Penkalagate and Morality on Bob

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

I don't believe this thread states anything that hasn't been said a million times before, wasn't said in the other thread, or states anything at all really.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I don't believe this thread states anything that hasn't been said a million times before, wasn't said in the other thread, or states anything at all really.

But now you're contributing so much that all is well.

[eyriq]

I don't believe this thread states anything that hasn't been said a million times before, wasn't said in the other thread, or states anything at all really.

In most cases it's not what you say but how you say it. This is very much true in this case.

[Uralica]

Heh, I'm in character more often than I realise. Probably half the posts I make in the TOOL-only sections of TOOL forums are at least partially in-character.

My OOC morals do indeed shape my IC character, as not only am I a Christian IRL but try to follow as close to those ideals as I can IC - I speak out against things like tech-raiding and wars with no seeming cause or with questionable cause (heck, I was in CCC when they first constructed the Ideological Concern Clause ) but I am also willing to go to bat for my allies, to forgive upon repentance, to repent myself when I bugger up, and to try to be good on my word.

I've seen something of a "keep out-of-game stuff out-of-game" attitude,but quite frankly it never happens as much as we try. People are just too bleeding stubborn. I mean, I've only been playing for a year and three months and I've seen pretty much every kind of OOC attack imaginable short of a full on /b/ombing - whether in private channels or on these forums. Heck, I even quit the game for three months because I took a public DoW against my then-alliance as an OOC attack because of its wording, then realised, if I was doing that, I was investing too much in it emotionally anyway.

As for Penkala, I do agree it is his OOC right to do whatever he pleases in-game as long as it's within the rules.

[Vilien]

My main problem with Penkala's raid was his previous indignation about an identical action with a slightly larger scale. As Bob Janova and Doitzel have so handily pointed out, playing a Moralist is just as valid an IC choice as the "lulz" player or the hegemonist.

My IC and OOC problem with tech raiding is that I believe, however crazy this may sound, that you should act decently towards other people. I know there are some raiders out there who are respectful and do what they do with class. There are others who really don't care about driving players from the game, often new players, for the sake of stacking a few more pixels on their nations. That's not okay in my book. I opposed Penkala's actions, as I opposed Athens', because I oppose all raiding. There's plenty of war to be had out there (just look at how I play) without unnecessarily stomping on those who really can't effectively fight back.

I fail to see how arguing for treating other people well is at all an example of "false" morality.

[llamavore]

Wasn't that in reaction to an IC solution being used on an OOC problem? IF the problem had been handled OOC, there wouldn't be a somewhat-IC reaction to it (and Penkala wouldn't have had a squirm-worthy thread on his hands).

dealing with a death threat (and I know it's unclear who actually made a threat in the real event, but hypothetically speaking) in an OOC manner would cause more IC damage to the one making the threat than just nuking them would. So if someone both nukes them and reports them, expediting their deletion, the only way I can see it being -inherently- wrong in a roleplay morality sense, is if someone is RP'ing that something like 'all unnecessary violence (even against those who will be deleted) is wrong.' However, this line of RP morality debases itself IMO because by demanding one only react in an OOC way, it breaks out of staying IC itself; a 100% committed IC player would have no way to react to an OOC attack except to interpret it as an IC attack or at least respond to it completely IC, in which case you could nuke a country when its leader threatens to marshal all his forces to exterminate you and your royal family, all in RP. However, if you expect someone to switch to OOC means when threatened OOC, you can't logically also include IC reasons for why they should do this.

the only roleplay morality reason one may be obliged to react only in OOC to an OOC attack, is in honoring IC and OOC agreements they've made or stances they've taken, such as breaking rules they've put themselves under via their alliance. That itself is a morality that transcends the IC barrier anyway. Once a situation leaves IC and enters OOC, no purely IC morality can apply to it, as a player in character would not be aware of OOC events or factors. Anyone commenting on a situation that has become more than IC RP has stepped OOC themselves, unless they RP with such integrity that they never mention or respond to any mention of OOC phenomenon.

edit:

I fail to see how arguing for treating other people well is at all an example of "false" morality.

I didn't mean to imply that RP morality is 'the wrong way to play.' What I really think is false, in a negatively connotated sense, is when people apply RP morality in situations that are beyond RP, more than just IC. In fact, a great deal of the game lies beyond IC RP, and people who fail to distinguish where one ends and the other begins are a danger to the entertainment of anyone who doesn't play the same way they do. If you consider that games are created to be, to varying degrees, morality free zones where many come to indulge cathartic meaninglessness, then injecting more morality into the game than people naturally create through their agreements is not justifiable unless you're doing it purely as RP, and as such do not apply it beyond RP and its premises.

Edited November 20, 2009 by llamavore

[GulagArchipelago]

The only morality instilled in players are by the rules set by their AAs. Other than that, it's just a bunch of kids who think they can take over the world.

[Vilien]

I didn't mean to imply that RP morality is 'the wrong way to play.' What I really think is false, in a negatively connotated sense, is when people apply RP morality in situations that are beyond RP, more than just IC. In fact, a great deal of the game lies beyond IC RP, and people who fail to distinguish where one ends and the other begins are a danger to the entertainment of anyone who doesn't play the same way they do. If you consider that games are created to be, to varying degrees, morality free zones where many come to indulge cathartic meaninglessness, then injecting more morality into the game than people naturally create through their agreements is not justifiable unless you're doing it purely as RP, and as such do not apply it beyond RP and its premises.

That is complete crap. This a political simulator, and any adequate political simulator, as has been said many times, would include a wide variety of IC viewpoints. Cybernations is not advertised as, nor was it intended to be a "morality free zone". There are numerous justifications for acting morally in this game, both IC and OOC. The fact that you cannot understand those who choose decency over cheap warmongering does absolutely nothing to diminish the role of moralist players in this game.

[PhysicsJunky]

If everyone plays a good guy, there's no source of politics.

Bob, on the morality of Bob.

[llamavore]

That is complete crap. This a political simulator, and any adequate political simulator, as has been said many times, would include a wide variety of IC viewpoints. Cybernations is not advertised as, nor was it intended to be a "morality free zone". There are numerous justifications for acting morally in this game, both IC and OOC. The fact that you cannot understand those who choose decency over cheap warmongering does absolutely nothing to diminish the role of moralist players in this game.

First, it's a game, self described as a nation building simulator, and being a game made for fun will be played differently than one constructed specifically for the purpose of simulating politics, as opposed to simply allowing the simulation of politics to the extent of the player community's desire.

Second, because playing the game does not require adhering to certain moral decisions that you adhere to, beyond the CoC it is in actuality a morality free zone. There is no inherently designed penalty for doing the many things people IC say are immoral. Therefore, it is a political simulator game, and it is also an anarchy simulator game, a world peace simulator and a world war simulator and any other kind of simulator that the admin's lack of rules allow for.

I understand decency just fine, I just think it's more decent to be honest about the fact that it's a game and understand how this effects the ethics involved. Also, we're not IC in this thread, so you don't need to pretend that any player here is an actual warmonger, or for that matter, a moralist of any value. it's roleplay, it's not real. pretending it's more than roleplay and that it's inherently wrong to play the game however it will let you play, is petty. There is real morality involved, and the real moralists perceive it with no pretension.

edit: sp

Edited November 20, 2009 by llamavore

[Vilien]

First, it's a game, self described as a nation building simulator, and being a game made for fun will be played differently than one constructed specifically for the purpose of simulating politics, as opposed to simply allowing the simulation of politics to the extent of the player community's desire.

Second, because playing the game does not require adhering to certain moral decisions that you adhere to, beyond the CoC it is in actuality a morality free zone. There is no inherently designed penalty for doing the many things people IC say are immoral. Therefore, it is a political simulator game, and it is also an anarchy simulator game, a world peace simulator and a world war simulator and any other kind of simulator that the admin's lack of rules allow for.

I understand decency just fine, I just think it's more decent to be honest about the fact that it's a game and understand how this effects the ethics involved. Also, we're not IC in this thread, so you don't need to pretend that any player here is an actual warmonger, or for that matter, a moralist of any value. it's roleplay, it's not real. pretending it's more than roleplay and that it's inherently wrong to play the game however it will let you play, is petty. There is real morality involved, and the real moralists perceive it with no pretension.

Yes, it's a game. So what is your point supposed to be? That people shouldn't argue for communal standards because they aren't hardcoded into the game? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[Mistress Demona]

Cybernations is not advertised as, nor was it intended to be a "morality free zone". There are numerous justifications for acting morally in this game, both IC and OOC.

I had very different expectations when I first joined. The game name says that players pretend to be rulers of nations. With the alliance system the way it currently stands - at best we're "governors" of individual states within a union (i.e. the alliance). Even in the language used on OWF to argue these points suggests that as accepted entirely. All the talk is about the rights of alliances and not individual nations. The few times you hear about individual nations "rights" on OWF, it's how they have the "right" to "tech raid" (nice way to pretend that it's something other than war - who came up with that idea? Smart politician!)

The game should be renamed Cyber Alliances.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Mistress Demona

[llamavore]

Yes, it's a game. So what is your point supposed to be? That people shouldn't argue for communal standards because they aren't hardcoded into the game? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

my point as I've already said, is that people need to remember the distinctions of how much IC morality is also OOC, how much isn't, how they interact, and recognize that the game is played both IC and OOC by everyone, and that you can't make communal standards that don't account for this dichotomy, they are unstable and they will fail. RP moralism over-applied (often because the RPer thinks it also applies OOC when it often doesn't) represents a doomed attempt at communal standards.

[Vilien]

my point as I've already said, is that people need to remember the distinctions of how much IC morality is also OOC, how much isn't, how they interact, and recognize that the game is played both IC and OOC by everyone, and that you can't make communal standards that don't account for this dichotomy, they are unstable and they will fail. RP moralism over-applied (often because the RPer thinks it also applies OOC when it often doesn't) represents a doomed attempt at communal standards.

Okay. I'll keep that in mind.

[Doitzel]

In fact, a great deal of the game lies beyond IC RP, and people who fail to distinguish where one ends and the other begins are a danger to the entertainment of anyone who doesn't play the same way they do.

Hi. I think you've got the wrong forum. You might want to try this one.

Now if you don't mind I'm going to go ICly stick my nose in someone else's business.

[Byron Orpheus]

You have to resort to the OOC "it's just a game I can do whatever I want" to counter someone's IC arguments of morality

But I do not. Your morality is not my morality, and the supposition that morality on Planet Bob is uniform across the nations is baseless. There.

[Kzoppistan]

I really liked the Original Post. For once, there's not a single thing in it that I disagree with. Also, for once, I don't have any original thoughts to add or anything witty to say. Good read.