What is a moralist?

[Tick1]

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.

I'm sorry everyone missed you post, great definition by the way.

[AirMe]

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.

You lost GW1 and you won GW2 with better coordination. After that, you had nothing but wins via number superiority. For those of us who haven't been gifted to fight wars where we outnumber our opponents 10 to 1, strategy has a different meaning.

[Bordiga]

... 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.

Thanks for the pointless attack on me at the end of this comment, I love magic camp.

All groups will try to win the moral high ground, which is exactly what \m/ and co. are doing, within this very topic for instance. The actual positions that the conflicting sides are championing is clearly revolving around the context of tech-raiding. To just ignore tech-raiding as being important is to miss the entire thrust of at least one side's argument. If it were a group of nations seeking to impose their moral view of how CN should be run by forcing an alliance to adopt a specific national religion or government, then I wouldn't be supporting the so-called moralist side. It's only because tech-raiding is the issue at hand that I support Polaris.

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.

Yes, of course everyone wants to justify their actions. The difference between the blabber coming from \m/ about liberty and justice as opposed to that coming from the other side is that one is supporting raiding and the other isn't.

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.

The point of my statement was that NpO, and most alliances who make it to be their size, are of course not moralists at all and are simply exploiting the situation to benefit themselves. The people who are actually moralists, who have expounded a consistent opposition to tech-raiding (object all you want, I'm unaware of what other particular definition there is) are certainly not people who merely act out of some kind of narrow self-interest.

Congrats, see GGA to get your medal

More hilarious jokes I guess.

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.

Thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion. The fact is that wars have to be justifiable on some level. Your wishing is really not helpful.

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.

You forgot /rant.

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.

Um of course?

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).

They probably think it is helpful to victimize unaligned and small alliances, sure. I don't see how this is relevant.

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.

Your entire argument, which doesn't seem to have much to back it up at all, would do better if you didn't simply accuse me of being delusional the entire time. I have not said "I oppose raiding because God says it is wrong" so please stop attempting to imply that is the case. There are plenty of valid OOC reasons to oppose raiding, even if discussion on that subject is, once again, irrelevant to defining a moralist.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bordiga

[Sephiroth]

At the moment its just being thrown around as a buzzword with little thought to its meaning, but I think the name would imply someone who basis their in-game actions on their morals.

[Starfox101]

The best way to make someone knows how you are feeling is make them feel the same thing. Now you know how I feel about \m/ members like Starfox and the others who claim NpO to be neo-moralists, enjoy

Edit: Oh and my next \m/ behavior for your reply would be:

You can't put me in the ignore list! This isn't fair!

I know you probably thought you were being really clever here, and thought that was a great parody, but it was just terrible. Frankly, terrible.

[Land of True Israel]

Everybody is a moralist in some way or another, as every body has some type of moral code they adhere to, whether or not it fits the popular standard for that which is considered "moral".

[Sigrun Vapneir]

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

Sure. No one is disputing that.

But if you play that way you should expect the rest of us to see you as a mindless barbarian and act accordingly. The endless whining is just pathetic.

[Penguin]

Morals are universal and ideological. They deal in words like right and wrong. I don't believe they exist in a game except perhaps as in-character constructs (this would be a good time to note the obvious, that this entire post is out-of-character). Standards are narrow and practical. They deal in words like better and worse. I believe maintaining certain standards and breaking others can improve my experience in the game and thus they are occasionally worth putting my pixels on the line to uphold or overturn.

This probably sounds like a minor distinction, but I don't believe the morality label has any place in a debate about standards. No one I know has argued that their point of view is objectively the only correct point of view. Some players believe that the standard of not raiding alliances was worth defending, others believed the standard of raiding alliances was worth overturning, still others are fighting for unrelated standards entirely like defending allies at all costs. None (well, to be safe let's go with "few") view the world through an idealistic moral lens. All ("most") view the world through a practical one based on what standards are worth doing something about.

Players who cry foul when they see others fighting for their beliefs should realize that all meaningful conflict is rooted in different players wanting different things and actually doing something about it to get them. Without players who are willing to act to get what they want, the world doesn't change and they get nothing. I find this passive approach to politics extremely dull, a sentiment I think is shared by most "sides". Alliances and the variety of players they attract all have different communities and different outlooks. A disagreement over existing standards between these groups is natural and often the two viewpoints are entirely incompatible and conflict becomes inevitable. From an out of character perspective, all alliances should be encouraged to do something about the standards that they want, whether that is the trend towards no treaties, the rejection of EZI and PZI, the end of heavy reparations and lengthy peace terms, pushing the raiding standards one direction or the other, or any number of other standards that I have watched players fight about over the years. Otherwise we'll all just be waiting around for some small but connected alliance to get caught spying until the end of time.

I am tired of arguments centered around whether there exists an objective right and wrong (usually called morality here). I am tired of players who believe that other players only do what they do because of a belief in an objective right and wrong. I suspect they think that is the case because they cannot put themselves in the shoes of the other side well enough to understand why the standard was important to them in the first place (that usually goes for people on both sides and this war is no exception). Fight for what you want and complain when you don't get it, but don't try to redefine why the other guys are fighting for what they want.

There are so many stimulating debates to be had about the standards fought for on both sides that we miss out on when we only try to refute our opponents' arguments and actions by calling them moral or immoral.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Penguin

[Earogema]

Sure. No one is disputing that.

But if you play that way you should expect the rest of us to see you as a mindless barbarian and act accordingly. The endless whining is just pathetic.

From what I see, the whining is on both sides, and this idiotic "YOU'RE WHINING MORE" has gone on long enough.

One of the ways I like to play the game is arguing. Deal with it.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Earogema