Join the new world

Bring it....

Glad your still here Ralph Kline. Im a fan but you already know that.

Voted just for the last sentence.

case of beer and a bucket of chicken

I think defining 'Patriot' would have stirred up a bigger philosophical smackdown, so I'll just close with an inverted quote:
"You don't sell honor. You have to lose it."

@Plugson- Indeed, your honor is the way you make people think. Though I may not always agree with you, I can respect your method, it's merit.

Thanks, Ralph. I realize now that selling Citizenships is a good way to lose honour in eCanada, so perhaps that fits.
People do a lot of winning around here to earn honour, and for that they should be congratulated. Yet, the bigger honour should go to the players that don't do it for a slap on the back or a nice medal. Maybe honour is best carried silently through the day-to-day grind of getting stuff done.
There's a good group of players in eCan who do that, yet they don't get much encouragement these days.
o7 to the behind-the-scene workhorses

*Sniff*... Funny, It's been a long while since I've smelled intelligence. Almost forgot what it was.

I agree with this msg

The hate filled bigot agrees with this message.

It must be true!

Kline is Quality

Honour

Honour

As is the problem with eCan, Muglack is respected as the biggest freaking useless jackass bigmouth out there, F*** off you moron, you are part of the problem, lets say it right.

Honour. Well written, and thoroughly agreed, Ralph.

Tis Blue Moose approved.

I echo your sentiments, Ralph. Honor is important and relevant in any community. To behave honorably also requires humility and honesty -- it is disquieting to have terms like honor, hero, and patriot co-opted by those who have no humility, honesty, or regard for the community -- whether that community is virtual like this one or in community in RL.

Voted so hard I cracked my mouse.

Not to hijack this but I'd like to respond to Aeriala.

"Done trollin in canada and back like said. Trolololol"

That's what you wrote in your Citizenship application to the US which you applied for minutes after realizing you didn't make the CP ballot. I'm sure it came as a surprise that you didn't make the ballot after moving here less than a week ago, insulting anyone and everyone, and assuming you'd be the next CP in spite of it.

With all that in mind, you still consider me to be - and I quote - "the biggest freaking useless jackass bigmouth out there".

Is that what you would consider "honourable"? Because I don't.

Voted so hard I cracked my mouse. x2

lol

There are 3 things that are key to succes.

Support support support xD

I'm not too sure what to do with this... I agree with the sentiment [mostly]... However, I am ambivalent towards the concept of honor. Oft times, honor is linked with pride and dignity, and those are often taken to such heights that they are more destructive than constructive.

I'll close with this:

"No life has ever been saved by honor; sure, it has added to the value at the end of a life, but it is a life lost all the same."

- Someone more intelligent than me.

If there were more people who think this way, not just that this game would be a lot better, but also the real world would be a much nicer place to live. Because this is not just an article as a part of some simulation game. It's also a life philosophy.

I remember many players said to me: "It's just a game". Well, it's not!
It's not only about our attitude towards the game itself, but also a matter of our attitude towards other players. And that's where moral, honor and respect become relevant. Because what gives the game meaning is not a game itself, but our interaction.

It is just a gamme. So why should anyone feel the need to play without honour, although there is nothing to win? I never understood that.

""No life has ever been saved by honor; sure, it has added to the value at the end of a life, but it is a life lost all the same."

I strongly disagree. If we take a look at any war, we would realize that honor implies a course of conduct and is closely related to rules of war. For example killing of civilians, killing prisoners of war and or any unarmed person in general is behavior that is contrary to laws of war and is considered as dishonorable. But being merciful towards those who doesn't endangers you, in circumstances when you're in power, is considered to be honorable. So yes, honor do save lives.

I could give you a dozen similar examples of honor saving lives.

Dr.Pain, try to think in a way that schoolboy does. An amount of eRepublik medals that you can boast of your peers is likely the ultimate achievement of which you can think of. Maybe even some girl kisses your cheek. 😉

You could argue that way; however, should, for example, you make a mistake in the person/people you have chosen to show clemency to - what would the price for that be?

A most famous example is that of Julius Caesar's mercy towards Brutus and most of the conspirators who eventually murdered him.

In the case of a large-scale war, would the price of clemency be a guerrilla war fought against you by people you have spared? Such was the case in the Vietnam War, for one. Or, well, if you want a more theatrical and therefore less objective example, try watching Saving Private Ryan.

Listen, I do understand where you are coming from - but, as with most things, these ideas only work if everyone thought the same way. It only takes one person to screw things over - and I know that you can think of the easiest example of that in this scenario. Mind you, I do agree with the article, as I stated, but I also stated that I am ambivalent on the concept of honor due to these points I have mentioned above.

Hence, while I would expect myself to carry my actions with these ideals in mind, I have no expectations of the same from other people.

[removed]

Honour cuts both ways of course. Actually having a set of principles which serves as a unifying constuct can lead to poor or good behaviour: the point about honour is that it gives pride of place to considerations that are beyond immediate self gratification. Also, if you can figure out what honour code motivates others, their actions become more understandeable if not more acceptable.

On the subject of understandeable, Wally Cleaver has elsewhere explained the organizing principle of his play and of Norsefire's existence: take things away from other eCanadians. This is similar but not identical to my previous hypothesis: hurt other eCanadians.

This code may very well have been adopted by a large number of eCanadians. So I point out Wally's comment not as one which is patently wrong or bad. It is a possible choice. Once adopted, this code becomes the lens through which all is seen and understood. A player who adopts this or any other honour code will justify it, will find in it justification for all behaviours, will rely on it for meaning to actions and words.

Just as abstract honour can justify killing a woman for the "greater good, because honour requires it", so too can it justify giving one's life for the same reasons. Honour is important. Its concrete content more so.

Morality is fluid.

😁^
Yours need not be. 🙂

"How about if I really, really think I'm right? How about if I find others to follow me,even if they are following just because an adolesent desire to be part of a bad boys club?"

What happens when the greater masses of the society begin to follow this new moral code? With enough followers one can go from being a minority to becoming the majority and there for setting the moral code of the society. At this point do they now have honor and those who apose them loose it? At the end of the day Honor is going to be subject to ones point of view and the point to view of others whom we are judging or whom are judging us. No clear cut answer can evercome from any conflict and at the nd of the day it is the victor that chooses how history is writen for those in the future to read.

So using dis-honorable methods to become the majority, like deception and stealing (for examples only ofc )
is acceptable if it's being done with the goal of winning and resetting the moral code?
The ends justify the means?

Guess it depends how far you're willing to go to prove a point.

As well as morality, a honor is not universal for all societies in a whole world. It's kind of understanding of right and wrong and a fair play principle and it also implies a respect and self-respect. However, in a context of conflict (of any kind) it does not necessary implies clemency/mercy/forgiveness. As I already said, it's rather matter of fairness and "fair-play". There's always more than one way to do something. Some of it might be considered right and some might be considered wrong, or honorable and not-honorable. But honor almost always implies readiness to self-sacrifice.

Regarding what olivermellors wrote, I don't think any set of principles can be considered as code of honor. With all due respect, cheating, stealing, robing and hurting others is not honorable .Thus, it can't be considered as code of honor. It's simply lack of respect, self-respect and dignity.

cypher: It is true that the victors write the history. But notice. The way they write it always underlines their own honesty and good faith. Honesty and good faith is generally considered honourable behaviour. If eCanada cannot acknowledge/uphold these values, instead of spinning into pedantic discussions about moral relativism and the immense effort required to justify simple honesty and good faith, something is seriously amiss. Forum access won't make it better.

Semper: I think we agree, hence this part of my previous post --

"the point about honour is that it gives pride of place to considerations that are beyond immediate self gratification."

good job ralph. eCanada as whole really needed a adebate of this level. way to open some sleepy eyes!

@ Oliver and Ralph; My point is that no one is universally right. Naturally we are all going to stand up and claim ourselves to be doing the ethical proper thing but at the end of the day it is strictly point of view. What you consider fair others will see as foul play. Rylde, Rolo, 1ronman, Acaicia, Jacobi, William Duncan, Addy, Ralph and th list goes on and on of people who see them selves as being the ones doing the right thing, the moral thing and following some higher code of honor but when its all over and done with it is the victor that wins the masses and decides societies moral standard. Each and everyone of us plays this game by our own set of standards and ethical conduct an we each see our actions as just and fair and only when confronted by the masses do most cave and claim doing wrong when they have been unable to win the agreement of others.

Honor is in the eye of the beholder and is no different than beauty my friends

I'm not crazy about moral relativism when it encourages people to distrust their innate sense of concepts like 'honour' in order to allow for flexibility in judging others. If at the end of the day you can only decide that you have a 'viewpoint' to stand on, then you probably should either grow a spine or do less thinking because people with a stronger 'viewpoint' will walk all over your waffling liberalism.

As a gaming system, eRepublik functions on something you might call 'utility function' where we are trying to maximize our outcomes which are mainly economic as it relates to gaining/protecting resources that allow us to increase strength and our citizen stats, or what you might call basic survival of the fittest:

"'Utility function' is a technical term not of engineers but of economists. It means "that which is maximized." Economic planners and social engineers are rather like architects and physical engineers in that they strive to optimize something.

If you reverse-engineer the behavior of one country's government, you may conclude that what is being optimized is employment and universal welfare. For another country, the utility function may turn out to be the continued power of the president, the wealth of a particular ruling family, the size of the sultan's harem, the stability of the Middle East or the maintenance of the price of oil. The point is that more than one utility function can be imagined. It is not always obvious what individuals, firms or governments are striving to achieve."
~~Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden

I think it is becoming more difficult to distinguish what eCanada is "striving to achieve" as its utility function. The focus gets fuzzy at times and we need someone (a CP?) to clarify it whenever possible. Since this game is built on some kind of inter-dependence to accomplish the goal of improving stats, then we should at least keep in mind that what is honourable is what preserves this 'utility function' the game.

Even if you consider life/eLife to be strictly evolutionary and survival of the fittest, you have to admit there is practicality in behaving honourably in a way that fosters the trust and cooperation of the most people on your team to work towards a particular set of goals. Anything that breaks that trust without providing an alternate benefit to that utlity function is simply harmful to the goals of the group:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know"
~~Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden

Mechanical Nature is allowed to be heartless. I don't think cooperative groups should be designed in the same way. There's benefit in mitigating the hurt if you want to 'win' the game.

It's NOT a matter of honor; 'stealing' like 'murder' are by definition wrong.

I smell a couple low blows to certain individuals. But what you have said needs to be said.

Plugson, it's an interesting way of thinking. But I would like to point out that there's always more than one way to accomplish and achieve goals you're talking about. We can look at it, conditionally, as right and wrong way. One can become an ultimate top player by playing fair or playing unfair. Although playing fair would probably take more time and dedication while playing unfair would be easier way, that is the point where a question of honor come into place.
"I COULD DO THAT, BUT I WON'T. BECAUSE IT'S WRONG". - considering my respect for others.
But also, achieving my goals by taking some unfair actions, because it's an easier way to accomplish it, brings into question the overall value of achieved goals, in a relation to myself. This one is about self-respect. Because even if nobody else knows I've cheated - I would know. And if I have any self-respect, I can't be satisfied. It's a question of honor related to myself. A kind of self-evaluation.
The same applies to individuals, to political parties and whole eNations as well.

If I'm getting you right, Semper, you see it as
(Your point) "I don't do something wrong because it negatively affects my self-respect."
vs
(My point) "I don't do something wrong because it negatively affects the goals of the group."

These don't really seem exclusive to each other and I'm sure we operate by both on a regular basis, except when there's a seeming conflict between the two 'viewpoints' described above. Some cultures rely on shame/saving face to keep people in line while others appeal to a more individual sense of more rectitude. Here on eRep, the shame has fallen away quite a bit so all we can do is appeal to a person's individual sense of right and wrong. I'm thinking that if we had a better sense of how group goals directly relate to a player's own personal interests that people might be less disruptive when it comes to eCanada's day-to-day operations.

voted

Plugson, I agree 100%.

What we have had in eCanada is neither a debate or a competition between different codes of honour. If that were the case, the field if disagreement would be far more narrow, and the discussion far less divisive and destructive.

What we have is a (small) set of people who have set out deliberately to be jerks for the lulz. Everything they say around that is BS designed to obscure that fact.

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/john-gabriel-is-proven-right-again--1983128/1/20