News: GOTM103 Results and Congratulations! And the Eptathlon goes to ...
- Thread starter civ_steve
- Start date
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Più Freddo;9437942 said:
As your post was so short, it was hard to determine exactly what your point was, but from the general assumption I made, you seem to feel that I was inappropriately using the term "the Nazis". You also criticized my use of that term in relation to the German war machine that basically conquered Europe. I have to disagree with you. I'm sure you are well practiced at this topic, but I'm not worried.
I looked up Goodwin's Law on Google. Here's a quote -
"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent."
So basically your reference to Goodwin's Law does not apply. At least that's what Wikipedia says.
Just so I can get a better bearing on your point of view, who do you think was in charge of the WWII German war machine?
In closing, I was using the term in a humorous manner. And thank God I am not like most people, especially when it comes to posting criticism about other people.
Più Freddo
From space, earth is blue
Cyc, I don't have any intention to fight with you. We know what you meant, and that is and was, from the beginning, fine. I just wanted to point out reasons for your possibly being misunderstood. Communication is more efficient when more of the applicable conventions are considered.
Coming back on topic (almost) one could say, that the successful military strategies employed by the German Third Reich are very similar to the ones one can find in Sun Tzu's Art of War and so not unique. You were of course talking about the reasons for using them at all. Again, Sun Tzu says, that if you don't come to the enemy, he'll come to you, and defending everywhere you are at a loss against an enemy that attacks piecemeal with his full strength, when he wants, where he wants.
In Europe of the thirties, the paraniod and/or blood-thirsty attitude of the Nazis was definitely misplaced and even evil, although their much greater evil was displayed in other ways, as we have already discussed. But in earlier stages of civilization, and in the game Civilization, it wasn't and isn't, respectively.
I find the game mirrors fairly well the development of human civilization as described e.g. by Jared Diamond in his "Guns, Germs and Steel". Agriculture leads to population growth, which leads to civilization, which leads to superior strength, which leads to war and conquest. If you want to play modern "fair-play" clash of civilizations, if there is such a thing, play Sim City.
Coming back on topic (almost) one could say, that the successful military strategies employed by the German Third Reich are very similar to the ones one can find in Sun Tzu's Art of War and so not unique. You were of course talking about the reasons for using them at all. Again, Sun Tzu says, that if you don't come to the enemy, he'll come to you, and defending everywhere you are at a loss against an enemy that attacks piecemeal with his full strength, when he wants, where he wants.
In Europe of the thirties, the paraniod and/or blood-thirsty attitude of the Nazis was definitely misplaced and even evil, although their much greater evil was displayed in other ways, as we have already discussed. But in earlier stages of civilization, and in the game Civilization, it wasn't and isn't, respectively.
I find the game mirrors fairly well the development of human civilization as described e.g. by Jared Diamond in his "Guns, Germs and Steel". Agriculture leads to population growth, which leads to civilization, which leads to superior strength, which leads to war and conquest. If you want to play modern "fair-play" clash of civilizations, if there is such a thing, play Sim City.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Good points, Più Freddo. I understand where you are coming from much better now. I don't want to fight either. I have read and watched "Guns, Germs and Steel" and I agree with you there too.
I like to play Civilization, obviously. I just like to play in a manner that others don't care for or rarely play themselves. And that's all I was saying. Aaaaaaand I like to have lengthy forum discussions. So thanks for your input.
I like to play Civilization, obviously. I just like to play in a manner that others don't care for or rarely play themselves. And that's all I was saying. Aaaaaaand I like to have lengthy forum discussions. So thanks for your input.
Let me add one more point to this discussion.
One could also view this game of Civilization as just a looong string of "zeros" and "ones" inside your computer's main memory. There aren't any horsemen, there aren't any nations and no one is getting killed... It's all in your head...
If someone takes this point of view, then it would of course make absolutely no sense to apply any "ethic" or "moral" rules to this game. Why should "0010110101110101" be fine, while "010011010100110" is to be "morally" condemned? The human player is sitting on front of his/her PC and trying to control the string of zeros and ones in such a way that the ultimate goal (the words "Congratulation! You have achieved victory" being printed onto your computer screen) is arrived at in the "best" way. So far so good.
But now let's take a closer look at the meaning of "best" and at the player him/herself. I think the ultimate goal is to achieve some kind of pleasure/enjoyment out of the game, and there are two kinds of players:
For the first species it indeed doesn't make sense to apply moral judgements. There aren't any real horsemen, tanks or nukes. The actions the players perform with mouse and keyboard only influence a few bits and bytes in a computer's RAM and they are designed solely to bring a "mathematical puzzle" to a fast and efficient end.
For the second kind, however, it might make sense to talk about moral aspects, just in the same way as some players discuss whether it is "honorable" to commit a RoP rape or to buy a tech for gpt + a luxury and then break the trade route, so that the AI opponent is tricked out of the "goods" that would rightfully "belong" to "him".
So far I have been talking only about single-player games. If we additionaly take multi-player games into consideration, the picture changes completely, because now it's not only you, who tries to get enjoyment out of the game, but also 5-6 more human beings, who have feelings like yourself and who have the same right to strive for enjoyment as you do. (In fact, in this setup the comparison to Chess makes more sense: not with regards to whether it is "unethical" that the white queen "kills" the black pawn -- I can tell you: the black pawn doesn't care a bit whether he is still standing on the chessboard or being put back into the box... it's just a lifeless piece of wood... -- but with regards to your opponent. Bobby Fischer once said, in a game of chess he likes to "crush the mind of his opponent", and this is certainly an act of violence.)
And similarly in a multi-player Civilization game the actions of your mouse and keyboard go beyond just changing bits and bytes in your computer's RAM: they now have influence on the feelings and well-being of fellow human beings, so I think now applying moral standards begins to make sense.
In fact, in my multi-player games I play much different than in my single-player games. I enjoy it much more to cooperate with the other humans and to help each other advance through the ages, than to confront them. (Except for scenarios like WW I and WW II, which were geared towards war and nothing else.) In one of the games I used invisible Ninjas to kill the King unit of a fellow player, and I still feel remorse about that... Unfortunately only one player can win in the end, and also there are some players who only see the "future potential enemy" in every fellow player... With these of course it is difficult to live in peaceful cooperation.
But I guess this just reflects real life: some people like to help each other and that way make life easier for all involved, while others only see a potential competitor in every fellow human being.
Lanzelot
One could also view this game of Civilization as just a looong string of "zeros" and "ones" inside your computer's main memory. There aren't any horsemen, there aren't any nations and no one is getting killed... It's all in your head...
If someone takes this point of view, then it would of course make absolutely no sense to apply any "ethic" or "moral" rules to this game. Why should "0010110101110101" be fine, while "010011010100110" is to be "morally" condemned? The human player is sitting on front of his/her PC and trying to control the string of zeros and ones in such a way that the ultimate goal (the words "Congratulation! You have achieved victory" being printed onto your computer screen) is arrived at in the "best" way. So far so good.
But now let's take a closer look at the meaning of "best" and at the player him/herself. I think the ultimate goal is to achieve some kind of pleasure/enjoyment out of the game, and there are two kinds of players:
- some get the most pleasure out of finding the "most efficient" or "fastest" solution to the problem of getting the victory message printed onto the screen.
- and for some the process of actually playing the game gives the most enjoyment. ("The Journey Is the Goal")
For the first species it indeed doesn't make sense to apply moral judgements. There aren't any real horsemen, tanks or nukes. The actions the players perform with mouse and keyboard only influence a few bits and bytes in a computer's RAM and they are designed solely to bring a "mathematical puzzle" to a fast and efficient end.
For the second kind, however, it might make sense to talk about moral aspects, just in the same way as some players discuss whether it is "honorable" to commit a RoP rape or to buy a tech for gpt + a luxury and then break the trade route, so that the AI opponent is tricked out of the "goods" that would rightfully "belong" to "him".
So far I have been talking only about single-player games. If we additionaly take multi-player games into consideration, the picture changes completely, because now it's not only you, who tries to get enjoyment out of the game, but also 5-6 more human beings, who have feelings like yourself and who have the same right to strive for enjoyment as you do. (In fact, in this setup the comparison to Chess makes more sense: not with regards to whether it is "unethical" that the white queen "kills" the black pawn -- I can tell you: the black pawn doesn't care a bit whether he is still standing on the chessboard or being put back into the box... it's just a lifeless piece of wood... -- but with regards to your opponent. Bobby Fischer once said, in a game of chess he likes to "crush the mind of his opponent", and this is certainly an act of violence.)
And similarly in a multi-player Civilization game the actions of your mouse and keyboard go beyond just changing bits and bytes in your computer's RAM: they now have influence on the feelings and well-being of fellow human beings, so I think now applying moral standards begins to make sense.
In fact, in my multi-player games I play much different than in my single-player games. I enjoy it much more to cooperate with the other humans and to help each other advance through the ages, than to confront them. (Except for scenarios like WW I and WW II, which were geared towards war and nothing else.) In one of the games I used invisible Ninjas to kill the King unit of a fellow player, and I still feel remorse about that... Unfortunately only one player can win in the end, and also there are some players who only see the "future potential enemy" in every fellow player... With these of course it is difficult to live in peaceful cooperation.
But I guess this just reflects real life: some people like to help each other and that way make life easier for all involved, while others only see a potential competitor in every fellow human being.
Lanzelot
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
