On the Decline of Moral Politics

[magicninja]

Attack on one is an attack on all wasn't invented by the Equilibrium Coalition, it was first used by Umbrella in the Dave War, where they attacked the top tier of every alliance in the opposing coalition, except of course alliances they had a treaty with.

 
That's an attack on all by one......a bit different.

I fail to see why the "attack on one is an attack on all" is immoral. If a treaty is a document signed by two or more alliances, why the DoW or Coalition announcement, that is signed by various alliances leaders, can't be saw as a temporary treaty? I like the honesty of it, unlike the ghost declarations that used to be the normal procedure around here.

 
Ghost declarations are honest......... Edited May 5, 2013 by magicninja

[Chimaera]

The decline of moral politics comes along with the decline of everything else in this game, and the source of this can be explained by two simple terms: boredom and ennui.

 

Well, that was easy.

 

Morality is irrelevant.  Power is the end to all means, and the means to all ends.  Taking politically inappropriate actions for the sake of a supposed morality is the hallmark of a poor leader.

[rsoxbronco1]

Moralism is in the past. sell sell sell!

 

It's all about Honor Politics. Some will tell you the market has capped out but there's still gold to be had!

 

Honor Politics is buybuybuy.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

tl;dr because "moral politics" is an oxymoron.

[Lanore]

Don't know if its been said yet, but the most moral thing an alliance can do for itself and its allies is win coalition scale wars and properly project its power to desired effects. All else is merely circumstance, bread, and circumstances for the average player to occupy themselves with discussing in comparison to that simple moral motivation.

I cannot let my allies burn.
I cannot let my alliance fade.
All must be subject to my power.
For it is the only safety I can provide to myself and my own.

This is all morality at its core, and nothing else matters.

[Master Holton]

As much as many people in this thread would like to project or pretend, neither moralism nor morality is dead in this world. Leaders still sign treaties solely based on friendship with no regard to the political implications. The masses still revolt over a poor Casus Belli. We balk at the idea of leaving an ally out to dry after they do something foolish.

 

Moralism isn't dead, the definition of moralism has changed. As Schatt said above, "moralist" is something we'll call a person when we're trying to oust them. The new moralism is blind obedience to the treaty web. Follow your allies and if you don't you're a fool and an untrustworthy ally.

 

What Hereno is referring to is the evolution of moralism, rather than its decline. How nuke-first became the standard policy of the day because it gave an advantage to whoever didn't adhere to the norm.

[Subcomandante VL]

I agree that "moral" politics declined, and I think it's because politics is determined by a small minority of players that are too "cynic" and power-hungry to care for anything that isn't "material" success.

 

Nail, meet head. It's hard to be enthusiastic when one conquers everything there is to conquer. And roughly 80% of the wonderfully witty one-liner posts in this thread nicely exemplify this point.

 

"Let's all just make fun of and/or derail this thread that will go nowhere because we say it will go nowhere because no one reads this but us anyway." Seems to sum up virtually every attempt at a meaningful thread of late (unrelated to game mechanics, as Hereno aptly pointed out), no? Some of these posts were of course more contentless than others, but that's beside the point.

 

The game has become (relative to what it used to be) a small circle jerk of elites simply around to get in their next clever ego-boosting remark or concocted game event, mostly on impulse or past grievances. The problem is that people still follow morons like these anyway because they've been doing this for so long that it's truly believed within the ranks of alliances led by these people that no one else could do it any better, or if they're "retired," that they retain significant enough influence that their impulses still drive their respective alliances' policies, even if the general memberships (or even the newer governance) know little to nothing about shit that went down in 2008.

 

These egos have gotten so large that we even have fucking AMAs going on. On the Cybernations forums. I mean, really people?

 

And you wanna know what's even more telling? Look at the people asking the questions.

 

Nobody wants to get interested in this game anymore because you all make it uninteresting with your overly tired one-ups and wit, your party-line toeing that no one outside the in-crowd understands, and the cynicism coming out of nearly everyone I can think of off-hand except perhaps Jerdge here, and funnily enough he doesn't particularly involve himself in politics.

 

It isn't cynicism if you're actively opposing change (or if it is, then you're cynical about the consequences of your own hold on power? Think on that for a few moments please), so quit with the fucking charade and acting like you all don't give a shit about this game already. If you didn't, you wouldn't post all the fucking time.

 

And since we've established that caring about this game is a necessary condition for posting on these forums and ego-stroking as much as you fucks do, get off your asses and get some new opinions or (better yet) quit and bring in some fresh blood, because that's what the game needs if it's ever to become interesting again. It doesn't need your ego or your name-calling or your obscure legalistic nonsensical arguments about shit that happened five years or even one year ago. It needs your enthusiasm, presuming you have any left.

 

Edit: And I don't entirely remove myself from this category. Feel free to change all those "you"s to "we"s.

Edited May 11, 2013 by VladimirLenin

[youwish959]

Nail, meet head. It's hard to be enthusiastic when one conquers everything there is to conquer. And roughly 80% of the wonderfully witty one-liner posts in this thread nicely exemplify this point.
 
"Let's all just make fun of and/or derail this thread that will go nowhere because we say it will go nowhere because no one reads this but us anyway." Seems to sum up virtually every attempt at a meaningful thread of late (unrelated to game mechanics, as Hereno aptly pointed out), no? Some of these posts were of course more contentless than others, but that's beside the point.
 
The game has become (relative to what it used to be) a small circle jerk of elites simply around to get in their next clever ego-boosting remark or concocted game event, mostly on impulse or past grievances. The problem is that people still follow morons like these anyway because they've been doing this for so long that it's truly believed within the ranks of alliances led by these people that no one else could do it any better, or if they're "retired," that they retain significant enough influence that their impulses still drive their respective alliances' policies, even if the general memberships (or even the newer governance) know little to nothing about shit that went down in 2008.
 
These egos have gotten so large that we even have fucking AMAs going on. On the Cybernations forums. I mean, really people?
 
And you wanna know what's even more telling? Look at the people asking the questions.
 
Nobody wants to get interested in this game anymore because you all make it uninteresting with your overly tired one-ups and wit, your party-line toeing that no one outside the in-crowd understands, and the cynicism coming out of nearly everyone I can think of off-hand except perhaps Jerdge here, and funnily enough he doesn't particularly involve himself in politics.
 
It isn't cynicism if you're actively opposing change (or if it is, then you're cynical about the consequences of your own hold on power? Think on that for a few moments please), so quit with the fucking charade and acting like you all don't give a shit about this game already. If you didn't, you wouldn't post all the fucking time.
 
And since we've established that caring about this game is a necessary condition for posting on these forums and ego-stroking as much as you fucks do, get off your asses and get some new opinions or (better yet) quit and bring in some fresh blood, because that's what the game needs if it's ever to become interesting again. It doesn't need your ego or your name-calling or your obscure legalistic nonsensical arguments about shit that happened five years or even one year ago. It needs your enthusiasm, presuming you have any left.
 
Edit: And I don't entirely remove myself from this category. Feel free to change all those "you"s to "we"s.

I challenge your assertion that one must care to post.

[Blake Griffinin]

Final reminderer that this is an In Character thread in an In Character forum.

[Neo Uruk]

Final reminderer that this is an In Character thread in an In Character forum.

Not to be sassy, but I thought OWRP was OOC?

[potato]

Not to be sassy, but I thought OWRP was OOC?

 

It is.

 

"Open World RP
The hub of happenings in the alliance-driven political scene of the Cyber Nations World. Remember that all posts here are Out of Character."

[Roadie]

Attack on one is an attack on all wasn't invented by the Equilibrium Coalition, it was first used by Umbrella in the Dave War, where they attacked the top tier of every alliance in the opposing coalition, except of course alliances they had a treaty with.

 

It goes back further than that. I know that during DH/NPO, DH used it when we attacked GOONS and against ML when they countered the attacks from Umbrella. I presume it was also used well before that but I don't know for certain.

 

Personally, I see it a step toward real coalition warfare and away from this bunch of alliances vs. another bunch of alliances model that we've been stuck using.

 

Don't know if its been said yet, but the most moral thing an alliance can do for itself and its allies is win coalition scale wars and properly project its power to desired effects. All else is merely circumstance, bread, and circumstances for the average player to occupy themselves with discussing in comparison to that simple moral motivation.

I cannot let my allies burn.
I cannot let my alliance fade.
All must be subject to my power.
For it is the only safety I can provide to myself and my own.

This is all morality at its core, and nothing else matters.

 

The definition of morality has long been argued. I believe Lanore has finally settled that dispute. If there is one, this is it.

 

Nail, meet head. It's hard to be enthusiastic when one conquers everything there is to conquer. And roughly 80% of the wonderfully witty one-liner posts in this thread nicely exemplify this point.

 

"Let's all just make fun of and/or derail this thread that will go nowhere because we say it will go nowhere because no one reads this but us anyway." Seems to sum up virtually every attempt at a meaningful thread of late (unrelated to game mechanics, as Hereno aptly pointed out), no? Some of these posts were of course more contentless than others, but that's beside the point.

 

The game has become (relative to what it used to be) a small circle jerk of elites simply around to get in their next clever ego-boosting remark or concocted game event, mostly on impulse or past grievances. The problem is that people still follow morons like these anyway because they've been doing this for so long that it's truly believed within the ranks of alliances led by these people that no one else could do it any better, or if they're "retired," that they retain significant enough influence that their impulses still drive their respective alliances' policies, even if the general memberships (or even the newer governance) know little to nothing about shit that went down in 2008.

 

These egos have gotten so large that we even have fucking AMAs going on. On the Cybernations forums. I mean, really people?

 

And you wanna know what's even more telling? Look at the people asking the questions.

 

Nobody wants to get interested in this game anymore because you all make it uninteresting with your overly tired one-ups and wit, your party-line toeing that no one outside the in-crowd understands, and the cynicism coming out of nearly everyone I can think of off-hand except perhaps Jerdge here, and funnily enough he doesn't particularly involve himself in politics.

 

It isn't cynicism if you're actively opposing change (or if it is, then you're cynical about the consequences of your own hold on power? Think on that for a few moments please), so quit with the fucking charade and acting like you all don't give a shit about this game already. If you didn't, you wouldn't post all the fucking time.

 

And since we've established that caring about this game is a necessary condition for posting on these forums and ego-stroking as much as you fucks do, get off your asses and get some new opinions or (better yet) quit and bring in some fresh blood, because that's what the game needs if it's ever to become interesting again. It doesn't need your ego or your name-calling or your obscure legalistic nonsensical arguments about shit that happened five years or even one year ago. It needs your enthusiasm, presuming you have any left.

 

Edit: And I don't entirely remove myself from this category. Feel free to change all those "you"s to "we"s.

 

VL, you are by far the best Voice for the People we;ve had around these parts for a very long time. Keep at it.

[Katy Perry]

NG undone their (our?) entire philosophy though by sticking to the "we'll just follow treaties" approach.

I'm not sure I'd take it quite that far, and I think (hope) for NG, Eq was a one-off. We had allies and foes pretty well spread between both sides, and there wasn't that much preference for us to jump in on either. If there wasn't a treaty web, we'd have likely sat it out; we said "we'll just follow treaties" since there would be no other reason for us to join in than defending an ally.