Morality and Ethics in Military Gameplay

[Black Katana]

- snip -

What Ever. I just quote one line from that Essay:

You Said: "You've just maliciously destroyed a creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build."

You assume that Destroying maliciously a Creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build, would require in every possible cases less time and effort to Build up (than peaceful Community building you seemingly meant). That is not a Case.

Your moral preach doesn't change my approach to The Game neither what Max Barry has said in some IRC discussion. Max Barry can perform In-game Deception and he can act just as everyone else here, you know.

Just keep your founders alive.

(EDIT: Horrible grammatical errors corrected. All moralist Good People, Please forgive my bad English and errors in writing, partially caused because Update was beginning when I wrote that comment and I had not time to proof read my text as a Raiding and region crashing in practice are more important things to me then theorethical discussions about justifications of that same practice. Generally, I just don't care.)

[Lun Noir]

- snip -

What Ever. I just quote one line from that Essay:

You Said: "You've just maliciously destroyed a creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build."

You assume that Destroying maliciously a Creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build, would require in every possible cases less time and effort to Build up. That is not a Case.

Your moral preach doesn't change my approach to The Game neither what max barry has said in some IRC discussion Max Barry's. In game of Deception he can act just as everyone else, you know.

Just keep your founders alive.

While your position of 'I will break other people's stuff because I can' is a legal and an often-touted point of view among raiders, this thread was created purposefully to discuss the morality of Gameplay. It is not mere 'moral preach' for someone to express an alternate point of view, and indeed your contribution has added nothing to actually address the topic presented by the OP.

[Silver Seas]

Yes, actually it can and does have relevance. It is a legitimate case and viewpoint to make - the premise that morality has no place, and raiding is okay because its legal is a perspective of this question that has every right to be seen and heard in this thread.

[Zeorus]

Getting here a bit late...although I really shouldn't presume that anyone cares about my take on this.

On a basic level I'm inclined to agree with Cormac that were invasion to be removed from NS the game would suffer- in my view, defending is an entirely reactive mode of gameplay. One cannot defend that which has not been attacked. This is also rooted in my personal dualistic belief that opposites are co-dependent (but that's another conversation entirely). I'm not sure that it's reasonable to suppose that anything would replace invasion/raiding/what-have-you because it has assumed a very specific role in military gameplay and interregional politics- the creator of conflict. Military gameplay, because of game mechanics and the definition of "military", needs conflict to survive. While it is indeed possible that focus could shift out of the metagame and into roleplay or other facets of NS, these in my view would be considerably less effective sources of conflict. Roleplay in NS has little to no standardization (and from my experience is filled with a lot of people who have a very blurred view of the IC/OOC line), so conflict could arise from absolutely anything (his flag is cyan instead of puce, lol let's raid him). Issue-answerers have slightly more objective things to go on but this does not seem quite as viable because issues can be rather unpredictable in their effects from time to time due to the extremity of options (ALL INOFFENSIVE CENTRIST DEMOCRACIES MUST DIE). I am entirely unfamiliar with the Generalite community so I cannot form an opinion other than a worry that NS and RL might mix to an unhealthy degree (He voted for Dubya, raid his ass).

As to the initial topic at hand (morality and ethics in military gameplay)- from the viewpoint of Unibot (or possibly even Cormac), I'm a bit of a nihilist. I believe in a standard of decency regarding how to conduct oneself on the metaphorical field of battle but I am loath to make any statement in the form of "X is immoral and should never be done" with the exception of forum destruction and RL/out-of-game harassment. In the tradition of my (somewhat distant) predecessor in the Delegacy of Equilism, Westwind, I view any action permitted by game mechanics as an amoral act. Raiders took your region? Gather some fendas and take it back. Region's been passworded? Gather intel and find out the password. Natives ejected/banned? Take back the Delegacy and clear the ban list. RMB posts suppressed? Take back the Delegacy and unsuppress. Region's been refounded? Take the community with you and found a new region. It does not seem reasonable to me to have a separate set of ethics for actions taking place in NS- these are by nature amoral actions. No serious or permanent damage is truly being done by manipulating perfectly legitimate game mechanics to your advantage. If somebody else takes serious offense to these game mechanics, in my opinion the game is being taken too seriously and I recommend they take a break from NS to regain their composure.

This does not, of course, justify dickishness or indecency on the part of invaders.

[People United Together]

?

The Golden Rule is the Ethical Law of Reciprocity. It takes form in many, many moral and religious contexts. The most popular name for it is Confucius's name for it (Christians use it now too). It's a law that most people converge upon.

I don't subscribe to it because, (1) It seems a bit egotistical to use my expectations as the expectations for everyone else (e.g., "I'll call you a filthy cunt if I like! I don't mind if you call me a filthy cunt! See? Ethical!") and (2) we all have different expectations, so it'd quickly descend into a "moral anarchy", a race to the ethical bottom where the least offendable have power over the most offendable.

I support a deontological reading of "The Golden Rule", where the subject of comparison is an objective reasonable being, not necessarily the self.

You are ignoring my original post. As Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Seriously, please understand what you have just done: you contradicted yourself.

You first acknowledged that the Golden Rule has many forms in many societies, but declare it untenable because it would produce anarchy (assuming anarchy is a bad thing). Do as many thought experiments you wish, but the practical idealization of the Golden Rule has produced a multitude of civilized cultures.

Further, the Golden Rule is just a moral device. It should be understand as the social contract biding modern communities together, as evidenced by the many ways to attain redress of grievances. The whole reason for even mentioning the Golden Rule was to apply this social aspect to the game. The game's very features mimic modern society and the use of force is thereby legitimized as a justifiable action--not because all agree it is just, but because anyone can counter it with further force.

How would this be proven? If the answer to this question is "no:" do raiders denounce defenders as immoral or unjust? No. They acknowledge the overarching principle that people must have justice, so force will be answered with force. There is no right or wrong, there is only "the Ethical Law of Reciprocity."

[Lun Noir]

-- because anyone can counter it with further force.

I disagree here.

The 'Golden Rule' may hold up in real world applications, but that is because actual retaliation may take place. So any actions against another person must be considered against the weight of the risk of consequence.

Within NationStates, as I have stated a few times already, raiders risk nothing in their actions. They are not open to consequence, because they are not invested in their home regions, or even their nations, many of which are nothing more than puppets created on the spot for the purposes of the day's raids. They risk nothing, and so have no reason not to do whatever harm they wish to others.

This is the main reason why I am of the mind that raiding should be an opt in function. Because until a raider is subject to some degree of risk, they have no reason not to break any and all regions within NS that they can.

[People United Together]

Within NationStates, as I have stated a few times already, raiders risk nothing in their actions. They are not open to consequence, because they are not invested in their home regions, or even their nations, many of which are nothing more than puppets created on the spot for the purposes of the day's raids. They risk nothing, and so have no reason not to do whatever harm they wish to others.

You misunderstand. When a raider tries to invade a region, a counter-raid is the justified response. Sometimes defenders prevent raids, sometimes they do not. Whether or not justice is served does not dictate whether raiding is justifiable. Having the ability to counter-raid is what justifies raiding. Thus, as I said before, R/D cancels itself out as neither moral or immoral.

EDIT: My use of the terms "just" and "justifiable" are probably causing confusion.I am using these terms unorthodoxically to indicate the ability to give justice to a murder victim by executing the convicted murderer, whether or not one believes in capital punishment.

[Silver Seas]

-- because anyone can counter it with further force.

I disagree here.

The 'Golden Rule' may hold up in real world applications, but that is because actual retaliation may take place. So any actions against another person must be considered against the weight of the risk of consequence.

Within NationStates, as I have stated a few times already, raiders risk nothing in their actions. They are not open to consequence, because they are not invested in their home regions, or even their nations, many of which are nothing more than puppets created on the spot for the purposes of the day's raids. They risk nothing, and so have no reason not to do whatever harm they wish to others.

This is the main reason why I am of the mind that raiding should be an opt in function. Because until a raider is subject to some degree of risk, they have no reason not to break any and all regions within NS that they can.

I'm not invested in my home Region? Really? I love how you make absolutely groundless assumptions about the mindsets of Raiders and people who raid.

-Cerian quilor

[Lun Noir]

I disagree here.

The 'Golden Rule' may hold up in real world applications, but that is because actual retaliation may take place. So any actions against another person must be considered against the weight of the risk of consequence.

Within NationStates, as I have stated a few times already, raiders risk nothing in their actions. They are not open to consequence, because they are not invested in their home regions, or even their nations, many of which are nothing more than puppets created on the spot for the purposes of the day's raids. They risk nothing, and so have no reason not to do whatever harm they wish to others.

This is the main reason why I am of the mind that raiding should be an opt in function. Because until a raider is subject to some degree of risk, they have no reason not to break any and all regions within NS that they can.

I'm not invested in my home Region? Really? I love how you make absolutely groundless assumptions about the mindsets of Raiders and people who raid.

-Cerian quilor

In your case, obviously no retaliation can take place because you have locked WA Delegate executive authority, again, ensuring that you risk nothing by raiding. However, I still stand by my point that for many raiding groups, their 'home region' exists as nothing more than a billboard, one that is cloned in every region they overtake, or any of the puppet storage or temporary regions they create.

[The North Polish Union]

Cormac is using a consequentialist argument, but The Defender Argument is deontologist. The enjoyment that comes from invading is schadenfreude-- it uses people as a means to others' amusement and violates their community's autonomy. Regardless of whether or not a lot of people get giggly over doing it -- the shape ... the very form of the act is wrong in and of itself.

We can think of this as a thought experiment:

Say there's a criminal in a county jail and a mob is outside the county jail -- they will burn the entire village down in a mad frenzy if the criminal isn't released (so he can be lynched). What do you do? Do you release the criminal and let him be lynched? Or do you fuel an angry mob against your village?

The Utilitarian says please the people, let the public lynch him. The Deontologist says that the criminal has a special sort of right not to be lynched -- the fact that this may endanger the village and anger an entire mob of people is not a factor in the Deontologist's moral calculus.

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.

Nulla potest esse justitia pereat mundus.

[The North Polish Union]

Raiding is nothing more than griefing. Sure, some forms of the griefing (occupying the region for a week and vandalising the factbook, etc.) are not as serious as others (region destruction for example), but it's still griefing nonetheless.

Most founderless regions would opt out. Actually, any sane region would opt out, otherwise they would essentially be making themselves the equivalent of the Warzone regions. This would have the same practical effect of what absolutist defenders always seek, which is the elimination of military gameplay.

So in your opinion because the raiders want to raid it doesn't matter at all what the natives think?

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.

[Jetan]

Raiding is nothing more than griefing. Sure, some forms of the griefing (occupying the region for a week and vandalising the factbook, etc.) are not as serious as others (region destruction for example), but it's still griefing nonetheless.


So in your opinion because the raiders want to raid it doesn't matter at all what the natives think?

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.

"Might makes right" is a bullshit argument that just often happens to be the favourite of bullies, griefers, and other disturbances. Just because you may be stronger (or just plain more numerous) than your victims does not give you the right to oppress them. Feudalism is dead, haven't you heard?

[Cerian Quilor]

I'm not invested in my home Region? Really? I love how you make absolutely groundless assumptions about the mindsets of Raiders and people who raid.

-Cerian quilor

In your case, obviously no retaliation can take place because you have locked WA Delegate executive authority, again, ensuring that you risk nothing by raiding. However, I still stand by my point that for many raiding groups, their 'home region' exists as nothing more than a billboard, one that is cloned in every region they overtake, or any of the puppet storage or temporary regions they create.

Yes, because the members of the Black Riders have no connection to their community.

Obviously no retaliation can take place. I'm not an idiot. The first rule of warfare is to protect your base of operations before you make attacks.

[Cerian Quilor]

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.

"Might makes right" is a bullshit argument that just often happens to be the favourite of bullies, griefers, and other disturbances. Just because you may be stronger (or just plain more numerous) than your victims does not give you the right to oppress them. Feudalism is dead, haven't you heard?

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

[Jetan]

"Might makes right" is a bullshit argument that just often happens to be the favourite of bullies, griefers, and other disturbances. Just because you may be stronger (or just plain more numerous) than your victims does not give you the right to oppress them. Feudalism is dead, haven't you heard?

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.

[The Black Hat Guy]

What Ever. I just quote one line from that Essay:

You Said: "You've just maliciously destroyed a creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build."

You assume that Destroying maliciously a Creation that someone else has taken much time and effort to build, would require in every possible cases less time and effort to Build up. That is not a Case.

I'm having quite a bit of difficulty discerning what you're trying to say here through the haze of grammatical errors. Normally I'm not much of a stickler for that kind of thing, but when it begins to impede comprehension, I have to ask that you please try to make your sentences as coherent as possible.

In any case, what I'm getting out of this is that you're saying that the effort put into destroying a region can be equal to or greater than the effort put into creating the region. While this is not the case in many cases, in all cases it is irrelevant. The amount of time and effort put into doing an immoral act does not change the morality of that act. If I spent $10,000 in order to steal $5,000 from a bank, stealing from that bank would be no less wrong. Similarly, in destroying another person's region, even if your assertion that destroying it can take more effort than creating it, you're still destroying another's property without their consent, and that is still just as morally wrong.

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.

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.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This is the main reason why I am of the mind that raiding should be an opt in function. Because until a raider is subject to some degree of risk, they have no reason not to break any and all regions within NS that they can.

Really? Tell that to those who were active in DEN and TBH when their forums were destroyed by defenders.
Furthermore...

Which is why I suggested having raiding be something that could be optional for regions. Those regions could go all in with embracing R/D gameplay, while those who want nothing to do with it could opt out.

This has been discussed to death in technical. There is a reason the Warzone experiment was a failure (for the most part). Raiders such as myself do not raid and hold regions which have deliberately opted in to being raided.

[Lun Noir]

This is the main reason why I am of the mind that raiding should be an opt in function. Because until a raider is subject to some degree of risk, they have no reason not to break any and all regions within NS that they can.

Really? Tell that to those who were active in DEN and TBH when their forums were destroyed by defenders.

This suggests is that damage to raiders should be sought outside NationStates, which is a rather dangerous game of escalation. Even though I personally don't believe in such actions, the fact that it took place kind of highlights the point that there is no meaningful way to retaliate within the confines of the game itself, which ought to be considered.

Which is why I suggested having raiding be something that could be optional for regions. Those regions could go all in with embracing R/D gameplay, while those who want nothing to do with it could opt out.

This has been discussed to death in technical. There is a reason the Warzone experiment was a failure (for the most part). Raiders such as myself do not raid and hold regions which have deliberately opted in to being raided.

And that reason is... what? The thrill invaders get by imposing themselves upon others?

[Jetan]

This has been discussed to death in technical. There is a reason the Warzone experiment was a failure (for the most part). Raiders such as myself do not raid and hold regions which have deliberately opted in to being raided.

Meaning it's not about the "achievement" or "accomplishment" of the raid at all, but simply your desire to grief other people.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Really? Tell that to those who were active in DEN and TBH when their forums were destroyed by defenders.

This suggests is that damage to raiders should be sought outside NationStates, which is a rather dangerous game of escalation. Even though I personally don't believe in such actions, the fact that it took place kind of highlights the point that there is no meaningful way to retaliate within the confines of the game itself, which ought to be considered.

That is not what the statement does at all. It does not suggest that damage to raiders should be sought outside of NationStates, it indicates that damage to raiders has been taken outside of NationStates. This is in opposition to your position that there is no risk present for raiders. As to your indication that there is no way to retaliate against them, I would point out that the same is true of defenders and highlights the fundamental flaw in your reasoning: by choosing to remain founderless all regions have opted into gameplay whether they know it or not. They certainly do not want to be raided, but whether by ignorance or laziness they have placed themselves in a position to be raided.

This has been discussed to death in technical. There is a reason the Warzone experiment was a failure (for the most part). Raiders such as myself do not raid and hold regions which have deliberately opted in to being raided.

And that reason is... what? The thrill invaders get by imposing themselves upon others?

Why on earth would I want to destroy a community that was built upon the understanding that they could be destroyed, and are totally fine with that?

This has been discussed to death in technical. There is a reason the Warzone experiment was a failure (for the most part). Raiders such as myself do not raid and hold regions which have deliberately opted in to being raided.

Meaning it's not about the "achievement" or "accomplishment" of the raid at all, but simply your desire to grief other people.

See this guy gets me.

[Lun Noir]

Meaning it's not about the "achievement" or "accomplishment" of the raid at all, but simply your desire to grief other people.

See this guy gets me.

You (and others) enjoy griefing. There's really nothing more to say to that.

[Mallorea and Riva]

See this guy gets me.

You (and others) enjoy griefing. There's really nothing more to say to that.

Apparently there is since we have this thread dedicated to the morality of various aspects of gameplay.

[Lun Noir]

You (and others) enjoy griefing. There's really nothing more to say to that.

Apparently there is since we have this thread dedicated to the morality of various aspects of gameplay.

There isn't much of an ethical discussion to be had when one takes a position of 'morals? lol, I feed on suffering'.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Apparently there is since we have this thread dedicated to the morality of various aspects of gameplay.

There isn't much of an ethical discussion to be had when one takes a position of 'morals? lol, I feed on suffering'.

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

[Lun Noir]

There isn't much of an ethical discussion to be had when one takes a position of 'morals? lol, I feed on suffering'.

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.