Announcing Treaties on the OWF

[Cornelius]

With regards to the VE-Tetris downgrade, we were asked to keep it off the OWF. I don't know if anybody would have noticed if not for the war, but we did update the wiki as soon as we got the chance (and before the war broke out). If there's any question about our treaties, we try to update our wiki as much as possible. And in the event that it hasn't been done as of yet, we usually have at least one knowledgeable gov member that can be reached on IRC on most of the time.

[Ch33kY]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1318057617' post='2820622']
Wiki is generally fairly reliable. Most alliances at this point keep theirs up to date, and the staff usually catch the ones who don't.
[/quote]

For wars: yes. For anything else: nope.

So many alliances haven't updated thier treaty lists.


Cornelius: Full credit to you guys for getting it updated so quickly. Shame other alliances don't.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Ch33kY

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1318118625' post='2821154']Bring back the North and South Web![/quote]Honestly I'm not arguing for a return to the politics of dual power, I'm just trying to get people to realize the problem is rooted in all of us and not a small minority.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1318119115' post='2821156']There isn't really a single camp, though.[/quote]There are distinct factions within the treaty web and disagreements amongst them occasionally do spill into the public realm. On the whole, however, the most powerful factions and those who want to ally with them are more concerned with jockeying for position in private and slamming acceptable targets in public then they are in fighting amongst themselves.

[Schad]

[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1318120654' post='2821168']
So many alliances haven't updated thier treaty lists.
[/quote]

Heh, PF didn't even have a wiki entry until today, and when I created one (a terrible, terrible one), the name of the bloc got 'corrected' to the name of the treaty. The wiki is great for those alliances who update it, but it's definitely somewhat less than reliable on the whole.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Schad

[Banksy]

[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1318120654' post='2821168']
For wars: yes. For anything else: nope.

So many alliances haven't updated thier treaty lists.


Cornelius: Full credit to you guys for getting it updated so quickly. Shame other alliances don't.
[/quote]
People have been turned away from the wiki due to the totalitarian nature of the wiki administration team.

[mattski133]

Not posting a treaty on the OWF should be viewed as an under-handed tactic.

At the least it should be posted on a publicly available alliance forum. It would in the least encourage intra-alliance communication across the board.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1318116188' post='2821136']
You are no Rebel Virginia.
[/quote]

Thank God

[Azaghul]

I'm generally in favor of people posting treaty upgrades and downgrades just to make it well know what treaties they have (do people really want to read through the wikis frequently to check?) However I can understand why alliances often don't post treaty downgrades, announcing it publicly can be salt in the wounds of the downgrade and embarrass the downgraded party. If an alliance we were downgrading asked us not to post it we probably wouldn't for that reason.

[FlogYou]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1318031901' post='2820256']
Some alliances should probably have requirements and by that I mean, if I was an alliance leader I would assign person to do a daily or weekly check of say MK or TOP or NPO or VE...check and see if anything has changed and bring back the info.
[/quote]


Pardon me, but is that like walking around with a stick poking at dead bodies, to see which one busts out with maggots?

[mattski133]

i think the point of this post is, that is already happening, so you better get someone willing to dig for this information if you plan on making any moves.

[Cornelius]

[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1318120654' post='2821168']
For wars: yes. For anything else: nope.

So many alliances haven't updated thier treaty lists.


Cornelius: Full credit to you guys for getting it updated so quickly. Shame other alliances don't.
[/quote]
Thank Goldie, our resident wiki expert (and Duke, of course). The fact that he's very active helps too.

[janax]

I update our wiki when required by some major change...but, as mentioned the wiki team poking their noses into it all makes it a chore.

At some point I will likely just create a publically viewable list on our forums that doesn't require registration.

[King Wally]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1318011317' post='2819895']
b/c the OWF is full of morons and poo flingers.
[/quote]

Pretty much this...

[Maverick87]

Yea some alliances don't update their wiki, which is why I endes up making the Where's VE thread because Tetris' wiki still showed MDoAP.

[Alterego]

One word, bandwagon.

[potato]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1318106410' post='2821064']
No that was just an example of how word spreads. I mean we told you and all of our allies that it happened, why is it such a big deal to you that we both decided not to announce it?

We also didn't announce that we hit an AA last war who we weren't officially at war with and yet you had no issue with that. I'm just confused why you are making such a big deal about this. Like I said, we told you it happened, we didn't keep you in the dark about it.
[/quote]

I don't want to talk for 1337 but I doubt his post was a slight at you or Umbrella. His point, I believe, and I agree with it, that "you'll eventually know" isn't a good reason for not posting an announcement. Yes, you did inform us. But what about the other treaties from outside alliances? Those from alliances we're not allied to? It is important to know what's going on in this world. I'll give you that a treaty between NAC and the Kingdom of Hyrule (no offense meant to them) would interest a minor part of CN but Umbrella and MHA? Or NpO and FARK?
Historically, MK hasn't release its downgrades either but most of the time it was to "protect" the downgraded in away. I can see why NpO and FARK wouldn't want to announce theirs and avoid the backlash and all but the point remains, it is annoying to have to go through another medium to know what is going on. Not to mention the administration of the wiki is far from being perfect.

Edited October 9, 2011 by potato

[Charles Stuart]

NSO tried to downgrade with the Wiki but it told us to have our membership revote the decision.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Charles Stuart

[Raken]

I love the back and forth going on here

"We didn't announce it because we didn't want to"

OWF: "That isn't good enough, and we don't accept your reasoning"

"Too damn bad"

But seriously, those who needed to know the day of the downgrade, did know. It went down the line and we specifically avoided the OWF for people looking to instigate. For those who wanted to know the day of, we changed the wiki the day of and told our allies within a day. If that isn't enough then refer to the "too damn bad" line.

[deth2munkies]

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1318014491' post='2819947']
I'll have to disagree with you and say that the OWF has become a far more terrible place in the last two or three years, and I'd imagine that the alliances that choose not to post (not refuse to post, there's no obligation) their information here do so mainly because they don't want to lower themselves to partaking in circus full of $%&@wits and !@#$heads.

The CN wiki used to be regularly updated with treaties and events but the NG-UPN war isn't even on there and it isn't generally used as much as it used to be for the same reasons that alliances steer clear of the OWF; a disinterest in CN and taking part in the processes that oils it's wheels and a complete disdain for those of 'power' (wiki mods, active and loud posters) around the wiki and forums.
[/quote]
1) I'm back, so it's all fine now.

2) The CN wiki is a useful tool, but it hasn't been nor ever will be always current and complete. There's a massive amount of historical information missing from many pages as well as the fact that people now seem to enjoy changing treaties on the advent of war just to shuffle things up. Not announcing that seems completely irresponsible.

3) OWF discussion is the essential core of the game. Yes, I get that most important discussion takes place in private channels, but those private channels rarely have more than 15-20 people in them. There's more than that playing the game, and the OWF serves as their conduit to current events and the discussion thereof.

To deny the public a chance to comment on something, or to keep it from the public knowledge when it is something they should know and something that has been customarily posted seems like a grievous breach of tradition and common sense.

Edit: To respond to directly above: If you were afraid of an OWF !@#$storm around something you posted, you're doing something wrong. That means you have no control over your public image because you've either done something duplicitous and are being called out on it, or you don't know how to correctly word or spin a story in your favor. That's what this game is about: politics. 90% of politics isn't what you're saying, but how you're saying it.

Edited October 9, 2011 by deth2munkies

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1318124470' post='2821213']
Thank God
[/quote]

Don't you mean thank Rebel Virginia?

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318015843' post='2819974']
The idea that people should/can get all the info they need on IRC is also laughable; it's like saying you should go to the mall to get news instead of watching the news or reading a newspaper.
[/quote]
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1318022247' post='2820088']
Well said.
[/quote]
The two of you consider IRC to be an inferior source of information to the OWF? Probably explains a lot.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I think what they mean is that the OWF - especially Alliance Politics - are (IC) sections and that debates there can be more entertaining than IRC stuff where most people are OOC and mostly chatting like they would with RL acquintances. It's the difference between reading news on the newspaper or listening to them on the radio in an official format and getting news from a friend or a family member.

Without going all the way into full blown RP territory, I do have fond memories of another time when this game used to be more serious and where people's words mattered, even if it meant trouble.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Raken]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1318208151' post='2821813']
I think what they mean is that the OWF - especially Alliance Politics - are (IC) sections and that debates there can be more entertaining than IRC stuff where most people are OOC and mostly chatting like they would with RL acquintances. [b]It's the difference between reading news on the newspaper or listening to them on the radio in an official format and getting news from a friend or a family member.[/b]

Without going all the way into full blown RP territory, I do have fond memories of another time when this game used to be more serious and where people's words mattered, even if it meant trouble.
[/quote]

Words still matter, we just prefer a real-time, less polarized medium. Some people need conflict more than others, and the OWF provides that forum - we prefer not to. IRC also gives us a great amount of flexibility in our communications, and it is a great indicator of people who can think on their feet.

Also with regards to the bolded part of your quote, that analogy is so poor and just plain false. I've never seen such a distorted exaggerated view of what IRC is. Who knows maybe we just are able to use IRC more efficiently.

[Natan]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1318208151' post='2821813']
I do have fond memories of another time when this game used to be more serious and where people's words mattered, even if it meant trouble.
[/quote]

Don't fret, your words have been taken very seriously.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Raken' timestamp='1318218312' post='2821947']Words still matter, we just prefer a real-time, less polarized medium. Some people need conflict more than others, and the OWF provides that forum - we prefer not to. IRC also gives us a great amount of flexibility in our communications, and it is a great indicator of people who can think on their feet.[/quote]
The problem with IRC is that to be acceptably up to date you'd need to be in "every" chan, to know "everyone" and to work on CN full day. Some people of the "politically active" community can certainly do that, but the vast majority simply can't. Remember that most people don't consider CN the most important thing in their life.

An IRC-based politics where even the basic news (treaties, rivalries) and not just the confidential ones (conspiracies, plots, agendas) aren't in public view anymore would convince the public of these forums that it's just not worth it. If no drama happens or is discussed anymore on this board, CN will become a game where the few players that can commit to CN hours per day of their time will control the big masses of 10 minutes per day, game-only players, while the middle layer of players that can spend a few hours per week on CN and that are interested in the political discourse would be discouraged from continuing to play.

It's a choice which impoverishes the game. It's already bad enought that almost everything that matters happens behind closed doors. The so-called "peanut gallery" constitutes the biggest share of the politically active CN populace and to completely shun them off is not a good idea.


EDIT
That said, I also think that this new paradigma is not sustainable and that it's going to fail soon.

Edited October 10, 2011 by jerdge