On the Foolishness of Hope

[jerdge]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1296100235' post='2604116']<SNIP>[/quote]
You [i](in this post you = Owned-You, you =/= MK/PB/whatever - I couldn't care less about "factions")[/i] say that you won't play by «moralists' rules» (fine to me) and that you doing it isn't going to ruin the game (fine to me as well), but you also imply that the «moralists' rules» shouldn't be followed at all (you call them «nonsense», «political pleasantries», «waste of space» etc.) and that they're going to ruin the game («stagnation», «scourge/biblical plague» etc.)
Assuming that my interpretation of your post is correct (otherwise please post again), why do you think that the rules followed by others haven't the same dignity of your ones?



[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1296100235' post='2604116'][quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1296097131' post='2603975']Radio silence, only official spokespersons from their propaganda departments will be speaking. the serfs will be ordered to remain silent[/quote]
<SNIP>
The idealistic nonsense that's been spewed in this thread has been spewed in countless others; by like minded people such as yourself.
<SNIP>[/quote]
PmJ was just mentioning a possible explanation to a specific phenomenon (the "noticeable silence" from the opposed parties) and his post had nothing to do with "morals" or the lack thereof.
To check if you could paint/label him as "nonsense idealist" (or anything else, for that matter) you should have read his other (previous and following) posts; which you didn't or you'd have realized that his other posts aren't even about the war, let alone any kind of "moralism".

Bottom line: you didn't know what you were talking of and, as a consequence, your [i]ad hominem[/i] miserably failed.
Try harder next time?!



[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]punctuation][/size]

Edited January 27, 2011 by jerdge

[uaciaut]

[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.
[/quote]


You can't have it both ways. You made your pick.

[Balkan Banania]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1296097131' post='2603975']
Radio silence, only official spokespersons from their propaganda departments will be speaking. the serfs will be ordered to remain silent
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with radio silence, at least from our part. It’s just the fact that the OWF ,unfortunately, is not the central point of the game, so most of the people don’t bother with it.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']
What people are forgetting is that the moralist rhetoric was appropriate for its time, [/quote]
I never said I disagree with this, it was a good PR stunt, but nevertheless it was tiresome coming from your coalition
[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']it is however now heavily outdated and yet we are incapable of discarding it. [/quote]
It is outdated for you because it is not in line with your current political stance and power position. On the other hand being the hegemony (I am using the term in a loose way and not as an insult ) doesn’t mean that you can change the way of thinking or the political orientation of the whole Planet Bob.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']In my opinion it is likely the result of a basic human instinct to want to do good (or at least to do what you think is morally good) which is why we cannot move on from this particular train of thought and develop something fresh. [/quote]
I think the reason is not some basic human instinct, but the fact that various leaders/alliances do not crave for power (not even by proxy) for various reasons, so morality is the only other option they have.

In my opinion we have on the one hand realpolitik, like the one Pacifica, Polaris, LUE/MK, GOONS and Umbrella were/are practicing, thus these are the alliances that actually act in the global scheme (of course there are always lapdogs but meh…).On the other hand there are people believing that power is not the main goal of this game, or they don’t bother. These are the people that normally will react on the action of the above alliances and since they do not seek for power the only other possible way to judge things is through morals and personal friendship. So there is no way to eradicate the moralistic way of thinking from Bob, but personally I would prefer people to not exploit it.

There are several alliances that are moralistic. They for sure should keep preaching, as they are the consciences of the game and actually work as a regulator. On the other hand having for example MK, or Pacifica to the same extend, playing the moral card is just not my cup of tea.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']
So when you claim we made 'lulz' our flag, it was simply a change in political ideology, a necessary change every alliance must make at least once during their existence.[/quote]
It was not a change in political ideology, as your goal was the same from the start; it was just a change in your PR campaign to further support your main goal.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013'] OWF degradation is not something you can blame on one alliance. Everyone is responsible for a large majority of terrible posts being made, even alliances in your sphere of influence and alliances in ours. Everyone needs to suck it up and take responsibility for the god awful posting.[/quote]

I agree, but judging from the side of a Pacifica’s member, it was just really hard to make any political oriented post when every single post was followed by an unbelievable amount of trolling and accusations.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']I feel no sympathy for those who followed the Mushroom Kingdom believing them to be moral crusaders who would save us all. Only a fool would believe that of anyone, especially in the world of politics. [/quote]
I may agree on the second part, although I would prefer the term naive, but nevertheless you used them. So allow me to feel sympathy for people that were exploited.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013'] With regards to your claim that we are not doing this for the game or for fun but to only eliminate potential opponents; Why can we not be doing all three? I'm certainly having fun, and I do feel that this war is good for the game, not just because we've declared on the NPO, but because we've actually declared on [i]someone[/i]. [/quote]
My objection is aimed mainly to the PR line that you are trying to impose. You are not doing it for the game, you are doing it for political reasons, and all good, just say it.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']I don't think that because we declared on NPO without a "legitimate CB" that it will be the end of the CB, but it will at least show to people that sometimes having no reason is the best reason. [/quote]
You have a reason and a good one military and political speaking, but in any case when you are throwing international law in the trash bin you are setting a bad precedent. I believe that when you are starting an agreesive war unprovoked and without at least an attempt to press politically your agenda (using your military weight of course) you are taking a significant aspect of the game away, but maybe it is just me.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296098000' post='2604013']
And I'm pretty sure I have been talking politics.[/quote]
It was more like a general urge, than a comment for you specifically, I liked your post.

Also I tried to make this wall of text readable, but meh…not a native English speaker.

[Chimaera]

[quote name='uaciaut' timestamp='1296115879' post='2605152']
You can't have it both ways. You made your pick.
[/quote]
I fail to see how those are mutually exclusive. War exists and should exist, but it should be an action taken only in dire circumstances when all diplomacy has failed. I once chose to help fight for a better world; I was wrong in assuming that fight would bring one about.

Perhaps the next time I choose to fight for a better world, I will not be so mistaken.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1296114252' post='2605108']
You [i](in this post you = Owned-You, you =/= MK/PB/whatever - I couldn't care less about "factions")[/i] say that you won't play by «moralists' rules» (fine to me) and that you doing it isn't going to ruin the game (fine to me as well), but you also imply that the «moralists' rules» shouldn't be followed at all (you call them «nonsense», «political pleasantries», «waste of space» etc.) and that they're going to ruin the game («stagnation», «scourge/biblical plague» etc.)
Assuming that my interpretation of your post is correct (otherwise please post again), why do you think that the rules followed by others haven't the same dignity of your ones [/quote]

[font="Tahoma"]Well, the fact of the matter is our "rules" as you've called them aren't actual rules. What I'm stating is simple concept, a world where any idea or playing style may thrive. Whether that be realpolitik or the idealistic morals held dearly. The inherit difference being that we do not seek to push our values on you or anyone else. We seek to allow players the individual freedoms to pursue whatever aims they wish; as long as the individual or alliance deems it applicable. Whilst most moralists seek to mold the world into their ideals; where we must all follow their long-held truths and values onto everyone. To put it in the simplest of terms, we seek to simply play however we wish and extend that same idea to everyone; moralists seek to force us to play by their rules along with anyone else. So our only rule, is one of no rules I suppose. Now, ultimately people will be accountable for their actions should they abuse this "freedom", but as I noted and you ignored; we've yet to abuse much of anything.[/font]

[font="Tahoma"]Now don't mistake my statements on Moralism as my intent to eliminate it from Planet Bob or say it should not exist on it. No, feel free to preach morality and the like as much as you wish internally and even externally here. However moralists should not try and force their standards onto the world nor somehow claim superiority for it. Even worse, measuring the actions of sovereign players and alliances on some faux scale of justice that in all honesty is used in most instances to besmirch a rival and align PR onto a moralists favor. Frankly, morality in this game is needed in a healthy dosage; not the deathly concoction that has slowly sapped the life and enjoyment from this game for countless players.[/font]

[font="Tahoma"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1296114252' post='2605108']
PmJ was just mentioning a possible explanation to a specific phenomenon (the "noticeable silence" from the opposed parties) and his post had nothing to do with "morals" or the lack thereof.
To check if you could paint/label him as "nonsense idealist" (or anything else, for that matter) you should have read his other (previous and following) posts; which you didn't or you'd have realized that his other posts aren't even about the war, let alone any kind of "moralism".

Bottom line: you didn't know what you were talking of and, as a consequence, your [i]ad hominem[/i] miserably failed.
Try harder next time?!



[size="1"][size="2"][[b]Edit:[/b]punctuation][/size][/size]
[/quote][/font][/font]
[font="Tahoma"]Beyond the opening line of my post, nothing was directed at PmJ. The entire post was a statement responding to the OP and other commonly held morale statements that have been repeated in this and other threads. It wasn't an attack on his character in the slightest, because I wasn't responding to anything he'd specifically said. My statement is more of a general attack on morale propaganda in general then it is an attempt to snipe at PmJ or anyone else. I suppose I should have made a line-break or something of the nature to make that clearer to readers.[/font]

[jerdge]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1296171818' post='2606289']<SNIP>[/quote]
Thanks for your reply and for your clarification over PmJ.

I still think that you're a bit incoherent in saying that "moralists" should be allowed to play their way but they should not try and force their standards onto the world, as I think that playing the moralists [i]consists[/i] in trying and forcing their standards onto others.
Unless you were talking of "RL moralism" used as a "picklock" to obtain something in game; then I agree with you that we have a problem, although I didn't make up my mind about it yet...
CN didn't come completely out of the blue and it has a lot to do with RL: we speak English, we pick themes from the real world, we bring ourselves - or an alternate identity of ourselves - into it.
It's hard to distinguish between the genuine role playing of real ideals and the abuse of them "to besmirch a rival and align PR onto a moralists favor". I am also uncertain that using whatever ideal for in-game PR, if done with a sense of aesthetics, [i]can[/i] actually be abusive: if we can "make believe" that raiding bystanders is "legitimate" (and I think that we can do it), almost anything is acceptable as long as it doesn't break the rules (of the game and of decency).

I finally have the strange sensation that you assumed that I am part of any in-game "moralist faction". In game I am neutral and I actually don't care about any of the sides involved in this war. I'd may be more happy if you both were able to solve your issues without these GRL spikes, but that's about it.

Edited January 28, 2011 by jerdge

[Owned-You]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1296176135' post='2606378']
Thanks for your reply and for your clarification over PmJ.

I still think that you're a bit incoherent in saying that "moralists" should be allowed to play their way but they should not try and force their standards onto the world, as I think that playing the moralists [i]consists[/i] in trying and forcing their standards onto others.
Unless you were talking of "RL moralism" used as a "picklock" to obtain something in game; then I agree with you that we have a problem, although I didn't make up my mind about it yet...
CN didn't come completely out of the blue and it has a lot to do with RL: we speak English, we pick themes from the real world, we bring ourselves - or an alternate identity of ourselves - into it.
It's hard to distinguish between the genuine role playing of real ideals and the abuse of them "to besmirch a rival and align PR onto a moralists favor". I am also uncertain that using whatever ideal for in-game PR, if done with a sense of aesthetics, [i]can[/i] actually be abusive: if we can "make believe" that raiding bystanders is "legitimate" (and I think that we can do it), almost anything is acceptable as long as it doesn't break the rules (of the game and of decency).

I finally have the strange sensation that you assumed that I am part of any in-game "moralist faction". In game I am neutral and I actually don't care about any of the sides involved in this war. I'd maybe more happy if you both were able to solve your issues without these GRL spikes, but that's about it.
[/quote]

[font="Tahoma"]These days it's devolved into that, but once upon a time moralists were more concerned with internal matters where it was harmless and affected only those choosing to place themselves into that environment. When it became a problem, is when it was devalued into a tool for political gain; not outright hard-power or even formal treaties. But rather, soft-power gained by having the world much more receptive and forgiving of any aims one would wish to exploit that would otherwise be improbable or chastised. Also I don't disagree that plenty of the things in this game have their roots in RL, realpolitk falls in a similar category. The only objection I have, is as you've noted it being used as a tool for political gain...now of course you won't hear a single moralist admit to it and you likely never will but rest assured it is used for a reason; one of them again as you noted is the fact that it's hard to call someone out on it in this game. I further agree that anything is possible if we are to adopt a more receptive state of affairs on things; but like I've noted moralists do not seek to allow this balance, they want the whole cake.

Lastly, I don't really know what your views are apart from your IC neutrality stance. For this little exchange, I assumed you were arguing in favor of moralism since I was arguing against it...I don't mean to come off as so hostile, but I'm not one to mince-words either so I can see why you'd feel that I characterized you as taking their stance from my previous postings.[/font]

Edited January 28, 2011 by Owned-You