The Problem With Planet Bob

[AirMe]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303521901' post='2697281']
Do you think even if you tried to "take the time" that people would buy it? I doubt it. Plus the game takes too long for things to happen as it is. And as you said, people can't keep secrets. More than likely they'd just get rolled for spying.


Strength is worthless if you never do anything with it. And honestly, that would only be true if their style of play wasn't almost always bad for the game. When winning they do everything they can to avoid anything even close to even wars. When losing they simply refuse to fight and hide in peace mode. Both approaches are awful for the game. Their unique culture is good (even if I dislike it IC), but their style of play is awful. Contrast that with MK, we tend to start relatively even wars (not perfectly balanced, but far more than those of the past), and when we lost, we actually fought with almost everything we had.
[/quote]

Between the periods of war, they would find a way to fill the void. Currently between wars no one fills the void with anything other than treaty announcements and anniversary treaties.

Fill that void and people will come back.

Another thing that kills the game are wars that last forever. Believe it or not, people don't want war all the time. After about 2 or 3 weeks people don't care anymore and it actually hurts activity.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303522257' post='2697287']
Between the periods of war, they would find a way to fill the void. Currently between wars no one fills the void with anything other than treaty announcements and anniversary treaties.

Fill that void and people will come back. [/quote]
Like what? What good is posturing (which still happens) when it takes so long to lead to anything?

[quote]Another thing that kills the game are wars that last forever. Believe it or not, people don't want war all the time. After about 2 or 3 weeks people don't care anymore and it actually hurts activity.
[/quote]
As I said the big problem here is huge warchests and wonder stockpiles in top tier nations that keeps medium length wars from really significantly hurting them, while medium length wars are devastating for mid-tier nations.

[Gopherbashi]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303522257' post='2697287']
Another thing that kills the game are wars that last forever. Believe it or not, people don't want war all the time. After about 2 or 3 weeks people don't care anymore and it actually hurts activity.
[/quote]
Pretty much this. Since the standard length for an alliance war now seems to be months (and counting), can you really blame people for opposing any kind of aggression that may result in that level of destruction?

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1303523737' post='2697304']
Pretty much this. Since the standard length for an alliance war now seems to be months (and counting), can you really blame people for opposing any kind of aggression that may result in that level of destruction?
[/quote]


I'm not blaming people or saying everyone is bad... I am saying all of us need to work towards change. We do need aggression, and it does need to be tempered in some way. Long wars are absolutely horrible, but they are the only kind most people fight because it's so hard to get a CB, and as Azaghul has been saying, we live in a CB-bound world where any first aggression is considered immoral or bad, but also as he said, that's not a sustainable view. We need to move towards a world of aggression being more acceptable AND shorter and less damaging wars. Even two weeks of war may be far too long for the majority of players. I know that in just one week, myself and wickedJ can remove 50-60k or more of NS from a nation. We did that to a lot of people this last war. That represents a heck of a lot of growth. Even a few days of non nuclear war can be a lot of fun, and 10 day long non nuclear wars like 10.10.10 were some of the most fun the participants had had in CN - even traditional moralists like NpO.

I like AirMe's idea that there should be more spying as well. That's a form of aggression. There should be more spying, more war, less treaties, and less destruction. Aggression should be acceptable, but vicious destruction should not be. That's the idea and the message, and I am glad that we have some people talking about these issues.

[bzelger]

People oppose aggression that they don't like. Plenty of people who will speak disparagingly about moralists will provide friction to conflicts that weaken their position or that they don't like. Moralism is no more responsible for stagnation than any other philosophy. You might recall that Grub started a war based on IC moral principles, and the anti-moralists and amoralists were there to whine about "world police." This war gained a lot of support because of people being disgusted with what they saw as moralism. Moralism, or the perception of it, has driven politics and war more than anything else in the past several years. It also is inherently IC and allows us to play with some semblance of politics.

There are problems with apathy, excessive entanglement, inactivity, and cowardice. Moralism is a scapegoat.

[Xiphosis]

[i]>> Londo complaining about moralism[/i]

[img]http://i832.photobucket.com/albums/zz249/zibzib200/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg[/img]

[Banksy]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1303520847' post='2697259']
The problem is that this is a five year old game, fewer people are coming through the turnstiles into the "amusement park", and some refuse to change their way of playing to adjust for it.[/quote]
Well, that was really my point. Because it's five years old we've let it develop in a manner which is no longer sustainable. We can't adjust the game because it was designed (politically) by a group of people who are no longer interested in the game and have made it impossible for newer players to take their place.

The real difference between our views is that you think it can be salvaged whereas I do not.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1303526694' post='2697334']
[i]>> Londo complaining about moralism[/i][/quote]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sZJWn.gif[/IMG]

[Ryan Greenberg]

Xiph should really avoid discussions on how to improve CN

[Sylar]

its easy we just kill the batman.

[Joseph Black]

You have outlined a very good set of points, now science dictates that you must run tests to prove your hypothesis valid. Personally I'd be all for more war and conflict so long as it was fun in nature for everyone, meaning if you didn't want to play that way you could be neutral.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1303519112' post='2697223']
It's got nothing to do with moralism or any political !@#$ within the game. It's because 5 years ago there were enough nerdy teenagers and college students who had time to play and actually cared about the outcome. We grew up and now we don't have the time or the enthusiasm to keep on playing. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the player base has gotten older (as can be seen from the political discussions, read the old threads, they're awful), and they're not being replaced by younger, more enthusiastic players due to the complex nature of the political game. We've (unintentionally) imposed a glass ceiling.
[/quote]
It's true, most of the current players wasted their teenage years on this game. Since we've all grown up, we have better things to do. Those of us who were already adults now have children joining baseball teams to take care of and other such things.

[Mason]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1303532959' post='2697419']
It's true, most of the current players wasted their teenage years on this game. Since we've all grown up, we have better things to do. Those of us who were already adults now have children joining baseball teams to take care of and other such things.
[/quote]

The above posts are correct. Not to mention that technology via the internet has escalated rapidly. In 2006, we didn't have Facebook or all the games that come along with it. There was a different culture and less options for people who enjoy spending time in front of their computers. CN was also fresh and still developing, both technically and politically. Admin, himself, has stated he never expected the game to last as long as it has.

As players who have been around a while and understand what's right/wrong about the game, what could be improved upon, etc., in the end I doubt it would matter much. It's still a web-browser text based game and these games can't compete anymore. Think about it. There are millions playing "Farmville" and things like that, but 20k playing CN. That's crazy, but it's true. So, we've got what we've got and we have to make the best of it. As players, we may sway the opinions of a few with points such as Londo and others have made, but you can't convince an entire community to change the way they play the game. Only game mechanics can have that affect and we all know it's not going to happen.

Yes, CN was a much more vibrant and young community full of activity and interest as we all did our parts in creating the future and were excited to see what would happen tomorrow. Truth is, in this realm, and in others, you can't bring back the past as much as you'd like to sometimes.

[USMC123]

I also despise moralism, my key problem with your post is the idea of the supra-alliance organization. You do realize that organization would end up being the enemy half of bob aligns against to destroy right?

[BamaBuc]

Where do I begin? I think I'll just go in order.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303511643' post='2697094']
[u][size="5"]Where does activity come from?[/size][/u]

Participation in this world, in this community, is inherently focused on action within the world. While some alliances have strong internal communities that can weather to some extent a prolonged lull in external activity, many do not - and all alliances are far healthier and more active when their members are directly involved in doing something interesting within the world. That is the reason we are all here, and the inherent focus of our activity. The lifeblood of activity in the world is therefore meaningful interalliance and even international interaction.[/quote]
This is common sense, no argument here.

[quote][u][size="5"]The problem of moralism[/size][/u]

There is, however, an unfortunate problem that presents a significant barrier to activity. There is within this world a profound culture of 'moralism', which perpetuates and strengthens itself. You see, everyone wants action, but because of the culture of moralism, anyone who starts any kind of action will be attacked and smeared, jumped on by everyone else who is starved for action and destroyed. Those who did the destroying will then clap themselves on the back for being 'heroes in stopping aggression', being profoundly relieved that they finally got some action. The strength and prevalence of the culture of moralism is such that most players have given up entirely on the prospect of being allowed to start their own action, and instead have fallen into a moralist mindset, grateful for action whenever it comes, but possibly not understanding that it is their (and so many others') acquiescence to the ideology of moralism that creates such an enormous barrier to starting action in the game, and is a major reason why it is so infrequent. This in turn causes nations to be less active, because there is less action to be had, and less active nations over time tend to become stat whores, because that is really all that there is for them, which strengthens their commitment to 'moralism'. In other words, the culture of moralism has a stranglehold on the world as an active and vibrant entity, and is slowly but surely squeezing the life out of it. As a side effect, it also means that the "barrier to action" or threshhold of military, economic, and political muscle required to successfully start anything at all is enormously high. This carries its own consequences, which are outlined in the next section.[/quote]
Ah, this familiar bogeyman. The Moralism Monster. People such as yourself love to blame this supposed leviathan for problems that it has nothing whatsoever to do with.

The reason that anyone who "starts action" risks being destroyed is painfully simple on its face: everyone within the network of treatied alliances is connected, so any small group of people such as you and your friends who strike out alone against a treaty-signing alliance are likely to find themselves facing treaty chains that will ultimately bring the hammer down. The treaty network has nothing to do with moralism, it is a matter of human nature. People desire security. There are two methods by which an alliance may gain security (neither of course is infallible): neutrality and treaties. Neutrality is not appealing to most, for a couple of reasons. One, most nation rulers enjoy the occasional war. Two, a neutral alliance has little ability to exert influence on an alliance that is within the treaty network. For these reasons, most alliances sign treaties. If a group of nations decides to "start something" with an alliance that is in the treaty network, the defending alliance will activate those treaties and call in their friends if necessary. Those friends, if necessary, will call in theirs. Obviously there are cases when people ignore their treaties, but this is unlikely to happen when the enemy is isolated treaty-wise, and thus cannot bring in significant backup.

You claim that those who beat down a group such as yours view themselves as a sort of white knights. This, I think, is where your post detaches from reality altogether. Most alliances, and most people who lead them, [i]are not moralistic.[/i] They are self-interested. Oh, sure, they'll wave the moralism flag around when it suits them. But they will just as quickly downplay it or cast it aside altogether. It is, to most of our planet's leaders, a tool. Nothing more. These leaders are, generally speaking, concerned with their alliance's strategic goals, not with moralism. With your extensive experience, I would think you would know this. When an alliance intervenes to destroy a group such as yours, they generally do not do it out of moral indignation (though they'll be sure to wave the flag of righteousness), but out of a desire to protect their area of influence. It is not to an alliance's advantage to leave their treaty partner to get torn up by a band of rogues who are looking to "start some action."

The barrier to action on Planet Bob is caused by two things, neither of which is related to moralism. First is the system of collective security, the treaty network. I've already gone over why this system exists and why it is unsympathetic to isolated rabble-rousers. It's more or less impossible to start something outside of the treaty network and get away with it. It must be done from inside, which leads to the second reason for the action barrier: it is difficult for a nation ruler to reach a position within the treaty network where they can create action. It requires a lot of time and hard work, which most nation rulers are unable or unwilling to commit to. Keep in mind that all rulers have commitments in other realms, and many simply cannot commit to working towards creating their own action, or else have little desire to do so.

If you want to take issue with either the treaty network or the difficulty of ascending to an action-creating position, fine, but neither of these can logically be connected to moralism.

[quote][u][size="5"]Breaking Barriers[/size][/u]

Because the threshold of sheer power required to start anything and get away with it even once is so terrifically high, due to the culture of moralism, this has two primary effects. The first effect is that, if someone is actually successful in starting something, they feel compelled to cause as much damage to their enemy as possible, and the best way to cause that sort of damage is to simply hit nations until they vanish from the world. This has the effect of creating a culture of terror associated with the prospect of war, and it inspires the victor in each subsequent war to be more and more vicious and destructive, and to make terms as crippling as the public and the attacked alliance or coalition will bear. Everyone who is in a major war is forced to do this out of fear and enlightened self-interest, and this behavior is both partly caused by, and also helps to reinforce moralism. It also tends to drive a lot of nations out of the world. The second effect of the high barrier threshold to action is that almost everyone in every major global war is fighting someone else's war, and few people or alliances are ever really getting what they want or being allowed to realize the level of self-actualization which is required to drive the existence of a top-flight, highly active alliance. In a world where the barrier to action was not so high due to moralism, and wars were permitted to be more limited in scale and scope, far more highly active alliances would exist - and they would not have to resort to odious behaviors to maintain their positions as highly active alliances.[/quote]
Yes, when a group of alliances manage to win a war, they know that their defeated foes will likely be gunning for them in the future, so they tend to try to weaken these foes through prolonged war and harsh terms. However I've already explained why the barrier to action cannot be logically connected to moralism.

It is also true that most people tend to wind up fighting other people's wars. This is, again, due to the treaty network and the difficulty of gaining a high leadership position in a major alliance. As I've explained, neither of these is caused by moralism. Furthermore, as I said, most rulers are simply not able to (or do not desire to) commit to the work and time that go into creating their own action.

[quote][u][size="5"]Recap[/size][/u]

I have thus far made what I feel is a very convincing argument that a culture of moralism is killing the world, and that it is specifically involved in not only nipping just about any action that anyone tries to start in the bud (which drives nations from the world, because activity and life stem to a significant extent from action), but that it inspires the victors in wars to be extremely vicious in all possible ways, which has a net effect of driving more nations from the world. So, what we have here is a rather unhappy situation where we have a self-perpetuating, largely unthinking culture of moralism which is helping to kill the world on multiple levels.

In fact... I think we can safely say that 'moralism' is itself immoral.


[u][size="5"]Advocation of a better way[/size][/u]

I did not come here to claim that the world is terrible without offering an idea to fix it. Here are some basic mindsets that every single nation ruler (at least the non-neutrals) can adopt which, if enough people adopt them, will change the world.


- The first mindset that must be changed, and the most basic, is that treaties are necessary to the health and security of an alliance. The community itself, as a whole, should safeguard the basic health and security of an alliance. For example, a lightly governing supra-alliance organization could be established which would prevent obliteration or unsporting destruction of alliances through a rigorous framework of objective rules which would be enforced by all its members. I believe every nation on Planet Bob should swear its first loyalty to this organization, which represents the fundamental health of the world itself and the principle of fairness in action, rather than to any alliance. If the community will do this, then no other treaties will be needed for security, and none other should be tolerated for oppression.

- The second mindset that must be changed is that moralism is permissible in any form. No matter how starved you are for action, if you want some, you should either make an alliance and start some yourself, or get your alliance to start some. The only other permissible way to experience action should be if it gets started against your own alliance. Anything else other than this permits moralism, the quick and easy path to "defensive" curbstomp action, to exist.

- The third mindset that must be changed is that it is permissible to destroy your enemy and drive him from the world. Although I believe a supranational, supra-alliance organization could enforce this to some degree, ultimately, this is up to the people that make up this world. It's fine to punch an enemy, to smack him around, to humiliate him, to beat on him a little if he did something mean to you... but it should rarely if ever be fine to engage in a war of utter destruction against any enemy, as this both drives players from the world and creates fear which strengthens the moralist sheep-impulse.


If these changes are enacted, weak alliances will grow stronger and more active or will perish, and the world as a whole will grow stronger, more vibrant and alive, and more numerous. This is fundamentally in everyone's interest. The only person that can save the world, is YOU, oh reader. Hearken you unto my words, and go with the Llama.

/s/

Londo Mollari
Emperor of the The Redoubt of Mind.
[/quote]
Did you, an extremely experienced leader, just propose a United Nations? Well, I think we've all patiently explained the problems with that idea to a new recruit at least once, but you should know better. First and foremost, how in the world will you get everyone to join? The powers-that-be gain nothing by restricting themselves in this way. If they do not sign on, the organization is worthless because it will not be able to enforce its views.

Furthermore, this proposal contradicts everything that you have stated thus far. Your entire essay has been, up to this point, about your belief that moral standards are choking the planet. And yet you propose an organization that would enforce another set of moral standards! You, like most who rail against moralism, are not an antimoralist at all. You simply wish for the world to follow [i]your[/i] moral standards. You propose that all moralism should be abolished, yet you want to see your own standards enforced globally.

-Bama

[Duncan King]

I have a question for you, Londo: Why should your way of playing the game have more value than anyone else's? To some, Cyber Nations is a war game with a political component. To an equal proportion of others, Cyber Nations is a political game with a war component. And to an arguably equal sized third group, Cyber Nations is a nation simulator game with political and war components Why should what the first group wants supersede what the other groups want? Sure, the wargamers get bored and may quit when there's periods of peace but I'm fairly positive that an equal number of political/nation simulator players get turned off and quit when they're attacked for no reason and kept at war for months, which makes politics and nation building, the main reasons that they play the game, impossible for them to do. Make no mistake, the political and nation simulator players [i]will[/i] go to war if the situation demands it, they just usually need more internal and external justification than the "I'm bored" that the wargamers contend themselves with.

People who are in it for the war like to squawk about how the moralists are ruining the game. But "moralist" is just a shallow nickname for a group of people who don't appreciate it when the wargamers get bored and pick a fight with them for no reason. It's an overused analogy, but think of two groups of kids building sand castles. The war gamers build their castles and then throw rocks at them to find new ways to destroy them. The political and nation simulators also build castles but instead of destroying them, they look for new ways to improve them. These two groups can coexist peacefully in the sandbox but if either group starts trying to infringe on the space of the other, there can be issues. If the first group decides to break the second group's sand castles, there will probably be a fight. Likewise, if the second group extends their castle into the first group's sand or tells the first group that they can't destroy their castles, there will also be a fight. The point is that there's no real reason why the two groups can't coexist. Planet Bob is an infinitely large place.

I am probably what you would call a moralist, but I don't accept the name myself because I think that it has no meaning. I prefer the term respectful(or moral) isolationist. I respect that other players and alliances play the game differently than me and I don't try to force anyone to change how they play. I don't like tech raiding and I don't do it myself because I don't think I have the right to infringe on how someone else plays the game and for the same reason, I also don't go after alliances that tech raid. I respect their personal space and expect that they will respect mine. If they don't, I am willing to go to war to rebuff their incursions. I am also an isolationist because I will not get involved with another nation or alliance unless I'm somehow obligated to do so. Signing a treaty to me is a promise by me saying that I am obligated care what happens to the other alliance and that I will do what is required by the treaty to help that alliance. I don't believe that going to war is merited unless the other party has done something to my alliance or to my allies.

I don't think that the answer is "more war"; rather, I think it's "more respect." The wargamers need to respect that fact that the nation builders and the political simulators like to do other things in the game than war. This can be accomplished by not declaring off of bogus CBs and not intentionally picking fights with less aggressive alliances. This is already done to some extent with GPA and the other neutral alliances. Those alliances are only able to be neutral because other alliances respect their choice and don't mess with them. Likewise, the nation builders and the political simulators need to respect the fact that the wargamers like war and not try so hard to suppress war all the time. This can be accomplished by letting more legitimate grievances go to blows and not imposing harsh or long terms when wars end. All peace terms do is prolong the period of peace and make alliances more reluctant to go to war.

In closing, I would like to point out to you how few people play TE as opposed to SE. TE should be a wargamer's paradise as it allows for near constant war and has much less complicated politics. However, it's not. Why? I would wager that a good chunk of its lack of players is due to the fact that the politics aren't present in TE. Wars are started there little or no reason so there's no political buildup. This of course turns off the political simulators and possibly the nation builders (because there's not much time to build) but I believe it probably turns off the wargamers as well. Sure, wargamers like to war as much as possible but for it not to be repetitive or boring, it has to have context. It has to have meaning. It's the difference between shooting a fake gun at a blank TV and shooting one with a video game on it. The act is the same, it's the backstory that matters.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Duncan King

[wickedj]

[quote]I am probably what you would call a moralist,[/quote]
[color="#FF00FF"]Just posting to confirm that you are, indeed, a !@#$@#$ moralist[/color]

[Haflinger]

The politics in this game is all about enforcing your viewpoint on others. The real problem is not that the moralists are in power (lol, that is pretty funny; you think Schattenmann is running things?) but rather that there isn't much difference in how different alliances do things.

Most alliances have now accepted as received wisdom most of the various decrees the NPO handed down over the years. There isn't anyone out there who thinks (for example) that spying is not a CB (which it most certainly is NOT in the real world, else the USA and USSR would have nuked each other to bits years ago) or that alliance members should be held individually responsible when they commit acts of aggression (which is also how the real world usually operates).

Instead we're arguing about trivial details, stuff like reparations agreements and senate sanction decisions. It is to facepalm.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1303536327' post='2697508']
Furthermore, this proposal contradicts everything that you have stated thus far. Your entire essay has been, up to this point, about your belief that moral standards are choking the planet. And yet you propose an organization that would enforce another set of moral standards! You, like most who rail against moralism, are not an antimoralist at all. You simply wish for the world to follow [i]your[/i] moral standards. You propose that all moralism should be abolished, yet you want to see your own standards enforced globally.[/quote]

I want there to be a balance again, between aggression and defense. I want alliances to be able to start aggressive wars more casually, without feeling that they have to utterly destroy their opponents. I want those opponents to face such challenges like men and give better than they get sometimes. I want to see shorter and more even wars instead of months or years of nothing and then vicious, months-long curbstomps. They say that there's a balance in everything, and the balance in wars in CN is dramatically off kilter. It's not that there isn't enough war. It is that it's not spread out enough. There's nothing for months or years, which causes people to leave the game... and then there's months and months of war, which causes some of the losers and even some of the winners to leave the game.

If you are opposed to this basic idea then frankly I don't know what to say to you. I don't see how anyone could be who wanted to see the game healthy overall. Even the neutrals, a lot of the action they get is from watching the rest of us, and if we don't do anything, they will be bored too.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303538955' post='2697541']
I want there to be a balance again, between aggression and defense. I want alliances to be able to start aggressive wars more casually, without feeling that they have to utterly destroy their opponents. I want those opponents to face such challenges like men and give better than they get sometimes. I want to see shorter and more even wars instead of months or years of nothing and then vicious, months-long curbstomps. They say that there's a balance in everything, and the balance in wars in CN is dramatically off kilter. It's not that there isn't enough war. It is that it's not spread out enough. There's nothing for months or years, which causes people to leave the game... and then there's months and months of war, which causes some of the losers and even some of the winners to leave the game.

If you are opposed to this basic idea then frankly I don't know what to say to you. I don't see how anyone could be who wanted to see the game healthy overall. Even the neutrals, a lot of the action they get is from watching the rest of us, and if we don't do anything, they will be bored too.
[/quote]
I think these are things we would all like to see. That does not change the impossibility of establishing a global organization to enforce that viewpoint.

Nor does it change the fact that railing against moral standards and then proposing the global enforcement of your own is a colossal contradiction. If you have a problem with the treaty system, fine. If you don't like how hard it is to get into an action-creating position, okay. But wrapping it in faux antimoralism is pointless.

-Bama

Edited April 23, 2011 by BamaBuc

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1303537217' post='2697522']
I have a question for you, Londo: Why should your way of playing the game have more value than anyone else's? To some, Cyber Nations is a war game with a political component. To an equal proportion of others, Cyber Nations is a political game with a war component. And to an arguably equal sized third group, Cyber Nations is a nation simulator game with political and war components Why should what the first group wants supersede what the other groups want? Sure, the wargamers get bored and may quit when there's periods of peace but I'm fairly positive that an equal number of political/nation simulator players get turned off and quit when they're attacked for no reason and kept at war for months, which makes politics and nation building, the main reasons that they play the game, impossible for them to do. Make no mistake, the political and nation simulator players [i]will[/i] go to war if the situation demands it, they just usually need more internal and external justification than the "I'm bored" that the wargamers contend themselves with.[/quote]

Oh I love politics DK. I've been into more politics than you could shake a stick at. It's just that I like war too. You see, deep down, I still think like a small alliance leader. If someone messes with me or my alliance or my allies, or annoys me, or rubs me the wrong way, then they get punched in the head. But not tied down, doused in gasoline, set on fire, and then run over by a truck.

[quote]People who are in it for the war like to squawk about how the moralists are ruining the game. But "moralist" is just a shallow nickname for a group of people who don't appreciate it when the wargamers get bored and pick a fight with them for no reason.[/quote]

Um, no. Moralists are people who don't have a *reason* to stick their noses into a situation, but do so anyway out of crass opportunism. They won't create their own action, but they love to be remoras on the actions of others. It's like a shark going after a swordfish, and then suddenly five hundred remoras latch onto the shark and he can't even move anymore. And they're all like "WHEEE WE ARE TOTALLY PART OF THIS NOW"! And the shark is thinking... well crap I can't move now... and then the shark dies because he can't get fresh water flowing over his gills, and the remoras just drift aimlessly, not wanting to swim themselves, looking for another shark in an ever dwindling ocean...

I don't think you're necessarily a remora DK. There are other kinds of fish in the sea than just sharks and remoras. Some fish just mind their own business and do their own thing, and none of the other fish bother them.


[quote]Sure, wargamers like to war as much as possible but for it not to be repetitive or boring, it has to have context. It has to have meaning. It's the difference between shooting a fake gun at a blank TV and shooting one with a video game on it. The act is the same, it's the backstory that matters.[/quote]

We haven't had a really good rivalry or backstory since Karma, tbh. There's not even any good drama or politics anymore because CB's are so scarce the people are afraid to do ANYTHING for fear of its being taken as a CB. As Azaghul has been saying, a move away from CB-centric thinking is important, and wars also have to be a lot shorter, so that people will not be afraid to start things.

[Duncan King]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303538276' post='2697535']
The politics in this game is all about enforcing your viewpoint on others. The real problem is not that the moralists are in power (lol, that is pretty funny; you think Schattenmann is running things?) but rather that there isn't much difference in how different alliances do things.

Most alliances have now accepted as received wisdom most of the various decrees the NPO handed down over the years. There isn't anyone out there who thinks (for example) that spying is not a CB (which it most certainly is NOT in the real world, else the USA and USSR would have nuked each other to bits years ago) or that alliance members should be held individually responsible when they commit acts of aggression (which is also how the real world usually operates).

Instead we're arguing about trivial details, stuff like reparations agreements and senate sanction decisions. It is to facepalm.
[/quote]

I actually think that the structure that people blame on the NPO would have happened anyway. People were doing regional politics other games before this one and they brought that style of doing things here. GATO came up before Pacifica and I don't think that the world if GATO won GW2 would be that different. Tech raiding would be less common but otherwise, GATO operated similarly to NPO.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1303539946' post='2697554']
I think these are things we would all like to see. That does not change the impossibility of establishing a global organization to enforce that viewpoint.

Nor does it change the fact that railing against moral standards and then proposing the global enforcement of your own is a colossal contradiction. If you have a problem with the treaty system, fine. If you don't like how hard it is to get into an action-creating position, okay. But wrapping it in faux antimoralism is pointless.

-Bama
[/quote]

Establishing a global organization is 100% possible, all that would be required would be for enough nations to sign onto it to enforce its dictates by force. Whether it is the most desirable thing to work towards is another question, and that is why the OP explained that it was an EXAMPLE of one way the community could come together to try and solve the problems we face. I personally think it would be interesting to try. It's a pity I'm going to be so busy soon IRL.

[eyriq]

IC morality is indeed immoral. I like your style Londo.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303538955' post='2697541']
I want to see shorter and more even wars instead of months or years of nothing and then vicious, months-long curbstomps. They say that there's a balance in everything, and the balance in wars in CN is dramatically off kilter. It's not that there isn't enough war. It is that it's not spread out enough.[/quote]

Wow - I agree with you.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303538276' post='2697535']
Most alliances have now accepted as received wisdom most of the various decrees the NPO handed down over the years. [/quote]

*WC shivers*
Okay, I'm not necessarily anti-NPO. But that hurts even me.