Friendship - Killing Politics on Bob?

[Dajobo]

I have been greatly amused by this discussion. The implication that there's even a right or wrong way to exist on Planet Bob amuses me greatly.

The fact is that some alliances and leaders seek power and will treaty who ever can give them that power. Their alliances are built on that premise and when things go bad their alliances die down along with their ranking on Planet Bob.

Other alliances exist for their members and holding the power isn't the goal. They'd rather stick to their beliefs and to other alliances they trust than dump them for a seat at the table of power. The implication that SF or XX are treatied just for friendship is the biggest mistake of all. It's trust that keeps them together and knowing they wont sell each other out for power.

[trimm]

I've been saying much the same thing for a long time MCRABAT.  The fact remains that many alliances here have treaties solely due to "friendship" and not because they make political sense.  

 

Of course, the oft repeated reply that "Hey, my alliance isn't here to play politics"  comes out.  But that has always been a hollow answer.  This is a political world, after all.  It is just that very few people on Bob have any idea how to conduct politics.  I'll give my enemies in DH all the credit in the world here, they have managed for the last few years to game the system on Bob to their advantage in a way that no one on the EQ side of the war has ever come close to.  But, they have in doing so set this world up for a stagnant system where no one will cancel a treaty because friends>infra and bull just like that.  

 

Conversely,  people on the other side of the web have shown a pretty remarkable tendency to act in reverse in the worst way, by refusing to build solid political ties with others just because years ago they sat on the other side of the web or because their interests don't completely coincide .  This is folly just as much as signing a treaty with anyone who has an ink pen handy, because in doing so those alliances simply prevent themselves from ever building a coalition that can sustain itself,  The last war more than proved that.

[WarriorSoul]

Piggybacking on Ogaden and Dajobo's arguments here.

 

Sometimes it really is friendship that keeps a treaty active. Sometimes it's just a treaty's "inertia" if you will. A treaty has been standing for so long, to nullify it would seem sacrilegious. But more times than not, treaties (and I'll use SF and XX for examples) remain active because of mutual trust and/or predictability.

 

Despite a turbulent beginning to their relationship, both SF and XX undeniably became viewed as one entity. And although there are some who would prefer it not to be that way, it's just a reality of the political landscape today. While in some ways, maybe respective members of the two blocs would have liked a bit more independence from each other, that conglomeration of alliances remains together because they all know exactly what the others are going to do. It's comfortable. It's predictable. There's no second guessing what allies are going to do, who's assuredly on your side and who isn't. Win, lose, or draw, there is comfort in knowing that there will always be a core group of allies that each alliance can depend upon.

 

In contrast, as stated in the OP, the political landscape outside of that is shifting. Between power spheres vying for the allegiances of smaller spheres and trying to avoid direct conflict with each other, it's essentially guaranteed that your allies in one war will be your enemies in the next. NPO and DR are most certainly welcome to maintain their treaties with each other, but how long until one views the other as a threat? It's inevitable, and ganging up on a smaller, comparatively powerless sphere is merely delaying the inevitable - and banging up the potential ally of one of the sides.

 

It's the reason the American Indians allied themselves against colonists and pioneers. While even together they were likely less powerful against the colonists, it was certainly more sensible to get shredded by the settlers next to firm allies than allying with the settlers only to be handed smallpox-infested blankets shortly thereafter.

Edited May 11, 2013 by WarriorSoul

[Scorn]

Not saying that this is good or bad.. In my personal experience most of people from Sparta (at least when I was active), MHA and even Fark enjoyed much more their own forums and their own camaraderie than BOB politics. This doesn't mean that these alliances wouldn't go to war. They actualy played a role and almost every war in the last 5 years. However, it is very simple: Can anyone tell me about a war that have been started by any XX alliance? That's what I call "semi-neutral".

I can tell you about a few wars with XX alliances on the front lines... 6M$ War R&R helped attack NSO. UINE massacre again with R&R. and also Fark was front and center fighting NEW in the NEW vs DF war. That is three examples of wars with XX on the front lines.

[IYIyTh]

and knowing they wont sell each other out for power.

 

 

I agreed with your entire post.

 

Except this.

[Rayvon]

I can tell you about a few wars with XX alliances on the front lines... 6M$ War R&R helped attack NSO. UINE massacre again with R&R. and also Fark was front and center fighting NEW in the NEW vs DF war. That is three examples of wars with XX on the front lines.

"being on the frontlines" =/= "starting a war"
R&R alone =/= XX

R&R joined in to help RoK in that 6m war, it's a piss poor example to answer King Louis' question with as it wasn't even "XX". Your other examples, I cba to follow those one's up for clarity - the first just popped right out at me.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I agreed with your entire post.

 

Except this.

Power? Probably not for its own sake. Survival? Probably, but that's not the question here. Whether selfishness dominates is not a foregone conclusion. 'Trust' and 'friendship' are essentially just other terms for 'social capital'.

 

You 'sell-out' those that trust you, you lose social capital. That certainly contributed to the post-Dave landscape, just as it has many times in CN history, going all the way back to how Karma only happened due to a bankruptcy of social capital. Most of the idiocy in the OWF is a smoke and mirrors campaign to either gain social capital, or erode that of 'enemies', so it obviously has some value in the minds of all Alliances. But there is of course a difference between being liked, and having Allies - it's not just gaining social capital, but also investing it. GOONS for instance, has (arguably) less overall social capital than say R&R, but theirs is highly concentrated, so that while having a smaller circle of trusted Allies, the ones they do have are pretty damn tight.

 

TL;DR - I see your SchwartzSocial capital is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it.

[Schattenmann]

At the the other end of political spectrum friendship stagnates politics in that even the most powerful alliances have a tendency to shy away from their political objectives in order to placate their friends. Examples of this include aspirations to go after politically isolated groups in order to avoid conflicting treaties and while I will refrain from naming specific examples because it is information obtained in opsec situations, I assure you this is more widespread than you would realise.

 

By "go after" do you mean ally or attack?

[Pingu]

By "go after" do you mean ally or attack?

 

Either would work, actually. I'm sure one could find examples of both being considered or implemented.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Either would work, actually. I'm sure one could find examples of both being considered or implemented.

 

In the here and now, It's the fringe AAs with the longest chains in the EQ war allying with one another, or with either newly-formed Alliances, or 'rebranded' ones.
 

[Pingu]

Quite possibly this is driven by the realization of the possibility of the other dynamic - if they don't increase their capabilities through new treaty ties, they will be the most attractive/least complicated targets.

[Azaghul]

A major reason SF/XX is largely viewed as one entity is because R&R is in both blocs.

 

Anyway I disagree about "friends > infra".

 

OOC: Realistically, there's not a ton an alliance can do to help allies by jumping into a loosing war.  However for the CN political and war scene to be interesting, wars have to expand.  And that means alliances have to be willing to jump in on the loosing side, even if they'd, from a purely materialistic stand point, be better off just letting their initial ally eat the loss by themselves.  If people weren't willing to jump in on a loosing side, the only time we'd ever have a major war is when the sides were shaping up to be very, very even, and that is extremely rare.  Given the consequences of starting a loosing offensive war, people will always be loathe to start one where the odds aren't heavily in their favor.

[Enamel32]

MCRABT, I thank you for posting a legit thread I don't want to punch myself in the face for reading.

I agree with you MCRABT, as do most people it appears, the web is aligning against XX/SF, and then after that, it will once again be a NPO/DR vs DH. If everyone knows, and there's significant agreement that's what's going to happen, wouldn't it be smarter to make history altering longterm decisions? I see it from this perspective: XX is not and never will be a bloc that will attempt world domination. None of those alliances have come close in 6 years, and I significantly doubt they would given another 6 years.-It's just not their nature, intent, or goal.

Anymore, this game looks like to me like alliances say this to each other: "hey, do you see that weakness in the treaty web?" "Yes. Yes I do. Let's crush it" There's not really any rhyme or reason to wars I can see. DH had stacked up a wealth of reasons with a wealth of alliances to get rolled, and they took a mild beating, and that's it? "But let's roll XX/SF repeatedly even though they pose little present or future threat to the majority of alliances." Ok I guess. I really don't see how that can make sense to anyone.

MCRABT, later in your post you are spot on once again. Let me provide my incite:

I was not involved with XX formation discussions, but I did see many of the discussions. Someone can correct me as required, but XX by my recollection was not formed to dominate the world. XX largely existed defacto before XX formed. XX simply centralized communications between some treaty partners. I think the XX founders legit intention was that we'd have have our own marked sphere to ourselves, where we could just do.....what we do..........which is be friends and not bother anyone. I think the founders also believed that if we left everyone else alone, we too would be left to ourselves. We're not instigators, we've never been instigators. Signatories expected each other to remain non-instigators for the foreseeable future.  What XX founders I don't think realized is that having our own sphere to ourselves, where we didn't bother anyone, and nobody bothered us, essentially isolated ourselves. Which, years ago, might have been fine, but being as politics from my perspective seem to have boiled down to rolling the weaklink sphere, undermines the nature and intent of the sphere.


I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with wanting to be tied to friends. How the game is played is completely defined by the players. I agree, from the perspective:  DH was continually being belligerent, and CnG was lock-step "you go gurl. You can do no wrong". Ultimately, CnG was the linchpin that brought the war against DH to a close, in my opinion, prematurely. At some point, you would think even a friend would realize "hey, my brofriend is being a real asshole for no good reason", but nope, that realization never happened afaik. I don't find that level of blind politics particularly honorable.  However, at the same time, we can also remember a similar, but long since past NPO-IRON/Invicta/legion relationship. They sustained multiple rollings out of friendship, and those friendship were never "ruining politics" by my recollection. Well, I guess I should say those relationships were in fact ruining politics, which is why it took a massive coalition to change history. But the politics were interesting at the time, because people had a cause worth fighting for, beyond a weak link in the web. I guess my point is friendships can be both good and bad.
 

 

With EQ proving unsustainable due to the unwillingness of many participants to fight for the greater good rather than more narrow self-interested objectives it seems unlikely that the group will ever be re-assembled. The implication of this is SF/XX  and DR/NPO are unlikely to be partners in arms in the near future. This leaves SF/XX in a very precarious position so long as NG/CNG- DR/NPO relations remain friendly.

 

Eh............I can't speak for other alliances, but I know Sparta was hoping the CnG front closed before the entire war ended. We wanted to move onto other fronts. You get what you get I guess.

[shahenshah]

M
Anymore, this game looks like to me like alliances say this to each other: "hey, do you see that weakness in the treaty web?" "Yes. Yes I do. Let's crush it" There's not really any rhyme or reason to wars I can see. DH had stacked up a wealth of reasons with a wealth of alliances to get rolled, and they took a mild beating, and that's it? "But let's roll XX/SF repeatedly even though they pose little present or future threat to the majority of alliances." Ok I guess. I really don't see how that can make sense to anyone.
 

It only and only doesn't makes sense to you...you're the most convenient target.  You're the path of least resistance (politically) amongst other paths at this point in time and you're not willing to do anything to change that so, GL and HF. 

Edited May 12, 2013 by shahenshah

[Enamel32]

It only and only doesn't makes sense to you...you're the most convenient target.  You're the path of least resistance (politically) amongst other paths at this point in time and you're not willing to do anything to change that so, GL and HF. 

right, but the path of least resistance doesnt change the fact, that there will be a future threat to fight for top dog. Beating on XX/SF when you know you have a more important future target just seems like a waste of your own resources.

 

You should know that best of all after the last war. I've talked to you about this specifically. XX/SF got rolled twice, while DR/NPOsphere sphere sat back and laughed "lol path of least resistance". We were too fricking small to do anything about DH when the time came, and then everyone pissed and moaned about how no one could hit their upper tier. Run your politics the way you want, but I'm a major advocate of long term decisions. XX/SF ain't going no where. They can be rolled later heh

Edited May 12, 2013 by Enamel32

[Neo Uruk]

"Friends > Infra" is a good slogan when you're forced into the situation. Of course when you're on top, you want to exercise the power. That's why you got there, right?

[OverlordShinnra]

I have heard this thought that alliances that don't do anything and aren't out for world domination should be left alone. I couldn't disagree with this philosophy more. It is a very simple argument to make -- 

 

Cybernations is a game

Games have winners

To win in Cybernations you want to be in a dominant position (Be in a High ranking) 

Currently Neutrals and Neutral-Lite alliances have a pretty firm grip on the higher rankings whether it be alliance-wide (GPA, WTF) or Nation Wide (Hime Themis) 

There is a pretty significant block of NS that has a political philosophy that doesn't mesh well with rolling the above alliances (SF/XX/Polarsphere) 

 

Therefore the next predicted war is just a precursor to the above plan

[Garion]

I have heard this thought that alliances that don't do anything and aren't out for world domination should be left alone. I couldn't disagree with this philosophy more. It is a very simple argument to make -- 

 

Cybernations is a game

Games have winners

To win in Cybernations you want to be in a dominant position (Be in a High ranking) 

Currently Neutrals and Neutral-Lite alliances have a pretty firm grip on the higher rankings whether it be alliance-wide (GPA, WTF) or Nation Wide (Hime Themis) 

There is a pretty significant block of NS that has a political philosophy that doesn't mesh well with rolling the above alliances (SF/XX/Polarsphere) 

 

Therefore the next predicted war is just a precursor to the above plan

 

I don't know whether to laugh, or take your consideration as serious. I'll go with the first.

[Enamel32]

I have heard this thought that alliances that don't do anything and aren't out for world domination should be left alone. I couldn't disagree with this philosophy more. It is a very simple argument to make -- 

If you're directing this comment at me, I urge you to re-read my post. I explicitly advocated my own rolling, with the caveat that it be done with some level of strategy. People are bawwing about the failure of politics, and then citing 'path of least resistance' as logical means of rolling people. WTF BRUH. WTF.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Enamel32

[D34th]

It only and only doesn't makes sense to you...you're the most convenient target.  You're the path of least resistance (politically) amongst other paths at this point in time and you're not willing to do anything to change that so, GL and HF. 

 

CN kindergarten tough guy strategy: I'll only fight with the weakest kid because I'm afraid to get in a real fight and lose. 

 

@OverlordShinnra

Edited May 12, 2013 by D34th

[DeathAdder]

CN kindergarten tough guy strategy: I'll only fight with the weakest kid because I'm afraid to get in a real fight and lose. 

 

Pretty much, yeah.

[OverlordShinnra]

If people think my definition of winning is off or doesn't mesh with yours. I invite you to give me another one. 

[OverlordShinnra]

I don't know whether to laugh, or take your consideration as serious. I'll go with the first.

 

Take it as serious was the correct answer.

[Neo Uruk]

People who think wanting the #1 alliance spot is an illegitimate way to play the game, while residing in alliances that have supported NPO regimes in the past, are pretty funny.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Rush Sykes]

If you're directing this comment at me, I urge you to re-read my post. I explicitly advocated my own rolling, with the caveat that it be done with some level of strategy. People are bawwing about the failure of politics, and then citing 'path of least resistance' as logical means of rolling people. WTF BRUH. WTF.

 

The funny part of reading all of this... is reading this, and then going back to the chats you and I had during the war. You know.. when you told me you would be perfectly ok with being an NPO lap dog if it means getting DH and C&G killed multiple times. Or when you told me you were well aware of Sparta's reputation, and you thought more or less the alliance deserved its rep, THEN said you did not care about the rep because you were planning on vacating Planet Bob after the war. 

 

What you do not seem to understand is this. Sparta(and by and large, XX as a whole).. is completely disdained by EVERYONE in the game. Nobody in your alliance, not one person, has ever even tried to rally your members to make a showing, to kill your stereotype through action, to show one single ounce of pride in wearing the name Sparta. If you smile, remain weak,  and show no passion or pride for yourselves, then natural selection takes over. The reality is... DR-DH-C&G-NPO are the big dogs, and maybe, just maybe, by getting rid of the bottom feeders like Sparta and MHAand by extension, XX as a whole, the 4 can finally line up in some way, shape, or form, without having to worry about one side carrying the worthless dead weight you represent, and without the other side having to worry about the worthless dead-weight bandwagoning to make themselves feel like they are finally a part of something. Rally your alliance and win some respect, then come talk to the rest of the world about wanting to play big boy politics.  You have all of those members, all of those stats, now make them stand up and look like they care. Just a thought.