Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

The myth of cowardice

Posted by Lamuella , 27 March 2011 · 131 views

of all the words thrown around in this war, I think the most irritating must be "coward".

Both sides are guilty of it, and at a superficial level it works as propaganda. If your enemy is using a tactic you don't like, being able to make your opponent look cowardly for using it can look tempting as a way of gaining a footing in the PR war.

The problem is that it gets used in contexts where it simply makes no sense. Cowardice, if used properly, suggests more than a lack of bravery. It suggests the opposite of bravery, of being willing to accept any consequence as an alternative to pain. An alliance that, for example, refuses to honour an MDP because it knows it will get beaten up, is cowardly.

Because the label of coward is so incredibly toxic (especially after the incidents immediately prior to the Karma war), being able to label someone a coward becomes an incredibly powerful PR weapon, and thus moves that aren't in and of themselves cowardly get painted that way. I'll present an example from either side in this conflict.

Strategic use of peace mode is not in and of itself cowardly. I'm in peace mode right now as I reload and ready myself to get back out on the battlefield. Being able to shield nations until they are strategically useful is not automatically a cowardly act. Of course, there are cowardly uses of peace mode, as I'm sure everyone will agree, but peace mode itself is simply a game option to be used as nations see fit.

Calling in allies is not in and of itself cowardly. I'm growing increasingly bored with the line of argument that runs "LOL, Doomhouse are doing so badly they had to bring in friends!". This is a political world that runs on alliance building every bit as much as nation building. Denying yourself the help of your friends is as nonsensical as denying yourself the use of aircraft, or refusing to accept aid. Friends are a resource, and a valued one. The use of any resource is to be carefully considered, but it shouldn't be rejected just because someone thinks it is "cowardly". People who crow about one side or another "having to" call in friends are in effect jeering at the other side for having friends to call in.

I understand the use of rhetoric in the game. I understand that a well placed word can turn opinions just as readily as a well placed attack can turn the tide on the battlefield. However, let's retire the "coward" thing unless it's actually applicable. There are still plenty of stick insults you can use for each other.

It's not like I asked you to stop calling your enemies dishonorable.




Photo
HeroofTime55
Mar 27 2011 10:53 AM
Thank you for this, hopefully now both sides will stop with this nonsense.
You're a coward for posting this blog. :mad:
Panfilo is a coward :smug:
Well said, Lamuella. Unfortunately, I doubt the PR slingers are going to take these words to heart. What cowards they are.
I agree completely with this blog. Nevertheless, in the PR war, as in advertising, emotion wins out more than reason. I suspect it will continue to happen on both sides.

For my part, it's basically impossible not to want to say horrible horrible things about Legion. :3
Deal with it?
Photo
Dr Beefstupid
Mar 27 2011 05:57 PM
u mad?
Photo
HeroofTime55
Mar 27 2011 06:17 PM
What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.

I mean, you know, your previous blog kinda runs counter to this one.

I can totally understand charging reps in the event of an unprovoked attack or a bandwagon. But, you know, those of us with treaties, who had an obligation, why is GOONS seeking to punish honor?

It was one of the things I was happy to see largely done away with after Karma, being fined for having honor. You know?

What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.

I mean, you know, your previous blog kinda runs counter to this one.

I can totally understand charging reps in the event of an unprovoked attack or a bandwagon. But, you know, those of us with treaties, who had an obligation, why is GOONS seeking to punish honor?

It was one of the things I was happy to see largely done away with after Karma, being fined for having honor. You know?

Don't !@#$%* about this. You and your allies are guilty of the same thing. Change yourself before you try to change others.
Photo
HeroofTime55
Mar 27 2011 08:15 PM

Don't !@#$%* about this. You and your allies are guilty of the same thing. Change yourself before you try to change others.

In an ancient era, perhaps.

I've personally gone to the two entities who I ever charged from (Something that was done under the ill direction of the Old Hegemony, mind you) and apologized for those instances; One day when I'm not at war I'm going to outright repay what I took. And I'm never going to do it again. See, I have changed.

Regardless, it hasn't happened since Karma, and those who did it paid their dues in that war. It's been 2 years, it's incredibly thin for you to bring up ancient past to justify acts done today.
Photo
Emperor Whimsical
Mar 27 2011 08:31 PM
Its in the GOONS charter (Or some other document) that GOONS is asking for reps from anyone who attacks them, IIRC.
Photo
Dochartaigh
Mar 27 2011 09:31 PM
Well said Lamuella, well said.

What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.


hey, you see that point where I said the word "coward" was massively overused?

and that point where you agreed with me?
a very quick addendum to this:

The fact that I don't think the use of peace mode is by its nature cowardly doesn't mean that I think the way the NPO side are using peacemode is particularly good tactics.

In the early part of the war, where they peacemoded everyone except those in range of GOONS, that wasn't a cowardly tactic, but it wasn't an effective tactic either. The people who joined this war stated they were joining with the aim of protecting NPO, and then proceded to do absolutely nothing to the people who were causing the greatest amount of damage to NPO. The purpose of a counterstrike is surey to neutralize or negate the initial strike, and the GOONS dogpile really did nothing of the kind.

Later uses of peacemode, such as Legion's placing of 99% of their NS into peacemode, also strike me as sincerely bad strategy. Opting out of the war doesn't thwart your enemies, it just lets down your allies. In terms of day to day effects on their allies' cause, Legion might as well have surrendered, with the added disadvantage that as time goes on and their allies obtain peace, a larger and larger pool of combatants are waiting for them to leave peacemode.

I don't think this is born of cowardice, just ineptitude.
Honestly, I wish people would just wage PR campaigns that make sense. Repeating shrill insults twice a day a thread does not help your cause. It actually makes you and your cause look very bad.

Most 'strong' words - cowards, honor, hypocrites - don't even have the same strength as they're just so badly used in propaganda. I find it a little funny that some people actually got their propaganda spot on the first time, but then degenerated into so much trolling that they nullified the original effect of their own propaganda. Credibility is the most important thing in playing the PR game, and trolling is the fastest way to burn your own credibility.
Photo
HeroofTime55
Mar 28 2011 09:53 AM

hey, you see that point where I said the word "coward" was massively overused?

and that point where you agreed with me?

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.
Yep, this blog is correct.

This war isn't like Karma, where the Coalition of Cowards moniker actually had some truth behind it.

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.


OK, let me try again by giving a one sentence summing up of my position about "cowardice"

"People should shut up about 'cowardice' because it's boring as hell"

thus, your earlier post about us "Rewarding cowardice and punishing honour" or whatever the hell you said, was boring as hell.
Photo
Ashoka the Great
Mar 28 2011 12:38 PM
Regardless of circumstances, calling someone who is fighting a 'coward' is just silly. They may be fighting because of a treaty, an insult, an unprovoked attack or the desire to hop on a bandwagon. The important thing is that they're fighting.

The real cowards are those who duck a fight when they really shouldn't. And thus I consider 'cowardice', in terms of CN, to be something that is highly individual. An alliance may adopt a cowardly policy with respect to backing up an ally, but that does not necessarily make them all "cowards".

In those instances where alliances have refused to honor treaties for one reason or another, we have seen many cases where individual members have opted to defend their friends rather than stay 'loyal' to their alliance. There have also been occasions when members of various alliances have stayed within their group while criticizing their leadership over a lack of resolve. Thus, "coward" is misapplied when used to refer to an alliance.

I realize that this is all a matter of semantics. Then again, that would describe most disagreements on Planet Bob.

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.

"Alliances that don't attack GOONS don't get charged reps."

Yes, that is quite accurate.

September 2014

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21 222324252627
282930    

Recent Comments

Categories