Something is Missing

[Heft]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1323653801' post='2874471']
IMO one of the biggest problems with the world is the existence of 10 billion dollar warchests. If one alliance has a lot of them, every other alliance has to have them too to be able to credibly go toe to toe with such an alliance. The end result is that the greatest rewards are given to the most quiescent alliances who quietly build their warchests and do boring tech deals once every 10 days. There was something to be said in the old days for saving a decent warchest, but the requirements for what a "decent" warchest get pushed up every month. The increasing size of warchests of the passive demand the cycle between wars be longer and longer. Also, the fact that after being beat down, any given moderately sized nation can be expected to have billions saved and can continue to fight in the mid and lower tiers for many many months and beat the crap out of the newer players is a problem. IMO there needs to be a cap of some kind implemented on warchest. If that happened the only way for alliances to really stay ahead of the others is to buy infra (not a great idea, it gets blown up easily) or attack other alliances to keep them beat down. It'd be like it was in the old days.
[/quote]
I was complaining about this back in 2009, maybe even 2008. This is more of an OOC issue, though. No player (or not very many) would deliberately hamstring their own fighting potential by not building a warchest. Like you say, there does need to be some game mechanism that prevents the inflation of warchests. I think I had helped suggest something years ago that would have basically decreased tax collections as a nation's cash surplus increased. But that's more for the suggestion forum than here.

[Great Lord Moth]

Honestly, I don't see the NSO as a whole doing much different from everyone else in terms of character. It still all reeks of the same Machiavellian thinking that drives all the politics underground. I kinda miss the utopian mentality that drove treaties like Think of the Children. People actually trying to achieve peace. When was the last time someone tried that? With this increase in people thinking that war is boring, boredom is no longer an excuse.

Hell, it might even be more fun to try and achieve peace at this point than to continue the war cycle.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Great Lord Moth' timestamp='1323655483' post='2874503']
Honestly, I don't see the NSO as a whole doing much different from everyone else in terms of character. It still all reeks of the same Machiavellian thinking that drives all the politics underground. I[b] kinda miss the utopian mentality that drove treaties like Think of the Children.[/b] People actually trying to achieve peace. When was the last time someone tried that? With this increase in people thinking that war is boring, boredom is no longer an excuse.

Hell, it might even be more fun to try and achieve peace at this point than to continue the war cycle.
[/quote]
lol

With regards to the NSO, while we're open about the Machiavellian attitude, that's just one aspect of our personality. The problem Heft is pointing out is that [i]a lot of alliances lack even that amount of substance in their character[/i]. So while we flaunt the stuff out in the open, most other alliances do everything they can to keep whatever is interesting about themselves underground and out of sight from the rest of the planet, lest anyone discover their secrets.

No, but really, the bold? lol

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1323655956' post='2874507']
lol

With regards to the NSO, while we're open about the Machiavellian attitude, that's just one aspect of our personality. The problem Heft is pointing out is that [i]a lot of alliances lack even that amount of substance in their character[/i]. So while we flaunt the stuff out in the open, most other alliances do everything they can to keep whatever is interesting about themselves underground and out of sight from the rest of the planet, lest anyone discover their secrets.

No, but really, the bold? lol
[/quote]

I agree with Chron here; NSO has made a valiant effort to be a culturally unique alliance, and it has been quite successful. Most alliances have the problem that there isn't any character or role they aspire to have in the grand scheme of things. What separates ODN from GATO from NADC from MHA? I don't even know.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1323651209' post='2874429']
I don't get what you want, politics aren't going to happen in front of anyone for everyone to see. They never have and never will.
Either put yourself in a position to influence them or shut up. Not because people don't want you to talk, but because you have nothing of value to say.
Everyone knows from how many leaked conversations who has it in for who, who is going to do what and why. Either get into those conversations or influence the person representing your government in them.
Anyone in government knows all too well that politics is alive and well. This war is a perfect example! Lot's of friendships and supposive "valuing," of allies seems to have went out the window for selfish reasons.
If you think they're dead, don't know what's going on or don't know who is pulling the strings simply because they're not as loud as the previous schmucks whose decisions reverberated throughout the planet you're just not trying hard enough. Simple as that.
[/quote]
|V|yth, you know betterrrr
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16356
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16356&view=findpost&p=446729

There are a million other examples, but I don't have time right now to dig them all up. Pretty much the entire conspiracy to roll GPA happened on the OWF. etc etc. Certainly not everything happens out in the open--nor should it, of course--but the biggest showdowns were often the most public.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Max Power]

There's been a lot of public enmity over the past few months too though, like TOP/Polar and Valhalla/GOD. That said, I think there a lot of great points in this thread, including but not limited to lack of narrative, length of wars (warchests can be lumped into this one), lack of differentiation between a lot of alliances, and even just simple stuff like people not being able to devote as much time to politics as they did before. I'm still really enjoying this war, even if it doesn't have quite the same level of rhetoric as a WotC, Karma or BiPolar.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1323657649' post='2874526']
There's been a lot of public enmity over the past few months too though, like TOP/Polar and Valhalla/GOD. That said, I think there a lot of great points in this thread, including but not limited to lack of narrative, length of wars (warchests can be lumped into this one), lack of differentiation between a lot of alliances, and even just simple stuff like people not being able to devote as much time to politics as they did before. I'm still really enjoying this war, even if it doesn't have quite the same level of rhetoric as a WotC, Karma or BiPolar.
[/quote]
lolwut? Aside from a joke that gotten taken too far, GOD/Val isn't nearly the blood feud that polar/TOP is. It'd call it a rivalry more than anything.

[Max Power]

I wasn't trying to equate them, just giving another example.

[Razgriz90]

Excellent post and excellent points throughout!

If only we could return to the rhetoric of the 2007-2008 Era for here on Planet Bob. The world would truly be a better place and it would be a hell of a lot more interesting. Back in the Great War Era, once tension was beginning to show, I always looked forward to the interactions between alliances and how they approached making their declaration of wars public (as well as all other announcements) in the alliance announcements section. The rhetoric was incredibly interesting to take part in and I'm glad I got to take part in that Era. It definitely makes me miss the Era more and more as time goes on, as well as the leaders and orators who were the sole reason why the world was as awesome as it was. I'm not saying it isn't awesome now, but the world of 07-08 is one that is better than our current 2011 Planet Bob. Hopefully we have a return of the 'rhetoric' era and the newer players (basically since Karma) can experience this situation firsthand instead of hearing people tell stories about it.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Razgriz90

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1323658085' post='2874535']
I wasn't trying to equate them, just giving another example.
[/quote]

Yeah, i understand. Sorry to pluck that bit out of your point. I got it :>

[TheDoctor]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1323657397' post='2874520']
Spoken like someone who wasn't there:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16356
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16356&view=findpost&p=446729

There are a million other examples, but I don't have time right now to dig them all up. Pretty much the entire conspiracy to roll GPA happened on the OWF. etc etc. Certainly not everything happens out in the open--nor should it, of course--but the biggest showdowns were often the most public.
[/quote]
What a good read. It's a real shame that that type of conflict is all but gone.

[Great Lord Moth]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1323655956' post='2874507']
lol

No, but really, the bold? lol
[/quote]
No one even [i]tries[/i] anymore. Think of the Children is why I created my Nuclear Winter proposal a few years back. I like the idea that nukes are scary and should be avoided. I think they should also come with consequences that justify such treaties. The way to make OWF politics significant is to put something at stake that can only be addressed openly and globally. The threat of nuclear war was one such issue back then, and TotC was one such response. To a lesser extent, the issue of the security of individual alliances is another such global issue, and the alliance bloc construct was the response. Both highly public and far-reaching responses to major CN issues. It's unfortunate that we've since lost one of them, and haven't had any since.

Bonus Edit: Another such issue was when the raiding of small alliances ran rampant. The introduction of protectorates changed that.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Great Lord Moth

[Isaac MatthewII]

Wars will never be the same global wars are wattered down by people getting either to politically involved or not enough.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1323483762' post='2871551']
Lady justice died on this world years ago. Karma and its false rally cry of making a brighter and less oppressive world that was then used as a smokescreen for what was basically just a power change rather then a social change drove the final spike thru her heart. Our current situation is nothing more then kicking the already dead and bloated corpse of what was once a lively and viable component of Bob
[/quote]
Hardly. We were losing thousands after GWIII and the period that followed. While you may remember it as a time of prosperity, it remains blatantly obvious that it was the dark ages. I believe we lost 20,000 people during that time. Who do you have to blame?

I saw there was a war and thought it might be interesting. I see that it is not.

[Doitzel]

Heft said what I would have said if I wasn't keen to pick a fight with anyone that quotes me. Actually it's sort of what I did say. I think. Either way, Heft is good people and I hope you be impressed.

[Prodigal Moon]

Lots of good, well-considered commentary in here. I have to agree with Schad and Heft in particular.

Perhaps it's the limited nature of this world, but there wasn't a huge basis for distinguishing alliances to begin with. The way in which internal affairs are managed is not particularly meaningful for how foreign affairs are managed, and there are so few forms meaningful inter-alliance exchange. For instance, trading and tech deals are nearly apolitical, and using the team senate to sanction anyone besides a rogue is verboten.

Despite this murkiness, there was a time when you could say that some alliances value peace and diplomacy, whereas others present themselves as more aggressive and militaristic. CB's had to at least be presented as legitimate, or you'd catch a lot of pushback from uninvolved alliances who tried to maintain some basic international standards. I'm not sure if that's the case any longer. The actions and rhetoric of alliances like GATO in the current conflict are prime example of this. Like Schad was saying, Karma was the last time there were clear differences separating two sides in a conflict, other than lame grudges.

I won't try to place all the blame on DH/PB, but I think it's safe to say that they have a particular style on OWF that doesn't lend itself to diplomacy, decorum, or rhetoric as this world has traditionally practiced (OOC: Most of their posters make no attempt to adopt an IC persona, or to act as if war is anything other than griefing or bullying in an online game). Whether because of their military strength, sheer level of posting activity, or because that style is alluring (OOC: they're the cool rebels that the players want to emulate), they have developed enough political strength to establish their practices as normative.

Once that happens, it's a race to the bottom to see who can act like the biggest smartass. Most of these posts, if made in Alliance Announcements, would be responded to with something to the effect of "U mad bro?" or "Cool story bro." You can only experience - or even witness - that kind of exchange so many times before you give up trying to make a point. With some of the old, more diplomatically-oriented alliances co-opted into the DH/PB hegemony, there's no one left to debate with, let alone count on to impose a level of civility.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Prodigal Moon

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1323654821' post='2874496']
It has been in decline, but I think it is also fair to say that this particular war (or cluster of wars, as at this point it seems like there's a bunch of different grudges people are taking the opportunity to settle that are only tangentially related) is worse than normal, even for this day and age. As Doitzel has said, there just isn't anything to argue about. It's all rooted in crap that happened two years ago and has been discussed to death so no one really cares to talk about it any more. Hopefully this is an aberration rather than a precedent - the community can get all of this crap out of its system and move on. Hopefully.
[/quote]

My hope as well, otherwise great points all around in this thread.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1323657397' post='2874520']
There are a million other examples, but I don't have time right now to dig them all up. Pretty much the entire conspiracy to roll GPA happened on the OWF. etc etc. Certainly not everything happens out in the open--nor should it, of course--but the biggest showdowns were often the most public.
[/quote]

Those who might have supported such action but they possessed none of the ability to pull the trigger.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1323654821' post='2874496']

Politics have always happened in private, you are correct. And the most important and meaningful decisions are always reached in private discussions, yes. That has been true since the game started. But the idea that public discussion and the public arena has no value has not always been true. It's ridiculous to tell people that if they want to see anything interesting or entertaining they need to spend all their time rubbing against the right people in private conversations until they eventually can worm their way into the correct private channels. Sure, if you really want true power you have always had to do that to some degree, but it also used to be that plenty of lively political discourse and argumentation took place in public and you didn't have to be in the right clique to understand the political situation and what was happening.


[/quote]

Again, I disagree.

It's a fact that those you would engage in discourse on this (OWF,) forum are far less interested and worth influencing than on ones own alliance's boards. Interest and engage your own alliance first. Those here already have their mind up and don't care what you have to say unless it's in their best interest to. What you count as lively is up to interpretation, but most certainly it will have little to no affect on "changing," anything. For that, you have to get your hands dirty.

Something very few today have the willingness or ability to do.

[Heft]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1323673484' post='2874992']
Again, I disagree.

It's a fact that those you would engage in discourse on this (OWF,) forum are far less interested and worth influencing than on ones own alliance's boards. Interest and engage your own alliance first. Those here already have their mind up and don't care what you have to say unless it's in their best interest to. What you count as lively is up to interpretation, but most certainly it will have little to no affect on "changing," anything. For that, you have to get your hands dirty.

Something very few today have the willingness or ability to do.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. Just that it's pointless to argue on these forums because the people you're arguing with won't ever be convinced? Well, then you're kind of missing the point. You also seem to be setting up some sort of false choice between arguing on here and doing other things, like advocating an opinion within your alliance or using private diplomacy to convince other alliances that you're right or whatever, [i]instead[/i] of using these forums as a platform to push for your side. But there shouldn't be a choice - they are all tools that should be used. They're complements, not substitutes.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Heft

[aax5]

God, is this thread depressing. Remember, this is still a game... Why can no one put on a happy face?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

Edited December 13, 2011 by aax5

[Great Lord Moth]

[quote name='aax5' timestamp='1323754149' post='2876234']
God, is this thread depressing. Remember, this is still a game... Why can no one put on a happy face?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4
[/quote]

Easy enough: because its status as a game doesn't exempt it from criticism or from value judgements. The "it's just a game" mentality has a tendency to kill the passion that people put into playing. It's encourages people to not care. I think that is a bad thing.

(This is getting way too close to OOC. o_o;)

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1323742461' post='2875937']
I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. Just that it's pointless to argue on these forums because the people you're arguing with won't ever be convinced? Well, then you're kind of missing the point. You also seem to be setting up some sort of false choice between arguing on here and doing other things, like advocating an opinion within your alliance or using private diplomacy to convince other alliances that you're right or whatever, [i]instead[/i] of using these forums as a platform to push for your side. But there shouldn't be a choice - they are all tools that should be used. They're complements, not substitutes.
[/quote]

The OWF, if it ever could be considered a medium of which to advance directives, is insignificant now. Never mind whether it was ever significant in the first.
You have the usual suspects who have run out of friends and with the shrinking game and a lack of new blood they lack connections other than a soapbox to stand on and those whom will agree only do so because it's in their best interest. The purpose and cause would both be better served better if it were more engaging, and frankly, this isn't the audience that needs it.

More interest on alliances perceived to not be as involved or those who are written off would be more worthwhile. Who knows, you might even interest the next Starfox, E.S., Ardus et al to start playing productively.They don't 'have to be successful by anyone's judgement, all they have to do is have an opinion. When Schat toots his own horn or starts off on a new venture nowadays, it's considered business as usual. When you have a re-roll (Sup Smurf...or should I say...) who champions a cause more are attracted to it and everyone wins, regardless of the outcome.

Diplomacy can be subverted. Ask your buddy Stonewall. I fought his ass when he was Viet Fan in MHA (Granted, I think FAN tends to distance themselves from him these days,) it was nontheless very effective and in this example it was very easy to change public opinion of a former Ally along with some real politik from leadership coupled with an influx of new actives and general atmosphere. Probably one of the more fun activities you can have in an alliance. Quite the intrigue for those in MHA who remember my part in the role and what followed.

Getting up here, clamoring about how things used to be is nice and all (and I'll get the worlds smallest violin,) but it does nothing to engage others. Doesn't mean y'all have to hide in the shadows, you'll know when to play your part, but there are more effecient ways to changing the world than !@#$%*ing about it.

While the whole OOC: "I.P. and irc Log'd address" /OOC business sort of closes that opportunity for those who have been around the block, it is still quite available for most.
If you're good, you'll never get caught.

So yes. I'm saying this is essentially non-productive so long as no one takes my advice. Just look at the responses. No one really cares, or those who do have reason to.

Less talk, more do.

Edited December 13, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1323773253' post='2876430']
Diplomacy can be subverted. Ask your buddy Stonewall. I fought his ass when he was Viet Fan in MHA (Granted, I think FAN tends to distance themselves from him these days,) it was nontheless very effective and in this example it was very easy to change public opinion of a former Ally along with some real politik from leadership coupled with an influx of new actives and general atmosphere. Probably one of the more fun activities you can have in an alliance. Quite the intrigue for those in MHA who remember my part in the role and what followed.
[/quote]

I'm not sure that Heft and I are buddies. I mean, we were in the same alliance for a short time, but he's one of those guys I rarely see around anymore

Anyway, I feel like I should correct this before FAN does it, then use it to make my point so that we aren't strayed off-topic. I was in MHA on assignment for Vox. However, in MHA I saw that I could make some posts (and I think I had help from the actual FAN spies eventually, in fact ivanelterrible might have been one of them. My memory is cloudy, but I had figured at the time who was who) in favor of granting FAN white peace, and if I could successfully help to influence that policy, then MHA-NPO relations would have had a wrench in them. I also like to think I was loud enough to allow the more quietly anti-NPO Crush and Sorum to slip into Triumvirate status without raising alarms, but more likely than not that's my own delusion of grandeur. Nevertheless, I do see your point and appreciate my inclusion in the example.

However, I would like to point out that the Vox-FAN effort was a two-pronged approach. The first was guys like Doitzel, sponge, Starfox, and Schattenmann (and on the FAN side, a few less worthy posters) who kept the alliance's message in the public eye. The other prong was the one of my involvement, and the combination therein in the end made a difference on the political process. Thus, I'd contest that one should be able to impact change both in the public and private venues. As Heft said, they're not necessarily exclusive (though on an individual base, in some limiting cases, they can be). As an analogy, I say that CN is a constant campaign, and alliances cast the votes. One can choose to influence his alliance's votes, or get media attention for his cause, and they are both quite effective methods of influencing the outcome of the election.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1323774352' post='2876437']
I'm not sure that Heft and I are buddies. I mean, we were in the same alliance for a short time, but he's one of those guys I rarely see around anymore

Anyway, I feel like I should correct this before FAN does it, then use it to make my point so that we aren't strayed off-topic. I was in MHA on assignment for Vox. However, in MHA I saw that I could make some posts (and I think I had help from the actual FAN spies eventually, in fact ivanelterrible might have been one of them. My memory is cloudy, but I had figured at the time who was who) in favor of granting FAN white peace, and if I could successfully help to influence that policy, then MHA-NPO relations would have had a wrench in them. I also like to think I was loud enough to allow the more quietly anti-NPO Crush and Sorum to slip into Triumvirate status without raising alarms, but more likely than not that's my own delusion of grandeur. Nevertheless, I do see your point and appreciate my inclusion in the example.

However, I would like to point out that the Vox-FAN effort was a two-pronged approach. The first was guys like Doitzel, sponge, Starfox, and Schattenmann (and on the FAN side, a few less worthy posters) who kept the alliance's message in the public eye. The other prong was the one of my involvement, and the combination therein in the end made a difference on the political process. Thus, I'd contest that one should be able to impact change both in the public and private venues. As Heft said, they're not necessarily exclusive (though on an individual base, in some limiting cases, they can be). As an analogy, I say that CN is a constant campaign, and alliances cast the votes. One can choose to influence his alliance's votes, or get media attention for his cause, and they are both quite effective methods of influencing the outcome of the election.
[/quote]

Details, minor details. Crush and Sorum had their own reasons, but they were too green at first to have that sort of sway. For those who don't know, it was very split down the middle, had it not been, I think that (and maybe with more activity,) that third Triumvir might've done something differently.

My point is, there need to be more of those whom take the risks you did. We have an over-abundance of those whom are ready and willing to take the credit, but very few who want to do the field work. Too many officers, not enough soldiers.

This whole speech should serve less as a soapbox for what has been accomplished and hasn't, and more of a call to what's next. Because as far as I can tell, there is no call to action, but recently, more passing around swan songs and regrets rather than action. Maybe I'm just old.

Edited December 13, 2011 by IYIyTh