Klaus von Ausburg

I am glad to see all the warm replies, Isaac however has an early appointment tomorrow, so he shall read this as soon as he can. o7 KoA! o7 ODN!

And monocles.

I was thinking we could have a legitimate discussion on this thread instead of just bumping. I do insist that ladies' bosoms are rad.

The Great War I II

The lasers are pretty awesome. Good to see the Finns at it again! o7 FCO

Join us, we have über-rar:

I never said anything about removing their right to, or the protection of unaligned nations, rather that if the cyberverse believes that roguing is so wrong, why isn't anything done about it?

I completely agree with this statement, 100%; when I brought up the "ego alliance" this is 100% of what I meant. After reading much of what the cyberverse has had to say, I have to say my claim is mostly unfounded musings. But what is getting me, is that it seems most of you recognize raiders and rogue alliances as the main purpose of having a protectorate, and that is not only wrong but a ruiner of small alliances. If this is true, why doesn't the cyberverse stand up for small alliances against rogue nations and alliances? It seems in this new age; doing what is right and karma and all that jazz is the new in-thing: and this can definitely arise as one of those things, protecting small alliances against wrong-doing. But that leads to a whole new issue of how to do it...

But as I am trying to point out, Protectors rarely play any role for a smaller alliance, including that of protector.

I am not so certain, I have not been convinced. As it has been pointed out, Grämlins has intentionally kept itself "small" despite a massive amount of NS, and I do not feel that growing your own allies constitutes a positive thing or the protectorates. Having been a Ragnarok protectorate: I remember very little incentive to grow offered by them. I don't believe a thesis is refuted based on one or two exceptions (seeing as this is not a scientific thesis).

Just as alliances without protectors fail, there are bound to be exceptions. What I am pointing out is the alarming number of alliances going into protectorates and the increasingly small number trickling out. Maybe I have just had no luck, but so far I've seen nothing in my own experience to show me having a protectorate treaty does any good. And we've seen time and time again a larger alliance normal response to a treaty, until MK (et al.) made it the cool thing to do to actually acknowledge treaties with allies and not just the stronger party, most protectors just had the protectorates pay the dues. Either way. protector or not, the small guy is paying the bill. True that.

As a small alliance lover myself, I have found protectorates to do very little, and add very little bite. And one must question the concepts and morality of growing your own allies. I do not believe Grämlins is a small alliance either, in the case of this I am speaking mostly of alliance between 5 and 30 people, probably capping at 50. I bring up the idea of a core alliance, which I believe would cover Grämlins in any case. I feel that since protectorate agreements became popular that the feel of Cybernations shifted. I cannot 100% put my finger on it, but it is a musing of my own opinion. This is what has brought me about to writing this, in a hope that as alliances trend down, so does the need and appeal of protectorates.

The True Purpose of Protectorate Treaties A look into the socio-economic status of the protector-protectorate system A musing based mostly off observation and opinion By Klaus Palaeologus de Vries The Cyberverse of 2009 is a far-cry from the Cyberverse that I originally inhabited between 2006 and 2008. It has become a far-less inhabitable to smaller alliances, and the size difference between a large alliance and a small alliance has grown considerably. In the wake of the Karma War, the Cyberverse seems poised to once again be a green pasture for the smaller alliances. Until that time comes, the main issue facing the growth of the small alliance is the Protectorate, a treaty based off a system of Protection for another article. Rarely are Protectorates without some sort of justification to the larger party, but the exact nature of this differs based on the larger alliance, and the plans the larger alliance has. But before to dive into that, let us make a few definitions. Definition One - Small Alliance A small alliance is an alliance with fewer than one hundred (100) members in today’s terms. Before, in the early days of the Cyber an alliance was small if it was less than fifty (50) members. The increase in the line between a medium and small alliance has increased due to several factors. First is the nature of larger alliances. With some alliances over three years old, it is not uncommon for an alliance to surpass five hundred (500) members. Another strong factor is the Protectorate Treaty, which keeps small alliances small. Definition Two - Protectorate Treaties The basis of a Protectorate Treaty is an exchange of sovereignty for protection. A smaller alliance, fearful of the seemingly shark-infested waters of the Cyberverse, seeks the protection of a larger alliance to guide and protect it in its beginning days. The protector itself also benefits from this agreement, either in the long-term or short-term. How the protector benefits can come in several packages, some to be discussed later. Some of the first protectorate treaties began to appear in later 2007. In this time I was in SPQR, a protectorate of Sparta. It was the first time I had experienced the protectorate system, but would it not be the last. It seemed useful at the time; because quickly alliances had come to us will issues. However, despite the agreement, Sparta never once sided with us, opting to preserve its own image rather than protect its protectorate. This gives the first look into the first issue of the protectorate agreement. It is, without question, one sided. Rarely will the protector actually have to protect its protectorate. This is because of the nature of the small alliance. Small alliances come in many forms. They range from infantile alliances that will eventually grow into larger alliances; adolescent alliances that will eventually grow into medium-sized alliances; core alliances, which will remain small but have a high average nation strength; ego alliances, usually centered on one member and the four or five new players he recruited; noob alliances, hastily assembled and lasting rarely longer than a week or two; and lastly friend alliances which are composed of four or five friends who joined CN at the same time. Most small alliances are either ego alliances, noob alliances or friend alliances. The vast majority will not last longer than a quarter or two. In almost all cases, they tend to go un-noticed until an issue arises. In this event, the alliance bringing up the issue is usually larger, because two small alliances rarely interact in any other way that immediate war (due to their nature as ego or noob alliances). If it is the case that the one alliance is much larger and the other is smaller, the Cyberverse has probably already heard about the wrong-doings long before the small-alliance has chance to prepare an argument or even an apology. When entering the Forums the small alliance is already a social pariah can has little chance but to surrender to the will of the larger alliance. In this scenario, the protector can’t side with their protectorate without sustaining more negative public image. It is not surprising then that they chose to make their protectorate apologize and pay dues. Once it becomes common knowledge that a protector will just make a protectorate pay up, some alliances will go grave digging, and bring up old issues with the smaller alliance, ranging from he-said she-said IRC issues, to ex-patriots taking refuge in an small alliance to avoid paying their dues to an older alliance. It is in this political hysteria that almost all small alliances disband (rather than fading away). This scenario plays out much the same whether or not the small alliance has a protector. This brings up my first argument that the protectorate system is inherently flawed. If the script has already been written, and the small alliance will be at fault, then what role does the protector play? What does a small alliance possible gain from the protectorate treaty? It is definitely not money, because most large alliances are happy to sign economic and tech-deal plans without a protectorate system. It isn’t help building up; a large alliance is definitely not funneling members they recruited into the smaller alliance. It isn’t structure, because the small alliance’s forums are usually still under their control. In fact, the protectorate system goes so far as to hurt a small alliance in terms of growth and maturity. A small alliance, like a child, is in the early stages of development. Usually it is comprised of members who are, similarly, still developing a feel for the system in the Cyberverse, in particular the social skills required for diplomatic expansion. And like human children, alliances must experience diplomatic issues first hand in order to mature properly. Most small alliances never get to their point and collapse before they ever interact with other alliances. Others, usually ego alliances, do not mature properly due to glorious leader’s refusals to cooperate on anyone else’s terms but his own. Small alliances under a protectorate never get this chance, because in the case it arises the protector has already either solved the problem (by making the protectorate pay), or will deal with all the problems in the off-chance it decided to defend the protectorate. In this scenario the small alliance has little or no chance of actually interacting with another alliance save its protector. In a world where diplomacy is learned through trial and error, protectorates lag behind in development. The Protectorate agreement, coupled with the already stunted growth of most small alliances (especially friend alliances and ego alliances) only furthers the spiral into inevitable disbanding for the protectorate. Disbanding represents, in essence the final failure of an alliance. Especially for small alliances it shows the unwillingness to actually work for the goals of the alliance, something further hampered when members realize: not only are they at the mercy of other alliances, but also at the mercy of their protector. Not just for new member, but even more so for established members, the thought that you are not in control of your own alliance does away with their will to run the alliance and then the alliance fails. Until this point, it seems as if protectorate treaties would have never arisen. They definitely don’t seem to help to the protectorate and they only seem to hurt the protector. So why have they become so common? And more importantly, why do large alliances continue to sign these treaties? I’ve already discussed why a small alliance would seek out a protectorate agreement. It is mostly out of fear. But it can also stem from the belief that one strong relationship will bring new ones. It was under this pretense that another alliance of my creation, Alpha Orionis, signed a protectorate with Ragnarok. Our hope was that by signing a treaty with a larger, well-known and well-liked alliance that we too would benefit from their popularity. Obviously this is only partially true. The treaty gives a small alliance a bit of notoriety for a short time, and if done right can build strong ties with one or more alliances. But for any of that to be possible, a small alliance needs to have the courage and ability to go out and about and make friends. This is something most small alliances don’t do, because they leave that to their protector. But the biggest killing blow is the stigma of being a protectorate. Not only does it stigmatize an alliance as weak and probably unstable, but also as inexperienced. In the course of this paper, I have yet to mention the benefits to the protector. For the protector go the spoils, literally. Once a small alliance spoils and disbands, the first place many members run off to is their protector. For a large alliance this means five (5) to ten (10) free members, and for a lucky one twenty (20) to thirty (30). Sure some members are likely to leave again, especially founders who will likely found a new alliance, but the vast majority of members, the average inactive member, will just accept the new home without argument. And for all the PR disasters waiting to happen with uncontrollable protectorates, a protector can net positive PR through acts of kindness and eventually protecting the members of the recently disbanded small alliance. If a large alliance is lucky enough to gain the trust of a dutiful egotist or someone who earnestly enjoys setting up new forums, they are likely to benefit from the same process time, and time, and time again as this founder sets up and disbands alliance after alliance. It almost seems criminal on the part of the protectors, but they cannot be blamed. In a Cyberverse where one of the first measures of an alliance is the size of its membership count, gaining membership ranks highest on the priorities of most alliances. It almost seems to be a self perpetuating cycle. Small protectorates feed the fires of growth under larger alliances, forcing new small alliances to find protectors from the other large alliances. Protectorate treaties have defined the passing age of Cybernations, almost an embodiment of the inequality that has become strongly apparent even in the wake of the Karma War. Where does the future of protectorate treaties lie? Most likely they will remain where they currently are. Until smaller alliances regain the self confidence en masse to stand up for themselves, their attitude of fear and distrust as well as laziness and immaturity will continue to be the bane of all small alliances. The protectorate treaties, in essence, act a self-perpetuating system that keeps small alliances from functioning properly, and therefore keeps them from growing properly. It more recent months it seems to have degraded almost to a point of being membership farms for the protector alliance, with at least one alliance going as far as to refer to its protectorates as “colonies” and not even sovereign alliances. It is my hope that in the days and weeks and eventually months following the end of the Karma war that a second golden age of the small alliance is reborn. It was generally an age of growth and expansion for CN, as well as form many alliances that we think of today as ageless. It is strange to think of the alliances I knew in 2006 and which ones made it and which ones didn’t. But the more I reflect upon this issue the more it becomes apparent. The alliances of the next age of CN are not those that currently carry a protectorate agreement, but rather the ones that will be born in this period of war, free of those bonds. Small alliances must break the bonds, and be the next Sparta, the next TOP and move on. The waters of the Cyberverse, despite their reddish color, are inviting. It is my hope that soon smaller alliances will reemerge from the shadows and footsteps of their protectors to forge their own path to greatness. And if we can do this, the Cyberverse will experience a second Renaissance of creativity and membership. So as many would-be founders gaze across the oceans of this beautiful game, they must realize that the sun isn’t setting, rather it is rising to a new day.

How about you grow a pair, and protect your own members? How do you think the big boys got so big?