bscurantist quasihWhat is Francoism: Is it oobbesian nonsense? Yes.

[Vladimir]

You seek to create a separation between base and superstructure where there is none. If an analysis (that's what gain/cost reasoning is) is applied to the nation on an individual level then it is equally applied to the superstructure, since it is made up of nothing more than individual nations.

Of course, as I outline in Francoism (if you had ever actually read it), this is why alliances are the logical outcome of the base, and that self-serving nations will ultimately either join or create one -- it is not optimal, either for national strength (which, contrary to your assumption, Francoism does not focus on) or freedom, to be alone in a sea of anarchy.

You say that Francoism has been shown to leave an alliance with suboptimal growth, but where is your evidence for this? The GPA? I don't see them at the top rank -- and even when they were, it is irrelevant since this is not the aim of Francoism. 1Clearly something went wrong along the way. Contrarily the Order has been consistently at the top since 2006, and was consistently at the top (in strength and power) of its game for three years prior to that. Aside from IRON it is double the strength of the next tier of alliances.

"If you dropped the pretense of philosophy, but continued on the same path"

This is the heart of your misunderstanding. If we stopped calling it a philosophy and followed the same path we would still be following the same analysis! Francoism isn't defined by the label you attach to it, but by the conclusions it reaches -- conclusions that are followed by the Order. If the Order never uses the word 'Francoism' again but continues following those conclusions then nothing has changed. A rose by any other name...

[LeVentNoir]

You seek to create a separation between base and superstructure where there is none. If an analysis (that's what gain/cost reasoning is) is applied to the nation on an individual level then it is equally applied to the superstructure, since it is made up of nothing more than individual nations.

These is a separation. Its called personality and interaction. The game has none. The metagame does.

Of course, as I outline in Francoism (if you had ever actually read it),

I read the wiki pages. You need a new proof reader. It was ill defined, waffally, and came to no conclusions, not unexpected given its lack of structure.

it is not optimal, either for national strength (which, contrary to your assumption, Francoism does not focus on) or freedom, to be alone in a sea of anarchy.

It is not optimal to war. War results in a net loss from the system, hence logic would say that war is non optimal, and in a purely logical system it would not occur. Hence, nations would not need to band together to defend, as there would be nothing to defend from. A sea of anarchy. Totally free. (oh, your side point about freedom. Authoritarian Dictatorship = free? No.)

You say that Francoism has been shown to leave an alliance with suboptimal growth, but where is your evidence for this? The GPA? I don't see them at the top rank

No, I say philosophy in any case results in a systemwide sub optimality. Your illogical act of war ( and resulting sub optimality ) is the reason the logical route does not have a current example.

-- and even when they were, it is irrelevant since this is not the aim of Francoism.

You pointed out above that Francoism teaches you how to play the game. The aim of the game is to rise to the top. To win as it were. So either you are wrong, and it does tell you to gain strength and rise to the top, or it is flawed and does not teach you how to play the game optimally.

Clearly something went wrong along the way.

Philosophy and personality crept in.

Contrarily the Order has been consistently at the top since 2006,

History says no.

and was consistently at the top (in strength and power) of its game for three years prior to that.

As noted on the wiki, different game, different philosophy, different order. So, no this order was not.

Aside from IRON it is double the strength of the next tier of alliances.

Due to the aggressive method of attacking those who are better than you, and play the game better. As I have said before, war causes a loss in growth, so is sub optimal, and should be avoided.

This is the heart of your misunderstanding. If we stopped calling it a philosophy and followed the same path we would still be following the same analysis! Francoism isn't defined by the label you attach to it, but by the conclusions it reaches -- conclusions that are followed by the Order. If the Order never uses the word 'Francoism' again but continues following those conclusions then nothing has changed. A rose by any other name...

If they never used that word again one thing would change. They would look less silly. And as I have said before, there are no conclusions reached. It seems to be the thought that those seeking to control and exploit should be over thrown by the under-trodden masses.

So, NPO, how does it feel to be the 'under-trodden masses' doing the controlling and exploiting?

Slightly hypocritical or does francoism gloss over that point?

[New Frontier]

People see the need to create in-game philosophies, almost to the point of creating an entire religion, to give some sort of meaning to their actions. Behind the pixels and code of Cybernations is an entire universe, as distant from ours as Tolkien's. However, the people that populate that universe are the same people that populate our own, so their needs and desires are ultimately the same, if met differently.

In our world, people take up religions, or other appropriate moral code, in order to justify actions. Because if you do not have some greater cause, you have nothing, and you are simply an actor playing a part for no reason but because the script tells you to. In my own life I follow God because otherwise nothing makes sense. I tell the truth, don't commit murder and forgive others because that's what God would have us do. If God's not in it, it is nothing. I certainly don't do it because it will "grease the wheels of society".

Others take up a different religion, or replace religion with a moral code or belief system of a different model, in order to create a reason for doing things. Because we can never cut off "IC" and "OOC", Vlad, Ivan and their friends took up Francoism as their basis for life in CN.

Everyone needs a purpose, no matter how silly your world is.

[Opethian]

Wow. George Orwell would have had a field day with the obtuse nature of the OPs post.

[LeVentNoir]

<snip>

Or you could accept you are alone in a big universe and choose your own purpose. I have my own logical self betterment as my purpose. I do not need any 'religion' or 'philosophy' to guide me.

Pink fuzzy blankets need to be pulled away from adults. Blankets mental and physical.

[New Frontier]

Or you could accept you are alone in a big universe and choose your own purpose. I have my own logical self betterment as my purpose. I do not need any 'religion' or 'philosophy' to guide me.

Pink fuzzy blankets need to be pulled away from adults. Blankets mental and physical.

My point is that everyone has a moral code. Even your lack of code is a code in and of itself, if a rather simple one.

[Vladimir]

I'm not sure where to begin. With your assertion that 'if we lived in a magical peaceful world of bunnies and rainbows war wouldn't be necessary', with your claim to have read the Francoist works followed by a question on how authoritarianism can bring freedom, with your assumption that Francoist analysis ignores personality and interaction, or with your absurd summary of Francoism: "It seems to be the thought that those seeking to control and exploit should be over thrown by the under-trodden masses."

I don't go to MHA and say that their governing system is stupid without knowing anything about it, one would think that you would afford Francoists the same luxury.

But let us just take this one quote at a time.

These is a separation. Its called personality and interaction. The game has none. The metagame does.

If by 'the game' you mean nations in the state of nature, then of course it has personality and interaction. Individual nations have personality and they interact. If you mean the material elements and physical laws -- infrastructure, tech, etc -- then I'm not sure what your point is.

I read the wiki pages. You need a new proof reader. It was ill defined, waffally, and came to no conclusions, not unexpected given its lack of structure.

That you find no conclusions is to be expected if you have read very little. What about the Paradox of Freedom (Absolute Freedom and Freedom of Potential), Autocratic Democracy, the Absolute Sovereign, the Moral Case for War, the Undesirability of International Rights, Materialism, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

It is not optimal to war. War results in a net loss from the system, hence logic would say that war is non optimal, and in a purely logical system it would not occur. Hence, nations would not need to band together to defend, as there would be nothing to defend from. A sea of anarchy. Totally free. (oh, your side point about freedom. Authoritarian Dictatorship = free? No.)

First, on freedom, you cannot claim to have any understanding of what you are attempting to discuss without having read The Meaning of Freedom. Come back once you have if you want to debate it, but preferably not before.

War generally causes a loss in growth, yes, (though I would hastily point out that there are major exceptions such as tech raiding), but you cannot bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Nations go to war for all manner of reasons, and alliances are by and large an inevitable result of this. There really isn't much to argue on this point -- it simply is.

No, I say philosophy in any case results in a systemwide sub optimality. Your illogical act of war ( and resulting sub optimality ) is the reason the logical route does not have a current example.

That makes no sense. How can philosophy result in "systemwide sub optimality"? Does something become suboptimal because I write it down? And war isn't the result of having a codified philosophy, it is the result of various strategic considerations that take place in all nations and all alliances. You can read The Morality of War for my view on it.

You pointed out above that Francoism teaches you how to play the game. The aim of the game is to rise to the top. To win as it were. So either you are wrong, and it does tell you to gain strength and rise to the top, or it is flawed and does not teach you how to play the game optimally.

The aim depends on your analysis. As you'd understand if you'd read Francoist works as you claim (more than just the basic introduction texts as you seem to be basing your flawed interpretations on), the aim is to achieve a freedom of potential. Strength is important in doing so, but being behind the GPA in strength for a few months was irrelevant to it. The Order seems to be achieving all goals quite well -- indeed, the common argument here is that we achieve them top well.

Philosophy and personality crept in.

The GPA was always based on a philosophy -- that of neutrality and pacifism. They weren't always great at it, but to claim that 'philosophy crept in' just at the end and caused their downfall is asinine. As for personality, it exists in everyone always. I'm not sure what your point is here.

As noted on the wiki, different game, different philosophy, different order. So, no this order was not.

No. As noted on the wiki, different material conditions, different conclusions to analysis. So, X+X=Y where X is our material conditions and Y is our conclusion. Where our material conditions equal one, our conclusion is two, but if they change to two then our conclusion is four. Thus we have used the same method of analysis -- the same philosophical principles -- to achieve two different conclusions. This is why I generally prefer to refer to Francoism as science rather than philosophy. But regardless, we used Francoism there too.

Due to the aggressive method of attacking those who are better than you, and play the game better. As I have said before, war causes a loss in growth, so is sub optimal, and should be avoided.

Ignoring your entirely baseless (and indeed, demonstratively wrong) claim that we 'aggressively attack those who are better than us', if those we attacked were better than us then we would have been destroyed in the course of hostilities.

And war is always less preferable than peace in terms of growth, but peace is not always possible. As I outline in The Morality of War, the Order's wars are carried out to protect it.

It seems to be the thought that those seeking to control and exploit should be over thrown by the under-trodden masses.

After all you said, this is you applying an analysis of another reality to this one. Francoism in the other world emphasised its revolutionary nature of the feederite masses overthrowing the userites. These groups do not exist here. Again, I would advise you to actually know what you're discussing before you discuss it, or we won't be the only ones looking silly.

[Bernard]

The forum is simply the political arena of the material world -- a means of communication. Whether or not this arena exists has important implications, yes, but I don't see how it changes the Francoist position other than to facilitate interaction between large groups -- thus aiding in the creation and growth of alliance memberships. We could go on to look at many more of these inbuilt collectives, but I don't see the point. They don't challenge any 'first principles' -- the state of nature still existed and continues (for some) to exist, and the implications of this are left unchanged.

Trying to rebuff the state of nature as a collectivity prior to your individual cannot be rebuff'd by treating my examples with a counter-assertion, counter-assertions will be my prerogative, and I maintain them as long as my opponent maintains nonargument in the area where my interests is peaked. As he can see that his state of nature is quite undefended he will ride hither and attack the Typhoeus-like objection growing there.

The 'state of nature' is affected on Cybernations because there is a forum, however, and emphasis on this -in its natural state Cybernations has a forum, as well as - as you say quite correctly - no universal morality, and contrariwise - some laws. It is true that you emphasise the plausability of the francoist state of nature and conceal its weaknesses overso. Your state of nature causes grave offense to the reality of pixels and much more code here! (Though that is not a moral claim, for those who insist I make some morality in the subtility and spinosity of these paragraphs) You do not marry with the facts of the true state of nature in Cybernations; it is rather obvious too that there cannot be self-interest'd individuals when cybernations is prefigured by group-interest'd collectives a priori.

Bless Hobbes but there is no war of all against all here in the state of nature - though there is wars here. And do not by word order confuse this as a justification, but in cybernations a nation can't go to war for two days when it first registers, though this is crucial, I would rather it stayed as a crucial objection on its own and not build a lofty critique when each stand so singularly on their own more upright without leaning on each other falsely. As before exempla sunt odiosa. The state of nature as a basis for all your francoist morality is flaw'd, if only in a shallow way, there are so many objections to Hobbes which can be given to you, as charity, a passel of truth.

I do object when people say your francoist eudaemonistic morality is wrong tout de suite, taken with everything you say too, for that is ridiculous, and though your metaphysics is false, any morality can pull itself up by its bootstraps, and yours without the francoist state of nature very easily. An objection would need to be raised against that separate but here I will not do that because we are almost in agreemony as to our conclusions, though we wildly diverge because my morality has no basis in Hobbesian metaphysics or any adaption thereof. Though my agreemony thereto won't purse my lips on my other points.

And your repeated attempts to paint Francoism as 'Hobbessian copypasta' only goes to show your ignorance of both theories. He is an important influence in Francoism's form, yes, but little more -- and not even the most important influence when taking the whole philosophy into consideration. And such attacks don't actually challenge (or even address) any of Francoism's points, they only cheapen debate with pseudo-intellectualised name calling.

I think you'll find that without such allusions we will soon blunt our wits and have no clear idea where the francoists state of nature is derived. But also, your Hobbesian francoist state of nature is a silly thesis, and therefore merits derision just as it merits explanation, justification, refutation and so forth. Although you are incognito about this very heavy influence on a particular part of your theory, I think you will find the more I paint it as a vulgar copying the more people will realise that it is at the very least this, until you patch this dike I have forthwith unpatch'd. Though you may instead parry with my summary here, in its metaphor, rather than the actual scribble built under it, or deny this and run away! Come back and be a man! Yes all good charlatans accuse their oponents, or the world, of some ignorance, and it informs very little for it is not the revelation of a state of being, which is still an ad hominem if it is untrue, and a red herring if it is not. Ignorance is though, or was, a thing of entertainment long ago in Christian times when people did not know Jesus. Today it is more an allusion to this or its crass opposite, and a thing of name calling - and that is a mean coincidence for you who preach somekind of piety and purity in debate, which I call bluntness and witless, as the prior of the ignorati.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Bernard

[eyriq]

I think Star Trek gives us the best critique of Francoism in their depiction of the Borg; materialistic utility drawn out to its most extreme conclusion. But please planet Bob, keep on letting Francoist thought permeate your societies until any and all substance is drained away and you are left part of the collective.

[Sal Paradise]

Vox Populi is irrelevant. Your spy network is irrelevant. Come out of peace mode and surrender your IPs. We will add your technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

[Bernard]

Vox Populi is irrelevant. Your spy network is irrelevant. Come out of peace mode and surrender your IPs. We will add your technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

Relevance?

[Sal Paradise]

Relevance?

The poster above me compared Francoism to the Borg. I made a joke.

Your services are not needed here, but thanks for your concern.

[Iotupa]

Honestly, this is one of the worst threads I've ever seen. Francoism is a "doctrine" that was created for another game, brought here, and changes whenever it needs to change. Whatever you believe is no different. Arguing over this kind of stuff is pointless and not really worth the server space it wastes.

[Azaghul]

So what is solid about Francoism except that it's basically saying that you'll act in your own self interest? Everything else is just trying to express how to do that best and is changed at will depending on the situation, so it's not really part of the ideology at all. As a guiding ideology to guide how to actually do anything, it's pretty bankrupt as there's nothing concrete about it that actually guides you in doing what is best for yourself.

The ability to create walls of text out of such a relatively little and meaningless "philosophy" is pretty astounding.

[Bernard]

So what is solid about Francoism except that it's basically saying that you'll act in your own self interest?

That is pretty much what I am objecting to in this thread, to be clear, not that I will act in my self-interest, but that I act at all, as francoism presumes I do.

The rest of francoism is not the topic of this thread.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Bernard

[Reachwind]

You seem to think that there is no perfect way to play the game.

The game is incredibly simple. Decisions are made based on the gain / cost reasoning applied to your nation. It is possible for everyone to play the CN game with absolute precision. You seem to think that you can apply philosophy to this. It is not possible.

So, what you must be getting at is how to play the metagame. This is not a purely logical system. (If it was, there would be not alliances, merely a sea of anarco-capitalistic lone nations only interested in playing the game perfectly.

So, what lowers the efficiency of the meta game?

Opinions, philosophy and personality. These cause us to take actions which result in a suboptimal path in playing the game. Your philosophy has been shown to result in your nations growing less than others which applied logic to the game and metagame. (Ref GPA: Neutrality is logical, and hence they were shown to be better at the game and metagame than you.)

So, now you say that Francoism is the analysis of the world? It is not. It is a predetermined mindset which biases your analysis. If you dropped the pretense of philosophy, but continued on the same path (in the game, collecting and growing) (in the metagame, being authoritarian powertrippers) then nothing would change.

Oh yes, I forget. You would not have a redundant, ill defined, glowing target of a joke hanging over your heads for people troll and rip apart.

It would be ok if they admitted it was just a made up thing for colour. They seem to think it is a real thing which has an impact. When your invisible friend gets to this point, either get counseling or make it into a religion. One choice is logical, and the other plain silly. We know what the NPO did.

This is a good post. I only had one thought while reading it though....

If everyone played the game "perfectly" completely maximizing their growth potential through economics the oldest nation would always be in front. New nations could never compete with older nations.

War is the only mechanic in the game to create both a mechanism for knocking down the older nations to keep them in range of the younger nations and also a way to create "need" for nation growth. A new nation needs to grow in order to be militarily able to survive as well as be ready to bring down an older nation in order to compete for top nation status.

The alliance metagame provides both a mechanism for control over this process and a method to defend against it.

I think the faux-philosophy of Francoism just defines a strategy for manipulation of the metagame control/defense enviroment. In the same way that "LULZ" defines a method for participation in the metagame.