[Guest]

OH AND BTW, the current administration runs the US and affects the world however they want. They make sure their cronies get overblown contracts and make tons of money while the little guys (our military) make barely a tenth of what the mercenaries make for doing the same job better and with less equipment. The corporations and their CEOs win and the little guy loses. Nothing new.

So, in effect, The current admin plays life like it's a game. I have problems with THAT. I don't have problems with it when it really is just a game though.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:When you play a game, most people play to win....THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT A GAME.

Yeh, I've been called a lil, umm, "competitive" by those who know me. I don't see the fun in a game in which you cannot compete. That would be more like my 5 year old's soccer games--not only does every player get to play an equal amount of time despite their skill, but also they do not keep score.

Just sayin, if I'm gonna play a game...yeh, *%$# straight I'm playing to win.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:

iceman2020 Wrote:I understand all that. I don't care about winning/losing wars. That's not why we're here. We're retired KoC vets looking to have fun and relax compared to the politics of KoC. (And yes, even this topic would be considered very polite and relaxing compared to those arguments in KoC).

I've just come to realize it's all about being results-oriented and not process oriented here. Something I'll just go ahead an accept. Luckily for all of us this is just a game. If these same people were business leaders or something with a similar impact in real life we'd all be screwed .

This is a game of crime, gang wars, attacks, thievery, etc. What would make you think that players wouldn't do whatever is necessary by any means necessary to make progress in the game?

If you're playing R.I.S.K. and you could rule the world by first wiping out your friend's troops which are holding europe, are you telling me you wouldn't? If your answer is yes, you and your friend both lose because i'm wiping you out in Africa, then I'm overtaking Europe.

When you play a game, most people play to win. You can make alliances which may or may not be loyal. You never know for sure what will happen. THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT A GAME.

Shoot Pullo. You can probably take over the world with 2 or 3 troops only. HEHE

[Leopard]

If Pullo had constant energy refreshes he could take over the world solo

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:OH AND BTW, the current administration runs the US and affects the world however they want. They make sure their cronies get overblown contracts and make tons of money while the little guys (our military) make barely a tenth of what the mercenaries make for doing the same job better and with less equipment. The corporations and their CEOs win and the little guy loses. Nothing new.

So, in effect, The current admin plays life like it's a game. I have problems with THAT. I don't have problems with it when it really is just a game though.

So you're saying the current administration isn't acting ethically? I need not say more to that then. I agree. It kinda supports my point here.

It is a game; I've acknowledged that, yet we all still bring in morals to the game. If anyone thinks all morals are left at the sign-up screen, then that person is truly ignorant. I said I just wanted to see as well if there was anyone else that played the same.

Your comment on corporations and CEO's is getting into economics and "The Big Tradeoff": a tradeoff between efficiency and equality. Indeed our current system is flawed, but it is the best we have to attempt to keep pace with the rest of the world: capitalism.

If a CEO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CMO, or COO made the same as a Mid-level manager, do you think those companies would be making progress at all? Many salaries of agents are now paid with stock nowadays as well (granted the bonuses are too large), but that means they are only paid if they work extremely hard and for their investors. I couldn't imagine the pressures of dealing with a global economy, and in reality "working" (a new term needs to be created for what they do) basically all hours they are not sleeping (which are few).


Playing morally can still lead to success. I started a clan with a friend, and we built it purely on ethics. An age later, our clan came in first place out of 125,000 players. It is by no means, an uncompetitive path. I'm quite the competitor myself, but I will not do "whatever it takes." I will do what is morally right (by my standards of course) to get there. I suppose in tennis when it's "up in the air" if the ball was in our out, I could just call it out, but then that shows what kind of person I really am.

Last time I checked too, tennis was just a game.

[Guest]

iceman2020 Wrote:

Mighke Wrote:OH AND BTW, the current administration runs the US and affects the world however they want. They make sure their cronies get overblown contracts and make tons of money while the little guys (our military) make barely a tenth of what the mercenaries make for doing the same job better and with less equipment. The corporations and their CEOs win and the little guy loses. Nothing new.

So, in effect, The current admin plays life like it's a game. I have problems with THAT. I don't have problems with it when it really is just a game though.

So you're saying the current administration isn't acting ethically? I need not say more to that then. I agree. It kinda supports my point here.

It is a game; I've acknowledged that, yet we all still bring in morals to the game. If anyone thinks all morals are left at the sign-up screen, then that person is truly ignorant. I said I just wanted to see as well if there was anyone else that played the same.

Your comment on corporations and CEO's is getting into economics and "The Big Tradeoff": a tradeoff between efficiency and equality. Indeed our current system is flawed, but it is the best we have to attempt to keep pace with the rest of the world: capitalism.

If a CEO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CMO, or COO made the same as a Mid-level manager, do you think those companies would be making progress at all? Many salaries of agents are now paid with stock nowadays as well (granted the bonuses are too large), but that means they are only paid if they work extremely hard and for their investors. I couldn't imagine the pressures of dealing with a global economy, and in reality "working" (a new term needs to be created for what they do) basically all hours they are not sleeping (which are few).


Playing morally can still lead to success. I started a clan with a friend, and we built it purely on ethics. An age later, our clan came in first place out of 125,000 players. It is by no means, an uncompetitive path. I'm quite the competitor myself, but I will not do "whatever it takes." I will do what is morally right (by my standards of course) to get there. I suppose in tennis when it's "up in the air" if the ball was in our out, I could just call it out, but then that shows what kind of person I really am.

Last time I checked too, tennis was just a game.

Morals have context. So morality in this particular ROLE PLAYING GAME is in the context of thievery, gang wars, muggings etc. If it were a game in which Hippies gathered to create a prosperous commune, the context would demand a different set of morals. Or if it were a role playing game about Wall Street Traders, the morals would fall into the context of what is appropriate there.

RPGs are games where you choose a role and play it. A thief will most likely have totally different morals from a hippie. A cleric will have different morals from a berserker. Just stands to reason it seems.

Because it is a game, any moral code that is appropriate for your character is appropriate for the game. No one loses their life here. No one is imprisoned in a P.O.W. camp. If one chooses to play a game that is flooded with thugs by design, it would necessarily follow that one would have to accept the characteristics and morals put forth by the characters who play the game.

If you disapprove, you can have your own set of morals which you feel are appropriate for your character. But to walk into a dog kennel and be annoyed by the barking is just silly.

[Guest]

genius, dude, genius..you, pullo, are my new hero

immorally yours, coltfanjay!!

lol

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:If you disapprove, you can have your own set of morals which you feel are appropriate for your character. But to walk into a dog kennel and be annoyed by the barking is just silly.

amen!

[Guest]

Did I not say they are my morals, and that I do not intend in anyway that others have to abide by them nor do I expect them to abide by them?

You guys need to go back and read all my posts before indirectly accusing me of something I didn't say (or did say). I said they are MY morals. Not "they are MY morals, and you all better play by how I think the game should be played or you're all immoral and unworthy!" (bit of an exaggeration eh).

We are still ourselves in every game we play; yes we do take on a role. If we played truly as criminals, then you do some things a criminal as powerful as yourself would never do because they involve high morals. (trustworthiness being one to strangers)

This thread should still be over and done with. I said a long time ago; I'm gonna play my style, and others will play theirs. I just wanted to see if there was someone with similar views to play with. It's cool, eh. No problems here anymore. I suppose I could delete my first post if that takes away the controversy? but that wouldn't be ethical by MY standards.

[Guest]

if the thread is done, there's no need to respond. People are allowed to express their opinions even if they differ or duplicate others' opinions. I thought the forum is just about communicating ideas and feelings to others in the game playing community.

you can ask a mod to lock the thread if you don't want any more comments made.