[The Unjust Path and Perspective]

I must agree that lots of people beleive that tons of MDP-s defend them without having proper military, but tons of nukes makes much more security. STA showed that MPs in a longer war is deadly.

Did they? I must confess I didn't watch the war much outside of my own front.

As for UJW: NpO won with the propaganda, they simply got more allies, who beleived that the winning of NpO is better for them than the winning of UJP

Indeed they did.

[The Unjust Path and Perspective]

It wasn't a joke that we could do it, had people not started surrendering I still think we could've pulled through. We had some of the more experienced, big, war-oriented alliances on our side and the stats were close enough (though again, revisionists will claim otherwise) that we could've pulled through on will.

In the end, what screwed us was a lack of allies. We passed over and alienated to many people thinking our power wouldn't be trumped by waves of small alliances backing a few big foes. It would've been much easier going had we had a more open mind, but we didn't, and NpO capitalized on it's ability to ally everyone under the sun (including former League/AEGIS that otherwise hated our guts).

[The Optimal Number of MDP's]

I lol'd at your graphs brah.

[Crap CN Names = Crappy Prospects]

but this blog had me wondering: if somebody who was skilled and talented and whatnot made one of these crap names, how much would they be held back by it?

Can't really strong-arm someone with <Narutofan1001[Alliance]> - no one will take you srs.

[On why we all REALLY fight]

I bought nukes to compensate for my pixel size :X

[Class Isn't Underrated]

I was trying to hard back then. :v

[Treaties]

I also consider it ridiculous to decide if you're signing a treaty with an alliance or not on the basis of who they are allied to already.

Why? That's a good judge of character to me. You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep.

[In defense of democracies]

You brushed over a lot of problems. Ryiis already brought it up, but when GOD was democratic virtually no one voted. The only time anyone paid attention to elections was when they were frustrated with what the government was doing, and that virtually never happened since we've never had a CN-inclined membership (that is to say, a lot of people that follow politics).

We might have 40-50 people on IRC each day and only 15 people would vote, because they just don't care. This is in part because only qualified people tended to run (so it didn't really matter) and also in part because they just couldn't care less.

In fact, some two months after we eliminated voting I got a query from one of our founding members saying sorry he missed the vote... only to be shocked to find out we'd gotten rid of it... two months prior. Democracy as a concept is government by the people, for the people. The problem with this is a lot of people don't want that extra responsibility.

Democracies, responsible ones, require you to educate yourself on people and cast a good vote and this flies in the face of people who're playing CN because unlike other games, it doesn't take them much time to maintain.

or they all have more similar mindsets, so they all have something more in common to look for.

On this, even in idealistically homogeneous groups there will be favorites who might not be qualified for whatever reason, in which case you have the popularity contest problem again.

Additionally, these alliances are typically very active, which can help compensate for some lack of military organization.

Some, but only if there's a proper military structure to back it up. The masses wouldn't come together on their own and conduct proper and precise counter-attacks if they got blitzed... they'd post a bunch about OMG I GOT ATTACKED - though because they're active, they'll be a lot of them instead of a few.

You also forgot one, huge, flaw in democracies... and that's the lack of a central leader. The floating leader position hurts most when it comes to forums and IRC channels, because transfers of power are not always carried out properly and coups can happen. What happens when someone with Root Admin gets unelected, hm? What if it was a bitter election? Hate to say it, but I've seen coups start and happen that way.

Some have left the guy with admin having no other choice (ODS in particular, who you should remember, left Ruben as Root). This undermines OPSEC pretty bad, because you now have someone who's not government with complete access to every little corner of your forum. What happens if they leave? Have a hissy fit? Decide to CN-Suicide it and log dump?

There goes your alliance.

[Class Isn't Underrated]

Yeah yeah, regardless of what I am, I was still raised with the Golden rule.

[Treaties]

"if you don't like their actions don't sign the MDP"

Amen to that.

[Treaties]

What else is there but self-preservation in a game like this? I have been trying to figure that out for some time now and still not sure how to answer.

Amusement, and personal gratification.

As for real friendship as the basis for a treaty, especially if you mean real life friendship....that is extremely dangerous and has created a lot of problems in alliance and international politics. If you have not been betrayed yet by someone you think is a "friend," it's just a matter of time if your alliance and leadership presence keeps growing.

Not the case. For one, I've yet to tell anyone on or off CN my real first name, as a personal rule. Most of my allies are headed by a single leader with two exceptions - FARK and RIA, and I've yet to have a serious problem with anyone in either's government, much less outright betrayal. The extent of any dispute so far was simple miss communication maybe a week ago and we both shrugged it off.

If it ever gets to the point where I think someones working against me, they won't be an ally for very long, but that's pretty unlikely because it's just not how we pick allies. I'd expect it if I allied willy-nilly (and the only time we did get double-crossed was when we allied just for power). I find it incredibly unlikely now though, too much hive mind going around

In a roleplaying game like this, not all friends here are the friends or even the enemies you think they are and people find lying to be much more acceptable than they would in real life since they are just players and this is just a game.

Don't I know it, but then again we come to the "Scumbag" clause, and people would never put up with me for as long as my allies have if they were fronting.

As for having treaties based on the merits of a conflict, that is a rare luxury, such as when we are building coalitions preparing for a war.

You misunderstood what I meant by that, I think. I mean people rarely decide to enter conflicts for the stated, public reason. It's always either bloodlust, puppetry, or an ulterior motive. Few people come out and say what they mean or why they do what they do, and it's mainly due to having a thin skin for criticism.

Oftentimes, you will find yourself bound to participate in a war by treaties you believe in, but not how the wars started.

Aye, don't I know it, that's why one of my suggested criteria is whether you could also stomach supporting the people your allies ally.

Yeah, it sucks, but no one is safe, which I suppose is part of what keeps the text-game adrenaline junkies coming back for more.

Meh. I wish people would pay more attention to domestic defense rather than simply relying on layering external treaties anyway. It's such a cop-out.

Just don't get frustrated and remember to keep this all in the perspective of a game.

Don't gotta tell me. My emotional attachment to the game died with the UJW.

In other words, lying and deceit is a huge part of planet bob politics, and it's what keeps so many active in upper level politics.

It keeps all the wrong sort involved. It was one thing to lie and deceive back in the two-side era, it's a whole 'nother, scummier, ball game now. I have no respect for anyone who lies to isolate someone these days.

[Treaties]

"The most effective alliance leaders keep their closest allies in private, with or without treaties."

You keep them in private, you announce them in public as a warning.

"They keep tabs on their potential enemies through the formality of publicly announced treaties."

I wish. There was a time when this was useful (we employed it a bit, once upon a time), but since people nullify even MDPs these days, it's not very effective anymore.

"The complexity of the treaty web is more about keeping track of where everyone will fall in any given scenario. It has little at all to do with friendship."

Precisely the problem. People are choosing their side based solely on self-preservation (or in other words, cowardice) and not based on the reason for any given conflict or friendship.

"I do, however, agree with your sense of morality, even if it is mostly irrelevant in defensive and offensive treaty commitments."

Not sure how true that is. I'm pretty comfy as is with all my allies, and we all stay in touch and discuss the days events (joint IRC channels are ftw with this). I'd say letting your morals influence who you treaty is probably the single most effective criteria anyone could use when selecting what should amount to an extended family... if you're doing it right.

At the end of the day, this is one big version of Pokemon with some horribly inflated egos. You tend not to stack your party with Pokemon you can't stand, and you don't play unless you want to have some fun. There are exceptions, but it's a miserable existence.

[The Now World Order]

No. !@#$@#$. kidding... on all counts.