Jump to content

Prodigal Moon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,599

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Prodigal Moon

  6. Prodigal Moon

    Posted

    But in your conception of such, those two things are almost diametrically opposed...signing a treaty (and then defending that person) is much closer to an IC value, namely the willingness to go to the wall for friends, than it is realpolitik. I also hate it when someone makes a mess of perfectly good politics because of a deep and meaningful 1am conversation about how drunk they are, but that's a whole different kettle of tipsy fish.

    In terms of alliances having overarching values, the biggest problem is that there are so many points of reference there. It's similar to voting; you never find a candidate whose views wholly match your own (unless you've tailored your views to fit those of your chosen candidate...good evening RON PAUL fans), necessarily leading one to compromise on some aspects. Now, multiply that by a factor of "enough to get !@#$ done", particularly once the need to work with the allies of allies comes into play, and you have a melange of often-contradictory beliefs and goals that simply cannot be contained by a coherent statement of values. Thus do even those with strong value systems settle in to realpolitik, unless suitably committed to embark on a quixotic journey through the wondrous hinterlands of micropolitics.

    True, realpolitik and OOC friendship do seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but in RL politics there is that third element of values or culture of a nation that influences alliances. Since both of those factors are sorely underdeveloped in most AA's, and even team color has been rendered almost irrelevant by the change to trades, it makes sense that those who don't take the strategic side of things too seriously fall back on OOC friendship factors.

    Having strong values and abiding by them really can limit who you align yourself with (or what AA you join in the first place...). Lord knows we encountered that in CoJ and I dealt with a lot of that looking for potential partners in my alliance before that. But considering how much most of us hate the treaty web, wouldn't that be a good thing?

    WC: I agree completely with jerdge. There's lots of ways to go about it. In DNA, our DoE created a narrative of a benign but complacent group (completely true in RL) that got overrun by darkness, forcing us into an internal power struggle. If we had decided to do something really aggressive, we'd have been able to say "The werewolves made us do it!"

    Cuba: Your description of ODN really gets at the heart of why I posted this. Their approach is so explicitly OOC that it's no surprise that align themselves with just about anyone.

  7. Prodigal Moon

    Posted

    Notice the conditional/relative language though. 'if you've *outright banned*... then there *is probably a reason*...it just *might* mean...*shouldnt be a natural fit*" (all emphasis mine obviously.)

    It just seemed like you were replying as if it had said something a lot more absolutist than what he actually said.

    Yeah, I was just throwing out an easy way an AA might get try to get a sense of where it stands on the Peaceful vs. Aggressive spectrum. Considering how most AA's don't really "do" much on their own besides chain into treaty web wars, raiding is one of the few ways AA's distinguish themselves, so it's a shame that we've all but dropped any meaning attached to it.

  8. Prodigal Moon

    Posted

    I don't know how to multiquote on blog comments so I'm just going to try to address as many points as I can directly to the posters:

    BMTH: I think you're on the right track, but missing the other crucial peace that Schatt always points out - that you can be friends without being military allies. Especially since most of the interactions you have with people outside of OWF are probably going to OOC, or them just being themselves. In that sense, the OOC/IC cuts both ways, and it's completely okay to roll your buddy's alliance for IC reasons since this is just a game after all. Edit: This was written before your last post, which clears things up a bit. I agree that's it's hard for people to keep their IC actions and OOC buddies seperate.

    This gets into KZ's point about realpolitik and personal relationships. I'm not going to deny that personal relationships probably play a big part in RL international relations, but I can't think of an example where my (American) President has announced that he and the Secretary of State have been chatting a lot with the leaders of a nation and having a lot of fun, so we're going to sign a military treaty. That's the level that we're operating on a lot of the time in CN.

    Sigrun: Thank you for that post and for illuminating the absurd back and forth that's been going on; I think you're totally right. It's like

    A: (IC) You're slaughtering innocent people and looting their homes - you're monsters!

    B: (OOC) Uh, who cares, we're just having fun.

    C: (IC) That's exactly what makes you a monster!!

    I'm guilty of getting sucked into this too, so this blog entry was an attempt to clear the air a bit and at least let us be clearer with each other about our personal uses of the IC/OOC divide.

    WC: I think Sigrun put it better than I could about RL CB's and evil. Even though there is a rationale behind the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, people *still* have very strong opinions about it in both directions. President Bush (W.) was called a murderer, war criminal, etc. for the invasion of Iraq, even though the he presented a national security justification for it, and there are potential strategic reasons why it could have been in America's interest. If he had just said "We want their oil and we can take it, nothing personal" I can't even imagine what the backlash would've been like. When I think about politicians who strongly advocate for their national interest alone, what kinds to mind are people who want to do away with all foreign aid, or isolationists. That's a far cry from the untempered use of instrumental violence. 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.

    MV: I think you make a great counter-point about survivalism and tribalism, and maybe our community just hasn't progressed to the point at which value conflicts are a focal point since most of us are just trying to avoid getting stomped. I think most new nations and new AA's couldn't care less about what I'm talking about, and just want protection. So there might be an intersting sort of IC-OOC hierarchy of needs. I'll admit that when I thought Polaris was at risk of getting rolled before Disorder, I didn't care nearly as much about who we had to get on our side to make that happen. It was only after our survival was clealry taken care of that I started to ask myself more about whether the breakdown of the "sides" made any sense at all, and wonder what was the point of the war if there were so many AA's I disliked on our side and relatively peaceful AA's on the other side. I didn't want to go down the path of arbitrary wars that I mentiond in the original post, and stepped away from Polaris for a bit.

    jerdge: I chose a blog post because no one reads the OOC OWF for anything other than polls and stats! I agree with the rest of your post though, including the idea that eventually the current pattern we're in will get pushed so far that it collapses and something new emerges. And that if you want to be good you should probably join GPA...or CoJ. But CoJ has dissolved into Polaris, so join Polaris :) It is true though that neutrals are immune to my criticism, since they're some of the only AA's ever to base their entire approach to the game around a guiding principle.

    enderland: I agree with most of your post, though I would point out that at some point Hitler becamse pretty much synonymous with evil, at least in America. There will always be the temptation to appease, bury your head in the sand, or even compromise your beliefs to join up with the "evil" side and avoid destruction. That's just as true in CN as it is in RL, so I don't expect micro AA's to make suicide runs at DBDC (yet). But it would be entertaining if more AA's at least found a way to line up their IC behavior with their position with regard to DBDC. As it is, I think most people on here don't even quite get what the big deal is, since they're looking at it OOC.

  9. Prodigal Moon

    Posted

    You have a decent idea, which many AA's used to do. Though I think it falls flat especially when we don't all have the same definition of role-play. Are we supposed to RP like all the folks do in the sub-sections of these forums? Or are we simply RPing by default once we make a nation? What's the difference from RPing yourself in a cyber game, or RPing some fictional character.

    Even if we take the definition of role-play, albeit searched on google, "participation in a role-playing game.". Aren't we, as i've always felt, automatically RPing as soon as we make a nation?

    I'd like to think that i'm not alone in saying i've never played another "RP" game except cybernations, so how can we expect people who don't RP to RP at someone else's definition.

    Also, while we're at it, does aligning yourself (if you don't tech raid) with all those who don't tech raid make your alliance more secure or less secure? Just because you have morals, doesn't mean you can't, or don't have to ally yourself to someone who doesn't share the same morals. As long as you are keeping your alliance safe, secure, and growing; is that really wrong?

    I'm not even pushing for anything nearly approaching the RP section, or even talking as formally as Hime Themis. Just having our nation leaders act based partly on some set of principles or values.

    Even if people are basically just "roleplaying" themselves as the leader of a nation, I think that would naturally lead to what I'm advocating for. For example, most of us probably have a sense of right and wrong and wouldn't defend someone who completely violates that. We also have cultural, political, and philosphical views that lead us to feel an affinity to some countries over others (e.g., that country (AA) doesn't believe in free speech (limits member speech on OWF), so I don't like them). If these sorts of things were inluded to any degree in the game, it would make things a lot richer. Unfortunately the Fascism vs. Communism feud is the only example of this sort of culture clash that comes to mind.

    Aligning with tech raiders even if you don't believe in it is a real conundrum, as Enderland brought up well in that thread just as I was working on this. I think it's a great question and of course even in the real world there's a realism vs. idealism debate. I'd say the problem in CN is that we're so "meh" about RP that a hard realism approach is pretty much the only thing that people even understand, and idealism ("moralism") gets you borderline-OOC attacks for being a nerd, neckbeard, taking things too seriously etc.

  11. Ogaden

    Posted

    Unless you're one of the 5 or so AA's that are typically the target or initiator of global (treaty chain) wars, it's just sloppy FP to be signing the bare minimum of treaties to ensure your safety. If you're alliance X who's under 3 mil NS and you have treaties to multiple spheres, there is almost no chance that things are going to break down so that all of those spheres follow you into battle. You're going to be following them into battle, and so you damn well better make sure that they're not likely to be fighting each other. Not only will this save you the huge headache of figuring out which side you're on (or god forbid, fighting for both), but it will eliminate any reason for someone to specifically target/not target you to draw/not draw in a part of the web that otherwise wouldn't be drawn in

  12. Ogaden

    Posted

    I'm not making value judgments or saying might makes moral, but if you go against the current of what is the consensus, you might get props on the OWF from a few bystanders, but in terms of ingame action, you are treated like a mad dog to be put down.

    I'm also not saying that you should avoid doing so, I've certainly seen my share of attempts of various alliances looking to put RIA down once and for all.

    True. After reading a bit more on the use of the phrase, I should've just said it comes down to whether you use it descriptively or prescriptively. It sounds like you're pointing out that we all endorse it in the descriptive sense (e.g.,, "that's just how it is around here"), which I totally agree with. But there are alliances out there that use it in the prescriptive sense, as if the strong should abuse the weak because that's nature, or that the strong are entitled to take from the weak because of their superiority. I think that's one of the few fault lines that runs through this game in terms of ruler/alliance values, although people are so wishy washy in how they portray that that most of the time you can barely differentiate one alliance from another.

  13. Ogaden

    Posted

    I don't think the question is whether might dictates who's on top and who gets rolled, but whether you think that being stronger gives you an actual justification for acting aggressively towards weaker parties. Might makes right glorifies the aggressor for their power and blames the victim for being weak. You could argue that it isn't even amoral per se, but actually a moral system based on the value of power. The line in CN between alliances that are amoral vs. those that actually endorse "might makes right" gets pretty hazy sometimes.

  14. HM Solomon I

    Posted

    I think a useful point that the OP brings up is how CN is ultimately meaningless apart from the importance that we invest in it. The more we forgo politics and strip things down to pixels and numbers, the harder it becomes to maintain any illusion of meaning here. I'd argue that the inability of most alliances to RP and stick to any sort of value system is even more destructive than no-CB wars.

  15. HM Solomon I

    Posted

    I think they're thriving just fine even without raiding. I don't know the exact nature of their arrangement with their satellite alliances, but a constant flow of incoming tech will get you 21,600 in a year. It would be interesting quantify how many non-DBDC-allied, non-neutral nations are in range, and to what degree if they're keeping pace or falling behind.

    If they're keeping pace (which is unlikely), and at least equal in number, then I guess the relative advantage for DBDC would be shrinking over time. That is, for the weaker party, I imagine it's more favorable to fight at 30k tech vs. 50k tech, than 10k tech vs. 30k tech. I could be wrong though.

    I think a more likely scenario is that DBDC is outpacing the remaining non-friendly, non-neutral nations in their range, and continuing to make progress in allying those who do remain. I don't see their position as precarious at all, but rather consolidating for the time being. Of course, sometimes when an alliance has such an over-consoldiated position of strength (e.g., NPO pre-Karma) they naturally become the focal point of anyone who'd like to shake things up or achieve power for themselves. The game can only tolerate a clear leader for so long. But I think we're a long ways off from that kind of backlash.

  17. arentak

    Posted

    I don't think it does (or should) neatly fall into playing the game one way or another. There are different contexts that explicitly call for one or the other. It's not ridiculous to expect people to understand the rules and spirit behind them, and make a bare minimum effort to adhere to that. Likewise, I'm all for discussing the game OOC in places that aren't IC forums of these boards. It's good to be able to step out of the IC political rivalry and relate to other players on an OOC basis.

  18. arentak

    Posted

    And in terms of IC and OOC. If you want to play IC its no skin of my nose. But again getting back to the moralist view point, I find it eye roll worthy when people start complaining that others arent playing IC and try to act like it should be required in the game. I find IC play childish and silly and irrelevant to the mechanics of the game. I'm not alone. You can disagree fully, and I expect we can all go on happily for the most part. As long as you dont expect me to actually engage with you in any IC way, that's fine.

    It's not an opinion, it's the actual rules of the key forums in this nation simulation game.Why do you think there are even distinct IC and OOC forums if the IC/RP aspect isn't supposed to be an intrinsic part of the game? I find it silly that people still play this extremely basic game while crapping all over the RP aspect of it that gives your pixels any sense of meaning whatsoever. It's like joining a Dungeons and Dragons campaign and telling everyone "Stop acting like a bunch of elves and dwarves, I'm just here to roll dice, man."

    I'm not even sure if I'm an actual moralist, just someone who tries to keep things IC and who recognizes that, unless you're intentionally roleplaying a bloodthirsty villain, you wouldn't tell people going to war to "Have fun!" or support things like raiding.

  19. arentak

    Posted

    'Morality When Convenient' is a better descriptor. That is well and truly alive & kicking. The number of people that are genuinely moralist is about as low as you'd expect.

    Moralism doesn't bother me, nor does honest scummery. It's the dishonest ones that parade their purported ideals which are worthy of derision.

    What use are ideals unless they are applied and tested through action?

    We tried all we could in CoJ, but were relatively powerless. Having Dajobo at the helm and the strength of Polaris is really the best combination of ethics and strength that I can imagine being a part of. I'm sure the rest of us are likewise making their voices heard and trying best to shape the culture (and actions) of their respective AA's.

    While years ago there were many players that played the game with respect to the IC/OOC divide, i.e. they pretended that they really were nation leaders and that their alliances "culture" and values really mattered, nowadays almost everyone is disillusioned and the only thing that prevents everyone from talking of the game directly from the perspective of the player are the CN forum rules for AA and WA. "IC" is basically a feeble remnant superimposed by the forum rules, but it's not really part of the game anymore.

    In a sense, "lulzists" memes won and CN as a political simulator has been broken as a result. Without a really generalized purge of old players or some outstanding cultural collective operation we'll hardly get back to the previous state, because the shift is cultural and not something depending on the game mechanics or on alliance politics.

    Basically, the IC side isn't taken seriously any more: Tywin's IC posts and the "generalized" reaction to them are a good indicator of what I mean. Is the game any better because of this? I personally doubt it.

    (Honestly I can't say that this is what you actually had in mind, arentak, but this is my impression on the matter.)

    Great overview of something that's been bugging me for years. If we can't be bothered to have an IC/OOC divide and create a coherent RP for our alliances - even if it's a simplistic Good Guy/Bad Guy one - then this entire thing will (and has) devolve into OOC BS as the sole driver of "politics."

  25. HM Solomon I

    Posted

    I don't think it's fair to lump Tywin in with the junk posts though. He generates political discussion from a strong IC perspective and even goes so far as to enrich the RP context of CN by adding new institutions like a news channel and a foreign affairs university. Even if people are annoyed at some of the content of these postings, this type of thing is (imho) extremely rare and precious in our game. If you remove the OOC/RP aspect from the forums, then the actual game gets stripped of any significance beyond a pixel generator.

    The other posters that you mentioned seem to have no OOC boundary and can't keep their childish drama from spilling over into the nation simulation. There's nothing good that comes from that.

×
×
  • Create New...