Game About Killing Poachers Vies For Top Prize In Microsoft Student Tech Contest

theodp writes: GeekWire reports on a group of students from Nepal who will be competing for the $50K top prize in Microsoft's Imagine Cup student tech contest with a first-person shooter in which players track down and kill poachers. "Until and unless the player kills all the poachers," reads the description for Defend Your Territory, "he/she cannot progress to next level. To make the game more interesting, there will be lots of weapons and vehicles unlock." So, is this the inspiration Google needs to take their anti-poaching drone program to the next level?

Comments

Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have. It's fun. He was there on his knees in his tattered clothes, all trembling and mumbling and pleading for his life "have mercy have mercy I have a family to feed, I can't find a job, they've all been taken by foreigners, they don't even make me flip burgers because they say I'm too old. I have two little kids! please!". Of course I didn't care: I shot him just under the throat, cut off the head, skinned the body and cut it to pieces for the forest animals, then had the head stuff and mounted. I had it delivered to his family so he could be near them forever. :)

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[cheetah_spottycat]

That sounds pretty much like Far Cry 4.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

You did the right thing. No matter how destitute someone is, participating in the killing of endangered animals (genocide) means that person willingly forfeits their own worthless life. No one person or their family is worth the extinction of an entire population of animals.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Bueller_007]

Related Onion video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Opportunist]

Funny. Have you noticed that you could replace "poacher" with "burglar" and it would just work out, too?

With maybe the difference that you wouldn't be modded insightful but flamebait, because it's A-OK to blow someone's guts out over your stereo rather than some rhino horns.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, I've never killed a poacher. But I heard an almost identical sob story from a human kidney harvester who I hunted down. He claimed to have two little kids, and also claimed to have lost a burger flipping job, but I didn't have his head stuffed.

All you have proven is that we all agree that there are boundaries. Now can we return the very valid discussion of what they should be?

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[tlambert]

The term "genocide" only applies to people.

genocide
jensd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Richard Kirk]

Oh yes. And cut off his dick too, and use it as an aphrodisiac for rhinoceroses.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[DarkOx]

it's A-OK to blow someone's guts out over your stereo rather than some rhino horns.

Burglary is a very specific crime. In most places. It usually requires breaking and entering a residence at night. The reason its more serious than theft or simple B&E is society has a strong interest in people feeling safe in their own homes. People are likely to be home at night so there is greater danger. Those are legal reasons.

The practical ones are:
The burglar may decide to hurt or kill you and your family so that he isn't reported and described to the police. As you are not the one committing the crime and did not create the situation I think you are well justified in removing the danger, without waiting around to see what he or she is going to do. Sorry I don't see any moral or ethical problem with a shoot first ask questions later approach to someone who has invaded your home.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[DarkOx]

I take you point but we there is a very real and tangible difference between someone taking a deer out of season in the north woods of Minnesota and hunting a Rhino, Elephant or endangered Cat. Its entirely possible the first was done by mistake, ignorance of the hunting season etc, or the person really is trying to put some food on the table. I the Rhino case I will extend this benefit of doubt to say an aboriginal hunter using his peoples traditional tools etc. It strains credibility on the other hand to suggest the guys cruising the savanna in Jeeps with high power rifles, scopes, bait, chainsaws to dismember the corpses don't know exactly what they are doing. Its also hard to imagine they don't have at least some other options, given the found the money to acquire the vehicles, chainsaws, fuel, expensive weapons etc.

I think at some point we may have to recalibrate or moral compass a little bit to point somewhere besides humans are always the most important. There are 8.5 Billion of us. Its hard to get more commodity than that. As individuals we are all important to someone, but possibly near worthless to the world as a whole and perhaps even a detriment. So what should the collective we do when faced with someone who is bent on destroying something rare and possibly irreplaceable. Should we allow them to deprive the rest of us now and forever on an entire species like the black rhino? These people don't fear prison they know they either won't be caught or corruption will soon have them out. I am not saying its a simple calculation; certainly condoning or even looking the other way with regard to vigilantism is a slippery slope and its easy to imaging that path leading to all kinds of horrors or abuses but blindly accepting a philosophy of human life is fundamentally and always more important may not be right either.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Looks like everybody owes Jack Thompson an apology, video games really are just murder training/simulators.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[drinkypoo]

I have. It's fun. He was there on his knees in his tattered clothes,

Have you seen pics of poachers? By definition they aren't poor; their equipment is worth more than most people around them make in a year. They're dressed, typically, better than average for people wandering around the places where one kills endangered animals.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Opportunist]

And why is the life of some random Joe supposedly more important to me than the life of some random, say, rhino? I know neither, and there are more Joes about than rhinos, so technically the loss of a rhino would be more of a loss, due to scarcity.

Or so the laws of supply and demand tell me.

I'm all for "shoot first, ask later", but why does it apply to burglars but when it's applied to poachers it's suddenly causing some moral bullshit?

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[tompaulco]

The PETA loons are out tonight. I'd like to see how far you'd go into starvation before you do WHATEVER it takes to feed yourself.

Poachers aren't taking the job because they are starving. They have high powered weapons and expensive off road vehicles. They choose this profession because there is a huge amount of money in it, because, well it is illegal.
These people are the equivalent of of people in the U.S. who kill people for their sneakers.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[weilawei]

There are 8.5 Billion of us.

I think that you must see dead people. There are ~7.257 billion people, not 8.5 billion.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[alvinrod]

It wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who would pay for 'trophies' of poachers who were killed in the act. If you auctioned it off, I bet it would raise a decent amount of money for conservation efforts.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[guises]

That's not what legislation on the subject says, at least not in many states. In Texas, for example, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you and poses no danger to yourself or your family as long as they're carrying some possession of yours. Any possession, no matter how trivial.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Gosh, better not break into people's houses and rob them, then. There's a thought! Or at least do it somewhere else. My, this whole "people voting for the laws they want" thing is hard to understand, isn't it? We would all be much better off if the Council of Alphas made decisions for us, since they're more intelligent and therefore much less likely to make bad choices. (chuckle)

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Because there's a wide, yawning gulf between breaking into an occupied home at night and breaking the fish & game laws? Seriously, people aren't aware of this? There are hundreds of years of precedent. You gotta crack open a book one of these days and learn about your own culture. "Reason is the life of the law," and all that. Here's a good place to start. Remember, education is always a good thing. Then, you can learn the answer to your question. You're welcome in advance.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be demented not to recognize the value of human life.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a source for that? I doubt that even in Texas you're allowed to kill someone who's not in any way a danger to you...

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[kenj123]

Personally I shrug my shoulders over it. Population of Africa is growing so fast. Plus it the perfect location to feed Asia. Long term there will be no habitat for free ranging animals. OTOH, I don't mind that people are trying to stop poaching, it would be interesting to see how it plays out and its important to change peoples ethical outlook. But long term I wouldn't put money on big animals coming out a winner.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[nitehawk214]

Funny. Have you noticed that you could replace "poacher" with "burglar" and it would just work out, too?

With maybe the difference that you wouldn't be modded insightful but flamebait, because it's A-OK to blow someone's guts out over your stereo rather than some rhino horns.

Exactly. Then, change "burglar" to "foreigner" or "jew" or "fag" and, wow, look what we have done.

The ability to treat other humans as less than life is sociopathic. Even if the other humans are assholes and criminals. Teaching children to treat other humans like dirt makes you less than dirt.

But, we am going against the groupthink. It should be KILL KILL KILL, as long as we are killing the groups that are different from us, right?

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Grishnakh]

What do you think happens to a family who lives in a 3rd world country that owns no land, possibly displaced due to warfare, where there are thousands of people competing for jobs that barely pay enough for 1 person to survive off, let alone a family, no access to medical services, no access to clean water, no education and no hope of escaping the cycle of poverty?

Are you really that stupid? If these people are so dirt-poor, how exactly do they afford high-powered rifles capable of taking down elephants and rhinos, plus expensive all-terrain vehicles to chase them with?

Here's a hint: poachers aren't poor starving Africans, they're illegal big-game hunters with a lot of money, and they're in it to make even more money because it's so profitable. They're not even locals. They deserve to be shot.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[HornWumpus]

The smallpox virus is almost extinct and needs hosts!

I'm guessing your answer and your own standards makes you a 'selfish piece of shit'.

It depends on the species. There are very many insect species for example. Also don't look at the lying bastards that want to make each population of species legally their own species.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas penal code contains an unusual provision that grants citizens the right to use deadly force to prevent someone “who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”

In 2010, the law protected a Houston taco-truck owner who shot a man for stealing a tip jar containing $20.12. Also in Houston, a store clerk recently killed a man for shoplifting a twelve-pack of beer, and in 2008 a man from Laredo was acquitted for killing a 13-year-old boy who broke into his trailer looking for snacks and soda.

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[guises]

The Laredo case was a little more than shooting someone in his trailer. Here:

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in at night. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides said.

The survivors said they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano’s body outside.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Dashiva Dan]

Poaching is nothing more than firing a high powered rifle at a distance animal, waiting for it to die and then hacking off the parts that they want. Oh and a single rhino horn sells for $30,000 per pound.

You have the mental acuity of a child.

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary.
Poaching is not identical to hunting.
The PETA-type crowd don't see the difference, as both poaching and hunting usually involve killing animals, and they don't want any animals to die, or whatever.
(I don't take PETA seriously enough to keep up with their current policies, I just like the commercials where hot chicks get naked, sue me, just being honest.)
Poaching is stealing. Weather you kill the animal or sell it or keep it as a pampered pet, it's been poached.
As for why people poach, there's many different reasons, some we think are more acceptable than others, for instance - natives to an area that have had an external society invade and take over their hunting grounds, claim them as their own and criminalise the poachers who are just continuing to do what they've always done - live of the resources of the land around them. Then, of course, there's the other end of the spectrum, for instance - Poachers who just want their Rhino horns. Not all poachers have the same motivations or uses of their stolen animals.

(Hopefully this reply displays mental acuity a step beyond the parent)

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Dashiva Dan]

The term "genocide" only applies to people.

genocide jensd/ noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

I think he meant xenocide.
Personally (and I am pretty good with statistics) I think that outside of endangered species, the chance of a poacher achieving xenocide is going to be pretty damn rare, but feel free to point out any evidence of a xenocidal incidents by a majority of poachers, I mighta just missed it.
(And yes, poaching includes much more than endangered species)

...however i've noticed about 9 out of 10 posts this thread are super exaggerated or focused on a narrow segment of the worst/most altruistic poachers, depending on the argument that is trying to be made, and as such, they're kind of pointless arguments.

(Yeah, I'm in a pointless mood though, so still posting myself, trying to improve the balance of common sense)

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Dashiva Dan]

You'd be demented not to recognize the value of human life.

I value the recognisable dementedness of human life.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Dashiva Dan]

Stop making sense!
Next thing you'll be saying we should split poachers into 3 categories:

1)Those who knowingly kill endangered species for profit
2)Those who take someone else's animal property for profit
3)Those who support selves/families/communities on the local wildlife in a non-financial fashion

But then everyone could get justifiably upset with #1, lump #2 in with common criminals, and agree that #3 often should be acceptable.
That wouldn't make for a good /. discussion.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Dashiva Dan]

The markets kill animals to extinction, not the poachers.

Yes, like gun makers kill people, not gunmen.

Disclosure, I stopped reading your post beyond the initial bit quoted above.
I think you should go and educate yourself a little bit, and think about what the gp said, and what it actually means.
Hopefully you will discover that:
a) If there were no gun makers, people would still kill people, arguably just as much.
b) If there was no market for endangered animal parts, poachers, conversely, would stop hunting endangered animals, (If you want to argue, probably not 100%, there's always a few nut cases out there, but arguably not to extinction)

If you read this, and realise your mistake, I'm happy to read an updated reply.
(Naturally, even if you don't read/think/self educate, you can still post an ignorant reply, and I'll probably read that too, but doubtful I'll expend any further time replying, but who knows?)

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Opportunist]

I guess anyone accepting this cannot with a straight face complain about laws designed to benefit those that make them on the expense of everyone else. Because, well, it's the same thing.

Yes, of course breaking into your home is a worse crime than mowing down everything alive in a forest with a gatling gun. Because we make the laws and we live in homes rather than forests.

Reason is not the life of the law. Being the one that makes it is. Not that I'm against it, far from it, but at least let's be honest and accept that the main reason why it is that way is not that it's sensible but that we make them laws and hence get to dictate what's "just".

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much for the aforementioned preferential treatment, but it gets kinda silly when people mount the high horse of morality while doing so.

Re:Ever killed a poacher?

[Opportunist]

Guess I'm demented. I don't see the value of human life. What's valuable about human life? There is neither a tangible nor an intangible advantage of having more humans around. It only increases competition for me.

No chance of winning

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the concept, but it's not politically correct enough to kill people for it to have a chance.

Re:No chance of winning

[N1AK]

If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.

Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer. We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

Re:No chance of winning

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

It would be better if you got to play as a lion/hyena/rhino. More original and less morally ambivalent.

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

No, we don't.

That's still every Batman game.

Re:No chance of winning

[guises]

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

... Well, we make games about it. And movies. And books, and comic books, and we plaster the faces of our fictional vigilantes all over billboards and buses and soft drink cups and onto the toys that our children play with.

I mean, we don't encourage it. ::wink:: But yeah, we encourage it.

Re:No chance of winning

[mjm1231]

I think it's important to point out that just because a work of fiction is about something does not mean it encourages it. Romeo and Juliet doesn't encourage suicide, SIlence of the Lambs doesn't encourage serial killing, etc..

Re:No chance of winning

[martas]

Good thing Grand Theft Auto didn't win any awards, otherwise we'd have millions of kids who became encouraged to kill hookers and blow up cop cars.

Re:No chance of winning

[Xest]

"If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'. "

Why? We already hand out awards left, right, and centre to games that encourage this. How is an award for a game like Battlefield Hardline where encouraging the killing of low level drug dealers or small time smugglers any different? Do we treat it differently because it's an indie attempt?

But let's be clear, you imply poachers are minor criminals. That's a bit of a stretch. Poaching comes in all flavours, at one end there's the guy with a small rifle shooting a Pheasant one day outside hunting season in rural England because he got his dates muddled up but takes the pheasant home to eat. Then there's the guy trying to make a quick buck to pay off a debt and as a result ends up funding a Mexican drug cartel that takes and sells on the black market an endangered cactus he pulled out of it's habitat for a few thousand dollars. Then there's the Africans poaching endangered species without a care to sell them as food and inadvertently bringing the world Ebola and AIDS as a result. Then at the other end of the scale, there's the organised crime groups who destroy an entire herd of elephants, and kill all the circling vultures to boot, shooting a gamekeeper and local or two that catch them and using the proceeds of this poaching to help fund groups like IS and Boko Haram. All of these things are poaching. Not all of them can have the perpertrators listed simply as minor criminals - really the descriptions here range from accidental criminal, to desperate guy, to fucking idiot, to worst type of criminal going, and there are of course examples outside those I just gave.

"We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc."

Well that's not entirely true, I think those things are actually the key justifications for supporting vigilante groups, and acting directly as a state against groups like IS.

So here's the question, if we're willing to do it then, is it really such a stretch to also hunt down, or encourage the hunting down of those industrial scale poachers that are also involved in murder, rape, and the funding of groups like IS? If it in turn decreases finances for groups like IS and cripples them then is it not a viable alternative to just fruitlessly trying to bomb them directly?

My usual disclaimer applies- I'm not pretending I know the answer, because I don't have enough evidence to way the pros and cons, and even if I did it'd still be a wholly subjective choice at the end of the day depending on your personal values, but I don't think this is as simple an issue as being suggested. It would be reasonably possible for example to make the case that by hunting and killing poachers involved in criminal and terrorist funding we'd actually save a lot more civilian lives in the long run because poachers themselves take human lives both directly and indirectly, but again, whether killing even one bad person to save many innocent is acceptable is really a very personal choice and probably depends on how utilitarian your views are.

Re:No chance of winning

[drinkypoo]

Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer.

It's not the whole answer, but you can't afford to quibble over the "right" thing to do. Yes, they need to improve quality of life so that less people will think it's a good idea. But this is now a military scenario. There's a scarce supply of a limited resource we're trying to protect, and it's under assault by armed invaders. The first step is to shoot the attackers. The second step is to make a better world. Both steps have to come repeatedly, 1-2-1-2 if we're going to save the Rhinos, or whatever.

Of course, if we really want to shoot someone to save the Rhino, shouldn't we be shooting up the IMF or the World Bank?

Re:No chance of winning

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

It would be better if you got to play as a lion/hyena/rhino. More original and less morally ambivalent.

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

No, we don't.

That's still every Batman game.

Batman/comic book industry generally had a no kill rule. That's a very weak example of a dark vigilante.

Wouldn't be much of a batarang if it just stuck in the dudes.

Re:No chance of winning

[ArcadeMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

Killing a murderer makes you a murderer. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else.

That sort of system would be such a clusterfuck of people killing people.

The dark ages but with modern weaponry? No thanks.

Re:No chance of winning

[N1AK]

So here's the question, if we're willing to do it then, is it really such a stretch to also hunt down, or encourage the hunting down of those industrial scale poachers that are also involved in murder, rape, and the funding of groups like IS?

No more of a stretch than it is to put out cash rewards for killing any number of other criminals.

Tell me where I can pick up my reward for knocking off some of the bank executives that caused the financial crisis and then I'll accept that we see violence as a solution to crime (other than crime that involves killing Africans who we care less about than the animals that live nearby).

Re:No chance of winning

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to know that, if you're guilty,

That is the problem with what you are suggesting. Vigilantes and angry mobs are terrible at determining who is truly guilty, but they do always manage to find a 'guilty party'. Additionally, people don't 'need to know' something that is false and has always been false.

Re:No chance of winning

[Xest]

Well I think it is more of a stretch, because no society is even remotely considering dealing with the problem of bank executive, as abhorrent as their actions are, with violence.

But many society have decided that dealing with violent criminal gangs with violence is an acceptable move, thus, it is in fact far less of stretch to think that dealing with such gangs that engage in poaching in the same way is a plausible option.

I don't really understand your bracketed sentence, it seems contradictory - you seem to be suggesting violence is okay to protect Africans, but not the animals that live near by, and yes, protection of the animals that live near by does inherently protect Africans, that's kind of the point.

I have posted before some examples of why poaching in places like Africa isn't a human victimless crime, some examples of how poaching can lead to the death of Africans (and non-Africans) in the following ways:

- Directly, where poachers kill African wardens and locals who bump into the poachers

- Poachers often poison the carcasses of animals they've killed, they do this to kill the vultures that feed on the carcasses, this is because the circling vultures give away the position of poacher activities to the authorities. This has led to the deaths of locals in the following ways:

1) The poison has made it into the limited water supplies in the region

2) The lack of vultures due to their populations being decimated from this sort of practice has led to spread of disease from decaying carcasses- disease can then be spread and kill by eating, by seeping into water supplies, or spread by insects. Vultures job in nature is to dispose of said carcasses so this doesn't happen

3) Other creatures may come into contact with the poison and are themselves used as a food source by locals, leading to the locals also ingesting the poison and dying

- Poachers have been known to destroy entire herds of elephants, destroying entire local ecosystems in the process. Some fruit bearing trees requires elephants to reach and eat the seeds, and shit them out where they grow. The saplings and the trees themselves when they make it to adulthood provide food to locals and their livestock. Without the elephants to spread and germinate these plants these species have been dying out causing subsequent death by starvation in some villages. Elephants are but one example - all poaching to the point of extinction or near extinction cripples ecosystems, destroying them not just for the animals, but also the humans that depend on them.

- Poaching funds human death. It funds terrorism, organised crime gangs, and drug cartels. It helps these groups afford weapons and explosives, which they use to kill people.

- Poaching creates no go areas and has killed tourism in some parts of Africa, this has destroyed livelihoods and had the obvious negative effects on people's ability to survive in those areas.

Thus, I'm not really sure why you think protecting animals against poaching, and protecting Africans (though it's not just Africans that are victims of poaching - these direct and indirect killings from poaching happen elsewhere too, i.e. prominently in Asia) are two separate things, they're not, they're deeply intertwined. The animals and the people who live in Africa do not live isolated and unlinked lives, people are as much dependent on ecosystems as animals, and both are necessary for each other to survive in an environment.

But this is true anywhere, even in places like the UK where the natural ecosystem has been destroyed and replaced largely with invasive species. For example, non-native ticks to the UK for example have led to people contracting lyme disease. Their natural predators are typically creatures like Pheasants, and Turkeys, but as we cull pheasant populations and such on a large scale, ticks can spread unchallenged, which means the prevalance of lyme disease (and the cost financially and in terms of human health has grown):

Re:No chance of winning

[flopsquad]

If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.

That's rather minimizing the butchery of many species (including intelligent primates like gorillas) to near extinction. You even call it a major issue in the next sentence. These are not smash and grab kids or poor Jean Valjeans hunting the only food they can find to feed their starving families. These are well-financed, cold-blooded killing operations with expensive gear.

Advocating their execution may be in poor taste, but I wouldn't call it "being a dick." And I'm not convinced that using potentially lethal means (e.g. gunfire) to stop a poaching operation in progress would be wholly unwarranted.

Re:No chance of winning

[Darinbob]

We should go back to wholesome family entertainment, like "Grand Theft Auto: Nepal".

Re:No chance of winning

[Grishnakh]

Killing a murderer makes you a murderer. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else.

Imprisoning a murderer makes you an imprisoner. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should be imprisoned doesn't make it something else.

Are you saying we shouldn't imprison people too? After all, if you abduct someone and imprison them in your house for a decade, the penalty is quite severe as you're robbing them of a large portion of their lifetime. So why is it OK to do that to criminals?

The simple fact is that we, as a society, have to do bad things to some people in order to keep society functioning smoothly. If we don't, they will destroy society. And I fail to see how killing someone is worse than imprisoning them for most or all of their lifetime, and subjecting them to horrible living conditions.

Re:No chance of winning

[Grishnakh]

It IS warranted, and it's exactly what many African countries do: they use military troops to protect these animals, and they shoot poachers on sight.

It's a good thing first-worlders aren't in charge of protecting these animals from well-financed poachers, because they'd all be extinct now.

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

In reference to your first question, one is acceptable to almost all of society, the other is abhorred by almost all of society. So you can make your own mind up on that one.

Criminals are not abducted. The societal contract is laid out clearly in law. So after committing a crime one knows one may go to jail/prison as the penalty. They are not robbed of their life as a free person. They chose to do actions that entailed a clear penalty.

The whole point of jail is that it is meant to be good conditions to rehabilitate the prisoners. At one end of the scale you have some European prison systems that do this amazingly well, with very low recidivist offender rates. At the other end of the scale are some third world country prisons where the prisoners are kept in horrendous conditions. These horrendous prisons should not exist. If this is the state of your local prisons then you need to lobby to get it fixed.

You might argue that if we legalise murder as a punitive penalty then they are choosing their path if they commit the crime - and that would be valid if we legalised it. But you argued the point as a corollary to abducting and imprisoning as a crime - so you'll have to change your stance to argue that (which I'm fine with). And even then, it still doesn't make it right.

People get it wrong - all the time, they'll fuck up and kill innocents, or they'll simply murder an innocent and say the victim was doing something they shouldn't have been doing (and dead people don't argue back). And I expect the second example will happen a lot.

This is why we have due process instead. But even due process gets it wrong some of the time. So then once again you're killing innocent people.

There is no them and us - so "they" won't destroy society, we all will if we don't act accordingly. And making prison systems instead of torturing, maiming, or killing people who have wronged someone else is a mainstay of "society".

Consider, if we allow murder to become super easily justifiable by persons committing it, will you be at the top of the food chain? Or will you end up a victim? The numbers don't look good for your average Joe in this situation.

Do you want "The Purge" to be reality?

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

That happened to the last man executed in my state.

Re:No chance of winning

[Grishnakh]

In reference to your first question, one is acceptable to almost all of society, the other is abhorred by almost all of society. So you can make your own mind up on that one.

So your argument is that society is correct by definition? Isn't that a tautology?

There have been other societies (including colonial American society) where prison was seen as cruel and unusual punishment, and that punishments should be swift, rather than dragging on for years or decades.

The whole point of jail is that it is meant to be good conditions to rehabilitate the prisoners. At one end of the scale you have some European prison systems that do this amazingly well, with very low recidivist offender rates. At the other end of the scale are some third world country prisons where the prisoners are kept in horrendous conditions.

So a tiny minority of prisons worldwide are doing it right? While the vast majority are horrendous? Doesn't that indicate that society is wrong? America has 25% of the world's incarcerated population, with just 5% of the global population. Our society seems happy to have shitty prisons and people locked up for decades for possessing a plant. Seems to me that going by what society thinks is a bad idea. Nazi German society thought it was a great idea to murder people by the millions just for being different. Aztec society thought it was cool to have human sacrifice.

Your logic is completely broken: in one post, you argue that just because a group of people ("society") decides to murder someone doesn't make it right, but then you argue that just because society decides to lock someone away for decades and torture them, that that's perfectly fine. You can't have it both ways.

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

No, my argument is not that society is correct by definition. You asked a question - should we imprison people and is it OK? I didn't answer your question and instead pointed you to making your own mind up on it, and provided some information to help you.

I didn't say it was a tiny minority. I don't know the statistics and I doubt you do either. You're welcome to look them up but I wouldn't bother for the sake of this discussion.

My country has good quality prisons and reasonable rehabilitation rates.

My logic is not broken. In my first post I said that "Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else." Later I wrote that even if we were to legislate for wholesale punitive murder that "...even then, it still doesn't make it right". You've combined the two, but it's close enough that I'll accept it.

In regards to prisons, I never wrote that they are right. They aren't necessarily good. But we know from historical contexts that prison is better than the alternative of wholesale punitive murder. I.e. I've argued they are better than the alternative.

I'll reiterate my most salient points:

That sort of system would be such a clusterfuck of people killing people.

The dark ages but with modern weaponry? No thanks.

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

Yes.

The difference is the "sheet of paper with laws voted on by a consenting group of people" and that some people think that legislating something makes it "right".

Re:No chance of winning

[Grishnakh]

My country has good quality prisons and reasonable rehabilitation rates.

Then your country is a very rare exception. For most of the world's population, prison is nothing more than miserable torture. You can't just say "well make the prisons nice like the ones in my country!"; that's like telling a dumb person who failed his algebra test to just get smart and ace it like you did. Or telling a country with severe economic problems to just become a utopian society where there's no money, like on Star Trek.

But we know from historical contexts that prison is better than the alternative of wholesale punitive murder.

We know that how? You still haven't proven that it's better to be tortured in a squalid prison cell and be subject to constant rape, for decades, than it is to be quickly (and presumably not too painfully) executed.

Re:No chance of winning

[harlequinn]

"Then your country is a very rare exception."

Stats?

It's not like your examples at all. It's a gradual process that happens through pressure on politicians from the population to achieve change. This happens over time along with gradual improvement in other areas. But if people don't ask for it or attempt it, it certainly won't change.

"We know that how?"

Firstly, I'm specifically not comparing it to third world style hell haven prisons. I've made that clear.

Secondly, using the US as an example, everyone on death row exhausts every appeal they have before they are finally executed because they want to live. Even in shitty US prisons they would prefer life over death. This is not something new. This is not surprising.

As long as there is demand

[invictusvoyd]

There will be supply . Can't kill all the poachers . Kill the demand .

Re:As long as there is demand

[Feral Nerd]

There are less poachers than buyers, so it's easier to kill the poachers than the buyers.

There are fewer drug suppliers than there are drug addicts so it's easier to put the onus of fighting the war on drugs on the countries where the suppliers are located. The resounding success of this the ongoing war on drugs bears this out. Year after years drug production has decreased and the drug problem in the USA an Europe has diminished to the point of......uh..... never mind.

Re:As long as there is demand

[paul_metcalfe]

Agreed. Making poaching illegal or punishable just makes the animal products rarer and more expensive, but doesn't stop the problem.

Re:As long as there is demand

[Anonymous Coward]

My countries solution has been to legalize most of it, so we don't have as big a drug war.
Maybe the same would work for poaching?

Re:As long as there is demand

[Opportunist]

It's not like it has to be either-or...

Re:As long as there is demand

[mjm1231]

On the other hand, the resurgence in supply has had a dramatic impact on heroin usage rates in US recently.

Oh, and if you think the US "War on Drugs" was primarily directed at supply side, you're somewhat... misinformed.

Re:As long as there is demand

[XxtraLarGe]

Oh, and if you think the US "War on Drugs" was primarily directed at supply side, you're somewhat... misinformed.

The supply side isn't as lucrative for the legal-industrial prison system.

Re:As long as there is demand

[Translation Error]

The way poachers are going (along with destruction of habitat), there won't be a supply before too long.

Re:As long as there is demand

[ArcadeMan]

3. Offer the option of getting the reward in crypto-currency to protect the anonymity of the caller.

Re:As long as there is demand

[tompaulco]

My countries solution has been to legalize most of it, so we don't have as big a drug war. Maybe the same would work for poaching?

Maybe they are onto something. We should legalize poaching, too. Then it is no longer a problem. We won't have any large mammals on the planet other than humans, but the problem WOULD be solved.
And if we legalize murder, then we wouldn't have any humans either. Then we REALLY wouldn't have all of these problems with illegal acts happening.

Re:As long as there is demand

[HornWumpus]

Has more to do with baby boomers getting old, their doctors giving them opiate scripts like candy and their kids/grandkids getting into the Oxy.

Re:As long as there is demand

[HornWumpus]

Elephants eat cats? (Simpsons ref)

Holly Windstalker

[Anonymous Coward]

Play as Holly Windstalker?

Re: Holly Windstalker

[Hecubas]

You've ruined your lands...

Re:But... but... humans are better than animals!

[Opportunist]

And one has to wonder... The Chinese government routinely kills people over other piddly crap, why not that one?

Re:Replace POACHER with infidel and you have a mat

[Opportunist]

They're already doing the LARP version of it.

How real poacher-killing goes:

[Rick in China]

I was on a hike in the Virunga mountains, specifically right on the border between Rwanda and Congo. We were on a Mountain Gorilla trek, and after a few hours of hiking our guide pointed out, with the note, "don't be afraid" - a guy in green way up in a tree with an assault rifle.

They're basically campers.

Re:How real poacher-killing goes:

[tlambert]

We were on a Mountain Gorilla trek, and after a few hours of hiking our guide pointed out, with the note, "don't be afraid" - a guy in green way up in a tree with an assault rifle.

They're basically campers.

They were camping the Mountain Gorilla respawn point?

If they're just going to respawn, then it's not really killing, is it?

Re:How real poacher-killing goes:

[Rick in China]

They're the poacher-killers, not the poachers! The gorillas unfortunately don't respawn their paws, so the poacher-killers camp up in the trees waiting for the invading Congolese poachers (who I presume spawn in Congo) to sleuth about through the thick jungle dropping traps.

Alternate and tradiational medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the animal, much of the poaching is done for traditional Chinese medicine, "alternate" medicine and other superstitions reasons.

So, when we can stop being politically correct and start saying that traditional medicine is complete horseshit - and educate the alternate medicine kooks in the Western World - we can start reducing demand.

Re:Alternate and tradiational medicine

[HornWumpus]

Viagra should have cut demand. Boner pills that work should drive out boner powders that don't.

Re:Alternate and tradiational medicine

[Grishnakh]

You can't educate alternative medicine kooks in the western world. They don't believe in science, for one thing, and they think the government is actively suppressing the "truth" about alternative medicine. There's a reason they're "kooks"; your term is accurate.

Hunting / poaching by drones

[kaur]

I have wondered when will poachers start using drones themselves.
Drones will be much more useful for finding / killing game than for protecting them.
When a serious hunting drone makes it to the market, the rhino etc population will be down within a few months.

Fiction vs. Reality

[Kunedog]

If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.

That a game depicts (and even glorifies) some kind of evil (or just "being a dick") behavior doesn't mean it "encourages" that behavior in the real world. We know the difference and we don't need you or anyone else to police content for us.

Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer. We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

Correct. But we of course do make shitloads of games where such behavior is depicted (and even glorified). Do you get it yet?

Re:Fiction vs. Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Games are fun specifically because you can be a dick. In pretty much every game made, you are a dick to someone or there would be no game. I'm sure the ghosts in Pac-Man think it's a dick move when you power up and eat them. And those little mushroom guys must really think Mario is a tremendous douchebag for murdering many of their friends. The enemies in Doom are all just kind of hanging out, existing peacefully, at least until the player character comes crashing through, guns blazing. Yeah, Doomguy is a dick and that's the way it should be.

Re:Fiction vs. Reality

[ArcadeMan]

If you think Doomguy is a dick, wait until you hear about DukeNukemguy...

Re:Fiction vs. Reality

[N1AK]

When exactly did I police content. I get plenty more than ignorant fools who jump to unsubstantiated conclusions tyvm. I'm just not stupid enough to think a game about killing people is going to win in a competition which, to use its own description:

Imagine Cup is a global student technology program and competition that provides... solutions that can change the way we live, work and play.

Re:Fiction vs. Reality

[Grishnakh]

Not only that, the ghosts in Pac-Man aren't even doing anything intentionally to hurt Pac-Man: they're just following the exact same movement pattern they always do. It's not their fault he decided to invade their maze.

Killing poachers should be legal

[danbuter]

Killing poachers should be completely legal. Heck, have safaris where rich guys can hunt them using high-powered elephant rifles.

Re:Killing poachers should be legal

[ArcadeMan]

Surely you meant "high-powered poacher rifles"?

Re:Killing poachers should be legal

[Grishnakh]

It IS completely legal in many of those places: those countries have armed troops out there looking for them, and they shoot poachers on sight.

I don't know that it'd be legal for some random person to shoot them though, but it is perfectly legal for their troops.

Multiplayer?

[wardrich86]

Could be the new CS! Poachers have to kill off all the animals while the anti-poachers have to kill off all the poachers. Whichever goes extinct first wins.

Re:But... but... humans are better than animals!

[XxtraLarGe]

The Chinese government routinely kills people over other piddly crap, why not that one?

Because the people who can afford rhino horns & tiger penises can also afford to bribe the officials.

Paired with Google Drones!!

[ripvlan]

Imagine --- FPS on XBox through the Google Drones as a live view. Game play that makes it Real!!!

Bounties could be offered by each country for those extra special poachers.

Oh yeah baby!!

Apparently...

[ckatko]

Nobody read TFA.

It took all of 5 seconds to load the page and read that:

The game is set in a futuristic world where decades of poaching has knocked Earth’s ecosystem off-kilter and left the planet a barren dessert. The last hope for restoration involves sending a cyborg back in time to hunt the poachers.

Your stopping poachers to save humanity.

And if you can use backstory to allow people kill thousands of demons, zombies, sentient robots, nazis and communists; why the hell are poachers any different? What makes the games you played so magically okay? Did you blow up Megaton in Fallout 3? Because then by your own logic you're now just encouraged nuclear terrorism.

Get off your damn high horses and realize it's not 1995, you're not Jack Thompson, and video games don't encourage people to kill people.

Re:Apparently...

[ckatko]

Also, Slashdot editor? You're a sensationalizing prick.

Re:Apparently...

[Coren22]

theodp writes:

Slashdot doesn't have editors. Slashdot has people with the title of editor who are really story approvers. They very rarely do anything you might consider to be editing.

You hear Ted Nugent mumbling in the distance

[almondo]

Terrible Ted is going to find his head up on a wall over this.