Morality and Ethics in Military Gameplay

[Southern Bellz]

I am a god.

NationStates to me is basically a political sandbox. The purpose of the sandbox is different for everyone. NationStates is an incredible game because there are very few game imposed rules. Most regional laws are completely made up, and can only be respected to the degree it can be enforced. It isn't immoral (thanks for correcting me) if I don't follow the set of rules you believe the game should work in.

Over the years I have found this game to be very fun sandbox to explore, from figuring out what the heck is going on, to my constructive and destructive endeavors. I knew that at any second Milograd could have torn down TSP, and just because I chose to build up my vision of the region, doesn't mean he is legitimately evil trying to tear it down.

[Cerian Quilor]

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.

This. So much.

[Cerian Quilor]

-SNIP-

Stop with the real world analogies. There is no real equivalent to raiding in the real wold.

[Southern Bellz]

CQ if you don't stop, I might crash my car into you on purpose.

[Cerian Quilor]

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.

Morality doesn't work like that, Black Hat.

[The Black Hat Guy]

-SNIP-

Stop with the real world analogies. There is no real equivalent to raiding in the real wold.

As I've said in the past, morality is subjective. There is scarcely options when discussing morality but to use analogies, because they clearly explain commonly held standards of morality.

And I tried to tone down the analogies since the last person (was that you?) took issue with them. I only brought that one up because another had proposed a similar one, and I was pointing out its flaws.

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

Morality doesn't work like that, Black Hat.

As in, you can't take actions happening on one scale and apply them as an analogy to another scale? Obviously I don't believe that raiding is anywhere near as bad as vehicular homicide. That being said, there's no reason why a debate about a less consequential issue cannot be applied, by analogy, to a greater one. If you don't like analogies about morality that's fine, I'll attempt to avoid them in the future (though it's harder to make my point without them), but small scale events can certainly be analogous to larger ones.

[The Grim Reaper]

As in, you can't take actions happening on one scale and apply them as an analogy to another scale? Obviously I don't believe that raiding is anywhere near as bad as vehicular homicide. That being said, there's no reason why a debate about a less consequential issue cannot be applied, by analogy, to a greater one. If you don't like analogies about morality that's fine, I'll attempt to avoid them in the future (though it's harder to make my point without them), but small scale events can certainly be analogous to larger ones.

What? Yes, if you're talking as a mathematician or a physicist - even then, you're not going to get far relating quantum theory to the physics of celestial bodies.

Your analogies all depend on warping the ideal of bodily sovereignty - the idea that living beings have power over the decisions they make regarding the physical body that allows them to continue living - and somehow relating it to raiding.

The reason women wearing the burqa is controversial is because it's a manifestation of a culture that oppresses women by removing their right to any form of unique identity or free speech, facet by facet.

The reason getting raped or being killed on a road are a problem is nowhere near the same as anything that results in or results from raiding.

That's why people take issue with your analogies in trying to prove some sort of military gameplay morality - because regional sovereignty is not the same as bodily sovereignty, and if you use analogies that don't depend on such you start to seem a little superficial.

[Cerian Quilor]

As in, you can't take actions happening on one scale and apply them as an analogy to another scale? Obviously I don't believe that raiding is anywhere near as bad as vehicular homicide. That being said, there's no reason why a debate about a less consequential issue cannot be applied, by analogy, to a greater one. If you don't like analogies about morality that's fine, I'll attempt to avoid them in the future (though it's harder to make my point without them), but small scale events can certainly be analogous to larger ones.

What? Yes, if you're talking as a mathematician or a physicist - even then, you're not going to get far relating quantum theory to the physics of celestial bodies.

Your analogies all depend on warping the ideal of bodily sovereignty - the idea that living beings have power over the decisions they make regarding the physical body that allows them to continue living - and somehow relating it to raiding.

The reason women wearing the burqa is controversial is because it's a manifestation of a culture that oppresses women by removing their right to any form of unique identity or free speech, facet by facet.

The reason getting raped or being killed on a road are a problem is nowhere near the same as anything that results in or results from raiding.

That's why people take issue with your analogies in trying to prove some sort of military gameplay morality - because regional sovereignty is not the same as bodily sovereignty, and if you use analogies that don't depend on such you start to seem a little superficial.

Grim has won this thread. I wish I could have said it as well as he could.

[The Grim Reaper]

What? Yes, if you're talking as a mathematician or a physicist - even then, you're not going to get far relating quantum theory to the physics of celestial bodies.

Your analogies all depend on warping the ideal of bodily sovereignty - the idea that living beings have power over the decisions they make regarding the physical body that allows them to continue living - and somehow relating it to raiding.

The reason women wearing the burqa is controversial is because it's a manifestation of a culture that oppresses women by removing their right to any form of unique identity or free speech, facet by facet.

The reason getting raped or being killed on a road are a problem is nowhere near the same as anything that results in or results from raiding.

That's why people take issue with your analogies in trying to prove some sort of military gameplay morality - because regional sovereignty is not the same as bodily sovereignty, and if you use analogies that don't depend on such you start to seem a little superficial.

Grim has won this thread. I wish I could have said it as well as he could.

Even if I referred to a burqa analogy I seem to have hallucinated.

I can't find it anymore - did it ever exist?

EDIT: Afforess said it: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=268742&p=17255726#p17255726

My apologies to the Black Hat Guy if that wasn't an analogy he agreed with - however, his relating murder and rape to raiding is probably the more confusing of the analogies. The post probably should have been more directed to Afforess, but serves as a general opinion piece.

[The North Polish Union]

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!

Wat?

[Afforess]

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

Wat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

[Cerian Quilor]

Wat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Jokes on the internet usually require smilies. Its harder then even IRL to tell deadpan from serious crazy

[Mad Jack]

Invasion is only meaningful if there is something to invade.

So make it opt-in, and it goes away.

Excellent. All problems solved.

[Mad Jack]

Should women have to cover up in fear of being raped?.

Did you really just compare rape to being raided?

[Cerian Quilor]

Invasion is only meaningful if there is something to invade.

So make it opt-in, and it goes away.

Excellent. All problems solved.

yes, but The Max has already made clear he wants raiding to stay in the game. So solutions that result in raiding vanishing are a no-go.

Helpful suggestions would actually get you somewhere.

[Blackbird]

You took responsibility for the defense of your region.

Indeed. And I've done pretty well.

[Sedgistan]

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.

Despite the disagreements, this debate was a civil one until your post. You've picked up several warnings for this kind of behaviour recently. Since the one day ban didn't work, have a *** 3 day ban for flaming/baiting *** and take note that if this behaviour continues, the inevitable result is the deletion of your nation. Change the way you conduct yourself on these forums, and do so now.

[The Black Hat Guy]

As in, you can't take actions happening on one scale and apply them as an analogy to another scale? Obviously I don't believe that raiding is anywhere near as bad as vehicular homicide. That being said, there's no reason why a debate about a less consequential issue cannot be applied, by analogy, to a greater one. If you don't like analogies about morality that's fine, I'll attempt to avoid them in the future (though it's harder to make my point without them), but small scale events can certainly be analogous to larger ones.

What? Yes, if you're talking as a mathematician or a physicist - even then, you're not going to get far relating quantum theory to the physics of celestial bodies.

Your analogies all depend on warping the ideal of bodily sovereignty - the idea that living beings have power over the decisions they make regarding the physical body that allows them to continue living - and somehow relating it to raiding.

The reason women wearing the burqa is controversial is because it's a manifestation of a culture that oppresses women by removing their right to any form of unique identity or free speech, facet by facet.

The reason getting raped or being killed on a road are a problem is nowhere near the same as anything that results in or results from raiding.

That's why people take issue with your analogies in trying to prove some sort of military gameplay morality - because regional sovereignty is not the same as bodily sovereignty, and if you use analogies that don't depend on such you start to seem a little superficial.

I'll accept that reasoning - bodily sovereignty is quite different from property, but take note that until Afforess brought up the highway analogy, I did not make a single reference to bodily sovereignty, only sovereignty over property, a point which still stands.

[Cerian Quilor]

Except that real property is of higher priority than a region page. The destruction of real property is more damaging and more permenant than what raiders do, even in the most extreme cases.

[Astarial]

Except that real property is of higher priority than a region page. The destruction of real property is more damaging and more permenant than what raiders do, even in the most extreme cases.

And of course, neither raiders nor defenders are innocent of having destroyed forums, which are a hell of a lot closer to real property than a region page is. The premise that defenders are necessarily the good guys, and that defending is necessarily a good position, is flawed - believing that one is on a moral crusade can (and has been seen to) easily veer into acts that are far, far worse (a classification not limited to forum destruction alone).