On the Subject of White Peace

[Jeb the Wise]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='06 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1265520345' post='2166071']
There are numerous examples about how alliances have built themselves back up over a rough war/terms. All you need is an active community focused toward a common goal.
[/quote] Just look at how the GPA jumped back up in Sanction, even after 2/3rds of their membership left and paying out what at the time was the most reps in history.

[Valerius]

[quote name='The Thief' date='07 February 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1265503907' post='2165564']
Public opinion assures that when any war between major world players breaks out, the fear of being labelled neo-Hegemony creates a certain cap on harsh terms.
[/quote]
I think you hit the nail on the head there. But I'm not entirely sure whether that's a good or bad thing, in the long run.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540']
I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.
[/quote]
There are other reasons for resentment other than overly harsh reps and to say otherwise would be a gross oversimplification.

The reason for Invicta's reputation is not its stand on reps, but a wide range of other issues and if you want the full story about this all you need to do is go and talk to the gov officials you talked about.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

To White Peace or not to White Peace [omg we are capitalizing it], is something which each alliance has to decide for itself. This is also often heavily influenced by the co-combatants on the "side" on which they were fighting, if there was a "side".

Some things that are likely to influence this decision:
[list]
[*]Degree of animosity and/or bad blood between the winner and the loser
[*]Length of the conflict
[*]Sense of staisfaction [also combining the two preceeding points]
[*]Relevance of the opposing alliance [this can work both ways, for and against white peace]
[*]Ideology of the winning alliance [yes some do in fact believe white peace is a good thing]
[*]Intended portrayal of ideology of the winning alliance
[/list]

Either way, those that offer WP and those that do not, both make up the political landscape and the two together add an interesting "Moral Frontier" and chance for future conflict. So in itself the presence of this is a good thing.

[Corinan]

Actually, the New Sith Order popularized white peace in the modern era and then other alliances ran with the concept during the Karma War.

[The Big Bad]

I have always been for white peace or very light reps, cash for tech deals for example. The war is won move on. Anything more drives people away from Planet Bob or creates long periods of bordem that leads to crapfests like we have right now. GW 2 was pretty much rep free for most everyone and that kept things interesting. Then again I always liked to keep an active group of rivals around, others it seems do not. When I was in TPF and we wanted our war with Atlantis we always pictured it as a the first in series of conflicts between rival white team alliances. War reps would be light and easy so we could get on to the next round of fun.

Honestly I think the problem is people hate each other and other alliances. And I mean really hate them. I spew venom and hate all the time but, I actually like the people I am bashing most of the time. Athens has long been a favorite target of mine but, in fact I like them and Londo. So I would not want destroy or cripple that alliance, because then a future of conflict would would be long put off if it would occure at all. In this it seems I have been and remain in the minority.

[The Thief]

In the interests of actually getting something concrete out of this thread, I'm going to attempt to compile the ideas presented so far.

White peace is not a new phenomenon in the Cyberverse. This, most of us agree on. No real conclusion has been reached on whether it is more common today than before. So far, a few different explanations seem to have been offered for white peace:
1. White peace is a way for parties who have no quarrel with each other to resolve conflicts in a mutually beneficial manner. In that case, we may be seeing quite a few white peace agreements in the days to come, what with all the convoluted treaty chaining going on.
2. White peace is a strategic political calculation. As Physicsjunky pointed out, [quote]The political long term cost of imposing harsh reps during a period of political unrest generally outweighs the benefit of doing so.[/quote] Harsh reparation terms arise only when the one can get away with it via global dominance or a respectable CB against the other involved party. White peace lessens the risk of reprisals in the future. (Yes, this is entirely ripped off of Physicsjunky, but I couldn't say it better myself.)
3. Alfred von Tirpitz seems to have summarized the factors involved in white peace decisions quite aptly, so I don't really need to reiterate here.
4. Everybody's just copying NSO. Actually, that's not entirely a joke. They have been advocates of white peace for a while now, and quite vocal ones.
5. RL hate can cause harsh reparations terms. RL love can cause white peace. Makes sense.

Anyway, this is just to advance the discussion a little. So far, I've gotten a lot out of this, so thanks to everyone who posted.

EDIT: Giving credit where credit is due. I ripped off Physicsjunky too much not to mention it.

Edited February 7, 2010 by The Thief

[Bad JuJu]

A problem with white peace is that it can add pressure to lengthen a war.

If two alliances have sufficiently beaten each other down then each will be more inclined to accept white peace as they have already got their pound of flesh. But if a conflict is still in it's early stages then white peace is seen as an undo button and most alliances want to actually gain something in a war, even if it means a bit of their own destruction too.

This is evidenced with MK and TOP right now. I have seen multiple instances where it has been said that they cant stop the war now as the "other" side is still too strong and will only come back at them in short order. Only a severe beat down or crippling reps to the other side will allay them of this fear.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540']
I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.
[/quote]
Your counterexample isn't.

Harsh reps DO lead to resentment.
NOT imposing reps...mileage may vary. Some appreciate it genuinely, others don't.

OOC: Take a formal logic class. "a implies b" is the same as "not a or b", so your counterexample has nothing to do with the original implication. Q.E.D.

Edited February 7, 2010 by bigwoody

[Krack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540']
I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.
[/quote]

Invicta's terrible reputation has nothing to do with how much it asked for in reps. Invicta's reputation sucks because your leadership (in particular, Dawny) doesn't/didn't know how to talk to others and made your alliance as a whole look bad for years. It didn't help that you all appear perfectly content being an unrespected meatshield, but it's mostly your leadership's terrible diplomacy that has earned you your reputation.

[The Thief]

Come on guys, keep it clean. Off-topic bickering isn't the point of this thread.

[Mirreille]

At one point nuclear weapons were strictly the top 5% and those who had managed to get into that group at one time or another. With the addition of the MP, there are now 22% of all nations that are nuclear armed. I think the ever increasing amount of nuclear capable nations contributes something to the desire for white peace, as it is much harder to impose terms on people who don't want to accept them, and who can remain at the lowest levels and raid an alliances smaller nations or tech dealers for months at a time. How much of an effect that is, is open to debate, but it has to be in the thoughts of an alliance in a winning position. White peace means no bookkeeping too, which is better for both sides.

[Krack]

[quote name='The Thief' date='07 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1265579272' post='2167351']
Come on guys, keep it clean. Off-topic bickering isn't the point of this thread.
[/quote]

White peace is now being offered with more regularity because the opportunistic alliances that spent several years acting as internet bullies are now firmly on the losing side. And they are not stupid. So they have spent the better part of the last several months repeating the mantra that anyone who doesn't offer white peace at the conclusion of a war will be "just as bad as we were." This is, of course, laughable - this is a group that manufactured an excuse to attack neutral GPA solely because NPO wanted to be in the #1 spot - but, I'll admit, it worked because they jedi mind tricked a handful of the alliance leaders on the Karma side into offering up white peace and other extremely lenient terms (in relation to extent of the damage caused in the war).

The instant these bully alliances are back on the winning side (if ever), I assure you the trend of white peace will immediately lose its popularity.

People have forgotten that the primary purpose of reparations is to repair the damage caused by the losing side in the war (with secondary purposes of serving as a deterrent to future wars and as a burdern to the losing war so they cannot immediately regroup and re-attack the winning side).

Edited February 7, 2010 by Krack

[President Obama]

[quote name='Moridin' date='07 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1265531075' post='2166573']
Just because you don't take reps doesn't make you instantly likeable, and it doesn't make people ignore everything they dislike about you. But, not taking reps does make the losing alliance tend to view you more favorably, especially if it is in contrast to other surrenders in the same war where reps are demanded. To take an example, during the War of the Coalition, Grämlins paid for all their tech reparations from Polar (I believe at a rate of 3m/100, correct me if I'm wrong), and as a result they were generally viewed more favorably by Polars from what I could tell.[/quote]
Just to clarify, they paid for the tech at a rate of 3m/150. Your point still stands though.

[Owned-You]

White peace is a situational surrender concept popularized these days but by no means new. Nueva Vida has been around since April of 08 and has fought in every major theater and conflict but has never relied on heavy reps for bested foes. In fact, the only time we ever signed for reps we later waived them.

Then again, we've been doing the whole honor thing prior to it's popularization or convenience so were a bit of an outlier in comparison to most alliances.

[Shinpah]

I'm not sure if White Peace can actually truly exist on Planet Bob; the definition of white peace holds that after the war is over there would be an exact return to the way things were before the war. I would have to say that this would hold true for land, tech, and infra levels. What we actually call white peace is really a termless [size=2]Uti possidetis, which allows for conquered territory.[/size]
[size=2]
[/size]
[size=2]
[/size]

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Shinpah' date='07 February 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1265590942' post='2167738']
I'm not sure if White Peace can actually truly exist on Planet Bob; the definition of white peace holds that after the war is over there would be an exact return to the way things were before the war. I would have to say that this would hold true for land, tech, and infra levels. What we actually call white peace is really a termless [size=2]Uti possidetis, which allows for conquered territory.[/size][/quote]
From my understanding you're basically arguing that no such thing as a white peace actually exists in anything short of a bloodless encounter, i.e. "This rock is ours" "No it isn't" "Oops. Okay". Most "White peaces" historically have had plenty of causalities, and things sure as heck don't return back to normal for those who've lost their lives or their families. I don't see why the term wouldn't encompass what we see on Planet Bob when The War of 1812, The Seven Years War, and the Falklands Campaign are the alien corollaries.

[Shinpah]

OOC: well, I'm talking more about the difference in how CN has the land and tech raid functions, where is makes returning things exactly back to the same a lot more difficult than in real life. I''m referring more toward changes in potential land amounts and tech levels, which in real life could be representative of say Germany annexing all France, hypothetically. It doesn't quite fit, but when nations go from huge infra levels to low ones, along with land and tech, we can't really call it a white peace :\

[SonOfHoward]

Harsh reps is what took all the fun out of the game. I think it's turning around now that certain alliances are no longer as influential as they once were.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Krack' date='07 February 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1265585529' post='2167616']
White peace is now being offered with more regularity because the opportunistic alliances that spent several years acting as internet bullies are now firmly on the losing side. And they are not stupid. So they have spent the better part of the last several months repeating the mantra that anyone who doesn't offer white peace at the conclusion of a war will be "just as bad as we were." This is, of course, laughable - this is a group that manufactured an excuse to attack neutral GPA solely because NPO wanted to be in the #1 spot - but, I'll admit, it worked because they jedi mind tricked a handful of the alliance leaders on the Karma side into offering up white peace and other extremely lenient terms (in relation to extent of the damage caused in the war).

The instant these bully alliances are back on the winning side (if ever), I assure you the trend of white peace will immediately lose its popularity.

People have forgotten that the primary purpose of reparations is to repair the damage caused by the losing side in the war (with secondary purposes of serving as a deterrent to future wars and as a burdern to the losing war so they cannot immediately regroup and re-attack the winning side).
[/quote]

Side effect of being told how horrible they were for making those terms, perhaps. Or just smug rubbing it back in the faces of folks. Remember, most of their arguments are that harsh terms might start coming back BEFORE they come back.

Either way, though, I'd say some folks see reparations as either a horrible thing to apply to someone, or Just Desserts for What Those Evil People Did to Us Long Ago. Which..truth be told, gets some folks thinking about returning the favour.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Krack' date='07 February 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1265585529' post='2167616']
White peace is now being offered with more regularity because the opportunistic alliances that spent several years acting as internet bullies are now firmly on the losing side. And they are not stupid. So they have spent the better part of the last several months repeating the mantra that anyone who doesn't offer white peace at the conclusion of a war will be "just as bad as we were." This is, of course, laughable - this is a group that manufactured an excuse to attack neutral GPA solely because NPO wanted to be in the #1 spot - but, I'll admit, it worked because they jedi mind tricked a handful of the alliance leaders on the Karma side into offering up white peace and other extremely lenient terms (in relation to extent of the damage caused in the war).

The instant these bully alliances are back on the winning side (if ever), I assure you the trend of white peace will immediately lose its popularity.

People have forgotten that the primary purpose of reparations is to repair the damage caused by the losing side in the war (with secondary purposes of serving as a deterrent to future wars and as a burdern to the losing war so they cannot immediately regroup and re-attack the winning side).
[/quote]
I'm guessing you're new to this world. Or, you haven't been paying attention.

Wrong on so many levels.

Some alliances (my own included) have a natural aversion to asking for reps.

By your own measure, you're allied to some of the biggest bully alliances in history, given the Karma War rep levels. Reps demanded tend to be correlated to the position to demand them, with the exception of the VERY few alliances who have an aversion to demanding them.

Edited February 8, 2010 by bigwoody

[Bob Janova]

It's mostly a cultural shift from 'reps are a valid spoil of war' (which was, rightly in my view, seen as bullying and Hegemonic) to 'reps are a penalty for wrongdoing', and therefore you see rep-less peaces (white or almost white) on fronts of wars where neither side really wronged the other but are only fighting for the success of their respective coalition.

Karma is of course the main precedent for that, with alliances brought in on the fringes of the Hegemony coalition being given repless peaces in most cases, and those in the core of the Hegemonic abuses of power receiving reps, not for their actions in the war but for their wrongdoing beforehand. The exception would be TPF who were given large reps for inflicting unnecessary damage, although they would likely have got significant ones for their pre-Karma actions anyway.

It's also a symptom of a world where PR is important and power is not absolute. By not giving harsh peace terms, alliances can claim the moral high ground and build a larger core of support for the next conflict (military or diplomatic).

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Krack' date='07 February 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1265585529' post='2167616']
White peace is now being offered with more regularity because the opportunistic alliances that spent several years acting as internet bullies are now firmly on the losing side. And they are not stupid. So they have spent the better part of the last several months repeating the mantra that anyone who doesn't offer white peace at the conclusion of a war will be "just as bad as we were." This is, of course, laughable - this is a group that manufactured an excuse to attack neutral GPA [b]solely because NPO wanted to be in the #1 spot[/b] - but, I'll admit, it worked because they jedi mind tricked a handful of the alliance leaders on the Karma side into offering up white peace and other extremely lenient terms (in relation to extent of the damage caused in the war).

The instant these bully alliances are back on the winning side (if ever), I assure you the trend of white peace will immediately lose its popularity.

People have forgotten that the primary purpose of reparations is to repair the damage caused by the losing side in the war (with secondary purposes of serving as a deterrent to future wars and as a burdern to the losing war so they cannot immediately regroup and re-attack the winning side).
[/quote]

People really should learn their history before they come to talk on the OWF. NPO was already number 1 by a considerable margin when GPA was attacked.

Edited February 8, 2010 by silentkiller

[Prime minister Johns]

Personally the only peace I expect out of this war is the peace of the grave.
I will keep fighting until I have nothing left and I am so far into bill lock that even ground attacks become impossible.
I enjoy peace but I am prepared to sacrifice absolutely everything to get peace that will be real peace and not slavery in disguise.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1265645152' post='2168768']
People really should learn their history before they come to talk on the OWF. NPO was already number 1 by a considerable margin when GPA was attacked.
[/quote]
NPO overtook GPA by a small margin during their buildup the week before the war occurred. With the mere assumption NPO took around a week to plan the war, which fits with the timeline of some events they used for the CB, you could say that the militarization to beat down GPA was the predominant reason they moved ahead at all.

GPA was forced to pay 10,000 tech to each of the seven continuum alliances, which accounting for inflation makes it some of the harshest reps ever given, on a CB that mostly amounted to a petty diplomatic squabble and questioning the supreme authority of certain parties.