Will your opinion of Pacifica or Polaris change after this war?

[Monster]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1298166529' post='2638846']
Hm, I missed a few responses in this thread a few days ago directly addressed to me. I think the thread's moved on enough that it isn't really relevant to respond to them now, but if you still want an answer, post again, PM me or grab me on IRC.

A couple of general points from the last few pages:
- NPO going neutral is a hilarious idea but it would never have worked. An NPO with no treaty ties might well have been attacked for nothing much sooner than it actually was, as the treaties it did re-sign tied in enough of the web that a direct attack would not have been a good idea.
- Regarding the Seth incident, he was a deputy secretary of state and did nothing in NPO boards that he didn't do in several others (introduce himself and post boilerplate diplomatic material). At no point was he the primary diplomat to NPO (I think that was Shrike at the time).
- Yes, NPO are in this position because they didn't stop enough people from hating them. A lot of people who are not directly involved are saying 'this isn't right but eh, it's NPO, I don't care that much' – good diplomacy over the last two years could have avoided that. Umbrella and (new) GOONS have no historic reason to hate you, it shouldn't have been that hard to have good enough relations that they didn't want to hit you for no reason.
- This isn't the thread for it but our CB was not the same as NPO's in Karma. But please take that argument to one of the many threads about it .

Haflinger, I'm fairly sure that Taboid Tribunes started before Karma, or something similar posted by Paul that was a propaganda piece, at least.
[/quote]

Who needs historic reasons to attack a hostile entity and visible threat? So long as people keep buying into "Pacifica was solely attacked for reasons unrelated to the war taking place when it happened," you'll continue missing the point. If you couldn't tell what Pacifica and its allies' FA directions were before this war, then you really don't get it.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Tromp]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1298186407' post='2639254']
Then, as I said, they missed their chance. A 3 year grudge is still a 3 year grudge and still petty and if one has not sought compensation and stood up for themselves in that bank of time.. especially when opportunities have repeatedly presented themselves.. then there is something wrong with the one holding the grudge.
[/quote]
I'm not saying this is a case of a 3 year old grudge (if people had so many opportunities and didn't then as you say, it is more proof that your argument is flat out wrong then anything else), I'm saying for arguments sake that there is little wrong with it especially when looking at the circumstances.
[quote]
There are two extremes. Good and evil do exist. Good and evil are, as I have said before, defined in multiple faiths, cultures, and to some degree the rule of law among nations. The result of my ideology will not be disastrous because I am in the right. I do not see those who have committed evil as less than Human. Rather, I see Evil as a fundamental trait of the bulk of humanity that must be overcome by all. [/quote]
Who gives you the authority to judge who is good and who is evil in this world? That's why I called you arrogant. And funnily enough you do it here again. "Because I'm right", you realize this is not a very compelling argument?
You may not believe it now (as is usually the case when people do things out of 'good intentions'), but I was simply showing you how your train of thought will end in a great disaster for all of us.
[quote]
If you do not expect justice from me, then you do not know me.
[/quote]
Well obviously I don't know you that well, but I have to form an opinion from the little things you show of yourself. And that doesn't make me hopeful at all, as I've explained. Guess I'll have to wait and see what happens when you're the one who may call justice.
[quote]
[b]There is not one absolute and holy truth, but there is a collective truth and the bulk agree with me.[/b] I do not use my own definition of morality and justice, rather I appeal to a much larger definition drawn from multiple faiths and cultures which is pure and not able to be perverted because it is documented and in doctrine and the moment I abbreviate from it I am no longer a part of that system. [/quote]
[ooc: I'm going to skip the ooc parts here, because I really don't want to get into a debate about christianity or whatever.[/ooc]

What makes you think the bulk agrees with you? I don't see it.
[quote]
There is, as you have said, no morality about dividing the world into two extremes. Which is why I condemn Doomhouse and the aggressors in this war for doing just that. They divided the world into two extremes and caused those extremes to raise arms against each other. You call my perspective upon morality a political tool, but it is not, it is simply.. again, giving light to the truth.
[/quote]
As far as I'm aware DH never divided the world into good and evil, which is what you're doing. The point is that there's a difference between ally and opponent, and good and evil. You make them to be the same thing, which they're not, and that's why I made the comment about your 'morality' being a tool for your political aims.
After all, who wouldn't have sympathy with a victim, who is desperately fighting 'evil' and [i]about to lose[/i] also?
[quote]
I do appreciate that you contest me for many of your peers seem not to respond to me and in doing so, I am left without anyone to refine and sharpen the points of my perspective upon. I appreciate that you are providing that contrast.
[/quote]
Likewise! As long as it stays civil I'm happy to reply to you and/or spark debate.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1298200924' post='2639378']
Who needs historic reasons to attack a hostile entity and visible threat? So long as people keep buying into "Pacifica was solely attacked for reasons unrelated to the war taking place when it happened," you'll continue missing the point. If you couldn't tell what Pacifica and its allies' FA directions were before this war, then you really don't get it.
[/quote]
Everyone through history up until you, apparently. Go back and read the comments of your own alliance and coalition partners about TOP and IRON doing the same thing in Polar, in particular the justifications for the enormous reps taken out of them because they attacked without an action-grounded CB. Pacifica was attacked for geostrategic reasons related to eliminating a future threat – exactly the same justification they used for the multiple injustices of the Hegemony era (certainly FAN and GATO).

I didn't approve of it then, I didn't approve of it in Bipolar (though I obviously didn't think it was as bad as MK et al did considering the reps they levied for it) and I'm not going to start approving of it now. Even if the Orders' power spheres were beginning to move together and were a plausible future threat (which to be honest with the Polar half getting rolled they were not).

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1298208827' post='2639404']
Everyone through history up until you, apparently.[/quote]
Nice, an argument on the ground of an appeal to tradition.
Even if this was the case in the past, it doesn't mean it is right and should be followed into perpetuity.
And neglecting the fact ofcourse, that war isn't the only way in which aggression can be expressed.
[quote]Pacifica was attacked for geostrategic reasons related to eliminating a future threat.[/quote]
Care to explain what's wrong with that?
And besides, didn't VE attack Polar to do just that, eliminate a perceived future threat? Or is that something different now?
[quote]
I didn't approve of it then, I didn't approve of it in Bipolar (though I obviously didn't think it was as bad as MK et al did considering the reps they levied for it) and I'm not going to start approving of it now. Even if the Orders' power spheres were beginning to move together and were a plausible future threat (which to be honest with the Polar half getting rolled they were not).
[/quote]
Yes, initially you didn't. But I remember you defending TOP/IRONs decision during BiPolar as the time progressed though Bob, on the ground that CnG would have entered anyway.

[President S O]

Will my view change? Well that depends on how they act after the war. I'd I will still hold NPO in a relatively high regard and respect them to whatever extent I choose.

As for Polaris, I believe they will win back some support and respect, for the fight they have put up, at least.


Too early to call, tbqh.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]But I remember you defending TOP/IRONs decision during BiPolar as the time progressed though Bob, on the ground that CnG would have entered anyway[/quote]
I defended them against the ridiculous reps that were being demanded on that basis (which, if you believe Archon's DoW post, doesn't even apply here), but that doesn't mean I supported the action.

[quote]And besides, didn't VE attack Polar to do just that, eliminate a perceived future threat? Or is that something different now?[/quote]
Perhaps so, but we had a CB grounded in definite and discrete action taken by Polar. We maybe chose to take it to the level of war for similar reasons (although I think there's a good chance we'd declare on anyone for spying on us where it didn't immediately affect our strategic position to do so), but we didn't just roll them because the opportunity came up.

What's wrong with attacking someone [i]just[/i] for being a future threat – and yes, this applies to TOP/IRON in Bipolar too, though to a lesser extent as the threat there was definite and imminent – is that you can apply it to anyone. GPA? By re-accepting Valid they were clearly setting up to be a threat to NPO. GATO? They'd always been opposed to NPO and hadn't changed, they deserved to be rolled! In addition, an alliance which you're rolling for that reason is not going to like you and will be a threat in future anyway (see Polar and TOP after BLEU War) so if you think attacking someone for being a threat is justifiable, then you open up a justification for eternal war.

Now, I know you have never been a moralist and you will probably claim that NPO was just exercising their rights with FAN, GATO, GPA etc. But I don't agree with that.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1298206414' post='2639393']
Who gives you the authority to judge who is good and who is evil in this world? That's why I called you arrogant. [/quote]

It is not just the right, but also the duty, of each and every one of us to make such judgements to the best of our ability.

He made his case with at least some measure of reason and your response is simply to call him arrogant for daring to make such a judgement at all? To me this makes you come off not just as arrogant, but also as a moral nihilist, a worshipper of power who disdains his own duties as a moral creature and truly believes that might makes right. This is the same fundamental misapprehension that eventually led Pacifica to over-reach and provoke her own downfall.

And towards the title of the thread, I have to say at this point yes, my opinions in relation to each has changed noticeably already.

With Pacifica, well, the alliance itself still seems well beyond redemption to me, so there is no change in that sense. Real change at the top levels, affirmatively showing understanding of and remorse for the crimes that were committed, would be necessary, that hasnt happened and if anything looks even less likely to happen in the future. But the plight of newer, younger members who never had a hand in any of it, who are showing themselves capable of speaking up and engaging extremely hostility without losing their cool; this has been forced into my consciousness and I do find it disturbing. I wish I could magically lift them all out to a new AA and set them free, but I cannot do that, and I know it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for those with honour to free themselves in this way once at war. The situation as a whole saddens me now, even though I still cheer for FAN.

On Polaris I never had such strong feelings, though I was also never particularly fond of them. But what of their past was truly criminal, as opposed to simply playing their game hard and playing it well? Responsible rulers do need to distinguish the two, and realise that the response appropriate in the one case is not appropriate in the other. When Pacifica ordered an assault against an alliance demilitarised, under terms, and dependent on their formal pledge to defend them, that was not 'fair but tough' that was simply and monumentally criminal, completely over every line, (as was the assault on the GPA of course) and if it takes years of warfare to erase those responsible from the face of the planet as a warning lest anyone else be tempted to try the same thing in the future, there is at least a legitimate argument to make in justification of that effort. But to the best of my knowledge Polaris never did anything comparable. No angels, but not necessarily devils either.

That is basically how I viewed them at the start of the war. Between then and now they have impressed me at every turn. Attacked with overwhelming force over a trumped-up "reverse CB" even worse than the one Pacifica suicidally prosecuted against OV at the start of the Karma war, relentlessly trolled and disrespected here while facing overwhelming odds on the battlefield - they face exactly the sort of situation which has resulted in the collapse of many alliances in the past, and I don't see them collapsing. Instead they continue to outperform their attackers on the battlefield, and their morale appears to remain high. That is something I can respect.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298226717' post='2639601']
But to the best of my knowledge Polaris never did anything comparable. No angels, but not necessarily devils either.
[/quote]

Oh idk Sigrun. I know a few alliances that were in the UJP that would dispute the above.....and do it validly.

GOONS? \m/? and others.....GOONS they kept at war for yrs, \m/ they forced to disband(yea you could argue they werent forced but we have all seen sponges logs and being an eternal tech farm isnt much better)

So once again you are veiwing the world how you want and convienently forgetting the true past....

Edit- add in Genmay too

Edited February 20, 2011 by chefjoe

[Sephiroth]

What improved my opinion of NPO is they are one of the only alliances to refuse to sanction me at the request of GOONS, they showed themselves to be an alliance who has principles and won't cave into whatever demands the current hegemony asks of them to try staying on their good side. That is why I think it is worth fighting to defend them this war, to help preserve the sovereignty of the red sphere and prevent alliances like GOONS from having the ability to label alliances as rogues when convenient and get sanctions on them everywhere. NPO had a more logical and less hypocritical view of what an alliance is and refused to sanction me even though it upset GOONS and allies when I fought them before. Thanks to that I can fight without worrying about suddenly losing all my trades, as well as others who want to fight without tieing themselves into the treaty web to meet the definition of an alliance most in Pandora's Box use.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Methrage

[Doitzel]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1298230587' post='2639651']
Oh idk Sigrun. I know a few alliances that were in the UJP that would dispute the above.....and do it validly.

GOONS? \m/? and others.....GOONS they kept at war for yrs, \m/ they forced to disband(yea you could argue they werent forced but we have all seen sponges logs and being an eternal tech farm isnt much better)

So once again you are veiwing the world how you want and convienently forgetting the true past....

Edit- add in Genmay too
[/quote]
GOONS deserved it. \m/'s choice was their own, they lasted a week and then disbanded. Genmay I don't recall the details of.

Comparing that to Fark, GPA, GATO, FAN, VE, and even Polar is laughable.

[Penguin]

As far as I remember, we never actually fought GOONS.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Penguin

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1298230587' post='2639651']
Oh idk Sigrun. I know a few alliances that were in the UJP that would dispute the above.....and do it validly.
[/quote]

Would they really?

To the best of my knowledge no one in UJP was attacked by their sworn protectors while demilitarised and under terms. Correct me if I am wrong. I am 100% sure none of them were comparable to the GPA, they were very un-neutral alliances that made a big deal out of liking war and liking to fight, with long histories of launching aggressive wars themselves.

I dont doubt some people hold grudges over it, I dont even doubt that many could do so reasonably, but if you go back and read my post you will see that I was quite deliberately distinguishing between mere rough-and-tumble politics and war, which can certainly generate grudges, and truly over-the-top and criminal behaviour. Your attempt to disagree with me appears to totally miss the mark on that basis.

[i]Edit: Grammar[/i]

Edited February 20, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298231548' post='2639674']
GOONS deserved it. \m/'s choice was their own, they lasted a week and then disbanded. Genmay I don't recall the details of.

Comparing that to Fark, GPA, GATO, FAN, VE, and even Polar is laughable.
[/quote]

No Doitzel, what is laughable is you trying to minimize what occured just because you feel they all deserved such atrocious behavior(maybe some did, maybe some didnt but whom are you to judge?), Polaris participated in the same sort of actions, no getting around it......long term wars, disbandments, penal reps etc...those are facts.

Anything else is just spin for the OWF fodder and for whatever PR position you want to fall on for the day...

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298231801' post='2639679']
Would they really?

To the best of my knowledge no one in UJP was attacked by their sworn protectors while demilitarised and under terms. Correct me if I am wrong. I am 100% sure none of them were comparable to the GPA, they were very un-neutral alliances that made a big deal out of liking war and liking to fight, with long histories of launching aggressive wars themselves.

I dont doubt some people hold grudges over it, I dont even doubt that many could do so reasonably, but if you go back and read my post you will see that I was quite deliberately distinguishing between mere rough-and-tumble politics and war, which can certainly generate grudges, and truly over-the-top and criminal behaviour. Your attempt to disagree with me appears to totally miss the mark on that basis.

[i]Edit: Grammar[/i]
[/quote]

so your point is that only FAN has a legit grudge in all this?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1298231909' post='2639681']
so your point is that only FAN has a legit grudge in all this?
[/quote]

[i]From the very same post you just replied to: [/i]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298231801' post='2639679']
I dont doubt some people hold grudges over it, I dont even doubt that many could do so reasonably, but if you go back and read my post you will see that I was quite deliberately distinguishing between mere rough-and-tumble politics and war, which can certainly generate grudges, and truly over-the-top and criminal behaviour.
[/quote]

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298231548' post='2639674']
GOONS deserved it. \m/'s choice was their own, they lasted a week and then disbanded. Genmay I don't recall the details of.
[/quote]

Genmay never sought out peace terms because no one in Genmay really wanted to surrender, but talking with polar government last year who were around during UJW, they stated they had zero intention to give Genmay peace, and they were to be treated like \m/, and no terms would be given except for the "eternal tech farm" one.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1298234899' post='2639743']
Genmay never sought out peace terms because no one in Genmay really wanted to surrender, but talking with polar government last year who were around during UJW, they stated they had zero intention to give Genmay peace, and they were to be treated like \m/, and no terms would be given except for the "eternal tech farm" one.
[/quote]

Something like what DT is being told right now then?

[Doitzel]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1298231839' post='2639680']
No Doitzel, what is laughable is you trying to minimize what occured just because you feel they all deserved such atrocious behavior(maybe some did, maybe some didnt but whom are you to judge?), Polaris participated in the same sort of actions, no getting around it......long term wars, disbandments, penal reps etc...those are facts.

Anything else is just spin for the OWF fodder and for whatever PR position you want to fall on for the day...
[/quote]
Polar has committed some horrible crimes, and were complicit in many more, I've not denied it. GOONS and NPO, however, initiated and saw through far more and far worse. A great deal of this is ancient history and the dues have been paid. I'm not even sure why it's relevant anymore. Should Valhalla be attacked to-morrow for what noWedge did?

This is bollocks. People are creating wars out of things that happened years ago because everyone is unwilling to initiate them in the here and now for fear of staggering peace terms. If we could actually bury the past rather than living by it I think this would all be a lot less stale; everyone's sitting around arguing about the same points and even the same bloody events that they were two and three years back. In fact people don't even put out logical arguments for or against this action or that -- they simply cite a similar incident from some other moment and history and use it as their point of reference for what is and isn't acceptable. I mean hell, people still operate on a precedent set by GATO [i]five years ago[/i] regarding which treaties supersede which. It's a joke.

As for GOONS... I have plenty right to judge them, but let's not discuss that here. I've rambled enough.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298226717' post='2639601']
It is not just the right, but also the duty, of each and every one of us to make such judgements to the best of our ability.
[/quote]
Well, I'm fine with that. I was simply stating that his opinion isn't holy truth, which might be a true revalation for him.
[quote]
He made his case with at least some measure of reason and your response is simply to call him arrogant for daring to make such a judgement at all? To me this makes you come off not just as arrogant, but also as a moral nihilist, a worshipper of power who disdains his own duties as a moral creature and truly believes that might makes right. This is the same fundamental misapprehension that eventually led Pacifica to over-reach and provoke her own downfall.
[/quote]
That's a misunderstanding then. Ofcourse I have 'morals', but I'm not a 'moralist' as we know them to be here on Bob, obviously. I'm not sure if you tried to imply that 'moralism' is the only way in which I can fulfil my 'duties as a moral creature', but if so I want to point out that 'moralism' isn't and will not be the only widely accepted form of how to behave on Bob, and that I think it would be a sad thing for this world when it will get to the point it is. [ooc: After all I'm playing for fun, better said what [i]I[/i] think is fun, not just for anyone else's pleasure. Everyone started here to play for their own pleasure, and everyone may do that in their own way. I got, perhaps wrongly, the idea you think I'm immoral for not being 'moralist' ingame. Even though 'moralism' isn't one of the things you will see from me ingame, I nevertheless treat others with respect and show them some dignity, as I am of the opinion no matter how much 'hate' there may exist between another player and myself, it should never get past that what it is and should remain... Roleplay in a game.[/ooc]
I contend that few if not no one can be considered 'better' or more 'moral' and thus more 'justified' then I am in the way I go about my business. Yes, I have also expressed why I feel that nobody deserves to be labeled as 'good' or 'evil', and have rejected any suggestions that these may objectively exist on Bob, which was what the argument you interrupted was about. You may think my reasons for this are moral nihilist, but that in itself is admitting that there is (still? ) some sense of morality in me; and to be honest I'm perfectly fine with just that.
Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get the might makes right thing from. I have not claimed such a thing, and it isn't even related to the argument. In fact, you're the first to bring it up.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1298235287' post='2639751']
Well, I'm fine with that. I was simply stating that his opinion isn't holy truth, which might be a true revalation for him.[/quote]

Fair enough. I was reading it more like you were lambasting him for daring to have such an opinion and stick up for it.

[quote]That's a misunderstanding then. Ofcourse I have 'morals', but I'm not a 'moralist' as we know them to be here on Bob, obviously. [/quote]

I am not sure those terms are sufficiently well defined for them to be a basis for discussion without clarification. I've seen, e.g. Starfox101 called a moralist, when he has repeatedly confessed what was already obvious - that he doesnt give two squirts about morality and simply uses such arguments when he sees an advantage.

On the other hand I have been called a moralist myself, and I dont think any rational person could even think about putting me in the same category as him.

I dont want to encourage a simplified caricature of my own positions, but I have been pretty consistent throughout my time here, and I do think morality matters and *should* matter - not as a rigid straitjacket but more as a simple understanding that, while there is a very wide range of legitimate plays to be made, there are also a few that are ridiculously over the line and should be opposed no matter who does them and no matter how high the cost of opposing them.

[quote]I'm not sure if you tried to imply that 'moralism' is the only way in which I can fulfil my 'duties as a moral creature', but if so I want to point out that 'moralism' isn't and will not be the only widely accepted form of how to behave on Bob, [/quote]

Possibly true, but irrelevant ultimately, if we are talking about what *should* be the case rather than what *is* the case at this particular moment in time.

[quote]and that I think it would be a sad thing for this world when it will get to the point it is. [/quote]

Why? I couldn't possibly disagree more, except if (as seems quite possible) we are using the term with entirely different meanings.

[quote][ooc: After all I'm playing for fun, better said what [i]I[/i] think is fun, not just for anyone else's pleasure. Everyone started here to play for their own pleasure, and everyone may do that in their own way. I got, perhaps wrongly, the idea you think I'm immoral for not being 'moralist' ingame. Even though 'moralism' isn't one of the things you will see from me ingame, I nevertheless treat others with respect and show them some dignity, as I am of the opinion no matter how much 'hate' there may exist between another player and myself, it should never get past that what it is and should remain... Roleplay in a game.[/ooc][/quote]

<ooc, obviously>There is nothing immoral about not playing a moralist in-game, I have played to the very depths of evil in many other games myself. However I would argue that the 'dark side' is so dominant in this particular game that it's tantamount to cowardice to join it at this point, and that if only for the sake of game balance anyone that cares about keeping this one healthy and interesting should be finding some excuse to turn to the light, even if your character has up to this point been a solid stormtrooper for the dark side. A game where the only relevant struggles are the ones between various factions of darkness over who gets to sit on top is boring. </ooc>

[quote]I contend that few if not no one can be considered 'better' or more 'moral' and thus more 'justified' then I am in the way I go about my business. Yes, I have also expressed why I feel that nobody deserves to be labeled as 'good' or 'evil', and have rejected any suggestions that these may objectively exist on Bob, which was what the argument you interrupted was about. [/quote]

The latter sentence, to my eye, is a stark contradiction against the first.

Of course good and evil exist. I probably agree with you somewhat here, in that I doubt many, if any, rulers are of completely pure and unalloyed good or evil nature - we are human beings, fallible, with the seeds of both good and evil planted in our hearts before we are even born. But we do not have the luxury of looking into each others hearts and weighing these qualities as we might weigh a quantity of silver. We must instead look at words and actions and weigh them using reason (keeping in mind that words are more likely to be lies than actions are!) This does not mean the qualities do not exist, however.

[quote]You may think my reasons for this are moral nihilist, but that in itself is admitting that there is (still? ) some sense of morality in me; and to be honest I'm perfectly fine with just that. [/quote]

I believe you misunderstand the term.

A moral nihilist is one who holds to a doctrine negating morality entirely, which your words appear to do on several occasions, although I could be misunderstanding them. It might be possible to be a moral nihilist while still retaining some sense of morality, but it could not be a stable state - the doctrine would contradict the sense, creating tension - a form of cognitive dissonance - which would eventually have to be resolved in one direction of the other - either by excising the moral sense in some fashion, or by abandoning the nihilist doctrine.

[quote]Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get the might makes right thing from. [/quote]

It is a necessary implication of moral nihilism, although imprecisely formulated since technically the moral nihilist must argue, not that might makes right, but that might is real while right is hallucination. The end effect is the same, however - having rejected even the possibility of an over-riding moral reason to resist a superior force, the moral nihilist inevitably winds up treating the superior force as if it were inherently right.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1298238090' post='2639786']
I dont want to encourage a simplified caricature of my own positions, but I have been pretty consistent throughout my time here, and I do think morality matters and *should* matter - not as a rigid straitjacket but more as a simple understanding that, while there is a very wide range of legitimate plays to be made, there are also a few that are ridiculously over the line and should be opposed no matter who does them and no matter how high the cost of opposing them.
[/quote]
So who gets to decide that? And what qualifies according to you as 'over the line'?
As long as behavior remains within the bounderies of our state of nature [ooc]rules of the game[/ooc] I personally don't see a lot of problems. It would only restrict the ways in how someone can play.
(This is my principled stance, as said there may be some things that are technically correct but which I still oppose, such as EZI.)
[quote]
Why? I couldn't possibly disagree more, except if (as seems quite possible) we are using the term with entirely different meanings.
[/quote]
In a world that is solely inhabited with moralists I fear there will be little entertainment for me to stay active. I also don't see why there has to be a universal morality to which every individual has to be submitted. Isn't diversity in thought and behavior something that should be cherished and preserved?
[quote]
<ooc, obviously>There is nothing immoral about not playing a moralist in-game, I have played to the very depths of evil in many other games myself. However I would argue that the 'dark side' is so dominant in this particular game that it's tantamount to cowardice to join it at this point, and that if only for the sake of game balance anyone that cares about keeping this one healthy and interesting should be finding some excuse to turn to the light, even if your character has up to this point been a solid stormtrooper for the dark side. A game where the only relevant struggles are the ones between various factions of darkness over who gets to sit on top is boring. </ooc>
[/quote]
[ooc]I would like to accept the compliment, but I actually disagree entirely so I can't. My character isn't on the dark side, as I do not believe such a thing exists right now, nor do I think it is a 'dark' character. Your key assumption is that because I chose not to roleplay as a 'moralist' I therefore am the opposite. That's incorrect, and it surprises me that you've reached that conclusion as you said earlier that "there is a very wide range of legitimate plays to be made". There are more roles one can play beside moralist and its counterpart.
I guess this is getting IC again though, so moving on.[/ooc]

[quote]
Of course good and evil exist. [...]
[/quote]
I was talking about [i]objective[/i] 'good' and 'evil', and that I don't believe that exists. What's good to you may be bad for me, and vice versa, but there's no way telling if you are right/moral/just/good/whatever or that I am. It depends on interpretation and perspective.
[quote]
[...] your words appear to [negate morality] on several occasions, [...]
[/quote]
Depends on what morality you are talking about. If it's absolute morality, which Maelstrom Vortex thinks exists, then yes.

[Earogema]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1298230587' post='2639651']
Oh idk Sigrun. I know a few alliances that were in the UJP that would dispute the above.....and do it validly.

GOONS? \m/? and others.....GOONS they kept at war for yrs, \m/ they forced to disband(yea you could argue they werent forced but we have all seen sponges logs and being an eternal tech farm isnt much better)

So once again you are veiwing the world how you want and convienently forgetting the true past....

Edit- add in Genmay too
[/quote]
The new GOONS came back under THEIR protection and avoided BiPolar because THEY worked with them. New \m/ doesn't really care.

\m/ died because it was weak. GOONS died because they abandoned all sense of diplomacy.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1298235184' post='2639749']
Polar has committed some horrible crimes, and were complicit in many more, I've not denied it. GOONS and NPO, however, initiated and saw through far more and far worse. A great deal of this is ancient history and the dues have been paid. I'm not even sure why it's relevant anymore. Should Valhalla be attacked to-morrow for what noWedge did?

This is bollocks. People are creating wars out of things that happened years ago because everyone is unwilling to initiate them in the here and now for fear of staggering peace terms. If we could actually bury the past rather than living by it I think this would all be a lot less stale; everyone's sitting around arguing about the same points and even the same bloody events that they were two and three years back. In fact people don't even put out logical arguments for or against this action or that -- they simply cite a similar incident from some other moment and history and use it as their point of reference for what is and isn't acceptable. I mean hell, people still operate on a precedent set by GATO [i]five years ago[/i] regarding which treaties supersede which. It's a joke.

As for GOONS... I have plenty right to judge them, but let's not discuss that here. I've rambled enough.
[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this post, the polaris situation will be colored by bias by those they either commited the crimes against or with, thats pretty much all im saying.



@sigrun- Your choice to minimize or vilify people and their actions based upon your own rose colored glasses is the point I was making. Polaris commited and was complicit in many heinous crimes and betrayels....you say they are game related? same could be said of any move. To say FAN has any more of a dispute against NPO then GOONs and some others have against Polaris is hilarious. They ALL have legit grudges...maybe just not by 'your' internal yardstick.

So really Doitzel has it partially correct like I said above. If grudges from wayyyy back continue to drive future politics then history will just keep repeating itself in a flip flop cycle.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1298206414' post='2639393']
Who gives you the authority to judge who is good and who is evil in this world? That's why I called you arrogant. And funnily enough you do it here again. "Because I'm right", you realize this is not a very compelling argument?
You may not believe it now (as is usually the case when people do things out of 'good intentions'), but I was simply showing you how your train of thought will end in a great disaster for all of us.

Well obviously I don't know you that well, but I have to form an opinion from the little things you show of yourself. And that doesn't make me hopeful at all, as I've explained. Guess I'll have to wait and see what happens when you're the one who may call justice.

What makes you think the bulk agrees with you? I don't see it.
[/quote]

My train of thought will not end in disaster for us all. Doomhouse's path will end in disaster for us all. They have already started down the path and unfortunately there's no stopping that train at this point.

As for the you not seeing that the bulk agree with me... Perhaps not, that's because not everyone will stand for what they believe is right, they put agreement over morals, and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves.

The evil of Doomhouse has polarized the world. It is already done.

[quote]
As far as I'm aware DH never divided the world into good and evil, which is what you're doing. The point is that there's a difference between ally and opponent, and good and evil. You make them to be the same thing, which they're not, and that's why I made the comment about your 'morality' being a tool for your political aims.
[/quote]

You are correct here, my opponent and evil are not the same, it is just in this case the actions of my opponent have made them evil by the definition of such. They are vengeful, they are hateful, they have started a war with no just cause or true reason other than fear. I do not make them the same, they have have defined themselves in their actions.

[quote]
After all, who wouldn't have sympathy with a victim, who is desperately fighting 'evil' and [i]about to lose[/i] also?
[/quote]

We do not need anyone's sympathy, we are not going to lose. I am Pacifican, in that I have already won. I would appreciate it though if more stood for what they believed in instead of talking about it behind closed doors like it were a holy grail of their philosophies.. and then doing nothing about it. It would shorten the length of time to our victory.

[quote]
Likewise! As long as it stays civil I'm happy to reply to you and/or spark debate.
[/quote]

The sad thing is if people had been civil in their discussion to begin with this whole fracas could probably have been avoided. But fear shoves feet into open mouths from my experience.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298243024' post='2639866']
GOONS died because they abandoned all sense of diplomacy.
[/quote]
You can't abandon what you never had.