Jump to content

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


Azaghul

Recommended Posts

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

Can I say "this"?

Yet...and yes: the OP is right on. Right on.

Indeed, there is no answer to this question.

Like it or not, as soon as we collect taxes, let alone post here, we are all LARPers, a broad term which in itself is a frothy frothiness blend of frothy somethingness and nothingness all rolled into one tasty or not so tasty milkshake.... you and I are about to drink up.

Edited by Sterling Shmigadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just because you're friends with people in government, doesn't mean that you'd make good treaty partners. You could be in, say, TOP, and be great friends with the people in Bel Air, but your two alliances are moving in completely different directions, have completely different goals, and utilize their skills in vastly different ways. Whereas TOP is respectable, has ambition and can rightfully claim the #1 spot in all of PB, Bel Air is a borderline lulz alliance with no goals, little to no skills, and they're generally near the bottom in terms of class and respect on PB.

It would make little sense, even if the leaders of TOP and Bel Air were fast friends, to sign a treaty. But too often that is the basis for treaties, not that you shouldn't be friends, but that should not be the only reason to sign a treaty with someone.

People don't think about these things. People don't think about who they're actually getting into bed with, they're just like "yeah we had lots of fun for a month or two, shooting the !@#$ and all that, so let's sign a treaty even though our alliances are completely different and have nothing in common. I like you, that's all that matters."

People are idiots.

[edit:] Also, the scenario outlined by the OP is why the treaty web is STILL a mess to this day. Idiots agreeing to sign a treaty with someone simply because they put in a tiny bit of effort to try and get to know them better, without actually stopping to think if the treaty would be worthwhile to them, or if it would even make a lick of sense.

Edited by astronaut jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started the whole friends >>> infra thing? News to me.

The movement itself, arguably yes. Up until noCB, it was a rare thing to see more than one or two alliances come to the defense of an ally who was at war with the Continuum side of the web, that is undeniable. When GR, MK, and Polar upheld their treaties, expanding the war into one of the largest this world has ever seen (since obviously many other alliances upheld their treaties as well), Friends > Infra became a legitimate and widespread ideology. Want to test it out? Attack someone who isn't very well connected and will obviously be slaughtered by you and your allies, I'm willing to bet that alliances' allies will come to their defense, and if they don't you won't be seeing "Good decision" like you would have in the days before noCB. The mindset of alliances all across Planet Bob changed with that war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...