Jump to content

A Tardy CCC Announcement


Recommended Posts

We also see war as quite different then most alliances here. We don't see it as a side vs side, or time to destroy X alliance. We see it as a way to get to know people on the opposite side in a way that is controlled. We very much enjoy our wars with our potential "foes". We never go into anything with a personal agenda, we go in as a way to protect our allies or us, just also with the goal of talking and getting to know those we would not necessarily interact with in our sphere. This is how we have come to know many alliances. We warred IRON so many times, Yet we stand as allies today. This shows quite truly what we consider war to be. A way to interact and get to know our brothers here on this planet bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you bring in your religious beliefs I feel it's okay to say this.  I'll ignore the blurring of the IC/OOC line, although no one said it's wrong to IC your OOC beliefs.  In fact it's probably quite normal.

 

That being said, lol, I find it horribly hypocritical that your alliance exists in this game considering the ideals that Jesus stood for:  peace, non-violence, love of your enemies to such a degree it was unprecedented, doing good to those who treat you poorly.  Giving of your possessions to them even.

 

So how is it that you've entered the last two wars via optional aggression.  That you enter wars at all to be quiet honest, is quite interesting to me.  Wouldn't be a problem if you didn't try to use OOC beliefs in an IC context which denies the core principle of that same OOC belief.  I suppose you could argue a self-defense or defense of an ally (which I also don't think Jesus would exempt from this radical peace principals), but chained oAs kind of negate this in any case and are the clearest example of hypocrisy.

 

Just something that's always bothered me in an OOC way.  I've always wondered how you got hooked in with NpO considering how many times they've been the oppressors in this world, the "Romans" so to speak, lol.  It's one thing to dine with them, but quite another to participate in their oppression.

 

Also I'm not a Christian hater, quite the opposite, just don't like the idea that some people want to be a "Christian nation" or "Christian alliance" but not really apply the some of the core principals to their nation or alliance when it's inconvenient to do so.  I'm guessing you have this discussion every now and again internally, although most of your members probably share the same OOC disregard for the non-violent teachings of Jesus as they do in CCC/IC.

When I play chess, I do my best to win. I think the other player rather expects me to - it is somewhat a part of every such game. I, at least, don't think that I am hurting my opponent in a game by playing it to win. It just is no fun to play against a pushover, you know?

 

I do not think that I am doing violence to my opponent by capturing their pawns. I certainly don't hold any animosity against my opponent when he does it to me, anyway. (Well, beyond the expected annoyance, but that hardly counts, and isn't primarily directed at them, either)

 

So if there is no violence or animosity involved, how are any non-violence teachings relevant?

 

(To stick to IC, these descriptions are entirely unintended for analogy and involve the game "chess", which is played in my nation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I play chess, I do my best to win. I think the other player rather expects me to - it is somewhat a part of every such game. I, at least, don't think that I am hurting my opponent in a game by playing it to win. It just is no fun to play against a pushover, you know?

 

I do not think that I am doing violence to my opponent by capturing their pawns. I certainly don't hold any animosity against my opponent when he does it to me, anyway. (Well, beyond the expected annoyance, but that hardly counts, and isn't primarily directed at them, either)

 

So if there is no violence or animosity involved, how are any non-violence teachings relevant?

 

(To stick to IC, these descriptions are entirely unintended for analogy and involve the game "chess", which is played in my nation)

And that is an excellent point as what Ruler said.  I like the church sports team analogy.  It's just an [OOC]game[OOC].  I like FPS games, doesn't make me a murderer. 

 

It does make the faux-morality that some alliances try to push a bit laughable....not aiming that at you at all or anyone specifically.   The "moralist" alliance is becoming a thing of the past, STA being one of the last I can remember to actually do it right (to their credit).  Our world is an interesting case study in morality, and we've always struggled with an identity....being basically amoral, but yet some alliances trying to institute a universal morality.  Although moral outrage was more or less used just to garner public support.  Raiders vs. non-raiders, TPF moral police, etc etc.  In the end I think we are finally starting to just come to terms that it's more of a chess game like you said.  Not right or wrong, just winners or losers.

 

Thanks for letting this old man ramble a bit, who's currently a loser, lol.  Best of luck to you guys!

Edited by Steve Buscemi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You raise some excellent points, Mr. Buscemi, and to understand the answer we have to look at the history of the CCC. When we first began, the CCC was much as you imagine we should be: neutral, non-violent, and reactive in its defense, not proactive. About a year and a half into our existence, we were threatened by a much larger alliance with attack and destruction because of our faith. Needless to say, we were very worried, and it was then that we realized that holding controversial beliefs such as ours, and being neutral, go very poorly together. As long as we remained aloof from politics we would be a very inviting target indeed. This is what lead us to sign our first MDP with the Greenland Republic, and later, the New Polar Order.

 

So while we would be fine with being completely non-violent, we know that the nature of the Planet that we live on means that the world would not be fine with us. And so we engage in war, so that if and when we are attacked for our faith, or for any other reason, we have allies.

 

As for our oA clauses, they are a pretty recent development that caused much unease in the CCC. Their use is currently being justified with the fact that we would enter any war worth activating a treaty for eventually anyway, just on the enemies' terms. So, we use oA clauses to proactively defend our allies, on our terms. Of course, this sounds quite a bit like an excuse, and perhaps it is. The continued usage of oA clauses remains a matter of contention within the CCC, and their future remains in doubt.

 

OOC: Also, remember, we are not a church. We are more like a church sports team. We are here to have fun with our buddies, and sometimes war is apart of that. It is difficult to reconcile our love for everyone with our nuking of their nations, I grant you. But at the end of the day, it is just pixels, and we prioritize reaching and interacting with people over non-violence towards pixels.

 

I hope this answered some of your questions, and if you have any more feel free to PM me or stop by our forums.

 

Jesus waited in the garden for his executioners, he didn't go hunt them down preemptively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is an excellent point as what Ruler said.  I like the church sports team analogy.  It's just an [OOC]game[OOC].  I like FPS games, doesn't make me a murderer. 

 

It does make the faux-morality that some alliances try to push a bit laughable....not aiming that at you at all or anyone specifically.   The "moralist" alliance is becoming a thing of the past, STA being one of the last I can remember to actually do it right (to their credit).  Our world is an interesting case study in morality, and we've always struggled with an identity....being basically amoral, but yet some alliances trying to institute a universal morality.  Although moral outrage was more or less used just to garner public support.  Raiders vs. non-raiders, TPF moral police, etc etc.  In the end I think we are finally starting to just come to terms that it's more of a chess game like you said.  Not right or wrong, just winners or losers.

 

Thanks for letting this old man ramble a bit, who's currently a loser, lol.  Best of luck to you guys!

 

While I do agree (perhaps a bit unbefitting of a CCC member) that most moral statements in the context of a game are meaningless, there are certain things which might be deemed to be subject to morality.

 

For example, flipping the table over when you are losing is in fact wrong - it ruins the purpose of the game. I think it can be validly said that sweeping all the pieces off the chessboard is wrong. Likewise, refusing to resign in a chess game when you are obviously and irrevocably losing is usually seen as a faux pas - it wastes everybodies time.

 

What is common to these statements is that things are wrong to do in a game if they hinder the game from being entertaining. In a more general statement, things are wrong to do in the game if they make the game less like the ideal game - namely less entertaining and more tedious or frustrating. Refusing to resign in a chess game and cheating at a card game are wrong in the context of the game for exactly that reason. I think a similar statement of actions being immoral if they cause a thing not to conform to its ideal is common in a more general natural law view of morality, but I won't get into that.

 

I think a decent case could be made that things like excessive whining, tedious worn-out rhetoric, peace terms involving huge reparations or other such demands, and raiding new nations are all wrong to do, on just such a basis. Whether the argument works is essentially going to depend on what you think the ideal Planet Bob looks like, or more specifically, what you think would be the most entertaining way for it to be.

 

Tl;dr: You don't have to be all that old to ramble a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to give props to whoever wrote up this announcement. The CCC was my first home, and it's sometimes hard to explain why I've always had such strong feelings for the CCC when I was only there for a short time compared to my time in the GOP. That's not to say that I don't love GOP. I do. But a part of me will always love the CCC no matter how much leadership changes hands, or how unrecognizable the membership may become and it is because after 8 years, what I loved about the CCC is still there. The CCC may have gone through several changes in the past 8 years, but what made the CCC home then, still makes it home now. Thank you for this announcement. It was sweet, charming, and a wonderful tribute for your 8th birthday milestone.

 

Happy Birthday CCC. May you continue to live on and prosper. o/

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...