Arentak's Blog

heh, I consider myself a strong 'anti-moralist' and one of the things im most proud of in this game is actually the role I played helping to undermine what I considered an idiotic philosophy. Note... I dont consider myself 'lulz' (though they are preferable to me compared to moralists). In fact, I reject the notion that the only two options are lulz or moralists.

A lot of that has to do with my definition of moralism in CN. My definition (and its just my personal one) does not revolve around having morals, instead it involves trying to FORCE those morals on the game and other alliances.

So, for example. ODN has a very strict honor code when it comes to how we handle other treaties. You might say we have 'morals' internally. However, we don't act as though our personal morals are the 'right' ones for all of CN, or that everyone has to adhere to them. If someone takes a different view on... say democracy. OR allies. We may not feel like interacting with them much, but we aren't going to try and punish them to bring them in line.

A moralist to my eyes, would be say.... someone not approving of foul language and trying to enforce language standards via going to war with those who use foul language. Or, deciding that "fighting neutrals is wrong" or say "tech reading is evil" "OOCness is bad" and rather than simply *having* those opinions try to force the community to accept them as set standards.

Once you try to *make* everyone follow your moral view points, you went from being irrelevant to me to being an ass that needs to be dealt with. I reject the notion that any alliance in this game has the authority to tell me and mine what I can and cant do... or what makes me 'bad' or 'good'. If you want to *FEEL* that way go right ahead. If you want to try and make me adhere to your code... well... ::grins;: there's where we have problems.

So take people's issues with DBDC. I've no problem personally if you would never do what they are. To each their own live life as it is right to you. But in a game like this, to clutch your pearls, act horrified, and then demand someone be 'punished' for playing the game in a way you dislike.... that i found asinine.

And in terms of IC and OOC. If you want to play IC its no skin of my nose. But again getting back to the moralist view point, I find it eye roll worthy when people start complaining that others arent playing IC and try to act like it should be required in the game. I find IC play childish and silly and irrelevant to the mechanics of the game. I'm not alone. You can disagree fully, and I expect we can all go on happily for the most part. As long as you dont expect me to actually engage with you in any IC way, that's fine.

I will say though, some people (not as many these days) take the IC thing to a level that I find concerning from a mental health stand point. By that I mean they say (or in some cases do) awful things that would be rejected by real life society but dismiss it as 'i'm just roleplaying' as though that somehow gives them some carte blanche to be an ass. IF you are an ass in game, you are an ass. I dont care if its your "character". You are responsible for your own actions, and your 'character' is simply a facet of your personality you are amping up for entertainment. Heh I remember someone in CN ranting nad screaming at me I would go to hell for being jewish, and I killed jesus and blahblah blah. And then when I put them on ignore and decided to have nothing else to do with them outside or inside the game, they were shocked I was judging *them* as a person poorly... after all it was only their 'ruler' who said that. That sort of attitude I find idiotic.

Anyway my thoughts.

"Whatever we want to think about them, anyway, I think that we can agree that the DBDC project, while maybe initially conceived as a FPS-like experiment, is now fully political and strategical."

And for this quote and insight, Jerdge, I thank you.

And in terms of IC and OOC. If you want to play IC its no skin of my nose. But again getting back to the moralist view point, I find it eye roll worthy when people start complaining that others arent playing IC and try to act like it should be required in the game. I find IC play childish and silly and irrelevant to the mechanics of the game. I'm not alone. You can disagree fully, and I expect we can all go on happily for the most part. As long as you dont expect me to actually engage with you in any IC way, that's fine.

It's not an opinion, it's the actual rules of the key forums in this nation simulation game.Why do you think there are even distinct IC and OOC forums if the IC/RP aspect isn't supposed to be an intrinsic part of the game? I find it silly that people still play this extremely basic game while crapping all over the RP aspect of it that gives your pixels any sense of meaning whatsoever. It's like joining a Dungeons and Dragons campaign and telling everyone "Stop acting like a bunch of elves and dwarves, I'm just here to roll dice, man."

I'm not even sure if I'm an actual moralist, just someone who tries to keep things IC and who recognizes that, unless you're intentionally roleplaying a bloodthirsty villain, you wouldn't tell people going to war to "Have fun!" or support things like raiding.

Or I might counter there are both ic and ooc forums to recognize that different people play the game differently. Or for that matter whatever the game was intended to be, clearly people have fun playing it ooc and can make that work.. .since most cn players go that route. If we were voting by what most people consider the best way to play this game, I dont think IC would win. That said, if you want to be an elf or a dwarf, have fun. But why am i expected to have to play as you do? Thats ridiculous.

If you don't want me to judge you as an idiot for roleplaying (which is fair, I shouldn't do that) then you can't judge me as not 'really' playing because I dont bother with it.

In other words.. there are two ways to play this game. And there are two approaches to how followers of those ways interact. Either we can BOTH respect each other... which means IC people respecting and understanding some people dont like IC... and their view has as much merit as yours. And respect means not implying that im playing it 'wrong' or not getting as much from it as you are. OR... alternatively we can both disrespect each other and mock/insult the other group and claim our approach is better.

If you want respect youve gotta give it.

I don't think it does (or should) neatly fall into playing the game one way or another. There are different contexts that explicitly call for one or the other. It's not ridiculous to expect people to understand the rules and spirit behind them, and make a bare minimum effort to adhere to that. Likewise, I'm all for discussing the game OOC in places that aren't IC forums of these boards. It's good to be able to step out of the IC political rivalry and relate to other players on an OOC basis.

STA

DBDC and it's satellites kill them all.

A lot of that has to do with my definition of moralism in CN. My definition (and its just my personal one) does not revolve around having morals, instead it involves trying to FORCE those morals on the game and other alliances.

What you're talking about is moral imperialism, which is different from moralism. My 2010 thoughts on the matter:

Basically. what we have here is a term, moralist, which has come into use without holding the meaning that it's being used for.

What most people who decry moralists and/or moralism really mean to say is "moral imperialist/ism." The definitions posted all answer the question "what is a moralist," with the answer to the question "what is a moral imperialist?"

As mpol pointed out, the words we use already have real world application, and he argues that we use the real world words in their real-world context while we play CyberNations. However, that is not the case when we get to a lot of terms. "Francoism" is Spanish Fascism (or Spanish NAZIism if you're trying to score points against NPO), not the ideals spelled out by Francos Spain. Until its Senate days, Vox was described as an "anarchic collective" after I made a grammatical error in an essay from our first days; it should have been anarchical collective. etc etc The vocabulary that we have must suffice for CyberNations, but the words we use in reference to political movements in CyberNations are in context of CN, not in context of the real world, so, yes, familiar words get new meanings. Some people can read into it and understand things, other people can't figure it out and they are constantly frustrated and you will spot them arguing illogically due to their application of real-world context to CyberNations.

So, the answers to your question posted here "Moralists are people that try to impose their moral values on other people/alliances" or "who see their moral set as international law (another real world context in CN)" or "who see their moral set as the superior/dominant set (CN ethnocentrism)" translate to a real world context term: Moral Imperialists.

With the answer you have received, and an adaptation of terminology based on the answers here, we can now develop an understanding of two types of moral people/alliances:

Moral Imperialists are alliances/people with a set moral code who seek to impose their morals on other alliances via political means (treatying, war). A current example is Polaris' enforcement by war of what their understanding of the community standard on raiding is.

Moralists are people with a set moral code who rely on that moral set to guide alliance policy, individual actions/posting, etc. For example, Vilien has strong beliefs and he sticks to them, but he doesn't threaten to stomp people that disagree. Or, Cult of Justitia has a strong moral code that guides our foreign policy (no compulsive treaties).

While the term moralist has taken on CyberNations contexts, there are two clear moral-centric categories, so we must use two terms. Otherwise, when you're calling someone a moralist for attacking techraiders, other people are calling someone else a moralist for thinking a certain way. All moral imperialists are moralists, but not all moralists are moral imperialists.

I will say though, some people (not as many these days) take the IC thing to a level that I find concerning from a mental health stand point. By that I mean they say (or in some cases do) awful things that would be rejected by real life society but dismiss it as 'i'm just roleplaying' as though that somehow gives them some carte blanche to be an ass. IF you are an ass in game, you are an ass. I dont care if its your "character". You are responsible for your own actions, and your 'character' is simply a facet of your personality you are amping up for entertainment.

Is a staunch supporter of MK. The End.

You come around to your trademark self-contradiction this time by refusing to acknowledge the basic foundation of what we're all doing: Pretending, to lesser or greater degrees, to be rulers of imaginary nations. You cannot refuse to deal with any of us on an IC level because unless you're discussing real life info, you are only ever dealing with any of us because we are pretending to rule imaginary nations. But like anyone who says "I don't believe in X", reality does not need you to believe in it.

You refuse to acknowledge IC play, but you have a definition for an IC phenomenon, moralism, which may have real life connotations (see above), but exists as we're discussing it only on Planet Bob, where a fake OsRavan lives and rules a fake nation.

Or I might counter there are both ic and ooc forums to recognize that different people play the game differently.

And that would be what we call "saving the appearances" (your broken paradigm). IC forums are gameplay forums, OOC forums are meta-discussions, not gameplay. There are, however, two types of forums that actually do recognize two types of gameplay, but I'm sorry to say they're also both IC: National RP, and World RP.

There's a great discussion of "what is a moralist" from AirMe here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/79233-what-is-a-moralist/

And an interesting-yet-refreshingly-short piece on absolute morality from Vladimir here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/104/entry-628-on-the-nature-of-absolute-morality/

[...] refusing to acknowledge the basic foundation of what we're all doing: Pretending, to lesser or greater degrees, to be rulers of imaginary nations. You cannot refuse to deal with any of us on an IC level because unless you're discussing real life info, you are only ever dealing with any of us because we are pretending to rule imaginary nations. But like anyone who says "I don't believe in X", reality does not need you to believe in it. [...]

Good post, but I can't help pointing out - on the part I quoted - that one refusing to acknowledge in practice that CN is fiction is not himself pretending: he's living the game like it was RL. There are people that "play the game" on ooc forums: those that would go to any length to further their agenda in this silly browser-based game.

Lunatics without pretension, if you will. Not even that rare.