The emergence of "Do not surrender syndrome"

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1266004442' post='2177969']
OOC: Because this is a political simulator the history of the different alliances [i]is[/i] the game mechanics.
[/quote]

the problem with that is that you can hear only versions of the history of different alliances. winners will try to say that they are right for rolling their enemies, losers will play the victims role and say they didn't do anything (something i see a lot around here). the truth though is always somewhere in the middle.




back on topic, Moldavi, i doubt that's the case. my observations tell me that it's the least politically active people that surrender (the people who aren't that active inside their own alliances). i think the smaller sides alliances already got a purge for people who would surrender last war. and there isn't a reason for someone to surrender if the attacker has [b]at least[/b] 2 other wars on their hand.

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='Mack Truck' date='11 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1265896407' post='2174671']
After FAN.
[/quote]

FAN surrendered once.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='12 February 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1266006217' post='2178008']
the problem with that is that you can hear only versions of the history of different alliances. winners will try to say that they are right for rolling their enemies, losers will play the victims role and say they didn't do anything (something i see a lot around here). the truth though is always somewhere in the middle.
[/quote]
I never said picking a good alliance was [i]easy[/i].

[memoryproblems]

I think once TOP/IRON start to seek terms, we'll see a repeat of the Karma war where it takes an additional month to get terms hammered out and for them to agree with them.

I know that my alliance, Echelon, will be in this war until IRON sees peace or until we all hit ZI and our opponents forget about us.

[Homura]

Like many others have said, I think there's a certain reluctance to surrender based on the past history of demanding large reparations. While this is a one-sided war, it's hardly a "beatdown" as in many past wars, morale in in almost all alliances is higher than I ever remember, and there's a greater ability to fight for extended times. TOP, IRON and NSO all seem to be looking to pull off an underdog victory, and I greatly admire them for that, while C&G alliances feel (and probably rightfully so) that the attack on them was unwarranted and want to be recompensed for it. At the core, you have one of the most meaningful and intense conflicts in Digiterran history, while at the periphery there is a strong loyalty to the ties that have been created between alliances.

In this context, it's not a "syndrome" at all, but an appropriate response. Surrender is for those who live without meaning.

[Weebland]

We are Sith, and we will never surrender.

Pixels are not power; they mean nothing.

o/ NSO

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1266006364' post='2178014']
I never said picking a good alliance was [i]easy[/i].
[/quote]

meh, not what i wanted to say... if someone wants power, they will eventually make enemies of people who want power too. the things that i said up there are just facets of their struggle for power. and everyone has good intentions for [i]their[/i] side. the problem comes when overlap into the power struggle comes in. then, the good intentions of one side are either awed by their side or bawed by the other side. the only thing to prevent this is true independence. however, to be truly independent one has to be alone. no alliance to adhere to, no friends, not adhering to one bloc or the other. so the term [i]good[/i] is highly subjective.
for instance, take ODN. during karma they chose to disregard a lot of their treaties and had a internal power fight and a few key ranking members left their alliance to make another alliance. the remaining members were the ones who supported entering on karma's side. i don't exactly know what those that made DAWN wanted. now, if gets funny. because they warmed up the relationship with CnG they got a reputation for changing their ways and being the good guys (for CnG members because now they are on CnG's side) and as bad guys for the ex-Hegemony side (because, well, nobody likes someone who signs a treaty with you just to show later on that it's worth only as much as the ink on it). i remember some of drai's posts about how ODN has changed, about how they will from now on defend their treaties, about how their leadership had changed from back in karma. however, the people who dropped maybe half of their treaties are in now charge. see how subjective it is??

[jerdge]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='12 February 2010' post='2178043']I know that my alliance, Echelon, will be in this war until IRON sees peace or until we all hit ZI and our opponents forget about us.[/quote]
I assure you that until you surrender we won't forget about you, no matter how many of you hit ZI.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='12 February 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1266017516' post='2178308']~snip~
[/quote]
Overlooking the silly "everything is relative" and "everyone craves power" nonsense, you still missed my point. If you join the ODN, I think you are saying that you are ok with their past actions, whether they are good or bad. I don't care if you think what ODN did was good or bad, but someone who joins ODN after that fact is joining into that action, to some degree or another.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1266021826' post='2178406']
Overlooking the silly "everything is relative" and "everyone craves power" nonsense, you still missed my point. If you join the ODN, I think you are saying that you are ok with their past actions, whether they are good or bad. I don't care if you think what ODN did was good or bad, but someone who joins ODN after that fact is joining into that action, to some degree or another.
[/quote]
You make a very thought provoking post that I have spent the better part of an hour giving it the attention it deserves and formulating a reply.

I will address your final point first since it is the most interesting,

Are raw recruits who know nothing of the history of an alliance responsible for something that happened years before their time?

And do you think that the ideas that "everything is relative" and "everyone craves power" are nonsense? I am sorry but I disagree here, these are some of the universal constants of politics.

"everything is relative" is true because in politics everything really does depend on your point of view. To use a Digiterran example lets say that alliance X attacks alliance Y but Alliance Z objects and comes to rescue alliance Y because they like them.
Now I am sure that you can agree that in this hypothetical scenario there is one war which is one event. Now I will explain how that one event can be at least three different things depending on who's side you look at the war from.

For alliance X the attack on alliance Y was a bit of harmless fun and alliance Z violated their freedom by butting in where they were not needed.

For alliance Y the attack by alliance X was an unwarranted attack on their sovereignty that threatens their existence and alliance Z is a friend who is coming to help.

For alliance Z they saw alliance Y get attacked by alliance X because they thought that alliance X was a bully that needs to be taken down a notch for attacking their friends and join the war to do extract a kind of justice on alliance X for their past "crimes".

Now from this example we can show that from one event at least three vastly differing accounts can be portrayed of the events, We can see that each alliance occupies many roles depending upon where you stand, Alliance X is either a group of guys looking for fun, a ruthless invader or a group of criminals that need to be punished. And all of these are true depending on your point of view.

And as for the idea that "everyone craves power", this is true. Everyone seeks power of some kind, The drive for power is what motivates everyone, Power is what enables us to do things in the world around us, without power we would be little more than zombies. The only difference between people is their intent and how they will wield power.

The desire itself is a constant, to desire power is to be alive, for example a ordinary man seeks to have a safe and trouble free existence with his nation on planet bob, now he is going to need the power to keep himself out of trouble or he will be rolled and he knows it. So he builds a military to discourage these attacks and by doing so he has just expressed a desire for the power to keep himself safe.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Katsumi and Feanor said it best.

Personally, since I am part of one the "core" alliances, I don't see any reason to surrender. We chose this war. We're in until the bloody end.

Really, I much prefer the "Do not surrender" to the "Stockholm" syndrome that affected many alliances in the past.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='12 February 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1266025846' post='2178481']
You make a very thought provoking post that I have spent the better part of an hour giving it the attention it deserves and formulating a reply.

I will address your final point first since it is the most interesting,

Are raw recruits who know nothing of the history of an alliance responsible for something that happened years before their time?[/quote]
By sustaining that alliance with their membership? At least to some degree, yes. Think about it - generally people frown on those uninformed players who desert in a war because they have no knowledge of what their alliance is up to. How is that any different from the ignorant recruit and his responsibilities for his alliance's actions?

[quote]And do you think that the ideas that "everything is relative" and "everyone craves power" are nonsense? I am sorry but I disagree here, these are some of the universal constants of politics.

~example ripped from the headlines~

Now from this example we can show that from one event at least three vastly differing accounts can be portrayed of the events, We can see that each alliance occupies many roles depending upon where you stand, Alliance X is either a group of guys looking for fun, a ruthless invader or a group of criminals that need to be punished. And all of these are true depending on your point of view.[/quote]
No - you might think you are right based on your viewpoint. That doesn't [i]make[/i] you right. On a related note, if everything is relative your user title is gibberish, because there is no such thing as righteousness or injustice.

[quote]And as for the idea that "everyone craves power", this is true. Everyone seeks power of some kind, The drive for power is what motivates everyone, Power is what enables us to do things in the world around us, without power we would be little more than zombies. The only difference between people is their intent and how they will wield power.

The desire itself is a constant, to desire power is to be alive, for example a ordinary man seeks to have a safe and trouble free existence with his nation on planet bob, now he is going to need the power to keep himself out of trouble or he will be rolled and he knows it. So he builds a military to discourage these attacks and by doing so he has just expressed a desire for the power to keep himself safe.
[/quote]
Yes, if you define "power" as "anything anyone might want" then everyone craves power. It also doesn't mean anything.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Oktavia]

The majority of alliances aren't surrendering unless x alliance surrenders with them as well.

[Believland]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1265953526' post='2176930']
It doesn't take omnipotence to skim TOP's wiki page and look at the "wars" bit, then to do a little more reading.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TOP

OOC: Or did you just pick the number one alliance from the drop-down?
[/quote]
If you'd think TOP would take you in for that, you're very mistaken.

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1266003657' post='2177963']
This might apply to brand new nations. But your nation is 2 years old; that's plenty of time to determine if you agree or disagree with your alliance's behavior - and if you want to support it with your nation's military strength or if you want to go somewhere else. You act as though nobody is capable of changing their AA.
[/quote]
Just because one mistake, Which they have shown remorse for, and I believe even sent out reps to GPA(I know there were talks about it) does not make them "ebil" and "The Devil" which you have been making out TOP to be.

And your side does have a rap sheet too. I think you might have forgotten that.

Also I can see this war ending by December 21st 2012 in a... um... let's just call it white peace :v

Edited February 13, 2010 by Believland

[AnCapistan]

What's wrong with not surrendering?

[Krack]

[quote name='Believland' date='12 February 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1266031149' post='2178542']
Just because one mistake, Which they have shown remorse for, and I believe even sent out reps to GPA(I know there were talks about it) does not make them "ebil" and "The Devil" which you have been making out TOP to be.
[/quote]

Who called them "evil" or "the Devil"? Certainly not me. I called them opportunistic and selfish. I have also called them paranoid bullies, but I'm not sure that was publicly.

[Prime minister Johns]

I can see a world at the moment that is in the middle of a paradigm shift.
And all previous political models used to determine what may happen are no more effective than crystal balls now.
I think many people are sitting tight at the moment and bunkering down because nobody can say for certain what the world will be like when it all ends.
And the most likely think that right now it is probably better to stick with the one constant in their lives, their own alliance.
There will be time enough to choose a new path at the end of this madness based on whatever political paradigm emerges.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1265990258' post='2177668']
OOC: Then he shouldn't be a stranger to doing his homework before he starts to play a game, unless he's been trying to figure out Vicky on his own for years.


Neither I nor Krack were in charge of setting up the coalition to bring down the NPO and their heavies - it is a mistake to assume that anything the coalition leadership did was or is endorsed by either of us. That's part of your problem (and with just about everyone whining about this or that in relation to Karma). It was a disparate group of alliances with differing viewpoints and objectives. However, some of those who had served the NPO were seen as redeemed because they were willing to fight against them. It seems pretty open-and-shut: if you help us against the NPO we won't come for you. It was viewed as necessary because (until the NPO cheesed off TOP) Karma was a [i]very[/i] close shave. That's politics; Karma neither intended nor in actuality end politics. That doesn't make the Karma war hypocritical by any stretch - you simply attribute things to the war that aren't there.
[/quote]
Um..back on page 4, you said that joining an alliance is tacit acceptance of its ENTIRE history with ALL misdeeds, no exceptions. Don't exactly see how that exempts you from bloc decisions as well.

Back on topic..I wonder how much things are influenced by vicious namecalling. I have to say, one reason I think leaders prefer IRC is not immediacy as much as professionalism. And no-one ever answered my question from page 1 regarding the international treatment of those who do end up surrendering. If the penalty for surrendering is worse than the war, which way will you go?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Believland' date='13 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1266031149' post='2178542']
and I believe even sent out reps to GPA
[/quote]

Your belief is entirely incorrect.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1266030328' post='2178533']
No - you might think you are right based on your viewpoint. That doesn't [i]make[/i] you right. On a related note, if everything is relative your user title is gibberish, because there is no such thing as righteousness or injustice.
[/quote]

yes, but then it also means you are not right in this very moment. best we can do is follow [i]our own[/i] sense of righteousness and justice and not impose it on other people around us.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1266030328' post='2178533']
Yes, if you define "power" as "anything anyone might want" then everyone craves power. It also doesn't mean anything.
[/quote]

it means everything since in pursuing something you want that is pursued by others, one will have to interact with other people who will see the world through their sense of right and wrong.


[quote name='Qaianna' date='13 February 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1266044017' post='2178864']
Back on topic..I wonder how much things are influenced by vicious namecalling. I have to say, one reason I think leaders prefer IRC is not immediacy as much as professionalism. And no-one ever answered my question from page 1 regarding the international treatment of those who do end up surrendering. If the penalty for surrendering is worse than the war, which way will you go?
[/quote]

this is a interesting question especially since i don't think that the least active members of a alliance even how the tacit agreement on Planet Bob is that surrendering is a taboo action to undertake.

Edited February 13, 2010 by junkahoolik

[Ark Raven]

There was basically a huge preparation once the conflicts with IRON reached everyone's ears. This war is most likely to knock us hurling into the Stone Age. So be it.

What I do find dounbtful is the outcome of this conflict, apart from the Green Glowing Stone Age.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Ark Raven

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='13 February 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1266044017' post='2178864']
Um..back on page 4, you said that joining an alliance is tacit acceptance of its ENTIRE history with ALL misdeeds, no exceptions. Don't exactly see how that exempts you from bloc decisions as well.
[/quote]
Be a dear and link me to the Karma bloc treaty.

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='13 February 2010 - 02:18 AM' timestamp='1266045515' post='2178906']
yes, but then it also means you are not right in this very moment. best we can do is follow [i]our own[/i] sense of righteousness and justice and not impose it on other people around us.
[/quote]
What do you mean I'm not right "in this very moment"?

[quote]it means everything since in pursuing something you want that is pursued by others, one will have to interact with other people who will see the world through their sense of right and wrong.[/quote]
Interacting with people doesn't mean you have power over someone. And neither does pursuing something that others want, necessarily. Everyone (at least generally) wants to keep their alliance from being rolled. That doesn't mean that there's a zero sum game where if Fark is trying to not get rolled it means GOD automatically is rolled. Defending yourself isn't a pursuit of power because (rejecting pre-emptive strikes) you don't need to take offensive action to do so.

[pasquali]

I doubt IRON and TOP would continue fighting if peace with some reasonable reps was offered.

The reps that I heard MK demands is all tech over 1k from every nation in the offending alliances.

If that's true, and MK won't budge, then I don't see this war ending until every TOP and IRON nation is nuked down to 1k or less tech. Which could take a very long time.

I know I would never surrender to reps like that. Some reps, yes, especially if I had made the blunder they did, but I'd prefer to slug it out to the bitter end than pay reps that would cripple me to that extent.

Edited February 13, 2010 by pasquali

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='pasquali' date='13 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266071044' post='2179194']
I doubt IRON and TOP would continue fighting if peace with some reasonable reps was offered.

The reps that I heard MK demands is all tech over 1k from every nation in the offending alliances.

If that's true, and MK won't budge, then I don't see this war ending until every TOP and IRON nation is nuked down to 1k or less tech. Which could take a very long time.

I know I would never surrender to reps like that. Some reps, yes, especially if I had made the blunder they did, but I'd prefer to slug it out to the bitter end than pay reps that would cripple me to that extent.
[/quote]
What is a "reasonable" amount?

[Tulafaras]

unless something changed today around update CnG had not even had internal talks about what kind of reps they'd like (Rsox said that some time before update) so, i think it's safe to say that what you are fearing is a rumour.

As long as TOP/IRON are fighting instead of surrendering anything we say/hear is guesswork at best.