Morgaine

Hello, created first nation in September 2007. Current nation dates back to November 2011. I generally keep quiet and stay out of politics. But I will fight if Polaris calls for me to do so.

Thus encapsulates why politics here bores me. All I know is we got involved in several wars and in the end, the New Polar Order was the same. Back to rebuilding.

One might wonder why the leader of an alliance would make such a statement, seemingly unnecessarily ruffling feathers when it would be easier to go along to get along. I offer the following quotes, found in Walford's old signature: Some have said that the New Polar Order is not large nor powerful enough to be making such statements, implying that we should keep our mouths shut, cowering in fear. Anyone who knows us is aware that is not our way. We are who we are and do not care who likes it. Having served in NONE and the LoFN, I can attest that a small group can successfully resist an onslaught by a much larger gang of bullies. Many demanded apologies and reparations for having the temerity of fighting back in the face of an unprovoked attack. Eventually, their members tired of bleeding at the hands of fanatics who obviously would never surrender, so all the leadership got for their trouble was loss of funds, nation strength and pride. Similarly, the enemies of Polaris have found that it is NEVER profitable to attack us. We will fight, even when the odds are against us. Do not expect us to turtle. The unwary will decide to take us on, only to find that they have gained nothing but damage that will take months from which to recover. Most of the time, I do not know what the political reasons may be for being engaged in yet another war. But I trust our leadership, take pride in fighting alongside members who are willing to sustain more damage than our enemies if that is what it takes to maintain our integrity. We may be small, but are fierce. Trifle with the New Polar Order at your peril. Hail Electron Sponge and our leaders! Hail Polaris!

Thus we see Pacifican leadership being less-than-gracious in victory, showing us that it is better to lose all one's pixels than surrender to such a dishonourable foe. I have no idea what this war is about, but will fight on beyond the bitter end.

I would think there would be political issues for Technology sales when the buyers and sellers are at war. Unless they are allies, it would be a violation of neutrality.

Our current Emperor has, in one fell swoop, removed distractions and obligations from the outside that are neither in our interest nor comport with our values. I have every confidence that we will be more focused with a simpler, more coherent foreign policy thenceforward.

A Certain Someone is considering reviving his nation just so he can post in this thread.

Most of the time, I really do not know what the latest war is about, but as a good soldier, I go in and fight hard for the New Polar Order as ordered. History from over a hundred years ago on a certain Other Planet has shown that multiple interlocking defense/aggression treaties, which are supposed to serve as a deterrent, instead make it so a minor conflict between groups that always hate each other will potentially inflame into a worldwide conflict that is very easy to start, but nearly impossible to stop. So to keep us safer, it may be best for Polaris to not be drawn into such petty rivalries and instead take responsibility for our own security by being formidable opponents in battle. For that, I offer the utmost appreciation for our Emperor and senior staff, whom I trust implicitly. We have already demonstrated that, no matter the size or number of our opponents, attacking us will be very, very costly. That will have to suffice.

You're missing the point, "Newbie." I have some experience being jumped by a larger alliance. You don't expand a war in which you are out-numbered by declaring on nations that are not engaging allies because they look easy. And I do not complain. I kill.

The problem is, instead of defending your nations under attack, your allies are attacking those of us who are not involved, thinking we would be easy targets because our nations are in a peace-time footing. Anyone can be sucker-punched. You get that first strike, but the rest are ours. So you have succeeded in widening the war as you display your abject fecklessness in battle. Cruithne's immortals are roused.

I still maintain that a division for war declarations between unaligned, sanctioned alliances and unsanctioned alliances should be implemented in-game:

This is how far back I go: I recall walford using blue text for a time whilest still in GATO. He said that he did it so his posts would be distinguished from the others; and he likes the color blue. Then Rebel Virginia mocked him for doing this and yet adopted using the blue text himself ever since. I knew him personally before joining CyberNations myself in 2007. I started out in NONE, then the League of Free Nations, which were hunted down to extermination the year following. Most of the nations never returned. Recently, the nation of Cruithne has been reactivated and rejoined the New Polar Order. Walford sends his regards, but cannot return at this time because of "RL distractions" as he puts it. He seems to be having a hard time, personally. I will pray for him and would welcome others to do the same.

Bah. The graph has been cited, showing the steep incline until the Spring of 2007, then sharply dropping off ever since. Those of us who are familiar with the history know exactly what was going on at that time and what continued starting then: Might-Makes-Right and Hegemony making our World into a game of war and nothing else. The debate and rhetoric all but disappeared in favour of juvenile drivel and chest-thumping. You, on the other-hand have cited no evidence to support your theory that the reason that the population dropped off is because the game just became boring all of the sudden, and that nations belonging to alliances constantly attacking the un-aligned has actually made things better for all of us. It is counter-intuitive to anyone capable of putting one's self in another person's shoes and is not supported by historical evidence. Nay, it is you who do not understand what it is like to be un-aligned for any appreciable amount of time. When Walford created NONE, his intention was not to eliminate tech-raiding; it was to operate with the alliance system as it was and make it costly enough so that those who were not in alliances would have a fighting chance to preserve their independence as they fought alongside each other in purely defensive wars. For our trouble, we were labelled as terrorists, hunted down like dogs and driven away. Was he the failure, or was it those who "won" by making it so our numbers would continue to decline? What kind of world would we be living in if NONE were still operating? Better or worse? Finally, I and the others who advocate having allied nations suspending attacks upon independent ones are not trying to change the alliance system. The survival of that system does not require un-aligned nations being attacked by those protected by alliances. Most alliances already do not permit this, so it is merely a matter of having the minority that permit raiding un-aligned to give the new nations a respite for a time and see what happens. The parameters are quite simple. Nations belonging to alliances should be either be outright prohibited from attacking the un-aligned by their alliances or they should be denied protection from their alliances while the unauthorized war is in progress. The latter is a common practice amongst alliances when one of their members attacks a nation belonging to another alliance without permission. They are denied protection and are often expelled as well. Let us then consider that un-aligned nations are sovereign as well; that attacks against them should be responded to in a similar fashion as is currently the case when the attacked nation is in an alliance. This would not be as radical a change as is being assumed and implied. Let us consider what is to be lost and what is to be gained if the un-aligned are not attacked by the aligned. We have seen a steady decline in our total population that sharply began at the peak of the aforementioned graph, which was between the First and Second Great Wars in the Spring of 2007. Anyone with any sense of intellectual honesty can discern what changed at that time and what was the response of thousands of players as a direct consequence. If we refrain from attacking the un-aligned for an amount of time that would be sufficient to definitively establish cause-and-effect (I personally think a minimum of 6 months would be needed), there should be no doubt as to the interpretation. If there is a "political factor" that could be changed that would increase retention of new players while they are being faced with the choice of being forced into alliances or be subject to constant attacks, I would love to know what that might be. Then you also, are the exception. The vast majority of new nations that had their in-boxes filled with recruitment messages, threats and battle reports left for good. It is that majority we must seek to retain. I think that the best way to accomplish that is to establish a separation between nations belonging to alliances and those that do not. As Walford pointed out, they are playing a different game. One should not be forced to choose between independence and subjugation. If un-aligned nations want to fight each other, that is fine. They are on an equal playing field. If a new player happens to attack a nation belonging to an alliance, he should be countered, then cut free having been educated by experience. Nobody is suggesting to create such a world. Our World is dying and those of us who care should undertake to save it. That should include allowing for independent players and making a place for those who are primarily interested in politics, diplomacy, economics, debate and even religion as well. There would still be war, but it would be a risk instead of the only thing going here. We are not advocating for less, we want more. We do not want things to be boring here, we want it to be more interesting for a broader spectrum of players. All of this can be accomplished under the present game mechanics. The nay-sayers here have no positive alternative to offer. They are just spouting off the same refrain that all is lost, nothing can be done, so we might as well give up and continue to fight each other for increasingly frivolous reasons until a final series of conflagrations wipes out all but a few. I am sorry, but I do not find that position to be compelling.

As I had suggested earlier, it could be possible to enforce it by convening the leaders of the major alliances and getting them to agree on the terms and means of enforcement, internally would be preferable. That way, 100% agreement by every nation ruler in the our World would not be needed. We need to specifically define terms. It is my opinion that the raiding of un-aligned nations by those that are protected by alliances must be stopped. The fact that the raiders are members of alliances, and thus subject to rules, means that the raiding can be curbed significantly. I am not sure of the numbers, but I believe that the majority of alliances already do not permit tech-raiding or other unauthorized wars. I am hoping that enough of the alliances that currently permit their members to attack unaligned nations to refrain for a specified period for mutual benefit. I would offer that only a minority are not rational. Most of us are acting in our self-interest and are capable of doing what is right for the whole, because that also is ultimately in our self-interest. Those who only enjoy destruction and seeing how many people they can drive away should be the ones who leave, not those of us who see the possibility of hope and a future here. ... let me point out that even Walford has said in the past that raiding in certain contexts is fine - between actors of roughly equal power, i.e. none raiding none. We should not make assumptions as to the objections to tech-raiding. As I and Walford pointed out, it is the raiding of the un-aligned by nations in alliances that should be stopped. The reasons have been given as to why. The moral objection is based upon practicality; those of us who have the capability of doing so should really think how new players would respond to being forced to choose between independence or subjugation in a game that arguably is not designed for constant warfare and would not be interesting to those who would want that. "To: Victim, From Aggressor You have been attacked by Aggressor. You have lost x soldiers, x tanks, x infrastructure..." Bloody hell, what sort of gamer is going to find that exciting? Let us consider the possibility of something more using the present game mechanics. We could have coalitions based upon political ideology or religion and robust discussions along those lines. Then, every now and then, have holy wars or such. We could also have contribution from our eccentric hermits who would have no investment one way or the other, and thus having a non-biased perspective. They might even join a side temporarily and see how that goes. With fresh blood, we can have fresh ideas as to how to make the most of what the Creator of our World envisioned and build upon that. Such people are a tiny minority of our present population and we should recognize that they are a threat to us all. They are the ones who should be marginalized, not those who advocate for a change in our present self-destructive behaviours.