The Problem With Planet Bob

[Doitzel]

I'm still wondering what moralism is. Nobody seems to be able to answer that.

Anyway a lot of that !@#$ you said is what we were blabbing about in Vox taken to the OOC forum. People need to shut up with this rubbish that spying is the end-all of everything, that things like first strikes are totally unacceptable and will result in a large bandwagon against you, and that you need to 'prevent your enemy from rising' or rebuilding or whatever to 'protect your interests'. Players tend to take the whole NATIONAL SECURITY mentality way too far when they get into the nitty-gritty politics and it kills the game for a majority of the active player base. Currently the meaty, fun part of the game lasts for maybe a week and everything else is just rebuilding or keeping your foot on the enemy's throat while people like us pound away at our keyboards pontificating that ur doin it rong.

The ridiculousness of politics in this game can be summed up in the ODP. People are so trapped in the precedents of the past that they actually think they [i]need a treaty[/i] to justify entering a war when an alliance deserves to be defended. I mean, [i]optional defence[/i]. It blows my mind. NAPs make sense at least: they have terms and can be violated. Certain assumptions are so embedded within the CN mindset that nobody even argues them anymore -- [b]that[/b] is what this game needs. A clean slate to fight and debate over every single issue of alliance affairs without sticking to the examples set in previous incidents.

The one thing that really needs to change is these insane sorts of surrender terms that bog alliances down for six months because someone did something slightly shady and may or may not have been the cousin of someone who spied. It's the prevailing opinion that losing a war itself isn't punitive. These problems are compounded by the mechanics of peace mode and nothing's going ever going to change until PM is either deemed socially reprehensible in the extreme or is removed from the game. The runaway inflation of warchests and wonders doesn't help, either, and it's just causing wars to drag on that much longer after it's apparent who has lost.

But basically, yeah. Good luck getting anyone that hasn't had a lobotomy to bother playing this game as it is. You're all boring and mostly dumb.

Edit: Oh yeah, and RE: United Nations. There already is one and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?act=idx]it's actually pretty active[/url].

Edited April 23, 2011 by Doitzel

[Vol Navy]

As several have stated, the extreme length of wars since Karma are probably the biggest factor in sinking the planet. Wars were rarely more than 2-4 weeks pre-Karma. Karma and the power structure that emerged from it have decided to fight wars of total annihilation.

Very ironic considering some of the people complaining about war length being too long are the ones who conduct the very long wars.

The other fact is that certain groupings who could have a somewhat equal war refuse to let one happen (NEW). There is no challenge in continually rolling a side you are far superior to, and frankly with the massive nation numbers and tech advantage enjoyed by DH/PB/CnG/SF along with Fark/MHA/Sparta etc, until that grouping splits there isn't going to be a ton of excitement to be had. Just one sided rollings like this one where this side has to fight and claw to even have a semblance of NS remaining at the end of the months long war.

I wonder at what point boredom comes in and the NPO isn't even in position to mount any defense at all. Do the Mushroom's that were eating themselves finally turn on part of that power structure? Does part of that power structure that abandoned NPO just before Karma truly have the morals they espoused at the time and decide to stand up to the current ruling class? Those are about the only interesting things that are left to happen.

But I will say this, it has nothing to do with moralists or moralism. The only time that moralists had even part of a say here was leading up to Karma and fighting it. They were quickly abandoned once they filled that purpose and they ended up right back where they were pre-Karma. Getting rolled for flimsy reasons in the latest curbstomp. The power of the moralist is pretty much always kept underfoot by whomever is in control of the planet at a given time.

[Charles Stuart]

Nothing wrong with introducing a little anarchy into the world in my opinion.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303538955' post='2697541']I want alliances to be able to start aggressive wars more casually, without feeling that they have to utterly destroy their opponents.[/quote]
Well... Londo, I told you so. You've come pretty late to my point of view but I tried to warn you about Karma.

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1303551030' post='2697610']
The ridiculousness of politics in this game can be summed up in the ODP. People are so trapped in the precedents of the past that they actually think they [i]need a treaty[/i] to justify entering a war when an alliance deserves to be defended. I mean, [i]optional defence[/i]. It blows my mind. NAPs make sense at least: they have terms and can be violated. Certain assumptions are so embedded within the CN mindset that nobody even argues them anymore -- [b]that[/b] is what this game needs. A clean slate to fight and debate over every single issue of alliance affairs without sticking to the examples set in previous incidents.
[/quote]
Yes, I've been arguing against optional clauses in treaties for years now for precisely this reason. They are incredibly stupid.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303541040' post='2697563']
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.
[/quote]
No, because it is completely against the self-interest of the current powers-that-be (or any future powers-that-be) to join. Which goes back to the fact that alliances in general are not driven by moralist convictions, but by self-interest.

Fair enough, I read it as you saying that it was something that you thought had to happen. I agree that we have major problems, and you hit on some of them in the OP (the difficulty of reaching an action-creating position and the ever-increasing severity of wars and terms). My issue with the OP is that I don't think these are due to moralism, but due to human nature (and to some extent the nature of this planet).

-Bama

[Hereno]

The problem isn't moralism. Moralism can serve as just another way for us to group ourselves and pit each other against one another. Additionally, there are plenty of moral CBs, which bring about conflict that has meaning. And I don't think infra-hugging is bad, either. If our nations meant absolutely nothing to us, then what's the point of even playing? You aren't risking anything if you give your nation no value. This is why conflict for the sake of conflict is a bad idea; the fun part of wars isn't the war itself. Game mechanics are relatively dull; we're playing a text based browser game. The fun part of war is the politics and the maneuvering and plotting and strategizing. War for the sake of war is boring.

Which is why I think your opinion is a little strange. You're in favor of more conflict, to keep the world moving and interesting, but you're afraid of giving it any meaning, which is the entire point. It's great to make a war, but actually beating your opponent isn't permissible? You might not want any alliance to be disbanded, or even given harsh reps; but that's great for the game. Things are boring now because there's nothing on the line; losing a war means a slap on the wrists, and then in a month or two you're back where you were and everything is happy and nice. Which is why we have so many old, boring, and useless alliances around now. I think a lot more people would put an extra five minutes in and read some guides if the alternative meant their alliance might not exist next month. Who knows, maybe we actually made the world [i]too[/i] safe.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Hereno

[Sarmatian Empire]

You know...whats right and wrong differs for everyone. So by trying to take down "moralism", which you see as being bad, you are being a moralist.

[Max Power]

A few things that haven't been mentioned yet but that tend to come up in these conversations for good reaon, so I'll only state them briefly:

-Wars are too expansive. Not every war needs to be 24 on 17 or whatever. This problem is caused by (a) the massive number of treaties alliances hold, (b) everyone's shuddering fear of losing a war due to aforementioned huge reps and the like, and (c) since there's no actual regionalism in the game, anyone can declare on anyone. One of the things that makes real world politics so much more interesting than CN is that there are strategic rivers, mountain ranges, etc., there are different types of terrain in which wars can be fought, there are countries that don't bother allying because the logistics are a mess, and so on. In CN, you can actually have twelve alliances hitting one, which is almost unthinkable in the real world.

-ODPs are necessary because people have attached this hamheaded quality to MDPs. If you have an MDP tie to someone and that AA does something horrendosly stupid, you either have to burn for that or lose political capital. I'd like to see more NAPs and PIATs, maybe replace the ODP with the PIAT in general, and far less MDPs. Also a reminder that the M stands for Mutual, not Mandatory. The concept is that it's a two-way agreement, not that it's obligatory under all circumstances.

-Someone a while ago mentioned that people don't want to attack OOC friends for IC reasons, and I agree that it's a problem. People forget so easily that when you're at war with someone, you're playing a game with that person. On the other hand, why war against people you dislike OOC? Think of it this way - would you rather play laser tag against your friends or against people you dislike? CN shouldn't be any different. Hanging out with people on forums and IRC should be more of a reason to declare on them, not less of one.

-It might be nice if in-game things mattered more, even just out of prestige. Wars could be started over sanction spots, places in the alliance standings, etc. It would also create some interesting alliances of convenience. Something to think about sown the road, I suppose.

-I agree that there need to be high-stakes wars in order to prevent alliances from sitting around bloating, but survival being threatened is a lot more fun if it's relatively uncommon.

As a side note, ironically, this whole Thriller episode has helped NPO's side of the web. Olympus just added a 122K nation and a 112K nation. I think they should thank Argent, OMFG and Athens for facilitating that.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1303517860' post='2697200']
If you want to just attack things, then use Tournament Edition.
[/quote]


I'd say this is part of the "problem" as well, but that has nothing to do with moralism. It has everything to do with the game's political situation which is quite literally a cluster$%&@ and a half. Too many issues are preventing this perfect world a lot of people wish to see from existing and it's impossible to tackle these issues since it causes people to put their alliances at risk. Not everyone is willing to risk what takes years to build so nothing happens and the urge for violence is just relocated to another game, essentially. It's a political industrial complex we've built ourselves and sustain ourselves, whether we like it or not. Even wiping the game won't provide for a solution since a lot of people will fall back into their old comfort zones and sign with old allies. But at least there's still tech raiding!

Edited April 23, 2011 by Emperor Marx

[Jaiar]

Wasn't here but my alliance did alot back in the day and then you all had a fit about it and brought about Karma to stop it. You fought for a standard and brought it about and now you are all crying about how what you created sucks.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1303573939' post='2697768']
Wasn't here but my alliance did alot back in the day and then you all had a fit about it and brought about Karma to stop it. You fought for a standard and brought it about and now you are all crying about how what you created sucks.
[/quote]

[img]http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg[/img]

Your alliance sought dominance so that they could control everything that went on. The only thing that has been more harmful to Cyber Nations in its history than the problems discussed in this thread is your alliance.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Chief Savage Man

[Timmmehhh]

Very well written and I agree on all points. You are one of the few players who keeps the planet interesting. Also sorry for raiding you, Oinkoink12 went aggressive on my other targets and I couldn't hit him, so I needed to dump some troops on you in order to hit him.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Timmehhh

[Valtamdraugr]

Can't we all just [s]get along[/s] kill each other, happily?

[Prodigal Moon]

[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.[/quote]
You know, I completely agree with the functional consequences of moralism that you outlined. It does make for a much more conservative Planet Bob. But the thing is, if you actually take the IC/OOC divide seriously, then even a simple tech raid is a pretty messed up act by most people's standards. I don't want to RP a nation ruler who's okay with randomly attacking and plundering other peaceful nations, while using my friends as cover. Nations that pull those kinds of stunts in RL tend to have coalitions form against them (just as in CN), and for good reason. If you see a nation or alliance "casually" starting an aggressive war against a smaller opponent, it's not hard to think that they're probably going to do that to you at some point, and go looking for friends to make sure that doesn't happen.

[quote]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]
A few problems though - and this isn't an argument so much as brainstorming:

The ways in which nations and alliances interact in this game is so limited. Trade, aid, spy/war, donation. There's very little room for natural shades-of-grey competition. We can't stage "naval exercises" off of someone's coast, or devalue our currency, or stockpile nukes beyond a limit that has become the standard.

At least partially because of that, there's a limit to the moral nuances that come up. Tech raiding is IC unjustifiable to many, and that's not going to change much. But hostile senate take-overs, banning members from aiding a certain alliance (during peacetime), even limited in-game spy ops...those kinds of things would probably lend themselves to more shades of grey. It requires some creativity though, which is in short supply.

Another problem with the action is that the ones who initiate it are almost always expected to be the victors, or at least get what they want without much damage, while basically victimizing others. If Thriller had hit a sizeable, organized alliance that wasn't just in the big war, I would've been the first to cheer you on. But everything I've read suggests that AcTi was targeted in large part because they are a soft target, and Thriller could make a joke out of them. If there's some more action to be had where the outcome is really up in the air and the instigators don't go calling in 3rd party enablers, I think more people would sign on.

Finally, there's the treaty web. It just plain sucks. I've made it my mission to create a bloc that doesn't have any alignment with the treaty web, and it's turning out to be damn near impossible, because almost everyone* is either clinging to a protector, or has no interest in the political game whatsoever. The best I can do is get the word out and try to lead by example (DNA has no MDP's), but it seems hopeless at times. Partially because of fear, but also (as noted) lots of alliances want a piece of the action but don't know how to do anything themselves, so they stay connected just to sit at the big kids table once every 6-12 mo.


*I meant small alliances who aren't already major parts of the web, but organizations at every scale (nation, alliance, bloc) ultimately still depend on larger structures to come to their aid. A wartime side only stands "alone" because everyone else is opposed to them or staying out of the conflict.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Prodigal Moon

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1303543359' post='2697576']
Wow - I agree with you.
[/quote]
I think everyone agrees with that

[Dochartaigh]

Could not get past the first few sentences in the Moralist section due solely to the fact that if that were true DH/PB would be the ones getting stomped on right now, not NPO/allies. Thus, given that the entire premise of the OP is based on a lie, did not read the rest since it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303511643' post='2697094'][due to the culture of moralism] the "barrier to action" or threshhold of military, economic, and political muscle required to successfully start anything at all is enormously high[/quote]
I don't see that much moralism.
I see a mature world where the leaders that didn't plan for long term success were already wiped away, and those that remain know that they need an "enormously high" "threshhold of military, economic, and political muscle" "to successfully start anything at all", hence the so-called "stagnation" and the rarity of so-called action.

[mdnss69]

You should change your alliance affiliation here Londo; I was about to give you a mouthful

[Alkane]

Morality is for the week.

[Rambo]

A lot of people debate why the game used to be more interesting. It's no doubt true, personally the time before and around the first Great War was my favorite part of this game, and I know many others will agree with me.

There's a few major reasons why I think this game isn't as fun as it used to be...


Back in the day, you knew who the big alliances were, and what side they were on. They were all huge players on the political field and had very active memberships. You could probably count the major alliances on two hands:

NPO, GATO, LUE, NAAC, GGA, Legion, ODN, NpO, and some major mid-sized alliances.

More players, less alliances. There was always a "cold war" feeling in the air. When one of those big alliances did something, it somehow affected the others, so there was just so much more involvement. Nowadays, an action has to directly involve your alliance for it to be of any concern to you. With so few major players, the political scene was a lot easier and more entertaining to follow. Now there's over 10 trillion alliances and the treaty web, blocs, and so forth just make things so much harder to keep up with for a person who can only devote a little time of their day to this game, and honestly just make a joke out of the politics side of the game, which is what attracted so many people in the first place

This small number of alliances also created "the good cause," I guess. Your single alliance could make all the difference, meaning you could make all the difference, and that's pretty nifty

[Kzoppistan]

[size="4"][font="Courier New"][center][b]Global controls will have to be imposed and world governing body will be created to enforce them.

Crises precipitate change.[/b][/center][/font][/size]

Edited April 23, 2011 by Kzoppistan

[Locke]

[quote name='Alkane' timestamp='1303589889' post='2697938']
Morality is for the week.
[/quote]
What about on the weekend?

[Hyperion321]

This culture of making sure your enemies are as humiliated or crippled as possible really only stems from two groups of people who have found them selves eternally at war since the beginning of Bob. All people have to do is stop putting up with their stupid cat fight (which has entirely lost its purpose and reasoning) and everything will be fine.

[mattski133]

[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]

This is fairly accurate. I'd argue that it there was much more promise before when you could join an alliance like ODN when I did in '06 or whatever, when it had, no joke, something like 700 members, and for a government and military, many of your leaders of alliances today like Templar, Akasha, Golan 1st, Yawoo, diomede, cast offs like posta0 and overlord shinnra, (was bigwoody there? how bout franklin? kitler?) and a few dozen other quality players that when this game started could tolerate each other in one place. After a year or two they had enough of it and now the ODN (still large by our standards today, and I'm not posting to beat up on them since I feel this is accurate throughout Bob) is nothing like the place it used to be.

That is to say, a place where 1 in 4 members might have been qualified and excited enough to lead their own alliance but were content to say, run a battalion or a newspaper topic by themselves. I feel like the quality of alliances has been brutally diminished to the point where today you've got 300 alliances with 50 people in them and one or two people trying to lead them. When you stop to think that the collective leaders of 20 alliances today used to lead 1 alliance four years ago, doesn't that kind of lend a sense of "ohhhhhh"? That's gotta be it, right?

I don't think the issue with Planet Bob is moralism (has there not always been an outraged minority?) but simply that we can't stand each other and there's no way a few very interested people can rally a few dozen totally uninterested people. i've tried it myself, and it was a total failure at the end of the day.

World Task Force. I have not a clue who they are. But they got so big they had to split into two alliances just to remain anonymous! They don't seem to have a stated purpose here, and if I had to guess, have no interest whatsoever in the movers and shakers of this place. And yet they are one of the largest forces in this game for the sole reason that the old forces have broken down and crumbled into tiny groups of...well, nothing.

That's...that's all I got. It's not the moralists. They at least occasionally write nice fiction.

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303525099' post='2697320'] traditional moralists like NpO.
[/quote]

You decry moralists as being against war and in favor of a world without conflict, being a part of the cancer that is destroying activity within the game. Yet, you most often cite Polaris as the chief moralist in your arguments. I wonder if you realize that Polaris has started or instigated five of the eight major wars that have graced this planet?

1. Great War I - Tyga nukes LUE to trigger major alliance warfare (Polar)
2. Great War II - GOONS declares on Fark (Not counting this one, but it's worthy to note that Polar was a major contributor to the escalation of GWII)
3. Great War III - NPO's business.
4. Unjust War - Sponge leads the charge against the Unjust Path (Polar)
5. War of the Coalition - Organization against Polar (Polar)
6. Karma - Not us
7. Bipolar War - Grub hates \m/, etc (Polar)
8. NpO-PB War - VE et al declares on us (Polar)

Polaris is the instigator of more conflict than any other alliance in the game, and they are your prime example of Moralism, yet you decry moralists as destroying the game by not allowing war to occur? There is a flaw in your argument, my friend.