Is "friendship" really a great basis for treaties and politics?

[Azaghul]

As someone who is gonna be gone soon, I figured I'm free of the IC constraints that would shackle an effort of an active player to bring it up. This isn't gonna be an extremely coherent post, as I have no concrete position on this, this is as much me just thinking out loud and asking questions as anything. But it has been something that's been bothering me and so I offer this all as food for thought.

Should a form of hybrid IC/OOC friendship really be such a huge deal in the game? That seems to be all the rage, since the noCB war really with the whole "friends > infra" thing. Everyone justifies their actions by talking about "standing up for their friends". Everyone likes to play themselves off as relatively pacifistic, content to chill and be good friends with their allies. Because hey, how can you condemn people who just want to stick around and have good friends, whom they protect and nurture? It's become a cliche. And in my opinion, an over-used cliche.

Does the idea that a game should revolve around everyone feeling morally righteous about defending their internet friends seem kind of retarded? Because it does to me.

Really most people who play CN are pretty cool. There are few people that I couldn't chat with in a friendly manner if we are inclined to do so, since most people are cool OOC. And the same is true of most people in CN. Most people can talk to most other people and have a decently good time. It's possible to be friendly with most anyone, to the extent that by general CN standards today would warrant a treaty.

That's not to say there aren't other factors, most alliances have their own styles, and combined with general history and bad blood, that creates some incompatibility. But not nearly enough.

I'll take my experience in MK for example. Nearly all of MK's treaties (and this is the big reason MK has a lot of treaties) outside of upgraded protectorates developed in a manner something like this, at least post-CB:

- Alliance X decides that they like MK and want (or at least wants to explore) a treaty with them.

- Alliance X sends over a few diplomats and/or gov members to "build relations", in general that just means hanging out, acting cool, answering questions etc. Anywhere from 2-3 to 5-10.

- Over time, per the rule above where most people can get along well, they get along well with MK members in at least an OOC way

- Alliance X proposes some level of treaty to reflect the familiarity (described as a "relationship") built by those communications.

- Unless we just have some predisposed reason to dislike them, either from history or just that we don't like their style, MK goes along with the treaty. Because hey, who wants to deny decent people who make a solid effort with us? It's hard to not like people when they make an effort to make them like you. Sometimes we have a predisposed reason to like them that works in their favor to make it easier (like NpO/Umbrella/Gremlins).

- MK sends over some diplomats over to them to feel like they are filling their side of the bargain somewhere during this bargain

- There's enough interaction and familiarity and friendship that MK feels like a treaty is justified.

- Voila, treaty. Sometimes it starts at just a low level treaty, because MK doesn't want to feel like it is "rushing things". But eventually the result is still the same: an MDoAP

It probably follows a similar pattern for most treaties in other alliances. MK just happens/happened to have a lot of people that wanted to have one with them and were willing to put in a strong effort to make it happen, so it has a lot of treaties, and didn't have to seek any out after noCB. Of course some people are better at it than others, some diplomats better than others. Some alliances just had things going against them. Feelings were predisposed towards NPO so much that they couldn't have gotten a treaty no matter how friendly/familiar their diplomats were (and it didn't help that they put the cart before the horse and offered a treaty and then tried to build up familiarity/"friendship"). Echelon failed despite making a strong push after noCB, because many MK members didn't like Echelon's history.

Is "friendship" of that nature really meaningful though? In general it is founded on the general membership of each alliance being familiar with anywhere from 1 to 10 or so members of the other alliance who make the effort to be a liaison, and certain gov members talking a lot? The fundamental problem, and I'd say the problem with the whole system, is that it's not to hard to build up that "friendship" with most in the game if at least one side wants to make it happen. It becomes a matter of just procedure, almost a sort of formality, and in the end a cliche.

I realize MK started the whole "friends > infra thing", so I want to defend our actions there a bit (my loyalties die hard), and to get to my next point. What MK did in that war wasn't really cool because it was so wonderful and moral that we defended our allies. It was because cowardice, survivalists, and people who just take a beating are even more lame, and that had come to dominate the game. We had a cool attitude about the whole thing, our propaganda was great, we fought well, and we proudly yelled FU at CN convention by gleefully first strike nuking and taking the fight to our opponents.

So what should treaties and politics be based on? I honestly have no answer. I just feel like the current language of "defending your friends" is shallow and ultimately meaningless. Not that anything in a game like this isn't going to generally be shallow and meaningless, there's not a lot to really fight over in a game like this, or to base ideologies around, it all has to be contrived. In some ways I just don't like the "defending your friends" meme because it has an OOC tone to it that is stupid to mix into a game like this. If the culture could somehow move past it's fixation on it, it might help create a way to break the generally stale nature of the games politics.

Thoughts?

Edited December 11, 2009 by Azaghul

[Tygaland]

I guess it depends on whether you consider "friendship" struck up in-game as an OOC concept. I don't doubt that some treaties are signed due to OOC friendships but I'm assuming that to be a small minority of cases.

"Friends > Infra" was more directed towards valuing friendships between alliances being placed above the losses going to war to defend that alliance may bring rather than individual OOC friendships.

At least, as far as I'm concerned it is. I may be in the minority but I keep my OOC to myself as much as humanly possible and do not let it influence any decisions I make in this game.

[Tromp]

Of course treaties are built on friendship, and to my knowledge it has always been like so, but by no means is that the only thing they're based on.

Alliances always have ulterior motives, and that is what makes this world so !@#$ty. When you sign tons of treaties you just can't uphold them all when war happens, and thus are treaties not special nowadays anymore. It's simply another piece of paper.

It is very hard to untangle that treaty web as it is now. What people should do is cancel conflicting treaties... The problem with that is when you're the only one doing it you'll make your position weaker and this is what keeps people from doing it.

[Azaghul]

I guess it depends on whether you consider "friendship" struck up in-game as an OOC concept. I don't doubt that some treaties are signed due to OOC friendships but I'm assuming that to be a small minority of cases.

"Friends > Infra" was more directed towards valuing friendships between alliances being placed above the losses going to war to defend that alliance may bring rather than individual OOC friendships.

At least, as far as I'm concerned it is. I may be in the minority but I keep my OOC to myself as much as humanly possible and do not let it influence any decisions I make in this game.

What is in-game friendship based on though? It seems completely contrived and would be utterly arbitrary except that it is based these days on an OOC familiarity and ability to enjoy talking with someone.

[Azaghul]

Of course treaties are built on friendship, and to my knowledge it has always been like so, but by no means is that the only thing they're based on.

Alliances always have ulterior motives, and that is what makes this world so !@#$ty. When you sign tons of treaties you just can't uphold them all when war happens, and thus are treaties not special nowadays anymore. It's simply another piece of paper.

It is very hard to untangle that treaty web as it is now. What people should do is cancel conflicting treaties... The problem with that is when you're the only one doing it you'll make your position weaker and this is what keeps people from doing it.

Yes but I think there's also an OOC friendship element involved, and that muddles things up a lot.

Let's take MK as an example again. It's horribly split. Many of it's treaties are with Citadel and close associates, many with Frostbite and associates, and other treaties by C&G members just muddle it up even more. It's not just as you say, the problem of making one's position weaker. I know there would be strong resistance within MK to canceling any of those treaties because there's a genuine affection for each of the treaty partners involved. If they did cancel the treaties, there would be a lot of hurt feelings involved, and a huge backlash against MK for being "fair weather friends". It would make them a pariah for going against the cliches about friendships.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Azaghul

[Tygaland]

What is in-game friendship based on though? It seems completely contrived and would be utterly arbitrary except that it is based these days on an OOC familiarity and ability to enjoy talking with someone.

Well, as far as alliances are concerned a shared view on the how the "world" should be or even some sort of shared history or ethics. I don't really have a great OOC familiarity with a majority of my current allies. On occasions I do speak with them on IRC or similar it is always a friendly interaction but these interactions are by no means the reason for the treaty.

To use STA as an example, our first treaty was with the NpO an alliance I shared a history with.

We later signed the United White treaty with alliances we barely knew but shared the white team as a home. We all agreed that respect and cooperation were vital to the new team growing. That is, a shared view on how the team should be.

We had a PIAT with Legion that was signed out of mutual respect for what our alliances wished the world to be. I did not know anyone on an OOC level in Legion.

Our treaty with DNA was signed because of the mutual respect gained over dealing with a rogue issue. We had a similar set of ethics, if you will.

I could go on, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a treaty the STA signed due to an OOC familiarity or friendship.

I'm not meaning to be argumentative here, I acknowledge that some alliances do base their treaties on OOC freindships and have seen it. I just don't think it is a major driving factor across the game. I may well be wrong, in which case I agree with what you are saying.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Tygaland

[Azaghul]

Well, as far as alliances are concerned a shared view on the how the "world" should be or even some sort of shared history or ethics. I don't really have a great OOC familiarity with a majority of my current allies. On occasions I do speak with them on IRC or similar it is always a friendly interaction but these interactions are by no means the reason for the treaty.

To use STA as an example, our first treaty was with the NpO an alliance I shared a history with.

We later signed the United White treaty with alliances we barely knew but shared the white team as a home. We all agreed that respect and cooperation were vital to the new team growing. That is, a shared view on how the team should be.

We had a PIAT with Legion that was signed out of mutual respect for what our alliances wished the world to be. I did not know anyone on an OOC level in Legion.

Our treaty with DNA was signed because of the mutual respect gained over dealing with a rogue issue. We had a similar set of ethics, if you will.

I could go on, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a treaty the STA signed due to an OOC familiarity or friendship.

It sounds like it's not really IC "friendship" either, just compatibility and strategy. I don't say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm not meaning to be argumentative here, I acknowledge that some alliances do base their treaties on OOC freindships and have seen it. I just don't think it is a major driving factor across the game. I may well be wrong, in which case I agree with what you are saying.

I'm not arguing either, I'm as much just letting my mind wander and playing devils advocate when I can as trying to convince anyone of anything.

[Tygaland]

It sounds like it's not really IC "friendship" either, just compatibility and strategy. I don't say that like it's a bad thing.

Depends where you draw the line I guess. To me, tactics are IC as they are part of the game even if outside the basic gamepley of Cybernations. I see the forum and even some IRC interactions as IC when they relate to the game. But, as has been the case since almost day one in Cybernations, the IC/OOC line is at best blurred and at worst frequently moved depending on the situation.

I'm not arguing either, I'm as much just letting my mind wander and playing devils advocate when I can as trying to convince anyone of anything.

I know, I was just clarifying that my argument is not with what you said but more that I disagree OOC familiarity is a driving force when it comes to treaties. If OOC familiarity is the main reason treaties are signed across the game then I agree with you, it is a stupid reason to sign treaties.

[Azaghul]

Another thought: there's a big emphasis in the game on morality and ethics. It's a tool adversaries use to beat each other with, and talking about friendship and "breaking friendships" in particular is an easy subject to create ethical standards on that you can use to attack your adversaries. That's one reason we hear about it so much.

[Goose]

Hmmm. There usually is a good portion of OOC friendship involved in treaties. This comes at least in the members that have gotten to know each other meshing well with their personalities and outlook on life. Because, face it, if you can't stand to talk to someone OOC, you sure as heck aren't going to sign a treaty with them.

The flip side of the coin is IC reasoning for treaties. Sharing a color sphere, having a similar outlook on CN, an alliance's past actions, and strategic defense fall into this area.

There's a sliding scale between IC and OOC reasoning for treaties. Some have completely ignored the IC aspect and simply sign with people because they like them in an OOC manner. Others have ignored the OOC and simply signed for strategic purposes. Where the perfect mix stands, I don't know. I suppose that purely IC reasons would be more acceptable than OOC reasons, but it still leaves a very weak foundation for the treaty if you aren't really friends with the people that you have signed a treaty with.

[Tromp]

As for your point about OOC friendship, Azaghul, I don't think you're right.

At least we at FOK don't sign treaties for OOC reasons, so it could also be me ofcourse.

It would make them a pariah for going against the cliches about friendships.

I don't believe so. In fact I think that's the best thing an alliance can do during peace time. I'd support it if they think there's no basis for the treaty anymore that MK cancels a treaty. This goes for all of the alliances around btw.

Alliances should pick a clear side, and refuse to sign treaties that might cause split interests in the future.

[Tromp]

Hmmm. There usually is a good portion of OOC friendship involved in treaties. This comes at least in the members that have gotten to know each other meshing well with their personalities and outlook on life. Because, face it, if you can't stand to talk to someone OOC, you sure as heck aren't going to sign a treaty with them.

Good point, and I agree with you here.

But I do not think it goes the other way around. A treaty is too valuable (to me) for it to be based on OOC reasons only.

[Cyphon88]

It would seem to me on the outside, another reason is that MK has so many treaties is that it has an active IRC presense and therefore knows more people. Smaller alliances with less IRC presense, TTK for an example, has a smaller group of allies that it feels strongly about mainly because it can't interact with everyone. The large group of interactive people at MK makes that a different scenario

Also OoC/IC will always be blurred, but I think because alot of people base their friendships on some level of stratergy (ie sphere, allies of allies) there is some further choice on the baseline of cool people around CN. That said if you actually talk to people, alot will just disagree on key issues of life that people talk on, thats the way things are, and effects the extent of friendships that are made. So I think there are some constraining factors in that area, in 'strategic friendships' and how much, about what you talk to people on IRC. Plus contact will shift down and up depending on various things which will alter these relationships (including strategic perception). OoC becomes a little more complicated when, as I believe IC/OoC is strongly meshed, at least for me it is.

I think that's why in some respect if you can delink the two, you have a slighted added advantage within certain areas. Tech raiding is the counter example here; OoC its bullying, IC its sound tactics. I see this as both, but completely favour OoC on this factor. What annoys me, is people who piddle around in the middle with qualifiers for tech raiding, ie saying Knights of Ni raid was wrong for having more than the arbitary number of 10 members. The same rationale would espouse a raid on TDO, GPA ect which if you had the power to pull it off, IC would be a good move. But because of the OoC/IC blurs you get people condemning this as wrong, which creates another limiting factor on actions for those who step out of OoC (I'm assuming a rough similar approximation of OoC values here).

In essense, what I'm saying is that all decisions will be taken on an OoC basis, even if done by a completely IC decision making process, as others perceptions will constrain your actions unless your IC strength is so high, no one will touch you.

It's one of the paradoxes of CN, the grey areas that makes it so interesting.

[HellAngel]

Friendship is the only thing worth a damn in this game, I'd rather get rid of treaties altogether and make it a "stand with your friends" thing.

[raasaa]

Its is a mix of both....Strategic importance as well as OOC friendships...

Alliance A meets alliance B ---> go out on a few dates get to know each other ---> after sometime one of them proposes a wedlock (treaty) ---> happily married life ---> !@#$ happens, divorce.

I guess that is how most treaties are signed....

Nueva Vida has got a mix of both....

Nueva Vida joining BLEU. We had a few friends but were not familiar with all the alliances in BLEU. Gave us a sense of team unity, protection cos there were some powerful players in there and good economics. BLEU was more strategic....rather than being based on friendship. The friendship factor came afterwards.

Nueva Vida joining AZTEC. We met GLOF when they were 1 nation strong with 100 NS. Protected them, helped them grow, over a period of time we realized that we get along very well. We signed a MADP when GLOF had 500k NS. No strategic importance....just based on friendship.

Initally, treaties maybe signed on the basis of purely friendship....but as time goes by, the strategic IC factor definitely plays a role. For example, if NV were to sign a MDoAP with NPO tomorrow....i am sure that most of our current allies will get pissed and might even end up canceling on us...

[Haflinger]

We sign treaties because of the IC policy positions that our allies take primarily.

There definitely have been OOC friendships set up between Invicta government members and some of our allies. But I have OOC friends in the game that we've never been allied to; actually out of the three CN players I game with IRL, only one is in a current Invicta treaty partner, and it's not a binding military treaty.

[Corinan]

You're leaving the game and only now do you post something that I agree with. Good post. You don't necessarily have to be friends with someone to be their ally. People often seem to forget this.

[Kindom of Goon]

Like with most things you have to have a balance of everything.

A treaty based solely on friendship or political motivations will most likely end up being complicated. You need a balance, sometimes leaning slightly more towards political motivations if say they're on the same team colour or group/side.

I think a bigger problem than treaties based on friendship is treaties based on almost nothing. I reckon most alliances out there have a hard time just saying no to a treaty and end up signing with someone who they don't really talk to all that much, don't have a history with, are not really compatible with and without any political advantage coming from the treaty either.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[Mayzie]

Alliance A meets alliance B ---> go out on a few dates get to know each other ---> after sometime one of them proposes a wedlock (treaty) ---> happily married life ---> !@#$ happens, divorce.

It was a strange affair, you took me out on a few dates, then Magicalbricks did, then MB proposed to me (or was it the other way around?), then he left and now apparently I'm Nelchael's !@#$%*.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Quite really, it is only natural to try to claim the moral high ground and defend good values, at least officially. That's part of the propaganda, just like it is in real life. Here, key elements, in times of war, are: are you seen as the aggressor AND is it seen as a move dictated by realpolitik. These days, those two points are not welcome at all. Yes, "defending friends" is all the rage since the noCB War, that's part of MK's very successful propaganda campaign and the heritage it has left us. Doesn't mean it's not true in some cases, on an IC basis.

Still, as long as role-playing will be so limited, IC friendship will have a lot to do with what you described in your first post: sending a few people, acting cool, hanging around, answering a few questions, etc. Considering most alliances don't really have a theme (or don't do anything with it, besides cleverly named titles or treaties with puns), I'm not too sure what else is there to find. You would need more people really role-playing to find meaningful IC friendships.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Hasin]

The issue is every alliance wants different sides, so cancelling becomes very complicated. For instance the people MK want on it's side may be different from the people Athens want on it's side. Thus how do you even decide which friends to cancel on?

[Captain Flinders]

Friendship is the only thing worth a damn in this game, I'd rather get rid of treaties altogether and make it a "stand with your friends" thing.

Ugh, we have enough debates over treaties that are largely straightforward. Can you imagine the discourse that would ensue when a besieged party would be outlining why you should have defended them as their friend? "We clearly spoke on occasions x,y, and z and these were no ordinary shooting the !@#$ conversations. Oh no, these conversations clearly indicate a budding friendship or at very least an interest in furthering a friendly relationship and doesn't that equate to at least some information sharing if not financial support post war?"

I think I just made myself sick.

[SpacingOutMan]

Ugh, we have enough debates over treaties that are largely straightforward. Can you imagine the discourse that would ensue when a besieged party would be outlining why you should have defended them as their friend? "We clearly spoke on occasions x,y, and z and these were no ordinary shooting the !@#$ conversations. Oh no, these conversations clearly indicate a budding friendship or at very least an interest in furthering a friendly relationship and doesn't that equate to at least some information sharing if not financial support post war?"

Um, how do you think parties join in on curb stomps who have no treaty obligation whatsoever? This already happens, so really, there would be no difference. Honestly, if one of my close friends' alliance was attacked, I'd hope my alliance would follow suit and defend them and if not, I'd promptly enter the fray until I could rejoin my alliance sometime later down the road.

Treaties equaling friendship? What an absolute sham. This seldom happens. Usually it's one of two things: 1). the treaty is made because of a select friendship between only a handful of people or 2). the treaty is made to cover one's $@! should war arise. I will point immediately at what the Continuum was. If they were truly all really close, it wouldn't have dissolved. The same could be said for most blocs and treaties that were peculiarly signed. That isn't to say that all treaties aren't between friends because that isn't the case either. I know CSN is close with the members of several alliances en masse, not just a select few. Thankfully we hold treaties with them.

Treaties, however, are a great basis for politics; how else can one survive an impending curb stomp? Ironically that curb stomp is also propagated by the idea of treaties, so the cycle slowly digresses and perpetuates into an even uglier whachyamacallit. They aren't a great basis for friendship because a treaty should never be a signal for friendship. If the only way you can express you friendship is through written text, I pity that friendship. If, in real life, your friend was being kicked by a tool of a bully (seriously, who kicks in a fight? This isn't freaking martial arts), you don't not join in because you claim "Oh, he isn't my real friend because we never signed a treaty, so I'll just give him my moral support". No, a real friend would jump in an help their friend out and not watch them get the crap beat out of them.

Yes we need to keep OOC and IC separate from CN politics, but IC politics should be representative of a relative friendship close to the ones we make OOCly.

Just food for thought.

[janax]

I think a bigger problem than treaties based on friendship is treaties based on almost nothing. I reckon most alliances out there have a hard time just saying no to a treaty and end up signing with someone who they don't really talk to all that much, don't have a history with, are not really compatible with and without any political advantage coming from the treaty either.

We've turned down a few treaties in our time. We don't have many to begin with either. Treaties can't be JUST strategic though, otherwise where is the strategy in allowing yourself to be curbstomped? If there were merely strategic, almost everyone would cancel when a war appeared likely to be lost (instead of the few alliances who do that)

[rsoxbronco1]

The issue is every alliance wants different sides, so cancelling becomes very complicated. For instance the people MK want on it's side may be different from the people Athens want on it's side. Thus how do you even decide which friends to cancel on?

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

Since there really are no sides until right before shtf, it's something that would be decided based on specific circumstances and the CB being used. All treaties outside C&G are non chaining, so it would likely be based on who was being hit and whether they had commited some sort of aggressive action.

say Athens has a MDoAP with alliance x and MK has a MDoAP with alliance y. If x spies on y, it's pretty clear to most people that x is the aggressor. Because aggression is optional, unless we supported their aggression, y would be defended by MK and though we wouldn't engage alliance x, we'd probably hit anyone who counterattacked MK.

Every situation is different though.