So I was reading . . . (Kebir Blue)

I hope this isn't too jumbled, but I want to reply before I need to log off.

The presupposition of my argument is that there will be an inevitable conflict between a war player and an econ player. Also, if the econ player remains behind protection or exercises superior military skill, then this argument is irrelevant. In war player versus econ player, I'm referencing the type of players that legitimately cultivate primarily military skill versus the type of players that do not.

I should be more clear. Military skill is the determining factor in deciding inferior/superior under the assumption that a war is possible to take place. The capacity of the war player to harm the econ player, which is not able to be reciprocated, is the main reason why military skill is the determining factor. In war, the war player needs only to rely on his ability to prevent harm coming to his empire whereas the econ player would need to rely on the other

You are assuming those with military are able to use it?

Your quote, WGC vs the Mob, A far superior war regime than the mob at the time on WG. Your arguement has just ended.

I'm just playing with ideas here. I didn't really mean to go anywhere.

It has also occurred to me that the act of war itself could be conceived as an act of ressentiment by players who can't manage their economies to profit so they attack those that can.

Scarlet, I'm probably reading too much moral meaning into the words "superior" and "inferior", and that was my only argument. I actually agree with your application of Nietzsche to this game.

In various previous incarnations of simcountry players who could war could rule the roost, swooping down on non-warriors and taking their stuff at will. Some of the rest would learn how to defend, some would join feds that provided some protection, some would squirrel themselves away in WP. And some, having done none of the above effectively, would complain vociferously when the inevitable happened and they lost their stuff. The moral outrage is always after the event, and part of its effectiveness is in the self-sacrifice, a person believably threatening to leave or actually leaving the game. Each time this happens the moral hand of the poor wargame players is strengthened; being unskilled at defense morphs a little bit more from a w

"If the rules allowed for real economic hostilities, who knows how many econ players would be exposed as simply unskilled at the game, period. " jojo

thanks you for all you just said, that part in particular

the system as it is, is akin to a socialistic system that tries to level the playing field for all players. i would agree with Scarlets and others premise that the game elevates the weak player to a preferred position. in so doing, it takes away the desire to amass wealth and compete. just cut coupons and stay in your hole.

in the past, part of the fun of the game was finding the loopholes and exploiting them as long as possible. the game was with the gm to see how long you could circumvent existing rules. as it is now, there are few if any loopholes which makes the game less interesting for me.

on the other hand, we don't know the effect of the current system and approach to the game from the standpoint of W3c. are they making more money with this approach? from their standpoint that's the bottom line. they're not doing this for charity or as a hobby. it appears that there are more players than there were a few mon

Ahhh come on! No one noticed "It kinda makes me think of words?". Sigh, Now its just evan more words!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Only the dead have seen the end of war.
-Plato<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In theory, war is simply a means to end, a rational, if very brutal, activity intended to serve the interests of one group of people by killing wounding, or otherwise incapacitating those who oppose that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. War, and combat in particular, is one of the most exciting, most stimulating activities that we humans can engage in, capable of putting all others in the shade; quite often, that excitement and that stimulation translate themselves into pure joy. This fact alone is, or should be, enough to lift it out of the realm of the mere utility, as Clausewitz and many of his "realist" followers would have it, and into that of culture.
-Martin Van Creveld
The Culture of War<!-/Quote-!>

1. I disagree.
2. "Striving against each other" doesn't always entail war . . . in fact, it usually doesn't.
3. "Striving against each other" doesn't even make sense as a primary motive for human action.
4. "Striving for something" makes more sense than "striving against each other."
5. The "something" in "striving for something" is best described as a goal.
6. If you disagree, I defy you to explain your own everyday behavior without goals.
7. Superiority is a goal.
8. Stimulation is also a goal.
9. Safety is also a goal.
10. Happiness is also a goal.
11. I would like to point out that your last sentence is clearly unclear.
12. If your last sentence were cleared up, I don't believe it would be meaningful.
13. Reason: You are unclear when you say "Arguing superiority". Do you mean arguing about what is superior, arguing that superiority is

Dear Scarlet. 1 - 16: Spoken as a true rationalist.

The clarity you seek from me is that there is no true clarity when it comes to human behavior.

Our desires and motivations are as multitudinous as our numbers; but, what we share is the drive for something(s), be it even so humble as mere survival. Regardless of motivations or intent, the drive for conflict to obtain that "something(s)" is inherent to our natures. To claim that you don't struggle or strive against or for anything on a daily basis is self-delusional. (Unless, perhaps, your surname is Hilton?)

Returning to the example of the Economist vs the Warrior vis-a-vis SC, my point would be that both are engaged in the same struggle, albeit against different enemies, with different strategems and measures of success. However, the activity is essentially identical: to strive against adversity and asserts one's will upon an external foe.

Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."

So he made rebellion 'gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
"Nay!" said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- shall be master of you all!"

Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid 'em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron -- Cold Iron -- was master of it all!

Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
"What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword?"
"Nay!" said the Baron, "mock not at my fall,
For Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of men all."

"Tears are for the crave

Actually, the main clarity that matters to me is clarity of language (if such a thing existed, then there would be a lot less conflict).

For example, "To claim that you don't struggle or strive against or for anything on a daily basis is self-delusional." At first glance, this statement is true. However, the point that I was arguing that "striving for" explains behavior AND is the cause of any "striving against" that occurs. Basically, I'm saying that "striving for something" is both necessary for action and sufficient to explain action AND that "striving against someone" is neither necessary for action nor sufficient to explain action.

Another example, "Don't confuse goals and Modus Operandi with intent, nor choices of obstacles with morality." First, the confusion is not between (goals and Modus Operandi) versus (intent). I believe the serio

LOL. Once upon a time, I knew a player in SC. She was a wildcat of a girl and a philosophy major, if I recall correctly. Gifted intellect and wonderfully direct personality.

She used to terrorize LU with a group of rabble rousers with some sort of predilection for the color pink.

I believe she wrote a landmark tutorial for the game on these forums as well.

You remind me of this person, Scarlet.

As to your argument, I humbly submit before you kick my old ass any further.

I agree with your argument, and conclusion, but not Fascist Freds, for Heinleinian reason:

The soldier is morally superior to the civilian because the soldier defends and is willing to sacrifice himself for the body politic; whereas, the civilian does not.
- paraphrase

I will recommend Van Creveld's work to you, however.
His position is that War is fought for different reasons. The rationalist app

Whom ever could that be? haha I try to stay off the forums for the most part now days, too much effort to respond to drama, and "Forum" based players, yes thats right, forum based players. No econ, no war, just forums. lol

Sorry to disappoint, I'm only an English major that used to roam GR under the name John Fire.

I can summarize my disagreement with this:
I don't think enjoyment of fighting is a sufficient cause in most individuals' decisions to go to war. This isn't to say that individual's don't, can't, or shouldn't enjoy fighting . . . only that I don't think this alone will cause somebody to fight. The obvious exception is if somebody doesn't seriously believe they might come to harm or death.

Forum players. ;)
Everyone knows the pen is mightier than the sword. Too bad though, I only have a keyboard here and the Warriors have bombers.

Well, John, firstly, well met and it's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of someone of your demonstrated intellectual caliber.

As to your disagreement:
Let's adress that in 3 stages or levels.

1. As far as player's in SC, you certainly have the experience to know that swag raiding in the only objectively rational causi belli for aggressive SimWar and that is largely dependent on the game rules at any particular time as to whether such is even economically viable. Surely, you would agree that most SimWars are the result of personalities and general boredom? Enjoying a good fracas to alleviate the ennui?

2. On the personal scale of the real world, kids don't generally volunteer for Combat Arms or combat duty in order to increase their prospects for career opportunities after they get out. There very much is a warrior ethos alive and well, always has been.
Therefore, I have full confidence in stating

To be honest, I'm arguing with you more than I'm disagreeing with you.

Regarding point 2, I've thought it over, and I can definitely understand it. Although I personally wouldn't fight for the challenge of it alone (given that the stakes are so high and I'd rather save my effort for fighting the Marxists and neo-Marxists), I can see people doing so on an individual level.

Regarding point 1, I'm going to say that non-economically viable wars make rational sense when considering that this is just a game, a wargame at that (or at least the game I signed up for is), and I want to eventually get my money's worth.

Regarding point 3, I think the leadership-level reasons for starting war, even when they are irrational or poorly thought out, have more to do with the reasons than the fight itself. Considering revenge against National Honor, the point seems more to prevent any infringement on the

I've actually come across Durkheim in my readings. Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, contrasts Durkheim's view of the origins of morality (to bind a society together) to J S Mill's individualistic, utilitarian view. He sees them as complementary, as opposed to Mill alone being sufficient.

Laguna have you read it? Scarlet? Anyone else? I recommend it.

Can't say I have.

For the last years, I have been stuck reading eco papers and following the blogosphere. It has been taking me 5 months to read a novel from the Spanish Civil.

Unless it is an engaging romance novel, I can't be bothered. Thanks anyways, JoJo. :P lol

I thought I had read most of Kipling's works, and I don't know how I missed the poem above; I don't reall reading it before. I guess I hadn't read him as much as I thought. Thanks for posting it, MVC.
I have some large ideological differences with Nietzche, which I may possibly post later when I can think a little more clearly...
There is a lot to think about in this thread.

OMG, y'all need help!!! Surely you dun read educational material????? NERDS! :P

Kiss, Kipling and Nietzche aren't exactly educational, more inspirational. Philosophy type stuff.

Now if you want educational I can recommend some good stuff on multiverses, string theory and particle physics in general. But even that is becoming old hat now, we need to look outside the box more. Where God meets Science.

My dissertation I will name 'Does God Wear Shoes?', in your honour.

lol philosophical...educational...a bit more braniac than the novel I'm currently reading - "Slow Heat in Heaven" ha ha ha ha

What a great dissertation, and a topic I think worthy of a simcommunity debate!!! :P

Heh, it's still in development.
I will try to put together a lucid outline of the direction I'm going and maybe start another thread hoping for some thoughtful input from the simcommunity.

Probably bore everyone and make me sound completely senile though. Not hard to do nowadays.