Jump to content

On the Decline of Moral Politics


Hereno

Recommended Posts

I do not think many of you will disagree with me that "moralism", as it is, has been on the decline for some time in CN, being little more than a pejorative today. It is my intention in this post to discuss the following:

 

1. What has caused the decline in moral political philosophy.

2. What effects, if any, the decline in moral political philosophy has had on the game.

3. What the future political landscape of CN will look like.

 

The axiom of this post is, of course, the fact that "moralism" has been on a steady decline since the game started. We can look at this through a certain number of major events in which socio-political norms were broken and examine their effects on the political landscape. One such event would be the set of norms regarding nuclear weapons. Early in the game, alliances tended to operate by a "no-nuclear strike first" policy, preventing the rather devastating (in comparison) effects of nuclear warfare. However, this is not the case today. I contend that the reason for this is because it was advantageous from a gameplay perspective to break this norm. That is, the consequences of breaking this norm were not great enough to outweigh the utility of being able to launch nukes at opponents. Because a moralist gameplay stance would leave one at a disadvantage, similar to the process of natural selection, alliances were forced to adapt to the changing landscape in order to preserve themselves in the world.

 

This is the trend that I have discovered throughout the changing political landscape; that the trend has been towards a more laissez-faire style of gameplay, with less and less moral politics, and more and more politics based on the rational reality of game mechanics. Or, put more simply, over time CN has selected for a political philosophy that is based on game mechanics rather than our real-world convictions, because moralism as a gameplay philosophy is limiting to its adherents and puts them at a disadvantage. We can observe this with the first "pre-emptive strike", the first (and following) wars without "proper" CBs, and the continuing devaluation of treaty obligations both in the form of not honoring treaties, and declaring wars without using treaties to "chain in".

 

Rather than focusing on the events of the last decade, I'd rather focus on the trend of "abandoning" allies and the Equilibrium "an attack on one is an attack on all" strategy because they are clearer in our minds and what I consider to be proof positive of the trend. For example, NEW has seen itself on the opposite end of multiple treaties being dishonored and ultimately cancelled because of their value-based "honorable" gameplay strategy that was inconvenient and irrational for their treaty partners. Additionally, Equilibrium could not have had a victory in their war without ignoring individual treaty ties and using the "attack on one is an attack on all" strategy, existing as a coalition and having the ability, unlike their opponents, of being able to put any alliance they want wherever those numbers are needed. While this was done in the past via "ghost declarations", similar to how wars happened "with bull shit CBs, because you just found an excuse to hit them", the difference is that the moral justification was no longer necessary in a political sense. And now that the alliances who have broken this norm have succeeded on some level, my prediction is that we will see this - just like with nuclear weapons - in pretty much every subsequent major war.

 

While there are alliances who have intended to buck this trend by adopting their own moral political philosophies, including but not limited to NEW, CoJ, and others, it is worth noting that they are a distinct minority among alliances and are generally not the political powerbrokers at any given time. Among the successful alliances, such as NPO, we can see that their once-proud Francoist philosophy has become little more than a historical interest, primarily out of necessity. I believe that the alliances who do perservere, however, have found a certain meaning in bucking the trend of "realpolitik" (as we call it) gameplay, and that they will be around as long as the servers are up, as a minority force. However, because they are a minority force, and because they adhere to "outdated" (and I use that word loosely) political philosophies, they will not be successful in their ultimate goals.

 

However, my prediction for their ideological opponents is somewhat more bleak. It is my observation that the decrease in moral politics has lead to a dissociation with the game and a breaking of immersion that has lead to an increase in jaded players and an increase in the deletions of more seasoned players. While alliances with moral political philosophies have grown quite a bit in size (or, at the very least, declined at a slower rate than the game-wide average) as the game has shrank, the average size of the mainstream alliance, and the average activity level of the mainstream alliance, has been on a steady and irreversible decline. This trend is irreversible primarily because it would be disadvantageous to gameplay strategy for any one alliance to attempt to buck the trend.

 

Because we aren't able to invest ourselves and immerse ourselves in the norms and roleplaying that CN offered in its past, and still to some extent offers today, the player base will continue to shrink and norms will be increasingly less important in how alliances interact with the community. The loosening of our unwritten rules seems to have resulted in a less-enjoyable political realm for everybody, regardless of their position in the web.

 

We can determine that the goal of "moralist" alliances to shape the world into one with a certain moral philosophy cannot succeed because it is not in the rational interest of alliances to play by the rules, even if nobody else is, either. Therefore, the final days of CN will be of comparative lawlessness, and I would not be surprised to find that it is a game in which, for example, neutrality is not respected, once the comparative playerbase dwindles to the point that formidable enemies cannot be found else. As for treaties, the general trend seems to be that we will have more treaties, but that the treaties we have will mean almost nothing when the pedal hits the floor.

 

I am most interested in hearing what people have to think regarding the future of CN in regards to what I've posted, because I am rather confident in my analysis of the situation at hand. However, I'm interested to hear what all of you think about all of it, regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying NEW has any kind of morality is laughable since it wasn't their "morality" that put them at odds with their allies, it was wanting to attack allies of those allies for no reason other than that they wanted to just because they were bored. 

 

I'll come back and address the wider point you're making later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting discussion but I disagree with your estimation Hereno.

 

I think that CN has been a lot more "immoral" in the past: forced disbandment of alliances, PZI lists, using threats and force to silence criticism on OWF, huge reps with no other foundation than the right of might. All these are examples where "moralism" has actually won and has made a more "moral" stance the norm. But these are choices which depend on the decision of the collective.

 

The "no nuclear strike first policy" to which you refer is a case which depends more on the choices of individual nation rulers. As such, it has been abandoned more because it was hard to enforce than for any other reason.

 

EQ's "an attack on one is an attack on all" policy is still relatively new and it remains to see whether it will dominate future wars or not. However, while it changes one of our rules, it is not moral or immoral as such. One could claim that it is yet a victory of "moralism", since the web allowed for all the backstabbing and leaving alliances to dry that we have seen in the past. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is perhaps a less rigid rule, but it is a more moral rule, at least from Kant's point of view.

 

I think that what you are trying to grasp is a certain feeling of vainness, which is however the result of the victory of moralism rather than the opposite. You see there used to be bad guys and good guys and this was meaningful for both, cause the bad guys would profit (alliance reps following globals are an excellent example) while the good guys had a cause to fight for. While nowdays everyone is "good" or simply "less good", which makes it less exciting for everyone (I seriously don't know why to fight in wars any more). Ofc this is natural because the good guys will naturally tend to win in a situation where you can't exterminate the opponent...

 

-Rigas

Edited by Grigoris Lambrakis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the heart of this is the inconvenient reality that stats-wise the best place to be during a war is on the sideline. If you could conquer infra and/or amass your opponent's tech at a profitable rate during war, I think you'd see a lot more moralist-laden war declarations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently involved in two debates about the morality and ethics of my alliances actions. Both are away from the prying eyes of the OWF in fairly restricted locations. I think that says it all really. 

 

Morality does exist in this game. Role Play based morality has died a death somewhat, but there are very different attitude and world views about how to do things. In the last three great wars people have debated for weeks about the morality of the actions and the validity of the CB's. Those debates still resurface from time to time. 

 

However it does not necessarily come out on the OWF much. That is because it is harder to have a clear and open debate on the OWF because everyone is looking at their image and nothing else. There are no brownie points for being truthful on the OWF. 

 

There are ultimately two sides of the political coin. You have your objectives on one side, the people you dislike, the future you want to see. On the other side you have the methods available to you. Your Smear campaigns, your PR, your strategy. The OWF is entirely that strategy. Delve into the embassies and private chats and inter-alliance IRC channels and you learn about the political morality you want to see quite quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma portrayed itself as good v evil, moral v immoral. As karma became what it fought against, a change that began before the end of that war, morality and moral politics died. No alliance is white, no alliance is good, no alliance is just. There is only actions and reactions by a world filled with undesirables.

 

Anyone who plays the moral card these days is just a twat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

pack it in folks, we're done here

bring in the next thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
I also think that their style prevented their followers to get true enjoyment in the long run, and that they're going to be substituted by people that don't need to (always) win the numbers game to retain their player base. In other words, "moral" politics declined but its decline was arrested, and I expect a new rise of it.


Minor points:

1. I doubt that the CoJ is "moralist" in the sense you seem to be implying here, Hereno.

2. I think that the no nuclear first strike policies were convenient. The stronger side of each war had all to gain from keeping it conventional, to minimize the damage; the weaker side preferred to instead appease the stronger one, by taking it without going nuclear, because the ability to deal that nuclear-inflated damage was bound to anyway quickly vanish (with their top layers dropping out of the top 5%). The Manhattan Project then reversed things and nuclear first strikes became convenient, to the point that they're now entirely expected.

3.

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.

Influent people would be bored enough to care no more, while still spending enough efforts to remain the driving force behind events? This doesn't look like a sound theory. I think that that boredom is just pretense.

Edited by jerdge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma portrayed itself as good v evil, moral v immoral. As karma became what it fought against, a change that began before the end of that war, morality and moral politics died. No alliance is white, no alliance is good, no alliance is just. There is only actions and reactions by a world filled with undesirables.

 

Anyone who plays the moral card these days is just a twat.

 

STA is white(literally), good and just. Deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

QFT.

 

I mean, I can't even disagree with you anymore on everything....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma portrayed itself as good v evil, moral v immoral. As karma became what it fought against, a change that began before the end of that war, morality and moral politics died. No alliance is white, no alliance is good, no alliance is just. There is only actions and reactions by a world filled with undesirables.
 
Anyone who plays the moral card these days is just a twat.

Aren't you the man who plays to the moral card about 3rd most? Only schatt and d34th (if him) have you beat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Remember when Cybernations was good?"

"CN was never good."

 

Morality is a subjective concept that has never really been applicable within this game. I mean, let's go all the way back to GW1, and Legion ditching NPO. It is only as moral as players and alliances choose to be. It comes down to the old question of liberalism and realism in politics. You will have times where 'honour' is seen as a negative; getting in the way of an Alliance's interest, and others where a lack of 'honour' can hold it back. But first, one has to define honour and nobody has ever succeeded in establishing a universal understanding of honour in CN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least from my point of view moralism was opposed first in order to draw a distinction between Polar and their supporters with the rest of Karma. Still in most circles at that time you'd hear "that just isn't right" although those same people would be raider alliances. When alliances began to jostle over the issue of raiding post-Karma "moralist" became derogatory. Finally, post Bi-Polar all forms of moralism became opposed, and the CB was the last target. Once the CB died most wars became boring, and people only followed treaties and not ideas. You'd hear stuff like " we don't want to fight, but they're our treaty partners". The loser started to just really hate fighting. At least in wars before that it seemed like the main parties at least wanted to cause as much damage as possible. Then, they just hid in peace mode. Once that way of play became so prevalent EQ's idea that an entire group could fight together without treaties being activated was pretty cool. NG undone their (our?) entire philosophy though by sticking to the "we'll just follow treaties" approach. I'd like to see people actually hate each other again and follow ideas more than just treaties, but I doubt that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither moralism nor realpolitik are the wholly dominant ideological standpoints of today's CN. What I consider the pre-eminent perspective while still driven by mechanics, remains altogether more subtle. 

 

Take any game which generates as a function of time increasing imbalance: Monopoly provides an excellent case, but any common strategy game will do. In these games players who obtain a preponderance derive pleasure from holding it- in a sense from dominating their fellow players. The curious aspect of this dynamic is that a game objective which was once ends based becomes means based, and in such extreme instances players will hesitate in seizing their advantage and may instead through their will work to prolong the game as to draw out the realization of their fantasy.

 

Here the end game becomes the true enemy of the player who stands to 'win', and behind the scenes a flow of shifting incentives exists manifesting as a desire to protect the unsustainable outlet. I think when we began there existed a substantial immersion, as community health was not a relevant factor, but that now we have transcended even your realpolitk and that the climax of your disassociation can be seen in the fact that players have and are becoming increasingly self conscious of their impact. It is not the victory of a moralism, but a maturity and a fear of losing one's playground which has led players to restrain themselves. As a byproduct of the imbalances which exist in the mechanics- playing effectively, and promoting a healthy community have ceased to align as interests, and what you see now is players grappling with the trade off between present and future enjoyment. What D34th calls 'immoral' are those who favor the former over the latter- while those proclaimed as 'good' are the sanctified preservers would sacrifice their own enjoyment to harmonize affairs between the various factions. Case in point, other than the bit about puppets, ostensibly  what was EQ but an adventure on the part of NPO and Ai to engineer a more dynamic game environment (is this not the meaning at the very root of the name itself)? 

 

This awareness I simply can't continue to diagnose as healthy any longer. To maintain an immersion players must be capable of taking community health as given, and of acting irrespective of whatever impact they have. Self consciousness of a finite time horizon paralyzes players, stagnates innovative measures, and makes the environment dull (needless to say, generating negative feedback which only exacerbates the problem). Whether a more advanced solution exists I cannot say, but it is nonetheless both ironic and paradoxical that moral propositions predicated on bob's longevity seem to only end up contributing as harms to that basic aim. Regardless, I think we have an easy choice before us- we can either smother the experience for everyone, or we can enjoy what we have while we have it. Simply put: it is true that you may either have your cake or eat it- but should you cling to it for too long, it will no doubt soon spoil.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some very large posts here.

 

Moralism is alive and well, a card to played whenever possible when there is a gain to be made from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it's been on the decline since those Alliances that once held the perception of being the "Moral Compass" of CN politics were finally called on their BS and hypocrisy.  Now it's just been a free fall of any sort of respect towards anyone.  Certain protocols, though unwritten, were broken and the responses to that was "Meh...." as they mashed their launch buttons with utter glee and had no real repercussions.

 

You also have to look at the top tier leadership vacuum which has occurred once some of the individuals, that in fact held things together, and are no longer with us, leaving behind others who did not have the charisma or leadership skills to actually fill the void.  In some alliances, this has led to the inmates running the asylum.

 

This has led to frustration, lack of interest and therefore lack of any real effort on some parts to uphold a moralistic stance without thinking "Why bother." when it devolves into a downward slide on said morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people here that consider themselves amoral are more akin to what we'd've called moralists four years ago. The wussification of the culture here is so advanced that people are outraged by offenses so minute, it dilutes the shock value of any "real atrocities" that might occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you probably made a mistake by using "moralism" where you should have use "morality." 

Moralism is not recently pejorative; it has always been an insult used to marginalize people.  There was a very brief time when moralism was popular in the Colosseum, but moralists have never been popular with governments; now, why is that?  Because a true moralist's ideals extend everywhere without consideration of the person on the judgement end.  But the label moralism, again, is just an insult.  The same people who swear punishment is coming to CoJ because we spy, collude with non-allies to attack people, meet Senate aggression with Senate aggression, etc turn right back around and call us moralists; but would any of them label our "offenses" moral?

 

Morality is a different thing.  I would no more call NEW moralists than I would call Sardonic brother.  But NEW does have a moral code upon which they act.  Any alliance with an identity has a morality, though some are depraved.  Most alliances have only the most Cromagnon "honor" morality which really means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...