Margrave Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Before we kick this off, let me make this brief statement: Since TTC went the way of the dodo after I left for Basic Training last May, I did alot of thinking about CN, tactics, ethics and such. Recently, a large trend of making philosophical tracts has re-emerged, as it usually does. Francoism and Voxism have both made their arguments, and even the venerable Tyga has stated the ethical codes which govern him and his alliance. That being said, there is credence to the idea that all the voices that need to be heard, have been heard, and that it is time to put it to bed for the time and mull it over amongst ourselves, rather than make another OWF post. Respectfully, I disagree. I believe, as I believed as the Keeper of the Tyberian Covenant, that the ethics of Merit, of Enlightened Self Interest, of Brotherhood, and of Honor are still the best guiding principles for any ruler in the absence of a true Global Order. It is thus that I submit, once again, the code of ethics, of discipline, and of strength for the consideration of CN and its users. Meditate, consider, disagree, and take the time to appreciate the beliefs and ideals of a now mostly-forgotten alliance. I thank you for your time. El Bruc, I salute you, wherever you are. -Margrave. Great actions do not wait on petty scruples, abundant virtue does not trouble with niceties; He who looks after the little and forgets the big will surely pay for it later. - Sima Quin. OK, so you come to this alliance with certain ideas about how CN is, how people are supposed to act. You may believe that Virtue, Brotherhood, Merit, and Honor don't matter in CN, or that Slaughter and Destruction in the service of any purpose justifies the purpose it serves. whether you've played this game for awhile or are just starting out, you have probably come to the conclusion that, to win in Cybernations, you have to be unscrupulous. No. That is not who we are, and if you are interested in joining this alliance, that is not who you are either. You want to believe power can be used to further virtue, rather than justify all manner of causes misguided and foolish. If so, you have come to the right place. We do not serve the concept of "power without purpose." We will not accept anything less than 100% virtue, in our actions, our thoughts, our ideas and our words. Rather, we always wield power in the service of virtue. We refuse to accept the tradeoff of virtue for power; in fact, we hold that any such tradeoff is illusory. For properly understood, these two concepts are inextricably entwined, as we shall explain: Native Ethics We catagorically reject nonsense ideologies based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You've seen the alliances built on strange doctrines not native to CN, and how they have failed. Ideals like Leftism, Anarchy, and Direct Democracy have brought alliances and rulers to destruction time and time again. The simple fact is, CN is not a very good simulator of "Earthly" political states of affairs. Just because you fervently agree with a philosophy there, that doesn't mean it'll work in practice here. It may be troubling to admit that your cherished ideals have no effective place here; but it's better to discard them than to let them lead you to ruin, which in turn makes them look bad. There is also some satisfaction to be found in developing an effective ethic "from scratch," as it were. The first lesson every Tyberian must learn is to shed our prejudices in this regard. But it's not just full-scale ideologies that apply here, such as socialism or democracy; more subtle, ingrained assumptions also must be identified and rejected; such as, the importance of rights, the efficacy of free markets, the source and purpose of justice, and what terms like fairness, virtue, and morality actually mean here. In order to succeed in CN, you have to be prepared to rebuild your entire system of (in-game) morality up from ground zero. Because frankly, if you're not willing to do that, then you're not ready to start taking CN seriously. Enlightened Self Interest On Planet Bob, each ruler is granted complete sovereignty over his nation by Admin. In this respect, we are all born equal, regardless of relative statistics or other factors. The first question regarding where morality comes from is - what responsibility do we have towards one another? The most obvious and simple answer is: none. All ethics must derive first from the responsibility you have towards your own nation. Although this sounds remarkably amoral (i.e. self-interested), very ethical arguments can be made when you take a long-term view of your nation's interest, and when you take into the interplay of others' interests around you, and how they affect you. In fact, "evil" could merely be viewed as a narrow-sighted and short-term analysis of your best interest, while "good" might be seen as a long-term, thoughtful analysis towards the same end. Perhaps in "RL," states of affairs may be more complicated than this, but the nature of the Cyberverse limits the number of interchanges and communications involved to a manageable enough level that a view of ethics as good game-theory strategy becomes possible. A comprehensive "win" strategy which takes into account the long-term effects of your actions, their impact on others and how they may impact you in turn, and a full understanding of political reality, is indistinguishable in all practical repects from an approach of honor, dignity, and common decency. In contrast, strategies which lead to failure are morally repugnant, even if they're done in the name of various good intentions. Deeds, Not Words Virtue is not a matter of good intentions at all, especially where power is involved. Someone trying their best to be virtuous, if they have authority over (or the ability to harm) others, can seem exactly like an evil person if they do their job poorly. To those in their care, the results of a leader purposely trying to screw them over and a leader just failing to live up to his responsibility are exactly the same. The practical outcome of an inept or lazy leader is exactly the same as the practical outcome of a leader betraying his own people. Furthermore, most observers aren't even in a position to be able to tell the difference. This happens all the time in Digiterra; leaders bring their alliances to ruin, and even though they may have meant well, their mistakes made them seem like double-dealing schemers to everyone else. Nobody is telepathic. Virtue, in order to be spoken of at all, must be practically measurable, in terms of real results. A consequence of this is that from time to time you may see someone who seems to have good intentions and/or otherwise "seem like a decent person" being vilified extensively in public. In these instances, it helps to remember: sometimes the crimes of the apparently well-meaning are far worse than those of the apparently malevolent. Not infrequently, the "white-hat/good-guys" consistently lead themselves and their friends to ruin through foolishness and error, and the "black-hat/bad-guys" are often the ones you can trust to stand by their word, because they understand exactly these points; they place real ethics grounded in CN realities over merely creating an appearance of virtue. Social Contract Although we bear no innate responsibility to others, how we behave towards others benefits us. Ideally, everyone would help each other and no one would ever go to war. But we don't live in an ideal environment. Some people can be trusted with our lives, others we can't trust at all, and still others change over time. In such an environment, the best thing we can do is to cooperate with those who we can trust, and lay out firm and inflexible policies towards those we can't. Simple enough. But what about when a significant number of others figure this out too? Then our single most valuable asset becomes how trustworthy we are. Your ability to keep your word is the single most powerful factor influencing the long-term success of your nation. The ability of our alliance's leadership to keep their word even more strongly influences the success of our alliance. This is why the greatest position we have, the sole absolute authority of the Tyberion Covenant, is called its "Keeper." The most essential responsibility of this position is to be someone that members and allies can trust to keep his word to them. Anything else can be delegated; but all other government positions must be completely subservient to this role, or it is worthless. Our word is our greatest asset. Therefore, we make sure that we only give it very carefully, to those we are sure we can trust. We make sure that we have a clear understanding of the language involved and its logic, for any agreement we sign. Then we completely fulfill those agreements to the greatest extent possible, in both word and spirit. Not because we owe it to others, but because we believe that adhering strictly to such a policy provides the most benefit most often over the longest time, to our alliance. Beyond that, we seek to establish trust through consistency in our actions. Ultimately, trust can only be practically defined as predictability. Regardless of whether you like someone or not, if you can be sure of their response to certain conditions, then you trust them; even if that only means you "trust them to do" a given x, it's still trust. In fact, that's the basis of all trust. Whether or not we have a signed agreement with someone, we seek to publish our operating and ethical principles, so that all can get at least some sense of how we will respond to certain situations. If someone finds themselves facing a Tyberion onslaught across a battlefield, they can rest assured that they had only themselves to blame. Sphere Of Responsibility It is nonsensical of anyone to claim responsibility for the well being of someone over whom they have no control. For example, if you're falling off a cliff and I offer you my hand, and you reject it and fall to your death, it makes no sense to say it's my fault. In fact, to blame me for your actions disrespects your free choice to reject my help! On the other hand, if you clasp my hand, placing yourself in the power of my arm, then I can help you, can take responsibility for you, and can thus take the blame if you fall. On Planet Bob, an alliance which you don't join can't control you. However, it can't look out for your interests either. Its sphere of responsibility doesn't include you, because by refusing to submit to it, you deny it the ability to properly help you. The Tyberion Covenant has no moral responsibility to look after the interests of those who are not our members. None whatsoever. To claim responsibility for the good of those who decline to grant us that authority is in fact insulting, aside from being ineffectual. It denies the consequences of their free choice not to join us, and thus insults that choice. If someone wants us to represent their interest, they are typically free to become a member, and so authorize us to take responsibility for their well-being; for we are fully responsible for the well-being of those who are our members. Therefore, for the Tyberion Covenant, morality can only be defined as what serves our own member nations best. What benefits Tyberia is good and moral, while that which does not serve it is useless and immoral. We can only be responsible to our own. This does not mean we are immoral per se; we strive for honor and virtue in our alliance. However, our morality is based upon enlightened self-interest. We are the most important savior of our own health; if we are not primarily concerned with our own benefit, no one else will be either. Nor should they; for what we have said of ourselves applies equally to other nations and alliances, in our view. Power and Virtue Virtue, without the force of arms to back it up, is nothing; mere empty words without the ability to effect any change whatsoever. And words which do not match any real state of affairs are nothing more than lies. The only appropriate sphere within which we can claim to be good or evil, is that sphere within which we have power. The corollary is that if we have no power, then we have no right to make moral claims, and thus no virtue. Virtue is nothing more or less than the intelligent application of power. At the same time, violence not in service to virtue is capricious and ultimately self-destructive; therefore, wasted. That is, if violence forwards virtue, it is a virtuous act; but if it is pointless and excessive, it is not virtuous, for it fails to serve the good of our alliance and its member states. Simply put: power without virtue is not power; virtue without power is not virtue. Armed with this understanding of the limitations of our moral authority and the ramifications of the long-term good that we seek, the actions of the Tyberion Covenant are therefore virtuous by definition. For all of the reasons stated above, we stand assured of this truism, regardless of any alien slogans which may be spewed forth by the unenlightened. - Margrave and El Bruc Note: Take Tyberion Covenant out of the doc, and apply to your CN ethics. I and my confederates believe this to be the best and most reasoned code of virtue for the cyberverse, now I invite the critique of the masses. Thank you, Margrave I, Keeper Of Tyberia. TL;DR: Might does not make right, but Right without Strength is useless. "power without virtue is not power; virtue without power is not virtue." Edited February 12, 2009 by Margrave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 In order to succeed in CN, you have to be prepared to rebuild your entire system of (in-game) morality up from ground zero. Because frankly, if you're not willing to do that, then you're not ready to start taking CN seriously. That could've come straight out of Temple of Moth Doctrine. I agree so hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) The simple fact is, CN is not a very good simulator of "Earthly" political states of affairs. I disagree. CN is a perfect simulator of RL international politics. Planet Bob is simply a more "neo-realist" view of RL, which is inevitable because there are less stakes in decision making. You see similar attitudes, similar decisions, similar foreign policy dilemmas and actions. I point to my signature and note how eerie it is that they describe CN politics so well, despite the fact that they are describing RL international politics. Edited February 12, 2009 by Big Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yay, something to read over breakfast tomorrow. I look forward to reading this one when I'm awake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Native EthicsWe catagorically reject nonsense ideologies based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You've seen the alliances built on strange doctrines not native to CN, and how they have failed. Ideals like Leftism, Anarchy, and Direct Democracy have brought alliances and rulers to destruction time and time again. The simple fact is, CN is not a very good simulator of "Earthly" political states of affairs. Just because you fervently agree with a philosophy there, that doesn't mean it'll work in practice here. It may be troubling to admit that your cherished ideals have no effective place here; but it's better to discard them than to let them lead you to ruin, which in turn makes them look bad. There is also some satisfaction to be found in developing an effective ethic "from scratch," as it were. The first lesson every Tyberian must learn is to shed our prejudices in this regard. But it's not just full-scale ideologies that apply here, such as socialism or democracy; more subtle, ingrained assumptions also must be identified and rejected; such as, the importance of rights, the efficacy of free markets, the source and purpose of justice, and what terms like fairness, virtue, and morality actually mean here. In order to succeed in CN, you have to be prepared to rebuild your entire system of (in-game) morality up from ground zero. Because frankly, if you're not willing to do that, then you're not ready to start taking CN seriously. This is very true, and I've argued it to no avail many times before. This is one (of many) reasons why it's important to play the game IC, and to separate your RL self from the character you play here. The circumstances in cybernations are not the circumstances in the real world. There are similarities - but there are also differences. In the end it's an entirely different environment, entirely different rules, and thus workable strategies are not the same. Until someone grasps that basic truth deep down in their bones, it's like they're living in a world that's half hallucination. I miss El Bruc too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I should just go find the original post and c/p my answer. But, it's less effort to respond again The first lesson every Tyberian must learn is to shed our prejudices in this regard. But it's not just full-scale ideologies that apply here, such as socialism or democracy; more subtle, ingrained assumptions also must be identified and rejected; such as, the importance of rights, the efficacy of free markets, the source and purpose of justice, and what terms like fairness, virtue, and morality actually mean here.In order to succeed in CN, you have to be prepared to rebuild your entire system of (in-game) morality up from ground zero. Because frankly, if you're not willing to do that, then you're not ready to start taking CN seriously. Agreed; RL political ideologies just don't translate to CN. The old left is the classic example of that, and I'm happy to see that the new left (CPCN/SE, now in The International) seem to have finally adapted their philosophy so it fits CN. Therefore, for the Tyberion Covenant, morality can only be defined as what serves our own member nations best. What benefits Tyberia is good and moral, while that which does not serve it is useless and immoral. We can only be responsible to our own. I'm quoting this paragraph because it basically distils 90% of the document. And to that I say: that is a shallow and weak morality. Self-interest is not morality; universal projection of the rights that you wish for yourself should be the goal of morality. As you say, morality cannot mean anything without the power to enforce it upon evildoers. Pretty much everything else follows logically from that premise, but since I don't agree with the premise it is of no value (to me) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Have you edited this since it was posted at TTC? If so, I'll give it another read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Whew! This is going to take printing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOXC5991 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Interesting read. I agree with the part saying that virtue is worthless unless you casn back it up, however... If you truly want to be a "moral" alliance you really DO have to care about others outside your sphere. If your morals only apply to those that have come willingly to you then you are saying that morals only apply some of the time, defeating the entire purpose of them. But the seperation of real world from CN beliefs is absolutely neccesary. In real life, i would cringe to even think of 1 man rule of an (essentially) socialist group. But in CN, that is not only the norm, it is what WORKS. Socialism has found its home on Planet Bob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hertugen Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 TL;DR: Might does not make right, but Right without Strength is useless. "power without virtue is not power; virtue without power is not virtue." I actually read the whole thing, but this is one of the best TL;DR I´ve seen in a LONG time. A good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 But the seperation of real world from CN beliefs is absolutely neccesary. In real life, i would cringe to even think of 1 man rule of an (essentially) socialist group. But in CN, that is not only the norm, it is what WORKS. Socialism has found its home on Planet Bob! Umm no, that's monarchy. Socialism doesnt work in any world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altheus Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 morality can only be defined as what serves our own member nations best. I disagree. Morality does not always equal self-interest, because people can react against their self-interest to uphold their morals. I would however agree with you that morality is a misleading word as it means different things to different people. I prefer the word Motivations. It's clear to me that Tyberion ethics is centred on one single motivation. Protection of it's members. However they are far more motivations in the Cyberverse that are equally relevent and can often conflict. Loyalty to friends, loyality to a colour sphere, alliance well-being, alliance growth, providing entertainment, the wish to promote a political ideal, justice, revenge, nation-building, providing a community etc. etc. Thank goodness there is such a mixture of motivations, as if there wasn't things would be pretty boring. It's the interactions and conflicts of these motivations that make Planet Bob what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted February 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I disagree. Morality does not always equal self-interest, because people can react against their self-interest to uphold their morals. I would however agree with you that morality is a misleading word as it means different things to different people. I prefer the word Motivations.It's clear to me that Tyberion ethics is centred on one single motivation. Protection of it's members. However they are far more motivations in the Cyberverse that are equally relevent and can often conflict. Loyalty to friends, loyality to a colour sphere, alliance well-being, alliance growth, providing entertainment, the wish to promote a political ideal, justice, revenge, nation-building, providing a community etc. etc. Thank goodness there is such a mixture of motivations, as if there wasn't things would be pretty boring. It's the interactions and conflicts of these motivations that make Planet Bob what it is. To answer a few points: 1. The first and last loyalties a Leader should have is to the people he serves. 2. Usually, doing moral acts is also beneficial to your members. What I'm advocating is doing moral acts that are also useful to you, not random pointless ones that drain you for no reason. 3. Mero, it hasn't changed...unfortunately. There just aren't any Tyberians around to edit it. If I could get a few of them together to brainstorm, well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Interesting read. Noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Interesting points, and I strongly agree with what you say about the futility of trying to apply real world political theories directly to CN. It hardly needs saying that there are so many social result based factors and emotions present in RL politics which simply don't and can't manifest themselves in the limited system of CN. Certainly some elements of RL politics can be transferred over and are observed directly, but it still surprises me how many people think that CN even has the potential to mirror the real world. I don't pretend to agree with your overall view since I myself see the goal not as maximising power or success, but a realistic combination of power, longevity and OOC fun which inevitably leads to a different philosophy; however what you say is for the most part a good doctrine for those with similar aims to yourself. Your one point I strongly disagree with is that on trust. While trust is certainly a virtue both in the conventional sense and a limited one within your usage of the word, it is not necessarily a determinant of success or power; although it no doubt has some positive effect is one of the less significant factors in CN success. Further, deviousness or lack-of-trust-ability can be an equally effective tactic both on an individual level, as with some players who become extemely successful by keeping quiet so as to avoid the limelight, letting others make the hard decisions and take the flak for them, enjoying the benefits of an allaince and gaining from the easy wars, then judiciously hopping alliance the moment trouble seems to be brewing; or on an alliance level as with those make utterly worthless treaties and sometimes in such ways as to create ties to every major alliance in the game so they can choose exactly which side of any conflict they wish to be on. Such alliances are more likely to end up in the winning crowd provided they don't show themselves up to the imperceptive majority by being extemely vague and intransparent (a key feature of CN politics - RL politicians at least pretend to be open and informative). On the other hand I'm sure most people feel that at least several alliances who got screwed over in the last GW ended up that way exactly because they were trsutworthy and stuck by their word - these alliances are justifiably well respected as a result but they don't really hold much power. I'm most certainly not arguing that people should adopt the distrustful approach, which I find repulsive, merely pointing out that trustworthiness has little bearing on CN success or power, and can even be destructive. Your definition of trust as just 'predictability' is incompatible with 'keeping your word'. If talking in terms of simple predictability, one could quite reasonably say that "I trust alliance X, Y, Z to make worthless treaties, be manipulated by others they're nought but slaves to, and go back on their word on a whim". While this may perfectly true, if trust is defined in this way, it is both a pointless concept and holds no virtue since it will have no bearing on anybodies actions. Edited February 15, 2009 by Chairman Cao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Repost. I think the fact that I joined the alliance tells you that I agree with this document, though I'm not usually a fan of attempting to write down one's principals because it often leads to people living by the document rather than the idea. Seeing the Covenant fall was truly heartbreaking after the time I'd invested. I'm glad to say I'm in a happier place now though. Edited February 15, 2009 by Blue Lightning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 This was actually well thought out and full of good points. Well played Margrave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Ryan Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 ah TTC, I think I heard of them or something so Margrave how you been buddy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Someone bring el bruc back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Someone bring el bruc back use your super sekrit Evil Tyrant powerz gogogo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstep Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Someone bring el bruc back trust me if it could have been done it would have been done a long time ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.