There was a lot of talk about this subject at GDC this year. Lots of designers feel really uncomfortable with the Skinner box overtones of some of the facebook games and constant reinforcement that's become a standard part of the design toolkit. If the only thing you're offering is a slot machine or Skinner box without something else, then I personally think ethical questions start becoming important. But I also think that you've moved beyond the realm of designing and developing games and into the realm of gambling systems.
Addictive games that are addictive because they're compelling products that people have fun with? I find it hard to have any ethical qualms about making those. I have been a victim of Civilization's "just one more turn" effect since the early nineties, but I don't think there's any ethical stain on Sid Meier, Bryan Reynolds, Soren Johnson, or any of their teams. Sure, parts of these games could be viewed as psychologically manipulative, but then again, so could changing elements of a website according to psychological principles to increase conversion. The ethics and morality of using these tools hinges on intent.
#3 is what always confuses me about the argument that switching to real names would in and of itself make flames and trolling less common.
That said, I don't think this is necessarily something where solid evidence matters. It seems to me that requiring real names is much more about making bloggers and journalists who consistently have their real names attached to postings feel more on an even footing with their commentariat. See, for example, this post on crosscut where Ted Van Dyk argues that he feels more comfortable with a critic that has a real name attached: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19530/Should-online-commen... Is that about categorical differences in comment quality, or personal comfort within a newsroom?
There's still a fair number of Java-based web games out there, and lots of older web games were made in Shockwave instead of Flash. Flash is certainly dominant amongst newer web games, but lots of old games stick around in various portals.
They disabled the button on the privacy setting page, but as of a few moments ago, this url still worked:
http://www.facebook.com/[your short url]?viewas=[id]
Edit: The button from the privacy settings page is working again.
In general, though, cutting chat while trying to fix this is probably a Good Idea. Less room for bad things to happen assuming you can turn chat off more quickly than you can fix the behavior.
Addictive games that are addictive because they're compelling products that people have fun with? I find it hard to have any ethical qualms about making those. I have been a victim of Civilization's "just one more turn" effect since the early nineties, but I don't think there's any ethical stain on Sid Meier, Bryan Reynolds, Soren Johnson, or any of their teams. Sure, parts of these games could be viewed as psychologically manipulative, but then again, so could changing elements of a website according to psychological principles to increase conversion. The ethics and morality of using these tools hinges on intent.