What is a moralist?

[Iotupa]

As secret Emperor of Polar I am preparing the order to Perma-ZI you for spying. There's no other way you could have determined that Grub is but a puppet and I am the true power.

At least if you aren't in peace mode as usual. I am too lazy to check. I will have one of my many puppets check for me though.

edit: Also you remind me a lot of Philosopher, but not for the reason you cited.

I haven't been in peace mode for going on two years now. And considering I once considered you not only an ally, but a friend as well, the change in your was one of the more distressing to see.

How do I remind you of Philosopher, anyway? I am curious.

[Derwood1]

A "moralist", in terms of Cybernations as I had always understood it (and please, understand, I've been avoiding it like the plague ), is someone who attempts to impose upon others their own moral code and standards, either via public outburst or through other means such as in-game warfare. There is also a suggested undertone that moralists do this for political gain.

This is the best definition I have seen so far. Nice job.

[RandomInterrupt]

I haven't been in peace mode for going on two years now. And considering I once considered you not only an ally, but a friend as well, the change in your was one of the more distressing to see.

How do I remind you of Philosopher, anyway? I am curious.

That's the thing though. I haven't changed one bit. Also you remind me of Philosopher for making things up with no basis in truth and presenting it as fact.

[Iotupa]

That's the thing though. I haven't changed one bit. Also you remind me of Philosopher for making things up with no basis in truth and presenting it as fact.

Well, I certainly don't agree with you on that. Your random outburst of hatred towards me when you joined Sponge's Cult of Personality, aka tLC, was certainly a difference in behavior.

Care to point out anything I've made up that has no basis in truth? I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time I've made anything up that was false and presented it as fact.

[RandomInterrupt]

Well, I certainly don't agree with you on that. Your random outburst of hatred towards me when you joined Sponge's Cult of Personality, aka tLC, was certainly a difference in behavior.

Care to point out anything I've made up that has no basis in truth? I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time I've made anything up that was false and presented it as fact.

This for starters.

Besides, a good portion of Sponge's former cabinet is still in the NpO, and despite having an Emperor, he is not the only one making decisions in NpO.

And then right above when you classify tLC as something it was not. You have no idea what you are talking about, you make a random guess, and present it as fact.

[Iotupa]

This for starters.

And then right above when you classify tLC as something it was not. You have no idea what you are talking about, you make a random guess, and present it as fact.

I may be mistaken, but weren't you, HannaH, jphillips, AlmightGrub, GEWilliam, and ZBaldwin all a part of the government during Sponge's time? I suppose I could take the time to truly look through and see how many more of the people who were in government during Sponge's time are around, but that is a fairly significant number of people who are still around/still government. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Godwin]

It's a term that summarizes a bunch of things that effectively add up to absolutely nothing. Morality and morals are relative and subjective, so in all honestly being a "moralist" means nothing. Morals, consequently, mean nothing in regards to this game.

Also, what TheNeverender said sums up what it means in the context of this forum when applied anywhere relevant.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Godwin

[RandomInterrupt]

I may be mistaken, but weren't you, HannaH, jphillips, AlmightGrub, GEWilliam, and ZBaldwin all a part of the government during Sponge's time? I suppose I could take the time to truly look through and see how many more of the people who were in government during Sponge's time are around, but that is a fairly significant number of people who are still around/still government. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

HannaH is 100% retired and comes around to say hi every few weeks. JP and GE has worked with every Emperor from Sponge forward, and they do their jobs well. ZBaldwin was Grub's regent and is now basically retired. I left Polar for almost exactly a year and only returned last September. I haven't taken any official jobs nor have I been involved with any decision making. I like retirement. Polaris is a strong community and people tend to stick around for many years. This is because people leave only to realize that there is no place like home and all other alliances pale in comparison. it is not uncommon to see members in mid to high government positions across multiple Emperors and multiple versions of government. However new talent is always being raised. The current Regent, Liason, and Minister of Plenty, and Minister of Peace did not serve in upper government during the Sponge era.

What you said, exactly, was "despite having an Emperor, he is not the only one making decisions in NpO." You have not provided any proof of this at all. I'd like to see your proof or an admission that you make things up with no basis in fact.

[Iotupa]

HannaH is 100% retired and comes around to say hi every few weeks. JP and GE has worked with every Emperor from Sponge forward, and they do their jobs well. ZBaldwin was Grub's regent and is now basically retired. I left Polar for almost exactly a year and only returned last September. I haven't taken any official jobs nor have I been involved with any decision making. I like retirement. Polaris is a strong community and people tend to stick around for many years. This is because people leave only to realize that there is no place like home and all other alliances pale in comparison. it is not uncommon to see members in mid to high government positions across multiple Emperors and multiple versions of government. However new talent is always being raised. The current Regent, Liason, and Minister of Plenty, and Minister of Peace did not serve in upper government during the Sponge era.

What you said, exactly, was "despite having an Emperor, he is not the only one making decisions in NpO." You have not provided any proof of this at all. I'd like to see your proof or an admission that you make things up with no basis in fact.

I will admit I don't have any proof, but he would be the first Emperor I was aware of that did not take the advice of those around him when making decisions. Even Sponge took the advice/used suggestions from his government in his time, and we are all aware of how stubborn he could be. I don't see Grub as the type who would completely ignore his government/former government. Perhaps I am wrong about him, though.

[mpol777]

Pretty sure the definition of "moralist" is already set. It's one of the fundamental aspects of a language. Words have meaning. Some have many meanings. If there are multiple meanings you can pick the one you want by adding context or descriptors (read: more words). What you don't get to do is redefine words arbitrarily. Well, you can, but then nobody will know what the hell you're talking about and you'll look like an idiot.

Most people here have issues with words and their current meanings. Let's not make it harder on them by just making !@#$ up m'kay?

[Vilien]

A moralist is a person who acts according to a particular set of ethics or a moral code. That's it.

[Groucho Marx]

A moralist is best described as someone who takes their personal beliefs about how the game should be played (often using real world terminology to justify it, which in a game is utterly stupid) and treats their beliefs as International Law. If someone dares to violate this International (unwritten) Law then the moralists will use it as a rallying cry to enforce their beliefs on the silent majority through aggressive diplomacy and often times war. What makes a moralist hypocritical is that their main justification for behaving in the manner that they do is to promote world peace when in reality they cause more political tensions and war than their "immoral" enemies create through their "evil" actions. The moralists portray this attitude of self-righteousness in dealing with their perceived enemies and often threaten their target to either accept their standards of how to play the game, or get rolled. Since the Moralists often use real world terminology to justify their ideals, let me throw this example at you; This attitude portrayed by the moralists correlates to the violence seen in the days when the Catholic Church was the most powerful entity in the real world. The Church did all it could to spread it's power and influence while aiming to control as much of the civilized and uncivilized world as possible in order to secure power and wealth for the few while using one tactic to convince many of the poor and less powerful to bow to their demands; Convert or die.

I personally have no issue with a person having morals, and I'm glad there are individuals who believe in aiding their fellow man regardless of the realm in which they choose to aid him. But using real world ideals as justification in an online browser game is utterly ridiculous. The principles regarding "murder" or "sin" don't apply here, using them to justify your wars in an online text game is just demeaning to all involved. Even in a role playing sense it's just absurd, and it's borderline depressing to see how seriously individuals take these misplaced values in a game they have no place being in. There will always be someone who plays this game in a manner you do not agree with. This will never change. But what they do that you disagree with will. For now it's tech raiding, but what's next? Soon we'll start turning on people who don't have a certain type of Government or religion for their nation, or maybe we'll attack them because of the team color they decide to reside on, perhaps the length of their nation bios will be next or even if a person doesn't sell tech when they're small. These reasons are all absurd and stupid, yet you believe the causes for which you stand for now are fair and just, what is to stop us from believing in these reasons in the future as well? Time can only tell what the next big issue will be for moralists, but rest assured they will attempt to settle it in the same manner that they always have; Convert or die.

[Vilien]

Lots of words followed by a slippery slope argument.

Here's a thought: people play the game differently. Get over it. Other people enjoy playing moralist characters. It's no more ridiculous than extracting pleasure from hurting other people in a browser game. I know it enrages you when people call you out on doing stupid things, but you've got to realize that altruism is just as valid as schadenfreude.

Also, your comparison to the Catholic Church is patently ridiculous. When has moralism ever been a dominant factor in politics? Even then, the vast majority of moralists don't go around violently imposing their beliefs on other people. I don't even think I need to go into that nonsense you slapped in at the end.

[avernite]

Moralists:

The guys with the largest amount of previously unaligned alliances on their side. The term is used to try to change this in favour of the side using the Moralist name.

Usually fails. See also the Karma war and the Unjust War.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Not everyone wants to manage two nations.

Some of us can not even manage one.

[Jack Diorno]

Everyone has morals, claiming you're a moralist because you follow some set of ethical values would place everyone as a moralist, that definition is wrong.

A 'moralist' is someone who tries to force their values down the throats of other people. They remind me of the catholic church mack in medieval times.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Everyone has morals, claiming you're a moralist because you follow some set of ethical values would place everyone as a moralist, that definition is wrong.

A 'moralist' is someone who tries to force their values down the throats of other people. They remind me of the catholic church mack in medieval times.

In the context of the game not everyone has morals. I do not recognize a set of principles by which I govern my nation or my alliance that offsets the basic political and/or economic agendas we have in place. If a group of nations does something that the majority of the Cyberverse finds offensive and I can capitalize on it in order to push forward my agenda I will do so, and I may even cry a bit about it in order to get some level of sympathy or to make the other side look bad, but that is just manipulation of the situation, not inherent moralist thought.

To me there is no ultimate right or wrong in the Cyberverse. There may be Good and Evil, but that isn't the same thing, and I can readily express which side of that equation I seek to be on ingame without reservation.

[Doitzel]

A moralist is best described as someone who takes their personal beliefs about how the game should be played [...] and treats their beliefs as International Law.

But using real world ideals as justification in an online browser game is utterly ridiculous.

And this is exactly why you and I will be enemies.

[D34th]

A moralist is best described as someone who takes their personal beliefs about how the game should be played (often using real world terminology to justify it, which in a game is utterly stupid) and treats their beliefs as International Law. But using real world ideals as justification in an online browser game is utterly ridiculous.

Do you know that the name of the game that we play is "Cybernations: A nation Simulation Game" right?

Do you know what the word "simulation" means right? The representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system(real life nations) through the use of another system(this game).

So tell me again why use real world ideals in this game is utterly ridiculous?

[Schattenmann]

Basically. what we have here is a term, moralist, which has come into use whithout holding the meaning that it's being used for.

What most people who decry moralists and/or moralism really mean to say is "moral imperialist/ism." The definitions posted all answer the question "what is a moralist," with the answer to the question "what is a moral imperialist?"

As mpol pointed out, the words we use already have real world application, and he argues that we use the real world words in their real-world context while we play CyberNations. However, that is not the case when we get to a lot of terms. "Francoism" is Spanish Facism (or Spanish NAZIism if you're trying to score points against NPO), not the ideals spelled out by Francos Spain. Until its Senate days, Vox was described as an "anarchic collective" after I made a grammatical error in an essay from our first days; it should have been anarchical collective. etc etc The vocabulary that we have must suffice for CyberNations, but the words we use in reference to political movements in CyberNations are in context of CN, not in context of the real world, so, yes, familiar words get new meanings. Some people can read into it and understand things, othe rpeople can't figure it out and they are constantly frustrated and you will spot them arguing illogically due to their application of real-world context to CyberNations. A guy went 4 pages with me and some other people once; it was hilarious.

So, the answers to your question posted here "Moralists are people that try to impose their moral values on other people/alliances" or "who see their moral set as international law (another real world context in CN)" or "who see their moral set as the superior/dominant set (CN ethnocentrism)" translate to a real world context term: Moral Imperialists.

With the answer you have received, and an adaptation of terminolgy based on the answers here, we can now develop an understanding of two types of moral people/alliances:

Moral Imperialists are alliances/people with a set moral code who seek to impose their morals on other alliances via political means (treatying, war). A current example is Polaris' enforcement by war of what their understanding of the community standard on raiding is.

Moralists are people with a set moral code who rely on that moral set to guide alliance policy, individual actions/posting, etc. For example, Vilien has strong beliefs and he sticks to them, but he doesn't threaten to stomp people that disagree. Or, Cult of Justitia has a strong moral code that guides our foreign policy (no compulsive treaties).

While the term moralist has taken on CyberNations contexts, there are two clear moral-centric categories, so we must use two terms. Otherwise, when you're calling someone a moralist for attacking techraiders, other people are calling someone else a moralist for thinking a certain way. All moral imperialists are moralists, but not all moralists are moral imperialists.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Schattenmann

[AirMe]

Basically. what we have here is a term, moralist, which has come into use whithout holding the meaning that it's being used for.

What most people who decry moralists and/or moralism really mean to say is "moral imperialist/ism." The definitions posted all answer the question "what is a moralist," with the answer to the question "what is a moral imperialist?"

As mpol pointed out, the words we use already have real world application, and he argues that we use the real world words in their real-world context while we play CyberNations. However, that is not the case when we get to a lot of terms. "Francoism" is Spanish Facism (or Spanish NAZIism if you're trying to score points against NPO), not the ideals spelled out by Francos Spain. Until its Senate days, Vox was described as an "anarchic collective" after I made a grammatical error in an essay from our first days; it should have been anarchical collective. etc etc The vocabulary that we have must suffice for CyberNations, but the words we use in reference to political movements in CyberNations are in context of CN, not in context of the real world, so, yes, familiar words get new meanings. Some people can read into it and understand things, othe rpeople can't figure it out and they are constantly frustrated and you will spot them arguing illogically due to their application of real-world context to CyberNations. A guy went 4 pages with me and some other people once; it was hilarious.

So, the answers to your question posted here "Moralists are people that try to impose their moral values on other people/alliances" or "who see their moral set as international law (another real world context in CN)" or "who see their moral set as the superior/dominant set (CN ethnocentrism)" translate to a real world context term: Moral Imperialists.

With the answer you have received, and an adaptation of terminolgy based on the answers here, we can now develop an understanding of two types of moral people/alliances:

Moral Imperialists are alliances/people with a set moral code who seek to impose their morals on other alliances via political means (treatying, war). A current example is Polaris' enforcement by war of what their understanding of the community standard on raiding is.

Moralists are people with a set moral code who rely on that moral set to guide alliance policy, individual actions/posting, etc. For example, Vilien has strong beliefs and he sticks to them, but he doesn't threaten to stomp people that disagree. Or, Cult of Justitia has a strong moral code that guides our foreign policy (no compulsive treaties).

While the term moralist has taken on CyberNations contexts, there are two clear moral-centric categories, so we must use two terms. Otherwise, when you're calling someone a moralist for attacking techraiders, other people are calling someone else a moralist for thinking a certain way. All moral imperialists are moralists, but not all moralists are moral imperialists.

I like the way you think my friend.

[Doitzel]

How come Shantmanmanmantanachman is so cool in the OOC forums and so frustratingly dense in the IC ones?

[avernite]

The only problem is, of course, that adding the word imperialist makes the term even LESS neutral, showing an apaprent dislike of the activity in our current vocabulary.

To change that would require coming up with two terms for the same thing, one positive and one negative, or a more a-priori neutral term; moralist is such, except it has another meaning too.

[Schattenmann]

How come Shantmanmanmantanachman is so cool in the OOC forums and so frustratingly dense in the IC ones?

It's easy to agree on vocab

The only problem is, of course, that adding the word imperialist makes the term even LESS neutral, showing an apaprent dislike of the activity in our current vocabulary.

To change that would require coming up with two terms for the same thing, one positive and one negative, or a more a-priori neutral term; moralist is such, except it has another meaning too.

I disagree. Well, I agree with your assessment that the word "imperialist/ism" has negative connotations, but I disagree that this requires altering the terminolgy we use. Imperialism is simply a word with a definition:

• a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
  
• a political orientation that advocates imperial interests
  
• any instance of aggressive extension of authority
  
• the policy of imposing the rule or command of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of obtaining and occupying colonies and dependencies. American imperialism came of age during London's lifetime, beginning with Cuba and the Phillipines.
  
• Imperialism describes the expansion of 19th-century Britain geographically and politically. The creation of the British empire involved acquiring colonies which were valuable, most commonly for economic advantage.
  

I am transposing that definition to CyberNations because when an Alliance X attacks another Alliance Y in order to bring Alliance Y into compliance with Alliance X's own moral set, then that is an imperialist act.

Words are not defined with regard to what people will think about the definition (connotation), rather, that contextual and connotational feeling is given to words based on their definition. So, no matter how you alter the term to avoid connotations, the term's definition will create the same conntations as soon as it is applied.

People who agree with Polar's war will not think of Moral Imperialism as negative, because it accomplishes the things they want.

Besides, the very idea of changing something to avoid hurt feelings is absolute rubbish. The idea is not to create a "neutral" term, as you suggest, but to create a term whose definition matches reality.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Iotupa]

...really bad argument...

All moral imperialists are moralists, but not all moralists are moral imperialists.

Really good response to that bad argument. I agree with you, Schattenmann.