Why I am a Pacifican

[apriland]

Must be something in the water.

Given the color of the NPO, the fact that P stands for Pacific, we have these all the time in Southern California, and the fact that I am a science dork, I just immediately thought of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_tide

Swimming in red tides is supposedly dangerous, I don't even know what drinking it will do to you.

[Geopet]

I too would simply leave this game. I've been playing this game for two years, but after experiencing the NPO, I would never do anything else. To me, your correct NPO IS the game. I probably spend 99% of my CN time running or participating in internal NPO biusness, (which includes extensive ambassador duties) and maybe 1% on the actual CN website. Getting trolled in this cesspit, or acting like an over-caffineated hyena to troll others isn't really my idea of fun.

Please don't ever leave with that as your reason. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I just see so many closed minds here that are just waiting to flower. Trust me, I once had your "my alliance or quit CN" OOC mindset and once I shook off that absolute nuttiness this game became much more fun than I ever imagined it could be.

edit = qualifier

Edited June 17, 2009 by Geopet

[Roadie]

I'm curious; when you make a quick run to the store to pick up your favourite beverages, do you curse every person you walk past? Do you slam a door in the face of an elderly lady? Do you give the finger to the guy who asks you for the time? Do you sneeze in the cashier's face?

The idea that someone needs to prove something to you in order to earn a default amount of respect (etiquette, good manners, etc) is pretty retarded and indeed quite arrogant. Get over yourself.

You're talking about common courtesy, not respect.

[hizzy]

You're talking about common courtesy, not respect.

Common courtesy, decency, manners, etiquette.... these are all based on the principle of respect. If you have absolutely no respect for someone, you would not give a damn about taking off your muddy shoes before taking a tour of his home, would you?

[Ivan Moldavi]

Common courtesy, decency, manners, etiquette.... these are all based on the principle of respect. If you have absolutely no respect for someone, you would not give a damn about taking off your muddy shoes before taking a tour of his home, would you?

Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness. - Bismarck

As one that has attempted to be polite even in the face of adversity I can say that I agree with the sentiment expressed by Hizzy. One should offer respect to those willing to die on the field of battle, regardless of political differences.

At least until such time as those differences translate into disrespect to you.

[muffasamini]

Please don't ever leave with that as your reason. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I just see so many closed minds here that are just waiting to flower. Trust me, I once had your "my alliance or quit CN" OOC mindset and once I shook off that absolute nuttiness this game became much more fun than I ever imagined it could be.

Oh, it would be fun. But it would be a different game. A fun one for many perhaps, but a different one, and one that I dont think I'd enjoy nearly as much as the NPO game I'm playing.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Oh, it would be fun. But it would be a different game. A fun one for many perhaps, but a different one, and one that I dont think I'd enjoy nearly as much as the NPO game I'm playing.

That is an interesting way to look at it.

I have been playing the same game since January 2006. The window dressing seems to have changed somewhat but the overall aspects of the Cyberverse have remained the same.

The stage stays the same, it is just the actors that come and go.

[Ogaden]

Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness. - Bismarck

As one that has attempted to be polite even in the face of adversity I can say that I agree with the sentiment expressed by Hizzy. One should offer respect to those willing to die on the field of battle, regardless of political differences.

At least until such time as those differences translate into disrespect to you.

This is true, decorum should always be maintained, even if it is not returned or reciprocated.

I should note however that hizzy is not exactly someone who has the right to accuse other people of being rude.

Edited June 17, 2009 by James Dahl

[hizzy]

This is true, decorum should always be maintained, even if it is not returned or reciprocated.

I should note however that hizzy is not exactly someone who has the right to accuse other people of being rude.

Perhaps not, but him being rude was not the main point behind what I was saying.

Rather, I was simply showing that an attitude that nobody deserves a default amount of respect is rather idiotic and short-sighted. Even I have never began a conversation with "go $%&@ yourself".

[Roadie]

Common courtesy, decency, manners, etiquette.... these are all based on the principle of respect. If you have absolutely no respect for someone, you would not give a damn about taking off your muddy shoes before taking a tour of his home, would you?

I absolutely would. One does not have to respect someone to use their manners. Not giving common courtesy is a lack of character, not a lack of respect.

That's just my opinion and I recognize there's plenty of room for other views.

[enderland]

I absolutely would. One does not have to respect someone to use their manners. Not giving common courtesy is a lack of character, not a lack of respect.

That's just my opinion and I recognize there's plenty of room for other views.

There is a point however when someone can exhaust all my common courtesy for them.

Fortunately (un?) I never hit that point with people in spite of some people's attempts to run up the bill.

[hizzy]

I absolutely would. One does not have to respect someone to use their manners. Not giving common courtesy is a lack of character, not a lack of respect.

That's just my opinion and I recognize there's plenty of room for other views.

Now we're just playing lingual paper-rock-scissors... character, respect, manners, courtesy... these are all rather subjective terms. I was actually about to write way too much to explain what I meant, but honestly I don't think it matters.

I think these words (character, respect, manners, courtesy) are all tied together and interchangeable. To claim that one does not owe another a default amount of respect because they're human beings, yet at the same time support the idea of common courtesy is rather... inconsistent.

[Roadie]

Now we're just playing lingual paper-rock-scissors... character, respect, manners, courtesy... these are all rather subjective terms. I was actually about to write way too much to explain what I meant, but honestly I don't think it matters.

I think these words (character, respect, manners, courtesy) are all tied together and interchangeable. To claim that one does not owe another a default amount of respect because they're human beings, yet at the same time support the idea of common courtesy is rather... inconsistent.

Again, I understand there's plenty of room for differences on this. You see respect and courtesy as being related. Or perhaps courtesy as a form of respect. I have no problems with that and giving a base amount of respect to everyone from the start until they prove it's not deserved is certainly a very respectable view. I just don't see them as related.

To me, respect can only be genuine, courtesy is little more than a formality, which is why, in my view, it can be given to anyone. Including those who are not respected.

[enderland]

I might no respect anything you say Roadie but I still respect you as a ruler/person.

[Letum]

I think these words (character, respect, manners, courtesy) are all tied together and interchangeable. To claim that one does not owe another a default amount of respect because they're human beings, yet at the same time support the idea of common courtesy is rather... inconsistent.

No, they are not. Whilst they are often linked; and indeed likely to be bundled together when used to condition children towards "good behaviour", there is a substantial difference between all of these concepts.

Respect is an esteem for the worth of another person. That is in no way interchangable with a display of courtesy or good manners, and if you think it is, then you are arguing about a different concept. It is perfectly possible to act with a semblance of politeness and courtesy towards parties whose worth you have no esteem for at all; and to claim that they are interchangable would in fact imply that the only way to maintain this level of politeness is if you maintain a sense of respect towards the other party; and the moment they lose your respect, your behaviour towards them would lose all courtesy. That's absurd. The world is never an absolute either-or situation.

I'm curious; when you make a quick run to the store to pick up your favourite beverages, do you curse every person you walk past? Do you slam a door in the face of an elderly lady? Do you give the finger to the guy who asks you for the time? Do you sneeze in the cashier's face?

Though this quote gives the impression that you do believe that the world is black-and-white. So, because I do not hold any particular default level of respect for people I do not know, does it mean that I must act in the exact opposite way, and go out of my way to act like a jackass? No. I will be polite, I will be courteous to people, no matter what I think of them. But my esteem for their worth and my respect for them will be exactly the level they earn, no more, no less.

You will never tie the two together. I will always extend a basic level of politeness to people no matter how much of my respect they might accumulate or lose. People do not need to "gain" my politeness, nor have to be worth something as human beings in order for me to extend politeness, and trying to interchange that behaviour with respect will never happen. And if having this distinction is going to make me "pretty retarded", then so be it. I will not "get over" that.

[hizzy]

No, they are not. Whilst they are often linked; and indeed likely to be bundled together when used to condition children towards "good behaviour", there is a substantial difference between all of these concepts.

Respect is an esteem for the worth of another person. That is in no way interchangable with a display of courtesy or good manners, and if you think it is, then you are arguing about a different concept. It is perfectly possible to act with a semblance of politeness and courtesy towards parties whose worth you have no esteem for at all; and to claim that they are interchangable would in fact imply that the only way to maintain this level of politeness is if you maintain a sense of respect towards the other party; and the moment they lose your respect, your behaviour towards them would lose all courtesy. That's absurd. The world is never an absolute either-or situation.

First, after re-reading what I wrote, specifically the part you highlighted, I think I simply misspoke.

Obviously words like "courtesy" and "character" are not interchangeable. However, courtesy and manners can be. I agree that there is much difference between the concepts, however I also believe that these concepts are mostly subjective, and when you cut out all the "fat" (albeit, there's a LOT of it), you end up with basic principles that are very similar.

Etiquette... manners... courtesy... these dictate, in one way or another, how one should behave. Now, this begs the question; why? Why should I behave a certain way? Sure, my parents taught me to hold the door... but why? The other person is perfectly capable of opening their own doors, so why have I (and presumably, you) been taught, and believe, that we should hold the door open if someone is coming through right after us?

Though this quote gives the impression that you do believe that the world is black-and-white. So, because I do not hold any particular default level of respect for people I do not know, does it mean that I must act in the exact opposite way, and go out of my way to act like a jackass? No. I will be polite, I will be courteous to people, no matter what I think of them. But my esteem for their worth and my respect for them will be exactly the level they earn, no more, no less.

You will never tie the two together. I will always extend a basic level of politeness to people no matter how much of my respect they might accumulate or lose. People do not need to "gain" my politeness, nor have to be worth something as human beings in order for me to extend politeness, and trying to interchange that behaviour with respect will never happen. And if having this distinction is going to make me "pretty retarded", then so be it. I will not "get over" that.

I did not mean to imply that I believe that the world is black-and-white... but I was using extremes to make an example. Now, your post again begs the question; why? Why are you polite? Furthermore, what defines polite? We're no longer talking about tangible objects, science, or math, but rather purely subjective principles.

Human beings, as highly intelligent as we are, do not do things "just because." Claiming that you are polite without a reason is absurd. First, because nothing tangible can define politeness. Secondly, because it is the basic functioning of any animal to have a drive behind their actions.

Now, earlier in this thread you claimed that you give no respect until someone has earned it. You claimed that you do not give someone a default amount of respect just for being of the same species as you (you worded it in a different way, but same idea). Yet at the same time, you claim that you will still provide people with common courtesies and politeness even though you don't know them.

That sir, is a default level of respect. That is you respecting someone as a human being, as the basic principle shared by the concepts touched on earlier is a respect for mankind.

Table etiquette in North America may not have the same rules as table etiquette in Asia, but when you cut away those details, you're left with the reason that both of these cultures have set table etiquette in the first place. Surely, it is not because one will starve if he puts his elbows on the table. Rather, it is simply a way of respecting another member of the same species, namely, as a human being.

[Bartley]

Forgive me, because I know this conversation has been inactive for quite awhile now. However, I have just finished reading the thread (finally!) and wished to make some remarks.

Thanks to all the posters to my first thread. I honestly believed it would get buried and also believed it would be trolled into oblivion, but I felt I should test the waters here. I was pleasantly surprised to find support and criitique, detailed views of the causes of the war, the continuing peace negotiations, and the subjectivity of morality.

To those who believe that the NPO experience is simply just another experience that everyone has, I agree to an extent. I must presume that much of the experience here are shared throughout; and in that light, should we not all have a better understanding of our opponents? I'm not advocating peace and love: this game was built around politics and war; that will never change. But we all strive to provide security and seek the means ot secure it, so pretending that we are otherwise above one another in that regard is a bit silly.

The Pacifican experience is different and this latest war has proven that to me. Few alliances have survived wars against all odds and crushed into near extinction, and I applaud their perserverence. (I am aware that the NPO often drove them there) But how many alliances have members who invite other members to real life gatherings? How many alliances have members who post pictures of themselves with an actual flag of their alliance? I can not say I know for sure, but that kind of dedication is rare wherever you are.

The fact that the entire landscape of this game is completely player driven makes it interesting. This is just a game: the nations we run can not truly be destroyed, the tanks, soldiers, infrastructure are just numbers. But real people play the game, real egos are damaged, real opinions are expressed, real rage may flare behind the keyboard knowing that one has lost his or her (not real) empire. Keeping all of that in perspective and knowing what is real may be the most important thing in playing this game.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Bartley

[HeinousOne]

Forgive me, because I know this conversation has been inactive for quite awhile now. However, I have just finished reading the thread (finally!) and wished to make some remarks.

Thanks to all the posters to my first thread. I honestly believed it would get buried and also believed it would be trolled into oblivion, but I felt I should test the waters here. I was pleasantly surprised to find support and criitique, detailed views of the causes of the war, the continuing peace negotiations, and the subjectivity of morality.

To those who believe that the NPO experience is simply just another experience that everyone has, I agree to an extent. I must presume that much of the experience here are shared throughout; and in that light, should we not all have a better understanding of our opponents? I'm not advocating peace and love: this game was built around politics and war; that will never change. But we all strive to provide security and seek the means ot secure it, so pretending that we are otherwise above one another in that regard is a bit silly.

The Pacifican experience is different and this latest war has proven that to me. Few alliances have survived wars against all odds and crushed into near extinction, and I applaud their perserverence. (I am aware that the NPO often drove them there) But how many alliances have members who invite other members to real life gatherings? How many alliances have members who post pictures of themselves with an actual flag of their alliance? I can not say I know for sure, but that kind of dedication is rare wherever you are.

The fact that the entire landscape of this game is completely player driven makes it interesting. This is just a game: the nations we run can not truly be destroyed, the tanks, soldiers, infrastructure are just numbers. But real people play the game, real egos are damaged, real opinions are expressed, real rage may flare behind the keyboard knowing that one has lost his or her (not real) empire. Keeping all of that in perspective and knowing what is real may be the most important thing in playing this game.

Look, the one thing that those in NPO won't tell you is that if you come to the OWF and post sensibly and rationally without this sense of Pacifica is greater then all then you will find you can mesh quite well with everyone here. Just ask Farrin. You were doing great before you tried to sell some aspects of NPO. Other alliances do real life gatherings too. In fact some of the Citadel guys even make threads for the entire world to see on the OWF about these gatherings. The difference is that alot of you guys stay within the NPO construct and don't get out to see others doing these things too. That whole flag thing is just a practice of consumerism as there is someone that will make them for you for a price. Maybe it is just the cost value of the flag but last I remember it was like 20-40 dollars to buy one when the opportunity comes around.

Just continue to reach out and get to know people and you will realize that while the NPO culture is indeed rich and deep, there are plenty of others with quite a bit going on as well.

[Cortath]

I have to step in here:

No one in the NPO makes a profit on the flags, if that's what you're implying, Heinous One. We order them in batches, they have to be made, and then they have to be shipped, frequently internationally. No one makes a penny on the things.

...And, I think the batch you're referring to was the very first batch, which we got at a ridiculously good quality. Subsequent batches have been somewhat lower quality, but much more affordable.

[HeinousOne]

I have to step in here:

No one in the NPO makes a profit on the flags, if that's what you're implying, Heinous One. We order them in batches, they have to be made, and then they have to be shipped, frequently internationally. No one makes a penny on the things.

...And, I think the batch you're referring to was the very first batch, which we got at a ridiculously good quality. Subsequent batches have been somewhat lower quality, but much more affordable.

My apologies then.

[Cortath]

None necessary. Just clarifying a misunderstanding. [ooc]We take RL money seriously. We don't do things like that.[/ooc]

[Chancellor Bismarck]

You would not think of the people you call friends the same way if you read the history of what they have done. Go to the wiki, read the articles, and then come back and say if you can really call your government and alliance mates, "friends"

I was around for all of it, and was on the opposing side of the NPO in the GATO-1v, GATO-Initiative war, and my time in the NPO was an absolute blast.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Pacifism