Recently, I heard an exchange between a cultural compatriot, and a squad member of mine which appeared to me to be based upon ignorance, and could be construed as a lack of respect towards my squad mate. I will not name names, but it shamed me, and I developed a strong desire to convey to my squad mate (from a different culture) to let him know that I at the very least respected his online abilities and persona. While "flying with honour" was not the voiced issue, the person in question did not "honour" my squad mate by his comments and method of delivery. Therefore, in my opinion, the individual concerned was not "flying with honour". For what its worth, this is the result of my introspection.
Quite often, I hear references to "flying with honour" while flying in the Main Arena of Aces High, usually within the context of disapproval by one party over the actions of another. I began to think about the phrase, and it interests me enough to investigate further. What are the real implications of flying with honour, what is the loaded sentiment behind such a statement? How exactly does one fly with honour in a virtual world? How much of our conduct and expectations of reciprocal treatment do we take for granted in the cyber-space of Aces High, or with any other online experience for that matter. In other words, what assumptions do we make as representatives of our own cultures, of the behavioural norm of other on-line inhabitants? With the popularity of timely global communication (the Internet), every culture with access to the Internet is now able to scrutinise the values of its neighbours, while being scrutinised themselves. Of course the degree to which this happens is restricted by the medium.
My copy of the "Australian Oxford Dictionary" defines honour as :
1/. High respect, glory, credit, reputation, good name, nobleness of mind.
2/. Allegiance to what is right or to conventional standard of conduct.
To my mind, number one of the definition relies entirely on what is agreed to with regards to number two, an allegiance to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct. What we agree to as individuals, is shaped largely by the perceptions and values inherent within the social structures we live, which we then assimilate and mould to suit our characters over the period of our lives. Convention within a social group, or a social perception of how to deal with something, is shaped by the combined experience of that social group over a period of time. Typically, they will learn through experience (which now includes the Internet experience), that some actions and attitudes are necessary to maintain the harmonisation and strengthening of their social group, with the implied notion of survival for that group. For a rather simplistic example, a social group who is fighting for its temporal existence, surrounded by hostile (or anti-social) groups, might conceivably prize and develop those attitudes where the military arts are viewed as a premium skill, which in turn colours and directs social behaviour.
Now within the context of Aces High, we effectively have a melee of many cultures, involved in a representation of what is arguably one of the most emotionally laden practices we are capable of as the human animal. Killing someone (in a virtual context to be sure) and ensuring the survival of our group. Here we encounter a phenomenon where "our group" is an artificial construct brought about by restrictions of game design, and we make a decision to join Bishops, Rooks or Knights. Within these three, we encounter another possibly parallel grouping of Allied vs. Axis. It is perhaps understandable that people bring with them the baggage of real life historical cross-referencing, influenced by the perceptions and conventions of their particular culture, into the arena. Particularly as the game itself loosely draws on a chapter of arguably the bloodiest conflict the world has ever experienced.
While this might be a natural approach, it is not one which is conducive to long term harmony within the new and artificial (meaning that we choose to be part of, rather than are born into) community which is Aces High. Aces High allows a large amount of latitude in how we choose to play our game. The design supplies very few restrictions, allowing the players to construct their own game. If you have followed me this far, you might recognise that this feature lends itself to massively diverse interpretations on how the game should be played, and incidentally, how an individual should "fly with honour"!
We should ask ourselves the question. Are we here to validate the past? If so from which point of view? I hope that I have succeeded in promoting the idea that attempting to validate cultural attitudes of what is right and what is wrong based on the accepted history from our own backgrounds, is fraught with difficulty and not a little danger. Yet maybe unfortunately, our concepts of honour are for the most part influenced by these very same historical references
. This is not the arena where the past stands on trial. Hopefully we are here to communicate our interest in the techniques of air combat, and not in "weltanschauung". In fact, if we are sensitive to it, this experience could open a new vistas in our methods for more humane interaction with other groups of human beings ... face to face.
In my opinion, we should learn to view the past dispassionately when acting as a member of the Aces High culture. World War II is not here. Here we play in pantomime, it is not real except that it conveys an astonishingly impressive environment for us to play our parts convincingly. An important facet of this new culture, is that we have the opportunity to overcome some myopic views inculcated by our back-grounds, and open our psyches and be sensitive to the birthing pains of our own understanding, tolerance and respect for others.
This in my humble opinion, is what it truly means to "fly with honour".
Cheers
Yosus.
------------------
'One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you'll need to wear brown corduroy'
Phoenix Squadron.
