Rush Sykes' Blog

Probably because there's no such thing as a private convo anymore with all of you putting OOC friendship first and breathlessly gushing every little morsel you come across hoping to be the news breaker/info broker/popular. If I were in your neck of the web, I wouldn't tell any one of you my dinner plans much less my FA plans. Especially if I was changing course, the way all you old bitties with your mucked up friendship "politics" treat every adverse move like a personal blood feud insult.

Probably because there's no such thing as a private convo anymore with all of you putting OOC friendship first and breathlessly gushing every little morsel you come across hoping to be the news breaker/info broker/popular. If I were in your neck of the web, I wouldn't tell any one of you my dinner plans much less my FA plans.

The creepy thing is, you may be right. So does this mean the days of meaningful discussion between allies is totally over? It sure does seem so. The picking of allies seems to be less and less pragmatic and more and more about convenience.

We all became friends. There's less pressure to do things properly.

We all became friends. There's less pressure to do things properly.

It shouldnt be about pressure though. If we are all friends, then there should be a modicum of respect for that friendship to NOT leave people out of the loop. It just seems very lazy, all the way across the game.

I enjoy discussing things with allies, and whenever I am in government with the power to do so, I help ensure that all allies are kept in the loop about our affairs. Honestly, I think people just forget to tell each other because we're all online less often and don't care as much anymore.

The creepy thing is, you may be right. So does this mean the days of meaningful discussion between allies is totally over? It sure does seem so. The picking of allies seems to be less and less pragmatic and more and more about convenience.

Not totally but largely. The lack of a OOC/IC divide has helped kill the ability to properly discuss FA with allies and even your own alliance in cases. Many people are now are more loyal to their friends than to their own alliance and that seems to be the accepted norm.

Perhaps we're beginning to reach a point where alliances no longer matter, anarchy baby!

I think it's more related to alliances becoming cemented into their own corner of the treaty web. The only time they reach out to other alliances, like what was said before, is to put more NS on their side when a conflict comes. After the conflict, the treaties get put on the back of the bookshelf, then collect dust.

Cry, cry, cry. La Viva Resistance! P.S. It's a game, have fun!

Maybe this is just you lot... we talk to our allies just fine.

Not totally but largely. The lack of a OOC/IC divide has helped kill the ability to properly discuss FA with allies and even your own alliance in cases. Many people are now are more loyal to their friends than to their own alliance and that seems to be the accepted norm.

Exacty! Take Rey the Great, who literally sees nothing wrong or even strange about taking his entire alliance to the brink of war because "MK were our friends and so MQ are our friends." I've never heard anything so stupid in my life, but his stance is typical of a large swath of alliance leadership.

These numbskulls who love their "friends" so much baffle me! If they're so wonderful, fine, join their alliance. Why in the Hell do people not go to the alliance where their pals are if their bond to their pals is stronger than to their own alliance?

Exacty! Take Rey the Great, who literally sees nothing wrong or even strange about taking his entire alliance to the brink of war because "MK were our friends and so MQ are our friends." I've never heard anything so stupid in my life, but his stance is typical of a large swath of alliance leadership.

These numbskulls who love their "friends" so much baffle me! If they're so wonderful, fine, join their alliance. Why in the Hell do people not go to the alliance where their pals are if their bond to their pals is stronger than to their own alliance?

I don't think you realize the special circumstance, but in case you missed it; there was also the fact that the alliance's charter had been broken and my member mask taken. Basically, it was an anarchy move.

I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN.

I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation.

I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.

I get your point, but there have always been gaps in communication sometimes. I don't think this is a new thing. Of course, you know that.

What always used to piss me off was when people were coming to me swearing my allies were going to do something and I'd tell them they were insane they would have told me. Then last minute here comes someone letting me know what they're ablut to post. Because that means they told someone just not you.

Maybe this is just you lot... we talk to our allies just fine.

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

I think sometimes alliances just get too excited and as treaty lists grow and grow, notifying everyone, finding them on IRC, becomes a lot of work in a more inactive CN. You can't post potential treaties in embassies due to opsec, and people are even far less active on IRC these days.

Not everyone is getting "lazy" with their communications. A lot of the people just coming back to power are, in my view, more or less "traditionalists," as opposed to the chaotic madness of DH and friends. What Schatt said certainly applies to your side of the web, but in my limited experience, quiet communication between serious allies still occurs elsewhere. I think it is more a degeneracy of your side of the web, than CN as a whole.

Alliances like TOP, for instance, are wasting no time at all making their way back up, while most of the "lulzy" type alliances have pretty much thrown in the towel.

As the attitudes of MK and friends become a distant chapter in history, I think we may see a trend back towards a level of OPSEC in alliance affairs. But I'd guess that permanent damage has been done, in the form of new precedents. Remember when spying used to be cause for a good stomping? That standard had been long gone, and with it, people are more loose with their tongues.

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

Oh, please. Like you didn't know Bob was a condescending know-it-all before you opened this blog.

I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN.

I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation.

I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.

It's interesting that you think its mostly related to cancellations, because in my talks around the game, it has been far less in cancellations, and more in the pursuit of new relationships. Treaties just being thrown down at the last minute. The thing is... there are a few alliances (TOP may be one) that are exceptions. There may even be alot that are exceptions, but there are clear and prominent guilt examples of this in each sphere in the game. It is disheartening for me because I cut my teeth on FA, and this would have been 100% unacceptable back in those days. It does not bode well for the future of the game, IMO.

I have experienced similar things in the last several months through my diplomatic responsibilities Rush. I agree that this trend has probably touched each corner of the web in some way or another and it is indeed unfortunate.

It's interesting that you think its mostly related to cancellations, because in my talks around the game, it has been far less in cancellations, and more in the pursuit of new relationships. Treaties just being thrown down at the last minute. The thing is... there are a few alliances (TOP may be one) that are exceptions. There may even be alot that are exceptions, but there are clear and prominent guilt examples of this in each sphere in the game. It is disheartening for me because I cut my teeth on FA, and this would have been 100% unacceptable back in those days. It does not bode well for the future of the game, IMO.

Well, I can only hope everybody else is slacking off on communications. We won't be and I'd love for it to become another powerful advantage in our pockets

As for the GOONS-TOP treaty it was actually really quick in coming, TOP SPEED was pretty fast for us.

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

I think sometimes alliances just get too excited and as treaty lists grow and grow, notifying everyone, finding them on IRC, becomes a lot of work in a more inactive CN. You can't post potential treaties in embassies due to opsec, and people are even far less active on IRC these days.

Thought I appreciate the compliment, that wasn't the intent. I was simply being honest. I won't deny the validity of Rush's point- there are plenty of holes in communication among allies, and those holes certainly cause issues between various groups of people, be them allies, common friends, or enemies. I've experienced the pains of miscommunication first hand in leadership positions at other alliances. What I was trying to communicate (ahem) was that I (and others, given the amount of ex-foreign gov in Paradoxia) don't want to repeat the same mistakes, and thus are open about our various schemes and other plans with our allies.

Also, glad to know I've got your support Gibs love you too.

As a former TOP ally they were the only ally MK had that actively came to them with things outside of NG. And TOPs things were actually usefull and interesting.

It partly a case of a dying game that people are bored with. You can be leader of an alliance being on 4 days a week for 3hours a time. A few years ago you could barely be a deputy in FA with that kind of activity. Another major factor is the opsec culture, brought about partly because people are actually good at leaking intel now & partly due to everybody knowing everybody. It's a shame though because it's a part of what kept the game interesting.

MT has point there, OPSEC is horrible. If you want something quiet anymore, you have to tell nobody and forget about yourself.