Join the new world

This article, a second installment on the debate over eRepublik's ultimate goal and purpose, is yet again a response to a well constructed article by Ananias entitled "An eAmerican Perspective - 'Risk' Reverse"

Although this reviewer would agree with Emerick that Ananias' sole purpose of advancing the eUSA (eAmerica is a misnomer since that would include Canada, Central, and South America) is problematic in that it presupposes the eUSA holds the ultimate model in governance. If the referenced author would simply acknowledge that the eUSA could stand to learn quite a bit from foreign leadership and societies, as well as benefit from the diversity of our cultures and philosophies, then the rest of the military goals outlined in the referenced article seem like a fantastic idea. In other words, the plan is great... the motivations are off base.

This reviewer also echos the sentiments of Ataulfo in that "eRepublik is not a game. It is a social simulation. There is no way to win a simulation. You can simulate a society, but there is simply no path to victory." This may or may not be true depending on the definition of victory. Ataulfo is suggesting the impossibility of victory from the impression that the eUSA is not the only group of citizens who should be victorious. Ananias is suggesting the possibility of victory, based on a definition confined to the eUSA. If the eUSA "wins" then all other eNations "lose". If the imperialist nations "win" then all other nations "lose". This is also assuming a consensus among the definition within the eUSA, which there is not. Therefore, there can be no true eRepublik victory according to Ananias definition, despite the (unlikely) possibility of an eUSA victory.

Your correspondent might alternatively propose victory as an eRepublik that is constantly looking to improve the efficiency and autonomy of ALL eNations, while simultaneously decreasing disparities in wealth, increasing wellness, and diminishing rogue nations/regions. Perhaps "winning" is not an eUSA victory, but an eRepublik victory. If approached from this perspective... the proposal of using the eUSA to begin modeling this "ideal" and to begin defending other eNations who wish to join us in this endeavor is a strong one. Therein lies another problem, however. Not all eNations desire this same ideal - as evidenced by the many imperialist nations. So we, as a nation, come to a difficult decision. Is our "ideal" (which we don't even agree on as a nation) worth destroying the ideals of other nations? If so, our task is more clear. If not... we must first establish a consensus on our "ideal". Without this consensus of an ultimate goal... the "game" becomes an unending cycle of debate, war, and hurt feelings; but perhaps THIS is the "ideal" and it has already been achieved! Perhaps we are already simply perpetuating the goal that was predetermined from the game's initiation.

Your correspondent also realizes however, the very fact we choose to live in the eUSA and choose to fight for the eUSA suggests that there is something about eUS philosophy that we consider superior to any alternatives. This reviewer hopes that those superiorities are freedom, autonomy, and self-worth of all individuals... and that ALL citizens of ALL nations might simply enjoy their eRepublik experience.

Ananias raised some important questions: "Why play at all? Why does PEACE or ATLANTIS feel the necessity to form alliances? Why does any nation or individual make any effort at all to coordinate military efforts, or campaign for elections, or even two click for that matter?"

This reviewer would suggest that the answer to all of these questions is an individual desire for power. Individuals choose to play because they enjoy political, economic, or military posturing. They enjoy "success" as defined by increasing individual influence and power. PEACE and ATLANTIS feel the need to form alliances in order to increase power to achieve mutual goals. The same applies to individual nations - increase power and influence, or die trying. This is very similar, if not identical, to the motivations of most RL individuals. Is it possible that our philosophy should change from increasing centralized power - to redistributing it equally among all nations, and all citizens? Is this unrealistic and unattainable? Are we so afraid that the majority of individuals will make poor decisions and have "wrong" philosophies that we must concentrate the power closest to ourselves to ensure we are always right? This reviewer cannot claim to know the outcome of such an ideal, but chooses to hope in the wisdom of the majority.