User talk:Alfred Wenjack

                                            Malton: A Post-Ethical Community

Good day to you all. Though this is my first lecture as part of West Malton University, it comes from years of careful observation.

Malton, with the exception of new immigrants who find themselves here and goods that get snuck into the various suburbs, has been cut off from the outside world. As such, Malton can be seen as an almost Hobbes-like “state of nature” with no societal rules. Malton, however, differs from a “state of nature” because even cause and effect has been waived. I call this society “post-ethical” as ethics can neither be enforced nor universally accepted here.

In the outside world, actions have consequences. Infrastructures, though governments, corporations and independent organizations, have been set up to prevent or reverse unwanted consequences and dole out preventative or punitive measure to those actions and the people who undertake them. In Malton, there are none of these, right down to the consequences themselves. What’s the worst that someone can do to you here? They can kill you, turning you into a shuffling, groaning parody of your former self, but you can easily get revived back into your old, fully-alive self again. No matter the actions or causes, death in Malton is not permanent. There is no fear of death in this walled-off purgatory, only a mild annoyance. Whether it is right or wrong to harm people makes no difference here, as people can attest to finding themselves repeatedly zombified and revived with no regard to their own wishes. While organizations of the living and hordes of the dead have attempted to build their own, segregated communities in the suburbs of Malton, their numbers are few in comparison to the feral zombies, the psychopaths, the bandits and desperadoes both living and otherwise, who just want to have fun in this lawless city at the cost of your own.

There is no sanctimonious rhetoric among them, as there are the cultists who subvert the other side, nor like those fully-alive who wish to end the plague or the zealous zeds who see their state as superior and to be spread to everyone. They see their actions as harmless fun, since whatever they do to you is not at all permanent. Nether would your reprisals be, so they have nothing to fear from you. In a world without consequences, ethics lose all meaning and any attempted structure of rules and guidelines can never be enforced. The closest we could come would be just another ideology in a clash of larger ones.

Among the wholly alive, there have been movements to bring every zed our intrepid soldiers and medical scientists can find back to full health, restoring Malton to its pristine state before the outbreak; among the partially so, they have shown co-ordination and a modicum of coherence, and data culled from test results all over the NecroNet has nearly proven the theory that they have no need to injure or feed upon those fully alive. Their compulsion to turn others over to their state may be the same as the reason for ours: an ideological one. This can be seen from the people who go mad with shock upon revival, lashing out at their rescuers or searching for ways to return to their former state; as well, from the zombies who stand patiently in graveyards or around NecroTech buildings, thanking their saviours upon revival. The triumph of one side over the other would surely result in a Fukuyaman End-of-History, so two compromises come to mind:

In one, of segregation, districts and suburbs of Malton would be designated for one state of being or the other, with migrants only allowed in after changing states at a sort of “customs office”; if one is willing, or unwilling to detour, the only pauses in one’s trip would be at sanctioned revival or devival points. This compromise, however, would maintain an elitist, prejudiced viewpoint on both sides, and open itself to unfettered malcontents. A loner or group, sneaking by undetected, or even passing through such customs offices, could launch attacks and spew propaganda designed to bother others and incite one side against the other. In a word, “terrorism”. Such isolated communities could even have to deal with border scuffles between zealous nationalists.

The other, mutual acceptance, would have everyone’s choice of lifestyle respected by others. Some places of Malton, such as Club Meade, have made attempts to encourage this, allowing people of both vital states mutual recreation. This would be easier to implement in theory, but would require the respect of others by every single resident in the city, and survive by honour alone. As anyone who has been jabbed or grabbed by a syringe or claw in their sleep can attest, honour only comes from looking after one’s own. In a post-ethical community such as Malton, any ethical framework is not even as sturdy as its followers. Outsiders can disregard the rules of others with little-to-no fear of reprisal. The only rules that get followed are those of small sub-communities of the like-minded, or audacious cults of personality. Even these are ephemeral, and fade in time. The very nature of this plague has made Malton intrinsically lawless, making the Wild West look like a subway system in comparison. To the citizens of Malton – to ALL citizens of Malton: on whichever side you stand in this long-standing dichotomy, as long as you can find someone to respect who likewise respects you, some shred of civility will remain in our purgatory-on-Earth. Thank you.

--Alfred Wenjack 18:10, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Welcome to the Urban Dead Wiki

I've notice your first edits on this wiki were not that long ago, so allow me to be the first to welcome you to this wiki. Everything that you may need to know are located on this page, and if you ever have a question, feel free to ask me. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:35, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Anything wrong?

Absolutely nothing wrong. Another user just mistaken you for a spambot, was all. I don't think he was paying attention when he slapped the spambot template on you. Carry on with whatever you're doing, and enjoy your stay on the Urban Dead Wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:35, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Why thank you

Okay then, I will. I actually joined the wiki because I had written that during my first week and was looking for somewhere to put it.--Alfred Wenjack 21:40, 24 May 2012 (BST)

I think your userpage would be a better place to put it than the talk page. The talk pages are usually used when someone needs to contact you and talk, like what I'm doing right now. Of course, it's really up to you. Your pages, your rules. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:43, 24 May 2012 (BST)

A response to your piece on Malton as a post-ethical society.

A nice piece of philosophical conjecture Alfred. I would posit however that you have disregarded one facet of Maltonian life: griefing. I would define this as an extension of the mild annoyance you admit possible to the degree that it becomes harmful in its own right. You mention that there can be no repercussions for actions or no lasting damage. Having been the target of a 2 year griefing campaign, I can attest that there can be. The damage suffered is not physical but psychological and can result in the only permanent "death" in Malton whereby an individual becomes so demoralized that they die and lack the will to rise again as a zombie or otherwise. In a post ethical society, right and wrong become muddy to the point of irrelevance. However, since real harm still exists, albeit to a limited extent, there exist different motivations for causing that harm. If done for the "right" reasons (i.e. in an attempt to work towards the well-being of the greater number against those who would degrade their quality of life) there still exists good. If done for the "wrong" reasons (i.e. For any purpose other than the aforementioned where the intent is cause harm that is apart from or in excess to what is warranted as a punitive measure) there still exists evil. Since, as you mentioned, there are no other ways to cause harm, griefing becomes the only morally corrupt act and griefing those who grief or otherwise tarrying their endeavors becomes the only morally upstanding.

Alternately, I would posit that a system of morality might exist in Malton whereby the permanence of the biological form has caused a shift from human well-being being the basis for moral evaluation to material well-being defined by property damage and preservation. I would be almost inclined to consider this one of the many individual ideologies you mentioned but that I think it may be pervasive enough in Malton and within the concept of strategy to be considered one of if not the dominant ideology. Beyond that, I will leave the development of this idea for a later day.

-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 25 May 2012}

- Two years? There were people determined to personally bother you for two years? Was it due to some imagined slight, or just pure, jocular malice? An addendum would include them: the sort of people who, instead of looking for guidelines or other people to join, decide that no consequences means that they can antagonize anyone they want and get away with it. They are the sort that have spurred civilizations and groups into forming against them. Between that, rationalization, and thinking things to be a good - or funny - idea at the time, it is little wonder that you can see people comparing revival syringes and bananas to phallic objects, to use just one example. Alfred Wenjack 16:56, 30 May 2012 (BST)

Relevant material on the issue I mentioned can be found here. As to the predominance of phallic references, you may also note that several individuals in Malton have taken this obsession to absurd ends, losing their given names entirely in favor of crude phallic or yonic aliases. I have attributed this to a social regression caused by the necessity of violence. With the state of life and death in Malton, competition, revenge and, by extension, issues of dominance take a more active role in social interaction. This leads to a social atavism that harkens back to a state similar to that shared by some fertility cults of per-history. Accordingly, much of my work has been designed to introduce a civilizing counter-force into the system. Hence my product lines. -- Albert Schwan  _{Wednesday, 30 May 2012}

Another Response

I have to admit, that although in general you are right, I would point out two specific areas where the foundations of the cities civilisation exist, but in different forms. Firstly, and in my mind, most compelling, is the secondary attitudes to death. Intravenous drugs, copious drinking, and even when it comes to it the amount of roleplaying smokers in Malton suggest that the place as a whole is a more forgiving, relaxed place than the real world. Coupled with the rather more youthful average age of new inhabitants means that the whole city is, and always has been, very forgiving.

Secondly, in a world with little or no consequence, moralistic behaviour has been replaced by one based more on respect. In a world where everyone could be dead, or alive tomorrow, it's interesting to see how rivalries are not the same as vendettas. You only need to look at the ongoing antics in Kempsterbank, or any of the larger sieges involving the likes of 404 to show how these things develop. Remember, the level one private makes many mistakes, from seeing the zombies as faceless NPCs, to thinking that death is the ultimate punishment. The good urban dead player learns from these mistakes. --Ross^lessness 22:18, 30 May 2012 (BST)

Response to a response

(A.K.A Spamming up Alfred's talk page.)

Well said Roslessness. Respect can indeed be a criteria whereby we may still gage decent and indecent behavior in modern Malton. A difficulty arises though when one considers that respect is often a 15 way street these days. In essence, respect comes from a concept of returning a gaze. To regard one means to notice and to respect is to acknowledge and return that notice. In modern usage, respect can more accurately be appreciating someone else's values or viewpoints as valid even if they differ from your own. This is difficult in Malton because of fluctuating nature of death and the absence of any common enemy. I must admit that when I started out, this was a difficult concept to wrap my head around. If I respect/understand the zombie's desire to eat me and he respects/understands my desire to survive we have a mutually respectful relationship. Problem: the aforementioned dynamic oversimplifies life in Malton. To respect a PKer, I must understand his desire to hunt and kill me. Some are willing to do this, others are not. To some this is an issue of sportsmanship, to others an acceptance of the way that Malton is. It can be argued that to kill is to not understand a target's desire to survive. Must a PKer respect this and not kill those who are opposed to being killed by survivors? Most PKers, myself included, do not. Often not wanting to be killed by a survivor is seen as a flaw that justifies the slaying itself. A Pker then imposes their system of what is and is not respectable behavior onto the victim. Even if the victim is willing to respect a Pker's drive, must they respect the accompanying fact the PKer did not respect them by overruling their moral system? The same holds true for ZKers and Combat Revivers. What then if the Combat reviver or PKer leaves a taunt when they exercise their craft? What is friendly banter and what is griefing. Even if it is griefing, must the griefed respect/understand the desire of the griefer to grief? Respect is a curacy in Malton to be sure but what Alfred seems to be discussing is a basis for a moral system. Respect is too subjective for that. To respect a person, they must be respectable. What is respectable varies so greatly as to be almost impossible to define in any absolute terms. Intention is much easier to gage. Intended harm versus the lack thereof versus the intended harm of one who intentionally harms, etc. As a compromise i will admit that there exists the possibility of a misunderstanding where harm was not intended but received but the means to resolve such issues should be easy to come by as long as people respect each other enough to hear each other out and to try to resolve issues. It is then not the actions or people that are respected but rather the process of communication. This is not to say that all people must be morally upstanding. There will always be those who revel in their immorality. Respectful discourse would merely clarify this fact such that everyone knows where they stand, allowing the evil to be respectfully evil. I did say it was a 15 way street did I not? -- Albert Schwan  _{Thursday, 31 May 2012}