Jump to content

CN wiki - listing defeats as 'White peace'


Ch33kY
 Share

Recommended Posts

Have you noticed how alliances always clearly list their victories in war as victories, but when it comes to loses they're not always so honest? I have seen a lot of clear losses listed as 'White peace' on the CN Wiki. This is causing a distortion of the historical record.

And I don't think this is being done simply as a 'different perspective' on the events and outcomes of certain wars. I think those tinkering with the historical record have dishonest intentions.

I won't single out any particular alliance - mostly because nearly every alliance does it. Or if I can rephrase that, a lot of alliance pages have these distortions of the record.

I get that the outcome of a war is not always simply black and white: in some wars one side is clearly defeated and terms or reparations are imposed, in other wars its quite closer or the alliances involved have no general animosity towards each other and call the outcome white peace; in some battles one alliance is victorious but their coalition loses the war.

This post is an appeal to wiki editors to have some basic standards. I don't know if we can agree on a standardised way of listing war outcomes, and I imagine even if many of us do it would still be hard to implement them because alliances generally manage their own pages and therefore can do what they want with them. But I do think alliances should take more care with how they present their pages and as a we community scrutinise them and call them out where it is appropriate.

[spoiler]G6zj8Zw.png
I don't intend to specifically attack CCC, but this encapsulates the point I hope I made clear: this view of CCC's war record might indicate they haven't ever been on the losing side in a war.[/spoiler]

Edited by Ch33kY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of white peace as both parties mutually agreed to cease hostilities, and that may or may not include terms that neither party would re-enter, send aid, etc to anyone, allies or otherwise, still engaged in the conflict.

 

Defeat I've always seen as those terms in their entirety being imposed by one party on another as a condition for peace, and sometimes with reparations added on, depending on the alliances.

 

*Shrugs* Standards would be good, though I imagine it's a little late in the game, literally.

Edited by KahlanRahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard when you use a wiki to keep every page from having any slant or bias.

Anybody worth their weight knows what happened and makes their own judgement. If people want to feel better about themselves because they're afraid of listing a defeat on their wiki, oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those dumb trends that followed from people labeling their defeats "strategic victories".

EDIT: and I expect it to only get sillier in a world where victories are accomplished in a single tier.

Edited by Auctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to CCC, for a fair amount of those wars, they were on the winning side, so they could have listed it as a victory. At least they're consistent in listing a war ended with no terms as a white peace irrespective of the overall outcome?

 

(Specifically, I believe only half of those wars are actually defeats.)

Edited by saxasm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait till you find out about strategic victory.

I wonder how many of those were people who serious about it and people who were making fun of those who are serious about it.  In MK's case it was the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to CCC, for a fair amount of those wars, they were on the winning side, so they could have listed it as a victory. At least they're consistent in listing a war ended with no terms as a white peace irrespective of the overall outcome?
 
(Specifically, I believe only half of those wars are actually defeats.)

 

Yes... up until DisOrder, all of them were clearly labeled by defeats and victories. But Rogal Dorn (an official wiki editor I believe?) brought to our attention that, since we always accepted "white peace" with everyone, it would be inaccurate to call our campaign in that war a victory. We accepted this viewpoint, and taking in all the factors of history, it is probably more accurate that way; since at least for us it would be a bit cocky to claim we "defeated" others on our own. CCC has been in winning coalitions, but we rarely make or break the war. :P

 

So we rolled with Rogal's change and just called everything white peace. We thought it would be more in line with our nature and would be more accurate / less offensive since we make no claims either way. It just is what it is - the reader can make their own conclusion. :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my way of thinking, all wars end when both sides agree to peace.  If one side chooses to continue fighting, there will be no peace.  When that war does end, there are three outcomes.  When I edit a wiki page, I use this as my guide:

 

CEASEFIRE: No peace is declared, combatants just stop fighting with no agreement. 

 

VICTORY: Peace agreed to, opponent admitted defeat OR was given terms.  

 

DEFEAT: Terms were imposed on your side only.  If you accepted terms, you were on the losing side.

 

WHITE PEACE: Peace declared, no admission of defeat, no terms or bi-lateral terms

 

The confusion comes when opponents announce "White Peace" or "End of Hostilities" to be gregarious and yet still give terms to one side.  That is, to my mind, not a white peace at all but a defeat for one side, and the wiki should reflect what really happened, not what people called it.  

 

This brings about the greater philosophical question of whether the wiki page is a record of events or a propaganda tool.  I tend to shoot for the former -- I think that concepts such as "pyrrhic victories" or "strategic victories" should be dealt with in the wiki text, not a table as the result of a war.

 

Then again, given that stewardship of wiki pages is generally the purview of the alliance that "owns" it, maybe these guys are right:

 

I'm sorry but I can't help but think:

 

It's a game; so what if the "historical record" is experiencing a "distortion".

 

 

People know the truth, the rest is propaganda.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People know the truth, the rest is propaganda.

Pretty much this.

Although I remember reading about how NPL and Neb-X were fighting in grudge then NPL got hit by DH and friends. If memory serves me correct NPL secured peace with Neb-x but here's the thing, NPL was still fighting and Neb-x was not. Now on paper it says NPL was defeated but to me that seems like a victory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account the fact that coalitions win or lose wars at this point, and not individual alliances, I don't see the point in even listing on an individual alliance page wins and losses.  Just list the war the alliance was a part of and add a link to the page regarding the war. 

 

Now if there is a war that is between two alliances only, and one of them actually manages to bring the other to the point where the other is willing to say "we've had enough and are willing to admit it to get the war to stop" and the other alliance agrees - then it's a victory for the one and a defeat for the other.

 

In other words, if it's a coaltion war then the coalitions get the victory or defeat and not the individual alliances.  However if it is a war between two alliances and not actually being faught between two coalitions - then the individual alliances can claim victory or defeat (or white peace) depending on the outcome of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account the fact that coalitions win or lose wars at this point, and not individual alliances, I don't see the point in even listing on an individual alliance page wins and losses.  Just list the war the alliance was a part of and add a link to the page regarding the war.


After getting over the shock people still use/check the games wiki. I pretty much think along the same lines as the poster above, or if anything have "white peace - over all defeat" / "white peace - over all victory".

To make things look clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes this is a matter of spin, but sometimes there are genuine disputes over 'winning' and 'losing' these things are not nearly as simple as some would like them to be. This is not a ball game.

 

Generally I would consider a war 'won' by the attacker if they achieve their political goal. But what about a war with no political goal? Can it even theoretically be won?

 

If both the attacker and the defender have clear political goals, and both are achieved (not always impossible) it would make sense for both to claim victory without contradiction, even if it does look odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes this is a matter of spin, but sometimes there are genuine disputes over 'winning' and 'losing' these things are not nearly as simple as some would like them to be. This is not a ball game.

 

Generally I would consider a war 'won' by the attacker if they achieve their political goal. But what about a war with no political goal? Can it even theoretically be won?

 

If both the attacker and the defender have clear political goals, and both are achieved (not always impossible) it would make sense for both to claim victory without contradiction, even if it does look odd.

 

I agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kashmir lists all military engagements as having ended in 'White Peace' even if we consider them victories. Many of which we do, as we did achieve the things we set out to achieve by being involved.

The only war which I would consider a loss in the traditional sense is recorded as having ended in 'White Peace with Admission of Defeat."

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only term usually imposed on a "losing" party is no re-entry/no aid anymore. Technically not White Peace. If you had this term placed on you...you lost. You had to bend knee and say yes master I will not do those things. Not really but you see what I mean. GATO got real white peace once. BIPolar iirc. I think SF thought we'd turn around and join their side through ODN/Athens at the time..... We didn't...We did join CnG some time later and beat them up a few times though....memories.

 

Anyway...... There has hardly ever been real White Peace. Even at the very end of the last few wars where there were no terms...one side had to admit defeat.....not white peace either btw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference between being granted a white peace and being forced to make an admission of defeat. Its not uncommon for many alliances on the losing side to be granted white peace, so everything can be wrapped up quicker when the main targets of the war are ready to surrender.

CCC is the type of alliance nobody has a real grudge against, tend to be pleasant people and only get into fights to help their allies. So I wouldn't be surprised if most or all of those really did end in them getting white peace. Wars don't usually end with everyone signing the same announcement on the outcome. Most have peace negotiated between the alliances fighting, with the usual goal being to get as many alliances who aren't targets to exit the war in a separate peace to free up resources.

If they actually surrendered, then it should be listed as a defeat. CCC has all white peace, since they'd rather give white peace than try holding a victory over anyone's head. This might be why they are generally granted the same even if they enter on the side who's losing. Karma can both ways, be good to others and good people will treat you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...