"War Of Failed Diplomacy"

[Striker DCS]

The truth is there is no hard written rule concerning tech raids or fair play that everyone has to read and agree to before entering the game.

I would dare to say that 30% of nations in an alliance could care less about that alliance and have probably never been to their website to read any rules. Many of the players entering this game are noobs and run their nations in such a way as they become easy targets, this is a learning process. Many other players entering this game intentionally plan on not listening to anyones rules and simply causing as much mayhem as they can.

To think that ANY alliance can maintain control or be responsible for all of it's nations 100% of the time is absurd.

That is where diplomacy should come in.

I do not know the answer to this. I don't think there really is one answer. Each alliance has to look at each situation differently and determine whether the action was simply a tech raid for good reason, if there is one, or something that threatens the sovereignty of their alliance.

If you look back at the very beginning of this NAAW/BW conflict and disseminate the first actions taken it becomes pretty easy to see where the first mistakes were made. First the action and the reaction.

1. A NAAW nation tech raided an inactive BW nation:

a. Not the smartest thing to do although most alliances would agree "serious inactivity" is an acceptable reason for a tech raid. First mistake made in conflict.

2. Three nations then retaliated against the raiding nation.

a. Not an appropriate response given the inactivity of the raided nation. Second mistake made in conflict.

Everything else that happened following these two initial "mistakes" made by both sides is a result of failed diplomacy.

Diplomatic mistake upon diplomatic mistake has been heaped onto the situation making it the "War Of Failed Diplomacy". Both alliances should have recognized these initial mistakes, apologized for their mistake and rectified the situation before it got to this point.

Instead the decimation of many nations resulted.

Had diplomacy occurred, the correct diplomatic responses would have been the two great alliances simply admitting they had each made a mistake.

IMO

Edited January 8, 2009 by Striker DCS

[Dagrr]

Not another one of these...

We're just going to fight it out now. Tired of talking.

If DCS wants in, they better get in before the slots are full

[Striker DCS]

Double post see next post

Edited January 8, 2009 by Striker DCS

[Striker DCS]

Just putting in my bid for the "official" name. I think this "big" war is going to need a name that describes best what it was about.

This war will probably last till the end of the round with many more alliances taking sides or finding easy targets. Slot availability will probably not be a problem if DCS should enter the war.

[trout1]

Good hunting John

<S>

[Strykewolf]

Some good points but, I'm not entirely sure how well they apply for a couple of reasons.

1 - Completely different political (gag) landscape. Things are a bit simpler with treaties and such. Folks tend to be more raid active and tend not to really care if an alliance has 10, 20, 40 members (or, likely even 100). Either that or noone is using any sort of targetting guidelines.

2 - Not everyone is messing around with an additional forum, or with IRC much. I'm on IRC when I can be, though many times getting ahold of the leader I need too is mostly a futile effort.

3 - Some of the raids are dealt with diplomatically, sort of. You get told that 'they've been told to peace out' Only to watch the raiders hit again after update...then suddenly remember to offer peace. I've seen this three times for sure, so far (against 3 alliances). It's looking like a pattern, atm...but, could also be a C3 issue. Time will tell.

4 - As a result, many have an aggressive response policy. Some started aggressive response in round 1 (we did). And the policy, once its understood, tends to work fairly well. Not always, but usually. There have been raiders who have hit and said "Well, he was inactive" Not always, some of the targets were actually bill paying for a time to collect as much as possible to either a: boost b: recover from earlier attacks.

I don't know what the answer is, in all honesty. Planet Steve was born of warfare; piracy abounds. And self-defense whether individually or as an alliance....is just that. Self-defense.

Perhaps enough minds will come together on this and something good will come of it

[Seth Muscarella]

the thing is, nobody really cares about reasons anymore. i'm not mad and trying to post in the forums how i'm right and everyone else is wrong; it's just a war now, and it'll be fun to keep fighting it until whenever. i already lost 650 infra and probably 3 mil in taxes and such over this period of time, so i've felt it as much as the next guy

this does give me an idea though... what would blackwater say to just calling it all off by 1/15. that makes all current wars expire, then we can call the war over with an NAAW/BW NAP and be done with it. more than 2 weeks of war starts just getting boring, ya know?

[Burning Glory]

The truth is there is no hard written rule concerning tech raids or fair play that everyone has to read and agree to before entering the game.

I would dare to say that 30% of nations in an alliance could care less about that alliance and have probably never been to their website to read any rules. Many of the players entering this game are noobs and run their nations in such a way as they become easy targets, this is a learning process. Many other players entering this game intentionally plan on not listening to anyones rules and simply causing as much mayhem as they can.

To think that ANY alliance can maintain control or be responsible for all of it's nations 100% of the time is absurd.

That is where diplomacy should come in.

I do not know the answer to this. I don't think there really is one answer. Each alliance has to look at each situation differently and determine whether the action was simply a tech raid for good reason, if there is one, or something that threatens the sovereignty of their alliance.

If you look back at the very beginning of this NAAW/BW conflict and disseminate the first actions taken it becomes pretty easy to see where the first mistakes were made. First the action and the reaction.

1. A NAAW nation tech raided an inactive BW nation:

a. Not the smartest thing to do although most alliances would agree "serious inactivity" is an acceptable reason for a tech raid. First mistake made in conflict.

2. Three nations then retaliated against the raiding nation.

a. Not an appropriate response given the inactivity of the raided nation. Second mistake made in conflict.

Everything else that happened following these two initial "mistakes" made by both sides is a result of failed diplomacy.

Diplomatic mistake upon diplomatic mistake has been heaped onto the situation making it the "War Of Failed Diplomacy". Both alliances should have recognized these initial mistakes, apologized for their mistake and rectified the situation before it got to this point.

Instead the decimation of many nations resulted.

Had diplomacy occurred, the correct diplomatic responses would have been the two great alliances simply admitting they had each made a mistake.

IMO

I agree whole heartedly with this! I have also tried many time through both sides to get this war peaced out.

I actually have no more energy to stop this, I feel my plead is falling on def ears and if they truly want to stop

one or the other sides will come to me and ask for help to end this. Both sides have asked for TPF to fight for them but never to fight for peace.

Both sides really have good guys, and many nations caught in a conflict that really has nothing to do with them other than being in that AA.

I guess time will tell if this will end well or other AA's join the fight.

BG.

[metal]

1. A NAAW nation tech raided an inactive BW nation:

a. Not the smartest thing to do although most alliances would agree "serious inactivity" is an acceptable reason for a tech raid. First mistake made in conflict.

2. Three nations then retaliated against the raiding nation.

a. Not an appropriate response given the inactivity of the raided nation. Second mistake made in conflict.

Everything else that happened following these two initial "mistakes" made by both sides is a result of failed diplomacy.

I get your point, but I don't see either of these two as mistakes (Shocker, I know! )

1) Raid away, you can do whatever you want to do.

2) Clear stated pre-set policy about that. We don't care how "inactive" you feel our member is. Raid = trouble for the raider. Period. Said it long before NAAW was around, dealt with several other alliances about it.

I think the "mistakes" come into more the REACTIONS of #1 and #2. How each was/wasn't handled. It really is OK to make mistakes, the important part is how you handle and atone for those mistakes.

[Latenighthobo]

What Metal said. Its rather pathetic that you still don't understand that a raid will be dealt with with retaliation.

[popsumpot]

This whole thread can be summarized into one tl:dr: "NO U!"

We've had these before, please keep them off the boards.

[George the Great]

Triple update attacking someone for a tech raid is a bit extreme, in my opinion, and I believe that's a huge part of why less and less people play every round. TE is a game where raiding is encouraged and far more commonplace than in CN:S, as such everyone is more open to it. It's just when a nation is obliterated in an update, in a game that only lasts for 3 months, because they did something that's fairly normal in gameplay. Odds are they're going to see no point in rebuilding their even tinier nation so it can be deleted soon thereafter, and be discouraged from the game at all. The 3 man update attack is a mini curb-stomp, and curb stomps shouldn't be happening in TE, imo. All these treaties are getting ridiculous as well. It seems as though this game is turning into CN:S, but with the twist of restarting every 3 months, that's not all that fun. Curb stomps and 3 nation update attacks should only be used for EXTREME circumstances, like when people are simply acting retarded, not for simple tech-raids and not just because you can.

If anything, give the tech-raiding alliance a warning by messaging a leader and having them mass PM their alliance not to raid your alliance or they'll be crushed from then on. After that you can at least say that they had been warned. Give them a chance, though. Just because you posted it on your own forum, or even on the OWF, doesn't mean everyone went and read it. When the retaliation that is going to be dished out is that extreme, you should let people know ahead of time because extreme retaliation can also start avoidable wars. Just because you don't think your policy is extreme does not mean every alliance will share your opinion.

TE should be more about fun, even wars where no one gets super pissed. Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.

Also, regarding treaties. Sign them if you mean it and don't be shocked when people honour them, that's what is supposed to happen.

As far as the name goes I still prefer "Well that escalated quickly."

Edited January 9, 2009 by George the Great

[metal]

Triple update attacking someone for a tech raid is a bit extreme, in my opinion, and I believe that's a huge part of why less and less people play every round. TE is a game where raiding is encouraged and far more commonplace than in CN:S, as such everyone is more open to it. It's just when a nation is obliterated in an update, in a game that only lasts for 3 months, because they did something that's fairly normal in gameplay. Odds are they're going to see no point in rebuilding their even tinier nation so it can be deleted soon thereafter, and be discouraged from the game at all. The 3 man update attack is a mini curb-stomp, and curb stomps shouldn't be happening in TE, imo. All these treaties are getting ridiculous as well. It seems as though this game is turning into CN:S, but with the twist of restarting every 3 months, that's not all that fun. Curb stomps and 3 nation update attacks should only be used for EXTREME circumstances, like when people are simply acting retarded, not for simple tech-raids and not just because you can.

If anything, give the tech-raiding alliance a warning by messaging a leader and having them mass PM their alliance not to raid your alliance or they'll be crushed from then on. After that you can at least say that they had been warned. Give them a chance, though. Just because you posted it on your own forum, or even on the OWF, doesn't mean everyone went and read it. When the retaliation that is going to be dished out is that extreme, you should let people know ahead of time because extreme retaliation can also start avoidable wars. Just because you don't think your policy is extreme does not mean every alliance will share your opinion.

TE should be more about fun, even wars where no one gets super pissed. Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.

Also, regarding treaties. Sign them if you mean it and don't be shocked when people honour them, that's what is supposed to happen.

As far as the name goes I still prefer "Well that escalated quickly."

Once again, I'll reply to this with intentions of it closing the matter.

Your entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours. I'm honestly not sure how extreme it is when its announced ahead of time, but it's OK if you feel that way. I'm sure there's probably something you do within your alliance that I disagree with as well. That's OK too. It's not Blackwater's job to ensure that more people play TE. We're a group of 30 or so individuals, and I find it mildly humorous that our policy has such an effect on the game that it is driving people from it. It is really, really easy to avoid our policy: don't raid us. Super easy.

The "warning" and the "chance" is a announced policy on the OWF. Since the beginning of time that's been the standard announcement place for such policies, that is all that has EVER been required to make something "official". We're not going door to door, or hold any hands, or teach a class. One universal announcement should do the trick, you guys are a smart bunch. PM a leader for each raid - great theory until you never get a return PM , and the guy just keeps pounding your guy. Sorry, not going to be our policy. If it's yours - more power to ya. Someone mentioned earlier to me about this being TE and we should "relax our standards". Well.. there ya go.

We've had a lot of fun this round so far. No lack there of here.

I think that answers what was directed in our direction, I hope you find them satisfactorily enough that we do not have to continue on the now non-issue.

[George the Great]

Once again, I'll reply to this with intentions of it closing the matter.

Your entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours. I'm honestly not sure how extreme it is when its announced ahead of time, but it's OK if you feel that way. I'm sure there's probably something you do within your alliance that I disagree with as well. That's OK too. It's not Blackwater's job to ensure that more people play TE. We're a group of 30 or so individuals, and I find it mildly humorous that our policy has such an effect on the game that it is driving people from it. It is really, really easy to avoid our policy: don't raid us. Super easy.

The "warning" and the "chance" is a announced policy on the OWF. Since the beginning of time that's been the standard announcement place for such policies, that is all that has EVER been required to make something "official". We're not going door to door, or hold any hands, or teach a class. One universal announcement should do the trick, you guys are a smart bunch. PM a leader for each raid - great theory until you never get a return PM , and the guy just keeps pounding your guy. Sorry, not going to be our policy. If it's yours - more power to ya. Someone mentioned earlier to me about this being TE and we should "relax our standards". Well.. there ya go.

We've had a lot of fun this round so far. No lack there of here.

I think that answers what was directed in our direction, I hope you find them satisfactorily enough that we do not have to continue on the now non-issue.

Not everything is about you guys, if you read my post I didn't say anything about BlackWater, I was speaking generally about alliances with those policies and you folks are certainly not the only ones. Actually, I addressed almost every point you brought up, did you read my post? I never said it was Blackwater's job to ensure people play TE, but when there is a large group of alliances with this same policy then it has a much larger effect. Blackwater alone won't do much harm to keeping players in the game, but many alliances with the same policies will. It's really, really easy to not even notice your policy either. Super easy.

The "warning" and the "chance" is easily missed on the OWF, and many players raid without checking the OWF for each and every alliance's policy, if they even pot them, first. I never said go door to door and hold hands, I said give a warning to the first person of an alliance that attacks you and then message their leader. Message the raider as well and tell them to peace out or face the consequences, if they attack again then go after them. If subsequent attacks occur after the alliance has been warned, then you can go ahead and crush the raiders if you feel like it because you can at least say that you've warned them. Keeping a record of messaged alliances should be too hard. Just because it's your very own policy does not mean it won't affect other alliances and policy interfere with their policies. Such a severe policy can have adverse effects and may piss people off. I'm just saying that if you're adamant on keeping such an extreme policy, you should simply be aware that it will most likely piss people off and may very well start wars. It started one between you and NAAW and almost started one between M*A*S*H and GREAT a month ago.

Nothing was directed straight at Blackwater, it was directed to all alliances that share the same policy... Just because you call something a non-issue doesn't mean it is. If you think taco is too spicy, or not spicy enough, then that doesn't mean it's the same for others. It's subjective, as is this entire issue.

Edited January 10, 2009 by George the Great

[Azhrarn]

Such a severe policy can have adverse effects and may piss people off. I'm just saying that if you're adamant on keeping such an extreme policy, you should simply be aware that it will most likely piss people off and may very well start wars.

How is it extreme to play the game the way Admin intended? This is a WAR game. Admin has an interest in promoting war, which is I assume the reason why he made it possible to gain tech during ground battles. Depending upon your skill, it either rewards you or at least compensates you for engaging in war. But this game is full of clowns who want the reward without the work or the risk.

There's no "tech raid" option in the game. If you want to raid someone, you have to go to war with them. Why do you think that screen comes up which asks, "Are you SURE you want to do this?" But you guys think you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can attack someone and then turn right around and say, "Yeah, I declared war on you. But I didn't really mean it and you shouldn't take it seriously."

Imo, that's pretty lame; and I can't believe that you expect individual nations or alliances to have to warn people that if you declare war on us, we're going to take it seriously and fight back. I also find it amusing that you would accuse someone who's already been attacked of starting a war.

How would you like it if I declared war on you, put you into Anarchy, and then sent you a peace offer saying, "This was just a training exercise, so don't get all bent out of shape about it."

You're entitled to play the game anyway you want. However, all of your rights come to a screeching halt at the boundaries of my nation, because I am in no way obligated to play this game according to YOUR beliefs. So while you yourself may only be interested in a tech raid, I'm much more interested in the war experience. So if you want to target me for a tech raid, that's fine, just so long as it's understood that by doing so you're agreeing to become my sparring partner.

[Burning Glory]

This whole thread can be summarized into one tl:dr: "NO U!"

We've had these before, please keep them off the boards.

LOL!! Yeah this was my other thought!

[metal]

Not everything is about you guys, if you read my post I didn't say anything about BlackWater, I was speaking generally about alliances with those policies and you folks are certainly not the only ones. Actually, I addressed almost every point you brought up, did you read my post? I never said it was Blackwater's job to ensure people play TE, but when there is a large group of alliances with this same policy then it has a much larger effect. Blackwater alone won't do much harm to keeping players in the game, but many alliances with the same policies will. It's really, really easy to not even notice your policy either. Super easy.

The "warning" and the "chance" is easily missed on the OWF, and many players raid without checking the OWF for each and every alliance's policy, if they even pot them, first. I never said go door to door and hold hands, I said give a warning to the first person of an alliance that attacks you and then message their leader. Message the raider as well and tell them to peace out or face the consequences, if they attack again then go after them. If subsequent attacks occur after the alliance has been warned, then you can go ahead and crush the raiders if you feel like it because you can at least say that you've warned them. Keeping a record of messaged alliances should be too hard. Just because it's your very own policy does not mean it won't affect other alliances and policy interfere with their policies. Such a severe policy can have adverse effects and may piss people off. I'm just saying that if you're adamant on keeping such an extreme policy, you should simply be aware that it will most likely piss people off and may very well start wars. It started one between you and NAAW and almost started one between M*A*S*H and GREAT a month ago.

Nothing was directed straight at Blackwater, it was directed to all alliances that share the same policy... Just because you call something a non-issue doesn't mean it is. If you think taco is too spicy, or not spicy enough, then that doesn't mean it's the same for others. It's subjective, as is this entire issue.

George,

You may not have specifically said Blackwater, but you were speaking in a topic referring to the two alliances, and commenting on a policy that one of those alliances uses. I was unaware that many other alliances shared our policy.

The war between us and NAAW wasn't started due to our policy. It may have escalated it, but it sure wasn't started. If they simply would have not invaded a nation flying the flag of an established AA, it wouldn't have happened. Even after that it could have been avoided, but none the less. The policy is a reaction to an event , thus it can't start anything.

I understand opinion on our policy is subjective. I don't seem to be the one having the problem with it. [OOC] It really is OK for people to like spicy tacos. Variety is the "spice of life" as they say, I'm not sure why that's a hard concept to grasp. [/OOC]. I'll make you a deal: If you get selected as the next Commander for Blackwater:TE , I'll let you adjust the policy as you see fit. Until that point: We like 'em hot.

Edited January 11, 2009 by metal

[Neo Uruk]

As for the title given to the war, it seems fitting. In fact, I've seen failed diplomacy on GREAT's part just recently. A sad fact, but there you have it. I'll own up to my alliance's mistakes here.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Rey the Great

[Tiberius C Nero]

I don't understand lol, Why all these huge walls O' Texts when a simple NO U! will suffice just fine?

[metal]

I don't understand lol, Why all these huge walls O' Texts when a simple NO U! will suffice just fine?

I think you have a point, my responses are not working, I'll try your method and see if that helps

Edited January 11, 2009 by metal

[Neo Uruk]

I think you have a point, my responses are not working, I'll try your method and see if that helps

But I was going to do that

[metal]

But I was going to do that

Possibly we could do it at the SAME time. It could either:

Solve all arguments in one smooth move.

OR

It could cause a rift in the space-time continuum.

[Tiberius C Nero]

Possibly we could do it at the SAME time. It could either:

Solve all arguments in one smooth move.

OR

It could cause a rift in the space-time continuum.

lol what could it hurt. Worse case scenario we cause a monumental paradox that destroys the universe. Nothing major

[Obiwan]

aren't most wars fought because of failed diplomacy? at least from the alliances that strive for peace anyway.

1) Raid away, you can do whatever you want to do.

2) Clear stated pre-set policy about that. We don't care how "inactive" you feel our member is. Raid = trouble for the raider. Period. Said it long before NAAW was around, dealt with several other alliances about it.

I think the "mistakes" come into more the REACTIONS of #1 and #2. How each was/wasn't handled. It really is OK to make mistakes, the important part is how you handle and atone for those mistakes.

QFT

[Margrave]

You are in CN:TE. Here, Diplomacy is a failure by the player to find the war-button.

Disgusting. We hope nothing but ill follows anyone attempting *Diplomacy* in the Tournament.