Morality and Ethics in Military Gameplay

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think that is an incredibly important aspect of this discussion which has been danced around but never properly addressed.

I agree it's an important aspect, but only for the purposes of erecting a case towards limiting raiding.

Which is to say, I don't believe that people's work to establish regions and communities should be free game for individuals who have decided to buck the moral compass altogether to deface for the lulz.

The counter-argument, which has already been stated by others, is that 'the game permits it, so it is okay'.

And again, I simply don't think the game should permit it, and again, believe it should be opt-in. Admittedly, this would discourage the crowd who are in it purely to sour the experiences of others, and I am okay with that.

So then how are you any better than me?

[Lun Noir]

So then how are you any better than me?

Hahaha.. Did you honestly just invoke the 'If you kill him, you will be just like him' trope? Wow.

Obviously, the reason I am okay with discouraging griefers is because I see griefing as unethical and destructive behavior, and I more highly value creation than destruction. I do not have an authoritative stick to measure who is a 'better' or 'worse' person, just stating my own point of view and what I think would enhance the NationStates experience for individuals who are here to create, rather than to ruin.

[Cerian Quilor]

Feudalism has nothing to do with this. Bad analogies are not your friends.

I'd say it's comparable as it's the system thats closest to "might makes right" (apart from anarchy of course), but YMMV.

No, its really not. Fuedalism is a contractual system of land in exchange for service.

[Cerian Quilor]

So then how are you any better than me?

Hahaha.. Did you honestly just invoke the 'If you kill him, you will be just like him' trope? Wow.

Obviously, the reason I am okay with discouraging griefers is because I see griefing as unethical and destructive behavior, and I more highly value creation than destruction. I do not have an authoritative stick to measure who is a 'better' or 'worse' person, just stating my own point of view and what I think would enhance the NationStates experience for individuals who are here to create, rather than to ruin.

Military activity can be incredibly creative - leaving aside the activity created simply within the raiding groups or the militaries of regions that engage in raiding in addition to other activities, raiding generates all manner of other activity - defenders, these kinds of debates, regional discussions on military, mutual defense treaties, alliances, and more. Military Gameplay has made Gameplay Exist, and there's a lot of activity that has come out of Gameplay - Europeia has hundreds of thousands of posts from a rich, diverse community. Raiding is no more purely destructive than defending is purely moral.


I suppose the term 'creative destruction' doesn't exist in your lexicon?

[Lun Noir]

Hahaha.. Did you honestly just invoke the 'If you kill him, you will be just like him' trope? Wow.

Obviously, the reason I am okay with discouraging griefers is because I see griefing as unethical and destructive behavior, and I more highly value creation than destruction. I do not have an authoritative stick to measure who is a 'better' or 'worse' person, just stating my own point of view and what I think would enhance the NationStates experience for individuals who are here to create, rather than to ruin.

Military activity can be incredibly creative - leaving aside the activity created simply within the raiding groups or the militaries of regions that engage in raiding in addition to other activities, raiding generates all manner of other activity - defenders, these kinds of debates, regional discussions on military, mutual defense treaties, alliances, and more. Military Gameplay has made Gameplay Exist, and there's a lot of activity that has come out of Gameplay - Europeia has hundreds of thousands of posts from a rich, diverse community. Raiding is no more purely destructive than defending is purely moral.


I suppose the term 'creative destruction' doesn't exist in your lexicon?

At no point have I said R/D should not exist at all. All of these things could still exist in an 'opt in' system. And if it is, indeed, such a wonderful thing for regions, we will see it flourish because people will choose to open themselves up to it so that they get all this wonderful 'activity'.

The fact that this compromise is being so utterly rejected and consistently dismissed suggests to me that Raiding is really only good for generating fun for the raiders.

[Jetan]

I'd say it's comparable as it's the system thats closest to "might makes right" (apart from anarchy of course), but YMMV.

No, its really not. Fuedalism is a contractual system of land in exchange for service.

On the relationship between the ruler and the vassal, yes. But not so much between the vassal and the serf.

[The North Polish Union]

The inability to hold a region shows that the natives either don't care about the region or are too weak to hold it. If either of these cases occurs, the natural result that the region should pass to the strong. To think otherwise is to hold the absurd belief that the will of the weak somehow should take precedence over the will of the strong.

No, it's to think that the will of the property owner takes precedence over the will of the usurper. If one has power, one does not have the moral justification to use it simply by the right of that power.

Regions are not property, and no group has some special "entitlement" to a region.

EDIT:

And yes, of course we believe that the will of the weak should, in some cases, take precedence over the will of the strong. One of the basic premises that civilization is founded upon is that the strong do not have the justification to exert their will over the weak simply by right of that strength.

But the defenderist holds that the will of the weak should invariably trump the will of the strong. This unhealthy imposition of the wills of the weak over the strong is immoral (or unethical, whatever), and thus defenderism is immoral.

[Jetan]

No, it's to think that the will of the property owner takes precedence over the will of the usurper. If one has power, one does not have the moral justification to use it simply by the right of that power.

Regions are not property, and no group has some special "entitlement" to a region.

Yes they do. The one(s) that founded the region and formed the community have right to it, unlike the ones who's only purpose is to disturb and/or destroy the community and generally act like a dick simply because they can.

EDIT:

And yes, of course we believe that the will of the weak should, in some cases, take precedence over the will of the strong. One of the basic premises that civilization is founded upon is that the strong do not have the justification to exert their will over the weak simply by right of that strength.

But the defenderist holds that the will of the weak should invariably trump the will of the strong. This unhealthy imposition of the wills of the weak over the strong is immoral (or unethical, whatever), and thus defenderism is immoral.

Defenderism is the immoral one out of the two?

[The North Polish Union]

Regions are not property, and no group has some special "entitlement" to a region.

Yes they do. The one(s) that founded the region and formed the community have right to it, unlike the ones who's only purpose is to disturb and/or destroy the community and generally act like a dick simply because they can.

Raiderists should not seek to "disturb and/or destroy [a] community and generally act like a dick simply because they can." They should seek to assert their will over the immoral forces of defenderism. If, in their fight for the greater moral good, they must destroy a region, then so be it.

And those who founded a region do not have any special entitlement to it; a region is essentially just a name. No one is specially entitled to a name. The same community could exist with another name, regions do not define communities, communities define regions

EDIT:

But the defenderist holds that the will of the weak should invariably trump the will of the strong. This unhealthy imposition of the wills of the weak over the strong is immoral (or unethical, whatever), and thus defenderism is immoral.

Defenderism is the immoral one out of the two?

I explained this better earlier in the thread.

[Cerian Quilor]

Military activity can be incredibly creative - leaving aside the activity created simply within the raiding groups or the militaries of regions that engage in raiding in addition to other activities, raiding generates all manner of other activity - defenders, these kinds of debates, regional discussions on military, mutual defense treaties, alliances, and more. Military Gameplay has made Gameplay Exist, and there's a lot of activity that has come out of Gameplay - Europeia has hundreds of thousands of posts from a rich, diverse community. Raiding is no more purely destructive than defending is purely moral.


I suppose the term 'creative destruction' doesn't exist in your lexicon?

At no point have I said R/D should not exist at all. All of these things could still exist in an 'opt in' system. And if it is, indeed, such a wonderful thing for regions, we will see it flourish because people will choose to open themselves up to it so that they get all this wonderful 'activity'.

The fact that this compromise is being so utterly rejected and consistently dismissed suggests to me that Raiding is really only good for generating fun for the raiders.

You're deliberately misunderstanding our statements about the activity that R/D creates.

Who the hell is going to opt-in? Name some regions. And, next time you bring up this comprimise, look at the damn warzones then tell me this would work. The Warzones are proof that opt-in doesn't work. Invasion is only meaningful if there is something to invade.

[Cerian Quilor]

No, its really not. Fuedalism is a contractual system of land in exchange for service.

On the relationship between the ruler and the vassal, yes. But not so much between the vassal and the serf.

Nope. Serfs entered contracts just like vassals. Don't try to beat me on history, Jetan. Serfs exchanged their labor for the protection of the lord and the right to use his land to grow food for themselves.

[Southern Bellz]

Just have fun guys. If its not fun stop doing it.

The idea of 'just have fun' doesn't work when realizing that being raided is not exactly an 'opt in' program. If those of us who wanted nothing to do with R/D could shut it out completely, and allow those who enjoyed such gameplay to slug it out with each other, that would be a different story. As it is, NS forces those who want nothing to do with raiding or defending to exist as potential targets of it. If someone puts effort into building up a region in NS, and it is destroyed because it is chosen at random as a raiding target, that can be 'un-fun' for the victims, through no fault or choice of their own. And as a result, their choice to 'stop doing it' may amount to stopping participation in NationStates.

I can't say whether it's moral or not. There's certainly no religious doctrine I believe in that states 'thou shalt not raid'. However, I do find the bully mentality expressed in much of the raiding community to be somewhat disheartening. At best, to the casual observer, there is no regard paid to the violation of other's contributions and their enjoyment of NationStates. At worst, this violation is celebrated.

If you choose to play in a founderless region, you opt in. You can leave a foundless region at any time, and never have to worry about being invaded again. I have been the 'victim' of the worst that raiders and defenders have done in the game, and I can tell you that communities have the tools to relocate and 'opt out' if that is really something they want to do.

At the end of the day, this is a simple game. People should do whatever they find fun.

Some people like building sandcastles, some people like kicking them down, some people like the risk of living in them knowing they could be kicked down. You have the tools to protect yourself and or 'opt out' at anytime.

There are some actions I consider unethical and all of them have real world implications, such as promoting hate speech against RL minority groups and sending a computer virus to someone.

And I will always have a soft spot my favorite DEN motto: Because we can. Its an ethos that I wish more players had, but at this point, I am just glad there are a few that do.

[Afforess]

If you choose to play in a founderless region, you opt in. You can leave a foundless region at any time, and never have to worry about being invaded again. I have been the 'victim' of the worst that raiders and defenders have done in the game, and I can tell you that communities have the tools to relocate and 'opt out' if that is really something they want to do.

Why should natives have to move in order to protect themselves? If I wander around in the freeway, is it your right to run me down? Should women have to cover up in fear of being raped? Should natives have to move in order to be protected? These are all the same question in my eyes.

There are some actions I consider unethical and all of them have real world implications, such as promoting hate speech against RL minority groups and sending a computer virus to someone.

Funny, because I think free speech should be protected above all. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment in the USA.

And I will always have a soft spot my favorite DEN motto: Because we can. Its an ethos that I wish more players had, but at this point, I am just glad there are a few that do.

I will remember that motto as well. I made NS++ "Because I can".

[Mallorea and Riva]

So then how are you any better than me?

Hahaha.. Did you honestly just invoke the 'If you kill him, you will be just like him' trope? Wow.

Obviously, the reason I am okay with discouraging griefers is because I see griefing as unethical and destructive behavior, and I more highly value creation than destruction. I do not have an authoritative stick to measure who is a 'better' or 'worse' person, just stating my own point of view and what I think would enhance the NationStates experience for individuals who are here to create, rather than to ruin.

I would advise that you watch this.

If you choose to play in a founderless region, you opt in. You can leave a foundless region at any time, and never have to worry about being invaded again. I have been the 'victim' of the worst that raiders and defenders have done in the game, and I can tell you that communities have the tools to relocate and 'opt out' if that is really something they want to do.

Why should natives have to move in order to protect themselves? If I wander around in the freeway, is it your right to run me down? Should women have to cover up in fear of being raped? Should natives have to move in order to be protected? These are all the same question in my eyes.

You better get your eyes checked.

And I will always have a soft spot my favorite DEN motto: Because we can. Its an ethos that I wish more players had, but at this point, I am just glad there are a few that do.

The only justification I have ever needed. Whether raiding is moral or immoral is ultimately irrelevant.

[Southern Bellz]

They don't have to move if they don't want to. If they want to stay in their founderless region, they can organize to protect the region, they can join organizations who would love to defend them or they can build up their influence. I do think there is some obligation on the player to put themselves in a situation that they find enjoyable. If they choose to be in a founderless region, and make no effort to protect themselves, then it shouldn't be a surprise when more organized groups can make a power grab in the region.

To use your analogy, if you wander around on a freeway, you no longer have an expectation of safety and you should understand you put yourself in danger.

Also to be clear, I think people have the right to hate speech, but I will also am an advocate of speaking out against it and stopping its spread in a political simulation.

And props to NS++, it's a great, impressive tool that in many ways is an equalizer.

[Blackbird]

I've been in my region over a decade. There were no founders then. I'll be damned if someone tells me I have to "move" in order to play the game I want to.

[Southern Bellz]

You took responsibility for the defense of your region.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Regions are not property, and no group has some special "entitlement" to a region.

Given that the group created the region and has access to its administration, I'd say that it's well within the definition of property. To forcibly transfer control of that property from its creator and rightful owner is certainly immoral.

But the defenderist holds that the will of the weak should invariably trump the will of the strong. This unhealthy imposition of the wills of the weak over the strong is immoral (or unethical, whatever), and thus defenderism is immoral.

That's a ridiculous strawman. The defenderist philosophy is that the current inhabitants of a region, the owners, have a right to retain control over that region. Defenderists do not hold that the weak have the right to invade and take over raider regions because they are weak - they hold that neither group has the right to take over either of the other's regions. Both the weak and the strong have equal precedence, in defenderist philosophy. A claim that defenders believe that the will of the weak should take precedence over the will of the strong is an asinine strawman argument - no one has or will say that.

They don't have to move if they don't want to. If they want to stay in their founderless region, they can organize to protect the region, they can join organizations who would love to defend them or they can build up their influence.

It's not that easy. Moving regions is a large and complicated process, and many members, names, and influence are lost in the process. Not taking precautions to protect property does not make others destroying that property any less immoral. If I leave my laptop lying beside me (when it's clearly mine and I'm clearly still using it), but do not keep track of it and lock it up in a safe place, that doesn't mean that it's in any way less immoral to steal the laptop.

I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone can truly believe that raiders are moral because natives can take measures to prevent them. The logic that sacking an undefended target is somehow morally justified while sacking a defended one is just doesn't follow at all. I admit that this is a complicated issue, and while there are certainly good arguments on the raider side, this is not one of them.

To use your analogy, if you wander around on a freeway, you no longer have an expectation of safety and you should understand you put yourself in danger.

A better analogy would be if someone was walking on the curb of a freeway and the cars intentionally swerved to attempt to hit them. Your analogy portrays the drivers as people that are simply following their normal activity. This is not the case - the "drivers" are actively attempting to cause harm to the pedestrians.

[Southern Bellz]

Raiders aren't moral or amoral. Raiding is petty and childish, sure, but it isn't evil.

It's a game and they play it according to its rules. Is shooting someone in call of duty unethical? Does ganking someone in WoW make you a bad person?

Comparing raiding to someone murdering someone with their car is kinda crazy.

And I really don't need to be told how hard it is to relocate a community, when I have had to do it multiple times, from both external attacks and internal power grabs.

[Milograd]

To use your analogy, if you wander around on a freeway, you no longer have an expectation of safety and you should understand you put yourself in danger.

Are you sure you want to use dangerously crossing roads as an analogy?

[The Black Hat Guy]

Raiders aren't moral or amoral. Raiding is petty and childish, sure, but it isn't evil.

I'm going to proceed as if you had said immoral rather than amoral, because amoral makes no sense in that context.

It's a game and they play it according to its rules. Is shooting someone in call of duty unethical? Does ganking someone in WoW make you a bad person?

The rules of a game don't affect the morality of the actions they are allowing. Shooting someone in Call of Duty is not unethical because it is an inherent part of how you play the game - someone attacks you, and you have equal opportunity to retaliate. By playing the game, you are shooting other people, because there is no other way to play the game, and thus you are giving your implicit consent to be shot at.

I've never played WOW, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on the morality of "ganking" from what I know from the Urban Dictionary pages (though from those alone, it seems like a contentious issue).

Take it this way. In a Minecraft server, is it immoral to destroy a structure that someone else has built, even if the rules of the server don't prohibit it? I'm not talking about a PvP server or something here, I'm talking about a traditional Survival server. Of course it's immoral to walk up to a creation that someone has spent time on and rig it with TnT. Whether it's within the rules of the server or not, maliciously destroying someone else's creation is immoral.

Comparing raiding to someone murdering someone with their car is kinda crazy.

It's a hyperbole, of course, but scaled down it's an appropriate analogy.

And I really don't need to be told how hard it is to relocate a community, when I have had to do it multiple times, from both external attacks and internal power grabs.

So given how hard and detrimental to a region it is to move, raiding is not even remotely close to the simple opt in/out system that many raiders are portraying it as.

[Afforess]

To use your analogy, if you wander around on a freeway, you no longer have an expectation of safety and you should understand you put yourself in danger.

Yes, thank you, that is all I need here. Debate over folks. Raiders just admitted they are scum. We can all go back to our lives.

[Southern Bellz]

I'm not a raider.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm not a raider.

I will wash your mouth out with soap young man.

[Afforess]

I'm not a raider.

Yes you are, you are couping The South Pacific. The rest of the region just doesn't know it yet. Hi Milograd!