It is a form of psychopathy. Basically you are saying that a layer of abstraction allows you to do almost anything. If you were playing a board game in the park, and I came by and wiped all you pieces of the board, would that be ok because its only a game? If you were playing a sport, and I walked out on the field and started sunbathing, or interducing a bunch of new balls to the court, that would be just fine, because its only a game? Why even bother to have rules in games then only allowed 5 people on the court at a time I DONT THINK SO!!!. At this point every game just will break down into a brawl. This is the same damn excuse that lets people make predatory loans and a host of other indirect crimes. Because the person on the computer/piece of paper is just an abstraction, a thing instead of a person, and not something that involves a moral decision. The break down of the banking system is a direct result of people performing cause never thinking/seeing/carring about effect. The intersession of a game between yours and my direct interaction does not change the fact that we are interacting one human being to another. And as such, that interaction, no matter what the mediary, is still governed by the rules of basic moral conduct in interactions between people. We can argue about the rights and responsibilities that are involved in our interaction, but do not think that we are not moral agents or moral patients just because we are in a game. Oh my goodness, well put. On a slightly off-topic note, it upsets me when people say 'end of story" or "/topic" in their post, like their post is the definitive final word in the argument. It just seems pretty arrogant to me.