Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Shep309]

Hold on a second, the meta code is entirely a human based ethical standard.

Since we're dealing with humans here, it is objectively true/correct.

Unless I'm behind on my latest Scientific America magazine, there is no universal ethic/moral code.

Socieities define that.

[Francesca]

I think I might have lost the train of whatever your point was.

That because ethics are subjective, we are under no obligation to abide by the ethical codes of others.

No? Going to another community and imposing your system would be imperialism...

See, I knew you weren't actually following :x

But that's exactly what was being proposed...... compelling others to conform to your ethics is imperialistic.

No, it is not. If one commits a wrong-doing against another entity, is it imperialism for that entity to demand reparation or exact vengeance? Imperialism would be to pro-actively impose an ethical and cultural guideline against others, for no reason than personal gain. If you compare it within the Karma context, what karma did was grab historical events which it perceived as wrong-doings against itself, and responded to NPO in a way to make them cease their wrong-doings. NPO was not an innocent alliance just standing there peacefully, and you damn well know it.

Self defense isn't unethical, or imperialism, or whatever the hell you believe in. It's a natural right we all posses, regardless of our moral paths.

Karma's war against NPO was an attempt to prevent it from acting the way it has acted in the past. For example, people like ShinRa argued that NPO's leadership should be put on EZI so that they could not do the same to others in the future.

[Shep309]

That because ethics are subjective, we are under no obligation to abide by the ethical codes of others.

But that's exactly what was being proposed...... compelling others to conform to your ethics is imperialistic.

Karma's war against NPO was an attempt to prevent it from acting the way it has acted in the past. For example, people like ShinRa argued that NPO's leadership should be put on EZI so that they could not do the same to others in the future.

Essentially you are correct, however, as we've said, Ethics change with what the majoiry deems to be ethical, the fact npo realized this too late, or didn't realize it all is not the fault of Karma, but more on that of the npo, furthermore, npo were imperailists in there own right, forcing their ethical standards on the rest of planet bob, it just turns out they weren't quick enough to recognize the change in world politics and fell victim to their own imperialistic agenda.

In summary:

Did Karma use ethics to their advantage?

Yes

Did npo fail to recognize the winds of change in regards to ethics on planet Bob?

Yes

Are ethical standards determined by the majority of the population?

Yes

Edited September 2, 2009 by Shep309

[Francesca]

Essentially you are correct, however, as we've said, Ethics change with what the majoiry deems to be ethical, the fact npo realized this too late, or didn't realize it all is not the fault of Karma, but more on that of the npo, furthermore, npo were imperailists in there own right, forcing their ethical standards on the rest of planet bob, it just turns out they weren't quick enough to recognize the change in world politics and fell victim to their own imperialistic agenda.

In summary:

Did Karma use ethics to their advantage?

Yes

Did npo fail to recognize the winds of change in regards to ethics on planet Bob?

Yes

Are ethical standards determined by the majority of the population?

Yes

Ah, my friend, but Pacifica never criticised imperialism. That was what Karma did.

[Portugal]

Karma's war against NPO was an attempt to prevent it from acting the way it has acted in the past.

.. That's... That's what I said.

If you compare it within the Karma context, what karma did was grab historical events which it perceived as wrong-doings against itself, and responded to NPO in a way to make them cease their wrong-doings.

... :V

[Tygaland]

At the end of the day, I think I am everyone's closet deity.

I await the day Stumpy comes out of the closet.

[Shep309]

Ah, my friend, but Pacifica never criticised imperialism. That was what Karma did.

We did?

I don't belive Karma as a whole crticized imperialism.

In essence, all alliances on planet bod are imperialistic, to criticize another of such a thing is the same as criticizing yourself.

[Il Impero Romano]

That because ethics are subjective, we are under no obligation to abide by the ethical codes of others.

Correct, no contractual obligation exists, and you need not consent to another's code of ethics. If, however, your repeated trespasses on the system as inherently agreed on by the majority of the community's other members eventually causes them to punish you for your "nonconformity" (i.e. repeatedly committing unwarranted unethical acts against others within the group), you cant logically blame them for standing up. Sound familiar?

But that's exactly what was being proposed...... compelling others to conform to your ethics is imperialistic.

No, its not. Going out of your way and forcefully taking and settling another groups community then integrating with their people and forcing them to conform to your outside views is imperialism. The key difference is this system of ethics, as it exists today in this game, is it was born and raised here, and is a product of every wrong committed theretofore. This ethical code of right and wrong evolving in a community over time is natural and inevitable occurrence, and it is also natural that the community lashes out against those who repeatedly offend that system.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Francesca]

We did?

I don't belive Karma as a whole crticized imperialism.

In essence, all alliances on planet bod are imperialistic, to criticize another of such a thing is the same as criticizing yourself.

One of Karma's main concerns with Pacifica was that it was imperialistic. That was the whole thing behind criticism of the curbstomps, etc etc.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I await the day Stumpy comes out of the closet.

It will be called Judgement Day...

Edited September 2, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il

[TehChron]

It will be falled Judgement Day...

/shocked expression smilie.

I dont know what you're saying, but it scares the hell out of me.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

/shocked expression smilie.

I dont know what you're saying, but it scares the hell out of me.

Most people say that. I think its cause I make so much sense, all the time.

[Shep309]

One of Karma's main concerns with Pacifica was that it was imperialistic. That was the whole thing behind criticism of the curbstomps, etc etc.

It wasn't the imperialism itself. It was the curbstomping.

if you didn't agree, you faced the possibilty of getting your $@! kicked. There are other ways to be imperialistic without alienating the rest of the planet against you. Would you not agree?

You don't need to rule through fear in order to retain power

[Il Impero Romano]

One of Karma's main concerns with Pacifica was that it was imperialistic. That was the whole thing behind criticism of the curb stomps, etc etc.

Mm, your arguments are beginning to falter... you can do better then that. Its safe to say the crux of anyone's issue with the curb stomps was that they had no sufficient reasoning behind most, and if a reason was provided it could not reasonably be considered sufficient to warrant the response that it did (i.e. "a curb stomping"). If Karma released a set of things "they said" I must have somehow missed it, but I'm inclined to think your just randomly saying things or referring to one thing one person said one time.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Delta1212]

That because ethics are subjective, we are under no obligation to abide by the ethical codes of others.

This is both true and false. Actually, to be technical about it, the second part of that statement would be a piece of an ethical code, which makes debating it inevitably somewhat recursive. That said, while the ethical correctness of such a statement is entirely subjective, we can make some general observations about its applicability to societies in general and CN in particular.

Every community has an ethical code that is based upon the individual ethical codes of its constituents and the broader ethical codes of its sub-communities. For example, going to a player's house and stabbing them over something that happened in CN is something that the CN community would consider unethical. That's OOC, but any IC example I used would most likely come with some sort of baggage that would mire my point in unwanted political debate and the OOC example illustrates the fact that we, as a whole community, have some sort of ethical standard just fine.

Now how is the ethical standard of the community developed? It is derived from a consensus of the various ethical codes of the people that make up the community. Some of these can vary considerably, so it is easier to group people by sub-communities. Most apparent of these would be alliances. We can say that each alliance has its own brand of ethics. These ethical codes are the end result of the memberships' individual ethical codes. The beliefs of the alliance are shaped by the beliefs of the individuals, and the beliefs of the individuals are shaped by the beliefs of the alliance. It's a reflexive process. Similarly, the meta0ethics of the game and community are shaped by through the consensus of the various alliances. There are, in fact, many things that are considered unethical by the community as a whole, and most of these aren't readily considered because they don't often come under debate. This is because they are considered taboo to one degree or another so people just don't do them.

A good example of this is the CB. Alliances rarely go to war without a CB and when they do the wrath of the community tends to turn on them pretty harshly. Now, I don't mean a pitifully weak CB, I mean no CB at all. Alliances don't generally go around attacking other alliances for the hell of it. Even if they aren't up front about their intentions, an alliance that is declaring war will generally attempt to formulate a reasoning that is acceptable to the community to the best of their ability. In fact, the act of announcing a CB for declarations of war provides us with the tacit acknowledgment of a meta-community to which every alliance is beholden.

The CB is the attempt to ethically justify a war according to the ethical code of the community. A pitifully weak CB by community standards will often result in severe damaging of relations with potential allies. A completely non-existent CB may even result in other alliances joining in the war against you. This is because the act of declaring war is a de facto acceptance of by an alliance that it has a position within the greater community and does not exist in a vacuum. Alliances which do not wish to be subject to the precept of the greater community need to divorce themselves from that community. An alliance like TDO doesn't need to justify itself ethically in anything it does because nothing it does impacts the rest of the community in any significant manner. An act like declaring war, however, immediately places the alliance in question into the realm of the extended community and invites the rest of the community to respond based on their own individual ethical codes. The overall response of each individual alliance then makes up what can be described as the broader community response.

To declare war on TDO who very obviously isn't really participating in the broader community in any meaningful sense would be to force yourself on another. To respond to the actions of someone acting within the constraints of the community which you share is a response derived from their own ethical code, which contributes to the meta-ethics of the game. The only way to divorce yourself entirely from his sort of ethical code and the judgment and reactions which go with it is to withdraw from involvement in that community. Active participation will yield an active respond, and there is no more active a participation in the broader CN community than a declaration of war.

[Francesca]

It wasn't the imperialism itself. It was the curbstomping.

if you didn't agree, you faced the possibilty of getting your $@! kicked. There are other ways to be imperialistic without alienating the rest of the planet against you. Would you not agree?

You don't need to rule through fear in order to retain power

But the curbstomping itself was imperialistic, and asserting Pacifica's will over others, which was the whole issue with Pacifica?

Mm, your arguments are beginning to falter you can do better then that. Its safe to say the crux of anyone's issue with the curb stomps was that they had no sufficient reasoning behind most, and if a reason was provided it could not reasonably be considered sufficient to warrant the response that it did (i.e. "a curb stomping"). If Karma released a set of things "they said" I must have somehow missed it, but I'm inclined to think your just randomly saying things or referring to one thing one person said one time.

But who is to say that Pacifica couldn't technically roll anyone who was a threat to it, for solely that reason? (I'm not saying that Pacifica actually did that, just being technical here.) This is what Pacifica was commonly accused of, and it was said to be imperialistic and therefore "evil."

This is both true and false. Actually, to be technical about it, the second part of that statement would be a piece of an ethical code, which makes debating it inevitably somewhat recursive.

It's not an ethical code in itself, rather the absence of an ethical code.

Every community has an ethical code that is based upon the individual ethical codes of its constituents and the broader ethical codes of its sub-communities. For example, going to a player's house and stabbing them over something that happened in CN is something that the CN community would consider unethical. That's OOC, but any IC example I used would most likely come with some sort of baggage that would mire my point in unwanted political debate and the OOC example illustrates the fact that we, as a whole community, have some sort of ethical standard just fine.

[Devils-Advocate] But Delta, I think walking round to someone's house and stabbing them for being such a gigantic arsehole in Cyber Nations is a great idea!! [/Devils-Advocate]

Now how is the ethical standard of the community developed? It is derived from a consensus of the various ethical codes of the people that make up the community. Some of these can vary considerably, so it is easier to group people by sub-communities. Most apparent of these would be alliances. We can say that each alliance has its own brand of ethics. These ethical codes are the end result of the memberships' individual ethical codes. The beliefs of the alliance are shaped by the beliefs of the individuals, and the beliefs of the individuals are shaped by the beliefs of the alliance. It's a reflexive process. Similarly, the meta0ethics of the game and community are shaped by through the consensus of the various alliances. There are, in fact, many things that are considered unethical by the community as a whole, and most of these aren't readily considered because they don't often come under debate. This is because they are considered taboo to one degree or another so people just don't do them.

I think you have too much confidence in alliances.... most of them don't stand for anything, and then criticise those that do.

A good example of this is the CB. Alliances rarely go to war without a CB and when they do the wrath of the community tends to turn on them pretty harshly. Now, I don't mean a pitifully weak CB, I mean no CB at all. Alliances don't generally go around attacking other alliances for the hell of it. Even if they aren't up front about their intentions, an alliance that is declaring war will generally attempt to formulate a reasoning that is acceptable to the community to the best of their ability. In fact, the act of announcing a CB for declarations of war provides us with the tacit acknowledgment of a meta-community to which every alliance is beholden.

The CB is the attempt to ethically justify a war according to the ethical code of the community. A pitifully weak CB by community standards will often result in severe damaging of relations with potential allies. A completely non-existent CB may even result in other alliances joining in the war against you. This is because the act of declaring war is a de facto acceptance of by an alliance that it has a position within the greater community and does not exist in a vacuum. Alliances which do not wish to be subject to the precept of the greater community need to divorce themselves from that community. An alliance like TDO doesn't need to justify itself ethically in anything it does because nothing it does impacts the rest of the community in any significant manner. An act like declaring war, however, immediately places the alliance in question into the realm of the extended community and invites the rest of the community to respond based on their own individual ethical codes. The overall response of each individual alliance then makes up what can be described as the broader community response.

This is the viewpoint of a cynic. What of those alliances that genuinely go to war over a CB, for example if another alliance is caught spying?

[Il Impero Romano]

But who is to say that Pacifica couldn't technically roll anyone who was a threat to it, for solely that reason? (I'm not saying that Pacifica actually did that, just being technical here.) This is what Pacifica was commonly accused of, and it was said to be imperialistic and therefore "evil."

...the community from which the system evolved is to say that, and imperialism is the wrong word.

Actually, I give up seeing as we covered all these points a few posts ago and your completely not making an effort to follow the argument. Instead, your just saying the same general and disproved (many times over) concepts multiple times. Disappointing, seeing as the OP seems to infer that you wish intelligent discussion to take place as a response :/

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Delta1212]

It's not an ethical code in itself, rather the absence of an ethical code.

This is one of those things that you assume without really noticing it as part of your own ethical code. There are viable ethical codes whereby everyone is expected to adhere to the code in question whether they subscribe to it personally and anyone who does not is subject to punishment for being immoral. The assumption that it is unethical to expect others to abide by an ethical code that is not there is, in fact, an ethical mantra itself.

I think you have too much confidence in alliances.... most of them don't stand for anything, and then criticise those that do.

Every community has an ethical code. It doesn't have to look anything like a code you would consider ethical, but that's sort of the point. Every community has a set of values and guidelines for behavior whether or not they stand for anything you would consider to be ethical.

This is the viewpoint of a cynic. What of those alliances that genuinely go to war over a CB, for example if another alliance is caught spying?

If an alliance has an ethical code which deems spying unethical and worthy of war, then they can declare war over it. In doing so, and in presenting spying as their CB, they are opening up their ethic standard for review by the community as their actions have a direct impact on the community dynamic. If the greater community decides it is an insufficient CB, they can decide to defend the party who was attacked, regardless of whether the attacker deems the CB in question to be valid. This will always happen when you have ethical codes come into direct conflict with one another inside of the same community.

The more people in a community, the more dynamic the emergence of ethical standards will be as reactions come out of a wide range of interactions between diverse groups. In this sense moral and ethical standards are set by the actions of the community. They are not objectively correct ethical standards nor are they eternally consistent but that doesn't make them any less real.

[TypoNinja]

This is the viewpoint of a cynic. What of those alliances that genuinely go to war over a CB, for example if another alliance is caught spying?

This is actually a relevant example, If you were paying attention to how the Karma war was officially kicked off.

Which you obviously were not since you asked.

[Cataduanes]

Francesca,

Sometimes in life you should walk away from certain things and situations, this thread is a perfect example of something you should walk away from

Edited September 2, 2009 by Cataduanes

[D34th]

If an alliance has an ethical code which deems spying unethical and worthy of war, then they can declare war over it. In doing so, and in presenting spying as their CB, they are opening up their ethic standard for review by the community as their actions have a direct impact on the community dynamic. If the greater community decides it is an insufficient CB, they can decide to defend the party who was attacked, regardless of whether the attacker deems the CB in question to be valid. This will always happen when you have ethical codes come into direct conflict with one another inside of the same community.

The more people in a community, the more dynamic the emergence of ethical standards will be as reactions come out of a wide range of interactions between diverse groups. In this sense moral and ethical standards are set by the actions of the community. They are not objectively correct ethical standards nor are they eternally consistent but that doesn't make them any less real.

This is rare thing to see in cyberverse, how many time the community actively defended the attacked party just because a poor CB? I think that in this case ethics isn't the mainly factor to the community's decision of defend actively or not the attacked alliance. I don't remember GPA, GATO, VE, Hyperion who wre curbstomped because of poor CB's being defendeds, for real the only alliance that was defended was OV and that happened in my opinion because:

1- War against NPO and Hegemony in general was already being orchestred or at least people started to think about it.

2- The defenders of OV had enough power to do it.

3- NPO(The attackers) do not waited for allied support or didn't tried convince them before attack.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Ethics. Commonly defined as this concept that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong" and thus, limitations are imposed on what we can and cannot do. Previously, despite the impassioned speeches of Vox Populi, ethics have not played much importance in the politics of Planet Bob. The criticism then arises: why address the question of ethics at all? They have not been important, to this point.

In fact, they have been important all along. Even if the NPOs only concession was to *pretend* to be ethical I remember a lot of work being put into it back in the day. Sure, they played the bad guy, but were also careful to be seen as trustworthy and honourable which means ethical. This was important in developing the FA clout to conquer the world to begin with.

Yes, it's probably true that "most players" dont follow things closely enough to know on their own what's going on, but that makes no difference at all. The others follow the ones who are, in your alliance the same as others.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Ivan Moldavi]

I doubt that NPO is the one who brought about treaties or structure of alliances or any of that. I will give you the midnight blitz though.

Well, since this is an OOC forum I will address this. Myself and depraved of GATO at the time created the sanctioned alliance system. I created the initial audit structures. Also, the Dove Doctrine, between GATO and NPO, was the first documented cross alliance treaty. While it can be possibly attributed to NPO, neither were created or postulated because of "Francoism".

Francoism, again, since we are talking OOC, is nothing more than an IC construct of Asimov's psychohistory, at least in my opinion. Some others will see it more as an adaption of Marx's historical materialism. Regardless, it is an IC construct created solely to justify the actions of some while giving the masses a philosophy behind which to rally ingame.

The only issue I have ever had with Francoism is that some keep drinking the kool-aid after they step out of character and forget the "real" meaning of the philosophy. Buying into your own propaganda is never a good thing, in my opinion.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Ivan Moldavi

[Delta1212]

This is rare thing to see in cyberverse, how many time the community actively defended the attacked party just because a poor CB? I think that in this case ethics isn't the mainly factor to the community's decision of defend actively or not the attacked alliance. I don't remember GPA, GATO, VE, Hyperion who wre curbstomped because of poor CB's being defendeds, for real the only alliance that was defended was OV and that happened in my opinion because:

1- War against NPO and Hegemony in general was already being orchestred or at least people started to think about it.

2- The defenders of OV had enough power to do it.

3- NPO(The attackers) do not waited for allied support or didn't tried convince them before attack.

I wasn't saying it was common, so much as that it can happen and is pretty much the reason alliances post CBs in the first place. A good example of a CBless war backfiring is the attack on Crimson Guard by Internet Superheroes, which rallied enough community support to cause IS to capitulate in a war they started.

My main point was that the moment your ethical code brings you into direct conflict with another alliance, you enter the realm of the greater gaming community which has its own standards. A response to a declaration of war is not the same as initiating a war and cannot be described as imperialism in the manner Francesca has been using the term.

[D34th]

I wasn't saying it was common, so much as that it can happen and is pretty much the reason alliances post CBs in the first place. A good example of a CBless war backfiring is the attack on Crimson Guard by Internet Superheroes, which rallied enough community support to cause IS to capitulate in a war they started.

My main point was that the moment your ethical code brings you into direct conflict with another alliance, you enter the realm of the greater gaming community which has its own standards. A response to a declaration of war is not the same as initiating a war and cannot be described as imperialism in the manner Francesca has been using the term.

I understand, thanks for the clarification