Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why are we fighting?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy are we fighting?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 212223
Author
WeeAshley View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2013 at 17:56
Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

Well Wee, even non-stupid people are prone to err, and intelligence can sometimes escalate a problem instead of stopping it from arising. I mean, "even" my university is so full of such nasty political intrigues that you sometimes have to wonder how the staff got their positions and academic degrees...
Hogwarts, right?

Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

Of course it´s somehow nice to make once a decision and later just react according to this old consideration and decision, but while it makes things easier and better managable, it also increases the propability of acting inappropriatly to a situation. Doing the think-tank for a month of course has the problem of increasing the propability to not act at all or to act too late^^

Probably it´s a paradoxy we can´t escape, but that also means that the other view on this issue (at least in my view^^) is also quite reasonable in itself. And I would guess, that some sort of combination of both would be most adviseably.
So let me paraphrase you to be sure I understand what you are saying: 'Always supporting your enemies is the easy decision, but that might not make it the right decision.'

Although I agree, here are my reasons for sticking by my initial statement:
  1. I like keeping things succinct.
  2. Explaining complex rationale on an internet gaming forum is fruitless.
  3. Subjective Judgement Calls (SJC for short) - like "does x justify y" - can only be answered by the individual, not an alliance or a confederation.
  4. SJCs are subjective. Meaning there is no universal right or wrong.
  5. Even if an individual has made an SJC contrary to his actions he will almost always stick with his friends in an online game like this one.  We aren't making RL moral decisions here.
  6. Even if alliance leadership has made an SJC contrary to their actions they will almost always stick with their friends.  Again, these virtual moral decisions don't have RL consequences.
  7. As a result of 5 & 6, unless there is some other catalyst the existing friendships and confederations will maintain themselves.
  8. Regardless of how justified you feel there is someone who will feel counter-justified just as strongly.
  9. All of this is moral searching is (in my SJC) way too much to consider in an internet war game.
  10. More reasons... but I'm tired of typing...

So yes, I agree that it is the simple answer.  But it arrives at the same conclusion as the more complex answer so I prefer it. 

Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

It´s too late to stop this all now, but not too late to think about some forms of behaviours, that seem to have given rise to the current situation. It´s very probably not by chance, that NC was used as an occasion and not DLords, as former are forseeably prone to war. If you really dislike war, as H? stated, then having an ally, that through it´s behaviour is either directly causing mistrust and enmity towards them and you or through it´s predictability is giving an easy and seemingly valid occasion for a war, may be a stupid thing...

I don't feel your assumptions here are correct. I don't see enough hard evidence to prove that somewhere, in the secret H? board room, there is a table of pieces that are moved around at their whim and whimsy.  At best they took advantage of a situation they had no control over.  On the other end they are reacting to events as they unfold.  You and I will never know.  And it doesn't matter anyways because the distance between those two options is so small that events would unfold the same regardless.

All this "we should dig deep and morally decide what/where/when/why" nonsense is academic. Exceedingly few people will give up there in-game friends because of a moral viewpoint in a game without any RL consequence.  There may be a few - but seriously - no one is dying here.  These are all just numbers in a database somewhere in England.  I find it amusing that more soul searching has been demonstrated here then in some of the RL actions that have taken place in our lifetimes.

Always a pleasure Ari!,
edit: I wanted to make the list with fancy bullet numbers.  Morale != Moral.  no != not.


Edited by WeeAshley - 07 Nov 2013 at 20:47
Back to Top
Aristeas View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 77
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 11:04
Morning Wee

I still don´t get how you quote nicely here, so I will do it the old way^^

"Hogwarts, right?"

DAMN! What did betray me?^^

"SJCs are subjective. Meaning there is no universal right or wrong."

Indeed, and that´s why I am not trying to convince anyone here of my opinions. I try to work dialectically with those SJC´s that are used by otheres here in order to argument or that are stated as their aims.

So I am not interested in what is morally good here, neither in an 'absolute' way nor in my subjective view, but what arguments are brought up and how they fit the actions and (claimed) aims of the participants. "Good" in this sense is a lack of contradictions between what you claim to be doing and what you are doing (because this way you can at least get respect or even convince others of your aims) and a lack of contradictions between what it is that you are achieving through your means and what your proclaimed aimes are (because it´s good if you get what you want, well mostly somehow^^).

So if A says he is doing B, but actually is doing C, I would call it bad, because it is contradictionary. And in this special case, where H? had a string of arguments, that it used to justify the consone-war with, which now swings back with others using it to justify war against H?, it´s bad, because it (may) lead others to proclaim war against H?, what they claimed not to desire. No moral, just logic, the pragmatic actual situation and the proclaimed aimes/wishes involved.

So I think it is not morally wrong/bad what they are doing/have done, but selfcontradictionary (bad logic) and probably leading to the enmity and declarations of more people (bad in the pragmatic sense of having to deal with stuff you would rather not like to have to deal with). I mean, if you are in a situation, that you not particulary like, something must have gone wrong, and more often than not you will have your share in it´s genesis. If you refrain from doing some reflection, you will likely come again into a similar situation, though you claimed you didn´t want to.

If A says he is doing B and actually doing it, I usually don´t intervene or comment, how ugly B may be, as in this case you can´t do dialectics, and in that case "Explaining complex rationale on an internet gaming forum is fruitless." is true, and the problems of subjectivity and all that do apply. But as long as stances are contradictory, you can force conclusions on them by just using what those people say themselves. 

" I don't see enough hard evidence to prove that somewhere, in the secret H? board room, there is a table of pieces that are moved around at their whim and whimsy."

Mh, not totally sure we understood us here rightly. My referrence for the plotting was EE/ex-Valar. They were able to instigate all this, and especially to get new, unsuspected allies in.

My referrence for H? was, that they have an ally, that was acting so foreseeably, that EE/ex-Valar could instigate all this without big problems. If you have an ally, that gets you easily in such a situation, it might be a bad one, just on the level of pragmatics.

The other referrence is, that H? used the "police"-argument for the Consone-war, while now not only saying, that it doesn´t apply here, but also trying to ridicule those that claim to be doing the police-job H? did before (on the level of their argumentation of course).

If you claim to rightfully have fought a war against bullies, you can´t at the same time argument that others fighting your bully ally and yourself aren´t in the right.

"All this "we should dig deep and morally decide what/where/when/why" nonsense is academic."

Indeed, but giving contradictory answers to those questions is nonsense too, and that is the potentilly worse and avoidable stuff. I don´t want all people to hugg themselfs, I just expect coherent stances. You may even claim you dont´t want to be coherent (posibly a wise decision even in many cases), I just step in if you claim to have an coherent argumentation but actually don´t have one.

I didn´t critisized your stance, just showed a point where people could think otherwise. So probably next to searching for outright inconsistencies I just sometimes show the limits of the extension... And usually that´s the point were even reasonable people differ and where you can learn or just drive home polemics...

"These are all just numbers in a database somewhere in England"

Indeed, indeed, all the more a reason to try to be coherent, we don´t want additional bugs! Wink

And the pleasure is all mine Smile
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 11:50
Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

Morning Wee

I still don´t get how you quote nicely here, so I will do it the old way^^


You press "quote" on the upper right of a post and the reply form appears with the whole post between quote  /quote  tabs.

After that you copy paste those tabs and you enclose the text you want to quote. Hope that helped. Smile
Back to Top
Aristeas View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 77
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 13:05
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

 Hope that helped. Smile

Indeed, thanks Clap
Back to Top
WeeAshley View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 15:33
Good morning Ari!

You seem intent on dragging this in to a philosophical discussion.  Since I'm sitting here enjoying my morning coffee I'm in the perfect mindset for it, so I will indulge you.  I am fully aware that 99% of people reading this post won't give a sh*t.
Embarrassed

Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

"Good" in this sense is a lack of contradictions between what you claim to be doing and what you are doing (because this way you can at least get respect or even convince others of your aims) and a lack of contradictions between what it is that you are achieving through your means and what your proclaimed aimes are (because it´s good if you get what you want, well mostly somehow^^).
In the spirit of lofty, impractical, philosophical debate I am going to object to almost every definition you put on "good" or "bad".  Not only because of the historical difficulties of defining such things, but also because we are playing a game, so morality becomes even more a gray area (if it is possible to be more gray).

If we were talking about a real-world government that was saying x and doing y then I might be more lenient with my objections to your moral absolutes.  But assuming that these say-one-do-another events are provable (which is a big assumption) I don't feel they are morally questionable.

I have the belief that I shouldn't run people over with my car, yet in Grand Theft Auto I do it all the time.  Do I experience cognitive dissonance because of this?  Hell no, I experience the feeling of WIN! :)

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

" I don't see enough hard evidence to prove that somewhere, in the secret H? board room, there is a table of pieces that are moved around at their whim and whimsy."
Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

Mh, not totally sure we understood us here rightly. My referrence for the plotting was EE/ex-Valar. They were able to instigate all this, and especially to get new, unsuspected allies in.
Well, the same logic applies even though the target changes.

Originally posted by Aristeas Aristeas wrote:

If you claim to rightfully have fought a war against bullies, you can´t at the same time argument that others fighting your bully ally and yourself aren´t in the right.
You absolutely can.  Look - over there - it is being done, therefore it can be done.  Based on the context of your post I'm going to assume you mean it can't be done without being "bad" (whatever "bad" means).  In which case I will bring up some points:
  1. I disagree with your premise that morally bad = cognitive dissonance. You will need to prove that to me.
  2. I disagree that game-allowable actions can be evaluated in the moral spectrum.
  3. Even if you establish the above you still need to establish that anything like you said has occurred, which, given the subtleties of interaction, I think is an equally impossible task.
Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

"All this "we should dig deep and morally decide what/where/when/why" nonsense is academic."
Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

Indeed, but giving contradictory answers to those questions is nonsense too, and that is the potentilly worse and avoidable stuff. I don´t want all people to hugg themselfs, I just expect coherent stances. You may even claim you dont´t want to be coherent (posibly a wise decision even in many cases), I just step in if you claim to have an coherent argumentation but actually don´t have one.
Well, we can both probably agree that what you want is inconsequential. My posts argue from the pragmatic stance of "this is what happens when playing online games (or any games for that matter)." If I'm understanding you correctly you are arguing from a point of "contradiction is a moral absolute that can be applied to video games."  If that's true then we should all be repenting to whatever god we believe in - and we should stop playing almost all video games immediately.

Except Tetris. There is nothing morally wrong with tetris. This is an absolute. Particularly the Tetris sound track. I'm going to go load that up on loop in youtube now.  You should too.  Everyone should.


Edited by WeeAshley - 08 Nov 2013 at 16:07
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 19:22
I wonder what harsh terms will be offer before alliances are allowed to surrender...paybacks are fun!...this might be another reason for fighting!
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2013 at 21:24
Originally posted by twilights twilights wrote:

I wonder what harsh terms will be offer before alliances are allowed to surrender...paybacks are fun!...this might be another reason for fighting!


Whats it have to do with you?  After all you are not fighting.

Till someone wants to surrender then there is no point discussing such matters anyway.
Back to Top
Aristeas View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 77
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 16:48
Hello Wee

Sorry for the late answer, but the reason for it is somehow fitting: was visiting Münster on Saturday where the peacetreaty that ended the 30years war was signed.

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

  I am fully aware that 99% of people reading this post won't give a sh*t.
Embarrassed

To quote Seneca: majority errs (he just forget to add, that the minorities do too Wink )

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

In the spirit of lofty, impractical, philosophical debate I am going to object to almost every definition you put on "good" or "bad".

Well, indeed it´s hard to get to a common definition of moral values, but that´s why I didn´t define good (a definition in the classical sense is a statement about what a thing really IS), but merly was saying how i would USE it in the following sentences. I am not delving into the realm of the real, I try to stay at the discoursive level here.

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

If we were talking about a real-world government that was saying x and doing y then I might be more lenient with my objections to your moral absolutes
I tried to make clear, that I didn´t intent to go into the moral realm but tried to stick to the discourse used here in the forums in their discussions by the players and to the pragmatical consequences of it.

My point was not, that contradiction is bad in the moral sense of the word, but bad in the sense of giving you undesireable and impractical outcome.

In this special case, the discourse and argumentation used by H? for justifying the last war can be used by their present enemies. So in a sense they are arming their enemies, what´s not morally bad, but very impractical and undesireable.

Additionally, this behaviour can be seen by others (so we are just on the discoursive level again, that is, just in the analysis of what is being posted here) as being hypocrisy, what can lead to additional enmity in others, which again can lead to more enimies. And having more enimies is not bad in a moral sense, but impractical and undesireable (at least as far as we take the announcements here of H? for real that they don´t want to fight).

You said yourself, that usually allies stick together, funnily in this war there were breakings of Alliances on both sides. So you, even more then me, have to wonder, how the current mess can have occured, when you yourself proclaim it to not be the norm... Well, not you, as you said you are not interested in the meta-level behind it (whats totally consistent), but others here try to play this game. 

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

  But assuming that these say-one-do-another events are provable (which is a big assumption) 
Well, yes and no, of course there are problems involved (though with the ammounts of spies around they are not that high), but that´s why I try to stick to the discoursive level that´s around here in the forums. This say-one-do-another can be seen in the statements of involved persons, and as statements about these people. That´s probably why some neutral but concerned guys like Vanerin or me were primaly asking questions considered the stance of H? to NC and not throwing around accusations...

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

 Do I experience cognitive dissonance because of this?  Hell no, I experience the feeling of WIN! :)
Indeed, and even if you would experience some dissonance because of it, it would fade away quite soon, as humans are extremly efficient in displacing those cognitive dissonances. But the level here is the pragmatic one, H? claims to be not happy about the war, so the dissonance is between what you want and what you get, and that dissoance is more stingy...

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

 You absolutely can.  Look - over there - it is being done, therefore it can be done.
No, because as you said yourself, logic applies here too. If you do argumentation, then it´s either because you want to convince, or because you just want to persuade polemically. If your argumentation is faulty [and in the strict sense not an argument anymore], you probably won´t convince many. If convincing is your aim, then bad arguments won´t lead you there, so that´s why I was throwing around critical questions. They are usually good occasions to look into your own assumptions and arguments to make them more accurate... I can understand, that you usually won´t lend an ear to the arguments of your enimies, but coming from a neutral side, it´s easier. Well, at least in my opinion and experience...

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

 I disagree that game-allowable actions can be evaluated in the moral spectrum.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but I am dealing partly with the discourse that is used to do just this. And I am trying to drag it more to the pragmatical side. For many moral "arguments" much better pragmatic ones can be found... Where I have given away my personal moral judgements, it was just to show that I am not onesidedly leaning to one of the sides involved, otherwise I donn´t think I have told others what would be morally right, I am just doing dialectics with what is called good/justified by some.

I mean, it´s like reading a interreligious dialogue. You don´t have to be a member of any of those involved, but you can still delve into the dialogue and try to follow the arguments and try to see where the problems lie. 

Originally posted by WeeAshley WeeAshley wrote:

 contradiction is a moral absolute that can be applied to video games."

My point was merly, that contradiction in your argumentations won´t convince, may arm your enemies with arguments that may convince others and that other players very well may make moral judgements about you on this ground, wich may again lead to more enmities or even more enemies in war. And as H? said they didn´t want war, having even more enemies in a war against you is bad, on the pragmatic level.

I mean, it´s like saying going into a porcelain shop and smashing everything is bad. I woulnd´t say it because it´s immoral to destroy others belongings, but because it can hurt you and get you in prison. That is not in itself a problem (some might enjoy getting cuts, others may need a shelter for the coming winter, etc.), but a problem if you like your health and freedom...

Of course in my personal stance I am quite against war, but mainly for aesthetic reasons, I just don´t like and enjoy it, with all the work involved, especially when timing is needed etc. . But I don´t see where this leaped too much into what I am trying to do here with my argumentation...

Edit for demessing the quotes and one clarification


Edited by Aristeas - 11 Nov 2013 at 16:56
Back to Top
Le Roux View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 06:52
So many pages ,  so many brilliantly contorted and self serving explanations to spin one way and then another ...   all should really go back to Vanerin's reference to Occam's Razor way back a dozen or so pages....   just in case those without access to google  . . .

It goes something like --  if you are presented with a plethora of competing hypotheses,  it is often best to start filtering them out by choosing the the one that requires the fewest assumptions . . .  

(and make sure you are right about the assumptions, as it seems as if far too many cannot discern the forest from the trees )

Vanerin is indeed wise  . . .


Edited by Le Roux - 12 Nov 2013 at 06:55
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 13:46
its crazy fighting against urself...the permasat war!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 212223
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.