Peace Terms: Ransom, Reparation, Surrender, White Peace

[Rayvon]

..neither the loser or the winner has time to do what really keeps this world turning:  rebuild their nations, build new relationships, and lay the groundwork for the next war.  This results in stasis not only in the political environment of this planet but also within the individual losing alliances..

While for the most part I agree with your point that terms are "boring", this part here I think needs a little ironing. This is why alliances spread the workload. The first point, 'rebuild their nations' would only be an affect if the winning alliance(s) are receiving reps. Otherwise, their IA (or Econ) dept scuttles off and works on rebuilding methods. New relationships are a constant go, there's always time to visit a forum or say hi to someone on IRC. And again, there's an FA council available through most alliances to do this. Same with the 'groundwork for next war' that's usually handled by special envoys or just simply by 'upper gov' levels ... The world keeps spinning in these regards ..

 

The winning alliances experience as similar stasis as those who aren't into nation building may wonder why they're building nations they don't ever use.

And this would apply to all peacetime, I would think, and not just to the immediate post-war-peace-term-enforcement period. This is where "culture" and other bits of the like we've adopted to our game come to play, to retain those players and help them see purpose. Edited December 15, 2013 by Rayvon

[Phil Coulson]

While for the most part I agree with your point that terms are "boring", this part here I think needs a little ironing. This is why alliances spread the workload. The first point, 'rebuild their nations' would only be an affect if the winning alliance(s) are receiving reps. Otherwise, their IA (or Econ) dept scuttles off and works on rebuilding methods. New relationships are a constant go, there's always time to visit a forum or say hi to someone on IRC. And again, there's an FA council available through most alliances to do this. Same with the 'groundwork for next war' that's usually handled by special envoys or just simply by 'upper gov' levels ... The world keeps spinning in these regards ..

 
And this would apply to all peacetime, I would think, and not just to the immediate post-war-peace-term-enforcement period. This is where "culture" and other bits of the like we've adopted to our game come to play, to retain those players and help them see purpose.

Many of the Continuum Era and before wars had terms requiring the cancellation of all treaties and the decommissioning of all nukes.  Some even required deleting military wonders.  This would make it extremely difficult for the losing alliance to get ready militarily for the next war.  Likewise, if they were caught plotting, they were liable to be attacked and subjected to an even longer war, this time with an even less prepared military.  I've only ever been in smaller less organized alliances (under 50 members) where the same people did it all and boy was it dull.

[Azaghul]

I think the CN neologism of a surrender with the term of no-re-entry is "grey peace", you don't have to pay reps or take any other actions, but you have surrendered and had a term imposed on you, however light.

That is the terminology I use, and it makes the most sense.

[Mogar]

Here's my problem with peace terms other than cessation of hostilities: they're boring. Peace terms bind not only the alliance that is subject to them (henceforth known as the "loser") but the alliance that is holding them subject to them as well (the "winner"). The loser has to do all kinds of not so fun things like cancel treaties, decommission nukes, keep military at near nonexistent levels, send obscene levels of money and tech, and - in the bad old days - accept a viceroy. The winner doesn't have to do that stuff but, here's the part that always gets to me, they have to make sure that the loser does that stuff.  They have to monitor troop levels, aid slots, and nuke counts which can take a long time to do.  

there are plenty of terms that don't affect nations, being forced to change your alliance flag, beer reviews, everything on the GOONS mercy board, there's a lot of examples of terms that aren't detrimental to to the losers, and I think we should pursue some of this shit, make it a bit more interesting then the white/grey peace.

[Delta1212]

Many of the Continuum Era and before wars had terms requiring the cancellation of all treaties and the decommissioning of all nukes.  Some even required deleting military wonders.  This would make it extremely difficult for the losing alliance to get ready militarily for the next war.  Likewise, if they were caught plotting, they were liable to be attacked and subjected to an even longer war, this time with an even less prepared military.  I've only ever been in smaller less organized alliances (under 50 members) where the same people did it all and boy was it dull.

Division of labor makes everything more fun. No matter what the task is, someone out there enjoys doing it. Find the person who wants to do the job(s) you don't and you're suddenly free to do things you actually like.

I say this as someone who tried to do everything for a long while before discovering how delegation worked and then letting people run their own little projects so that I didn't have to worry about it.

It's not even an issue of size except that it's easier for smaller alliances to have everything managed by one person where it would be a disaster for anyone to try single handedly running everything in an alliance of hundreds. It's still better to split up the work in both cases, though. (Unless we're talking like 5 person micros).

[Phil Coulson]

there are plenty of terms that don't affect nations, being forced to change your alliance flag, beer reviews, everything on the GOONS mercy board, there's a lot of examples of terms that aren't detrimental to to the losers, and I think we should pursue some of this !@#$, make it a bit more interesting then the white/grey peace.

In terms of the Mercy Board, I'm going to have to say that that particular board is extremely detrimental to the losing nation or alliance. Not only are they extremely cruel there, but going to offsites makes it possible to harvest IPs.

That said, I'm torn on things like beer reviews, poetry, changing one's flag, and things like that. They're ritual shaming that can feel more harmful than some of the other options. However, they don't physically hurt anyone. As long as the losers are allowed to be in on the joke, it's not that hard. I remember one alliance's leader didn't drink so he was allowed to do a milk review instead of a beer review.

[Ogaden]

In terms of the Mercy Board, I'm going to have to say that that particular board is extremely detrimental to the losing nation or alliance. Not only are they extremely cruel there, but going to offsites makes it possible to harvest IPs.

That said, I'm torn on things like beer reviews, poetry, changing one's flag, and things like that. They're ritual shaming that can feel more harmful than some of the other options. However, they don't physically hurt anyone. As long as the losers are allowed to be in on the joke, it's not that hard. I remember one alliance's leader didn't drink so he was allowed to do a milk review instead of a beer review.

 

 

RIA or Fark circa 2009 would agree with you, but having been on the other end of these kinds of terms, reps are better.

[Max Power]

^Depends how time-consuming they are. I can rattle off a poem about apes or something nice and quickly. Having to review the Star Wars Christmas Special would be infernal.

[Unknown Smurf]

Imo everyone is too nice with reps and consider how the other side will feel... Harsh reps beg for vengeance while beer reviews or other fun things just breed friendships and monotony.

[Max Power]

Imo everyone is too nice with reps and consider how the other side will feel... Harsh reps beg for vengeance while beer reviews or other fun things just breed friendships and monotony.

So what you're saying is Kashmir and tJL shouldn't have granted you white peace. ;)

 

(Sorry, had to.)

[Unknown Smurf]

So what you're saying is Kashmir and tJL shouldn't have granted you white peace. ;)
 
(Sorry, had to.)

Hahahah while were OOC I will completely agree with you. And vehemently deny all of this 2 minutes later elsewhere. :P

[Master Holton]

While everyone here is arguing semantics about terms or harshness of terms, we have to remember a few things.

 

White peace / surrender / reparations / disbandments - The winners will force the losers to do whatever the winners think they can get away with.

 

EXCEPTIONS for when friends are on opposing coalitions, "respectable fighters" (read: "you may have use to me post-war"), or those rare alliances that still hold onto some kind of pseudo-morality.

 

Now, to elaborate on this; we need to look at history. The Vox Populi movement, the Karma war, Equilibrium (though not to the same extent as the aforementioned events) were all wars based off of "fighting tyranny". The very concept of harsh terms has been repeatedly rejected by the community as a whole, and repeatedly brought back into play by the winning side.

 

Multiple people will selectively quote that last sentence and say "MK/TOP/GOONS/whoever aren't as evil as pre-karma NPO" and I would again like to point to "what they can get away with."

 

 

My thoughts anyways.

 

tl;dr - peace term word selection will always depend on the thoughts/feelings/plans of the winning coalition and their ability to enforce the terms.

[Schattenmann]

I think the CN neologism of a surrender with the term of no-re-entry is "grey peace", you don't have to pay reps or take any other actions, but you have surrendered and had a term imposed on you, however light.

There's no reason to complicate the issue further with a goofy term like that.

 

Plus, while they're dealing with the peace terms, neither the loser or the winner has time to do what really keeps this world turning:  rebuild their nations, build new relationships, and lay the groundwork for the next war.  This results in stasis not only in the political environment of this planet but also within the individual losing alliances themselves as some members decide to call it quits and leave the planet entirely because they didn't come here to send money to people who hate them.  The winning alliances experience as similar stasis as those who aren't into nation building may wonder why they're building nations they don't ever use.  They may also lose members who resign because they don't understand why their alliance is enforcing peace terms that last longer than the war.

 

In general, I tend to think that anything that gets people back out onto the field again quicker is good and anything that ties them up longer is bad.  Everyone wants their pound of flesh but it's much more fun to extract it at war than through peace terms.

 

The idea that clicking on the alliance stats page prevents the victors from "rebuild[ing] their nations, build[ing] new relationships, and lay[ing] the groundwork for the next war" is patently silly.  The assertion that victors lose members who perceive their own alliance as meanies is just as silly and has no basis in reality. 

 

 

I hope this isn't an issue for me, though. When I win, I want people to say they lost and will be happy to keep squeezing until they do. If they don't believe they have lost, then they haven't lost. It is then my job to prove it to them. Therefore, I don't like using the term "white peace" at all. I'd rather say "X surrenders to Umbrella and will refrain from aiding, militarily or financially, any alliances currently at war." It fits the CN definition of white peace in the sense that we'll no longer fight each other and we don't have to pay each other and we don't have to delete lumber camps and barracks, and all that jazz, but I like to see people squirm at least enough to admit what utter failures they were by my hand. :)

 

Exactly.  Alliances half-ass their wars and give their treaties short shrift because it has become a virtual guarantee that there will be no repercussions.  Why fight?  They're not going to have to admit defeat in the first place, so why waste infra on the effort.  Why sweat for a victory that you're going to give away in a white peace?  Why defend an ally when they're not going to lose anything except for an amoun to finfra that can be replaced with 1 back-collect? 

No stakes, no game.

[Walshington]

Yes - but find me a "white peace" that contains two no re-entry clauses ....

 

Here's one without re-entry clauses, but in the same spirit.

 

 

Here's a recent one.

 

 

But yeah, there's not a lot.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Walshington

[Rogal Dorn]

Anyone care to comment on the wiki page on White Peace? How could it be improved? Is it adequate? etc

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/White_peace

[gunzzz]

In terms of the Mercy Board, I'm going to have to say that that particular board is extremely detrimental to the losing nation or alliance. Not only are they extremely cruel there, but going to offsites makes it possible to harvest IPs.

Going onto the mercy board is an optional action. People go on there on their own to end raid attacks and be on the no attack list. Goons even have to do it if they fuck up... The terms are really simple, like some MS paint or funny essay, that shouldn't take more than 30 minutes to do. Bottom line is that if you go on the mercy boards for peace, just do the damn terms, or else get flamed on. If you don't want to do the terms, then don't sign up for the goons forums and ask for peace on the board. It's really that simple

[IYIyTh]

Division of labor makes everything more fun. No matter what the task is, someone out there enjoys doing it. Find the person who wants to do the job(s) you don't and you're suddenly free to do things you actually like.

I say this as someone who tried to do everything for a long while before discovering how delegation worked and then letting people run their own little projects so that I didn't have to worry about it.

It's not even an issue of size except that it's easier for smaller alliances to have everything managed by one person where it would be a disaster for anyone to try single handedly running everything in an alliance of hundreds. It's still better to split up the work in both cases, though. (Unless we're talking like 5 person micros).

 

It can still be done if you're insane and have a lot of free time.

[La Marx]

If a so-called white peace is about ending a war on equal terms, then I don't see how reparations can be excluded from that. Reparations - in whatever direction - that re-establish a certain amount of pre-war stability would in my view constitute an attempt at white peace. Launching a war against someone and then agreeing suddenly to a "white peace" (where the defender has no alternative but to accept it) is to me absurd. And I take it here by "white" what is meant is something akin to an attempt at tabula rasa, the removal of the stain of war. Obviously, coming out of European history, there are certain unavoidable racial connotations here. And so it may be advisable to reframe the terminology altogether - with Nordreich's leave of course.

[The Zigur]

White peace / surrender / reparations / disbandments - The winners will force the losers to do whatever the winners think they can get away with.

 

That really isn't what good statesmanship is about. One shouldn't simply win a war only to punish and humiliate. What if one goes to war in order to stabilize and unite? Sure you have to break the enemy's power, and sometimes that requires unpleasant actions, but that doesn't mean war is always fought to enslave and pillage, as was NPO's later philosophy under the "Mad Emperor."

Edited December 26, 2013 by Tywin Lannister