@Peonso
Your argument implies that the public can never be accused when a game fails, what's don't the truth at all.
When I said about aggressor and victim, I'm talking about the argues here looks like the argue that people use too much (in real life cases). Let me explain with examples, even if I gave one in my other commentary.
Exemple one:
Suppose I forget my wallet on the bank of the square and someone else sees. Instead of warning me and giving it back, she simply steals it.
When I complain to someone, she says it's my fault for forgetting.
Is this really true? Is it really my fault to have forgotten, or the one of the person who stole it by not acting right?
Exemple two:
Night Wolf said that some people exploited as much as possible the bugs they found on his server and that was one of the causes of server failure.
So is he really to blame for letting some bugs through or is it the people who exploited them without reporting them to be fixed?
Both examples speak of the same thing, in distinct realities (real and virtual life), which is the deviance of behavior than is expected from those who seek to act in the right way.
So, we have three answer:
First: If you think that in example one, the fault is not of who was stolen, and in example two it is the fault of Night Wolf for having let pass some bugs. So you believe that in the virtual world, people can act dishonestly, externalizing everything they can not do in real life, totally free of guilty.
Second:If you think both are wrong, you contradict your line of reasoning.
Third: If you think both are right, well, I think there's something wrong with your character.