On the Foolishness of Hope

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296022813' post='2602251']
I am not against the institution of war - I am against the premise of unjust and pointless wars. War is a critical factor in the maintenance of this community and planet and should happen at regular intervals. But it should not happen at the whim of those who feel like killing something because of three year old actions.

Hell, I would personally rather there not BE any inter-alliance treaties and force each alliance to make their own way in the world rather than gliding on the coattails of others. Alas, that is impossible.
[/quote]

I would argue this war is not unjust, I would also argue that it is far from pointless. You seem to misunderstand the nature of war. Wars are in fact started at the whim of those who feel like killing something. The difference between us and the NPO is simple; They manufactured CBs to legitimize their wars of aggression. We provide you with an honest reason for our aggression.

Which would you prefer?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296024040' post='2602294']
I would argue this war is not unjust, I would also argue that it is far from pointless. You seem to misunderstand the nature of war. Wars are in fact started at the whim of those who feel like killing something. The difference between us and the NPO is simple; They manufactured CBs to legitimize their wars of aggression. We provide you with an honest reason for our aggression.

Which would you prefer?
[/quote]

This isn't an either or choice. How about I choose neither. We don't have to have MK in charge to protect us from Pacfica. It's just something you guys have tricked yourselves into thinking.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Omniscient1

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]"Karma" was nothing more than a convienent buzzword to rally against Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less.[/color]

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296024128' post='2602299']
This isn't an either or choice. How about I choose neither. We don't have to have MK in charge to protect us from Pacfica. It's just something you guys have tricked yourselves into thinking.
[/quote]


Fine. Would you prefer to be lied to in a declaration of war or would you prefer to have the truth?

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1296024533' post='2602310']
[color="#FF0000"]"Karma" was nothing more than a convienent buzzword to rally against Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less.[/color]
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I said these exact words in a post somewhere

Edited January 26, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='Facade' timestamp='1296019281' post='2602054']
I am awaiting the endless and unintelligible <insert word from signature here> that will inevitably come to attack the wise words of a great leader.

[/quote]

Good to see you and Chim on the same page.

Good post Chim. Rest assured, there are people out there with the same mindset.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296019384' post='2602064']
It is not important that my words be heard, Locke. I am perfectly aware this post will change nothing. But posting it and making the argument for rationalism and morality was the right thing to do, regardless.
[/quote]

That's the best reason. Nice speech. I'll need to get in on all this awesome writing soon.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296024955' post='2602323']
Fine. Would you prefer to be lied to in a declaration of war or would you prefer to have the truth?
[/quote]


Sure I like to see facts in the DoWs I read. I also like to see CBs that are "air tight" by conventional standards. I'd rather have the latter than the former.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296025202' post='2602337']
Sure I like to see facts in the DoWs I read. I also like to see CBs that are "air tight" by conventional standards. I'd rather have the latter than the former.
[/quote]

And what exactly are the conventional standards for an air tight CB?

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296025202' post='2602337']
Sure I like to see facts in the DoWs I read. I also like to see CBs that are "air tight" by conventional standards. I'd rather have the latter than the former.
[/quote]

There has never, ever been an airtight CB by any sort of conventional stardard. There only instances where there wasn't mass complaint about a CB is when it's an isolated alliance with no allies. Let's not look back and imagine pretty butterflies and unicorns were prancing around. I can literally make an argument for or against any single possible CB you can come up with.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296022813' post='2602251']
I am not against the institution of war - I am against the premise of unjust and pointless wars. War is a critical factor in the maintenance of this community and planet and should happen at regular intervals. But it should not happen at the whim of those who feel like killing something because of three year old actions.

Hell, I would personally rather there not BE any inter-alliance treaties and force each alliance to make their own way in the world rather than gliding on the coattails of others. Alas, that is impossible.
[/quote]

Fine, then they insulted our mothers. That's been used before right?

No one's ever declared war on an alliance they like. Every war is the result of the attacker finding an "acceptable" reason to do what they wanted to do anyway. And what's the point of finding that reason when the people you're attacking are only going to dispute it's validity anyway?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296018851' post='2602023']
We have become what we swore to destroy. Winning at all costs at the expense of the very moral strength which gave us the courage to continue a hopeless fight against impossible odds for three years is an act of unfathomable treason against the cause. Just because their [i]name[/i] is the New Pacific Order does not make them automatically an evil which must be scourged from existence - it is [i]actions[/i] that create such needs. Pacifica paid for their crimes - as a former EZI and the leader of an alliance they once disbanded, I can attest to that. I beg of you, my former brothers in arms, belay this madness! We must not give in to the same self-centric and dispassionate worldview that led Pacifica to so greatly wound so many of us. We once ended a great period of tyranny by standing shoulder-to-shoulder and declaring that never again shall we tolerate the destruction of innocents or the extortion of the unfortunate. We can do the same thing today by ending this war and setting aside old hatreds in favor of a new order where rationality and discourse reign supreme.

Such was our hope, so many years ago. Such can be our future. Such hope, my old friends, you have turned into naught but foolishness and hypocrisy.
[/quote]
I agree this war is full of hypocrisy, especially considering it wasn't NPO trying to fight them, but just them wanting an enemy so badly that they force NPO into filling it as they try driving them out of existence for things they did years ago. The attitude of no forgiveness was what most wanted to fight against in the Karma War.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Methrage

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Chimaera' timestamp='1296018851' post='2602023']
turning Pacifica into a glowing wasteland on the premise of 'You started wars for terrible reasons, so we should, too!' is simply unacceptable on every possible level.
[/quote]
Amen to that.

[jerdge]

Thanks people for your interesting points (especially Chimaera and Johnny Apocalypse).


As CN is "just" a game I don't think that morality has [i]really[/i] to do with it. If you play in one way or the other because of some "RL-ish" morality that you think should apply to other players' characters' actions you're probably doing it wrong.

That said, while one might be unwilling to dedicate one's time to the game - or maybe did so but eventually reached the point of "nihilist boredom" - as a player that cares for fellow players one should nonetheless respect the time and dedication that [i]others[/i] put into their nations and alliances.
There are many flavours of in-game morality, each of which is just "make believe", thus it's pointless to claim that they should be in one way or the other. Once an individual or a group established the bases for their "morals", anyway, it's good form to try to stick to them; which doesn't necessarily mean that morals should eternally remain the same, but rather that when the player or the group causes them to evolve, they "should" try to do so with some resemblance of coherence.
It's like a narration in a novel or a movie: the plot should unfold from causes to consequences and the events should find some sort of explanation in the narration itself, or the story comes out as stupid and the public feels cheated. It's not a matter of "morality" but of [i]aesthetics[/i].
Now what happens to terrible novels or movies is beyond the scope of this post, but IMHO we should do everything in our power to avoid creating terrible CN narrations, having in mind that we should respect the time and dedication that many players put into the game. It's not bad to see the fruit of your efforts be burnt to the ground in an epic fight, but it's bad to see it destroyed in a stupid plot.
This is probably more about fair play and camaraderie - as fellow players we should be supportive one or the other, regardless of our respective, wise or silly, in-game "political" positioning - but it isn't that far from RL "morality", which one would expect others care about.

People that take too seriously the game's [i]content[/i] are probably [i]playing bad[/i], but players which don't take seriously [i]the game[/i] (their playing with other real people) are probably [i]bad players[/i]. The latter group tends to "play only for the lulz", to parody each and every thing that moves, to post the same retorts and memes over and over ("you mad?", "meow meow" etc.) and to show a general lack of respect for other players.
There's nothing wrong with "lulz" and creative memes - the game is supposed to be fun and real Role Players are anyway rare - but I see something wrong when it's [i]only[/i] lulz and memes, and when players - especially "big" players and leaders - decide to disregard any minimum of aesthetics and coherence in their narration, just to force the narration itself to adapt to the "intended result".

The Pacifican narration was IMHO overall good, as it was Vox Pouli's and Karma's.
It's a bit strange to me to see the same Archon of Karma posting [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97693"]Doomhouse's DoW[/url], which basically lists a number of "possible" [i]Casus Belli[/i] and eventually states that the CB doesn't matter at all. A final "profit" line wouldn't have clashed with the post, and that's not a praise.
I can anyway accept (and enjoy) a narration in which MK's power cluster turns to the dark side, or in which it's revealed that they were in the dark side from the beginning (this second story would be much harder to justify, probably).
What left something not completely unlike a bad taste in my mouth was the abrupt turnaround - or at least something that I subjectively perceived as that - with little to no [i]expressed/told[/i] justification for it. It sounded like it was a twist without the tale behind it, but maybe it was just me that wasn't paying attention.

Concluding (sorry for this other wall-o-text), from an aesthetic point of view Doomhouse's DoW, well... Probably it might have been better. But I don't point my finger as I think that MK's power cluster (and Archon in particular) are really trying to do something interesting and entertaining, thus I humbly suggest that we all play along and try to get the best narration out of what we have to work with.
Complaining that we didn't have what we didn't have is in fact quite pointless...



As a side note - sorry but I can't help saying it - I continue to find increasingly funny that "everybody" on this board (and in CN in general) complains that there are too many treaties and that the "majority" of them isn't worth the paper. There are several options available to those that wish to be treaty-less or at least "undertreatied" (GPA, TDO, Pax Corvus, The Grämlins, WTF, CoJ? are all I can list off the top of my head, but just because I am ignorant: you know that others are around) - but "everybody" still complains while remaining in their 15+ MA/aDP'd alliances/blocs.

It's hilarious to see. It reminds me of that story of men that were sawing the branches they were sitting on, shaked their heads when one of them falled to the ground, then [i]continued[/i] sawing...



Disclaimer: this post isn't much about the reasons that are or might have been "behind" DH's DoW, it's just about the content of the DoW itself. In fact, not even really that, but rather about more general issues that can only very partially be linked to the DH's DoW. Let's say that I took the occasion to post some pointless wall of text about metaphysical objects I am the only one to care about - as [i]usual[/i]!

Edited January 26, 2011 by jerdge

[der_ko]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296022358' post='2602234']
This is the sort of moralist daydreaming that is throttling this planet. You plead and plead that we should end this war so that 'rationality and discourse reign supreme' so I ask of you; Where have you been for the past year?

Since the closure of the Bi-Polar war we have had nothing more than 'rationality' and discourse. Every potential conflict drew to a close far too soon because "cooler heads prevailed" A perfect example would be the Superfriends-NSO war in August, which drew to a close because the allies of the New Sith Order did not defend them because they were not ready for a large scale conflict, so once again 'cooler heads prevailed' in the name of 'rationality'

We have seen the amount of world leaders decline at an alarming rate, many of these people leaving simply because there is nothing for them to do, they cannot engage in any wars, or anything vaguely aggressive for fear of being judged by the community for being "immoral" As apparently it is the business of just about everybody and anybody when someone does something a little questionable. Everyone comes out in full force to denounce this immoral scumbag for going against their pre-defined way of how to be a good leader. All this man had was some ambition, and you destroyed it with your ethics and your moral codes.

Of course it is not just our unwritten moral code that chokes us, it is our warped sense of diplomacy too. For years now, each alliance has made a point to further its relations with other alliances in the form of Mutual/optional defense/aggression pacts. We have so many of these worthless treaties that nothing can possibly escalate without fear of it evolving into a global conflict long before people have set up the chess board for another round. We are also now at a point where there are so many treaties, many are being ignored in favour of other allies and many people are being forced to fight on both sides of the war because of their obligations, and should they choose to pick one side over the other they will be denounced and their own treaties will be e-lawyered by the baying mobs of the "honourable" community. How is this productive? How is this good for the community?

All of these points considered, you would still have us return to the world where tech raiding was the biggest problem facing the community, and where micro alliances with their protectorates sprouted up daily while the total nation count continued to drop?

You will kill this planet with your dreamy idealist ways.
[/quote]
This is an amazing post. Couldn't agree more.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1296020965' post='2602164']
I don't care about what happens to Pacifica. It's Pacifica. I would draw the line at permanent war, viceroys, or EZI of their leadership, but that's about it. I was overwhelmingly happy when I heard that Doomhouse and FAN had hit NPO. I think it's very fitting that FAN should be among the alliances NPO has to surrender to and I hope they make surrender terms painful.

That having said, after some thought, I had the slightest twinge of conscience when I realised that NPO had been through Karma, stayed in reps for months, only to get rolled again without any prospects for the future. But I'll live with myself. If any alliance deserves this, it's them.
[/quote]

Now this is taking it personal.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1296043539' post='2602569']
As CN is "just" a game I don't think that morality has [i]really[/i] to do with it. If you play in one way or the other because of some "RL-ish" morality that you think should apply to other players' characters' actions you're probably doing it wrong.
[/quote]
I don't see any reason why people should abandon their morals just because this is a game, its the struggle between the forces of good and evil that make any struggle worth it. While alliances and people themselves might not be evil due to their in-game actions, they can certainly choose to do what they would consider good or bad if our nations actually had people living in them. That its a game gives people the ability to do what they consider morally wrong in an atmosphere where they know the consequences won't effect them IRL, thus they can try being as destructive as possible. However morality is our ability to be able to separate right from wrong, behavior that is destructive towards others or behavior that improves the overall atmosphere. Without leaders willing to tap into their sense of what is right or wrong to decide when to act, those who aim to carry out destructive desires will prevail due to lack anyone who disagrees stopping them. People can instinctively have a sense of whether something is right or wrong by imagining themselves in that position and how they would feel about it, or if everyone behaved that way how things would be. In real life this is why attacking someone without a justified reason is considered wrong, people wouldn't feel safe from attack in a society where someone can rightfully attack them without them needing to first do something to deserve it.

The idea that it is "wrong" to let your sense of right or wrong determine when to go to war and the only "right" way to go to war is to honor a written agreement is implanted strongly in many minds, but also the most absurd when considering it mostly just handicaps most of the world from fighting against what they perceive as injustice when an alliance is curb stomping someone. Every war with a bad CB people will call it out as such and know it is wrong, but the inaction of those who want to do good is what reaffirms that those attacking without one are right to do it and help feed the perceptive that they hold the most power until its self fulfilling. The one attacking will always take advantage of the treaty web to make sure the other side won't get big enough from people only acting based on those.

If an alliance only exists to honor its treaties, that's a boring existence that will either cause them to end up supporting those who carry out actions even they see as bad or eventually being the one attacked to satisfy the destructive urges of those who get their sense of power from conquest of others. So all alliances have the choice to stand for something or let everyone else drag them around. If those with destructive desires are willing to rise and fight for a reason beyond honoring treaties, then I don't see why an alliance can't rise up and declare for reasons beyond honoring treaties that are good based on their morals.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Methrage

[jerdge]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1296049213' post='2602634']SNIP[/quote]
I have the sensation that you didn't read my post in its entirety, and certainly I don't blame you for having saved five minutes of your life, but at the same time I think it's impossible that we have a constructive conversation until you do so.

[janax]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1296024533' post='2602310']
[color="#FF0000"]"Karma" was nothing more than a convienent buzzword to rally against Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less.[/color]
[/quote]


Maybe for you. Not for all of us.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Doomhouse declared war on the NPO because they don't like them and want to crush their alliance. This has been at the heart of almost every war this planet has seen. Doomhouse just simply decided not to dress it up in fabricated BS and because of that you people are crying like little children.

[der_ko]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1296052394' post='2602678']
Doomhouse declared war on the NPO because they don't like them and want to crush their alliance. This has been at the heart of almost every war this planet has seen. Doomhouse just simply decided not to dress it up in fabricated BS and because of that you people are crying like little children.
[/quote]
Their crying only makes this war sweeter. It's been a very long time since I had this much fun in CN.

[Amonra]

[quote name='der_ko' timestamp='1296052658' post='2602680']
Their crying only makes this war sweeter. It's been a very long time since I had this much fun in CN.
[/quote]
When Pacifica had its boot on the neck of some random alliance and said similar things, you responded that Karma must destroy them...
I ask "What will destroy you now?"

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote]I am still proud to admit I was once called 'too dangerous to let live' by Pacifican leadership. [/quote]

I don't know that I was ever called 'too dangerous to live' but I, too, was once threatened with being run off of Planet Bob for good.

Thus it will probably surprise some that I find the war against the NPO to be, quite simply, wrong.

Make no mistake. I am no friend of Pacifica. In the Karma War, during my brief stint as Kaiser of Nordreich, the NPO handed me a rock-solid CB. They attacked a former Ragnarok member who had joined Nordreich. I requested they stop; I did not ask for any kind of reparations. Pacifica refused, saying that he 'remained on their target lists'. Later that same day, they changed their minds and ceased attacks. Regardless, their earlier posturing still gave us a legitimate reason for war.

Why didn't we use it?

Well, at the end of the day, Nordreich believes that it is wrong to kick someone when they are down. There is no honor in it. Have we done it in the past? Most assuredly, yes. The ICP Reformation War comes to mind. However, we have also been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment and have learned an important lesson from it.

There is no honor in going to war merely because one can. Of the current group attacking Pacifica, only FAN has a legitimate claim with respect to dishing out some kind of revenge. The others? They have simply become what they once swore to destroy. Doomhouse have manipulated their allies, using them as cannon fodder in a war that was never anything more than a distraction.

I don't know how many of their allies were 'in on it'. Perhaps we will never know. But I imagine that there are plenty of nation leaders out there, both high-ranking and low, who do not appreciate being smashed to bits in order to provide an amusing sideshow.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1296056419' post='2602747']
Doomhouse have manipulated their allies, using them as cannon fodder in a war that was never anything more than a distraction.
[/quote]
You know not of what you speak, and your speculations are utterly baseless. While in the OP of the DoW thread jokingly declared the NpO "ruse" a "distaction" the preemption of NPO was something that evolved naturally and was not planned before the war began. Also there was no manipulation at all.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Sardonic

[lamuella]

I'm in a hurry but I wanted to respond to this, so let me just say that if it in general supports my side, it's clearly a wise and carefully considered piece by one of the true masters of the game who should be listened to more often, and if it opposes my side it's clearly the rantings and ravings of a halfwit madman not fit to command a treehouse.

That's pretty much what everyone else is saying, right?

[Mathias]

I don't get the train of thought that FAN is somehow more justified in attacking NPO than Doomhouse is. Especially because the same people just got done saying that "NPO paid for its sins in Karma." People just like praising FAN's actions because they stood by for a year while FAN was forced to stay in peacemode, so you still feel a little guilty. Yeah, I stood by and let it happen as well, but I don't go around hailing everything they do in an attempt to make up for my inaction. So what is it? Did NPO pay for their sins and FAN is JUST AS EVIL as Doomhouse? Or are Doomhouse and FAN both justified in attacking Pacifica?

Edited January 26, 2011 by Mathias