Gathering Storm

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Perhaps you could grant that a lot had happened that pissed off a lot of members of GS. Is that possible?

I understood that. Which is why the initial outburst didn't bother me. It was the stubbornly sticking to it afterwards that really irked me.

Yes things had happened that pissed you off, the one in particular that you guys went all off on here was not even approaching an 'attack' on GS, though. It was something you might see in the stories forum, just involving a demogame, not a SP game.

It was a knee-jerk reaction from you guys, I saw that from the beginning. What I didn't expect is you guys sticking to that initial reaction.

[Arrian]

A plea:

Let's drop the PTWDGI stuff, fellas. Seriously. We all got very worked up about that stuff at the time, but I thought we'd sorted it through - at least well enough to learn some things. Rehashing it now is dangerous, IMO, because we're close to starting a new game, and the idea is to start fresh, right?

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
we're close to starting a new game, and the idea is to start fresh, right?

-Arrian

Hi Arrian. The Horde is ever hopeful that your words carry weight for all to see. We, obviously, have a strong desire for past demogames to be just that....past.

We are approaching this game with a clean slate to all and hope for the same from every other team. This game can be a great experience for us all, but I add my plea to your...Let this be a fresh start for all and let us approach this game on its own merits and leave any baggage at the door.

Good luck to The Gathering Storm.

[alva]

Originally posted by Arrian
A plea:

Let's drop the PTWDGI stuff, fellas. Seriously. We all got very worked up about that stuff at the time, but I thought we'd sorted it through - at least well enough to learn some things. Rehashing it now is dangerous, IMO, because we're close to starting a new game, and the idea is to start fresh, right?

-Arrian

Please yes...

I'd almost forgotten most about it anyway.

[Beta]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I'm sure that should make all the members of GS happy. Knowing that all the other team leaderships were aware of the thread about to start and all lined up with the baseball bats to beat on your target, but they didn't get to edit the message. Thanks.

As I stated in my post, the others knew of the attack; we were looking for alliances and help. They did not know about the thread or our diplomatic approach.

I am sorry that the thread created the results that it did. It was not my intent. I have said "sorry" three times in two posts.

Originally posted by Arrian
A plea:

Let's drop the PTWDGI stuff, fellas. Seriously. We all got very worked up about that stuff at the time, but I thought we'd sorted it through - at least well enough to learn some things. Rehashing it now is dangerous, IMO, because we're close to starting a new game, and the idea is to start fresh, right?

-Arrian

Yep, I agree. This is particulary relevant for those of us that just came through the C3CDG as well.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Arrian
A plea:

Let's drop the PTWDGI stuff, fellas. Seriously. We all got very worked up about that stuff at the time, but I thought we'd sorted it through - at least well enough to learn some things. Rehashing it now is dangerous, IMO, because we're close to starting a new game, and the idea is to start fresh, right?

-Arrian

Works for me. Sorry I helped bring it up in the first place.

[Daddy-O]

Can we start THIS game so we can have NEW reasons to fight?

[NicodaMax]

Actually, its fun to see how passionate you guys were on those past DGs, which brings up expectations for this one

"But Master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future"
"But not at the expense of the moment."

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Daddy-O
Can we start THIS game so we can have NEW reasons to fight?

First step: private forums. Then we can all sort out membership, civ/leader choice, etc. Then we play.

-Arrian

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Daddy-O
Can we start THIS game so we can have NEW reasons to fight?

I look forward to finding as many reasons to fight as I can.

[Aeson]

I don't believe common folk are responsible for their actions, and even enlightened folk probably aren't either.

There is no difference between "common" and "enlightened" people in regards to the manner in which you are defining responsibility.

We -are- made up of substance that obeys the various laws of physics.

If we assume that is true, as the substance in both "common" and "enlightened" people is obeying the same laws, they are both deterministic systems. If a system is defined as not responsible due to obeying laws, then all other deterministic systems are also not responsible by the same definition.

It would be best to act how you are and work with what you have than expend large amounts of effort so you can base success on a lie.

If a person is (part of) a deterministic system then it is entirely impossible for them to "lie" about who they are in this regard. Everything they do necessarily has to conform to what they are. Even if a person denies one of their own impulses, they can only do so deterministically (ie. an overriding impulse).

While everyone exercises limited control to improve themselves, or the world around them, I do not consider people responsible for their actions, and I consider punishing people for the amorality of their beliefs and actions to be cruel and unjustified.

Your conclusions require a "specialness" about your own perspective that is not supported. You use the term "moral" when it is not rellevent to deterministic systems. "Amoral" means without moral (or immoral), which a deterministic system actually is, but you seem to be using the term as "immoral". (Which is a valid use of the term as well.)

If you really are using "amoral" as amoral (ie. utterly without moral), then your example of punishment would be an exceedingly rare occurance. In any case, it would be the only coherent reason to base punishment off of. Every other moral label would be a patently false accusation.

Your use of "cruel and unjustified" are synonyms for "immoral". It is neither moral or immoral or "cruel and unjustified" to punish someone for being "immoral" from that (deterministic) perspective. The entire system is amoral, and so any action that occurs is amoral. The punishment for being "immoral" or even "amoral" is as amoral as if it didn't occur.

On the other hand, since you can't force people to believe or feel things that are beneficial to your empire, it's entirely moral to execute them en-masse so that the beliefs and feelings you want become dominant,
and since people are basically predictable machines with no soul (in my opinion) I have no qualms about publicly torturing one to affect the others.

This is justification on your part that your reasoning for offering the justification does not support (it actually condradicts it). It can't be moral (or immoral) to execute them from the perspective of determinism.

I have no problems accepting your reasoning if you apply it consistantly. I "am" such that I would disagree with what you have concluded from that reasoning though.

[Enigma_Nova]

Point taken, Swapping belief systems based on mood means I'm hardly ever consistent.

[Cort Haus]

E_N, do you really place emotion over reason? That would be a shame, as emotion is often stupid. Surely reason rules.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Aeson
There is no difference between "common" and "enlightened" people in regards to the manner in which you are defining responsibility.

True. Therefore nobody can be 'held accountable' for 'their' actions.

If a system is defined as not responsible due to obeying laws, then all other deterministic systems are also not responsible by the same definition.

True until I hear a counter. If a system is Deterministic then where does free will come into the equation?
Or, can there be responsibility without free will to control it? (Probably not)

If a person is (part of) a deterministic system then it is entirely impossible for them to "lie" about who they are in this regard. Everything they do necessarily has to conform to what they are. Even if a person denies one of their own impulses, they can only do so deterministically (ie. an overriding impulse).

While this is true,writing that one line statement (hopefully ) causes stormians to consider me as less of a loose cannon, thus increasing the chances of me getting l33t Civ 4 pwndage.

Your conclusions require a "specialness" about your own perspective that is not supported. You use the term "moral" when it is not rellevent to deterministic systems.

"Moral" applies damn well to deterministic systems with a large set of predictable beings that defines things as Moral and Immoral.
Being predictable doesn't stop you having feelings, it just means your feelings are predictable.
Neither Self-Awareness nor Self-Improvement contradict a deterministic world. People view themselves, have desires, and change over time. I'm just sayin' the driving forces of this are the laws of physics rather than force of will.

Every other moral label would be a patently false accusation.

A sense of right and wrong is just different chemicals being released as you cognate, one favoring action and the other inaction.
Nothing prevents all the Emotions, Logic and Realisations therefrom that humans have created from applying to a deterministic system.
We have Self-Control, but we can't control how self-control changes us.

I have no problems accepting your reasoning if you apply it consistantly.

Nor would I take issue with your arguments if you didn't assume I was a fatalist.
I believe in Free Will in the sense that we can make decisions and act, whether upon our environment or upon ourselves.
The Decisions we make, and the actions we perform, are predetermined by the various particles and forces acting upon the sack of flesh in question, but nonetheless we do learn, decide, act and grow - albeit in a predictable manner.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
E_N, do you really place emotion over reason? That would be a shame, as emotion is often stupid. Surely reason rules.

Emotion is Stupid but Logic is Heartless.
I base myself on my Emotions, of course.

If you try to base yourself on Logic, you need to use Logic to determine your goals in life (else you have no goals and are a useless sack of flesh).
In determining these goals, you find out that you're making assumptions, and that your goals are based on what you believe.
But, what you believe will change in order to fit your goals - especially if one of your goals is "make sure my beliefs are logical".
Being unable to separate Goals from Beliefs, you cannot objectively determine a path for yourself.
Upon realising this, you can't even Relatively determine a path for yourself as the uncertaintly from "what should my goals and beliefs be" will carry over.

Logic was evolved so we could adapt to changing environments and determine our actions so we could best get food / preserve the species / seduce a mate / meet any other goals.
It is not a device to base your life upon, it's an add-on utility to all the rest of the stuff our brain comes with.
You can't logically determine who you wan't to have sex with, but without sex our species would be extinct, so a logically-based being is thus a failure of a species.

Emotion's beta version was Instinct. Lengthy discussion of why instinct is good because it allowed life to exist and evolve not needed.
Emotion is Instinct with an apply-over-time effect. Happiness in situations when instinct would tell you to eat or have sex with something, Anger when instinct would tell you to kill something, Sadness when instinct would tell you to prepare for something bad.

The transition from Instinctual to Emotional is not known, but as Dogs, Dolphins and People all show Emotions it would at least have to be the first Pack Mammals.
Emotion is thus better developed as a basis for who you are than Logic (which, as seen, is useless when used by itself).

While Logic is the method of choice for most man-made things - when to catch the bus, how to read and write, where to send your next settler -
Social Interaction is evolution-made, and Emotions have basically been designed with Pack Mammals in mind, so Emotion and Instinct apply to these more than logic does.

---

In Short, Emotion good for Social Interaction, Logic good for Playing Civ 4, Both good for premeditated trolling.

EDIT:
In regards to swapping belief systems based on mood, different belief systems are more effective in different situations, and the mood alters itself automatically.
If I find myself in a dark alley of some urban environment, I'd think "All people are bad and must be dealt with", but if I were in a lecture hall, I'd think "People are good, work with them".
While my Core Beliefs don't change with mood (ergo definition of core beliefs), I hold others which are situational.

FYI, My disrespect of idiots is a Core belief, while my desire to preserve the human species isn't. Makes you think.