Rush Sykes' Blog

I think it really has to do with what kind of ally it is honestly. "Numbers" allies will probably always fall low on the "to do" list compared to true "friend" allies for as long as some continue to see certain treaties as numbers to win wars.

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

Alliance Affiliation: Non Grata

I have to agree with Rush's analysis on this as well. The lack of communication between allies when something major happens is rather dismal in today's age of the game. It's unfortunate because the particular set of standards that was used to operate (not perform, before some fool tries to tell me something like NoCB or Pre-empts) FA are now being tossed out the window too. I really think a community-wide effort to maintain these standards would do us all good, as we are letting the way we played the game deteriorate around us, due to our laziness.

And accepting the fact that this trend is irreversible is giving up on the game, because of your laziness to make the change yourself.

It changed when it became standard to activate military treaties, i.e. when non-chaining clauses became the norm.

The treaties themselves aren't really decisive anymore, now: everyone is tied to everyone else (one to four/five treaty chains away) and the real choice/event is when you enter a war. Which in fact is the news that is communicated by/to (and discussed with) your allies.

I think that a root reason for the above mechanism is that aged nations with big treasuries and nuclear capability are now very common, thus every grouping has some room to pursue their own FA path without risking to be obliterated once and for all - or not caring about it, for that matter - no matter how bad they screw up. Multiple FA trajectories (often "FaceBookNations FA", BTW) mean that the world is multi-polar or at least considerably chaotic, thus you can't really trust each other anymore: maybe your direct allies are reliable, but some of their allies most likely are not, and everyone wants an ad hoc exit to be used as needed. Add to this that many players are tired of the game and you can't trust them to be pursuing a sustainable FA path, which adds to the uncertainty and mistrust...

Ultimately what changed is the surface, anyway, not the "real" structure of the FA game. Replace signing treaties with "activating" them and you're back to your intense discussion among allies about what is happening (and about what really drives the game of politics).

Rush, i don't want to be that guy but i see a trend here and that is that no one obviously gives a $%&@ about TLR's feelings.

Rush, i don't want to be that guy but i see a trend here and that is that no one obviously gives a $%&@ about TLR's feelings.

Haha, welcome back old friend. Also, you would be right if it was just us, but if you read carefully.. its all over the game.

Get better allies, stop being untrustworthy and irresponsible, or join a better alliance.

Honestly.

I'm super inactive in the political realm and still know what my allies are up to.

I've seen holes in communication for years. it isn't a new problem. CCC is guilty of mistakes such as these. Unfortunately it happens. However, if you say it is becoming more commonplace, then I think it is due to the numerous leaks, people trying to "be first", and the risk of someone outside the deal screwing up the plans. OPSEC should be guarded carefully, and sometimes it goes too far, this means people who should know, dont know.

Nobody mentioned activity yet. Well, MT did.

The element of fear has been missing in this game for too long. People have gone soft during my absence, and the intensity many of us enjoyed in the old days is gone. But I think things are starting to come together.

Get better allies, stop being untrustworthy and irresponsible, or join a better alliance.

Honestly.

I'm super inactive in the political realm and still know what my allies are up to.

To be honest, this is an overly simplified answer. As its not a confined problem to a group of specific alliances, it is well spread out.

I'd love to make Foreign Affairs a little more fun, however I'm not given the chance to do so.

from my view , we like to keep allies well informed and from what i can tell they keep us informed to the level that treaties arent sprung on us. although i do agree with a few points. the fact everyone is soft. i think this is due to the fact the game is dying and people dont want to do something drastic to lose more players, and yes the web is an absolute mess, im sure via 5 treaties we can hit everyone basically.

5? you're being generous

It is a treaty web problem, where one ally could discuss something with another ally and before you know it those same allies who had a talk end up passing on certain information of that discussion within their alliance and their other allies, then whole world knows before the event has even happened in a large amount of cases.

Trust goes out the window.

So as wes the wise mentions OPSEC start getting locked down and surprise cancellations etc happen.

Every single treaty Kaskus signs goes through the government of every ally and every Kaskus member for at least 1 week before signing.

I know we're a small and insignificant alliance, but why don't you be the change you wish to see in the world?

If you have a plan, share it with someone (even just an ally). Once you have a mutual goal, you will see that they come to you with all issues.

Just a few examples:

A treaty Kaskus is considering has a draft written on their embassy on Sept 20th. We're allowing all members to talk to each other and make sure there are no issues before we sign it. Every treaty we have posted on the big boards has also been posted in all embassys we have across CN at least 1 day before it was announced

====.

To: Unknown Smurf From: DoorNail Date: 9/30/2013 12:55:45 AM

Subject: Hey

Message: I just want to let you guys know what has happened in the last few days, nothing too serious I hope. I have been talking with Rayan Thomas, he's the leader of the alliance Pan National Union. To make a long story short, he had signed up on our forums as a diplomat and seems like a cool guy, anyway, shortly afterwards he told me that his 20 sum man alliance had collapsed, not really sure what for but he said it was too late to save it. I asked if there was anything I could do and he said that we could help protect the remaining alliance members, till they get things sorted, so I agreed to help look after them. I'm not real sure what I've stepped into, but it seems legit and for a good cause, so hopefully there wont be any static flying back at us. They have allies that are watching over them too, so it'll probably just be running any raiders off with diplomacy, maybe force if needed. We should be ok, but I wanted to let you guys know about it.

--

Jerk. I had a long conversation with Kestral (where, incidentally, it was revealed that I was a lying, treacherous, backstabbing, irresponsible meanie -- or at least that I associated with a bunch of creeps who fit that description) at least a few days prior to it being posted. Methinks external communication isn't the only problem facing this game; it sounds like internal communication ain't too swell either.

Overall, activity levels are declining, and people are just not doing all the legwork they used to do. It's harder than ever to find people on IRC, and half the time even when they're "online" they're off playing videogames and not responding to queries (either that, or no one likes me).

tl;dr no one cares anymore and we're coasting towards oblivion.

I'll respond to you Craig :3

You are such an idiot! And for possing such hipocrisy you should check yourself before you check others on what they're not doing. The only person trying to keep up a failing alliance is yourself. Disbanding is what is instore for you. First make sure your own alliance activity is stable enough.

You are such an idiot! And for possing such hipocrisy you should check yourself before you check others on what they're not doing. The only person trying to keep up a failing alliance is yourself. Disbanding is what is instore for you. First make sure your own alliance activity is stable enough.

Yeah Rush, you suck!

Some of this is also due to the fact that to more and more Nation Rulers (as opposed to players) CN is "just a game". The need to put in an effort in creating a better experience for oneself is sadly not met.

It is also evident in the sentimental backlash seen whenever an alliance does actually put real political thinking into play. It is as if realpolitik became a 4 letter word around here.

This was a frequent problem for MK going back years, but a lot of it depended on who was in charge too. Ardus was way, way better about it than Leet. It's not only external communication but internal communication too. Different members of gov don't always talk to each other and so one member may end up thinking their alliance wasn't informed while it's just that one gov member was informed and didn't tell anyone else. In the rush to get something done, the need to inform or consult allies or other gov members can fall by the wayside.

The leaking thing is an issue too. There's a reason why when MK was disbanding and many were planning on going rogue, we literally told no one outside of MK except for TLR and TOP to ask for their protection a few hours before. That's the only way we could have kept it from becoming public knowledge. I do regret not telling more allies (especially ODN, who were way above average about talking to us, and especially about asking our opinions about potential treaty partners.) but even if we had it would have been only hours before, if that.