Tyga's Litter Box

Wasn't something along these "CN mediator body" lines already proposed and rejected on the grounds that war - including the rigmarole of reps negotiations - is fun?

someone's been enjoying their weekend!

Wasn't something along these "CN mediator body" lines already proposed and rejected on the grounds that war is fun?

Quite possibly, I don't see why that should preclude anyone from discussing the topic again later on.

I actually like the principle of the idea to be honest. However, the context in which I would most prefer to see such an idea would be in one of those "impasse" situations - say two or more alliances have come to a point where they absolutely cannot work out any differences.

One problem I see in this is the following dilemma. Such a "Grand Arbiter," to maintain absolute objectivity (a necessity for such a role), must not be in an alliance, or must be, for all intents and purposes, an alliance-of-one. But this brings with it the risk of the Arbiter being attacked by someone who gets "butthurt" over the Arbiter's decision.

If one were to make such a person go into perma-peace mode, one would have to make absolutely sure that the person has a nation capable of sustaining itself even under the maximum economic penalty of peace mode (in other words, it can't be losing money even in the slightest from paying bills in the larger picture), and there aren't too many people who are willing to sacrifice their growth for that end.

(There is one guy I know who has pulled it off, but he's kinda being kept in his alliance by parties who shall remain unnamed. )

Anyway, it's a nice idea that could use some intelligent discussion. Thanks for kicking this one off, Tyga.

It would be hard to think of someone to fill this role and be unbiased. Even neutral alliances like the Grey Council and TDO have friends. I agree with the idea, but its nearly impossible to do so.

I actually like the principle of the idea to be honest. However, the context in which I would most prefer to see such an idea would be in one of those "impasse" situations - say two or more alliances have come to a point where they absolutely cannot work out any differences.

One problem I see in this is the following dilemma. Such a "Grand Arbiter," to maintain absolute objectivity (a necessity for such a role), must not be in an alliance, or must be, for all intents and purposes, an alliance-of-one. But this brings with it the risk of the Arbiter being attacked by someone who gets "butthurt" over the Arbiter's decision.

If one were to make such a person go into perma-peace mode, one would have to make absolutely sure that the person has a nation capable of sustaining itself even under the maximum economic penalty of peace mode (in other words, it can't be losing money even in the slightest from paying bills in the larger picture), and there aren't too many people who are willing to sacrifice their growth for that end.

(There is one guy I know who has pulled it off, but he's kinda being kept in his alliance by parties who shall remain unnamed. )

Anyway, it's a nice idea that could use some intelligent discussion. Thanks for kicking this one off, Tyga.

You're welcome.

As to your post, I agree for the most part. Such a system would only be of use in situations where a mutually agreeable resolution is highly unlikely. Although I would like to think that amongst the population of Cybernations there are some people who can step outside their alliance affiliation to arbitrate on such disputes when necessary.

Although I would like to think that amongst the population of Cybernations there are some people who can step outside their alliance affiliation to arbitrate on such disputes when necessary.

Sadly, with an alliance affiliation comes biases and influencing factors. Unless of course the whole alliance is devoted to this arbitration thing.

By the way, anyone being on the losing side and actually enjoying reps negotiations is a masochist. Honestly, when Adrian LaCroix and I were negotiating reps based on Richard B Riddick's after-buzzer nuke on Zurital during Karma War, it was like having our teeth pulled without anaesthetic. For both of us.

I hereby volunteer to be the supreme arbiter of CN. Bow before my awesome/unbiased power. Homage may be submitted in the forms of; United States Dollars, Cattle, CN Money, Tech, Love Letters, and Cartons of Parliament Light Cigarettes.

I seem to remember TOP arbitrating a few surrender negotiations in the past.

I'm not sure we can trust people who purport to be neutral arbiters, on reflection.

This is the first part of tyga's secret plan. First he suggests someone arbitrates everything, next some one will nominate him, he becomes world arbiter, next is CN hegemony and winning the game.

Actually that sounds like the catholic church. the Church's in Antioch, Jersualem, and Alexandria competed to be the most important and couldn't get along so they always went to Rome to arbitrate, and the rest is history.

I think that any willing arbiter would be too biased (their willingness to arbitrate indicates an activity in CN politics that probably isn't a good sign in terms of biases), and any truly neutral arbitrators (GPA might be closest?) would likely be unwilling to descend into the politics for risk of violating their fundamental neutrality.

I like this idea, though it would be hard to gather a group of people unbiased enough to make a decision.

Perhaps each of the top 15 alliances or so could select a single person to be their 'diplomat' to this convention.

Each war, the main players (for example, this war it would be any of CnG and TOP/IRON) would not have any say. The other alliances would then review what has happened an decide terms. Of course, I suppose the alliances could still accept or reject them.

This is the first part of tyga's secret plan. First he suggests someone arbitrates everything, next some one will nominate him, he becomes world arbiter, next is CN hegemony and winning the game.

Actually that sounds like the catholic church. the Church's in Antioch, Jersualem, and Alexandria competed to be the most important and couldn't get along so they always went to Rome to arbitrate, and the rest is history.

You had to go and spoil the plot, didn't you.

You're better off just finding someone both parties trust and appears indifferent to the situation. Not all would find the same people trustworthy, respectable and dependable so an official label just wouldn't work. It's best done on a case by case basis as the involved parties feel necessary.

Basically what Hyperbad said. But, I think I should be it since I think you're morons including me.

Hyperbad, the issue though is finding someone that both parties trust and is indifferent to the situation. On a personal note, I'd trust Tyga to mediate any dispute between Silence and another alliance, but I very much doubt everyone agrees with me (as lovable as he is).

As for whether people can be in an alliance and be able to not be influenced by any bias towards that alliance, they do exist. Just requires a certain mindset, to be able to step back and detach yourself from your alliance (if that makes sense).

If even the real ONU doesn't have much weight lately it would be hard to make some thing like that to work in CN, but I would love to see something like an United Nations Security Council where the 12 sanctioned have the veto-wielding and are permanent members while they are sanctioned and 12 elected non-permanent members(one of each sphere) with two-months terms.

If even the real ONU doesn't have much weight lately it would be hard to make some thing like that to work in CN, but I would love to see something like an United Nations Security Council where the 12 sanctioned have the veto-wielding and are permanent members while they are sanctioned and 12 elected non-permanent members(one of each sphere) with two-months terms.

While I think such a model would add something extra to the political arena I fear it would suffer the same fate as its RL equivalent due to cronyism.

If even the real ONU doesn't have much weight lately it would be hard to make some thing like that to work in CN, but I would love to see something like an United Nations Security Council where the 12 sanctioned have the veto-wielding and are permanent members while they are sanctioned and 12 elected non-permanent members(one of each sphere) with two-months terms.

You'd want your alliances sovereignty wielded by those you don't know or dislike highly?

Hyperbad, the issue though is finding someone that both parties trust and is indifferent to the situation. On a personal note, I'd trust Tyga to mediate any dispute between Silence and another alliance, but I very much doubt everyone agrees with me (as lovable as he is).

As for whether people can be in an alliance and be able to not be influenced by any bias towards that alliance, they do exist. Just requires a certain mindset, to be able to step back and detach yourself from your alliance (if that makes sense).

Finding someone both parties trust is the easy part. it's the indifference or their being objective enough. If necessary you can always get two people both parties trust whose bias is only slight but going in the opposite direction and resulting on their better use of rationale to come to a settlement.

You'd want your alliances sovereignty wielded by those you don't know or dislike highly?

You say that like it isn't already happening now.

I like the concept but where would the Grand Arbiter's power come from? It seems like without a United Nations type of council where a majority of alliances empowered the position, the Grand Arbiter would just be told where to stick it.

Alterego for Grand Arbiter!

I highly doubt there's anyone truly neutral out there that could take on such a position without imposing their bias on the negotiations. Either through their alliance affiliation and wanting to see their allies or friends come out on top or through personal bias. Everyone out there has an opinion on whether reparations are deserved, or acceptable in various situations. For example could you trust someone who doesn't believe in taking reparations from an aggressive war not to be biased in the discussions, no matter what their relation to the alliances in question are?

The only way around that, that I can see, would be to have a panel of people from different backgrounds in the game to work together on finding a solution. Yet while that might be effective in producing less biased decisions, they would be extremely hard to enforce. It's a nice idea but I can't see it ever being effective in the Cyberverse.

So we will go from arguing reps to arguing the Grand Arbiter. What a waste of everyone's time.