White Chocolate
-
Posts
2,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by White Chocolate
-
-
Thing is, those of us not in the hegemony have no issues being rolled over and over again, we're not going to give up our morals simply to get a victory.
You've already done things like roll GPA during Woodstock. Having done that, now you can enjoy be the "good guy." You do it well too.
-
This is one of the reasons I like you, Lord Hitchcock, you ask questions that most "newer" nations have but never ask in public and therefore rarely get a variety of good answers needed to understand. I joined in June 2008 and after two full years of witnessing the "cycle of violence" that happens on Planet Bob, I started looking for the answer to this as well.
Here is what I've found.
The reasons can be put into three categories:
A. Strategic. In other words, that which is most helpful for "winning" (i.e. being the hegemony) the game. This includes things like enough time to rebuild, time for the "behind the scenes" politics to be sorted out, and also (because it is a part of "making your case" in order to gain military and economic support for your side) when the side in the winning position has a "casus belli" (meaning a "justification for war") that the people needed to back them will accept. In other words, when one side or the other has enough strength/backing to be sure of a "win."
B. Real Life: When do the "powers that be" all have time. It seems odd, I know, but entire wars have been avoided or at least postponed because one leader of a necessary alliance had something more important in real life to do. Also, this is major wars tend to start and/or end around around major holidays.
C. "Tradition" and/or Habit: If it has worked for most people in the past, why change it? This is also affected by A and B (above) - it takes less time to do the same thing over and over each year than to actually plan something new and different AND it is a formula that if successfully repeated maintains the power for those who have it.
Knowing this, what next? Simple - if you want something changed then what you have to do is find a reason to change it that benefits/is argued in terms of benefiting one of the above. Then you will be far more likely to have success. On the other hand, avoid arguments that go against the above and/or argue against changes that you don't like by stating how they go against any of the above.
-
I like it.
-
You mean the baits that have been coming out for weeks? The idea that DK has to come in and clean up the war margrave started and refuses to partake in? Save your high horse "we don't need a cb" for the SNXs who care about the pixels.
DK was coming in regardless- don't act all flabbergasted that we don't bow to you
Actually, we had planned specifically to avoid this war. You all have made it very clear that in your own minds the word "surrender" is equal to defeat and the words "white peace" are equal to victory and that there is no room whatsoever for reason in this matter. That is exactly the type of cluster$%&@ I want Doom Kingdom to avoid.
However, YOU went and posted this:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/127194-a-report-from-under-the-desk/?p=3400446
for some reason of which I am not aware. I'm sorry Lord Hitchcock but a log dump is a very traditional casus belli and in this case Doom Kingdom has decided to "do something about it." We discussed options and decided to request sanctions in response. Our allies (including Atlas) were very helpful.
This isn't about your "Dream War" - it's in response to your log dump.
Seriously, IF we intended to take an action in support of the Dream War, we would of gotten involved long ago.
-
Popular opinion isn't necessarily against the war, it's against hearing about the war over and over and over.
At this point, the side that can be the most quiet on the OWF wins.
-
is there implicit authority for the people we send to make posts on Twitter? I need a formal e-lawyer opinion.
If so, we are doomed.Seriously though, i like the essay. I will comment more when time allows.
-
Nice blog post. I remember thinking similar things as a micro/small alliance leader. Not saying I agree with all your points, but they are interesting and arguable regardless of my position.
I don't necessarily agree that World Wars "aren't personal." Getting involved to help a treaty partner can be personal even IF one isn't directly tied to the initial conflict.
On the other hand, I understand your point and I've seen it in action, including complaints from membership about "why should we care about this war again?" My advice in that regard to micro's or otherwise is "don't sign M level treaties with any alliance that wouldn't motivate the membership to get involved regardless of the reason." I.E. if they aren't worth fighting for in every instance, don't promise to do so.
There are such things as "non-chaining clauses" and there are always optional military treaties. Both large and small alliances can use them. Whether or not one gives up rights for the perceived security it provides is a matter of choice. Both large and small alliances have the ability to exercise choice.
-
Best wishes. I hope everything works out for you for the best. Get well.
-
There is no 'best way to play' in this game. Not outside of a pretty narrow sense, at least. There might be one or a very few best ways to take a new nation and get it to the point where it has a warchest and steady income, for instance - that's pretty much cut and dried math, and it's a common goal, but if it's not your current goal it is of no concern to you. There's a best way to buy up to 100 tech, for sure, because any other way costs more money for the same goal, but if you are not currently a tech seller that information is useless to you.
At the higher level there are a million ways to play this game, and none are inherently better than the others. What is important is what the player gets out of it, and players are motivated by different things.
In general, I think there is far too much of people telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - even when being well meaning about it. So what if there is an economically better way to build one's nation? What if a player wants a nation where education is emphasized over business and buys schools before banks? That sure is an example of someone thinking about the values of his or her nation and, you know, start at the basic levels first before expanding it to alliances.
I've done my fair share of giving unwanted good advice. I'm done with that. I recently gave a nation 6,000,000 with no strings attached. It actually felt very odd. My one good deed for 2015. Don't tell Lord Hershey
-
Very nice read. Thank you.
-
What you are saying here implies that you believe it is impossible to have a positive, active influence on planet Bob. And I thought I was the pessimist.
i think it's very possible to have a positive and active influence on Planet Bob. I've done so myself in the past and have joined in on some occasions with other people in doing so.
I am not pessimistic, I'm burned out. Other people can do their part in that regard at this point if they want. I have no problem with that. Plus I do think it is a good idea for both nations leaders and alliances to figure out what they want to be in this world and go for it.
As for me, I'm trying something significantly different from what I've done before. At this point, say what you will - I'm starting to get comfortable with my new RP as Lady of Doom
-
Even still, there has been plenty of discussion in recent years about a link between sociopathy and leadership, so I don't use that label in a hysterical way but in an objective, clinical way about a certain perspective on the world.
So I don't mean to say that cloaking one's actions in a fake CB makes them better necessarily, but there is at least a RL need to do so, because the global community doesn't tolerate instrumental violence nearly as much as we do here. I don't expect everyone to take this browser game as seriously as RL, but you'd think after 8+ years and all scheming and arguing and nation building that we invest in it, we could at least try to invest a bit more meaning in our actions.
I can see the point about having a reason for war that would be accepted by a nations people in RL as necessary (even if made up) I'm not sure how to make it work for CN.
Let's assume for a moment I agree that it's something that should also be the case in CN. How would that translate into the CN world in an effective fashion? If the reason for war was something like, "NpO is stockpiling chemical weapons" (just for example) - well, obviously that doesn't translate to this world so in theory it could be role-played but we all know it's fake. Would it make the game any more fun? (and if so, why?)
About the terms "sociopath" - I took some time to look it up on the internet. I found some helpful advice on the matter:
"Sociopaths don't respond very well to punishment, but they do respond to incentives."
http://www.sociopathworld.com/2013/12/sociopath-treatment.html
Problem solved
-
Maybe its just a lack of higher intelligence in Doomsphere in general; any nerd can do math, but it takes real skill to destroy the Enemy in debates and rhetoric.
The point here is to have an OOC discussion (from what i gather by the the author). Do you really think there is a lack of intelligence from the people behind the computer in Doomsphere?
-
(lol part)
The quote above translates as: if you want to be "good" join the GPA.
I am not being ironic in the slightest.
Considering how this world is - yes. Alliances like GPA, WTF, etc. Basically the most one can do is not cause any harm. However, that isn't helping anyone but alliance mates. So I don't see it as "good." Just not bad. That's the conclusion I came to after trying to figure out for a number of years how to play this game as a "good character."
In terms of neutrality, problem for me is, I like the war aspects of this game so just being neutral isn't really an option. I espcially like the social side of war. It's easy enough to point and click, this is true. By the social side, II mean all the social aspects, coordinating with alliance mates, exchanging PM's with people one is fighting, the build up of tension before hand and peace talks toward the end.
Between wars people get busy and there is, at least from what I've seen, far less social interaction when war isn't happening.
-
One more thing:
(White Chocolate):
"There are plenty of real world examples (through out most of history actually) where nation leaders decided to take actions that caused terrible pain and suffering (for instance, the US used atomic bombs twice at the end of world war two) and no one is accusing said leader of being a sociopath. "That isnt really the point. Whether true or not, the US government (and every real world government) has always come up with some kind of story to justify their actions. They produce propaganda.
No real life government has ever dropped so much as a defective hand grenade, let alone a nuke, citing a cassus belli of boredom. Never. And sociopath would be one of the milder terms that would apply if it did happen, no?
The comparison between Planet Bob and real life reaaly doesn't work all that much anyway.
We toss nukes around at each other every war. Planet Bob consistantly, for the past seven (7) years I've been here, has had a "world war" EVERY year that involve some group of alliances attacking some other group of alliances - generally a few alliances being curbstomped by everyone else.
It's clockwork. Eveyone knows it will happen - the "CB" is just a formaility and either totally made up or based off of some little thing that, if it happened at any other time of year would get resolved by diplomancy.
IF someone actually has a traditional CB for war, I'm all for using it. On the other hand, I actually think it is MORE ETHICAL not to make one up or try to use something everyone would fix diplomatically at any other time as the CB just because it's that time of year. A "traditional CB" (at least how CN does it) is an attempt to blame the alliance being attacked for the attack and if it is not real, pretending otherwise is far worse than just flat out saying, "our fault (as the aggressor), not yours" in my opinion.
If DBDC members are sociopaths, then so is every other alliance leader who has agreed to get his or her alliance involved in any of the wars since I've been here.
This world is evil. If people REALLY want to start a movment to fight evil, start with changing how you act before being critical of anyone else.
-
"If you do this moment of soul-searching and decide that your AA isn't concerned at all about principles, and will do whatever serves it best, regardless of what it does to other people, then congratulations: you're RPing a band of sociopaths. That's awesome! I'm being completely genuine here"
No, Prodigal Moon, you are not being completely genuine. There are plenty of real world examples (through out most of history actually) where nation leaders decided to take actions that caused terrible pain and suffering (for instance, the US used atomic bombs twice at the end of world war two) and no one is accusing said leader of being a sociopath. A nation leader's job is to do what is best for his or her nation. By extension into CN (where we all know should be called "cyber alliances" - because that is the power structure), an alliance leader's job is to meet the needs of the members.
I approve whole heartedly of both alliance leaders and individual nations thinking deeper about what their alliance/nation belief system is and keeping those belief's in mind when deciding how to respond to any given situation. A world where different alliances "stood" for different cultures/values would provide a very interesting dynamic to the world. I would of loved to have received alliance invites as a new leader in the world telling me their particular alliance values and having them be different from each other. However this was not the culture of CN when I was new. I tried to run Lander Clan as if it were a real world nation. Everyone - every single pience of advice I got from experienced leaders was that it didn't work.
Now I'm hearing from various people that X or Y was different (and supposedly better) previous. It's highly possible to romanticsize the past. To those people - prove it. If we're supposed to have political debates as we supposedly have prior to my arrival, where are they? Lets see some links so those of us not lucky to have been here during the golden age have some clue of what those of you who were are talking about.
-
What's the purpose of this blog?
The purpose is for all of us to share in the pleasure of seeing Tywin kicked out of #d00msquad.
Thank you, Tywin. That was an enjoyable read.
-
For all those who have the desire to hand DBDC tech after reading this blog, please PM Lord Hershey and he will set it up. Thank you.
-
and now, for the rest of the story...
-
I sure hope Hershey and Cuba get out of this mess. I'm starting to feel tech withdraw symmptoms coming on. Might need to go back on the dangerous street and start raiding it to get my fix.
-
I agree with you.
-
Picture this as a thought experiment: You are in a white walled room. There is nothing that you can see except one rubber ball. You start bouncing the ball against the wall, and you quickly realize that nothing changes and nothing happens except the ball coming back to you repeatedly. Then you find yourself in another room exactly the same in every way except that now when you begin to bounce the ball, the wall changes and begins to split into sections and move about. The ball bounces differently each time as the wall moves around to change angles and surfaces.
So your saying that Tennis is more fun than Racquetball and therefore also a more ethical game to play and people who claim they think otherwise are being being facetious or intentionally obtuse?
-
I think you've read a lot more into this piece than was actually there, bringing the typical baggage associated with this topic to bear even when no one else has brought it up. I urge you to reconsider it without this baggage, as I've attempted to do. I don't claim to have been entirely successful, but I don't think all that many have made a genuine attempt to reason without the baggage.
The issue that I have with your attempt is that you're taking something that is both outside the realm of the game and also is entirely based on individual preference (i.e. what is "fun" to some people is not necessarily "fun" to others and this is perfectly okay) and you try to use it to argue an ethical stance. It just does not work.
At best, you're taking one definition of "fun" (and there are plenty of people who have other definitions and who would argue that "politics" are the least fun aspect of CN) and arguing as if it's the only one out there when it is not.
I think there are ways to argue effectively that a CB of some sort is a requirement for a war to be ethical. Keeping things "fun" is just not one of them. It's improssible to define fun for anyone but yourself.
-
Wow - a ton of opinion and no logic whatsoever to back it up.
You say, "much of the fun derived from playing this game is from playing politics, speculating on politics, working to change politics, or discussing politics, and most of the rest is made all the more so by politics."
- As this world is currently organized, the so called "politics" of the world are limited to alliance leaders only, which is a VERY small part of the overall population. For most alliances, maybe 2 to 5 people. Thus, if it is true that much of "the fun" is derived from politics than this world is only fun for a few people at the top. If that's the case, why any of the rest of us stick around is a very good question.
Thankfully - you're wrong. Some people find nation building fun. Look at the neutral alliances for example and how many nations they have.
Other people find war fun and war here, unlike the current state of "politics" - is something that every nation here can take part in if they wish.
If we're REALLY concerned about ethics what we should do is find a way that satisfies everyone's need for fun - not just those people who like the world as it currently is organized.
"If CBs were not ethically required to declare war, then a large chunk of the politics would evaporate from this game as requiring a reason for war is the same as saying that wars cannot be arbitrary."
- The lack of an community accepted "Casus Belli" does not = an "arbitrary" war. It just means that there is no community accepted STATED reason for it that other people can debate.
An alliance can declare war for whatever reason an alliance wants. Also, alliances are not required to announce a reasoning to the rest of the world. Sure, it's been tradition but the fact that something is "traditional" does not also make it ethical.
Imagine a situation where something happens behind the scenes between alliances and one decides to declare war over it but decides not to give the actual reason in public. Does this fact make the war unethical? No.
Finally, just because there is a stated CB, even one with "evidence" etc. that doesn't make a war ethical. The CB could (as often happened in the past) be a total lie, so called "evidence" can be false or at the very least there are two sides to the conflict and one could be totally misrepresented. In my opinion, it is far more ethical to say there is no CB than to make something up as has often occured in the past.
If so, we are doomed.
Monsters Inc Characters on Planet Bob
in A Captain&Coke with L_H
A blog by Lord Hitchcock in General
Posted · Edited by White Chocolate
This is an example of the type of statements that Junka makes now and then that have always amused me. It can be read ironically or as literal, depending on how one feels about LPCN. In other words, he is either saying "If I really messed up all the time, I wouldn't be the leader" or he is saying "I got put into a leadership position - man was I foolish to agree to take it." Reader's choice.