That's an excellent video and is a great example of what I'm trying to do here. The "if it explicitly isn't against the rules, I might as well see how long I can get away with it." Mindset.
I thought the video was excellent as well, but now I must argue for the sentiment I believe
@Stephen Longshanks was gunning for earlier. Mainly towards the "if it explicitly isn't against the rules".
I believe that is where the 'ethic/moral twisting' can occur, if we look at rules on a meta-level. The video did a good job of walking us through how, at first, Roger seemed like a malicious actor, but then they reveal he wasn't just doing it for 'cheap' wins/points. It was more for refining the rules and we could argue that Hockey was improved by having more specific rules (depends on your viewpoint and experiences with lawyers, I suppose). I assume that's where the disconnect occurs between different claims of moral standards. If the player is purely motivated by selfish benefit, a plunder party could be seen as malicious collusion and the people who participate it as morally bankrupt. Yet mechanically, it's not much different from FP swap threads, which I have not seen a 'malicious collusion' argument for. The difference? The twisting of the 'spirit' of a rule versus the specific rule.
If plunder is meant to be a competition between city defense/offense, with the victor having a secondary competition to determine if they steal something as a reward, then I see why a plunder party is violating the spirit of the competition and thus a twisted ethical/moral standard. FP swap threads don't suffer from that potential violation since they chiefly fear someone cheating others by NOT donating FP due to potentially lax enforcement/oversight on FP swaps. Even though FP swaps are mechanically similar to the plunder party idea: An agreement between individuals to use a system to collaborate and help maximize their individual benefits. I also think of traffic signals for cars and cross-walks for pedestrians. The spirit of the law is meant to protect everyone on and near the road, thus increasing everyone's ability to pursue liberty, joy, happiness, etc. Is it necessary to ticket every jay-walker, especially if they cross the road in a deserted area? Specific mechanical law would dictate it is so, but that seems contrary to the spirit of the law. The issue with spirit/intent is it's abstract inexactness, which can lead to conflicting interpretations and muddling intent.
The "if it explicitly isn't against the rules, I might as well see how long I can get away with it" mindset is probably a common mantra for any criminal element, which understandably upsets anyone who wants a good, clean, fair game/society. I'm sure most of us can think of how a 'rules lawyer' has used(possibly twisted) the rules of a game to their benefit and how annoyed we have been with 'that guy'. Thus resulting in more specific rules(Roger...!) or house rules to adjust to the new 'fair' benchmark. I guess my end point is: Someone will always find a way to game the system, we just have to remain vigilant to see if the new 'fair' is 'more fair' to one group over another.
Anywho, I think it'd be a long time before I have the infrastructure to profit from a plunder party, so I'll stick to 'running really fast in certain contribution races' and FP swaps, for now.