Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Tygaland]

I'll give you a hint: take a look at the flag in that thread.

It isn't a flag, it is a banner those alliances assembled under.

18 individual alliance flags would have been a bit cluttered, no?

Edited September 1, 2009 by Tygaland

[potato]

I'll give you a hint: take a look at the flag in that thread.

I'll see if I can lower myself to the level of your "argument". There's only one flag. The NPO flag.

EDIT: damn you, Tyga.

Edited September 1, 2009 by potato

[Francesca]

Or if you are an opportunist who will change colours in the blink of an eye when it suits them to do so.

Regardless, what you said does not discount what I said. You make an assumption on a persons personal feelings about an issue ir incident and try and run arguments using that as a factual basis. It doesn't work like that.

You're really trying hard to draw me into a debate to defend my past actions. Keep trying, Tyga.

[ChairmanHal]

Someone needs to explain to me what about joining NPO makes some people write long, mostly irrelevant essays that somewhere along the way attempt to justify their flavor of moral relativism.

The existing paradigm no longer worked for a majority of people in the major alliances for a variety of reasons, most IC some OOC. "Karma" was simply a convenient label to slap on it. Even when it was a tight knit group of mostly Superfriends alliance leaders, no one person came to the conclusion that NPO needed to take a seat the same way.

It is therefore laughable to talk about "Karma" as some sort of unified movement that should have a complete ethical system backing it. "Karma" existed with a single mission in mind: change the existing paradigm. Mission accomplished, Planet Bob is still in search of a new paradigm. It won't be until all the major alliances are out of terms and able to make diplomatic maneuvers will we truly know what it is.

[Francesca]

I'll see if I can lower myself to the level of your "argument". There's only one flag. The NPO flag.

EDIT: damn you, Tyga.

NPO surrendered to Karma. Karma even had its own flag. I remember seeing it.

[Tygaland]

You're really trying hard to draw me into a debate to defend my past actions. Keep trying, Tyga.

I have no interest in discussing your past actions, Francesca.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Any culture that would define itself based on the actions of its detractors is doomed to fail.

[Tygaland]

NPO surrendered to Karma. Karma even had its own flag. I remember seeing it.

They surrendered to specified alliances who fought under the Karma banner. Plenty of Karma alliances did not fight the NPO or have any say in their surrender terms. You may remember it was a very public discussion about peace terms and who had a say and when.

If you want to discuss the motivations of the Karma alliances that fought the NPO then be my guest. But if you insist on using blanket terms then I will point out the error in doing that.

[Tygaland]

Someone needs to explain to me what about joining NPO makes some people write long, mostly irrelevant essays that somewhere along the way attempt to justify their flavor of moral relativism.

The existing paradigm no longer worked for a majority of people in the major alliances for a variety of reasons, most IC some OOC. "Karma" was simply a convenient label to slap on it. Even when it was a tight knit group of mostly Superfriends alliance leaders, no one person came to the conclusion that NPO needed to take a seat the same way.

It is therefore laughable to talk about "Karma" as some sort of unified movement that should have a complete ethical system backing it. "Karma" existed with a single mission in mind: change the existing paradigm. Mission accomplished, Planet Bob is still in search of a new paradigm. It won't be until all the major alliances are out of terms and able to make diplomatic maneuvers will we truly know what it is.

I know you have me on ignore, but you actually make sense here.

[MagicalTrevor]

Someone needs to explain to me what about joining NPO makes some people write long, mostly irrelevant essays that somewhere along the way attempt to justify their flavor of moral relativism.

The existing paradigm no longer worked for a majority of people in the major alliances for a variety of reasons, most IC some OOC. "Karma" was simply a convenient label to slap on it. Even when it was a tight knit group of mostly Superfriends alliance leaders, no one person came to the conclusion that NPO needed to take a seat the same way.

It is therefore laughable to talk about "Karma" as some sort of unified movement that should have a complete ethical system backing it. "Karma" existed with a single mission in mind: change the existing paradigm. Mission accomplished, Planet Bob is still in search of a new paradigm. It won't be until all the major alliances are out of terms and able to make diplomatic maneuvers will we truly know what it is.

This is a very good post...

wtf happened to you hal?

[Grumpdogg]

I've already been through this.........

What percentage of current GATO members were not present for the GATO-1V war?

Edited September 1, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[Francesca]

What percentage of current GATO members were not present for the GATO-1V war?

I'm afraid I have not done the calculations. I just know that in a general sense alliances do not retain huge numbers of people for over a year. In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days (don't ask me where I remembered reading that though. )

[MagicalTrevor]

I'm afraid I have not done the calculations. I just know that in a general sense alliances do not retain huge numbers of people for over a year. In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days (don't ask me where I remembered reading that though. )

84% of statistics are made up though, so how can you be so sure

[Cataduanes]

I'm afraid I have not done the calculations. I just know that in a general sense alliances do not retain huge numbers of people for over a year. In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days (don't ask me where I remembered reading that though. )

God damn you really do not know GATO at all do you...Ask anyone in the know, GATO is one of the few alliances that has taken a tonking and retained a large portion of its membership. You have already cited a generalization that you have no figures or proof of any sort that you can use to back up, so may i suggest you stop using GATO as an example because your so wrong it hurts

Edited September 1, 2009 by Cataduanes

[Thorgrum]

I'm afraid I have not done the calculations. I just know that in a general sense alliances do not retain huge numbers of people for over a year. In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days (don't ask me where I remembered reading that though. )

So to the argument then:

You state an absolute fact: "In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days" Then in the same sentence request that you not be asked where you got that fact?

Here is a tip, when you are presenting theory use proper wording, this would have been better and wont leave you open "In fact, In my past readings I saw evidence that most new recruits delete within 50 days. I cant remember the exact source but I am confident this is close to accurate based on my observations" This is vague enough to make your point, but isnt an absolute statement.

its also not an absolute statement followed by a cavaet that you cant in fact prove the comment you just made. Now at page 6 of the thread you ought to be able to get this premise, based on the other rebuttals made to you. This was a carrot given in the interest that you will continue to post so that I may continue to read the very entertaining back and forths.

[Grumpdogg]

I'm afraid I have not done the calculations. I just know that in a general sense alliances do not retain huge numbers of people for over a year. In fact, statistics have shown that most new recruits delete within 50 days (don't ask me where I remembered reading that though. )

Seems like a pretty large assumption on which to base an argument.

Essentially you are arguing that Karma went to war for revenge, but that revenge was not justified as the majority of the member nations of Karma were not the recipients of the prior actions.

Pretty clearly this fails to acknowledge the possibility that member nations may become a part of the community of the alliance they join, not just the AA. Having sought membership of the community through service to the alliance, they would in turn be granted acceptance by the existing members. The new member then has a right to claim ownership of the community's actions, whether they be "yay we reached 4milllion NS" or "man I hate ABC because they rolled us last year". They have that right because the community shared it with them.

You have no business in deciding who may feel the collective pains or joys of their respective communities. If a member nation within Karma wishes to extract revenge on the NPO because the NPO wronged their friend before they met, then so be it.

I wish you luck in solving most of the RL world's conflicts by telling current generations they have no stake in the past because they weren't there.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[Francesca]

Seems like a pretty large assumption on which to base an argument.

Essentially you are arguing that Karma went to war for revenge, but that revenge was not justified as the majority of the member nations of Karma were not the recipients of the prior actions.

No, I'm saying that the majority of Karma probably have never spoken to Moo or the Pacifican IOs and have no personal quarrel with them.

You have no business in deciding who may feel the collective pains or joys of their respective communities. If a member nation within Karam wishes to extract revenge on the NPO because the NPO wronged their friend before they met, then so be it.

I wish you luck in solving most of the RL world's conflicts by telling current generations they have no stake in the past because they weren't there.

I didn't say this.

[Grumpdogg]

Frankly, there is no reason for ordinary Karma members, who have perhaps bought into the “evil NPO” propaganda, to fight and die in wars because of the personal grievances of their leaders.

That's exactly what you said.

[Portugal]

No, I'm saying that the majority of Karma probably have never spoken to Moo or the Pacifican IOs and have no personal quarrel with them.

Maybe not, but many of them were directly affected by Moo's decisions, or the IO's actions. And.. Well, that's what really matters. They may be cool guys, but if their actions hurt others, those others have the right to want revenge, wether we interact with them or not.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Portugal

[Francesca]

That's exactly what you said.

The emphasis is on "because of the personal grievances of their leaders."

[Valerius]

Someone needs to explain to me what about joining NPO makes some people write long, mostly irrelevant essays that somewhere along the way attempt to justify their flavor of moral relativism.

The existing paradigm no longer worked for a majority of people in the major alliances for a variety of reasons, most IC some OOC. "Karma" was simply a convenient label to slap on it. Even when it was a tight knit group of mostly Superfriends alliance leaders, no one person came to the conclusion that NPO needed to take a seat the same way.

It is therefore laughable to talk about "Karma" as some sort of unified movement that should have a complete ethical system backing it. "Karma" existed with a single mission in mind: change the existing paradigm. Mission accomplished, Planet Bob is still in search of a new paradigm. It won't be until all the major alliances are out of terms and able to make diplomatic maneuvers will we truly know what it is.

Fran, this man speaks the truth. This is what I have been trying to tell you, summarized. Readeth, my dear.

[Grumpdogg]

The emphasis is on "because of the personal grievances of their leaders."

The grievances of the community belong to the whole community. Have you never been a part of a community? The idea seems foreign to you. It mainly involves friendship and empathy.

[Francesca]

The grievances of the community belong to the whole community. Have you never been a part of a community? The idea seems foreign to you. It mainly involves friendship and empathy.

If they want to fight someone, let them fight. But don't make them do it for quarrels that are not their own.

[Francesca]

Fran, this man speaks the truth. This is what I have been trying to tell you, summarized. Readeth, my dear.

Argh, Kent. Get on IRC.

[Portugal]

If they want to fight someone, let them fight. But don't make them do it for quarrels that are not their own.

You keep saying that, but yet fail to provide a valid reason. Why is it not their own? Do you not recognize the right of someone to be part of the community? Are all alliance members completely detached from each other, with no common bonds or collective culture and past, and therefore have no right to the collective history or grievances of that alliance? Is that what you believe? Why?

Edited September 1, 2009 by Portugal