30
How game Morality and Winning can work together.
I have heard a lot of talk over the past month about morality and how it is incompatible with winning (a.k.a. becoming a world super power). I feel this is a large misconception because morality is not at odds in any way with efforts towards our national defense or growth. I think the main reason this misunderstanding happens is because people’s definition of morality in terms of this game gets confused with people’s definition of morality in real life. Like so many other things that occur in this game people have a hard time setting aside their real life beliefs. We are unable to communicate effectively because people are too busy arguing about petty things that don’t matter in the context of this game. In order to make progress as a nation we must start to think critically about how we play this game and good place to start is with our moral foundation.
Morality in eRep can be defined as playing in a way that does not violate the rules, exploit the rules in such a way that it violates the spirit of the game, or hurts another player’s enjoyment of the game in any way this includes personal attack and cheating.
A good example of exploiting the rules is a political take over. The administrators have clearly stated that PTOs are not an intended part of the game hence their development of citizenship in an attempt to combat this growing problem. PTOs also take the fun out of the game for the country getting PTO’d. Who would want to play the game if they can’t even support their own government? For the most part the administrators do a good job of punishing people who violate the written code of conduct. PTOs are the exception the admins can’t punish anyone for them because they are clearly not a violation of eReps written rules. PTOs aren’t a rare occurrence either almost every country attempts them PEACE does it, ATLANTIS did it, and the eUSA has even supported a few such as the attempt on Russia in April. Even after the citizenship mod has been added I feel that PTOs will still happen if a country is determined enough. I highly doubt paying a few gold, waiting a week or two, or whatever restrictions are put in place is going to stop people who really want to do it. I think that everyone has a duty to put an end to PTOs even if the PTO is started by an ally simply because using them is exploit of the rules that ruins the fun of the game for whole countries.
Morality doesn’t prevent anyone from defending their country. Anything done in the name of defense would be moral whether it is defending against a PTO or attacking another country in order defend an ally or to open up another front in a war thus defending us. If it can be justified as a defensive action it is also a moral action.
Morality and expansion is where it all gets complicated. In order for expansion to be moral it has to be handled in such a way that all options are explored, for instance instead of going to war to gain a new region why not trade regions with another country? Obviously trading regions is much more complicated then just zerging another country into submission, but I also feel its much more satisfying for both sides, no one loses and everyone wins. If the only option is to gain a new region through war then we should only conquer the regions necessary to our goal and when we have achieved it we should give all extra regions back under the condition that we keep our goal. That way we don’t take more then we need and ruin that country’s fun.
Morality and winning do work very well together its not easier then doing whatever you want whenever you want but I feel the challenge of it makes the game more fun not only for our nation but for all the nations.
On a slightly unrelated note I am running for congress in Georgia my first small platform is here so please vote it up thank you.
Morality in eRep can be defined as playing in a way that does not violate the rules, exploit the rules in such a way that it violates the spirit of the game, or hurts another player’s enjoyment of the game in any way this includes personal attack and cheating.
A good example of exploiting the rules is a political take over. The administrators have clearly stated that PTOs are not an intended part of the game hence their development of citizenship in an attempt to combat this growing problem. PTOs also take the fun out of the game for the country getting PTO’d. Who would want to play the game if they can’t even support their own government? For the most part the administrators do a good job of punishing people who violate the written code of conduct. PTOs are the exception the admins can’t punish anyone for them because they are clearly not a violation of eReps written rules. PTOs aren’t a rare occurrence either almost every country attempts them PEACE does it, ATLANTIS did it, and the eUSA has even supported a few such as the attempt on Russia in April. Even after the citizenship mod has been added I feel that PTOs will still happen if a country is determined enough. I highly doubt paying a few gold, waiting a week or two, or whatever restrictions are put in place is going to stop people who really want to do it. I think that everyone has a duty to put an end to PTOs even if the PTO is started by an ally simply because using them is exploit of the rules that ruins the fun of the game for whole countries.
Morality doesn’t prevent anyone from defending their country. Anything done in the name of defense would be moral whether it is defending against a PTO or attacking another country in order defend an ally or to open up another front in a war thus defending us. If it can be justified as a defensive action it is also a moral action.
Morality and expansion is where it all gets complicated. In order for expansion to be moral it has to be handled in such a way that all options are explored, for instance instead of going to war to gain a new region why not trade regions with another country? Obviously trading regions is much more complicated then just zerging another country into submission, but I also feel its much more satisfying for both sides, no one loses and everyone wins. If the only option is to gain a new region through war then we should only conquer the regions necessary to our goal and when we have achieved it we should give all extra regions back under the condition that we keep our goal. That way we don’t take more then we need and ruin that country’s fun.
Morality and winning do work very well together its not easier then doing whatever you want whenever you want but I feel the challenge of it makes the game more fun not only for our nation but for all the nations.
On a slightly unrelated note I am running for congress in Georgia my first small platform is here so please vote it up thank you.
Facebook
Twitter
I like your style, Tom... again, I'm lucky to have you as my LIB VP let alone even a part of the LIB party.
I think it is also a matter of what people think is moral. some have suggested we just throw out all our morals, when perhaps we can just rethink them. Refusing to PTO, did not gain the usa a high moral ground. However there is a difference between a PTO as an act of war, theft, or just to wreck destruction. Some nations have pto'd other nations and really messed up the economy and such, even when these nations were no real threat. a few nations on the other hand, are just satellite nations passing from one ruler to another.
morality is a subjective term with an extremely large grey area.
What one person considers a 'moral' another would consider a weakness.
So while I agree with much of what you say, I cannot agree that morality should ever be a guidepost by which we judge or motivate our actions.
I eated a baby in honor of this article. Voted.
This is a conversation ve need to have.
Vhen I first arrived, President Scrabman vas touted as a genius for vriting an article, explaining the difference betveen role play and game play. His argument generally vas, if this is a game, you have to play to vin. The ends alvays justifies the means, it doesn't matter vho you have to hurt to get ahead, so long as you have the nerve--I call it lack of shame--to give the necessary cheap shot, to turn a blind eye at the right moment, to allov others to suffer so you and yours can live at ease.
I've alvays considered that vrong.
This is role play. Good guys versus bad guys. There are things like honor and dignity in eRepublik. Backstabbing and theft define you as a citizen and as a country. I don't believe, you have to learn hov to slit a fev throats if you vant to get ahead, so long as it's someone else's throat. You are knovn by the fruits of your labor. I don't think morality is relative. Ve all knov vhat doing the right thing is. Ve make mistakes, ve may dig ourselves into holes and get pushed into corners, ve von't alvays make the right decision, but if ve act in good faith, vith honor, and ve admit vhen ve do the vrong thing and shov some degree of empathy vhen our actions hurt others, even if that vas not the intention, ve end up being the good guys at the end of the day.
And if this is a game, if there are vinners and losers, then vhat ve already knov about fair play, that cheaters never vin and vinners never cheat, is a perfect definition of vho's vinning.
There is more than one vay to play eRepublik, and I fully intend to prove it. Hopefully, I already have.
Every time I read an article about "winning the game", I cringed because not only did no one clearly define their idea of what winning the game entails but they also assumed there was only one way to win and only one way to get there. They acted as though this was clear to anyone who could use an excel spreadsheet and that anyone who had come to a separate conclusion was merely a roleplayer.
A certain President of the United States was frustrated by the roleplayers' inability to just jump on the band wagon so he could win it, already. No matter whether you are roleplaying or not, being president is going to take some leadership ability. His article failed to convince me that "his way" was the best way to win, if indeed there is such thing as winning eRepublik at all.
@osmany I did define it in my article but I will further define what I believe winning is here. Winning at eRep is being the best your country can be. Indonesia and Hungary are both good examples. The eUSA isn't there yet but we are close.
Good article.
Great article! The ends certainly do not justify the means.
Voted and subscribed.
@Tom. Sounds too general to me. I might have a different idea of what would make the eUS as great as it could possibly be. How do we measure success? How do we know when we're done?
Great article Tom! Voted you up buddy!