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

[WcaesarD]

The way I see it, the line between IC and OOC was blurred so long ago by things such as IRC and EZI that it only exists anymore in the context of these boards and posting rules. I would rather fight with people I know, and like, (even if I only know a small portion of the members) than with people I signed a treaty with.

It's a tough way to play, based off of treaties, because everyone has a different agenda. If you don't base your play off of friendship, regardless of how it came about, then I can't imagine a treaty lasting. I think we've seen politically motivated treaties cancelled hundreds of times over at this point.

[Crymson]

I believe that friendship is vital, yes. Our best and most productive relationships have always been with alliances we've been friends with. Those allies of ours with whom we clashed most or disagreed most in the past have been those with whom we had less in common and less of a friendship with. Plus, who wants go to war for an alliance one doesn't truly care about? At best, it would be done reluctantly.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Crymson

[Xiphosis]

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.

Here's where I agree with HellAngel and start the next rapture. I've had bad allies before, never had bad friends. In all seriousness, being able to hang out with my allies is pretty much the best part of FA at the moment, and this is something that was true even prior to IRC. Some of my best friends (who're members or allies) now I met long before CN crowded onto Esper.

Can you imagine the discourse that would ensue when a besieged party would be outlining why you should have defended them as their friend?

Yes, because it's been done a million times. But you can't quantify friendship, it's not a "We're friends this much so you help us this much." sort of a deal. It's you're a friend, or you're not. For instance - Doc Fresh back during his term in MCXA circa UJW helped us out a great deal with our surrender terms, solely because we asked. He was on the opposite side and we had no treaty. That's a friend, and a good example why good friends are as important as good allies.

I won't lie, it's fully possible to have allies you more or less hate and it won't always lead to disaster, but you won't enjoy yourself at all. It's possible to have allies you just don't particularly know that well (god knows a lot of people used to and still do this) but again, it's not an enjoyable way to play. Has the Q&A etc stuff gotten a bit stale? Maybe, but it isn't a bad system. I'd say it's just the latest evolution in a good trend.

[Drostan]

I think that the 'friends' model is great. But I also think that people have a pretty loose definition of 'friends' now and everyone claims that it's out of friendship but in my experience it rarely is. There are some alliances who make the friends thing work but most don't despite their official stance.

[shayde]

Treaties come and treaties go.

Friends are golden.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

It sounds like the OP has been playing Team Fortress 2 lately.

[Haflinger]

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)

There is strategic merit in allowing yourself to be curbstomped. It preserves your reputation as a good ally who sticks with treaty partners when things are tough, and makes it more likely that other alliances will consider you to be a worthwhile ally later on.

Now, I'm not going to say that's the reason why any particular alliance did this. But it's still true, and a sufficiently cynical alliance might well stick up for a losing ally for precisely this reason.

[Nintenderek]

Treaties don't really matter, but friends do.

[Ogaden]

It has more to do with the level of trust. You trust your friends more than people you merely share common enemies or strategic interests with, and when you need your allies most is not when the times are good, it's when the times are really bad and it would be in your allies strategic interests NOT to help you that you need your allies most.

[King Xander the Only]

Interesting question. Friends and allies should be two distinct entities. Friends are people we get along with well, share things in common with, and support. Allies are people we associate with for strategic advantages. Obviously it's possible that one group could be both of these things, and when it is, all the better. But when that does happen, it is important to keep the ally part and the friend part separate. In addition, friendship is broken down into two groups as well: IC friendship and OOC friendship. OOC friendship is a relationship that exists outside of your character, maybe so far as that you would get along with the person even in situations outside of CN. IC friendships are exclusive to your character, and while they may draw on OOC to initiate a bond, also consist of similarities in thought and opinion.

Friendship, by itself, isn't a good way of deciding on foreign policy if that friendship is OOC. Personally, I've made friends with numerous people here in an OOC sort of way, talking on IRC and whatnot. And while we get along great there, that should hold no bearing on how I sign my treaties, because there's no guaranteed correlation with their IC persona. I'll use Starcraftmazter as an example. SCM and I get along really well OOC, because we're pretty cool guys. IC, though, we're total opposites, and becoming IC allies wouldn't make any sense. So, an alliance based on IC friendship is okay, but based on OOC friendship, not so good.

Having allies is good.

Having allies who are also IC friends is better.

Having allies who are OOC and IC friends is best.

Having allies who are just OOC friends could lead to disaster.

[Dochartaigh]

Here's where I agree with HellAngel and start the next rapture. I've had bad allies before, never had bad friends. In all seriousness, being able to hang out with my allies is pretty much the best part of FA at the moment, and this is something that was true even prior to IRC. Some of my best friends (who're members or allies) now I met long before CN crowded onto Esper.

Yes, because it's been done a million times. But you can't quantify friendship, it's not a "We're friends this much so you help us this much." sort of a deal. It's you're a friend, or you're not. For instance - Doc Fresh back during his term in MCXA circa UJW helped us out a great deal with our surrender terms, solely because we asked. He was on the opposite side and we had no treaty. That's a friend, and a good example why good friends are as important as good allies.

I won't lie, it's fully possible to have allies you more or less hate and it won't always lead to disaster, but you won't enjoy yourself at all. It's possible to have allies you just don't particularly know that well (god knows a lot of people used to and still do this) but again, it's not an enjoyable way to play. Has the Q&A etc stuff gotten a bit stale? Maybe, but it isn't a bad system. I'd say it's just the latest evolution in a good trend.

I have to agree with this post a lot. it is not much fun to be treatied to alliances that you do not like, especially if their actions IC wise do not reflect how one wishes to conduct business in CN. I would honestly rather be treatied to alliances who, IC wise, my alliance has much in common with. It is much easier to know that your allies would do the same thing in most or all situations, than to know that an ally may very likely do the opposite.

OOC- i am friendly with people on any side of this multi-polar world regardless of IC disposition. That would not mean i would ally them IC wise simply because some of them may not jive with policies i would have or enact should i ever create an alliance.

[Mathias]

I think friendship plays a part. I wouldn't want to defend someone I didn't like, but survival and strength should come to mind when shaping alliance policy. If all of your friends are in tiny alliances that are of no use to your advancement, you should consider making some new friends. That said, you don't need to have a treaty with every alliance you're friendly with, especially if it conflicts with other treaties or could potentially harm your alliance.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Mathias

[Kaiser]

You need to take into account both friendship and political postition when signing treaties. We in TOP figured this out after getting royally screwed in both the Unjust war and the Karma war because we signed with all our friends, even if those friends were on different sides of the world.

I'd say that you need to have a good friendship with someone before you should sign on them, so you have no qualms about defending them when they really need it, but signing with all your friends/alliances that are friendly with you is foolish, and can lead to a very bad postition in war. You don't need a treaty to defend your friends, so signing one that will probably complicate things down the line seems a little short sighted to me.

[Ejayrazz]

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?

Thinking out loud tends to be the most observant and self-engaging conversations I have ever found myself partaking in, as usually it tends to allow open-mindedness, as opposed to the boiler room where people usually tend to argue for the sake of arguing.

I would like to take a key statement you made and give you my two cents:

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.

I was doing this before 'it was the cool thing to do' and I will continue to proceed with this aspect. I wish not to prance and preach, but rather advocate friendship; friendship is friendship, whether it be the internet or a computer. The problem is, as I am thinking out loud as well, is I somewhat agree with your cliche. I discussed this earlier with Xerxer.

The game is 1s and 0s and our infra can change by a button, but our decisions are not. Our decisions are not 1s and 0s and our decisions will be remembered, not our NS (In most cases). Too many people accept this idea, but do not follow it. Too many people have too many treaties and to be honest, they do not follow their word. This is why The Ninjas will never have more than 1-2 treaties the most, because when we dedicate ourselves...we dedicate everything.

I understand my post lacks the usual organization, but let me give you example which I think I can understand your general meaning.

Example 1: Alliance A1 is friends with Alliance B, but gets along with Alliance C. They sign treaties with both, though they are closer to one more so than the other. If alliance b and c fight, they can do absolutely nothing militarily or economically -- even if one is wrong. Why? Because they wish to follow that same "Oh, we love our friends" and "We value treaties", so their word, in the end, means NOTHING to both parties who aren't able tor equest for your assistance -- except diplomatically.

Example 2: Alliance A2 has a treaty with alliance b, but is good friends and gets along with alliance c. They have a treaty with alliance 1, but not alliance 2, because they understand their relationship is closer with alliance 1 and you should dedicate everything you have to one alliance OR organization (Such as blocs, which mostly all blocs with outside treaties fail. Yes, I am calling mainly all of you out on this). If alliance B fights C, even though they have good diplomatic status with alliance C, alliance B is who they are BROTHERS with.

Example 2 was the old Cybernations, but example 1 has taken over. The problem? Too many useless treaties, complexed web, stagnation, and idiocy. This is the problem. I think, correct me if I am wrong, you see this "FRIENDS FRIENDS FRIENDS" as a stupid quality because what friendship use to mean in this game means nothing anymore, it has changed. It is no longer brotherhood, just a bunch of people who meet each other once and get their phone numbers.

You have some good ideas and you brought up some valid thoughts. Us oldies will always have trouble adapting, but I know one thing: Ninjas will not follow this now-accepted norm. I am glad you brought this up.

One more note:

I realize MK started the whole "friends > infra thing",

No they didn't. Not even close my brother, that has existed and been expressed numerous times and became popular way before MK existed. I just wished to throw my two cents in.

-Edit-

Another note: Because of all this, friendship is no longer friendship, as stated. Dedicate yourself like you would to a woman or man, give them everything...if you need to treaty all these people, you will never have a true brotherhood in my opinion. I am not saying this is true, I am saying this is my opinion. Dedicate yourself to that one or two friends you truly call friends with every ounce of blood..because signing with all these different people and advocating friendship pretty much makes you useless. Sometimes people need to realize the spirit of friendship is more promising than the written words on a piece of stone.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Doitzel]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

You know, like TOP, MHA, and IRON did with NPO.

[D34th]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

You know, like TOP, MHA, and IRON did with NPO.

/thread

Fake edit: You forgot Sparta.

[lamuella]

I like to play with people who have a similar playing style as myself. It's why I'm in an alliance rather than going solo.

My alliance has particular political objectives and plays in a certain style. The alliances we are willing to treaty with tend to have similarities in one or more of these areas:

Playing style (whether they raid, how they operate foreign policy, etc)

Sense of humor (what they find amusing, how it crosses over into the game, how seriously they take the game)

Pre-Existing personal relationship (whether we know and enjoy playing with these people from other alliances we were in or other games we have played)

So, to pick an example, Mushroom Kingdom have a similar playing style to us, the same sort of sense of humor, and we have existing relationships with them from other games and other alliances.

There are alliances in the game who I'm sure would make effective and worthwhile allies, and who I'm sire are good people, but who play the game in a very different way, or who are much more serious, or who I simply don't know all that well. With knowledge of an alliance and its members comes familiarity and trust. Friends make good allies because of the trust factor.

[Doitzel]

You forgot Sparta.

It's an easy thing to do.

[Kzoppistan]

Frankly, I feel that there is no division between friends and strategic allies. The borders that define those categories are arbitrary and it is only the degree of emotional effect one has when dealing with others that provides the gradient of difference between them.

Friend and ally are the same relationship, even when one is expendable to you and the other is not.

To break it down:

Trust

Expected reciprocation

Mutual goals

Emotional response

Respective status and reputations

and a view points similar enough that their future stances could be predicted or relied upon

If you have a relationship that has all of those factors but the emotional response then you have a completely strategic relationship. If the emotional response is the heaviest factor in those, you have more of a friendship.

By friendship, I mean the relationship between people that when you interact or think about them it causes a feeling of warmth and joy and a desire to repeat the process.

However, that emotional response is strategic in the highest sense. It is an evolutionary adaptation that is seen a most social animals. That emotional response is generated through reciprocation, generosity, building trust, ect. and is indicative of how likely an alliance, even among two people, will be profitable to the survival of the person.

So you see, there is no distinction to the human animal between friends and allies, only the degree of which we can justify our actions with them, whether it be to take part in their suffering for our future gain, or sacrifice them upon the altar of political expediency.

[apriland]

I think your statement is true and yet also not true. I had way more OoC friends on the opposite side of the last big war than on my own, and I suspect that many people in CN play like I've been playing lately.

However, I am fairly certain that I've been a part of deciding that my alliance should like another alliance because I trusted the individual leader (for OoC and IC reasons)and then working for that diplomatically.

The reality is that while we can be worse than our true RL selves in a game, we can't really actually play more virtuously and more intelligently than we actually are successfully for any sustained length of time. So if you know someone OoC it doesn't necessarily mean you can trust them IC, but if they're a jerk OoC they're not going to be worth anything IC either.

I think I can recognize what constitutes OoC and IC better than most people, and have been annoyed when people have tried to get me in trouble in game for my OoC actions. And yet, despite being aware and annoyed by the blurred line, I have (back when I cared) not been ashamed to play within the system of the game that you fairly accurately described either. I don't think people realized how much I was doing it though.

Now what are you doing posting books again? Are you sure you don't want to keep playing so you can periodly babysit my nation when I start actively rather than passively disliking the game again???

[New Frontier]

I don't like all of my allies. In fact, I have a strong dislike for some of them.

That said, at some level there needs to be some sort of bond, be it strategic, historic, or stylistic.

[Ashley Smith]

We're all friends. Why aren't we all treatied?

[Opethian]

Time and time again CN history has shown that marriages of convenience can profit for only so long. Sure, it can seem all fine and dandy for a while, but inevitably the soft ground upon which the relationship has been set will just give in.

[Prodigal Moon]

I almost started this exact same topic in poll form about a week ago. I happened to be browsing a foreign alliance's forums and noticed one of their govt. saying that he was entirely IC on their boards. It really got me thinking about IC/OOC and how people manage that line. I think (as the OP pointed out) most people don't really play much of a character to begin with, so it's inevitable that IC decisions will be guided by OOC motives. You might not share intimate details about your actual lives, but when someone on IRC asks how you're doing I doubt most people consider the state of their nation. This is tempered by some consideration of CN politics, but PB seems to (past few years anyway) lean towards everyone being friendly, rather than treaties having dire tactical implications. I wish this all weren't so, but this isn't a zero sum game and we really have nothing to compete for beside pride.

[Fallen Fool]

An engine can work without oil. Assuredly the engine won't work well, or last very long, but it can work. To make it work well, you need to use oil to grease the gears and such. With oil, an engine can work efficiently for a long time. Even with oil, however, an engine will inevitiably breakdown someday.

Now replace "engine" with treaty, and "oil" with mutual trust, open lines of communication, and friendship and you'll get my opinion on the matter.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Fallen_Fool