blame is a notion used for justice, to quench the frustration of the victims, a sadistic and primitive ritual where joy arises from the suffering of another. I can't be the only one to find that sickening... I hope...

Seriously, cut this out. No-one has said anything of the sort, and you seem to be projecting onto others opinions they haven't expressed so you can berate them, swear at them, and insult their mental faculties. Acknowledging that the shooting is wrong does not mean affirming that bullying is good. Both can be bad.

You need to calm down and actually pay attention to what people say, and not what you hope they say, or you'll continue being reported to the moderators, and you'll end up with a ban.

I never said that bullying is good. Point that out please.

To make things worse, I highly doubt that the shootings were entirely the fault of the shooter and those at fault such as bullies and stuff are probably either dead, or definitely not going to own up to their responsibility and tell the truth... this makes a legit story very difficult.

Whenever anyone escalates a conflict, they are entirely at fault for the escalation. When you respond to bullying with mass murder, you are 100% to blame.

Please point out how this man did not say anything about full blame. This guy clearly states

Whenever anyone does something, they are to blame for their actions. When consequences arise that involve, people, animals, living beings, machines... let's just stretch back to people since it's unclear. When basically you cause another person to kill, such as Hitler causing his minions to kill Jews, it's the fault of the minion not of Hitler. Hitler's only crime is talks, and threats, and is in no way 100% not responsible for the death of any Jew.

"Whenever Hitler threatens people, he is entirely at fault for the act of threatening. When you respond to threats with mass murder, you are 100% to blame." - Replaced anyone with Hitler, replaced earlier causation from escalation to threat. It's even fits as a plug in. Look, I didn't even need to remove mass murder.

Should I go back and pull every quote?

To make things worse, I highly doubt that the shootings were entirely the fault of the shooter and those at fault such as bullies and stuff are probably either dead, or definitely not going to own up to their responsibility and tell the truth... this makes a legit story very difficult.

Whenever anyone escalates a conflict, they are entirely at fault for the escalation. When you respond to bullying with mass murder, you are 100% to blame.

I think saying that the shooter is always "100% to blame" is a rather sweeping statement to make.

He had a choice to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger. Barring clinically diagnosed insanity indicating he was not in control of his actions, there's no way around that. I will not accept any attempt to blame his bullies as having any ethical validity. Yes, bullying is absolutely wrong, and schools need to take much stronger steps to stop it. But the moment you choose to retaliate with murder, you are 100% responsible for your choices. Period.

I suppose it comes down to what you define as being deserved of "blame". There are multiple reasons behind the actions of a school shooter, and whether you choose to place blame there or not is, in my view, down to individual opinion.

I cannot conceive of a valid ethical system where a person who does not murder is deemed to be in any way to blame for themselves being murdered. It simply doesn't work. This is just victim-blaming, akin to saying that rape victims shouldn't have dressed provocatively. Now yes, the bullies at Columbine shouldn't have bullied and authorities at the school should have put a stop to it, but at the end of the day they didn't decide to murder 12 people who may not have even been involved in the bullying. Two boys made that choice, and they are 100% responsible for it.

 

[Loonyyy]

Oh wait, you also quoted me.

If you don't work toward preventing a certain consequence then you accept it.

False. You could not know what to do, or be incapable of doing so.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

Nothing. It's wrong. Also, it's a rephrasing of your previous points.

I'm sorry but I'm not the one who's accepting that consequence, I'm only stating that the act of scapegoating does not do anything but make one feel better about themselves whilst more people die and die and die. Does that make sense?

It's not scapegoating. You are not scapegoating by blaming a mass murderer for mass murder. If he was bullied, then that may have led to the state of mind that caused it, but it was their choice to escalate to mass murder, and indiscriminate killing. I'm not accepting any consequence. I see the emotional damage caused by bullying to be an unnacceptable consequence of not solving that problem. I see mass murder as an unnacceptable consequence of other problems. They're both bad, you're setting up an insane false dichotomy.

Everyone thinks what they do is right.

No, they don't. Google "Guilt".

Every single wrong action in the history of humanity and all other species that have any amount of consciousness justify their actions.

You need to clean up your writing, since it's almost impossible to understand. And, if the point is post-hoc rationalisation exists, sure. Not everyone does. Google "Apology" "Sorrow".

Just because something shouldn't happen because it'd hurt your emotions doesn't mean it won't happen because it's reality.

This is nothing to do with my emotions, and I'd like you to keep to the point rather than ad hominem.

I'd hate to break it to you but religion has tried for years to change reality by sheer belief,

How is religion pertinent? Regardless, I'm an atheist, and I have no desire to debate religion on a topic unrelated to it.

and it has never worked. How do you... Why is something so simple so difficult to understand?

Because it's wrong, and a damn lie. I never said the solution was to hope things were better. I think there are some real solutions. Those would involve not justifying anyone's actions, and looking at how to fix the things which are broken, which isn't helped by people having a tantrum over the sake of mass murderers.

I do not side with them, I am simply saying

Scapegoating
Blaming
Punishment

Are all after the fact.

No shit sherlock. We know this. It's not scapegoating to say that the killer is responsible for their actions. To believe actions have consequences, you must believe you own your actions, and as such, the killer is culpable for his. The situation which contributes to the creation of these types may be horrible, and may need solving. That doesn't absolve them of their guilt.

They do nothing except instill fear and in this case fear doesn't work on someone who's already decided to kill themselves. You find another way.

It's not about fear, it's about understanding the events, rather than romanticising them.

From a purely unbiased PoV,

There's no such thing. Regardless, the implication of my bias as opposed to yours is insulting.

tell me. Do you honestly think that consequences don't exist?

I never said they didn't. I believe things happen causally to each other. If you mean that bullying may have in part caused the event, it may have. It isn't the whole story, and a causal link would not make the punishment just, nor does it make mass murder the punishment for bullying. The death penalty for bullies and random people nearby is not a just punishment. Get that into your head.

"3) Consequences != escalation. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. A life for an eye leaves the whole world DEAD." When did I say anything about consequences being an eye for an eye?

It's a quote from Ghandi, used in an example of reducio ad absurdum. If mass murder is an acceptable "consequence" (This word is misused), of bullying, then we're all fucked. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, no?

It could very well be many families for an insult. It's happened, look at the religious community. Don't twist my words and read them as they are. Do actions have consequences? If so if your actions start a chain of reactions, are you faultless? And let's go further...

I'm not twisting words, and seriously, stop going after the religious. It's just annoying, and not relevant, and hurts your pious claims to the moral high ground. I don't believe in a god, and I'm certain I'm more informed than you on religion in any case.

Why do people bully? Give me all the possible reasons you can think of, and now compare it to this question

No, you. I negated your points. It's not my responsibility to make an entire argument for positions I don't affirm.

Why do people kill themselves?
Now tell me which one is more severe.

And then you again, play coy with the truth. We're not talking suicide, we're talking murder. And I didn't say bullying was justifiable. I just said that mass murder wasn't. You need to sharpen up on your comprehension a little. I'm firmly against bullying. You'd be hard pressed to find someone more against it. I've been beaten up by a gang of people because I'm against it. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said bullying was acceptable. Bullying and mass murder are not acceptable. Bullying also doesn't always lead to suicide or mass murder, something you're not acknowledging either.

Which one is more cornered? Which one is trapped? And which is the one that needs saving.

Not the school shooters. Plenty of people get bullied, and plenty don't kill children. All parts of the problem need fixing, and ignoring the shooter, for the bully, will result in a broken solution.

Obviously they both need saving but here's a hint. Get the bully to stop getting kids to kill themselves through maybe some type of... iuno...

Mass killings aren't exclusively the result of bullying, you know. Neither are suicides. And while I think that getting rid of bullying would be a good thing, acknowledging that there's more than one problem here is important. And you're not.

interactive learning medium commonly known as gaming? :|

This is what's known as a sentence fragment. It's caused by not thinking through your statement, dripping with condescension, about issues you seem remarkably uninformed about.

Edit : you say that "one should never justify that action by the suffering they underwent first." and I agree but you're trying to replace the words "one will always justify that action by the suffering they underwent first." The word "should" will never replace the word "will" in a practical setting.

What the fuck? There's nothing wrong with my grammar, and I mean the statement as I put it. You, Mr. Sentence Fragment, don't get to correct me, on any points. You can't justify the actions taken by the shooters by their potentially troubled past. As you Godwin'd later, so shall I. Hitler's mother died horribly of cancer, and her Jewish doctor was unable to save her. That doesn't justify the Holocaust. Heck, it doesn't even justify a complete causal link.

I too wish that all were paradise. In fact, all things should be better than they are right now, but they are not. People starve daily, die from simple illnesses, and lack of shelter. It should be, but it's not.

Obviously. So what?

Religion has tried for centuries to change reality through the power of faith. Hasn't worked.

I'M AN ATHEIST. I AFFIRM THAT FAITH IS GULLIBILITY, AND PRAYER USELESS WISHFUL THINKING. GET OVER IT. YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. GET OFF THE HIGH HORSE.

The world still isn't flat, the world is still over 6000 years old, and the world is still not the center of the universe.

Lucky I don't affirm any of these positions. It'd be a shame if someone as bright as me did.

It seems your heart is in the right place but it's not gona work man.

I never said hope was the answer. Stop that right now. Shooters are the problem. This can be fixed by: Stopping the mindset of shooters (Impossible without going 1984, due to the prescence of sociopathic tendencies.) Controlling the schools (Expensive and an escalation of force), or removing the potential to cause harm.

I never said my solution was to pray for it.

We all want it to be different but best we can hope for is to do something about it.

I never said not to do something about it.


Stop the condescension, read what people write, and cut the intellectual dishonesty, stop putting words in peoples mouths. Very few people on this forum think bullying is a good thing. I'm not one of them. Neither is Katatori.

 

[blazearmoru]

Oh wait, you also quoted me.[...]

It's not scapegoating. You are not scapegoating by blaming a mass murderer for mass murder. If he was bullied, then that may have led to the state of mind that caused it, but it was their choice to escalate to mass murder, and indiscriminate killing. I'm not accepting any consequence. I see the emotional damage caused by bullying to be an unnacceptable consequence of not solving that problem. I see mass murder as an unnacceptable consequence of other problems. They're both bad, you're setting up an insane false dichotomy.

1. One who is not in a state of mind to make choices is not a choice. I'm not sure if you know, but intoxicating a girl for sex may be considered rape to some people...
2. They're both bad. I'm not setting up a dichotomy when I state that a game should show all sides of everyone's suffering so all sides can understand. You are opposing my statement that the murderer is not 100% at fault because my response was directed at Katatori's statement that they are 100% at fault. Why exactly is it unacceptable to you that all sides understand each other's perspective because that's basically all sides realizing that they're all wrong to some extent. This is what you're opposing.

No, they don't. Google "Guilt". You need to clean up your writing, since it's almost impossible to understand. And, if the point is post-hoc rationalisation exists, sure. Not everyone does. Google "Apology" "Sorrow".

1. At the moment the decision is made, people believe it's not a good decision to make... How does that even make the slightest sense? The best I could make of it is, he believes that his is a bad decision but it's the best of the terrible options. Also not entirely sure dead people feel guilt...
2. I think I made my point... gona skip this part. Unless you wana argue that people in fact make bad decisions because they believe it's a bad decision, cus it's a bad decision... Man that got confusing really fast. You're right though, my grammar is bad. Sorry! =]

is is nothing to do with my emotions, and I'd like you to keep to the point rather than ad hominem.

1. Really? You just evaded...

one should never justify that action by the suffering they underwent first.

Well, I apologize for the ad hom and I take it back. You are right, it has nothing to do with your emotions. It is simply how reality operates. After all that's what the concept of revenge is and I'm sure you agree that it's a phenomena right?

Because it's wrong, and a damn lie. I never said the solution was to hope things were better. I think there are some real solutions. Those would involve not justifying anyone's actions, and looking at how to fix the things which are broken, which isn't helped by people having a tantrum over the sake of mass murderers.

1. I did say near the end something about the whole thing about a sadistic ritual right?
2. I don't want to justify it, I simply said people justify their own actions.
3. I don't want to justify it, I simply want people to understand all angles of the situation. How do you not see this concept?

It's not about fear, it's about understanding the events, rather than romanticising them.

1. We may have a different understanding of the word blame. I see the word used often to throw all the burden onto the blamed. Probably cus I got it from the whole christian Mythos as well as growing up blame was associating with evading responsibility. On top of that responsibility was different from blame. Finally I thought understanding events used another phrase, like "understand"... Sounds a bit like my position... awkward right?

There's no such thing. Regardless, the implication of my bias as opposed to yours is insulting.

You're right, there's no such thing as purely unbiased. I was out of line here. But I did give it a shot, saying that we should present every side's suffering and reasons. I'm sure bullying has it's reasons too. As well as family problems. Possibly abuse at home...

Quoting me and not you this time ^^', sorry I don't know how to change the color to avoid confusion

There's no reason to limit the PoV only to the shooter. Bullies bully for a reason as well, shift the camera to them. Everyone involved is responsible.

I never said they didn't. I believe things happen causally to each other. If you mean that bullying may have in part caused the event, it may have. It isn't the whole story, and a causal link would not make the punishment just, nor does it make mass murder the punishment for bullying. The death penalty for bullies and random people nearby is not a just punishment. Get that into your head.

1. refer to the quote above as well.
2. Consequences != escalation. Not all consequences result in escalation but if one flips enough coins, they are sure to get two tails in a row.
3. Scapegoating, blaming and the like are all after the fact of dead students and a dead shooter. If you believe in consequences then what was wrong with me stating that they all, together, caused this catastrophe? Or is this not the case? Is it the case that the game in question should be about how the shooter alone is to be blamed as the monster he is and no one else was at fault? Cus they are. If you wana answer this point please do so last. This thought will be revisited at the end of this.

It's a quote from Ghandi, used in an example of reducio ad absurdum. If mass murder is an acceptable "consequence" (This word is misused), of bullying, then we're all fucked. That shouldn't be that hard to understand, no?

I didn't disagree with that. :| I simply said that people don't have to follow that, and people don't follow that. Some people walk away. Others over-react. Then there are highschool children with all their lovely biological chemicals and limited and abnormal understanding of the world without a place to run away so they endure until the snapping point. That's not too hard to understand from your position right? I understood your point, can you understand this position? Cus you sounded rather too hostile to of understood this.

I'm not twisting words, and seriously, stop going after the religious. It's just annoying, and not relevant, and hurts your pious claims to the moral high ground. I don't believe in a god, and I'm certain I'm more informed than you on religion in any case.

1. You very well might be and I am hoping you are more informed. I said nothing about a god, I simply pointed out a group of people who over-reacts at offenses. Stop twisting my words would you?

No, you. I negated your points. It's not my responsibility to make an entire argument for positions I don't affirm.

1. I just wanted you to think. sorry it offended.

And then you again, play coy with the truth. We're not talking suicide, we're talking murder. And I didn't say bullying was justifiable. I just said that mass murder wasn't. You need to sharpen up on your comprehension a little. I'm firmly against bullying. You'd be hard pressed to find someone more against it. I've been beaten up by a gang of people because I'm against it. Don't put words into my mouth. I never said bullying was acceptable. Bullying and mass murder are not acceptable. Bullying also doesn't always lead to suicide or mass murder, something you're not acknowledging either.

1. Yea, and shooting people don't always lead to killing them. True. I don't see how that's relevant though.
2. Ok, this one was my mistake. I jumped to conclusions and I sincerely apologize on this matter.

Not the school shooters. Plenty of people get bullied, and plenty don't kill children. All parts of the problem need fixing, and ignoring the shooter, for the bully, will result in a broken solution.

1. Bullies are not the only thing FFS. There are family issues, relationship issues, money issues. So many issues. I simply said that all of it play a part and it should be expressed as such. WTF man? You were bitching at me all day for putting words in your mouth =.=; I said ALL parts should be shown. Why do you do this to me. Q-Q

This is what's known as a sentence fragment. It's caused by not thinking through your statement, dripping with condescension, about issues you seem remarkably uninformed about.

I'm honestly just bad at grammar. Can't be good at everything. :|

What the fuck? There's nothing wrong with my grammar, and I mean the statement as I put it. You, Mr. Sentence Fragment, don't get to correct me, on any points. You can't justify the actions taken by the shooters by their potentially troubled past. As you Godwin'd later, so shall I. Hitler's mother died horribly of cancer, and her Jewish doctor was unable to save her. That doesn't justify the Holocaust. Heck, it doesn't even justify a complete causal link.

I didn't correct your grammar... I simply pointed out that you stated that something should happen and ignored what is happening. Just because something should happen doesn't mean it will happen and in the case of the shooting, didn't happen. I'm sorry about my grammar, must be pretty bad on my part for you to miss that.

Quoting myself again!

The word "should" will never replace the word "will" in a practical setting.

Shooters are the problem.

Sigh... I thought we were in agreement on this! You said...

School shooters are a complex phenomena

The reason for the shooting is the problem, not the shooter. Just because you deny someone a chance to do what they want, doesn't mean they won't continue to try. You can hope that they change their mind as they grow, experience and learn more but why not cut straight to the chase and set up a situation where they grow, experience, and learn more so the shooting doesn't take place to begin with? My proposal on a drama genre game, based on the perspective of the bully & shooter and other involved people of this mess doesn't hint at all about this? Really?

Ok now that I'm done responding to so many things... I have a question.

Does it really seem sensible to you that the best course of action is to go kill plenty of people then kill oneself? I don't see any probable rational gain from that so it's most likely emotional, though there are possible exceptions. You're more knowledgeable in religion than I am so you tell me from the beliefs point of view, what gains are there in the believed afterlife? Exhausting the options, you really think the kid chose the worst possible outcome while believing it's the worst possible outcome? I'm a little confused here you see. You said that children were stupid. Then you said the shooter was to blame. Then you said the shooter had a choice. So yea, this is a bit confusion on my part so I'm sorry if I miss. If so please kindly correct me. From my point of view, killing a bunch of people then killing oneself seems to be a final act after weighting all possible options... (granted the weighing was totally manipulated by biological emotions of what we call teenage stupidity) Even if it's a bad calculation, I think you're actually saying that they chose this knowing it's the worst possible choice, rather than the best or only remaining choice. It's almost as if the kid is determined to suicide, and simply wants ironically Justice, for once in his desperate life, peace. I don't know if it'll bring him any but I would think the he believed it would bring him peace, just like people who seek revenge do it out of the need to quench the inner agony of hate.

Alternatively if you believe that the shooter might of believed it's a good choice, only choice, or best choice then the fault is in the mind because we the outsiders see it as an unacceptable choice. Then the fault is in the mind. The fault is the biology, the environment teaching the kid, and the information processed. If you blame that then you have already agreed with me, though I am aware that my position is a rare one and you probably don't agree with me. Worth a shot though.

Also how to you blame shooters when the shooter is already dead? What can you do to the shooter to *fix* him? I recall you stating that not all bullied people suicide or take violent revenge, but I also recall you stating that it's a complex problem, on top of that I also remember you advocating that it's the shooter's fault for snapping. Not all desperate people snap from bullying + home problems + relationship problems + friend problems + money problems, possibly starvation problems, mental problems, and countless other problems all combined together... Some simply live through it all... You know what I think? I think it's a difference of both nature and nurture that made the difference. That's my stance on this argument. I blame nature and I blame nurture. You blame a dead person... I can understand why you blame him though, but what do you blame him for? His decision? All the pieces that made up that decision? I always felt that a decision is made by weighting the pros and the cons tainted by emotions, which translates to understanding, knowledge, maturity, and circumstances. You seem to feel different than me on this issue. Explain to me. We both conclude that the source of the decision was responsible for this result yet we arrive at different conclusions at what exactly that source is. You point at the mind as the culprit, I point at the development of the mind. That is what you blame right?

Ignore this part if you also point at the [development of the mind] as the culprit.
Then it is safe to assume that you believe the mind is the entity of the person right?
Minds develop and change, so by extension, people change. You agree right?
This means who you were in a certain point of the past is not who you are today, they are two different people connected by a string of external influences.
Who are you blaming exactly?

Loonyyy
You went totally batshit crazy or should I say Loonyyy? I just wana say I'm sorry for offending you and it's really late here. Going to go sleep now and I won't respond for a while.