I'm not gonna lie, I had to read this a few times in order to try to understand it. And, while I do think you're gaslighting here, I don't mind telling you why our rules are valid. I have to do it many a time when I go on other servers with the eGO tag.
Firstly, let's look at some of the games we support: Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Minecraft, and Team Fortress 2. Notice that, while these games are rated M for Mature, they are classified for "Blood and Intense Violence". The language we admin against is not prevalent in any part of those games. Sure, one can say "they're for adults, so kids aren't here", and they'd be right, the games are for adults. The problem is, children do play them. As a result, we've created this mature, punk-free gaming community and have kept it strong for nine years. Nine.
If we're such an immoral, unethical organization with arbitrary rules, we wouldn't have been here for nine years.
Now, in Battlefield 4, the ESRB did classify it as having strong language, which is prevalent in the game. Our language rules work differently there. If you're using language as in "f***, I need ammo", that is allowed, since words like that are common in the game itself. But, if you were to use "f*** you", that's disrespectful and breaks our rules.
If enforce language rules and allow support for mature games at the same time, they are contradicting themselves at a moral level.
This has nothing to do with morals. In fact, you're very moral if you don't feel the need to show how colorful your vocabulary is while playing a video game.
At a rules level, they are not doing anything wrong
As in our rules, or some other set of rules? If you're talking about our rules, yes, they are breaking them. We have private servers, we have the right to set those rules.
but in most arguments using any kind of logical standard, rules do not some how over rule ethical rational.
It's both ethical and rational to follow the rules set by a private organization if you're somehow involved with them or using their resources. I'd like you to explain to me how it isn't.
For instance, someone can not just create arbitrary rules and say its wrong to disrupt them.
Yes, we can. Go up a bit.
A person who creates such an argument must prove their rules aid a social contract theory premise
A "social contract theory" is defined as "the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live". I really don't know how this applies.
But Ego does not do this. Ego supports violent games while disallowing language, a contradiction which cannot be resolved.
Yes, it can. Go up and read my first paragraph.
Thus, I must state that ego is an immoral organization at this point, and must change their standards if they wish to be moral.
I'm going out on a limb to say that English isn't your first language, which is fine. I think you may mean "ethical" or "logical". An "immoral" organization would be Gawker or PETA. I can assure you, however, we are quite ethical and logical.
and only wish for an organization that does not have a contradictory policy that creates an immoral standard
I'm swapping out "immoral" for "illogical", since I believe that's what you meant. I believe it is quite illogical to tell a private organization they can't have rules for the public using things they own. We are well within our right to have rules and enforce them on servers we pay money for, however contradictory they may appear to some. I've explained why they are logically and morally sound earlier in this post.
Have a good day.
