What is a moralist?

[mpol777]

Imperialism is not inherently negative. Neither is liberalism, conservatism, fascism, capitalism, pacifism, and a lot of other -ism's. they just describe something and can give other words context. Negative or positive depends on the audience. If you called me a pacifist, I'd stab you in the face. Both because I would take it as an insult (negative) and to prove you wrong. If you did the same to someone from GPA, they'd likely say "Thanks" (positive) and make you some chai tea.

[Kzoppistan]

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.

Why do you have a problem with that? As it stands now, you force non-aligned nations to have to join an alliance or get rolled, even then, the precedent you are setting is that even an alliance is not safe from those that seek to plunder them. If that's the way you want to play, fine, but don't begrudge others when they wish to use their power to change the game to how they want it played.

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.

It's arguable that by creating a hostile environment where no one is safe by themselves, you are actually stagnating the game by forcing others to sign treaties for protection- locking up the treaty web. If more people were free to conduct their affairs without the constant threat of rogues, you might see more creative game play, with less treaties, you could actually have more wars that involve only the people that want to be in it, thus drawing in more players.

My opinion is that there should be a balance, where there is a bit of danger, just like in real life, but not so much that it creates stagnation. If a group of players want to act like bandits, then they should realize that sooner or later someone is going to act like the policeman. This war right now seems to me to be a re-balancing of the standards of conduct. Don't like it? Win the war.

[King DrunkWino]

Imperialism is not inherently negative. Neither is liberalism, conservatism, fascism, capitalism, pacifism, and a lot of other -ism's. they just describe something and can give other words context. Negative or positive depends on the audience. If you called me a pacifist, I'd stab you in the face. Both because I would take it as an insult (negative) and to prove you wrong. If you did the same to someone from GPA, they'd likely say "Thanks" (positive) and make you some chai tea.

You know? In all honesty, I kinda expect less thought out debate and more alcohol-fueled pointed and very truthful commentary on the idiocy of the CN world.

[Tick1]

To me, a moralist is someone who believes in right and wrong in this game and lives to a supposed "moral code." I personally consider myself a moralist and always try to do what I perceive as the right thing. I do believe that there is a place for tech raiding in this world under certain conditions.

In this war people are using the term moralist to describe the Polar side but I don't see it that way. How do you see it?

A moralist is someone that lives by their own moral code (Or a charter is referring to an alliance). If you live by the moral standard of planet bob you are not a moralist seeing as these morals where not set by you, but by others which means you've failed to actually make a moral standard for yourself. When you imply that someone is immoral its because you believe that they don't live up to your own moral standards which means you've no knowledge of that culture and probably have no right to put your input into the matter. Seeing as morals around the world are different people shouldn't imply different cultures to be immoral. You should only judge the people within your own community such as your own alliance or bloc or people tied to your bloc (Which brings in the treaty web).

[Druss the Legend]

The belief that tech raiding is immoral is pure stupidity. In essence due to game mechanics, anyone who has ever fought in an offensive war is a tech raider. So I'm going to throw that out right now.

Morality in the cyberverse, to me, seems to be the general accepted way of doing things. Anyone who goes outside of the generally accepted way, is considered to be immoral. For instance, the FoA incident. It wasn't the fact that it was a tech raid, it was the fact that it was a larger group than normal.

So really, Moralists are people who like the status quo in CN, and immoralists are people who do things differently.

Another example: Serious buisness alliances are typically considered Moralists. Lulz alliances are typically considered immoral. Simply because the lulz alliance is doing something differently.

[mpol777]

You know? In all honesty, I kinda expect less thought out debate and more alcohol-fueled pointed and very truthful commentary on the idiocy of the CN world.

Gimme another hour or so. I'm working on it.

[_GunneR_]

A moralist, as defined by the players of cybernations, is anyone who does anything in a somewhat serious tone rather than talking about dicks or making gay jokes.

This hear appears to be a self-proclaimed moralist. By his virtue anyone not like him is a barbarian and uncultured.

I would say a moralist is no more than a projected title. One can be a moral person but the moment they try to act in a moralist form they will invariably raise hypocrisy. Furthermore, to be moral one can only ever account for ones own actions.

[Bob Janova]

ITT: Some people on the anti-moralist side call other players stupid for playing the game a different way.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

To me, a moralist is someone who believes in right and wrong in this game and lives to a supposed "moral code." I personally consider myself a moralist and always try to do what I perceive as the right thing. I do believe that there is a place for tech raiding in this world under certain conditions.

I dont really use 'moralist' in that way, but my character certainly has always stood for doing the right thing, whether popular or not, while OOC I do think there is a place for "tech raiding" in some form, IC it amounts to naked aggression and destruction, i.e. pure evil. But OOC I just wish people could be bothered to do it properly. I intend to do a rather longer treatment of the subject when I have time for such things again.

Regardless, "tech raids" as a euphemism for alliance wars is a different matter again.

In this war people are using the term moralist to describe the Polar side but I don't see it that way. How do you see it?

Well I tend to read "moralist" as a pejorative but using your definition, yes, clearly Polars side has the moral high ground in this. They have put themselves on the line to defend the broader community from this expansive new redefinition of tech-raiding to include naked wars of aggression against alliances - a blatant attempt to set a new precedent which threatens the community in both IC and OOC ways if allowed to stand.

[Earogema]

A moralist, as defined by the players of cybernations, is anyone who does anything in a somewhat serious tone rather than talking about dicks or making gay jokes.

This is probably apt. Airme's is good too, but it doesn't work for CN for some odd reason.

[Earogema]

No offense, but weakest argument ever to justify being a thug and thief. We have TE, which is MUCH better to train newbies on war tactics. Not that clicking a few buttons requires much training. Coordination, is more important than the button clicking. You don't get that with a "tech raid".

I feel like people who are huge nowadays forget what fighting in the lower ranks is like.

Tech raiding is wonderful for early training. Granted, CN doesn't take that much skill, but you learn a few things about your first war, and the war system by tech raiding. I promise that any person below 1k infra who has tech raided will be better/faster/and easier to coordinate with, than somebody who has never been at war at all.

[avernite]

I feel like people who are huge nowadays forget what fighting in the lower ranks is like.

Tech raiding is wonderful for early training. Granted, CN doesn't take that much skill, but you learn a few things about your first war, and the war system by tech raiding. I promise that any person below 1k infra who has tech raided will be better/faster/and easier to coordinate with, than somebody who has never been at war at all.

I dunno, despite never techraiding TOP did fine in its first war.

[janax]

I'm not "huge" by any means (hurrr).

and that's what TE is, small nations fighting. I don't see how "small nation training" can be justified as a reason to raid when TE exists. Back when it was common for some to raid inactives, how does that train anyone? I know how to click deploy and attack on a nation 18 days inactive. Yay me. That isn't war training, that is learning how to deploy, and then click that attack button. INMNHO, easily accomplished with screen shots.

Coordinating your attacks with flight/war mates is where training is needed, and that isn't accomplished with 1v1 raids.

It's a silly argument in my mind.

[Triyun]

I feel like people who are huge nowadays forget what fighting in the lower ranks is like.

Tech raiding is wonderful for early training. Granted, CN doesn't take that much skill, but you learn a few things about your first war, and the war system by tech raiding. I promise that any person below 1k infra who has tech raided will be better/faster/and easier to coordinate with, than somebody who has never been at war at all.

NPO never tech raided and we won victory after victory until the Karma War, I did just fine in Great War II following the war guide. I've never met anyone who reads a decent war guide who has trouble figuring out what to do.

[Earogema]

I'm not "huge" by any means (hurrr).

and that's what TE is, small nations fighting. I don't see how "small nation training" can be justified as a reason to raid when TE exists. Back when it was common for some to raid inactives, how does that train anyone? I know how to click deploy and attack on a nation 18 days inactive. Yay me. That isn't war training, that is learning how to deploy, and then click that attack button. INMNHO, easily accomplished with screen shots.

Coordinating your attacks with flight/war mates is where training is needed, and that isn't accomplished with 1v1 raids.

It's a silly argument in my mind.

Airme already pointed this out and I agree with him. TE is an entirely new place, with the same mechanics. If you'd like to teach nations there, that's fine. However, not everybody will care for TE.

Btw- Raiding inactives wasn't to train. You knew they wouldn't fight back. This is of course, when you could actually steal from inactives.

Not only that, but the people that do play TE are probably more experienced than the newbies to CN. These are people that constantly refresh to see if you've deployed, and hit you when you aren't ready, or people that CAN coordinate because they've made friends/pay attention to their alliance forms/IRC. When I was new, I didn't even know what IRC was, and I hated using it (tbh, I still kinda do). Granted, this will teach them the hard knox way.

EDIT: Also, I'm at 7k NS. You're huge compared to me. In fact, I don't get how CN can have this MASSIVE gap between players, but that's just how the game works.

NPO never tech raided and we won victory after victory until the Karma War, I did just fine in Great War II following the war guide. I've never met anyone who reads a decent war guide who has trouble figuring out what to do.

A lot of that was based on your allies/the incompetence of your enemies, but this thread isn't to get into that . However, while a well written war guide is effective, my point was a nation could be even more effective had they actually performed the actions themselves at least once.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Earogema

[KahlanRahl]

IMO, in this game, a moralist takes the whole "right vs wrong" themes to the extreme. Here are some visual examples of what I feel exemplifies a common CN moralist:

Basically: it's a game. Lofty ideals? Go away.

[Vilien]

Post

Your image macros are almost as compelling as the idea that there are ways to play this game that don't involve acting like an idiot all the time.

[KahlanRahl]

Your image macros are almost as compelling as the idea that there are ways to play this game that don't involve acting like an idiot all the time.

I don't recall saying that everyone should act like an idiot. On the contrary, I do recall saying that moralists take the notion of right and wrong to the extreme, in my definition. But of course since I'm not a moralist I must be an idiot, yes? Or can you concede there is a medium, like i was implying? I apologize if you don't like the fact that I added a little humor, I'm in a very good mood today.

[Vilien]

I don't recall saying that everyone should act like an idiot. On the contrary, I do recall saying that moralists take the notion of right and wrong to the extreme, in my definition. But of course since I'm not a moralist I must be an idiot, yes? Or can you concede there is a medium, like i was implying? I apologize if you don't like the fact that I added a little humor, I'm in a very good mood today.

I responded to the typical "lulz" oriented responses, which you mirrored pretty clearly by posting a bunch of inane images. Of course, I do forget that issues of right and wrong are things that deserve consistently lukewarm reactions.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Vilien

[Cobalt]

I'm just wondering if anyone can actually see my post. I suppose raiders bringing up defunct points is pretty typically though.

Here ya go:

While this must be comforting for those who describe themselves as amoral, that is an absurd statement.

I don't describe myself as amoral, but it was meant to be an absurd statement, so I think we can call this one a draw

Those opposed to tech-raiding are typically from varying alliances, people I think of most prominently are Death, Bob Janova, Bzelger, Randominterrupt and scores of others I can't think of right now, who have been consistently opposed to tech-raiding for as long as they have bothered to post on these forums regardless of their political affiliation.

... I said nothing about techraiding, and to group the whole "moral" vs "amoral" conflict we're all apparently having into "techraiding" vs "anti-techraiding" is a little simplistic. Those championing "morality" and "justice" have been around for a while, and its not just about tech raiding. For instance, I personally do not approve of techraiding, and do not and have not done it myself - however I would not say I'm a moralist. To continue, I really don't know where you pulled raiding from in regards to my comment, apparently you learned some tricks at magic camp.

Alliance leaders may cynically exploit community outrage in order to justify their own schemes

Agreed... notice how this falls in with my point; those claiming to be moral really just want to justify their actions, regardless of how truly just their actions are. To think anything, anywhere is black and white, good vs. evil, moral vs. amoral is naive at best - there will always be shades of grey. In the end you just gotta hope you went with the lesser of two evils because you probably won't have many opportunities to choose "good" as it were.

which in my opinion is probably what Polaris is doing, but the posters usually labeled as Moralists have always opposed raiding for differing reasons- damage they feel it does to the community, disgust at the hypocritical rhetoric of "do something about it," empathy with the raided, past experience, being a member of a small alliance or unaligned themselves... the list goes on.

And here's the meat. What we're really dealing with here is the CN use of the word moral (and its buddies 'morality', 'moralism', and the now accusatory 'moralist') and not true meaning of the word. Just like in any political or social situation, words take on different meanings depending on who uses them, when they use them, and how they do. In a current context, a "moralist" probably doesn't define themselves as such, they are defined as such by another party. Feel free to disagree, but I'd say my definition was fairly accurate from that perspective.

I fall in the category of "all of the above reasons" for condemning raiding, and as such I'll back any alliance whose victory means a blow to the practice of tech raiding.

Congrats, see GGA to get your medal

Regardless of the goals behind Polaris' attack, the war is clearly being waged on the basis of the validity of raids upon alliances constituting a valid CB.

Firstly, I'm going to take this time to say the entire concept of a "valid CB" is absurd. If your entire alliance wants to attack someone, hell... go for it. As a community we've developed this mentality that aggression is some sort of foul, and that you must wait until you can fulfill some undefined burden of proof that you were wronged enough to go to war over it. It has reduced our world to an entire playground of kids yelling insults at each other, but everyone's waiting for someone else to throw the first punch. If you want techraiding gone, and are willing to fight to see it gone - fight to see it gone. Its like we're all siting around trying to figure out how we can do what we want without breaking the "law" - when there is no law to break. The only real rules and regulations we have to follow are the rules of forum conduct, and those we impose upon ourselves internally. Do what you want. I realize this basically boils down to "might makes right" but lets be serious - outside of the internal workings of an alliance, CN exists in a state of anarchy; the only "right" and "wrong" is what you can back up militarily, whether by your self or through treaties. Somehow we've all become servants to the "law" of public approval, and that's terrible. Do what you want, do what you think is right.

Certainly, that is what the tech-raiders seem most upset about. As someone who wants to see raiding eradicated, I'm all for attacking alliances who view tech-raiding other alliances to be tolerable. And as such I'm for the defeat of the coalition that has congealed around \m/.

I think the "tech raiders" are concerned about a greater power than themselves wanting to eradicate them... a valid concern. They're mounting their ideological defense from inside the same court of public approval that you seem to be mounting your attack. You should probably also consider that as much as you think techraiding is wrong, they think it is right. I doubt they sit in front of their computers saying to themselves "lets go be morally bankrupt" (morality here used by its actual definition, not its CN definition).

Guess that means I'm feigning "outrage" so I can feel I'm on the side of "truth, justice, rainbows, unicorns, and baby woodland creatures."

No, you're not feigning, you seem to be actually outraged - which I'd actually say is worse, especially given that this is an OOC forum. IC outrage is fine. So, have fun with your rainbows, unicorns, and woodland creatures - just know that the other side probably thinks they have them too... how many wars do you think have been fought in which both sides thought god was on their side?

Enjoy.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Tungsten

[Fantastico]

Basically: it's a game. Lofty ideals? Go away.

How dare anyone pursue lofty ideals in a game of war and politics!

[KahlanRahl]

I responded to the typical "lulz" oriented responses, which you mirrored pretty clearly by posting a bunch of inane images. Of course, I do forget that issues of right and wrong are things that deserve consistently lukewarm reactions.

Well done, you completely skipped over everything I said about the fact that it was meant to be humorous in a seemingly "srs bizness" topic, and the fact that I had for the second time explained my personal opinion on what a moralist is. Your responding to my example of a typical lulz post confirms my point about taking things such as that to the extreme in most cases.

[Sal Paradise]

Moralist doesn't mean anything to me. Like the term "liberal" in RL popular politics, illiterate half-wits use it as a catch-all insult for anything they don't like.

These people don't like it when others tell them they disagree with their behaviour. This would be intellectual cowardice if anything about their ideology ever required any intellect.

-snippy snip-

Nobody ever listens to the Schatten Man.

[Prime minister Johns]

Lets get back to the true definition of morality,

Morality is derived from the latin word moralitas that translates to incorporate the following, proper manner, proper character & proper behaviour.

Morality is also used in three senses:

Descriptive morality is a code of conduct that an individual has that enables them to distinguish right from wrong, morals are created by religion, philosophy and/or individual conscience. Descriptive morality does not explain why any behaviour should be considered right or wrong, only that it may be classified so. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they cause benefit or harm, respectively.

In the second universal nominative sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct which would be preferred by the sane "moral" person, under specified conditions. For example killing is considered to be immoral under normal circumstances.

And finally there is the Ethical sense of morality, Morality and ethics are synonymous since morality is the antecedent of ethics with ethics being the philosophical study of moral behaviour.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Earogema]

I responded to the typical "lulz" oriented responses, which you mirrored pretty clearly by posting a bunch of inane images. Of course, I do forget that issues of right and wrong are things that deserve consistently lukewarm reactions.

Can't he play the game that way if he so desires though?