Ethics

[Kuciwalker]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be about parties etc.

I'll answer your questions though: it is completely ethical to do anything whatsoever to a unit in a relatively unrealistic simulation. IT IS NOT REAL.

[Sheik]

Re: Ethics

Originally posted by eewolf

what is your goal(s)? to win? to win at any cost? you can each do that on your own.

Yes but in this game because everyone has a say and because parties have developed it makes things harder. We are divided on issues and when playing a game alone you have the only say. Winning is made more difficult because the ideas of one administration are different from the ideas of another.

and panag rules

[eewolf]

Originally posted by skywalker
When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be about parties etc.

I'll answer your questions though: it is completely ethical to do anything whatsoever to a unit in a relatively unrealistic simulation. IT IS NOT REAL.

none of this is real. it is a simulation, of course. you have put together quite a collection of parties, coalitions, constitutions, declarations, offices, etc. and none of them are real. so ethics are not real and therefore can be just as much a part of the process.

so what reason is there to make some things more real than others? could it be that this one makes the game more difficult, the play different than you are used to. suddenly declaring the game not real is a simplistic out.

i will put it out there again:

the "unreal" entity apolytonia has no ethical guidelines. creating these "unreal" guidelines would be informative, useful, challenging and difficult. all of those things would be quite real.

[Sheik]

Well, why dont you post a poll on whether people would like ethics to play a bigger role in the game.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say ethics weren't real. I said that what you were applying them to wasn't real. I said that nothing in Civ3 could possibly be unethical because it's a game.

[eewolf]

Re: Re: Ethics

Originally posted by Sheik


Yes but in this game because everyone has a say and because parties have developed it makes things harder. We are divided on issues and when playing a game alone you have the only say. Winning is made more difficult because the ideas of one administration are different from the ideas of another.

in the democracy game you have additional disadvantages as you said. but you also have advantages that far outweigh them. you have many people with many ideas on how to play. this gives you the ability to discuss strategy which will always bring about better results than one person alone.

the game is not harder to win, it is easier. you have maybe a hundred human minds working against a known ai.

adding some ethical bounderies, to me, adds another layer of challenge and realism to the "democracy game."

[eewolf]

Originally posted by skywalker
I didn't say ethics weren't real. I said that what you were applying them to wasn't real. I said that nothing in Civ3 could possibly be unethical because it's a game.

you missed my point, i think. i'm saying the ethics are not real. they can just be another part of the whole game.

your insistence that the ethics are real and therefore don't apply is puzzling. everything that exists in the democracy game outside the actual computer game is created and equal. a code of ethics would be as no more different than the constitution that was written. they are guidelines for how to play. and the more real they seem, the better they may be.

[Sheik]

Reply

Originally posted by eewolf

you have many people with many ideas on how to play. this gives you the ability to discuss strategy which will always bring about better results than one person alone.

the game is not harder to win, it is easier. you have maybe a hundred human minds working against a known ai.

Not that many minds there really aren't that many active participants. I also don't think Civ 3 is a game with many consequences. This has been discussed before. In Civ 3 you will eventually research every tech (if the game lasts long enough) and will eventually build the things you need. I find that no decision you make in Civ 3 is really that important besides war. Civ 3 is a great game but still lacks that depth where one decision could change everything.

[MrWhereItsAt]

eewolf - this is utterly brilliant! Only rarely have ethical concerns come up in this and the Civ2 Democratic game (has been running a few months now), and as mentioned, both time the environmentalists were laughed at. If this were in the OT forum, I would rate it a 5/5.

You are right in many ways - if we manage to win the game without compromising a code of ethics that we decide on, that makes the achievement enormous - I don't see Civ3 as a game built to be played with such a code in mind. In fact I see playing with a conscience to be a liability. Personally, I have never thought of maintaining a code of morals (my RL ones or a set of ones constructed for the game) in any game (Civ or otherwise), partly 'cause I have not played games as anything this seriously - merely as entertainment. We are however, in this Democracy format, much more deeply involved than ever before, and I certainly hope everyone considers this idea very seriously.

But, that said, I must say I am very doubtful that any morals will be used this game around. This is at it's heart a Democratic game, and such things need to be voted on. We have not done so yet because no-one has proposed it, and quite frankly I am amazed at my (and everyone else's) ability to miss such an important extension of forming Political parties and allegiances - a Bill of Rights, as it were.

However, almost all who post here seem to be of the very warlike, flagwaving nature that you mention, and (perhaps I'm wrong), but I feel the majority of active citizens are of similar mind. I feel that this game is, much like the Civ2 one, to see if we CAN achieve a win in the harsh conditions we have set out into, at any cost necessary. Once this has been proven, I think there will be much more support for your ideas, to throw a whole new layer of involvement and challenge into the game. I also think that, where there may be some confusion, many who have posted here such as Spiffor feel this way too - that your ideas are terrific, but we are in the "testing" game of a series of Democratic games.

All that said, I hope you keep spreading your ideas to ppl, perhaps turn up in the turnchat at one point and suggest we don't take slaves, or if we do, it is only to relocate them to a city to be naturalized as refugees etc etc. Get a Minister to post a poll or two on elements of a code of ethics (which one would be concerned with this?). I may not always vote for your ideas, but I strongly, strongly support you pushing this to everyone.

[Ninot]

Most modern nations, or most remade modern nations, can't claim to have a spotless ethical past. Like the USA used to have legal Slavery.. and other such things.

I agree a code of ethics would be very fun to add, and make the game much more interesting and perhaps fun. But I throw in this twist. What if we did have a code of sorts, but only ammended to it over time. So say we leave pop-rushing as "ethical" untill a certain year.

And then.. what of political ethics? When Communism comes to be founded, will we become automaticaly agresive towards communist nations, because they are pop-rushers? Will we be like the USA of the 60's, pushing our ethics on others?

just some querries. But VERy good ideas here in this thread.

[Sheik]

I think Ninot has a good idea we should shape the ethics to the time and who we are.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Ninot
Most modern nations, or most remade modern nations, can't claim to have a spotless ethical past. Like the USA used to have legal Slavery.. and other such things.

I agree a code of ethics would be very fun to add, and make the game much more interesting and perhaps fun. But I throw in this twist. What if we did have a code of sorts, but only ammended to it over time. So say we leave pop-rushing as "ethical" untill a certain year.

i agree that anything written, including a code of ethics, should not be written in stone. however, in practice, it would have to be because 6000 years will not transpire during this game. changing your ethics during the game would add very little, since each "atrocity" would be milked as far as it could and then abandoned when not as helpful. that may be too realistic for me. anyway, the idea was to put some constraints on the game and give it a more human twist in the "democracy" part of the game (which is far more fascinating to me than the actual fame).

Originally posted by Ninot
And then.. what of political ethics? When Communism comes to be founded, will we become automaticaly agresive towards communist nations, because they are pop-rushers? Will we be like the USA of the 60's, pushing our ethics on others?

i don't know. i suppose some would feel that way. it would be interesting to find out. also, who knows what else might come up unexpectedly during the game? one thing sparks another... action, reaction.

i am pleased and a little overwhelmed with the response here. it has all been positive, though. a toast to you all.

[Trevman]

This is an incredibly interesting post and I am amazed that people haved argued reasonably over this. You ask if it is better to win or to win with honor. Certainly the latter is better but unfortunately we will have to compromise some honor to win at all. The problem with your ideas is that right now we might not even achieve the lesser goal so an honorable win seems to be ridiculous. I must agree that we must shoot for a win at any cost because the alternative simply is not feasible.

Currently, not waging an unprovoked war will certainly result in our demise as we will be trapped in our unproductive jungle until one of our stronger neighbors becomes strong enough to war on us, which we will not be able to defend against. Maybe it would fun for you to mill around in our tiny jungle until our inevitable honorable demise, but to most others, not.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
eewolf - this is utterly brilliant! Only rarely have ethical concerns come up in this and the Civ2 Democratic game (has been running a few months now), and as mentioned, both time the environmentalists were laughed at. If this were in the OT forum, I would rate it a 5/5.


...

i realize that i was a little late with this. i don't get around too often at apolyton. i have felt that slavery isn't well realized in the civ game. i have sometimes (not always) created my own ethics code before playing a game just to see what happens. (i never called it an ethics code before seeing this democracy game). i have been absolutely wailed on by the ai while adhering to some of these. damn thing has no scruples. i have also pulled out some wins (or just survived) and they were worth the price of admission.

thanks for replying and its not too late to at least vote on it. i hesitate to participate here because my summer is very busy. i will tune in from time to time because my interest is piqued.

note: my daughter (8 years old) does not like ethics codes in the game either. it gets in the way of her rolling over other civs. she is still upset that the spanish were not included in civ3 because she still holds a grudge against them from her first game of civ2. she can't wait for ptw so she can eviscerate them again.

[Andreiguy]

I would like to go back to a point made previously in this thread...

i have been in situations where my life was in jeopardy. i have not had to make ethical decisions for my survival, though. i like to believe that i could rise above pure survival if the situation arose, as many have over the ages. and you are wrong about instinct. that is an overused tool, an excuse for the masses. critcal thought and ethics combined are more powerful than instinct. it is the ability to see and act beyond instinct that raises us above the natural darwinian world.

You have? Please elaborate. I consider "life in jeopardy" when one is in serious fear that in a moment they might no longer be alive. In this case, I assure you that EVERY human being will turn to instict. You have no choice. It is a natural "darwinian" bodily reaction (we are surprisingly like the animal world in many other ways, as well). When in serious danger, any living thing's first and primary concern is its own survival. There have been some amazing people in history (Gandhi, etc.) who no doubt would unflinchingly give up their lives for their morals. *However* these people are all usually older and very religious. What this entails: they consider their mission in life complete when a higher power, as they believe, ends their life. Or maybe I'm wrong. Whatever...

About the game:
Remember: America gave up slavery later than Russia, England, and just about every other nation on earth.

Whatever can clear the jungle, be it foreign workers, Apolytonian workers, steroid bananas, or Donald Trump, it is free to do so, in my opinion.
Great thread.