Silent treaty cancelations

[Monster]

That's exactly what I tried to say.

[enderland]

Someone should just make a "treaty announcement" thread, similar to the sanction race, where each day or week all treaty cancellations and signings - public or not public - are posted in some sort of nice format.

Keep it like the sanction race and limit the "chatter" as much as possible to keep it as an informative resource.

/me can hope

Edited January 18, 2012 by enderland

[Monster]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326905293' post='2902181']
Someone should just make a "treaty announcement" thread, similar to the sanction race, where each day or week all treaty cancellations and signings - public or not public - are posted in some sort of nice format.

Keep it like the sanction race and limit the "chatter" as much as possible to keep it as an informative resource.

/me can hope
[/quote]

That works too.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1326904903' post='2902176']
Alliance A: We have cancelled our treaty with alliance B. Reasons were shared in private.
Peanut Gallery: Baaaww tell us why. Don't hide the truth
Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance A on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance B
Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance B on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance A
Peanut Gallery: Neither of your alliances are relevant so why even post?
Peanut Gallery: I thought you guys disbanded? Please do.
General member of Alliance B: I can't believe you cancelled on us after all we did for you!
Peanut Gallery: who are you again, general member? stop posting. you're irrelevant.
Peanut Gallery: I can't wait to roll both your alliances.


Now what about that, exactly, is involving the "average user" in world politics?
[/quote]
Really? Did you really just outline some basic discourse on the OWF as the result of an announcement and then ask how announcements involve people? You may not always like what is said or how the discussion goes, but there are layers to the political arena. Granted, the announcement on the OWF itself may not be the most relevant layer of the political world seeing as those in the know and those with the power get information from other channels, but for the masses, this is politics. This is a game of politics and inter alliance interaction. I can't wrap my mind around the idea that people want to limit the amount of interaction because they dislike the conversations had in their threads. I love when a thread involving my alliance blows up. I've been a part of a ton of them, and they're one of the reasons I still play the game. Hell, I even got to construct one of my very own a while back.

The OWF often time is just a rabble doing their thing. But to cut it out one of the primary functions of the forum (informing the world of treaty changes) is to cheapen the entire process for everyone. Go be a !@#$@#$ neutral if you can't handle announcing where you stand politically to the world.

[Monster]

I don't advocate shutting down the OWF. I advocate a real political discourse.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326906545' post='2902195']
I don't advocate shutting down the OWF. I advocate a real political discourse.
[/quote]

That's about as likely to happen as me sprouting wings and giving people money for their lost teeth.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326906545' post='2902195']
I don't advocate shutting down the OWF. I advocate a real political discourse.
[/quote]
Not everyone on the OWF has the information available to them to have a sustained, meaningful discourse about events as they happen. So what we get is tidbits of true political conversation filled around the edges with hails, taunts, and buffoonery. Which is great because then those who may not be as connected as the big wigs get a glimpse at the political side of the game. The forums and the discourse therein is just as much a part of the game as my nation itself. And any movement to limit or hinder that part of the game is ridiculous. Now, I can understand wanting to get a political advantage by controlling the flow of information coming out of your own alliance. But to discount the OWF as useless as many people seem to be doing is just plain wrong.

[enderland]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326906545' post='2902195']
I don't advocate shutting down the OWF. I advocate a real political discourse.
[/quote]

You're kidding yourself if you think most people here either want or are capable of real political discourse.

edit: wording

Edited January 18, 2012 by enderland

[Monster]

Well, I'm doing my part. Everything I say is genuine.

[Wu Tang Clan]

We can have a 4 page discussion over why real political discourse can not and will not exist in a game like CN. But I think everyone already knows why.

Edit: Wording

Edited January 18, 2012 by Wu Tang Clan

[enderland]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1326906945' post='2902202']
We can have a 4 page discussion over why real political discourse can not and will not exist in a game like CN. But I think everyone already knows why.

Edit: Wording
[/quote]

Well the main problem is this isn't really a political simulator anyways. Few alliances are doing actions for the sake of political motivations but more for fun or enjoyment or personal friendships.

If treaties were primarily signed for strategic political moves there could be politics. But as it is, treaties and wars are hardly fought for reasons worth having political discourse over. Look at the current and immediately recent wars. What is there to even discuss? The only thing I can think of is how NPO has a real decision to face - have their lower ranks eaten up by FARK/FAN, who probably don't even care about the "game" anymore, or find a way to get peace. Maybe the implications of allowing grudges to dictate alliance behavior?

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326907150' post='2902203']
Well the main problem is this isn't really a political simulator anyways. Few alliances are doing actions for the sake of political motivations but more for fun or enjoyment or personal friendships.

If treaties were primarily signed for strategic political moves there could be politics. But as it is, treaties and wars are hardly fought for reasons worth having political discourse over. Look at the current and immediately recent wars. What is there to even discuss? The only thing I can think of is how NPO has a real decision to face - have their lower ranks eaten up by FARK/FAN, who probably don't even care about the "game" anymore, or find a way to get peace. Maybe the implications of allowing grudges to dictate alliance behavior?
[/quote]

My post wasn't really an invitation to open discussion.

But there's the fact that CN needs a hegemony, and the fact that most people don't pay enough attention/have enough time to really be a "villain" so political discourse in CN becomes an alliance in power saying: "Alliance X is terrible and no one should treaty them," and the hordes of alliances rushing to ride the coattails of anyone and everyone who can prove capable of leading the masses follow said alliance in power's every whim. Holy run-on sentence, batman.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326907150' post='2902203']
Well the main problem is this isn't really a political simulator anyways. Few alliances are doing actions for the sake of political motivations but more for fun or enjoyment or personal friendships.
[/quote]
Perhaps not everyone is making moves in a political sense, but [b]everyone[/b] has an agenda. And we can base a game and discourse on an agenda.

[Icewolf]

To be honest, there is political discourse on these forums. You just have to learn how to find it. Generally I don't click on the first 3/4 pages of a thread. If it doesn't go beyond that only the first post can contain anything interesting (and if it doesn't go beyond that it probably doesn't). Once it is over 3/4 pages then all the congratulatory/trolling posts have normally died down, and some people have got their teeth into a solid debate. Reading those debates is the way to learn about CN (i've found).

[Bodvar Jarl]

I'd say that anyone not sufficiently thick skinned enough to take the barrage of mindless crap that finds it's way into any thread on the OWF probably isn't cut out for this game.

What's the alternative? For me, the OWF has the singular purpose of the common political narrative, this is where all major official events are communicated to the world. I believe the game needs this, and the OWF is where people go for it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326877028' post='2902069']
People don't control what happens in their threads. There is no closed roleplay. This game is rarely interesting for most people because they don't have a clue of what is actually going on. Acting as if posting cancellations will do anything really is like applying a band-aid to a brain tumor.
[/quote]
The amountof self-contradictory posts in this thread outline the inherent flaw of the non-posting position. Your argument is that people post stupid because they're ignorant, your solution is to further restrict access to information.

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1326904903' post='2902176']
I enjoy reading all of the arguments saying that it "deprives the average user access to politics".

Alliance A: We have cancelled our treaty with alliance B. Reasons were shared in private.

Now what about that, exactly, is involving the "average user" in world politics? The frequent posters on the OWF treat it as a "good ol' boys club" and act like asshats to anyone who doesn't follow their party line.
[/quote]
Another self-defeating post for the pile. If the players don't know what is going on because people refuse to participate in the game, then they are deprived access. It's really, really simple.

And again, almost to the man, the people that talk about how stupid the OWF is are from the alliances that currently have the greatest effect on CN culture. Four fingers pointing back at yourselves. If you as a person or your alliance generally think that CN is for dorks, writing treaties is too much work, coming up with ideologies is nerdy and not worth it, etc etc, why are you even here? There are lots of FPSes out there for you. It's a feedback loop; by-and-large a defining aspect of the post-Karma mover-shakers is their disdain for serious, RPed political discourse (the NPO model of play) and big surprise, after 3 years of that here's your pared-down, hurrdurr, 10-word-treaty OWF.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Monster]

No, I agreed with enderland's idea, which would be good and still provide information. The issue is also NPO's political philsophy was based on manifest destiny, which didn't allow for many long-term loyalties.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Roquentin

[Schattenmann]

I wasn't talking about NPO's philosophy, I was referencing their so-called "srs bsns" style of play which was abandoned by their successors, who are now the same people who can't stop telling us what a craphole the OWF they created is.

[janax]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1326904903' post='2902176']
I enjoy reading all of the arguments saying that it "deprives the average user access to politics".

I'm assuming none of you making that argument have reread any treaty cancellation threads recently. I'll try to summarize how they go.

Alliance A: We have cancelled our treaty with alliance B. Reasons were shared in private.
Peanut Gallery: Baaaww tell us why. Don't hide the truth
Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance A on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance B
Peanut Gallery: Congrats Alliance B on ridding yourself of that awful Alliance A
Peanut Gallery: Neither of your alliances are relevant so why even post?
Peanut Gallery: I thought you guys disbanded? Please do.
General member of Alliance B: I can't believe you cancelled on us after all we did for you!
Peanut Gallery: who are you again, general member? stop posting. you're irrelevant.
Peanut Gallery: I can't wait to roll both your alliances.


Now what about that, exactly, is involving the "average user" in world politics? The frequent posters on the OWF treat it as a "good ol' boys club" and act like asshats to anyone who doesn't follow their party line.
[/quote]


Alliance A: We have signed a treaty with alliance B. Wub Wub Wub
Peanut Gallery: Nice grouping
Peanut Gallery: o/ A
Peanut Gallery: I hope B is there for you like they weren't for C
Peanut Gallery: Neither of your alliances are relevant so why even post?
Peanut Gallery: I thought you guys disbanded? Please do.
General member of Alliance B: This is awesome.
Peanut Gallery: who are you again, general member? stop posting. you're irrelevant.
Peanut Gallery: I can't wait to roll both your alliances.

Hmm, looks accurate and the same.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326914069' post='2902261']
No, I agreed with enderland's idea, which would be good and still provide information. The issue is also NPO's political philsophy was based on manifest destiny, which didn't allow for many long-term loyalties.
[/quote]

There is the capability of picking and choosing what you take. Take the good and leave out the bad.

[Max Power]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1326910911' post='2902233']
And again, almost to the man, the people that talk about how stupid the OWF is are from the alliances that currently have the greatest effect on CN culture. Four fingers pointing back at yourselves. If you as a person or your alliance generally think that CN is for dorks, writing treaties is too much work, coming up with ideologies is nerdy and not worth it, etc etc, why are you even here? There are lots of FPSes out there for you. It's a feedback loop; by-and-large a defining aspect of the post-Karma mover-shakers is their disdain for serious, RPed political discourse (the NPO model of play) and big surprise, after 3 years of that here's your pared-down, hurrdurr, 10-word-treaty OWF.
[/quote]
I love my life. Why would I want to pretend to be someone else? This is what I never got about role-playing. I don't need to spend my spare time being some fictitious politician/emperor/terrorist/whatever because I'd rather spend that time being me. I don't feel a need to escape that much. In terms of serious, RPed political discourse, while it would be fun to do if I had an unlimited supply of time, I don't, and so I allocate my time to the many other things I consider more deserving. (Among those being writing of other types, like papers for school and short stories.)

There are times when I'm not so busy I avoid CN altogether (although that has happened) but I don't have a spare hour to devote to it. In those cases, I would rather just see "Alliance A and Alliance B MDoAP" with some signatures than a 1000-word legalesque document I have to sift through while ignoring the not-so-legalesque references to tropical fruits and cake or whatever alliances are putting in their treaties these days. It annoys me seeing alliances say in hundreds of words what could be said in about a sentence.

I play CN specifically because I enjoy the treaty dynamics and the social aspect. Shifting loyalties and coalition building are interesting from a political perspective and I think we can all agree on that. IRC and forum chatting is fun too, especially when you find people who live near you or have common interests, as with any form of socializing. I just personally don't care that much whether the political aspect is done very dramatically, and I'd prefer to talk to people as themselves than some RPed personae. Also, the game is so absurd by normal standards that RPing is kind of silly, e.g.: "The proud nation of Kuraland converts its banking network to an elaborate system of labor camps 19 of every 20 days" - I mean, statements like that would ruin the RP anyway.

As for why I'm playing this instead of a first-person shooter, one simple answer is that CN (a) isn't full-screen, so I can go back and forth between it and work, and (b) can be stopped for a bit at any time, unlike some games which can't really pause or save too well. I also get to chat with people on IRC and forums, which aren't involved in those games.

CN is a time-waster, just like TVTropes or Cracked, but with the added benefit of getting to chat with some cool people. Why that merits a consistent output of 1000+ word walls of text is beyond me.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1326910911' post='2902233']
The amountof self-contradictory posts in this thread outline the inherent flaw of the non-posting position. Your argument is that people post stupid because they're ignorant, your solution is to further restrict access to information.


Another self-defeating post for the pile. If the players don't know what is going on because people refuse to participate in the game, then they are deprived access. It's really, really simple.

And again, almost to the man, the people that talk about how stupid the OWF is are from the alliances that currently have the greatest effect on CN culture.
[/quote]

Gotta agree with Schatt here, given this is literally everyone's excuse as to why they don't follow the OWF as they once did.

[Bob Janova]

The simple fact that the treaty has been cancelled is information that's now available to all players. You can't get into politics without a basic level of knowledge of who's tied to who, and that means that treaty signings, up/downgrades and cancellations should all be posted on a public forum that all players can see. By far the most obvious place for that is here, as the official forum for the game.

Also, the responses, even if they're as empty as you make out (they often aren't), tell you quite a bit just from who's posting them.

[Doitzel]

Schatt said it better than I could. The only reason this game lasted so long is because the practices of stomping out public discourse and dissent was stopped in its tracks 4 years ago in favour of what he calls the "NPO model" (which is really a legacy of that-other-game, which was even more RP-centric). Now instead of simply using force, the same elements of this community -- hell, some of the very same people -- are perpetuating the self-defeating outlook with a combination of mass !@#$-posting and a relentless insistence that this forum is, and should remain, worthless.

Public channels FTW.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Doitzel

[Monster]

Alternatively, I said this is how it always was. Azaghul was pretty much the only person trashing NPO for the GATO stuff when that was ongoing.