Jump to content
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    30
  • views
    1,639

From: The Predictable Unpredictable Treaty Name [Insert Here]


OsRavan

1,317 views

Source: The Predictable Unpredictable Treaty Name [insert Here]

Decided to make a blog post rather than derail poor iron and int's thread further. Cause my eyes were rolling so hard reading some of that thread they were threatening to roll right out of my head. Warning, incoming WOT:

(all quotes trimmed for length reasons)

Addressed to:

But the CnG spirit(friends>infra) died a long time ago and please, before you come with your poor ad hominem attacks just pay attention to the members of your bloc and within your own alliance when they say that in a war they pursue victory above everything else.

Hm, so C&G's external treaties only look like a mess because those of us on the outside take every legal defense obligation literally. But you all know that ultimately they don't mean jack !@#$, because you're going to do whatever you need to do to maintain self preservation. Great plan, but I think people are starting to catch on!

AirMe I wish you would stop being a fig leaf for TLR's many divergences from the "old C&G" founding principles.

Yes you were not there for C&G's change in direction from scrappy underdog to backstabbing realpolitikier, nor were you in power when TLR moved

And everyone else criticizing my bloc and alliance in this thread.

To answer all of these in one big bunch. What I find amusing about all this rage is, forget for a second whether you are right or wrong (you are wrong for the record though ::grins::). Why exactly do you care? Why is it any of your business.. whether cng is 'scrappy' or 'true to the cng spirit' 'blindly following mk' etc? That’s a rhetorical question though the answer imo is ‘to score political points.’

I always roll my eyes when the peanut gallery with no connection to us proceeds to lecture my bloc on what we REALLY think, WHY we think it, and WHO we are. I mean honestly. Do I go around telling you what your alliances REALLY think?

Are you required to like us? World would be boring if everyone liked each other. But I find it a bit ridiculous to engage in an argument that essentially amounts to "we know what you truly believe better than you do."

Really, the only ones whose opinion carries real informed weight to us is CnG and our allies. I can't help but point out to many of you who are trolling in this thread that you and cng actually have allies *in common.* And for most of the rest of you when we dont have allies in common our bloc is allied to alliances you seem to respect and admire. That’s almost a given considering said treaty sprawl.

Now im not a fan of treaty sprawl, it DOES cause problems and isn’t always smart politics. I won’t argue that. But putting aside the political issues for a second, said treaty sprawl means one of three things. And please this is key imo.

1) These allies of ours are on both sides of the web and in almost every major bloc (including ones you admire). They deal closely with us and have the most to lose if we were real politik backstabbers or lackeys. Do you think they are all great IDIOTS and dupes and thus they cant figure out cng's 'true nature'? Are you saying they are all fools and pawns for the masterful cng propaganda machine?

2) Are you saying *THEY* are using *US* for real politik reasons? That they know our true nature (as you describe it) but think to get some corrupt benefit from have treaties to us? How dastardly!

3) Or maybe (just maybe) some of YOUR extremist propaganda is just that... extremist propaganda. And our allies took the time to get to know how various cng alliances think, ticks and function. They put aside preconceived notions and came talk to us. And saw something worth respecting there and to all of our mutual benefit.

Considering the quality and intelligence of some of the alliances... on both sides of the web... tied to CnG I tend to doubt 1 and 2 is whats actually going on here. Say what you will about cng’s allies they represent the greatest minds on bob on ALL sides.

I know reflective thought is difficult in this community. But come on. Lets put on our common sense hats. Since when in politics, life, or anything are things black and white? Good and evil? I eye roll at those people who neatly divide things between good people (those who agree with them) and corrupt scum (those who disagree).

Seriously. Is it so difficult to imagine that CnG might just be what it says it is? A decent bloc that means what it says but just happens to disagree with you on some things? I never understood this tendency on Bob (on BOTH sides) to demonize people who are your rivals/potential enemies. I much prefer to treat my opponent with respect on and off the battlefield.

Note, this doesn’t mean you have to LIKE us, agree with our choices, or anything else. Hell, you want to roll us? That’s fine, I can respect it. I think its fair to say “CnG did x, y, and z. I want you rolled and will try to do it.” That’s totally cool. What I DON’T like is when people go “You don’t really believe in fiends greater than infra” or “you really THINK y… I know this cause I know what YOU think and what your motivations are… better than you do.”\

Yep. If you ever said something like "I dunno Xiph isn't so bad" you'd be met with "lol what the $%&@ are you even talking about" from everyone else towing the party line, regardless of whether or not his actions directly affected them. He became a convenient boogeyman who happened to rub the right people the wrong way in the past.

*I* always stuck up for xiph in public and in private. I like the guy a lot, even if I get the sense im not his favorite person these days. One of my biggest regrets is politics doesnt let us talk much anymore without devolving into argument. He is one of the smarter leaders out there, and genuinely a good person despite the propaganda. A fun person to have on your side, and a tough enemy. Much respect to xiph even when we disagree on everything (as we often do!) I’ve always felt it the height of stupidity to start hating someone because of the political climate. Xiph and I may end up sparring on the battlefield, but that doesn’t diminish my respect for him.

So to some up my mega wot.

  1. The world isn’t black and white, good and evil. Stop trying to force everything into those categories.
  2. Respect that you will never know a third party as well as the people who are allied to them or *in* said alliance/bloc.
  3. You don’t have to portray someone as evil corrupt scum in order to disagree with them and want to fight them.
  4. I personally still adhere to the Friends Greater than Infra Policy.. and im far from alone in CnG. And when the time comes, CnG will do the best we can via *all* our allies. Doesnt mean we will be perfect. But we WILL do our best, and you cant ask for more than that. If our allies are not satisfied with said best, they will move on. If they are satisfied they will tell us so. And that will be between us and our allies not the peanut gallery.

30 Comments


Recommended Comments



I think the issue demonstrated in this thread can be summarised as follows;

-Everyone says they want fewer treaties. However there is no benefit to be the first. What every alliance really wants is everyone to be allied to them and not to others. Given you would be hard pressed to find a major alliance more than two steps from any other all cancelling treaties to achieve the aim would do is to give you less influence in the treaty web.

-Almost all treaties are standard form treaties so there is no real difference in them. Therefore no effort is made to look for the differences. I smile to myself whenever someone refers to Duckroll as an MDP block. People think of CnG as a collection of MDP's rather than a supremacy block. This is encouraged by the tendency to refer to people as "de facto members of block X"

-The lack of paper differences between treaties. there is a lot more consideration and relationship behind them. So people think "why have you agreed these rights with X because of factor Y." There is generally a lot of extra informal rights or obligations behind the scenes that are not revealed. People don't sign treaties because they think "good now they will defend us" (or if they do they are going to lose the next war) but rather because they represent an understanding that has been formed.

Given a lot of this is aimed at IRON-INT in that the implication is IRON has done something silly (although I find it surprising that INT get the blame for this...not sure how that figures...either than or they nailed MCRABT's fingers to the keyboard to make him sign). Do you really think IRON went "oh, there is an alliance, ODP plez?"

Link to comment

Given a lot of this is aimed at IRON-INT in that the implication is IRON has done something silly (although I find it surprising that INT get the blame for this...not sure how that figures...either than or they nailed MCRABT's fingers to the keyboard to make him sign). Do you really think IRON went "oh, there is an alliance, ODP plez?"

There is no rhetorical benefit in baiting IRON, whom they view as a potential vehicle for their revenge.

The people screaming loudest are screaming because they see the treaty as a barrier to some kind of glorious retribution. They can't badger IRON because that wouldn't be productive. But they *can* dredge up the tired old "treaty web" argument and they can blame it on INT (as we all know, INT pioneered the concept of treaties in CN).

Incidentally. I can't be the first person to notice that the "cluttered treaty web" argument is complete sophistry. No one ever complains when they have exactly the right combination of treaties that leads them to victory. But if anyone else dares to hold a treaty that interferes with their agenda, all of a sudden it's time to moan about how the treaty-web is ruining the game.

-Craig

Link to comment

I'm definitely on board with that, and I think you'd be hard pressed to see me taking shots at anyone OOC. But I read this as as an OOC request to change IC posting, which is part of what's confusing me. I think there's some blurring of that line going on in here, and this blog post would seem unnecessary if all of the comments I/D34th/Ogaden made were viewed as strictly roleplaying.

It's an interesting point you have made. I don't fully disagree.

My only concern is this: for comments to be viewed through the lens of "roleplaying," we have to be able to intellectually accept that the person is actually playing a role. We can't write something off as roleplay simply because it was posted in an IC forum or thread. The people you mentioned are notorious for personalizing every political dispute and trying to vilify the player, not the move. You can sense the genuine hostility and it's no joke.

None of us are perfect and I get crazy, too. I send an apology email/PM nearly once a week (but I don't receive apologies nearly as often as a should). I generally make an effort to recognize that I'm interacting with real people who are decent and good. No one in this game is my enemy. And yet there are people who consider me a real enemy of theirs. That's the crap I'm railing against.

-Craig

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...