Your observation is fundamentally flawed.
You appear to be confusing game constructs with real relationships. Those relationships may only last for the duration of the game but they are no less real.
My loyalty is to my tribemates, real people who trust me and I, in turn trust. Anything I do in TW against the enemy is fair game. My enemy, though real people too, are not people to whom I have pledged my support and loyalty.
Incidentally you would know, if you actually read through these forums, that I think spying, at least on w18, is pointless.
P.S. I used to be in the armed forces and morals and ethics are not dropped when you don your fatigues. If anything one's morals and ethics are what keeps you sane and doing the right thing.
e-villages are not the issue. Trust and loyalty is.
That is true for some. Personally I'd rather go down fighting for and with my friends.
I'm most certainly not getting confused. You're the one mixing a real life moral code with a WAR GAME. Real relationships can exist, however the things players fight over are ultimately insignificant, and therefore so are the reasons. Things like "trust" and "loyalty" are valueless in a war game due to the insignificance of the things you fight over. The game promotes the domination of others. However, people like to bring in their own moral codes into the game, and they are more then welcome to if it makes them feel better. However, it does seem a little silly because of what you're staking your moral code over: some e-villages. More often then not these moral codes aren't the actual reasons; more so self preservation.
After your position is secured, you can be as trustworthy and loyal as you like, and the more people who believe you the better. And sometimes it goes out of control and everyone decides to hold hands together and end the game in a peaceful unification. In my opinion, players should not lie to themselves and follow some insignificant moral code in game, and just do what the game promotes you to do: to steal, destroy and dominate. They'd have alot more fun for it.
Besides, where were your morals when you nobled all your villages? Surely that's stealing, and would therefore be immoral? You wouldn't steal in real life, but the game allows you to do so, without consequence. And that's absolutely fine. You let go of his moral code in game somewhat so you can commit actions ingame that'd be hurtful in real life. After all, the real players who originally held your villages aren't losing much, are they? Why not just let that moral code slide even more, and backstab any player you meet, if it's to your advantage, even if they are your ally for 2 years? They aren't losing much, are they? Seems pretty hypocritical if you follow your moral code in some cases, and not others. Hence my cynicism of trustworthiness and loyalty in this game.
If I was to noble my friend, nothing to stop him from continuing to be my friend is there? It's not like I've broken a moral code that I've been brought up with throughout real life because what I've done has had no effect on either of our lives. People always say they would go down fighting - was surprising how untrue that was when I put it to the test with the various players I faced. It was amusing how our last ally, FEMA - a tribe of similar (when combined) size to DNY, preached the exact same things as you do now. When war broke out, DNY were labelled as evil, and without morals by some, as if right after we nobled them, we'd go on to committing some heinous act in real life. There's a difference.
You are correct but let's not forget that it is those same reasons that we coalesce into tribes as well.
Which brings us back to the original opinion of the use of alliances. By forming into an alliance that includes nearly all remaining players of the world, the point of the alliance/family is lost, and now you'd be taking the easy way out simply by resting on your laurels. Hence various comments about how w18 has an easy victory brought about Morthy's decision to allow an alliance to close a world, rather then a single tribe. Hopefully he reads this, and this changes in the future, as it degrades the requirement to close a world.
Not misinformed. I am simply stating the values I think moderators should espouse.
I said you were misinformed to
expect that from moderators in the first place. Do you expect football referees to give neutral opinions when discussing football at the pub?
Some more then others, it'd seem.
