(08-29-2015, 04:15 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: Would we still argue that Alice and Jimmy are perfectly fine to continue their scene ignoring Steel?
Should they not have picked a more appropriate method of having a "quiet" or "private" conversation if they did not want other people to involve/intrude?
Is Steel's player somehow going leaps and bounds beyond consent because his game client picked up the public chat next to him?
I would argue that neither is going beyond their rights in the game, because it is not a binary situation.
It is one person's right to overhear something in a public channel. It is another person's right to ignore that fact. Neither has the ability to stop the other from doing either action. Additionally, neither is able to force the other to acknowledge their action.
To distill the answer, yes, Alice and Jimmy are perfectly fine to continue their scene, and ignore Steel. In addition, Steel is perfectly fine to listen in on the conversation, and attempt to interact. However, neither party is able to make the other conform to their interpretation of events. Whether or not Alice and Jimmy should have or should not have picked a private location is subjective, and therefore inarguable on any grounds that is removed from a moral background.
Where does this leave us? I don't know, but that's physically the way that things work.
