The Problem With Planet Bob

[mattski133]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1303609949' post='2698126']
You decry moralists as being against war and in favor of a world without conflict, being a part of the cancer that is destroying activity within the game. Yet, you most often cite Polaris as the chief moralist in your arguments. I wonder if you realize that Polaris has started or instigated five of the eight major wars that have graced this planet?

1. Great War I - Tyga nukes LUE to trigger major alliance warfare (Polar)
2. Great War II - GOONS declares on Fark (Not counting this one, but it's worthy to note that Polar was a major contributor to the escalation of GWII)
3. Great War III - NPO's business.
4. Unjust War - Sponge leads the charge against the Unjust Path (Polar)
5. War of the Coalition - Organization against Polar (Polar)
6. Karma - Not us
7. Bipolar War - Grub hates \m/, etc (Polar)
8. NpO-PB War - VE et al declares on us (Polar)

Polaris is the instigator of more conflict than any other alliance in the game, and they are your prime example of Moralism, yet you decry moralists as destroying the game by not allowing war to occur? There is a flaw in your argument, my friend.
[/quote]

Hmm. Fighting Moralists.

You've got a point here.

[Sir Paul]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303518002' post='2697203']
You don't think 2 to 1 odds against us as the aggressors was bad enough? It needed to be 6 to 1? And then at the end of that, a victory for an alliance like AcTi? No, I think that the way the situation was handled was in the best interests of both AcTi and Thriller. As for all the moralists that wanted to get in on the action, I would politely invite them to go start their own - and on fair terms.
[/quote]
In other news, to help make the fight more fair, TOP is attacking Legion.

Also, GOONS gets reps for starting a war.

This moralism is killing the game!

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1303516552' post='2697181']
The problems here have nothing to do with how its played.
[/quote]

Agreed. Everyone keeps trying to find some mythical Great Issue that is the cause of this world's decline, when it is due to many different reasons, all working together. Many of them have already been pionted out in this thread. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is about the longest I've ever been involved in any one game, and by far the biggest. 20K people who can all interact directly with each other with only peace mode and NS range restrictions makes for one hellish amount of pressure. Every little move that gets made is gone over until the bones have been picked clean, and most likely people will remember anything major for years, if not forever. This os one hostile environment.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303517235' post='2697193']
As to NPO, their main problem was that they did not check their aggression properly at acceptable levels, and achieved such a degree of power that a coalition had to come together to stop them, which, due to the culture of terror at the time, had to be done violently and permanently. I do not believe in unchecked aggression, but I do believe in aggression.

I just don't think that the current state of nature, which turns into a curbstomp for the aggressor every time, except in rare cases where the aggressor is well prepared and then thus feels the need to prosecute his aggression to an overly brutal conclusion which drives the defenders from the game... is a good or healthy one.
[/quote]

NPO never did what they did alone. They were the quarterback of the team, and they unfairly got more of the credit and laer the blame then t=hey deserved. That is the nature of the system I guess. Personally I wish there were less blocs, or rather less ties between blocs. After Karma was fought there were around 4 or so "sides", maybe only potentially, but it could have happened. It didn't pan out though, and now you have two unequal groups, and not enough on the fence to make a difference.

You can destroy every last pixel a person has, and still not be able to force them from the game. Trying to do so in that situation is quixotic and going to cost you far more then such a tiny little nation is worth...yet people still persist in trying. If it were possible for people to be driven from the game, then HoT55, Batallion, Methrage, and quite a few unpopulr people would have been done for long ago. There seems to be a lot of people with large nations that have forgotten this somehow.


[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1303572860' post='2697757']
-Wars are too expansive. Not every war needs to be 24 on 17 or whatever. This problem is caused by (a) the massive number of treaties alliances hold, (b) everyone's shuddering fear of losing a war due to aforementioned huge reps and the like, and (c) since there's no actual regionalism in the game, anyone can declare on anyone. One of the things that makes real world politics so much more interesting than CN is that there are strategic rivers, mountain ranges, etc., there are different types of terrain in which wars can be fought, there are countries that don't bother allying because the logistics are a mess, and so on. In CN, you can actually have twelve alliances hitting one, which is almost unthinkable in the real world.
[/quote]

I like this. Imagine if you could only fight nations on your color team. It would definitely break up the politics somewhat.


[quote name='Rambo' timestamp='1303590415' post='2697947']
A lot of people debate why the game used to be more interesting. It's no doubt true, personally the time before and around the first Great War was my favorite part of this game, and I know many others will agree with me.[/quote]

How many Methusalahs like you are still playing? Seriously. It's because of people like you that I still feel like a kid here, even though I've been here 3 years and change. The only difference between then and now is the nations were smaller, so were more important individually, and they said there was a period of Cold War before your fights actually started. Maybe they don't do that anymore?

[OsRavan]

I know we've talked about this before Londo. But the problem is not that what you put is wrong (I agree with some of your points not others. I dont think anyone is trying to drive anyone else from the game these days for example. Thats not an issue) The problem is you are listing symptoms not causes. The issue is in the game dynamics. Tha'ts why threads such as this always end up amounting to just so much hand wringing.

Why is there so much moralism?

Why is the threshold to overcome the moralism so high?

Why do wars occur so rarely and last so long?


So take moralism. I agree with you about the damage it does. But where does it come from? Why does it exist? Simply saying 'its bad lets stop' wont do anything.




The reason is due to the difficulty in building a nation and the difficulty in an alliance recovering from serious wars.

Whether its stupid or not, most CNers value their fake nations. For a lot of people that's the first center around which their game revolves. The second is the alliance. Because NS has become so inflated in CN it takes YEARS to build a viable nation. And if you are on the wrong end of the war... you won't be driven from the game anymore. But it WILL take you or your alliance years to recover.

The above game dynamics creates an atmosphere of caution. Because so many years are invested in building up the nation or alliance, and because a mistep can set you back for the foreseeable future, the smart player is the one who is adverse to risk taking. The dynamics of CN assures that the successful players are the cautious players not the risk takers.

As to moralism. Its root in *most* (not all) cases imo is the fact that the consequences to nations/alliances of wars means that people do not want to lose their pixels or their alliances pixels except for a 'worthy' cause. Moralism is a mechanism to deal with the fact that it takes 2-3 years to build a good nation. It is a reaction of outrage to those who would destroy the years worth of effort due to 'stupid' reasons.

If the value in time put in was not so high, than there would be nothing to get moral over. I may not be particularly articulate, but hopefully you get my point.


So to sum, I too dislike moralism. I too wish the mindset of CN to change. But how many of these threads have we seen? You won't change things through mass appeals or wringing your hands. Because what this thread does NOT delve into is why the current system developed. It did not develop by chance. It developed based on the game dynamics and is irrevocably tied to the game dynamics.

So if you really want to increase risk taking, war, and dramatic political shifts stop appealing to members to suddenly start acting against the self interest of their nation and their alliance. People will not act against their self-interes. And while some people truly not care about pixels or alliance NS, most just claim they don't but really do.

Instead if you want things to change, start pushing for intelligent realistic (not radical) reforms to the game structure that can bring about real change. Mechanics to make it possible for a nation to reach a large size faster and recover easily. I have always maintained that if you made it so a newbie could become a relevant nation within 6 months, and that any nation could recover from zi/zt to their earlier NS in 6 months, you would see the world and atmosphere you wanted.

You want to talk about player retention issues? It is not wars. It is not rogues. It is not trolls. What it is, is how many games out there in the world require three years of effort for you to be AVERAGE!? Imagine warcraft where it took three years of playing to reach level 85? Who would play? THAT is your problem.

And the solution is not a re-set. That chases away too many people. The solution is tweaking game dynamics so while some nations will always be larger than others, it is possible to become relevant and rebuild to relevancy in a realistic time frame.

::end rant::

[Mogar]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1303615181' post='2698177']
How many Methusalahs like you are still playing? Seriously. It's because of people like you that I still feel like a kid here, even though I've been here 3 years and change. The only difference between then and now is the nations were smaller, so were more important individually, and they said there was a period of Cold War before your fights actually started. Maybe they don't do that anymore?
[/quote]
the environment is entirely different, everyone takes politics and morality way too seriously now more than ever before, and it has since Great War II
edit: I bought my first nuke at 5500NS

Edited April 24, 2011 by Mogar

[jerdge]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1303618152' post='2698219']Because so many years are invested in building up the nation or alliance, and because a mistep can set you back for the foreseeable future, the smart player is the one who is adverse to risk taking. The dynamics of CN assures that the successful players are the cautious players not the risk takers.

<SNIP>

[...] if you want things to change, start pushing for intelligent realistic (not radical) reforms to the game structure that can bring about real change. Mechanics to make it possible for a nation to reach a large size faster and recover easily. I have always maintained that if you made it so a newbie could become a relevant nation within 6 months, and that any nation could recover from zi/zt to their earlier NS in 6 months, you would see the world and atmosphere you wanted.

You want to talk about player retention issues? It is not wars. It is not rogues. It is not trolls. What it is, is how many games out there in the world require three years of effort for you to be AVERAGE!? Imagine warcraft where it took three years of playing to reach level 85? Who would play? THAT is your problem.

And the solution is not a re-set. That chases away too many people. The solution is tweaking game dynamics so while some nations will always be larger than others, it is possible to become relevant and rebuild to relevancy in a realistic time frame.[/quote]
This is 100% correct, except that reforms can't be effective and not radical at the same time.

If we are to have nations become relevant within 6 months (which is a goal I'd support) infrastructure has to become much cheaper at lower levels, buying technology has to become viable up to a certain threshold (10k?) [i]and[/i] technology's importance - especially in war - has to be cut down, [i]a lot[/i].
This [i]is[/i] radical.

Edited April 24, 2011 by jerdge

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Cybernations is about RPing a nation, not a fist person shooter. There is nothing wrong with the game. Take a look at the real world and then compare it to CN's political situation and you'll find that the real world is vastly more boring politically. There is a reason for that, Moralism is entrenched in how politics and propaganda function. The ones who complain the most about a moralist systems are the ones that have not adequately learned to play the game. Not all game will appeal to all peoples nor should all games appeal to all peoples because when they start to they will inevitably never succeed and will disappoint the one audience they do hope to impress.

The greatest challenge to the entire game is finding a way to be aggressive successfully in a very fluid moralist system where what is "moral" varies by about as many number of individuals that exist in the game.

Everyone could nitpick their particular likes and dislikes about CN, but inevitably Admin will not be able to please everyone, but if he is seeking to achieve a somewhat entertaining text representation of how nations work and how a much more diversely populated world of nations would work... he has already well and exceeded himself. If we had a world of 20,000 nations, I'm rather sure we'd have a community which very much looked like this one; constant bickering included.

And since everyone already complains about the state of the Earth and wonders why God didn't do a better job.. the analog to player and admin has already been fulfilled. People simply aren't willing to be satisfied with the perfect state of imperfection, chaos, and creation.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Ironfist]

It's been said before but no one really listens, or cares, because they're in power at the moment. But it's alliances like MK, GOONS and Umbrella (though Umb to a lesser degree because they barely post) that make the game boring. Terrible posting ability, for the most part. There are very few posters who form well structured sentences AND make sense.

Usually each person tries to make some sort of comment that gets recognised as hilarious. It rarely works, but the one who posted it feels better about themselves for awhile. It's actually something that is irrelevant to Cyber Nations, but that exists because it's accidentally on the internet where various forum users migrate to. What's my point? Eh, probably not very clear but trolling is making the game pretty boring to play.

If I wanted to log into a forum to see people getting attacked just for being new and unknowledgeable, well... I wouldn't. It's disgusting. But it's seen as funny here (mostly in the minds of those who clicked "post").

NPO were hated, but at least they played the game seriously. The lulz alliances, well they don't earn respect.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1303618152' post='2698219']
You want to talk about player retention issues? It is not wars. It is not rogues. It is not trolls. What it is, is how many games out there in the world require three years of effort for you to be AVERAGE!? Imagine warcraft where it took three years of playing to reach level 85? Who would play? THAT is your problem.
[/quote]
Yep, this is right. Don't agree with Os much IC but looks like OOC we're on the same page.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303518002' post='2697203']
You don't think 2 to 1 odds against us as the aggressors was bad enough? It needed to be 6 to 1? And then at the end of that, a victory for an alliance like AcTi? No, I think that the way the situation was handled was in the best interests of both AcTi and Thriller. As for all the moralists that wanted to get in on the action, I would politely invite them to go start their own - and on fair terms.
[/quote]

Well seeing that I am one of the very few that actually has a treaty with AcTi, I dont think you could have faulted my DoW. Which was typed and ready before update, then almost posted before I saw y'all had peaced out. And, this being the OOC Forum (it really does matter) I am a bit disappointed at what happened.

And yes, I told Batallion he needed a forum, and warchests, long ago. And while I would have happily made a smoking hole of your nations for it IC, I really thought it was hilarious what y'all did.

I think it's wrong to condemn moralism as you do. But a moralism which condones great crimes with one hand but stomps hard on the merry prankster with the other is no true moralism. And that seems to be a recurrent problem on Planet Bobbi.

[Jaiar]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1303583592' post='2697871']
I don't see that much moralism.
I see a mature world where the leaders that didn't plan for long term success were already wiped away, and those that remain know that they need an "enormously high" "threshhold of military, economic, and political muscle" "to successfully start anything at all", hence the so-called "stagnation" and the rarity of so-called action.
[/quote]
It's almost like the real world if you think about it. Early on in both worlds (Real World and Cyber Nations) wars were more easily started and as both became more advanced wars in both became less and less likely.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1303574099' post='2697772']
Your alliance sought dominance so that they could control everything that went on. The only thing that has been more harmful to Cyber Nations in its history than the problems discussed in this thread is your alliance.
[/quote]
My alliance is like the sun and all revolves around it. Without the NPO/Sun the entire universe/cyber nations would be eaten by the large black hole left by our great absence.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Jaiar

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1303654952' post='2698457']
My alliance is like the sun and all revolves around it. Without the NPO/Sun the entire universe/cyber nations would be eaten by the large black hole left by our great absence.
[/quote]
Someone else would easily fill the absence and the game would go on. The BiPolar War is a good example of that. I assume many people here would say that the war was much more interesting/fun than the current one now and your alliance had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1303656415' post='2698467']
Someone else would easily fill the absence and the game would go on. The BiPolar War is a good example of that. I assume many people here would say that the war was much more interesting/fun than the current one now and your alliance had absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
This is not actually the case, you know. It was frequently circulated around the other side that the Polar coalition were all doing NPO's bidding.

We both know this is not true, but a lot of people believed it, probably some still do.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303518002' post='2697203']
You don't think 2 to 1 odds against us as the aggressors was bad enough? It needed to be 6 to 1? And then at the end of that, a victory for an alliance like AcTi?
[/quote]

You brought it upon yourself. For every action, there's a reaction.

[Joe Kremlin]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1303636870' post='2698369']
It's been said before but no one really listens, or cares, because they're in power at the moment. But it's alliances like MK, GOONS and Umbrella (though Umb to a lesser degree because they barely post) that make the game boring. Terrible posting ability, for the most part. There are very few posters who form well structured sentences AND make sense.

Usually each person tries to make some sort of comment that gets recognised as hilarious. It rarely works, but the one who posted it feels better about themselves for awhile. It's actually something that is irrelevant to Cyber Nations, but that exists because it's accidentally on the internet where various forum users migrate to. What's my point? Eh, probably not very clear but trolling is making the game pretty boring to play.

If I wanted to log into a forum to see people getting attacked just for being new and unknowledgeable, well... I wouldn't. It's disgusting. But it's seen as funny here (mostly in the minds of those who clicked "post").

NPO were hated, but at least they played the game seriously. The lulz alliances, well they don't earn respect.
[/quote]

Maybe it's just me but I think members of the alliances you mentioned are usually better than the average OWF poster. They've had more experience putting together an interesting and coherent post from wherever they migrated from on the internet. Also "lulz alliance" doesn't really apply to them. If they were doing it for the lulz would they be on top of CN right now and beating down the super serious alliances? They just play the game better.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1303609949' post='2698126']
You decry moralists as being against war and in favor of a world without conflict, being a part of the cancer that is destroying activity within the game. Yet, you most often cite Polaris as the chief moralist in your arguments. I wonder if you realize that Polaris has started or instigated five of the eight major wars that have graced this planet?

1. Great War I - Tyga nukes LUE to trigger major alliance warfare (Polar)
2. Great War II - GOONS declares on Fark (Not counting this one, but it's worthy to note that Polar was a major contributor to the escalation of GWII)
3. Great War III - NPO's business.
4. Unjust War - Sponge leads the charge against the Unjust Path (Polar)
5. War of the Coalition - Organization against Polar (Polar)
6. Karma - Not us
7. Bipolar War - Grub hates \m/, etc (Polar)
8. NpO-PB War - VE et al declares on us (Polar)

Polaris is the instigator of more conflict than any other alliance in the game, and they are your prime example of Moralism, yet you decry moralists as destroying the game by not allowing war to occur? There is a flaw in your argument, my friend.
[/quote]

I don't think you can count anything pre-karma as an example of Polar "moralism" causing wars. Sponge was many things (manipulative, harsh, imperialistic, etc) but I don't think I would qualify his leadership of NpO as "moralist" in the slightest.

Leaving 6-7, I'll give you BiPolar, but the most recent conflict was more VE wanting to kill you/something than Polar doing much of anything to cause it.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1303661991' post='2698515']
I don't think you can count anything pre-karma as an example of Polar "moralism" causing wars. Sponge was many things (manipulative, harsh, imperialistic, etc) but I don't think I would qualify his leadership of NpO as "moralist" in the slightest.[/quote]

Huh? How could you miss the moralist tenor of the crusade against the UJP? Really?

[quote]Leaving 6-7, I'll give you BiPolar, but the most recent conflict was more VE wanting to kill you/something than Polar doing much of anything to cause it. [/quote]

True enough. There's still a strong pattern without that one though.

[Cobalt]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1303618152' post='2698219']
Instead if you want things to change, start pushing for intelligent realistic (not radical) reforms to the game structure that can bring about real change. Mechanics to make it possible for a nation to reach a large size faster and recover easily. I have always maintained that if you made it so a newbie could become a relevant nation within 6 months, and that any nation could recover from zi/zt to their earlier NS in 6 months, you would see the world and atmosphere you wanted.

You want to talk about player retention issues? It is not wars. It is not rogues. It is not trolls. What it is, is how many games out there in the world require three years of effort for you to be AVERAGE!? Imagine warcraft where it took three years of playing to reach level 85? Who would play? THAT is your problem.

And the solution is not a re-set. That chases away too many people. The solution is tweaking game dynamics so while some nations will always be larger than others, it is possible to become relevant and rebuild to relevancy in a realistic time frame.

::end rant::
[/quote]

This. Some games have mechanics that let you get more XP/Skill points/money (w.e it is that advances you in the game) at lower levels in order to bring newer players to an acceptable level, so they can compete with older players, faster. In CN, the limiting factor is money (and monetary influx is capped by the limit on foreign aid of 15m/250t per 10 day cycle). What if there was a game mechanic that reduced the cost of infrastructure, improvements, and some wonders by 50% until the nation hits 25k NS or something (whatever is a good point from which they can start building up without help).

[Cobalt]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1303662211' post='2698518']
Huh? How could you miss the moralist tenor of the crusade against the UJP? Really?
[/quote]

Really? The war which orchestrated as a move to weaken and destabilize NPO's political position and empower Polar/BLEU was a moralist crusade (ignoring completely that Moralism with a capital 'M' hadn't graced us with its presence yet). Sure the war had a good vs. evil aspect, but so did Karma and so did the WotC side fighting [i]against[/i] Polar & Co. - would you consider those wars moralist conflicts?

[Emphix]

"Moralism" is just an attitude, and people should be able to play however they want.

If someone can then choose to be "immoral" and do crazy stuff and whatever they want, how come it is then wrong for someone else to be "moral", which essentially also means, doing whatever they want. And also regarding "fun", fun differs for many people, some people have fun for acting moral, why can't they have their fun?

Perhaps you would like it better if there is no "rule", no "right" and no "wrong", and people can then just do stuff that interest them, but then how could it be that it is "wrong" to do certain other actions? Anarchist A certainly cannot say Anarchist B being "wrong".


Anyway, I do agree with other who said something about time, how CN was made in 2006 and now it is 2011. Things can't last forever. CN may be interesting back then, but it isn't adapting well. Lots of "better" stuff exist now that doesn't exist back then. Supposedly CN launched yesterday, I doubt it will get as big as what we have now. And people also grow up too, interest changes, as have been said before.

I think the way to "save" Planet Bob has nothing to do with how people play the game, it is more with the game itself.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303659330' post='2698492']
This is not actually the case, you know. It was frequently circulated around the other side that the Polar coalition were all doing NPO's bidding.

We both know this is not true, but a lot of people believed it, probably some still do.
[/quote]
I've actually never heard that until now.

[Heft]

Thought I would show off my awesome graphic design skills.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4PA4J.jpg[/IMG]

[NoFish]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Disbanding alliances is the key to restoring CN. Since disbandment, viceroys, government bans and other terms that "infringe on an alliance's sovereignty" are not allowed by the community at large wars must be focused at damaging nations, not alliances. Damaging nations makes the game uninteresting for players - no one wants to spent six months rebuilding and sending out tech. Damaging alliances shuffles people around - into other alliances, in and out of power, etc. without necessarily doing excessive harm on the national level.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303511643' post='2697094']
u][size="5"]The problem of moralism[/size][/u]

There is, however, an unfortunate problem that presents a significant barrier to activity. There is within this world a profound culture of 'moralism', which perpetuates and strengthens itself. You see, everyone wants action, but because of the culture of moralism, anyone who starts any kind of action will be attacked and smeared, jumped on by everyone else who is starved for action and destroyed. Those who did the destroying will then clap themselves on the back for being 'heroes in stopping aggression', being profoundly relieved that they finally got some action. The strength and prevalence of the culture of moralism is such that most players have given up entirely on the prospect of being allowed to start their own action, and instead have fallen into a moralist mindset, grateful for action whenever it comes, but possibly not understanding that it is their (and so many others') acquiescence to the ideology of moralism that creates such an enormous barrier to starting action in the game, and is a major reason why it is so infrequent. This in turn causes nations to be less active, because there is less action to be had, and less active nations over time tend to become stat whores, because that is really all that there is for them, which strengthens their commitment to 'moralism'. In other words, the culture of moralism has a stranglehold on the world as an active and vibrant entity, and is slowly but surely squeezing the life out of it. As a side effect, it also means that the "barrier to action" or threshhold of military, economic, and political muscle required to successfully start anything at all is enormously high. This carries its own consequences, which are outlined in the next section.


[/quote]
You and your friends created the moral movement that exists today to help you take down NPO. You lot also used the moral argument to wage war on the "evil" NPO this time around too so shut your face whining about it. You let this genie out of its bottle and continue to use it to this day so deal with it and stop crying when other people use it too. If you dont like what I have to say do something about it

Edited April 24, 2011 by Alterego

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303520036' post='2697238']
Yep, I had full intention of quitting.

Did I say going rogue and rogue actions were evil evil evil? No I did not, I've been talking about people !@#$%*ing about moralism and odds and you backing down when someone else came to play.

Also you have too very different scenerios.

AcTi: Your annoying! Your warchests suck!

Mafia: Hatred stemming from personal RL insults. Yeah they are annoying too, but $%&@ everyone is annoying.

But ya know...annoying in game...personal insults...same !@#$ right?
[/quote]
Did this individual come to your house and insult you? If not it is just another in game annoyance/insult, same/same.

True moralism doesn't exist here, people use moralism as a tool for politics, drama and war.
CN is now and has always been survival of the fittest .