Kosmor Forum Index
 Search Imprint      SearchSearch     Log inLog in 
 Search Legal      MemberlistMemberlist     ProfileProfile   

Follow up: Declaration of war
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Kosmor Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Neireh
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

thats a good question what is right or wrong...
isn't it so that the consense of the majority of people is defining what is right and what wrong?
Sure you can pretent too that there would be nothing going on in your house without your attention and knowledge. This would make sense for a house up to 10 members i think, a house as big as Handuro will evolve a little bit "Eigendynamik" - self-dynamic and Accidents could happen.

you misunderstood me when you think that i'm enyoing this situation. But anyway how much i pretend that i regret this war you wouldn't believe me and insinuate me to enjoy it. Maybe we schould end this discussion. If you like to talk to me write me.
Back to top
facerrider
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 15:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neireh wrote:
thats a good question what is right or wrong...
isn't it so that the consense of the majority of people is defining what is right and what wrong?


No that is wrong. In mediaeval times the majority of people thougt that the world was flat, but they were wrong.
Back to top
Aurion
Member of the House


Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 591
Location: Alpha Section

PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 15:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

For them, it was right. And if you want, you can compare everything with this example.

Most people don't want high taxes. So high taxes are good?
Most people want to have a family. So a family is bad?

...
_________________
Member of the House Aurion in the house Ashera
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
facerrider
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 15:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

right and wrong is not good or bad. I am sorry, but I don't understand your answer.

I want to say that trueness is no democracy. You cannot vote if something is right or wrong, it is simply right or wrong.
Back to top
StrontiumDog
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 19:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a ridiculousness.

Right or wrong is not defined by populism.

Let me not raise historical examples of demagogery gone mad, populism which resulted in terrible things.

That the people are with you.. it's not a definition of moral justification. And all people know this, from schoolyard dynamics, to the study of modern history.
Back to top
Gil-galad
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 02:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is right? What is wrong? How can you define it?

Is there one truth?

I think for every person here one version is right, one version is wrong. One is the truth for him. But how can you find the truth?

Threre is always more than one trueness, because everyone sees things different. You always judge people ect., when you see them.
Back to top
Ayatollah
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 04:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

easy:
good/right = playing fair, holding your word and especially your contracts.

bad/wrong = breaking your word if it brings you tactical benefits, playing unfair (ripping, mulit blah blub), breaking contracts with propaganda arguments so transparent even a blind man would see through...

Thus i define Hommels actions the last week as extremly bad/wrong.

And please stop this pseudo-philosophical "what is good/bad"-discussion... Of course good and bad / wrong and right depend on your point of view - nobody would call himself evil - at least not in a game like this. But things like "breaking your word/contracts" are definitly not good - no matter how you spin the image....
Back to top
MooCow
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 05:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh dear this looks like a thread from a philosophy and religion board,

The existant of absolute Truth as it bears on a computer game that is a new one for me, but I guess that because there are people interacting then all the normal dynamics of the human condition exist!

Well is what we are after for just everyone to be Good-sports? as us Australians might say and display a sence of 'fair-play' or do we want to more deeply explore the ideas behind right/wrong, good/bad , Holy and sin?

It does seem to me that the structure of the game forces a certain amount of explotation of fair play. If you are scrupilously fair and open in your actions you can do well but will be beaten out by someone more prepared to be nasty.

The answer: play fair and die with a feeling of having done it right (I think this is my option) or maybe the games dynamics could be altered if this is really a problem- I am not convinced it is, even if people are getting worked up over it
Back to top
Dadd
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 08:54    Post subject: right and wrong Reply with quote

We only have one thing that is a truth and that is our word. If that is not true then the person is not being true to him/her self. I have always went with what i felt was right and most of the time it has been the right way for me to go. If you deal upfront and straight forward in all things yes even a game you are living your own truthful life. And no matter what anyone else does to or with you is your own responsiblity
Back to top
Alteron
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 05:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sirs,
To me there is no question. I will do what MooCow just wrote: "play fair and die with a feeling of having done it right"

I once read Rosseau. He wrote that a state of fully devoted Christians could not last, because everyone in it will live ones neighbour, never kill etc. Well, he said it would work for a while - until someone breakes the rules/commandments: That one person would rise to command the world simply by not following the "gamerules" of everyone else. The result is the need for contracts.

In Kosmor, contracts are the only way to preserve some stability and to rise above anarchy. We have two forms of contracts that can be made (NAT and Alliance), as well as the situations of war and no contract. The contracts defines the rules of interaction between two houses, and is allways combined with a cansellation-period of some days.

+ A situation of no contract is common. This is a situation where one coexist, and where the stronger party might grow.
+ A war is a collective initiative against another house, and is declared, as a minimum, in the houseboard if the attacker and to the leader of the attacked house.
+ A NAT is exactly this: a Non-Agression Treaty. It states that the two houses will not attack eachother, and also stay out of the other House's conflicts. It is usually also contains some measures against players that breaks the contract.
+ An alliance is the closest two houses can become without merging the houses to one. This contract is similar to a NAT, exept from allies are required to join forces in a conflict (in defence - not attack.)

In Kosmor, the NAT is the most commonly used contract because it is not so rigid as an alliance. Also, the content and goal of contracts will vary, depending on the two houses signing it.

I must also argue that deals can be made that are not in breach of a NAT. If there is an agreement in regards, say, to taking back planets, then it is ok. We are talking about a Non-Agression Treaty, and this scenario contains no agression. However I will stress the importance of communications in such a matter. (This must be posted in both house boards to avoid any misunderstandings - it is easy to read in the Galactic News and run to aid the attacked!)

Lastly I must agree that there are some "grey" areas in any contract signed. It can not cover everything. Nor should it. However we all understand the meaning of a contract, and the areas it is trying to cover. Our honour demands of us to respect these contracts and therefore we can not misuse these "gray" areas.

We can all agree on "honour" to be a fickle fundament for a contracts survival. However we must also remember that even if the contract limits our options and possibilities to expand, it also protects us, our House and our fellow housemembers. It is a collective responsibility to aid our housemembers, as all in a House are allies by definition.

My point is that a contract is important. And following them is of paramount importance. Someone going solo in a house might even bring the entire House to an end.

(And lastly: I think we are Off Topic in this tread...)
Back to top
schaeftlarn
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 07:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

An impressive contribution, Alteron... Wink

The only thing I do not share is your last statement that we are off-topic; this thread was indeed in danger of being high-jacked by hobby philosophers, but the essence of it was to express disappointment on behalf of the House Handuro against someone breaking his own word and contract.

I very much subscribe to the views expressed by you and others that one's word and keeping it is something that should be considered of highest value, and that a NAT also demands the two house leaders who agreed on it to communicate whenever things might happen that fall into a 'grey' or disputed area of such a treaty - and whenever they are not happy with potentially diverging opinions on issues, they should cancel such a treaty according to how it is stated in it .

I can therefore only underline and fully support the first post in this thread by Merthos that I also expected Tobi (and several other leaders of Hommel) to do better; this starts with analysing and presenting information and processes in an un-biased and emphatic way and on a sidenote includes furthermore to honor obligations and good experience in the past.

In this very case I'm afraid that Tobi and several others were too willingly prepared to misinterprete (and maybe even to tweak) facts a bit in order to rally support for the breach of a NAT.

The situation around the house of Zamonien was *NOT* so easy to assess as that if was worth breaking a NAT without the slightest wish to talk things over with your contractual partner or stick to the proceedings how to cancel it.
As in the case of some people distances away from Hommel wishing to join them, or with the alleged threat by Merthos of starting a war with Hommel, it was just one thing: a nice provocation on behalf of Tobi that added another piece to his propaganda campaign how bad Handuro is and how much Hommel needed this war.

Once more, I express my hope that nobody playing this game inside or outside Hommel will forget how easy it seemingly is for Tobi to leave everything - even his own word - behind, and to manipulate issues in order to use the right moment to stab you in the back.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kosmor Forum Index -> Kosmor Talk All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group