Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Gn0xious Jr]

ethics are different for everyone, because everyone believes different things.

while many would consider "honor your mother and father" to be good and ethical... someone abused by their father might think otherwise. Everyone's personal experiences shape the way THEY view ethics and what they consider right and wrong.

As on a small percentage of the community on planet Bob actually visit these forums, it is impossible to label what is right and what is wrong based on what is posted here in itself, just as it is impossible to label what is right/wrong with a majority vote.

Ethics also tend to change based on the situation. As an example some alliances tend to preach about how awful and wrong spying is! Then use their own spies and espionage techniques to try and prove it. When the CAN prove it, they use it as a CB because the other person spied and is WRONG, but they do not own up to HOW they discovered the information and what else they SAW and LEARNED while spying themselves...

Too each their own i guess...

[Opethian]

We've seen many-a-form of this old "you're no better than the villain" shtick by now.

I always imagine it scrolling by in a game of Mega Man, as Dr Wiley attempts to convince Mega Man that they're "not so different"....

[Melchior]

Unless this is a self-critique, I doubt that you should talk any more about ethics.

[Vilien]

The continuous cry of "you're no better than we were" shows that people have extremely short memories, or that they believe that consistently repeating a lie will win converts to their cause. Either way, get a grip.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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.

From my pov it more resembles Ingsoc but at any event...

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.

QFT

[Dochartaigh]

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.

Actually Hyperion got a lot of help from alliances such as GR and MK, who also brought in their allies. GATO had aid from IAA and other allies as well. GPA had no allies.

[Aurion]

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.

Just because someone chooses not to do something doesn't mean they can't.

[Gn0xious Jr]

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 think Hyperion did end up getting quite a bit of support against the piss-poor CB that was thrown at her. I can see your opinion being that OV was the only defended alliance that succeeded in the overall defense, but I wouldn't write off Hyperion's protectors/supports simply because the cluster of aggressors was too large.

[Gn0xious Jr]

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.

Still, with all of the "humiliating isn't it? surrendering to a much smaller alliance" chants coming from some CG members on the OWF seemed to dampen the community support thereafter.

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 agree with you here,

you can take it a step further and show some instances where alliances felt bound by treaty, though they disagreed with the "ethics" behind their treaty partners' acts. Things will never be as clear cut as a right/wrong action, there's always an example that either disproves it or just paints more gray areas.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I think Hyperion did end up getting quite a bit of support against the piss-poor CB that was thrown at her. I can see your opinion being that OV was the only defended alliance that succeeded in the overall defense, but I wouldn't write off Hyperion's protectors/supports simply because the cluster of aggressors was too large.

Even in the War against Peace the Illuminati did attempt defense as well. And long before that there was Walford...

None of this is new. What's new is that for once the decentralised defenders, working together because of the situation not "deep eternal bonds" of the GGA-NPO variety, finally managed to reach critical mass and win one. That is all.

you can take it a step further and show some instances where alliances felt bound by treaty, though they disagreed with the "ethics" behind their treaty partners' acts.

Depending on who you are talking about, there is or is not evidence of sincerity. Did they withdraw from that treaty afterwards? Did they put a new emphasis in their FA on making certain their treaties could NOT obligate them to join an unwarranted attack in the future? If they made real changes that is evidence of their sincerity. If not then it may be in question. Simple as that.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Sunstar]

I'm sure its been covered, but I can't help myself:

Would a coalition who so ardently believed in lenient reps and decent surrender terms demand colossal reparations from the New Pacific Order, and attempt to force them into terms that would destroy their alliance? Would they exclude people from government positions, as they did to Caffine in Echelon? Would they invent the term which only permits nations with over 1000 technology to pay technology reparations? This is the sort of thing they were sworn to oppose, however leniency for their own enemies seemed to be out of the question. Therefore we conclude that either Karma are hypocrites, or they do not believe in their own ethics.

1. Definition of Karma: You should learn it.

2. Agreed upon reparations, while steep, will never destroy the New Pacific Order. On the other hand, alliances were destroyed in the past by not being given any terms.

3. Coalition =/= Unified Body. What one sovereign alliance chooses to make a required term for surrender, other alliances have no say in. Alliances may have (and lord knows they did) disagree with terms offered by other members of Karma.

4. "Sworn to oppose". Perception of intent =/= sworn statement.

I think that about covers it.

[D34th]

Actually Hyperion got a lot of help from alliances such as GR and MK, who also brought in their allies. GATO had aid from IAA and other allies as well. GPA had no allies.

I think Hyperion did end up getting quite a bit of support against the piss-poor CB that was thrown at her. I can see your opinion being that OV was the only defended alliance that succeeded in the overall defense, but I wouldn't write off Hyperion's protectors/supports simply because the cluster of aggressors was too large.

Well, allies are supposed to defend you in dark times so that isn't a suprised that a few defended them.

Just because someone chooses not to do something doesn't mean they can't.

I didn't say that, what I said is that the decision isn't based mainly in ethics.

[TypoNinja]

I didn't say that, what I said is that the decision isn't based mainly in ethics.

Ethics like any other system may be influenced by outside forces, in CN the most common would be the application of force, or the threat to do so.

Large block of alliances attacks another alliance for a really flimsy reason, while it may be recognized that this is not acceptable behaviour, there is no higher authority to appeal the decision to. The much derided slogan of "do something about it" comes into play here, if no body is capable of enforcing a consequence for unacceptable behaviour the disincentive preventing it goes away, and repeats of that behaviour become more likely.

While juvenile in nature, the sentiment of "make me" will hold up until some one does indeed make them stop. In this respect ethics are secondary to force, enough of a force disparity allows one group to act with impunity regardless of ethics if they so desire.

While one could wish this was not the case, and that those in power would have enough of a grip on their own ethics and morality to act in an acceptable manner even when no one is capable of forcing them to, CN history has shown this is not the case however.

[Dochartaigh]

Well, allies are supposed to defend you in dark times so that isn't a suprised that a few defended them.

And yet we have seen time and time again that "allies" have often chosen to not defend someone against a curbstomp. Also, there are more ways to show support for the underdog than war. Look at IS, not a single alliance entered to defend CG but the community rallied around CG and forced IS to reconsider the war without actually declaring war.

I remember many opposing voices other than those who defended GATO or Hyperion. to state that the only way for the community to defend an alliance is through war is wrong.

I didn't say that, what I said is that the decision isn't based mainly in ethics.

I do believe the Karma war was planned due to the actions of NPO which rubbed sorely against the ethics of many in the community, thus, the decision was more based on ethics than almost anything else. To bring such a diverse coalition into being requires some sort of bond be it ethics, vengeance (which is more often based in moral outrage), or treaties.

so the fact that the coalition could have already been started prior to NPO actually attacking OV, does not mean it has nothing to do with ethics.

[Haflinger]

Even in the War against Peace the Illuminati did attempt defense as well. And long before that there was Walford...

Errr...

No they did not. They thought about defending GPA against their allies, and thanks to a forum security mishap by Terry wound up getting cancelled on by NPO as a result.

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/IllumWar1.htm

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/Illumwar2.htm

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/IllumWar3.htm

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/NoWar1.htm

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/Nowar2.htm

http://www.pollexworld.com/dk/loluminati/Nowar3.htm

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15732

Thus leading to perhaps the only war in history where NPO and Vanguard found themselves cheering for the exact same people.

[Haflinger]

I think Hyperion did end up getting quite a bit of support against the piss-poor CB that was thrown at her. I can see your opinion being that OV was the only defended alliance that succeeded in the overall defense, but I wouldn't write off Hyperion's protectors/supports simply because the cluster of aggressors was too large.

A lot of alliances involved in the Hyperion situation were attacked pre-emptively. That makes it hard to know whether they would have defended.

[Haflinger]

And yet we have seen time and time again that "allies" have often chosen to not defend someone against a curbstomp. Also, there are more ways to show support for the underdog than war. Look at IS, not a single alliance entered to defend CG but the community rallied around CG and forced IS to reconsider the war without actually declaring war.

I know of at least two alliances that threatened war against IS, and Invicta's mini-aidfall obviously made a difference in the war as well.

[Dochartaigh]

I know of at least two alliances that threatened war against IS, and Invicta's mini-aidfall obviously made a difference in the war as well.

yes, i realize that too but again no one outright attacked. All that was done was words and Invicta's aidfall. All in all, that pretty much proves that a show of support is not only shown through war.

[Mathias]

I came here for an essay on Francoism. I'm leaving having only viewed a Karma baaaaawwwww fest.

Unsurprisingly disappointing.

[Eamon Valda]

Ethics is the study of how we should go about ourselves as we act in our lives.

There is, in my mind, an existence of an ethical system on Planet Bob and its basis hinges on pragmatism. For the means of politics, pragmatism is all about being practical - albeit not practical simply by acting in a realistic manner. Being pragmatic involves a continuing and complex series of interaction within a system known as dramatic rehearsal, where, through current and past action, people determine the results of an action in order to understand the measure of its right or wrong. As a society grows, hypothetically, they take these actions and draw conclusions on how nations should act within our world. For example, we generally consider the purposeless destruction of an alliance as wrong; we hold that nations should not be punished with EZI or, at least, without due evidence; we hold that some types of actions made by alliances (i.e.) treaty-breaking, repeated threats, violent behaviour) are wrong.

I can in no way surmise the total list, but my point is that we concluded these things from their practical application. Rules are not set in stone though, and there is not an objective truth in ethics by this theory; as we act out and evaluate the present and past, we may change how we regard or tolerate these or different actions. In this way, our moral system is very flexible. An example of a changing moral, in my mind, is that of whether we should or should not use nuclear weapons in war. At one point, it was criminal and dangerous to use them but, now, it is much more acceptable. This, I believe, was mostly the result of two things: the increase of size of nations (thus the falling real power of nukes) and their use becoming more commonplace in battle (i.e.) VietFAN).

In response to this post, therefore, what I, personally, expect of a political philosophy - especially on this subject, ethics - is not a focus in on current political conditions nor their critique alone but a broader understanding and detail of what exactly your branch: 1) exists or finds its evidence from conditions in the world; 2) separates right from wrong; 3) applies its conception of right or wrong to real action. After you do that, please go ahead and analyse any situation you wish. The problem with this post is that it lacked a substantive formulation (not to mention that it was seemingly unrelated to Francoism as I know it).

Once more, and this time with substance.

[Azaghul]

I haven't read this whole thread yet but the OP falls into the trap of considering "harsh terms" in absolutes. Only a few key Hegemony alliances had any reps to pay at all and only NPO's could really be described as crippling. Most that fought on that side got white peace. Only Echelon's had government restrictions and most in Karma that I know of didn't like that. No one had to decommission wonders or suffer through a viceroy.

It's a false comparison to compare high reps for an alliance that started a major war like NPO did and an alliance that only defended itself or its ally (C&G alliances in the noCB war).

[Leet Guy]

I don't even know where to start with this pile of !@#$.

I mean, are you really that goddamn conceited?

[maguko]

I feel like the name "Karma War" is pretty straightforward and to the point. Joke is on you if you didn't pick up on it there buddy.

[Zombie Glaucon]

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.

Nooo... morals tell you what you should and should not do, not what you can and cannot do.

And you don't strictly need a deity (as I suspect you're defining one) for there to be a thing called morality that is objectively true, you only need to believe (or much more importantly to be able to show) that there is truth that does not stem from a material cause.

I scanned the first couple pages of this, but the shallow treatment of this topic in the OP and subsequent replies makes the discussion pretty unappealing.

[Bob Janova]

It's pretty funny how someone who was not only a member of Vox, but a spy within the Hegemony for Vox to boot, should now write typical Pacifican pap. 'Oh noes you use fake ethics and became what you said you hated'. Please. This rubbish has been refuted a thousand times during the war, I don't see why you think it will work for you when it hasn't worked for those who are far better at this propaganda than you.

If it was even half true then there wouldn't be an NPO for you to join and baww from.