King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
It seems there are next to no political consequences for switching back and forth from defender to invader, etc. Thoughts?
The NS community is too easy on people who switch sides
- Thread starter King Durk the Awesome
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
For some people maybe, but if I ever switched sides I don't think anyone on the defender side would trust me regardless of what I accomplish.
I think if people are loyally raider, but then grow up a bit and decide that playing king of the hill is a bit juvenile for them, so decide to become a defender, then that is fine.
If, however, in the process they betray and lie to those who trust them, then they will probably (and probably ought to) find that someone who proves themselves to be a backstabbing dick is unlikely to find trust easy to find again.
Trust is the one rock-solid NS currency.
If, however, in the process they betray and lie to those who trust them, then they will probably (and probably ought to) find that someone who proves themselves to be a backstabbing dick is unlikely to find trust easy to find again.
Trust is the one rock-solid NS currency.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
...and that's why I could never go Defender. I lack the undeserved sense of self righteousness required to look down on raiders and believe that I'm superior to them for playing a different side of the same game.flemingovia:
It is perhaps true that i forget the moral limitations of mere humans. one of the perils of being a god.Blue Wolf II:...and that's why I could never go Defender. I lack the undeserved sense of self righteousness required to look down on raiders and believe that I'm superior to them for playing a different side of the same game.flemingovia:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Some people are able to switch sides during an update! 
Abbey
TNPer
It was brilliant 
The silliness didn't escape me, and I enjoyed it all the same. I don't so much -switch- sides so much as never take a side truly in the first place. I think the community is rightly cautious of those who switch repeatedly, but those who have a change of heart for whatever reason happen and it shouldn't be discouraged cause all we'll do is either lose people or have a load of people not enjoying themselves. If you can be sure of a person's intentions then the trust stays there - I'd never violate the confidences of either side. Equally, there are those that -would-, and it ultimately comes down to a character judgement. I'd also argue that people aren't light on people who switch at all, by and large.
The silliness didn't escape me, and I enjoyed it all the same. I don't so much -switch- sides so much as never take a side truly in the first place. I think the community is rightly cautious of those who switch repeatedly, but those who have a change of heart for whatever reason happen and it shouldn't be discouraged cause all we'll do is either lose people or have a load of people not enjoying themselves. If you can be sure of a person's intentions then the trust stays there - I'd never violate the confidences of either side. Equally, there are those that -would-, and it ultimately comes down to a character judgement. I'd also argue that people aren't light on people who switch at all, by and large.
Cormac
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Cormactopia III
- Discord
- Cormac#0804
My thoughts are that this is basically inaccurate. When I switched from invader to defender, I was all but banned from the region I founded and put months of work into, banned without trial in another region in which I held office, and tried in yet another region with a permanent ban as my sentence no doubt pending. My chance at higher office in another region in which I was involved was also destroyed by my switch (not that this was the only impediment to higher office for me there), despite that region's claim of independence. It's my understanding that others who have switched sides have faced similar consequences.King Durk the Awesome:
It is true that there are fewer political consequences in neutral regions like The North Pacific, but I think that's understandable given that a neutral region shouldn't be quite as concerned with where its citizens are on the raider-defender spectrum.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I agree with Cormac.
I also think that it's sad that often when people change sides, they have to leave the friends they've made behind. It's like being forced between two groups of people that you like, but you just choose to take a different path. It doesn't mean you don't like them, just you no longer identify with what they do. At least that has been my observation
I also think that it's sad that often when people change sides, they have to leave the friends they've made behind. It's like being forced between two groups of people that you like, but you just choose to take a different path. It doesn't mean you don't like them, just you no longer identify with what they do. At least that has been my observation
It's always been my contention that there are some people who take this game far too seriously. Those people seem to (over)react strongly when someone 'switches' sides in the raider/defender paradigm. By that I mean, they cut off ties to the player personally when that person may have decided that they want a different path.
I wonder if the reaction to people switching sides is because we have a youngish player pool. Many young people may not have experienced living through their friends' and family's evolving woldviews. Live long enough and you'll see that humans have a tendency to develop their own sense of self once the 20s start to fade in the distance.
I have a very good friend who was a very ardent Catholic in college but turned atheist while in the peace corps in Africa. Some of my friends' reaction to him was not very positive and certainly wouldn't encourage him back to the faith. He switched sides and was chastised by many, accepted by some, and written off by others. I think the same thing happens in NS and it's all just part and parcel of how people react when other people decide to take a different, daresay antagonistic, path than the one they were on previously.
I shrug...b/c we're all trying to figure things out during our time on this ball of dirt and if someone wants to go raider or defender I won't begrudge them.
I wonder if the reaction to people switching sides is because we have a youngish player pool. Many young people may not have experienced living through their friends' and family's evolving woldviews. Live long enough and you'll see that humans have a tendency to develop their own sense of self once the 20s start to fade in the distance.
I have a very good friend who was a very ardent Catholic in college but turned atheist while in the peace corps in Africa. Some of my friends' reaction to him was not very positive and certainly wouldn't encourage him back to the faith. He switched sides and was chastised by many, accepted by some, and written off by others. I think the same thing happens in NS and it's all just part and parcel of how people react when other people decide to take a different, daresay antagonistic, path than the one they were on previously.
I shrug...b/c we're all trying to figure things out during our time on this ball of dirt and if someone wants to go raider or defender I won't begrudge them.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
As for the remark about losing friends - friendships vary and for a friendship to withstand someone betraying the defender cause and taking up the raider cause, their friendship would have to be based on something more than the defender cause. In some cases there would be a broader basis for the personal bond and in other cases the ideology matters more. It varies. The world is pretty much unforgiving, the NS world less so. Also, personality traits can affect whether people want to forgive you or not.
unibot
TNPer
It's a social strategy to create a deterrence factor regarding switching. "Don't want to lose your friends? Don't switch" is the message the strategy tries to suggests to players. Then the other side uses the existence of this strategy to argue they're not true friends at all. The sad part, both sides are wrong. One side is wrong for trying to impose this deterrence on their friends and the other side is wrong for assuming they're not genuine friends because they commit these practices.mcmasterdonia:
However, I do think some that NationStates has its moments of anguish and true emotional defeat as well as feelings of victory, redemption and healing and that's what makes the game, engaging. Some players believe that organizations should exist in constant competition to provide "fun" in sort of a sheer race of player-hedonism (If you're not providing me with enough fun! I will go to a more fun place!) and this manifests itself in stuff like Bigameplayism and other activities where the goal is just to try to purely have fun and avoid doing stuff that is either constructive or destructive. I think that's misguided, I tell my soldiers when they first sign up in the Oath.. the game isn't always fun, it also is not always easy. But it's better that way, it allows you to experience how real communities form, maintain and fall while you also learn who you are and who you are not.
EDIT: Also, yay for new addition to my signature.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Unibot:
I agree with this so much. I just feel that it is a shame that people do that. Friendship on NS is more than simply your R/D alignment, at least to me it is.
My only comment on this is the fact that people started using bigameplayism, a term I coined for shits and giggles, seriously amuses me greatly.
NS is a game, and is about having fun. That there are no serious consequences to doing so - and switching if you want to try something new - is a good thing.
NS is a game, and is about having fun. That there are no serious consequences to doing so - and switching if you want to try something new - is a good thing.
unibot
TNPer
I think Bigameplayism causes people not to have fun and erodes the capacity for meaning and conflict in NationStates. Bigameplayism is simple hedonism that leads to true disengagement with the game. It's a political simulator: take the kitty paws off and start actually simulating. >_>Belschaft:
In this sense, Bigameplay is conflicting: to have fun you must abandon it and play the game again. If you deny your actions have value and meaning then you aren't playing the game nor simulating it well.
Todd McCloud
TNPer
I think it's much easier to go raider-feeder these days than in days past.
Abbey
TNPer
Well, first thing is we're still involved in plenty of conflict (with which you are involved a disproportionately large amount of the time), for the very reason that many people take issue with what we do. Not only, however, is r/d not in any way part of the political sim stuff, but we're actually just having fun in the way that we enjoy.unibot:
I'm spending this game doing what I enjoy, while trying not to trample over others in the process, and yeah, if everyone did both it would cool down certain debates but you know as well as I do that that won't happen. I'm using my precious free time playing this game, I'll damned well play it how I like (when that doesn't have a major impact on others).
Cormac
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Cormactopia III
- Discord
- Cormac#0804
Abbey Anumia:
I don't see how bi-gameplay involves less political conflict in this game; from what I've observed, those who do both have to argue against both defenders who think they should be excluded from defending and griefers who think they should be excluded from raiding.
Aside from that, as far as a political simulation goes bi-gameplay actually makes more sense. This black and white world of "we defend whatever is invaded" and "we invade and grief whatever we want" doesn't make anymore political sense than "we invade or defend based on what we find fun at the moment." I'm simplifying there, but that's the gist of the three arguments. In a political simulation, bi-gameplay makes more sense because if R/D were actually based on politics regions would be both invading and defending based on their regional interests.
What is bi-gameplay? I really want to know because I am bi-curious.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Young whipper-snappers and their fancy terms. Back in my day we had only one type of gameplay and were happy to get it.flemingovia:
unibot
TNPer
Bi-gameplay has nothing to do with anything regarding an in-depth simulation. Neither Defending nor Raiding relate to any sentiments that realistically appear in real life but they have ideologies with an intergritable core which makes it interesting for a political simulation -- I can go on for hours on the differences between philosophies of famous Defenders and Raiders whilst comparing and contrasting; like Free4All v. EuroSoviets and the subtle nuances there or the evolution of EAA and the RLA to the FRA while the Belgium sphere migrated through the E-Army, GLA and A.L.L sphere with its roots appearing in the modern day UDL, TITO's historical Triumvirate influences (Texas, Wysteria, Heartland) etc. Bigameplayism is invading for fun and defending for fun, which is sweet and cuddedly but lacking in political depth and gritty ideology.Cormac Stark:Abbey Anumia:
I don't see how bi-gameplay involves less political conflict in this game; from what I've observed, those who do both have to argue against both defenders who think they should be excluded from defending and griefers who think they should be excluded from raiding.
Aside from that, as far as a political simulation goes bi-gameplay actually makes more sense. This black and white world of "we defend whatever is invaded" and "we invade and grief whatever we want" doesn't make anymore political sense than "we invade or defend based on what we find fun at the moment." I'm simplifying there, but that's the gist of the three arguments. In a political simulation, bi-gameplay makes more sense because if R/D were actually based on politics regions would be both invading and defending based on their regional interests.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
It would seem you know quite a lot about the philosophies and political nature of Defenders, but next to nothing of Raiders.unibot:
There have been successful regions that have played both sides or been a side all to their own. Gatesville and The Pacific, respectfully, come to mind.
Alvino Castillon
TNPer
The right to switch sides should be protected.King Durk the Awesome:
People change their ideas and they do it often. Sometimes they want to help defend, and other times they want to project regional power. I have seen groups that have raided a rival region in a sense of war and have defended their allies. It's basically international politics on a regional scale.
We should not scold them for wanting to try both sides of the system. It gives them valuable experience and allows switchers to really have fun with the game.
Granted, people that are loyal to their cause would be pissed off, but they have that right. It's a matter of freedom of expression, and harsher rules will threaten that right.
unibot
TNPer
I would debate how much they were on "both sides"; but that would be irrelevant. What Gatesville and The Pacific did is a lot different than Bigameplayism and a lot more interesting. Gatesville and The Pacific both had concrete regional identities and deep philosophies (Gatesville, Extreme Soverigntism, The Pacific, Francoism) that motivated their agenda in a realist or neorealist approach to International Relations, they didn't say "we're gonna raid and defend BECAUSE IT FUNZ!". Likewise, love 'em or hate 'em, 10000 Islands identity is also pretty complex, in some senses it's very idealistic, but also quite realist -- they reject basically all foreign influence, don't want to get involved with international cooperation (defensive realism) and are totally willing to destroy regions if they share raider principles (offensive realism) which threatened 10000 Islands at one time during the EoP conflict.Blue Wolf II:
Bigameplayism is a pretty watered down version of Gameplay. The North Pacific, for example, was highly idealistic (and I see evidence of this still present), it wanted to craft its domestic agenda as one of freedom, goodwill, liberty and democracy and, as idealists do, wanted to craft its international agenda in a similar framework out of a sense of right. To me, that's just way cooler than "raid and defend cuz its funz" -- it gets to a higher level of political simulation.
History suggests Defenders are more literate, it seems.
For examples of various raider philosophies I'd first point to your own Wolfist doctrine as setting the groundwork for contemporary raiderism. Halcones offers also a neoraiderism, which suggests the target doesn't matter at all really at all and the motivation of raiding is not activity and making the game interesting, but being a force of unfiltered nuisance and frustration for the sake of it -- this reduces the obligations that neoraiderists have to not do stuff. There are also common trends with raiderism that have carried themselves from Political Gameplay, such as the absence of right necessitating the demonstration of hypocrisy of one's opponents. One only has to look as far as Francos Spain dancing around an interviewers' question about the morality of his state by complaining about the criticisms of his opponents to see how raiders took this sort of model and ran with it. Today, R/D battles on the forum are a lot like political battles in the House of Commons -- the acting party must respond to the criticisms of the counter-party generally with demonstrations of hypocrisy, incompetence or immorality as being the objective of the debate. It doesn't matter if, say, Rawr openly doesn't give a shit about native communities, he's going to try to present himself as a voice of reason and try to uncover the hypocrisies of defenders.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
You raise some really interesting points, Unibot.
Abbey
TNPer
To be quite honest, uni, I don't give two flying fucks what you think is cool. What I do care about, is that your selective reading and memory has lead you to misrepresent why several bigameplayers do both, and why they can mentally justify them. Yes, our ultimate goal is to have fun, because we're playing a game. But we have one fundamental exception, for most of us - we want to have fun without being twats towards others. That means that we raid in such a way so as no harm natives, and also to value friendly interaction with other people rather than just shooting our mouths off, to the point where the other people get fed up.
Your hate of bigameplay on an individual scale, as I understand it, boils down to a few things. 1. You dislike the fact that there is no room for extremism within it as this apparently stops meaningful debate - whereas in my opinion, debates involving an extreme person don't go anywhere because that extreme person is normally very close-minded about other ideas. 2. Because it is not driven by some overall moral good but rather a desire to enjoy ourselves - a. You're wrong. b see above and 3. As someone who is very extreme yourself, someone taking a slightly different view on things is abhorrent and they are absolutely wrong - and personally, I think you need to open your eyes and remember that you're not always right.
Maybe we're not as "deep" as some of those past people, but we're playing a game and being "deep" is not a requirement. But our position is more than just the childish way that you are determined to portray us - I could, if I so chose, portray both mainstream raiding and defending in the same way, but I won't, because that is more petty than the actions themselves.
If you hate bi-gameplay that much, why don't you grow a backbone and do something about it rather than just running a slander campaign against us to discredit us unfairly. I'm sick and tired of saying the same things over and over again because you only accept the words of ours which are convenient to your worldview. Try actually reading what I say and you might find that there's actually a bit of common ground.
(I just typed that lot on a phone so forgive any errors with u it)
Your hate of bigameplay on an individual scale, as I understand it, boils down to a few things. 1. You dislike the fact that there is no room for extremism within it as this apparently stops meaningful debate - whereas in my opinion, debates involving an extreme person don't go anywhere because that extreme person is normally very close-minded about other ideas. 2. Because it is not driven by some overall moral good but rather a desire to enjoy ourselves - a. You're wrong. b see above and 3. As someone who is very extreme yourself, someone taking a slightly different view on things is abhorrent and they are absolutely wrong - and personally, I think you need to open your eyes and remember that you're not always right.
Maybe we're not as "deep" as some of those past people, but we're playing a game and being "deep" is not a requirement. But our position is more than just the childish way that you are determined to portray us - I could, if I so chose, portray both mainstream raiding and defending in the same way, but I won't, because that is more petty than the actions themselves.
If you hate bi-gameplay that much, why don't you grow a backbone and do something about it rather than just running a slander campaign against us to discredit us unfairly. I'm sick and tired of saying the same things over and over again because you only accept the words of ours which are convenient to your worldview. Try actually reading what I say and you might find that there's actually a bit of common ground.
(I just typed that lot on a phone so forgive any errors with u it)
unibot
TNPer
Yes, I should have defined it differently: Bigameplayism is limited hedonism with a sketchy moral framework that "wants to have fun" and thus goes about this avenue in the easiest way to legally piss off someone in game; not wanting to piss people off, it desperately tries to limit itself even though the core motivation of invading ultimately is degrading to victims and still pisses them off.
In most towns, vandalism is somewhat of a problem. Young adults spray painting urban buildings they don't own -- they do it for fun and to practice a talent no doubt. But it's a violation of someone's property. If these young adults wanted to have fun without annoying residents, the simplest conclusion is not "spray-paint only a wee bit of the building and use a less visible colour of paint", the obvious conclusion is: "don't fucking vandalize"! It's not a difficult concept to grasp, Abbey.
The logical jumps and somersaults you're making to conclude your normative theory is highly questionable, you've thus resorted in depicted your detractors and commentators as "extremists". Sure I'm an extremist, I defend regions because it's the right thing to do and have been known to discuss defender ethics with a bit of Kantian flair if I do say so myself *lights a pipe up casually with a nod*, but I don't see why that should be a discrediting condition. By only allowing "compromising" voices to speak, you're basically only giving a voice to people who already agree with you which is convenient but highly disingenuous. Let's dive into this whole "extremists stop meaningful debate" segment a little more...
1. The rejection of any principle on the sole basis of it being extreme is illogical and thus close-minded. Viz. that you could be conducting an Argument to moderation, an informal logical fallacy or otherwise, violating Okrent's Law.
2. There is nothing to suggest that you are anymore extreme than me; you hold just as many beliefs as firmly as I do -- simply different beliefs that suggest both defending and invading. This still constitutes an ideology, one that you zealously have adopted.
3. Anyone who sits through debates know the meaningfulness of a debate between two blowhards with completely moderate positions as opposed to two scholars with radical different positions is relatively reduced. The former debate may reach compromise sooner, but it's compromise will no doubt be more prone to be wrong since there was already so much agreement between the moderate folk, there wouldn't be enough discourse to probe problems with their theories.
4. My argument was a little more nuanced than what you're describing. I was suggesting the arguments with deeper ethical theories from the "extremes" of the game give rise to more interesting debates. Thereby suggesting the more we water-down the nation simulation game to "having fun", the less we have fun since the deepness is gone.
To suggest that all behavior must be rooted in a moral obligation would be the words of a moral fanatic akin to.. *takes out his Kantian pipe* ahem, some other philosopher than myself.
No, I do not object to your theories because they're not rooted in an overall moral good. "See above", to use your words. You may have understood my position better if you bothered to read your opponents' arguments, instead of assuming they're radical crazy-people who want to shut down the discussion with radical-closeminded-craziness.
Of course I am not always right, but I think this is sort of rich coming from you. You've almost always backed down from defending your positions, usually you prefer to shut down the debate by calling out your opposition as close-minded radicals who are "wrong". Unsurprisingly, you've basically done this again.
Furthermore, if you believe something.. you should think people who hold opposing views to be wrong. This is not hot-headiness or arrogance, this is an observance of the Law of Noncontradiction. However, just because I believe people to be wrong does not mean I am not willing to discuss my views with them and engage in debate -- discourse is how we come to reject faulty views that we may hold (to reference J.S Mill). You however, often opt for limiting the scope of debate or who can participate.
Being "deep" is not a requirement to play the game, I was not suggesting it is. I was suggesting being "deep" is how you ought to play the game. This is because I think the game ought to be intellectually stimulating -- for a number reasons but first and foremost because momentary-fits-of-pleasure like invading or defending only can be so fun for so long, whereas intellectual elements to raiding and defending are the gift that keep on giving.
Likewise, I do think your position is a "childish way" to play the game -- in the sense that you basically do something because its fun (oh and you don't want to annoy people too much). When I was about six, I used to bounce a rubbery ball in my house that would drivvvvvve my mum insane since it was loud and would often break things in the house -- to avoid being disciplined I would bounce the rubbery ball rather pathetically about a foot off the ground on a carpet to mask the sound. How logical was this when there were probably a dozen more fun things I could have been doing? Not very logical. But that's your theory at its core and its not deep enough to justify itself in any meaningful (or interesting) way.
I think arguing it is "illogical, insensible and boring" is definitely the work of someone with an intellectual backbone who is "doing something about it"; if you mean grow a backbone in the sense of liberating your raids (viz. giving you what you want -- competition), I already do and have been involved with many liberations of your raids.
You say the same things over and over again because your attempts to avoid genuine discourse all relatively use the same informal fallacies, you could probably branch out and use some more interesting ones.
*perks up* Ah touché. An implied fallacy of composition to boot!
Just because I agree with some of your positions does not mean I must logically accept all of your positions as being true. I agree with you in saying that people shouldn't be treated in the manner that typical raids project, but I object to how you're drawing this conclusion (this conclusion ought to be derived from the Right to Self Determination, not fuzzy benevolence) and object to how you implement your conclusion (if fuzzy benevolence would suggest the manner in which raids are done is wrong, there's not a whole lot preventing fuzzy benevolence from suggesting invasions in general are disrespectful and mean: non-consensual acts against communities that generates fun for raiders on the basis of other people's misfortune). These distinctions greatly contribute to the divergence of ideological trajectories between you and I.
Wow, Uni, that was meaty, beaty, big and bouncy. 
Abbey
TNPer
First things first, Uni, stop being obnoxious by using terms which only someone with a significant background in poli sci will actually be able to follow. I shouldn't have to have a google window open in order to actually be able to rebut your post (and part of me wonders if that was the whole point, that or you want to make it seem like you're "better" because you can spout fancy names and terms which a layman won't understand). I have an interest in politics - but not to the point where I go out and research concepts (I spend my time doing that for the degree which I'm actually applying for). This is a game for everyone, not just poli sci students and graduates, although inevitably due to the nature of the game there are a disproportionately large number of those (which isn't a bad thing). And simply because I don't know these terms or concepts offhand, it doesn't mean that my position is any "worse" or me in any less of a position to debate, before you even try to suggest as much.
To be quite honest, in the context of playing a game there should be no problem with doing something almost entirely for fun. That's the whole point of playing in the first place! However, you do partly appear to be mixing up bigameplayism with something that's very much entwined - the concept of moderate raiding. Moderate raiding is a part of how most of us are able to mentally justify doing two seemingly opposing actions, because the ideas of not doing damage, and preventing and restoring damage, are not as opposed as mainstream raiding and defending, in fact, they're very much linked. The core motivation of most people is, ultimately, to have fun when playing this game (people are just varying degrees of open about it). However, how they have that fun is what varies hugely from person to person.
Within the context of gameplay alone, the other thing that varies is the amount of consideration that is held towards others in this. There are people on both the raiding and defending sides who hold little consideration for anything other than the conflict between raiders and defenders. There are people on the raiding side who take their fun from annoying other people - both natives, and defenders - as much as they can. There are many defenders whose actions are motivated by a desire to protect natives, no matter what. There are a few moderate raiders who wish to have the conflict with the defenders, while still taking into account the wishes of the natives (and taking measures to reduce damage to them as far as is possible). Then, there are those who raid or defend based on other reasons - wars or other rivalries, a dislike or preference of certain ideologies. In this case, they are acting to protect those whom they agree with, and cause as much harm as possible to those whom they don't (with no consideration of anything apart from their apparent ideology). Finally, there are the bigameplayers, who consider their own desire to have fun, while wanting to take aspects from several of the above - to protect natives from excessive harm, to have the conflict with defenders when acting in a raiding capacity. Of course, the above is a vast simplification of views which are often complicated, nuanced, and affected by personal factors such as regional positions and friendships, but most will fall to some degree in one of those camps. A bigameplayers aim is an attitude where other people's thoughts are still considered, but also to reject the sometimes mindless raider vs defender argument.
I don't take well to being treated like a fucking idiot, Uni. Nor do I take well to being told what I would do in a RL situation if you followed the (apparently) same line of thought. The damage that is done by moderate raiding is not equivalent to only spraypainting a little bit of the building. I hate vandalism as much as the next person - that's why moderate raids don't actually do any damage. In this case, any RL analogy falls apart because there are always fundamental differences - quite frequently, the legality of an action is a main one.
We don't "only" allow those voices more open to a bit of compromise. I'm not saying that it should only be people who agree with me - there are still disagreements within those who take a more central ground.
I don't reject a principle solely on the basis of it being extreme. I suggested that debates involving someone with an extreme opinion often simply end up in a shouting match which doesn't actually go anywhere. We're also not saying that our position is the "truth" - we are saying that we think that we do what we personally want to do, and we do it in such a way that it falls more centrally in the normal raider/defender scale.
I hold my beliefs very firmly, but when debating, I am actively trying to understand the other side's point of view - and if that process leads me to believe that my original viewpoint was wrong, then I will accept as much. Remember when I accepted that I was wrong in a part of the autorecruitment debate? I am, yes, still very firm in my views - and I refer to "extreme" people as those that are "very defender" or "very raider".
Not necessarily - the problem with people who are much further along the scale, is that they are highly unlikely to agree to a solution unless it marries fairly closely with their own views. Now, unless every single person involved in a discussion is extreme, or the overall balance ends up in the centre, what is highly likely is that those that are more moderate will get utterly fed up and leave the argument, because they have lost the will to argue anymore when they know that the other person isn't going to budge at all. This results in an undesirable result for all except the more extreme people.
I do actually read your posts - I argue against the conclusions that I can then draw from them, and that is all. As I understand what you've said, you don't like my position because it's not rooted in a theoretical idea of what is logical and "right", rather, rooted in a desire to have fun.
Quit it with the references - please. Make your argument stand up for itself. I back down, often because I want to actually enjoy my evenings rather than spend them arguing endlessly with you over the same things over and over again. I absolutely don't want to limit the scope of debate or who can participate - I would like to have precisely the opposite. What frustrates me is when you turn an otherwise entirely unrelated debate into a debate about bigameplayism - such as the one on IRC about the WA voting. I do think that people who hold opposing views are wrong, but I don't harass them about it in unrelated debates. I also try to understand why someone who disagrees with me thinks as they do.
I've gone through periods where my gameplaying is along those lines - times where I have been forced to consider my position on fundamental parts of this game. And I didn't enjoy it. I found it stressful, and hard, and on top of the RL stress which I have almost always had over the last couple of years was often something I could really do without. An example of one of those periods was the one which lead me to my moderate raiding view, which led onto a later (less intense) one which has brought me to my current position. They are, yes, a fundamental part of an evolving worldview, but they are not something with which I want to spend my whole time doing. Because NS is an escape for me, I feel that it is often nice to not have to worry about things like my university application, or finding a job, or any of the other things that are getting at me at that particular moment in time. Being "deep" is a part of growing up, when it is part of Real Life, but within a game, it happens when it happens - it is not something that I enjoy enough to make a part of my everyday playing experience. If there was some decree from on high that you must, then I would stop playing the game in a heartbeat.
Raiding and defending should be interesting and varied enough for the adrenaline rush that comes with an update to stay with you. But interestingly enough, that actually links back to the original topic of this thread - many people swap sides because they want a change of scenery, but this is not a bad thing. The reason that I like bigameplayism is that it is not restrictive - I can do whichever action I will enjoy the most on that particular day, or for that matter, nothing at all. This keeps my interest in the game, rather than me getting sick and tired of doing the same thing update after update after update.
In some ways you're right - but it's not just like a 6 year old determined to do something despite their mum having told them not to. It's an escape from the stress of RL, for me at least. That's what keeps me logging on every day, because it is so different from RL. It's also why you'll find that I'll rarely get involved in RL political discussions, apart from the odd one on IRC. It doesn't need to be deep in order to justify itself, because we're playing a game.
You are in the position where if you wanted to do more to actively stop us doing it, then you could, and you know it. That's what I was referring to. I'm quite well aware of the fact that you're involved in many liberations of my raids, I'd be a fool not to be aware.
It doesn't have to be derived from the Right to Self Determination at all - it can be derived from this wonderful thing called common decency. We don't get fun from invasions on the basis of other people's misfortune, as I have stated in the past. A primary reason that our opinions are different is that you take things I accept in part very much further. This is what leads me to suggest that you are an "extremist" - because you are taking an idea much further than most people would.
To be quite honest, in the context of playing a game there should be no problem with doing something almost entirely for fun. That's the whole point of playing in the first place! However, you do partly appear to be mixing up bigameplayism with something that's very much entwined - the concept of moderate raiding. Moderate raiding is a part of how most of us are able to mentally justify doing two seemingly opposing actions, because the ideas of not doing damage, and preventing and restoring damage, are not as opposed as mainstream raiding and defending, in fact, they're very much linked. The core motivation of most people is, ultimately, to have fun when playing this game (people are just varying degrees of open about it). However, how they have that fun is what varies hugely from person to person.
Within the context of gameplay alone, the other thing that varies is the amount of consideration that is held towards others in this. There are people on both the raiding and defending sides who hold little consideration for anything other than the conflict between raiders and defenders. There are people on the raiding side who take their fun from annoying other people - both natives, and defenders - as much as they can. There are many defenders whose actions are motivated by a desire to protect natives, no matter what. There are a few moderate raiders who wish to have the conflict with the defenders, while still taking into account the wishes of the natives (and taking measures to reduce damage to them as far as is possible). Then, there are those who raid or defend based on other reasons - wars or other rivalries, a dislike or preference of certain ideologies. In this case, they are acting to protect those whom they agree with, and cause as much harm as possible to those whom they don't (with no consideration of anything apart from their apparent ideology). Finally, there are the bigameplayers, who consider their own desire to have fun, while wanting to take aspects from several of the above - to protect natives from excessive harm, to have the conflict with defenders when acting in a raiding capacity. Of course, the above is a vast simplification of views which are often complicated, nuanced, and affected by personal factors such as regional positions and friendships, but most will fall to some degree in one of those camps. A bigameplayers aim is an attitude where other people's thoughts are still considered, but also to reject the sometimes mindless raider vs defender argument.
I don't take well to being treated like a fucking idiot, Uni. Nor do I take well to being told what I would do in a RL situation if you followed the (apparently) same line of thought. The damage that is done by moderate raiding is not equivalent to only spraypainting a little bit of the building. I hate vandalism as much as the next person - that's why moderate raids don't actually do any damage. In this case, any RL analogy falls apart because there are always fundamental differences - quite frequently, the legality of an action is a main one.
We don't "only" allow those voices more open to a bit of compromise. I'm not saying that it should only be people who agree with me - there are still disagreements within those who take a more central ground.
I don't reject a principle solely on the basis of it being extreme. I suggested that debates involving someone with an extreme opinion often simply end up in a shouting match which doesn't actually go anywhere. We're also not saying that our position is the "truth" - we are saying that we think that we do what we personally want to do, and we do it in such a way that it falls more centrally in the normal raider/defender scale.
I hold my beliefs very firmly, but when debating, I am actively trying to understand the other side's point of view - and if that process leads me to believe that my original viewpoint was wrong, then I will accept as much. Remember when I accepted that I was wrong in a part of the autorecruitment debate? I am, yes, still very firm in my views - and I refer to "extreme" people as those that are "very defender" or "very raider".
Not necessarily - the problem with people who are much further along the scale, is that they are highly unlikely to agree to a solution unless it marries fairly closely with their own views. Now, unless every single person involved in a discussion is extreme, or the overall balance ends up in the centre, what is highly likely is that those that are more moderate will get utterly fed up and leave the argument, because they have lost the will to argue anymore when they know that the other person isn't going to budge at all. This results in an undesirable result for all except the more extreme people.
I do actually read your posts - I argue against the conclusions that I can then draw from them, and that is all. As I understand what you've said, you don't like my position because it's not rooted in a theoretical idea of what is logical and "right", rather, rooted in a desire to have fun.
Quit it with the references - please. Make your argument stand up for itself. I back down, often because I want to actually enjoy my evenings rather than spend them arguing endlessly with you over the same things over and over again. I absolutely don't want to limit the scope of debate or who can participate - I would like to have precisely the opposite. What frustrates me is when you turn an otherwise entirely unrelated debate into a debate about bigameplayism - such as the one on IRC about the WA voting. I do think that people who hold opposing views are wrong, but I don't harass them about it in unrelated debates. I also try to understand why someone who disagrees with me thinks as they do.
I've gone through periods where my gameplaying is along those lines - times where I have been forced to consider my position on fundamental parts of this game. And I didn't enjoy it. I found it stressful, and hard, and on top of the RL stress which I have almost always had over the last couple of years was often something I could really do without. An example of one of those periods was the one which lead me to my moderate raiding view, which led onto a later (less intense) one which has brought me to my current position. They are, yes, a fundamental part of an evolving worldview, but they are not something with which I want to spend my whole time doing. Because NS is an escape for me, I feel that it is often nice to not have to worry about things like my university application, or finding a job, or any of the other things that are getting at me at that particular moment in time. Being "deep" is a part of growing up, when it is part of Real Life, but within a game, it happens when it happens - it is not something that I enjoy enough to make a part of my everyday playing experience. If there was some decree from on high that you must, then I would stop playing the game in a heartbeat.
Raiding and defending should be interesting and varied enough for the adrenaline rush that comes with an update to stay with you. But interestingly enough, that actually links back to the original topic of this thread - many people swap sides because they want a change of scenery, but this is not a bad thing. The reason that I like bigameplayism is that it is not restrictive - I can do whichever action I will enjoy the most on that particular day, or for that matter, nothing at all. This keeps my interest in the game, rather than me getting sick and tired of doing the same thing update after update after update.
In some ways you're right - but it's not just like a 6 year old determined to do something despite their mum having told them not to. It's an escape from the stress of RL, for me at least. That's what keeps me logging on every day, because it is so different from RL. It's also why you'll find that I'll rarely get involved in RL political discussions, apart from the odd one on IRC. It doesn't need to be deep in order to justify itself, because we're playing a game.
You are in the position where if you wanted to do more to actively stop us doing it, then you could, and you know it. That's what I was referring to. I'm quite well aware of the fact that you're involved in many liberations of my raids, I'd be a fool not to be aware.
It doesn't have to be derived from the Right to Self Determination at all - it can be derived from this wonderful thing called common decency. We don't get fun from invasions on the basis of other people's misfortune, as I have stated in the past. A primary reason that our opinions are different is that you take things I accept in part very much further. This is what leads me to suggest that you are an "extremist" - because you are taking an idea much further than most people would.
- Pronouns
- she/her
- TNP Nation
- Former English Colony
- Discord
- Erastide
flemingovia:
unibot
TNPer
I wasn't aware I was using any significantly esoteric terms, my apologies.
Before we get to the actual meat of this post, let's go over some of your counter-arguments to my assertions that you depict your opponents as extermists to discredit them.
I question where "it's supposed to go to"; fact is.. it's supposed to come to either agreement, greater understanding or greater knowledge of one's own opinion's flaws. You will not come to agreement with extremists when you zealously hold your own opinion (although you change it constantly then argue that as its practically an a priori transcendent truth and define all those who disagree you within fairly generous margins as "extremists").
But when you cut away those willing to compromise the Right to Self-Determination or the "Might makes Right" law, you take a sizable chunk of the population away.
Certainly those who dispute the existence of Climate Change still have healthy discussions and disagreements to the extent of the Science Community's corruptness -- but it would be really cheeky for them to value only the opinion of those willing to compromise the existence of Climate Change's existence to some extent. This is the problem with appealing to moderation and compromise arbitrarily.
Now to the meat of the post:
But the problem is you're assuming that the correct solution to everything problem lies in the center -- this is not necessarily the case. Thus holding a conference for centrists where they all come to quick agreement won't necessary be successful at getting at the truth.
I've said it is limited hedonism ("who consider their own desire to have fun, while wanting to take aspects from several of the above"), since you're just taking every cake you can and eating them too, while also respecting arbitrarily in some ways that natives deserve to be treated better on the basis of "common decency". So let's jump to this point next,
"Common Decency". Hah. As my Political Science professor in first-year once said, "when someone tells you it's common, whether it's sense, decency or knowledge, it almost certainly is not". Do you have quantitative proof that most players are okay with invasions so long as they're not extensively harmful to their region? No, you don't. Truth is you need to stop using an appeal to popularity, since an unclear majority is no authority at all and start using stuff we call logical arguments that may lead you to admittedly unpopular (but right!) ideas -- this paints us as extremists. But some of us know we're "extremists" (by your definition), others live in denial and pretend they're the norm. Make sure you're in the former, because the latter is a dark dark and sad place, Abbey.
This "Common Decency" is not really that common at all. It seems to just be defined as whatever you think to be decent at the time (ever-changing of course1). I don't think invading a region is all that decent to people who created their region. But my opinion doesn't matter because I'm an extremist, along with everyone else who disagrees with your definition of decency. See how fuzzy reasoning can lead to convenient whole-sale rejections of your opponents without actually engaging in a logical argument? It's good stuff. Whereas I can craft a conception of the Right to Self-Determination and you can agree or disagree with it and a healthy debate can ensue -- see the difference?
1. "I've gone through periods where my gameplaying is along those lines - times where I have been forced to consider my position on fundamental parts of this game. And I didn't enjoy it. I found it stressful, and hard, and on top of the RL stress which I have almost always had over the last couple of years was often something I could really do without. An example of one of those periods was the one which lead me to my moderate raiding view, which led onto a later (less intense) one which has brought me to my current position." - Abbey
The legality of an action poses one problem, but I'm sure most regions would posit an invasion of their region as against the region's rules. Even so, your apparent "hate" for vandalism probably is founded in it being malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum. Bearing this in mind, vandalism is bad fundamentally because it takes something that is someone's and defaces -- even if the vandals were to clean up the mess voluntarily afterwards ... I still think vandalism would be wrong and I would be wondering what the hell those vandals are doing with their life since they almost surely could find something just as fun to do that wouldn't have to feel the need to (unsuccessfully) moderate something they probably shouldn't be doing at all.
For these reasons, I look to the Cat Burglars and I see vandals trying to walk a tight-rope they've set up for themselves, when surely it would just be easier to get off the tight-rope and find something else that's fun that you don't run the risk of annoying residents with. But I am sure Abbey's Common Sense would dictate otherwise....
... or not. Apparently you agree with me it's childish, but also a stress-reliever.
And something does need to be deep in order to justify itself; all you've done is excuse behavior ("it's a game!") and explain behavior ("it's a stress reliever for me!"). It -is- a game, but as you've stated, it's a game of -people- who deserve to be treated like people and deriving fun from messing with them and their communities is not ethical. But since you're someone who cheered when someone was deleted, I fear that standard of "Common Decency" might be above you. Furthermore, excusing behavior does not make it right. I know many players who turn to raiding as way to inflict a kind of non-consensual power relationship that bullies have over them in RL; this is sad but no more right. I've always recommended to players who feel this way to turn their experience here in NationStates from being destructive to constructive. In NationStates, power is more easily attainable than it is in Real Life for many, but I always recommend to these players searching for constructive ends to use their power for good, not bad.
And I'm suggesting to you that the problem is not that it is the "same thing" at update, but that you're not intellectually engaged with what you're doing whereas defenders and raiders with concrete intellectual positions are. Therefore you bounce back and forth on both sides.
To conclude, let me go back to your first sentence (and a bit after that):
Not exactly. It's more nuanced than this. NationStates is a political simulator -- it is a fun and complex simulator if played well. You admit how you play the game is relatively childish, it's basically gameplay written in crayon. Running around screaming about how to maximize fun seems to be the last way you're going attain fun -- it's the Hedonistic Paradox. J.S. Mill, that dude you yelled at for quoting earlier, once said "But I now thought that this end [one's happiness] was only to be attained by not making it the direct end. Those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness[....] Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness along the way[....] Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so." He was ultimately right, if you want to find fun, look to how other groups found fun -- they got involved deeply into principles and beliefs in NationStates and got engaged with them; they didn't go out searching for fun specifically that shit just happens.
Abbey, Unibot,
so are you saying it is NOT all to do with overcompensating for a tiny penis, then?
so are you saying it is NOT all to do with overcompensating for a tiny penis, then?
Kingborough
TNPer
Why would a female want to compensate for that?