Follow Up On My PTO Plea - EDIT: CITIZENSHIP
Day 607, 21:11
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Enoch Root
EDIT
The Admin have SPOKEN. Citizenship is coming!
The timeline on this will still allow for the Congressional Elections on Saturday to be rife with PTOs. My argument still stands concerning this election.
END EDIT
In my last article (HERE), I talked about PTOs, and how if the US starts to PTO people this will hurt us more than it will help.
I also debated a little bit in an article that came out a little while after mine which was pro-PTO (HERE).
Also, I saw quite a number of arguments for PTOs that deserve some thinking about, so I decided to write another article which will hopefully condense the argument against PTOs, and clear up some misconceptions about my last article.
Concerning the Comments in "The Fine Line Between US and Them"
I'll start with the worst arguments against mine, and work my way up.
"This is why PEACE will win, because the eUS is filled with people like the writer of this article"
PEACE will not win. You are naive to suggest this. It is true we are losing the short-term, but as we can see, we are already getting better at stopping them. The best argument for why we will win the war and not need PTOs to do so is the economic one.
We can outproduce them, we can out supply them, and we can out spend them. It is obvious we are not fighting as hard as we could, because we are fighting sustainably. This is a pace we can maintain day after day. We have tanked very little compared to them. The way we have been fighting has been with comparably very little sacrifice as far as how much personal gold has been poured into this war. They cannot outlast us, especially in a defensive war like this one. Zoli alluded to this himself HERE.
"There will ALWAYS be PTO's. We all know that PEACE and their affiliates will ALWAYS take advantage of their ability to TO another country. You posit that it would be detrimental to our honor and our image to TO another country. But if you think about it, would it be? Imagine, in the next elections, we TO Hungary. Sure, PEACE would boo-hoo about it, but they already hate us. Other countries, countries that were oppressed by Hungary, could be freed. They could be given reparations and peace. They would view us as heroes, as liberators. Our honor would be preserved, knowing that by TOing one country, we would be freeing ten!"
This is the lesser of two evils argument, and I have talked more about this in An American Political Takeover Unit
Concerning Civilizor's Article
From the comments of that article (by me): "There is no credibility in stripping a country of the right to fight us on the battlefield. The only times an offensive voting operation should be used according to your terms would be when there is a nation strong enough to threaten us, and in these cases, those nations are organized enough to prevent our PTO.
The only time we will be able to successfully PTO another nation is when that nation could ALSO be beaten by us in a conventional war. Who are we to take that aspect of the game, the aspect of fighting for your country, away from this nation and their people?"
The rebuttal to this is (from Civilizor in his article): "What you said about beating a country in a TO/convential war is completely true, however when dealing with a multitude of countries, using a PTO as a way to take one country out of that war in order to lessen the shear amount of countries at your doorstep is actually a smart move. We may be able to beat some of the PEACE countries 1v1, but thats not the case at the moment. Right now, we have quite a few countries attacking us, and most battles that we lost we lost by 10k-20k. Taking one country out of the war using a PTO could change the entire tide of the war no?
We can still use the high road even while using PTOs. All those things you mentioned are not needed to take a country out of a war. As long as we don't stoop to their level taking those measures, and only end wars and do what we went there to do, then we still cling to our morals and have a better chance of survival."
In response to this: We have already been shown that the US is incapable of using "the high road" when engaging in a PTO. Let's talk about France in the last Presidential elections. We had our agent in the running, Josh Frost, voters were being move into France, pro-Frost articles were being spammed in the French media. Alright, I can live with that. This would stop mobile voters form leaving France because they would have to defend against this. But we didn't stop there. At the same time as the elections, we started a resistance war in a non-native region of France.
Raise your hand if you know what that means o/
Here's how it would of gone down: Frost wins the election, right about then we start pushing hard in the RW. As the timer is running out on the RW, the US attacks a French region, Frost retreats, we hit the next region, retreat, ect. Eventually the only region left is the one region that is already under attack, and is being hit HARD. The battle closes, US owns all of France. This is what could of happened if we had won the election. How many people think we would of taken the high road and spared their gold and economy? How many people think we would of given them reparations and peace? I do not.
Just Because We Can, Doesn't Mean We Should
PTOs are a weapon that we have, this is true. The real question is what warrants the use of this weapon? There is only one case I could think of in which we should use this weapon, and that would be if we were taken over. If we PTOed the nation occupying our regions, that's one thing. If we PTOed a country that we don't like, that's another.
Why Morality Concerning PTOs is NOT a RL Thing
From Yesterday's article: "...I completely disagree. We must separate RL morals from in-game mechanics. No one is going to church here, or to confession, or being judged. No points are earned for being "above the fray"..."
This isn't about that, it's about eRepublik morals. The same morals that stop our Presidents from stealing all our gold and weapons (insert irony here), and the same morals that stop our senators from proposing to donate all our funds to a fake Org (and here), and the same morals that hold people back from pretending like they are our friends and fellow soldiers, but are actually Dutch spies (and here), and the same morals that stop people from giving our secret plans away to "Something Big" (and here).
We need standards. We have to know when to stop, we have to know when too much is too much. Why is there a coalition of nearly half the world attacking us? It's because of our morals have lapsed. It's like we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We have to have respect for other nations in this game if we are ever going to hope to get along with them. If we start PTOing nations, more will just rally behind our enemies' banner. Every time we do something stupidly aggressive, we look worse. Again, and again, and again, and again we have to go start some crap with other nations. PTOs will just be an extension to this.
So, I'm pleading America, use your votes to help prevent PTOs, but do not use them to destroy another nation.
The Admin have SPOKEN. Citizenship is coming!
The timeline on this will still allow for the Congressional Elections on Saturday to be rife with PTOs. My argument still stands concerning this election.
END EDIT
In my last article (HERE), I talked about PTOs, and how if the US starts to PTO people this will hurt us more than it will help.
I also debated a little bit in an article that came out a little while after mine which was pro-PTO (HERE).
Also, I saw quite a number of arguments for PTOs that deserve some thinking about, so I decided to write another article which will hopefully condense the argument against PTOs, and clear up some misconceptions about my last article.
Concerning the Comments in "The Fine Line Between US and Them"
I'll start with the worst arguments against mine, and work my way up.
"This is why PEACE will win, because the eUS is filled with people like the writer of this article"
PEACE will not win. You are naive to suggest this. It is true we are losing the short-term, but as we can see, we are already getting better at stopping them. The best argument for why we will win the war and not need PTOs to do so is the economic one.
We can outproduce them, we can out supply them, and we can out spend them. It is obvious we are not fighting as hard as we could, because we are fighting sustainably. This is a pace we can maintain day after day. We have tanked very little compared to them. The way we have been fighting has been with comparably very little sacrifice as far as how much personal gold has been poured into this war. They cannot outlast us, especially in a defensive war like this one. Zoli alluded to this himself HERE.
"There will ALWAYS be PTO's. We all know that PEACE and their affiliates will ALWAYS take advantage of their ability to TO another country. You posit that it would be detrimental to our honor and our image to TO another country. But if you think about it, would it be? Imagine, in the next elections, we TO Hungary. Sure, PEACE would boo-hoo about it, but they already hate us. Other countries, countries that were oppressed by Hungary, could be freed. They could be given reparations and peace. They would view us as heroes, as liberators. Our honor would be preserved, knowing that by TOing one country, we would be freeing ten!"
This is the lesser of two evils argument, and I have talked more about this in An American Political Takeover Unit
Concerning Civilizor's Article
From the comments of that article (by me): "There is no credibility in stripping a country of the right to fight us on the battlefield. The only times an offensive voting operation should be used according to your terms would be when there is a nation strong enough to threaten us, and in these cases, those nations are organized enough to prevent our PTO.
The only time we will be able to successfully PTO another nation is when that nation could ALSO be beaten by us in a conventional war. Who are we to take that aspect of the game, the aspect of fighting for your country, away from this nation and their people?"
The rebuttal to this is (from Civilizor in his article): "What you said about beating a country in a TO/convential war is completely true, however when dealing with a multitude of countries, using a PTO as a way to take one country out of that war in order to lessen the shear amount of countries at your doorstep is actually a smart move. We may be able to beat some of the PEACE countries 1v1, but thats not the case at the moment. Right now, we have quite a few countries attacking us, and most battles that we lost we lost by 10k-20k. Taking one country out of the war using a PTO could change the entire tide of the war no?
We can still use the high road even while using PTOs. All those things you mentioned are not needed to take a country out of a war. As long as we don't stoop to their level taking those measures, and only end wars and do what we went there to do, then we still cling to our morals and have a better chance of survival."
In response to this: We have already been shown that the US is incapable of using "the high road" when engaging in a PTO. Let's talk about France in the last Presidential elections. We had our agent in the running, Josh Frost, voters were being move into France, pro-Frost articles were being spammed in the French media. Alright, I can live with that. This would stop mobile voters form leaving France because they would have to defend against this. But we didn't stop there. At the same time as the elections, we started a resistance war in a non-native region of France.
Raise your hand if you know what that means o/
Here's how it would of gone down: Frost wins the election, right about then we start pushing hard in the RW. As the timer is running out on the RW, the US attacks a French region, Frost retreats, we hit the next region, retreat, ect. Eventually the only region left is the one region that is already under attack, and is being hit HARD. The battle closes, US owns all of France. This is what could of happened if we had won the election. How many people think we would of taken the high road and spared their gold and economy? How many people think we would of given them reparations and peace? I do not.
Just Because We Can, Doesn't Mean We Should
PTOs are a weapon that we have, this is true. The real question is what warrants the use of this weapon? There is only one case I could think of in which we should use this weapon, and that would be if we were taken over. If we PTOed the nation occupying our regions, that's one thing. If we PTOed a country that we don't like, that's another.
Why Morality Concerning PTOs is NOT a RL Thing
From Yesterday's article: "...I completely disagree. We must separate RL morals from in-game mechanics. No one is going to church here, or to confession, or being judged. No points are earned for being "above the fray"..."
This isn't about that, it's about eRepublik morals. The same morals that stop our Presidents from stealing all our gold and weapons (insert irony here), and the same morals that stop our senators from proposing to donate all our funds to a fake Org (and here), and the same morals that hold people back from pretending like they are our friends and fellow soldiers, but are actually Dutch spies (and here), and the same morals that stop people from giving our secret plans away to "Something Big" (and here).
We need standards. We have to know when to stop, we have to know when too much is too much. Why is there a coalition of nearly half the world attacking us? It's because of our morals have lapsed. It's like we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We have to have respect for other nations in this game if we are ever going to hope to get along with them. If we start PTOing nations, more will just rally behind our enemies' banner. Every time we do something stupidly aggressive, we look worse. Again, and again, and again, and again we have to go start some crap with other nations. PTOs will just be an extension to this.
So, I'm pleading America, use your votes to help prevent PTOs, but do not use them to destroy another nation.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I love your paper, but I disagree with your stance on this.
You make a lot of assumptions that have been proven invalid in game.
and as the admin have declared PTOs a viable method of gameplay/warfare, and they are the ultimate administrator of justice (and indirectly, the source of "morality" in game), I see no wrong in using it.
Thanks for the further explanation. Well written, although I still do not agree. PTO-ing in a world where our enemies successfully PTO our friends with ease is not morally equivalent to personally stealing your own nation's gold. Thanks for the compliment by the way. 🙂
Quote: "Why is their a coalition of nearly half the world attacking us?" Because Hungary and Indo have successfully cowed most of the rest of the world, and according to their own words, we're their only competition left. They're bored and want to control the whole world, and our freedom bugs the hell out of them. They know we will be unbeatable in a few months because of our growing strength. This was their only shot at maintaining global tyranny.
(Voted btw).
Thanks Quanah 🙂
@Chocolate - If the Admin were completely fine with PTOs they would not of started working on the citizen module - http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/citizenship-brainstorming-session-804659/1/20" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/citi[..]/1/20
I agree completely, Enoch. People's true colors come out when shit hits the fan like it is now. I'd rather us go down swinging than going down after throwing an elbow and a rabbit punch. It makes us look bad and it will erode any remaining political power we'd have if we were to lose.
We are getting better at fighting PEACE and as much our citizens don't know it, PEACE does. It's been less than a week and we're already turning into PEACE. Give it time, let them take a few regions. Sometimes you have to let you opponent get in a few good punches and overstep, so that you can smash him right back in the mouth when he's least expecting.
they are making it more difficult, yes. thats because as a game mechanism, its overpowered at the time being.
However, they are not outlawing it. it is not a bannable offense. its not against the "eRep Law"
Your point is valid about the citizenship thing, Chocolate.
PTOs now will not = PTOs after citizenship, though. It'll be completely different, more similar to the shoot incident in Germany.
You're like the principle (old fashioned nun) in the movie Doubt; afraid of ballpoint pens because their prevalence has caused a loss in penmanship. As in RL or any game you have to grow with the times/adapt to your opponents strategy. Needless to say offense is the best defense. That said if we had in fact taken France the current war would be under slightly different circumstances to say the least.
If nothing else we are in a game and anything the refs (admins) don't blow the whistle on is fair. Why does it matter how we would take a country? By your France comment I assume you're not against conquering our enemy but just doing it in the most expedient fashion.
To reiterate you seem to be agianst the ballpoint pen due to the decline in penmanship.
I applaud you enoch, its this type of debate and inclusion of RL morals and politics that makes this game fun for me. Continue using this medium to speak the truth, We all know games that are broken and suck when people exploit them, lets not destroy this game because of a broken rule. PTO's drive players away from the game and lead to its slow death.
I would count myself in with the camp that sees, really, nothing wrong with the PTO of an enemy nation. In fact, I am not sure I see anything ethically wrong with, say, running a PTO operation in Russia, or France at the moment.
To double down on that notion, I would be a bit peeved if our civilian and military leadership were not doing everything in its power to bring a swift and decisive end to the contretemps in which we are currently embroiled.
Let us not confuse what I am saying here with the casual use of such an option against other countries. I have no desire to rule the world. I just have the desire to not have to live in fear of being enslaved by it, or, more specifically, PEACE. If we have a tool at our disposal to help ensure our ultimate survival, I am not sure I understand the problem with its employ.
There is more than one avenue to victory in the current situation. Why would we not avail ourselves of them? Diplomacy is, after all, simply warfare in a pin striped suit.
Well, maybe @ the ballpoint pen thing, I didn't see the movie so idk though.
PTOs are fun only for the person that gets elected, who then gets to give all the regions away. It just seems to go totally against one of the biggest aspects of the game, which is war.
@Enoch - Well, put that way, I suppose I can see that. It is fun, after all. That said, seems to me that there may be more than one way to play and have fun.
That's one of the best arguments for PTOs I've been privy to yet, H. McCoy.
If PTOs were the last tool in our bag before we eDied, then maybe, maybe it would be acceptable.
Performing PTO's even on enemy nation, would make us more like PEACE. Do you want to be like PEACE? I wouldn't want to stoop to their level.
>Performing PTO's even on enemy nation, would make us more like PEACE.
This is assuming that there is something morally wrong with the act of the PTO. I do not see this.
While there may be something unethical about subverting the will of the citizenry of an innocent nation, I do not see the inherent evil in, say, running a PTO op against eHungary or eIndonesia. They have lived by the PTO, so, rather fitting that they die by it as well. Best part is, we could actually pull this off.
I understand and, in some ways, agree with your ideas on PTOs. My main beef is your departure from the military. You were one of the best leaders we had, and were most definitely one of the greatest infantrymen ever. To lose you is to lose an important part of the MI.
It is a FACT that whether or not you are in the military, offensive voting will still take place, and the same number of people will be doing it. Whether or not you are involved, it will happen. So really, the net difference here is the loss of a fantastic leader.
I have a feeling of what your answer will be, but I feel the need to try to get you back. So please, consider it.
That like saying only the Battle Hero has any fun; voting, reading the propaganda, and monitering your candidates lead or lack thereof is really exciting.
For me it's a great combo of foreplay and climax(if you win).
@enoch
@ Jimmy - Give me at least until the elections are over, if for some reason we do not actually use all our brand new mobile voting squads to make the US the most hated nation in eRep^2, then I may consider it.
@ satirist - Watching a PTO is just like watching eUS elections, except in another country. We have all the voting, reading propaganda, and monitoring of candidates you could want here 😉
Well said, for the love of Jah.
I'm in your corner, Enoch. Great article, and I really like the debate going on here. voted
the thing is that the US has never gotten credit for not being in PTO's. Back when we refused to pto we were just as criticized as others who had. no one ever said, hey at least the USA tries to be moral by not doing this.
High moral ground is not something that depends on exact actions. You slice innocent babies with the knife, and have high moral ground.
1) As far as I see, there isn't anything inherently wrong with PTO. PTO could be used by anyone, and it could be prevented. It is a legal tactic. Of course, it harms other players. But so does the war. And noone says anything against the war. Right?
2) IMO the problems of USA are diplomatic. They never taken much intrest in other countries. They supported strong. And USA were pretty irresponsible (yep, that's PEACE propoganda). Basically, USA did not have long-term srtategy.
I may remind of war between Finland and Latvia. USA did not take much intrest. PEACE did. So Latvia goes to PEACE, as does Lithuania. Yep, PEACE invested some recources there. Just like Finland did. But they gained more supporters. Should I remind how Argentina joined PEACE?
High moral ground is responsibility. Actual support of other countries.
// if you are still intrested in those babies, I was talking about surgeons.
1) PTO is different than conventional war though, all you can do is vote once against a PTO, you can blow your life savings to fight for your country.
2)I do agree with this, that's basically the message I'm trying to get across in the last part of the article.
Actual support of other countries, such as new starting countries, is only a part of it. I think if the US is going to take a lead role as it seems to want to do (see original Fortis agreement) then we should lead by example, and work to repair our reputation.
PTO is the atomic bomb of eRepublik.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-citizenship-is-on-its-way-864328/1/20#comments" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-[..]ents
I think your pleas might be answered soon Enoch.
That's definitely food for thought, Enoch.
I would say that the US should make all out attempts to PTO nations, just to keep Hungary and Indonesia's PTO troops busy.
I don't think the goal should be to win and wreck that country's economy. It should instead be viewed as a way to spike PEACE's guns--to place them on the defensive, instead of giving them the opening for another Croatia.
Indeed, PEACE will use PTOs, regardless of American morals. As such, our best defense against such an attack would be to keep them too busy protecting themselves to have time to go on the offense.
By the way, citizenship module FTW!!!!
Looks like the decision may be made for us anyways. Hoepfully the new module won't bug out like crazy and we can put this PTO garbage behind us.