Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
I'm keeping business as strictly business and are you going to say it is ethical to "donate" crown bank's assets to people of our or other states as damn the cost? It is ethical for the Crown bank to ensure it's investments are profitable and failing least damaging, involving even more ideal/political is simply unethical use of Crown resources.
- Location
- Illinois
Considering it's common practice for banks to donate to charities irl to improve their rep, yes, it's quite ethical, and even practical if the bank focuses its efforts on areas that will benefit it long term.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
You know most of current day banks are non-crown owned and are entitled to tax write-off when they donate?
- Location
- Illinois
Seriously, our bank is suffering from bad PR right now, not from lack of money.
Yes. It still doesn't remove the point about our bank benefiting more from good PR than being able to squeeze out some extra money right now.
Our bank is being hit by scandals and rumors, which lowers the trust in it, making it harder for it to operate. Giving away some land when necessary to rebuild the trust in that bank will do more for it long term than trying to focus on money alone.
And considering we don't know if we can actually handle stewards (the only indication on whether it's plausible IC said no, but was also biased as fuck), this is a pretty big gamble that's going to affect a lot of areas in our civ, with no way to tell whether or not it's going to be good long term.
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Ethics are ideological. You can't go making "ought" statements and then claim that you're somehow keeping ideology out of the situation! Your position isn't avoiding "involving more ideology/politics," it's just favoring one ideological stance over another. Why is this so hard to understand?
- Location
- a
Can you stop the fearmongering?
Where in the update it is said that this will become our preferred governing philosophy?
Right, NOWHERE.
Eventually the philosophy will grow yes, but we can always vote against it and stop it in the next update.
Even you acknowledge that stewardship is BEST for the bank problem.
Use BANK sollutions for BANK problems, not silly ethics that do not belong there and screw our bank in the long term.
- Location
- Illinois
Well, between the mentions of Humanism involving natural rights of men, and stuff likeCan you stop the fearmongering?
Where in the update it is said that this will become our preferred governing philosophy?
Right, NOWHERE.
Where it doesn't say 'banking philosophy', I'm not inclined to assume that our banking philosophy is going to be all that different from our preferred internal philosophy.
It's the best if we can make it work.
If.
Edit: And since nobody answered me when I asked why we should be confident that we can pull it off, I'm personally not too much of a fan of it.
Last edited:
- Location
- Huezil
It's a National Bank and we use it as a TOOL to advance the royal agenda, and right now, the bank going full money will hurt our agenda.
- Location
- a
*facepalms
When the previous sentence was describing a bank problem? -_-
And the philosophical interpertation of each philosophy was about the banking problem?
Understand the context please
CONTEXT MATTERS
Edit:
And yes, it is risky. But it's the one that pay more in credit terms in the long term.
A good pr for a short while isn't worth it to a bank that can't make money
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
[X] Absolutism
[X] Stewardship
Strong opinions about farming.
[X] Stewardship
Strong opinions about farming.
- Location
- Illinois
Yes, because votes on one subject have never had an effect on the culture of our entire civilization before.
This will mainly have to do with banking, but it is also going to bleed over into other areas. It is almost certain to affect our philosophy in many, many areas, especially when the bank is going to be involved in so many things.
It's not a 'this choice will lock you into whatever philosophy you choose, no takebacksies', but will instead make us lean towards whichever one we choose.
Edit:
Context matters, but that also includes the context of what the bank will be involved in, which is to say a lot.Understand the context please
CONTEXT MATTERS
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
I must admit, the "Strong opinions about farming" meme became a lot less funny once I saw the logical end results, aka "The filthy barbarians know nothing worthwhile, they could never harm the great Ymar!"
- Location
- a
Yes that is true, and I did write that in my reply
And yeah, as you said, it doesn't lock us so it's not instantenous. So we can prevent it next time so it doesn't spread to our governing principles?
See, you essentially written what I was saying
I see how strong opinions on farming can lead to the latter, like in our situation.
Not necessarily tho.
It's not just about strong farming opinions that lead to the latter statement. Other choices contribute as well.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
No... I did not?Yes that is true, and I did write that in my reply
And yeah, as you said, it doesn't lock us so it's not instantenous. So we can revert it next time?
See, you essentially written what I was saying
There is no magic button that will reset things the next time we want to push a certain philosophy. Whatever we do in the future will mix with past choices. So if we pick Stewards now, and then later push Humanism, it's not going to give us straight humanism, but Stewards mixed with Humanism.
What we pick now will affect our entire society, directly or indirectly. So we have to keep in mind what each of these philosophies are going to do to our ideals, as well as their practical effects.
My entire point was:
1) We don't know if our financial institutions, which we have never been all that invested into, will be able to handle the expansion of duties that Stewards would require of it. If it works, nice, if not OH SHIT
2) This will also possibly push us towards a sort of 'Ymaryn Man's Burden', where the Ymaryn (Or maybe the state, depending on how it shakes down) have the responsibility to show others the 'correct' way to do things.
To me, these are risks that I don't want to take. Maybe I'm wrong, and it all works out.
But if I'm right? Well, wouldn't that combo of Tax Reform and DGE style shenanigans be fun to deal with?
Edit: Also, please lay off with the emoticons for a bit, it makes you sound a tad condescending towards the people you are debating with.
Last edited:
- Location
- a
No but neither is the damage of humanism over our bank long term. Both have negatives, don't they?
Welcome to the burden of choices
Technically speaking, the votes are a kind of magic button
Jokes aside, You did?
We both acknowledge the fact that the philosophy will grow and might spread beyond the banking problem and lead to our governing principles, but also note that it will not lock us up nor it is instantenous.
Which was what you rewritten-_-
Which mean it can be stopped in the next update when it started to spread beyond banking problems?
Edit : fine, but many people assume my emotions incorrectly when I don't use them, which is kinda annoying
Removed.
I don't contest your ignore ethics point if you noticed.
My wording was "ethics which do not belong here" not "ethics, which do not belong here.
The former refers to humanism ethics which is not suitable to banks and we use other ethics for it instead, while the latter means we ignore ethics which was not my point.
For the rest, you can see above
Last edited:
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Right here:
Note the phrasing; AN does not say "choose a banking approach" but simply "choose a philosophy." Whichever we select will have to be the philosophy that emerges dominant, as otherwise one of the other philosophies would have used its dominance to see a different plan implemented. Yes, we can act against this trend in future votes, but vote weighting will make that increasingly difficult. Finally, I would direct you to my conversation with VoidZero for my points on the nonsense of trying to separate ethics from our banking practices - in brief, choosing to "ignore ethics" is itself an ideological judgment.
Note that that logical result took ONE THOUSAND YEARS.
For reference, if we started going down that route right now, we would come to its unfortunate conclusion in something like 2500+. Even if we only step out of lightning rounds at 2100, that is 400+ years, or 100+ turns - which means 200+ updates. That is longer than the entire length of this quest.
So I'm actually go on a limb and say that "strong opinions about farming" worked out perfectly fine, and helped us outlast the vast majority of our peers. The only reason we see it as a bad thing is that the lightning round structure compressed the MILLENNIA of peace we had under this policy into something like a single paragraph.
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
No it just took ONE THOUSAND YEARS for the thread to notice it.
- Location
- Illinois
I wrote that, but I also went further into it. I did not just leave it as 'It will grow', but also explained that the effects of that growth will affect large portions of a society, not just the bank, but also everything that bank touches.
That is not what you wrote, except at the most superficial levels, nor is the fact that it is similar on that level relevant to the discussion.
How? How do you stop it? How do you stop something rooted in the philosophy that your bank has been using for the past 40-50 years at that point? The bank that now controls a significant amount of land? Which has been deciding how your nation should be growing, what infrastructure should be prioritized, which crops our farmers should grow, and which has had to rapidly expand it's bureaucratic functions in order to deal with a multination expansion of duties?
Seriously, how do you reverse that without an incredible amount of time and effort put into doing so?
Last edited:
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
It took that long for it to kill us, but it didn't take nearly that long for the negative cultural effects to show up. We just got away with them for a long time by legitimately being miles ahead of the competition. I'd rather not be smug isolationists even if we actually are better than the filthy barbaroi, yeah?
No, what took 1000 years was for something hard enough to beat us even with this mindset's downsides. And it was Genghis Khan, complete with siege auxiliaries from China to help him get past our fortifications. And even then it was a mutual kill, a feat no other civilization can boast of, and plenty of the Core, it's records and infrastructure survived, even if in a state of chaos that caused the practical knowledge to be lost.
Fact is by historical standards the Ymaryn model, downsides and all, is hilariously, unreasonably good. You might say arrogance was inevitable without dedicated Humility values.
Last edited: