Jhereg
Overkill
Tweety
xide
Jerry
Diddy
Animal

Its funny Sam that you list some of these people as your "high moral players"
Makes me giggle inside.
They're good to great players, and for the most part really nice people.. but game wise.. ya, I wouldn't say they are the creme de la creme of twars morals.

As for sing's argument that using hands in soccer is "unethical", well thats just a poor arguement, as it's not unethical, you can do it all you want, but there are BUILT IN consequences if you do so (ie: direct kick for the other team, yellow card)
If you're tied 1:1 with 2 minutes left, and the goalie is out of place and only you can stop the ball from going in, and you can't reach it without using your hands.. you're Darn right that player is gonna use his hands.
However, the other team is going to get a penalty kick AND that player will more than likely recieve a red card, but, it's their best chance to win, so he does it.
Now, tradewars, if you dupe, megacorp, hack, etc.. to win, there is no built in way to police this.
The ONLY way is for the community to police itself.
If someone does something, such as use a bug, dupe, whatever, and you catch them, call them out, and we as a community need to stop playing with them.
That is the only way to fix anything.
Ethics is rather simple, we're all taught this as children, why is it so hard?
"treat others as you would like to be treated"
Do you want other players megacorping against you every time you're ahead? Do you want them dupe mothing you? Do you want them using your password?
I would guess not, so don't do it to them.
If we all listened to our parents when we were younger, there would be no problems.

ALSO
As a side note to Uncle Sam.
You said that anyone who feels killing is a crime, but believes in the death penalty is a hypocrite.
Hi.
How many vets do we have playing here?
It's called kill or be killed.
In war:
If you point a weapon at me, I'll kill you before you have a chance to pull the trigger.
In civilian life:
If you rape, murder, mame, molest, etc.. multiple times, you get retarded people like yourself saying "oh no, don't kill them, that's not ethical" but then they get out on parole and rape and murder another 4 year old kid.
What then? Go look the parents in the eyes and say "it was right not to kill him" I dare you.
I don't care what type of moral/ethical high ground you want to use to argue against killing, the simple FACT of the matter is, there are bad people in this world, and the SAFEST thing for the rest of us (the GOOD people) is for them to be killed.
Common freaking sense.
Common sense > ethics

Examples?



Fair enough, so how about slamming into someone in basketball then? It's a foul and it's usually considered "unsportsmanlike." My point wasn't how horrible or "unethical" one particular action is, but rather how different actions mean different things across games. Compare this conduct to that in, say, arena football. Or wrestling, or... I'm sure I could name 10.



I see nothing wrong with the morality of killing someone that is indeed guilty of a horrible crime (like murder). The problem is our current system of justice is so horribly messed up, and so many cases are tried in the press instead of a court room, that innocence and guilt come down to your checkbook. It's all well and good to say "he raped, murdered, etc, so he deserves the harshest sentence" but in many cases... you can't be completely certain of their guilt. People regularly confess to crimes they didn't commit, infact police are even allowed to lie to a suspect about the evidence on file ("We have your fingerprints at the scene, we know you did it, you're going to get life in prison or you can confess and maybe the judge will only give you 10!"). That's right, the cops can lie to you about the circumstances. Someone with questionable mental health can be easily convinced of their guilt, and will often make up lies to support their false confession, when in fact they had no real involvement in the crime. It's wierd how the brain works, but it happens a lot.

In war things are different than they are for the rest of civilian life. In war you have no choice, this is why a seperate code of conduct (the military code of justice) exists for wars. Those people that have never been in war cannot provide a "jury of one's peers" to accurately judge another's actions. Goes back to the issue of providing a fair jury and a fair trial.

Again tho, my point wasn't to decide what is good or bad or ethical or unethical, but rather to demonstrate clearly how people's opinions differ completely on such fundemental issues of justice, right and wrong.

There can be no opinion more fundemental to ethics and morality than that of the basic cardinal sins and no more basic moral justice than that applied to such crimes. But despite how absolute such things seems to be, and how justified we feel in our opinions, things are never so cut and dry in the real world. Yes bad people do bad things and deserve to be punished, but we better dang well make sure these "bad people" really are "bad" and really are guilty of the "bad things" we think they are. Otherwise the real "bad people" are free and good people suffer unjustly.

I cannot pass judgement on someone who has lost a loved one to some insane man's sick desires. If they want the guy to fry, who am I to tell them how "unethical" it might be? Or even if it is at all... I can't know. What you must acknowledge tho is that there are times when you cannot know the flipside to that coin. There is simply no "common sense" in that situation, nor is there any flat "this is good, this is bad" morality. It's all about perspective and the wisdom to acknowledge one own's self-ignorance of morality. IMO anyone that proclaims moral authority has, by definition, none to speak of.

For every circumstance you can think of where a simple black and white line can be drawn, I can come up with atleast one counter shade of grey. Most people don't want to acknowledge these exist, they challenge our fundemental beliefs of right and wrong (which isn't easy), but it's the first step in overcoming thousands of years of self-righteous violence and war. IMO that's a far better standard of ethics (and morality) than "eye for an eye."

*climbs off soapbox*

Well i saw the conv too and it wasnt from BH.
These things keep coming up around you SG because of your actions.
You lie and get caught lieing. Therefore it is assumed that everything you say is a lie. This is your fault. No one elses. You use shaky tactics so therefore when something comes up peeps assune the worst and rightly so. Change your ways or be forever defending your actions. Its up to you.

Says the cheater who got banned from UTW for several violations...

I have known Space Ghost for more than a decade. First as an opponent, later as a corpie and personal friend. He never lies.

I'll back him up, he might try to get squirrly, but lieing.. I don't buy it.

I believe we already hashed this one out and you know the answer.  I don't need to justify anything to anyone and don't plan on it.  To those people that don't like my answer, see the bottom of Misbahavins posts and plant your 2 lips on the back side of the Irish fella.  Hehe. 

OK, I'll bite here.  IF there were to be a megacorping rule added to any TWGS, then how do you define the "Line" to be crossed?  I agree with D that there's not much point in placing rules on your site, if you can't enforce them.  I'm just now kinda unclear as to what MegaCorping is definded as.
A lot of this sounds like information sharing between corps.  Do we define that as not allowed?  If so, how can you prove the offence, and enforce the rule?
 
 

My definition for megacorping is as follows:
If two corporations work together, with the agreement that one will intentionally lose in order for the other corporation to win.  That, in my book, is magacorping and also cheating.
Now to prove it?  Well about the only way they will get caught is if assets change hands and the sysop can prove the transfer.

infact me and you have Bounty..I was trying to let people like Kewl who says it was because of some ethics issue hear your reasons and see your words in black and white so to speak. It's ok though..im done with this.

Well im not perfect by any means...But i do shy away from lying..You would be hard pressed to point to any post i have written and say that i lied.
Besides i dont need to lie. Usually the truth will piss people off more then the lie. 

The common rule of no mega corping is  No sharing of HARD resources(tangible).
Of course there are a million ways to do it.
But that is the common standard.

Allow me to point to one of the most mis managed tournaments in the history of TW.
The U.S. Open ......
One year the winning team was deleted due to an ICQ message that was deemed information sharing...(i still have all egroup History on this if needed)
since that date no one has had an Information Sharing rule in any Tourny that *I* know of. 
BTW The message stated " hey wake up Your being invaded"
Ofcourse i keep signing up for the dang game...silly me!

If I were you I would not even touch that rule. "Megacorping" you will just be causing yourself grief in the end. It's much too hard to monitor all the * that goes on as it is. IMO.

A megacorping rule would seem as silly as UTW's "advanced scripts" rule.
They can't even decide on what that is...