Smorgasboarding: Pros and Cons

In another post I put forth some ideas on why I think it's not desirable to "smorgasbord."  For practical reasons and game experience enhancement I believe it is a bad practice.

The question of ethics is a difficult one since there may be a lot of divergent standards and basis of ethical behaviors.  I think equal respect of all players is one of the basis of a sound and practical ethic I think, and one to which most, if not all, will agree. 

So here's my statement on why "smorgasbording" is unethical if we start with equal respect of all players. 

1) It is unethical because it shows more respect for large and established players than small ones.  If something is said in the forums which is offensive to somebody, I doubt they will attack a large and well connected alliance but they might very well attack an individual player or a small alliance.  It's just a pragmatic decision but one which means that those in well established alliances can say more and say it more freely than those not in such alliances.

2) It is unethical if it is done in response to well reasoned and well argued points addressing the subject at hand, (as opposed to personal attacks).  Again, it is disrespectful to a player to attack them for what they think and say in the forums if their utterances are civil.

3) If you think respect means civility, there is nothing civil about sending armies to exact something from another player in the
game.  Thus, if respect means civility, it is unethical.

AJ

My ethical code tends to be somewhat situational and/or utilitarian.  For me, the "good" that I see to be created in Illy is the most fun for me and others.  Therefore I try to judge my behavior on whether something is likely to produce fun for me and for other people.  It is of course always easy to overweight one's own interests or values in such an attempt.

ajqtrz wrote: if you don't value ethics no amount of measuring will compel you to value what you don't value.  Ethics depends on a desire for the ethical and once you have that, you then can precede to find an ethical base.

i think if you look again at the post you will find me posing the questions that i think are relevant to an ethical judgement ("am i taking advantage?", "is this in his/her interest?") my point continues to be that "is bullying (on the forum) ethical?" is not an answerable question any more than "is manufacturing (in country x) ethical?". what are the conditions? what are the intentions? what are the effects? the question is an invitation to prejudgement, not to judgement.

ajqtrz wrote: In the end all that counts, from the standpoint of your "ethical system" is the size of the club you use to get what you want. But here's my problem with that.  If you reduce it all to the size of your armies and the force of your will (al la Nietzche) then all things are justified to the winner.

i recognise the system for what it is. that does not make unethical acts ethical or vice versa. but it is not inherently unethical for the powerful to use the power they have amassed or cowardly for less powerful players to be prudent in their speech.

Angrim,

I truely appreciate you considered responses.  Nice to have civil conversation.  As to your statement that "might has determined the state of play in illyriad since it's inception" I would agree.  With caveats.

First, in the end might will always determine the state of play in must about any game where a player can be silenced.  Sadly, people are not susceptible to persuasion if the position they must take based upon logic means giving up something they have, especially if it's a significant advantage for them.  Corporations in the US didn't wish to give up their monopolies but the US government stepped in and made them do so.  The US government is the people of the US, the ultimate sovereign of the lands within the borders of my country.  Our constitutions begins with "We the People" and that's who has the final word.  I believe Illy, like all human endeavors, must also have the same kind of sovereignty.  The game is designed to allow all kinds of players to "live and work" there and sometimes some peoples desires impinges on others.  When that happens it is the whole of Illy that has to determine if the impingement is good for the whole of Illy or not.  The right of self-rule is, I believe, one of the core premises upon which my whole "anti-land claim" stance rests.

That my style of play may not be respected by other players is acceptable.  However, I'm not arguing that you or anybody play like I do.  I'm arguing that you and everybody else, as much as possible, leave me alone to play the way I wish to play.  Land claims impinge one groups playing style upon another unnecessarily.  It is almost certain that there will be conflicts in the sandbox, but that doesn't mean one should rely upon "in-game intimidation, threats and coercions" to accomplish their goals especially when other means that are not intimidating, threatening or coercing are available.  Yes, it may be good strategy for them, but a better strategy would have been to accomplish what they wished to accomplished without the alternative and controversial methods.  Sadly the short cut taken is probably going to cost them more than if they had just done it in a manner already acceptable to all...or almost all I suppose.

This I love:

"i recognise the system for what it is. that does not make unethical acts ethical or vice versa. but it is not inherently unethical for the powerful to use the power they have amassed or cowardly for less powerful players to be prudent in their speech."

"The only thing necessary for triump of evil is that good men do nothing."  JFK (and others expressing the same sentiment for many a century).  My point is, only the self-centered and those bent upon the chains of selfish self-preservation take seriously the concept of keeping a low profile.  You seem to want to divorce the "system" in the game from human behavior.  It would be nice to act as avatars alone and not feel things.  But, alas, there's a real person behind the mask of the avatar and THAT is where ethical or not resides.  It's not in how we play the game but in how we play the game with others that ethics are important.

As for my offending others, there was a post that was wrong and caused some to be offended.  I've already apologized for that and have no need to do so again.  However, if you think it offensive to take a stand against what others think, especially if it is a reasonable stand (meaning only that reasons are given for taking that stand and not that others would necessarily come to the same conclusions), I would say that therefore all debate is offensive.  I'm not sure you wish to go that far.

I suspect that all others who may have taken offense have done so out of frustration more than offense given.  I've come to realize that some people are unable to engage in civil discussion without engaging in personal attacks and when one presents a determined resistance one usually encounters the undisciplined debaters out there.  I'm quite certain it must be the education they are getting, but I could be wrong.  In any case, if I have personally attacked any person and not apologized for my error, I do so here.  That I am not aware of it, is, of course, either inexcusable and shows I'm an insensitive clod, or that offense may have been taken and/or given needlessly.  In any ongoing debate it is quite possible to take offense where none was offered and to give offense unintentionally.  In civil discussion I think, such offenses are usually overlooked out of the graciousness it takes to engage in these types of things.

AJ 



Edited by ajqtrz - 19 Jun 2015 at 20:03

i'm glad you enjoy the responses, but really, i can't find any evidence that you actually read what i write here, as your responses are generally just further amplification of your own thoughts...and if you're not genuinely trying to appreciate the opposing view there's not much purpose to my posting here (as neither i nor eCrow has any claim to stake). i'll have one more go at it, but i hardly know where to begin.

ajqtrz wrote: people are not susceptible to persuasion if the position they must take based upon logic means giving up something they have, especially if it's a significant advantage for them.

this is a sweeping generalisation that would seem to deny any very meaningful effectiveness to ethical thought. i think with very little effort that you will find many examples throughout history of people sacrificing significant advantage on the basis of a personal ethical conviction, indeed so many that listing even a few examples here seems purposeless.

ajqtrz wrote: I believe Illy, like all human endeavors, must also have the same kind of sovereignty.  The game is designed to allow all kinds of players to "live and work" there and sometimes some peoples desires impinges on others.  When that happens it is the whole of Illy that has to determine if the impingement is good for the whole of Illy or not.  The right of self-rule is, I believe, one of the core premises upon which my whole "anti-land claim" stance rests.

disregarding by necessity the vague allusions to enlightenment philosophy and the USA economic and political history that Rikoo will not allow me to discuss here, you would seem to be calling for some sort of world government, formal or informal, that enforces the status quo. having lived first among the mCrows and later the eCrows, i can tell you that anarchy is a perfectly serviceable political concept and that your idea of a consensus that enforces itself with rolled-up sleeves seems to me the very opposite of "good for the whole of illy". that "the game is designed to allow all kinds of players to live and work" is technically true, but your implication that they ought to do so harmoniously without competition or conflict is rather the opposite of GM Stormcrow's design intent, at least as he has expressed it in the past.

ajqtrz wrote: I'm arguing that you and everybody else, as much as possible, leave me alone to play the way I wish to play.

which is, i think, just the way the claimants would express their desire for clear and defined boundaries.

ajqtrz wrote: Land claims impinge one groups playing style upon another unnecessarily.

you feel the impingement unnecessary because you don't desire the outcome. one might as well say that pedestrian crossing signals impinge on automobile traffic unnecessarily because everyone should just drive a car.

ajqtrz wrote: It is almost certain that there will be conflicts in the sandbox, but that doesn't mean one should rely upon "in-game intimidation, threats and coercions" to accomplish their goals especially when other means that are not intimidating, threatening or coercing are available.  Yes, it may be good strategy for them, but a better strategy would have been to accomplish what they wished to accomplished without the alternative and controversial methods.  Sadly the short cut taken is probably going to cost them more than if they had just done it in a manner already acceptable to all...or almost all I suppose.

right, so let me try to boil this down.
1) as i've already pointed out, *all* forms of claim make use of coercion, including the 10-square rule. do you support the 10-square rule? do you expect to defend your "claimed" land by military force? then you are no less guilty of coercion than is anyone else.
2) the emphasis in your paragraph is mine, as you seem to be saying that territorial claims are "wrong" because they are unusual. that is ironic to me mostly because i was playing when H? introduced the 10-square rule and i can tell you that it was *extremely* unpopular at the time. i do not see innovation as evil, so i cannot equate unusual with unethical.

ajqtrz wrote: only the self-centered and those bent upon the chains of selfish self-preservation take seriously the concept of keeping a low profile.

i cannot read this as anything more than an attempt to disguise namecalling as a form of discourse. so anyone who is not fighting is silly or selfish, and those who oppose you are evil? unworthy.

ajqtrz wrote: alas, there's a real person behind the mask of the avatar and THAT is where ethical or not resides.  It's not in how we play the game but in how we play the game with others that ethics are important.

i am curious about other games you may play, particularly games of competitive elimination. do you consider it a moral failing to capture an opponent's queen in chess? must Monopoly be played indefinitely, then, since the object is to force other players into bankruptcy? there is no substantial component of roleplaying in either example, and yet we recognise (most of us) that game ethics are not real ethics and pawns are not people. when a player in gc says that all catholics should be killed or that a player should drink poison and die (yes, both actual events), i have a moral reaction. when a player in gc says "we're going to wipe out alliance x" or "stay off my sov or i'll attack you", i reognise that as game play, and i do not have much difficulty knowing the difference.