Color Sphere Unity: Why is political homogeneity so good?

[heggo]

It seems that a lot of weight is placed on political color sphere unity these days and, for the life of me, I can't quite understand why. Now, it's not that there's anything wrong, necessarily, with being friends with your trade partners – or with bringing your friends to your color sphere, for that matter. Indeed, if you happen to have a good number of allies on your color sphere, making a color sphere restricted pact with them makes sense for purposes of coordination. Rather, the part that I find to be so puzzling is the attitude of those folks who feel that unity is a must- that political homogeneity is something that ought to be brought to a sphere.

While not everyone likes to admit that color sphere unity is such a big deal to them (Do all those treaties really just happen to fall in place?) I think there are two pieces of evidence that illustrate the attitude well. The first point can be heard in the war stories of those folks who forged today's unity treaties: if one doesn't mind sitting and listening for a while, I've found that you'll often hear that these unity treaties were created only after a great deal of heated politiking, sometimes waiting on certain alliances to leave the sphere or die. For instance, I heard from Mr. Corey Faith that creating NOIR was a huge pain and took a lot of sweat and tears on the part of involved alliance diplomats. Given the great amount of effort put into creating color sphere unity pacts, it only follows that effort is also placed into maintaining them, so as to avoid repeating the original effort. In other words, at least some amount of pressure (no doubt, the amount is dependent on the specific sphere in question) is put on alliances to enter into sphere unity treaties, or at least to not come out entirely in opposition to the main unified group. It also follows that if great effort is put into creating sphere unity treaties (and at least some put into maintaining them) people must prize what they get out of them- they must prize political sphere unity.

The second point is that sphere unity seems to be the litmus test for sphere comparison. When folks start comparing spheres, the result often is a shout fest about who's the most unified, who's truly unified, etc. - recall the “this week in iFok” thread, where every interested sphere rep was yammering to Stickmen about how great and unified they are. These comparisons, no doubt, put a lot of pressure on a sphere to become unified, if only to win those arguments. And of course, it practically goes without saying that sphere unity would not be an important basis of comparison if it weren't highly valued by the people doing those comparisons.

But here's the thing: why is this political homogeneity so great? Why should it be used as a core test of comparison among spheres and why should people be pressured into promoting sphere unity?

Well I suppose the answer most folks give is that it somehow is necessary for promoting the health of that sphere- for making sure that it is big enough for people to get trades. The somehow is the sticking point. I see no reason to believe that political homogeneity would promote this any better than having political competition on a sphere.

Think of it in terms of diversification. If everyone on a sphere fights on the same side of a war, it's all bully if they win. If they win, the sphere wins. But suppose they lose. Then all alliances on the sphere would lose members and the sphere would suffer much more than if they weren't unified. If a sphere isn't homogeneous, on the other hand, then you are guaranteed that in the event of a major war, at least some alliances will win and some will lose. Because the sphere has diversified its alliance holdings between various political camps, the negative impact on the sphere will be balanced by the positive impact, insulating the sphere from war related decline. In finance terms, the sphere is hedged against major wars.

Ultimately, this strategy of diversify-and-compete represents a minimax strategy- a strategy in which the maximum possible loss is minimized. Mind you, game theory recommends taking minimax strategies in situations such as ours. (Or so my mathematicians tell me.)

I suppose the other issue folks bring up relates to who gets senate seats. I suppose if a sphere is all friendly and homogeneous, you're guaranteed to have access to the senate. In a world of competition - frightening thought, I know – you might not get a seat. But there's a hidden benefit here. If you had to seriously compete for a senate seat, get out the vote campaigns would have to be ramped up well beyond the somewhat half-hearted current attempts. Ramped up get out the vote campaigns are liable to better engage individual alliance members, perhaps politically engaging some members who otherwise wouldn't be. Perhaps the risk of one such gain is small, but the negative impact to not having a senate seat isn't especially large either. It's also worth noting that intra-sphere competition over senate seats and such things is liable to help prevent stagnancy and complacency – competition which could help to spur alliance growth (thus helping the sphere) and politically engage otherwise more isolated alliances.

Now, all this isn't to say that political sphere unity should be avoided, necessarily. I imagine cooperation could have some benefits as well. Rather, I believe that the takeaway should be that whether or not a sphere is unified shouldn't be a big deal - much less a serious basis of comparison between color spheres. That alliances shouldn't be pressured into conforming to sphere unity and that, similarly, an alliance shouldn't feel that it'd be sacrilege to come along and break it. Unless I've missed some core set of arguments for sphere unity, and if I have please share them, I don't see any especially good reasons for why color sphere unity ought to be valued so much.

Edited August 5, 2009 by heggo

[Krunk the Great]

tl;dr: lolcolortreaties???

sounds like a post I saw in our Forum once by OP

Also I think it adds a bit of spice.

Edited August 5, 2009 by krunkthegreat

[zigbigadorlou]

tl;dr, but I'll respond anyway.

color spheres give a group, sphere unity gives a goal, and treaties give us a means.

people need something to work for, and even if logically its really not important, it seems like a worthy goal (at least on paper) and is completely pursueable therefore its pursued.

if you don't go after your color sphere, where do you go? just get a dartboard with alliance names? nah.

[TehChron]

tl;dr, but I'll respond anyway.

color spheres give a group, sphere unity gives a goal, and treaties give us a means.

people need something to work for, and even if logically its really not important, it seems like a worthy goal (at least on paper) and is completely pursueable therefore its pursued.

if you don't go after your color sphere, where do you go? just get a dartboard with alliance names? nah.

Every once in awhile, you do make a worthwhile post.

Thing is, in my opinion, color spheres are the only basis for diplomatic entanglements outside of typical Treaty Web "Us Vs. Them" maneuverings, and protectorate treaties...Friendships arent really a motivation for treaties, more accurately, they are a codification of one.

Color spheres are, therefore, safe, and a reasonable excuse for diplomacy. Thats why theyre there, diplomats need something to do, with all that skill at obfuscation.

Edit: Used wrong spelling of "there", 2/3 chances of getting the wrong one are pretty good, you know.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Chron

[heggo]

To zigbig and those in that camp,

The "Because it's there" justification doesn't defend color sphere unity so much as color sphere related diplomacy in general. One could just as easily defend the diversification idea through that means. Specifically, that we ought to prize competition within a color sphere because it makes better use of it. Questions of who will be the victor of x color, heated senate races, etc. all could be made into interesting diplomatic events. More interesting than everyone seeking to maintain the appearance of color sphere unity, anyway.

[zigbigadorlou]

Every once in awhile, you do make a worthwhile post.

once in a while I decide to stop being zig and be my normal self.

don't worry, zig will be back tomorrow.

if you actually think people can manage an "us vs them" maneuver, either the people you've seen are a LOT more focused or you're living in a dream world. I have yet to see people have a legit goal let alone a means to get there.

[Tapout]

well said

[Tomcat]

Color sphere unity is good because color sphere disunity can much more easily lead to sanction wars which are generally a bad thing.

[TehChron]

once in a while I decide to stop being zig and be my normal self.

don't worry, zig will be back tomorrow.

if you actually think people can manage an "us vs them" maneuver, either the people you've seen are a LOT more focused or you're living in a dream world. I have yet to see people have a legit goal let alone a means to get there.

'Twas a list of motivations, my good non-zig, not actual speculation. Obfuscation, however, is something that is carried out nonetheless.

The "Because it's there" justification doesn't defend color sphere unity so much as color sphere related diplomacy in general

Diplomacy serves a purpose. Unity is something diplomacy can works towards, whereas destabilization is not reliant so much on diplomacy, but creativity. Not mutually exclusive, mind you, but as far as results go, there are only so many things to be done diplomatically in this day and age.

One could just as easily defend the diversification idea through that means.

If you can, feel free to do so, but that doesnt really address the point I was making, which I reiterated earlier in this very post.

[Haflinger]

As a gov member in one of the more strongly treatied spheres, I'd have to say that it really depends on the sphere history.

Team senate conflicts, trade embargos, and the like existed before we moved towards bloc unity.

Overall I'd say the current situation is a whole lot better.

[anenu]

because having your colormates allied to you means that trades won't be broken during a war and you get a senate seat to sanction rogues and such. While a diverse color sphere that has alliance on all ends of the political spectrum means that during war time unless their is some unity already you will inevitably have alliances on the same color fighting and as such after the war hostilities will remain between the alliances that will cut down on the number of potential trading partners to do to unwillingness to trade with a former enemy and may even lead to alliances leaving the color due to the fact that they decide they cannot remain on a color that they have no power in meaning that the color overall is reduced in size and strength.

TL;DR Conflicts in a color make alliances leave to a friendlier area instead of staying in an area were they have little influence.

[heggo]

if you actually think people can manage an "us vs them" maneuver, either the people you've seen are a LOT more focused or you're living in a dream world. I have yet to see people have a legit goal let alone a means to get there.

I guess us versus them is basically what I would hope for a sphere. I don't think that that's necessarily all that unreasonable, but perhaps I am too optimistic.

Diplomacy serves a purpose. Unity is something diplomacy can works towards, whereas destabilization is not reliant so much on diplomacy, but creativity. Not mutually exclusive, mind you, but as far as results go, there are only so many things to be done diplomatically in this day and age.

Well I think my prior response rather assumed this concept as a subset of it. To address it more specifically, however, I'd say that the problem is that you're thinking more about the process of "destabilizing" a sphere, rather than the matter of managing a "destabilized" sphere. If there's an antagonistic relationship between parties on a sphere, I'd think that the diplomacy of maneuvering within a politically very heterogeneous sphere would be far more difficult and engaging than the diplomacy of maintaining sphere unity. Just as an example, if diplomats had to run around and put lots of effort into courting even smaller alliances on a sphere in the name of getting their senate votes for their faction, I think we'd see diplomats with a larger and far more interesting work load. And I think that microalliances would get to see a lot more diplomatic play that way too.

As for the matter of sanction wars, I don't think that that'd be very practical. (If each faction gets but one senator in, it'd be fairly difficult for any real sanction war to develop. Plus, the number of sanctions are limited. Also, the specter of having one faction ditch the other for trades doesn't seem all that bad to me. The negative impact on each alliance would be roughly equal, and thus not especially advantageous for one group or the other, and beyond that I think that embargoes would make for an interesting form of conflict. Sort of a way of putting one alliances organizational systems for trade against the other's system.

Even given all that, a lack of political sphere unity doesn't preclude a code of conduct for conflict on the sphere - [ooc] a Geneva Convention of Sorts [/ooc] - that could help to limit some of the more nasty impacts of a total war waged with senators and trades.

Edited August 5, 2009 by heggo

[Lord Brendan]

I think Green is the perfect example here. They used to be the largest, didn't they? Now they're #7. Disunity of a sphere over a long period of time is uninviting to new alliances and can drive older alliances away. Green didn't really shrink that much in terms of alliances (were there ever more than 3-4 significant alliances on green?), it just didn't grow along with the other large spheres. Why would anyone want to form their alliance on a disunified sphere when they could pick a more stable, friendly sphere?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[Sal Paradise]

Too few examples for a topic rich with them. Case not made.

[heggo]

I think Green is the perfect example here. They used to be the largest, didn't they? Now they're #7. Disunity of a sphere over a long period of time is uninviting to new alliances and can drive older alliances away. Green didn't really shrink that much in terms of alliances (were there ever more than 3-4 significant alliances on green?), it just didn't grow along with the other large spheres. Why would anyone want to form their alliance on a disunified sphere when they could pick a more stable, friendly sphere?

I'm not so sure that the "it appears uninviting" class of problems really highlights any intrinsic problem with conflict on a sphere, so much as a problem that results from a poor perception of it. If people didn't mind vibrant competition on a sphere, then the sphere wouldn't necessarily shrink because of it. For instance, if it lacked the (in my opinion arbitrary) stigma, I think alliances might even be attracted to starting up on the sphere in order to get in on the more active political scene. If you were starting up a micro alliance, for instance, you could choose between starting up on a sphere where you'll be just welcomed into a sphere unity treaty, or you can join a sphere where sides will be vying for the extra votes you'd be able to give their faction. The latter seems more vibrant, in many ways.

[Delta1212]

Just look at the impact BLEU had on the Blue sphere. It's still one of the largest teams in the game. Color unity attracts new alliances because it gives them a political framework to build their foreign policy from without having to worry about figuring out overly complicated politics right off the bat. More alliances translates into more nations and more trades.

Edit:

I'm not so sure that the "it appears uninviting" class of problems really highlights any intrinsic problem with conflict on a sphere, so much as a problem that results from a poor perception of it. If people didn't mind vibrant competition on a sphere, then the sphere wouldn't necessarily shrink because of it. For instance, if it lacked the (in my opinion arbitrary) stigma, I think alliances might even be attracted to starting up on the sphere in order to get in on the more active political scene. If you were starting up a micro alliance, for instance, you could choose between starting up on a sphere where you'll be just welcomed into a sphere unity treaty, or you can join a sphere where sides will be vying for the extra votes you'd be able to give their faction. The latter seems more vibrant, in many ways.

Disunity on Green lead directly to several Green alliances disbanding and Grämlins abandoning the sphere altogether. How is this healthy?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Delta1212

[anenu]

I'm not so sure that the "it appears uninviting" class of problems really highlights any intrinsic problem with conflict on a sphere, so much as a problem that results from a poor perception of it. If people didn't mind vibrant competition on a sphere, then the sphere wouldn't necessarily shrink because of it. For instance, if it lacked the (in my opinion arbitrary) stigma, I think alliances might even be attracted to starting up on the sphere in order to get in on the more active political scene. If you were starting up a micro alliance, for instance, you could choose between starting up on a sphere where you'll be just welcomed into a sphere unity treaty, or you can join a sphere where sides will be vying for the extra votes you'd be able to give their faction. The latter seems more vibrant, in many ways.

The problem with a conflicted color sphere is that while it may have more people than a harmonized color sphere less of those people would be willing to trade with you based on you political location and the fact that at some point in the future you may be at war. And since all a color is basically is a trade bonus and a senator why would you choose to be on a color were you have to fight to have one and have to selectively choose the other when you could choose a color where you have both?

[heggo]

Just look at the impact BLEU had on the Blue sphere. It's still one of the largest teams in the game. Color unity attracts new alliances because it gives them a political framework to build their foreign policy from without having to worry about figuring out overly complicated politics right off the bat. More alliances translates into more nations and more trades.

Edit: Disunity on Green lead directly to several Green alliances disbanding and Grämlins abandoning the sphere altogether. How is this healthy?

Well with regards to BLEU, I think that could be a double edged sword. While I agree with you that one of the benefits of sphere unity is that it can simplify the political process for new alliances by removing the color sphere factor, I think that color sphere competition represents a different political starting point- not necessarily an inferior one. For a smaller alliance that wants to jump right in, it would easily give them a network of allies that they can join up with right away. Or, if they don't want to support one side or the other, it would put them into an inviting framework- inviting because both sides would have a strong incentive to be nice to them, in hopes of them joining their faction at some point. Finally, color sphere competition represents a playing field that's more level for smaller alliances- it'd be much harder for a smaller alliance to be relevant globally than in an intra-sphere senate competition. While it is plausible that some alliances could be driven out of the sphere, I think it is also plausible that alliances would be pulled in by various factions in order to give them a boost in, say, the senate races.

As for the bit about green, I think that's an effect, not a cause, of the stigma around sphere disunity. Perhaps my understanding of those events is skewed (after all, I didn't get to see Gremlins' internal talks on the matter) but it seems that the events with Gre specifically, and to a lesser degree the others, was a question more of wishing to avoid intra-sphere politics. If they were willing to embrace it and engage in it, the sharp contraction of Green wouldn't necessarily have occurred.

[Heft]

Political homogeneity isn't a necessary or even particularly desirable objective for a sphere, but economic cooperation and a general mutual commitment to refrain conflict within the sphere or spoiling the watering hole everyone has to drink from is desirable. Those spheres which are relatively strong are those with open economic systems and where the alliances on them do not have to be concerned with inter-sphere conflict (leading to sanction wars, people getting kicked off the sphere, unstable trades, fighting over the Senate or sphere dominance or whatever). Most of the largest spheres are too large to support political homogeneity and are successful because they don't try to.

[heggo]

The problem with a conflicted color sphere is that while it may have more people than a harmonized color sphere less of those people would be willing to trade with you based on you political location and the fact that at some point in the future you may be at war. And since all a color is basically is a trade bonus and a senator why would you choose to be on a color were you have to fight to have one and have to selectively choose the other when you could choose a color where you have both?

I don't think that competition on a sphere necessarily would result in that sort of situation. It could - and I think that would make for one very interesting political situation, being that it would require a great deal of engagement on the part of average alliance members - but I don't think it is a necessary or highly likely outcome, for a few reasons. Specifically, because:

A. It would require a great deal of organization and engagement on the part of the average member of each political faction.

B. There would be little incentive to do so- restricting trade would harm both parties about equally, as trade in cybernations rarely favors one party over the other. (Unless one faction happens to just have terrible resources compared to the other.) and

C. Competition doesn't necessarily preclude a treaty that defines limits to it. Economic cooperation is a basic necessity for both sides, and an uneasy form of economic cooperation, or non-aggression rather, can be had between two parties who are otherwise antagonistic.

That said, the benefit of sphere competition comparative to sphere unity would be one of preference essentially. If you're interesting in that sort of competition, then you could go for it. It represents an option that really isn't available, currently.

Edited August 5, 2009 by heggo

[anenu]

I don't think that competition on a sphere necessarily would result in that sort of situation. It could - and I think that would make for one very interesting political situation, being that it would require a great deal of engagement on the part of average alliance members - but I don't think it is a necessary or highly likely outcome, for a few reasons. Specifically, because:

A. It would require a great deal of organization and engagement on the part of the average member of each political faction.

B. There would be little incentive to do so- restricting trade would harm both parties about equally, as trade in cybernations rarely favors one party over the other. (Unless one faction happens to just have terrible resources compared to the other.) and

C. Competition doesn't necessarily preclude a treaty that defines limits to it. Economic cooperation is a basic necessity for both sides, and an uneasy form of economic cooperation, or non-aggression rather, can be had between two parties who are otherwise antagonistic.

That said, the benefit of sphere competition comparative to sphere unity would be one of preference essentially. If you're interesting in that sort of competition, then you could go for it. It represents an option that really isn't available, currently.

Think of it like this Color 1 has 3 major alliances on it alliance A, B, and C all 3 colors belong in different political spheres recently alliance A and B fought a war were B lost and had to pay reparations to A now at this point i doubt think many alliances from B are going to be looking to trade with A because their is still hostilities between them and as such B will only trade with C and A can only trade with C but C can't create trade circles with both A and B. However had A, B, and C all been at least partially united by their color then A and B wouldn't have fought and while their may still be some hostilities trade would be much more likely to happen between them and as such all 3 alliances benifit.

(A, B, and C may represent multiple treatied alliances or individual large alliance or even medium sized alliances with several treaty partners)

[Steelrat]

A friendly and huge color sphere = economic advantage, leads to military advantage.

Trades are economic wise the most important aspect in this game for any nation regardless their size. The option to find the perfect trade set for your nation is a huge advantage, it´s just that simple on a huge sphere you have more possible partners, easier finding trades.

With the optimal trade set a young nation grows faster and an old one earns millions more cash per day.

Protecting the wealth of the sphere your alliance resides in is the best legit reason to go to war ever and it´s weird that this aspect of CN is so less used. I can´t remember any bigger war that emerged from that kind of situation.

From a pure logical point of view, alliances that are very close or in a bloc should be per definition on the same color as it makes the most sense. The reality is quite different because of the hegemonial aspect which influences the political and emotional one a lot in addtion people are lazy, selfish and creatures of habit like "Nah, i don´t want to move color because then i need to find new trades that´s annoying"

Although the hegemony over a color is by far overrated many alliances still think that way, it´s really weird that hegemony over a color and senator seats are so important to many. I guess it´s a projection of power they like to have. On the other hand colors are mini CN universes and i guess "ruling" your own little universe if you aren´t a power in the big one is somewhat satisfying.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Steelrat

[Francesca]

I think it's really difficult to talk about the benefits of colour unity in general, it really comes down to benefits for specific spheres. For example, on the red sphere, I think red unity is really important as it is a positive step for the New Pacific Order away from the old ways of the past and towards a reformed future, away from the Moldavi Doctrine. Red unity is therefore a tool to help Pacifica change and provide a symbol that they are changing, rather than just a scrap of paper relating to trades etc etc.

[Bob Janova]

Most of the long OP was wasted because it's all based on a misconception – that colour unity means political homogeneity. It doesn't. It means being happy to live with those different to you, to work with them on common interests and not to poison relations and economies by fighting all the time. The oldest and best example is Orange and the OUT, the alliances of which have often fought on opposite sides and which have fundamentally different approaches to the world, and yet they can work together for the good of their economies, and so Orange is a great success. The same is true in Aqua and Purple today, and in Green in the GW2-3 era (the UJA was a step back in the right direction after a terrible year there).

A sphere can be 'united' by direct force (Red) or strong politics (Blue), but this isn't usually the case, and even BLEU worked with non-allies (through the BLEU Economic Treaty, which entrenched the BLEU-controlled Senate) to keep a stable colour.

[zigbigadorlou]

I think it's really difficult to talk about the benefits of colour unity in general, it really comes down to benefits for specific spheres. For example, on the red sphere, I think red unity is really important as it is a positive step for the New Pacific Order away from the old ways of the past and towards a reformed future, away from the Moldavi Doctrine. Red unity is therefore a tool to help Pacifica change and provide a symbol that they are changing, rather than just a scrap of paper relating to trades etc etc.

The moldavi doctrine was perfection when it comes to sphere unity. Point falls.