Neutrality ?

[KingEd]

Cyber Nations is a political simulator; nonetheless, there are a few alliances that have chosen not to participate in the politics of the game. ie; TDO, WTF, GPA, etc.

I'm only 800ish days old. There are many of you that have been here much longer. If you could please share some knowledge as to how neutrality began on BOB, it'd be highly informative to me and probably a few others. Lastly, please state whether you think being neutral should be allowed by the world at large or by [i]Admin[/i] himself.

PS: It's also my belief that Neutrals should not have the ability to acquire a sanction since there's no point to them having it.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283526386' post='2440405']
I'm only 800ish days old. There are many of you that have been here much longer. If you could please share some knowledge as to how neutrality began on BOB, it'd be highly informative to me and probably a few others. [b]Lastly, please state whether you think being neutral should be allowed by the world at large or by [i]Admin[/i] himself.[/b]

PS: It's also my belief that Neutrals should not have the ability to acquire a sanction since there's no point to them having it.
[/quote]

Yes.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Ed.. Eddie.. Sanction is a function of statistics. The only way the neutral alliances are going to be prevented from attaining sanction is for them to not be allowed to accumulate the required stats. Unless of course the laws of the realm change to make sanction impossible for them in-spite of having the stats; which, is improbable.

They just have a different way of life. Their neutrality does not provide them any armor by itself. They exist in peace [for the most part] by the good graces of the non neutrals. That, and the effort they themselves put into being seen as a non threatening entity. Also there is some sort of a stigma attached to killing Gandhi.

[Poyplemonkeys]

I'd be quite happy with people that want to avoid war having peace mode as their only way to do so. Apparently it's frowned upon to try and destroy neutral alliances though. Who knew?

[Sephiroth]

Neutrals try maintaining their positions in a game full of war mongers. GPA got knocked out of the number 1 spot because they aren't immune to getting attacked, they need to defend their position to keep a sanction. They choose to play very defensively and I don't think that is wrong of them. Many ways to play, it would be boring if someone decided which are acceptable or not...

[Emphix]

It's a nation simulator not a political simulator..

besides, even if it is, neutrality is also a political stance.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Running an alliance in the manner of Switzerland might look appealing, yet in the long run, you'll most likely be missing out on things in the long-run.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1283526864' post='2440412']
They just have a different way of life. Their neutrality does not provide them any armor by itself. They exist in peace [for the most part] [b]by the good graces of the non neutrals.[/b] That, and the effort they themselves put into being seen as a non threatening entity. Also there is some sort of a stigma attached to killing Gandhi.
[/quote]

Sure at the graces of the non-neutrals or the powers that be. I just don't understand why take the risk of being at the mercy of others. In essence, we allow their existence; and every once in a while people get bored and there's no one to pick a fight with except those who are defenseless (GPA knows what I'm talking about). Sure, Continuum & NPO were the "Hegemony" and evil rulers of the planet, and after Karma it's unlikely to happen again unless one of the neutrals slip [I think one of them did and almost got rolled a few months back, but I can't recall the incident].


[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1283527039' post='2440416']
I'd be quite happy with people that want to avoid war having peace mode as their only way to do so. Apparently it's frowned upon to try and destroy neutral alliances though. Who knew?
[/quote]

These moral high grounds need to deteriorate quickly for the sake of the game.

[WorldConqueror]

Well, Switzerland is a good example of IRL neutrality, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

That said, I don't think that neutrals should be afforded any special privileges simply because they profess neutrality. If you have a reason and the will to go to war against them, do it. They have chosen to not engage in the mutual security arrangements that abound in CN, and while that is a legitimate choice, it can put them at a grave disadvantage in a war situation. I've always thought that neutrals should go the GUARD route, and form a bloc. It gives them the added security of allies, plus the soft power benefits of neutrality (and yes, I realise that GUARD was made up of 'independent' alliances and was designed to be an 'independent' bloc. I mean in terms of a mutual defense bloc with no outside ties to draw them into war. Because I don't think that neutral alliances banding together to protect each others sovereignty and neutrality constitutes a breach of neutrality on the part of the individual alliances if the bloc is committed to non-involvement in wider CN politics).

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283527648' post='2440424']These moral high grounds need to deteriorate quickly for the sake of the game.[/quote]
Darned straight. Kill the neutrals, cleanse the game of their weakness. Force them the join real alliances.

[KingEd]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1283528024' post='2440427']
Well, Switzerland is a good example of IRL neutrality, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

That said, I don't think that neutrals should be afforded any special privileges simply because they profess neutrality. If you have a reason and the will to go to war against them, do it. They have chosen to not engage in the mutual security arrangements that abound in CN, and while that is a legitimate choice, it can put them at a grave disadvantage in a war situation. I've always thought that neutrals should go the[b] GUARD route, and form a bloc. It gives them the added security of allies, plus the soft power benefits of neutrality (and yes, I realise that GUARD was made up of 'independent' alliances and was designed to be an 'independent' bloc. I mean in terms of a mutual defense bloc with no outside ties to draw them into war.[/b] Because I don't think that neutral alliances banding together to protect each others sovereignty and neutrality constitutes a breach of neutrality on the part of the individual alliances if the bloc is committed to non-involvement in wider CN politics).
[/quote]

This would definitely offer them better protection since 30,000,000 NS is greater than 8 or 10. However, none of these alliances want to take the risk that one of the others $%&@s up and risk their own pixels & security. Imagine if GPA and the other neutrals at the time were part of such a BLOC---they would have all been rolled or the treaty wouldn't have served any purpose at all.

[Yankees Empire]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283528841' post='2440436']
This would definitely offer them better protection since 30,000,000 NS is greater than 8 or 10. However, none of these alliances want to take the risk that one of the others $%&@s up and risk their own pixels & security. Imagine if GPA and the other neutrals at the time were part of such a BLOC---they would have all been rolled or the treaty wouldn't have served any purpose at all.
[/quote]

Except it would've served as a detriment. Would Q still have attacked GPA had they been lined up against 30 million NS instead of 10? Do you really want to expend that much more resources just on a "neutral menace"? While if a big enough group wanted a neutral dead, the bloc would get all of them rolled, it would also serve as a detriment to groups to try and roll them.

[Andre27]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283528841' post='2440436']
This would definitely offer them better protection since 30,000,000 NS is greater than 8 or 10. However, none of these alliances want to take the risk that one of the others $%&@s up and risk their own pixels & security. Imagine if GPA and the other neutrals at the time were part of such a BLOC---they would have all been rolled or the treaty wouldn't have served any purpose at all.
[/quote]

You can ask yourself just how much of that 30M NS would be empty space, inactives or those who flee war is looming on the horizon.
A block would offer little extra protection. If you have people whom are willing to fight, they are unlikely to choose a neutral alliance other to recover between wars.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283527648' post='2440424']
Sure at the graces of the non-neutrals or the powers that be. I just don't understand why take the risk of being at the mercy of others. In essence, we allow their existence; and every once in a while people get bored and there's no one to pick a fight with except those who are defenseless (GPA knows what I'm talking about). Sure, Continuum & NPO were the "Hegemony" and evil rulers of the planet, and after Karma it's unlikely to happen again unless one of the neutrals slip [I think one of them did and almost got rolled a few months back, but I can't recall the incident].
[/quote]

Many alliances are somewhat taking the same risk if they have not the allies required to 'back them up.' One needs only to the recent war for an example of this - NSO (and by extension its allies) were at the 'mercy of others' because they did not have enough allies, offensive firepower, or other means to prevent an attack.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Emphix' timestamp='1283527172' post='2440420']
It's a nation simulator not a political simulator..

besides, even if it is, neutrality is also a political stance.
[/quote]

You beat me to the punch.

From the CN front page,

[quote]Cyber Nations is the most popular persistent browser-based [b]nation simulation[/b] game on the Internet.[/quote]

Some choose to participate in the politics of the game because they believe it strengthens their position and makes the game more interesting, but one size does not fit all, some are content to just play the game as it is without the eventual headache from trying to play the politics.

If you don't like that, by all means your welcome to make an attempt to do something about it, but I think you'll find that stomping out neutrality is a difficult task, considering several of the neutral alliances are very strong alliances, and i doubt you'd be able to muster public support for a war where the only reason is "being neutral".

I'm not neutral nor do I ever desire to be, but I can respect those alliances and I most definitely respect their right to do as they choose, or in this case, be neutral.

[b]Edit:[/b] Have been playing the game for 1552 days now, I'll throw my two cents in on your other question: Whether being neutral or playing the politics is about what you seek from the game and what serves your interest. Alliances are about making CN fun for their members, and every player seeks something different from this game, some players are content just to build pixels while others want to use them. Neutrality exists because it suits what some people seek from the game, and going back through the history of the game, there have existed many neutral alliances, I seem to remember IRON being neutral at one point.

Neutral alliances seem to live longer lives because they aren't throwing themselves into situations that would expose the cracks in their foundation.

Edited September 3, 2010 by memoryproblems

[D34th]

Of course neutrality should be allowed, this is like say that Swiss or Sweden can't exist since they are neutral. I have no problem with neutrality what annoys me is the pacifism of the majority of neutral alliances, armed neutrality is awesome but the only alliance where it happens is FAN.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Yankees Empire' timestamp='1283529569' post='2440447']
Except it would've served as a detriment. Would Q still have attacked GPA had they been lined up against 30 million NS instead of 10? Do you really want to expend that much more resources just on a "neutral menace"? While if a big enough group wanted a neutral dead, the bloc would get all of them rolled, it would also serve as a detriment to groups to try and roll them.
[/quote]

Really? I mean, Q back then was nearly double of 30mill NS. I think the whole point of Karma was that nothing was a deterrent to Q and their base of power. Furthermore, even combined, the neutrals were no match for Q.

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283529665' post='2440450']
You can ask yourself just how much of that 30M NS would be empty space, inactives or those who flee war is looming on the horizon.
A block would offer little extra protection. If you have people whom are willing to fight, they are unlikely to choose a neutral alliance other to recover between wars.
[/quote]

I completely agree. Neutrals aren't exactly known for their military prowess.

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1283529672' post='2440451']
Many alliances are somewhat taking the same risk if they have not the allies required to 'back them up.' One needs only to the recent war for an example of this - NSO (and by extension its allies) were at the 'mercy of others' because they did not have enough allies, offensive firepower, or other means to prevent an attack.
[/quote]

The NSO card? Ok. NSO wasn't at the mercy of anyone, they had their allies who could have defended them but NSO asked them not too. At least NSO had allies to ask not to stand by them. GPA, WTF, TDO have no one at all.

Edited September 3, 2010 by KingEd

[Andre27]

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1283529672' post='2440451']
Many alliances are somewhat taking the same risk if they have not the allies required to 'back them up.' One needs only to the recent war for an example of this - NSO (and by extension its allies) were at the 'mercy of others' because they did not have enough allies, offensive firepower, or other means to prevent an attack.
[/quote]

That war essentially happened because NSO and ROK are counterparts and had a history of conflicts.
You may say that neutrality negates that possible DoW, but i do not believe it is possible to be truly neutral unless you remove yourself from the game completely.

Overall i believe it is best to take a stance and prepare to face the consequences rather than declare neutrality and idly observe (and thereby becoming an [b]accomplice[/b] to them) to acts you do not agree with and all in the name to save those precious pixels.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Andre27

[Alterego]

Yes it should be allowed. No it shouldnt stop alliances attacking you.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Should they be allowed? lolwut? Yes they should because people should be able to do what they want, especially if its as harmless as being harmless. I agree with WC though, they aren't immune to getting rolled if they mess up (though GPA didn't actually mess up when they got rolled, but whatever) and sanctions are based on statistics so I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that too if they have the stats for it.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283530304' post='2440466']Overall i believe it is best to take a stance and prepare to face the consequences rather than declare neutrality and idly observe (and thereby becoming an [b]accomplice[/b] to them) to acts you do not agree with and all in the name to save those precious pixels.
[/quote]

Neutrality is a stance. Most (all?) neutral alliances are aware there are risks with not being involved in the treaty web (these being what several people have pointed out here). GPA in particular

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283530289' post='2440465']The NSO card? Ok. NSO wasn't at the mercy of anyone, they had their allies who could have defended them but NSO asked them not too. At least NSO had allies to ask not to stand by them. GPA, WTF, TDO have no one at all.
[/quote]

You missed my point entirely.

An alliance [and possible allies] on the "smaller side" of the treaty web are also vulnerable to being at the mercy of others.

[KingEd]

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1283530653' post='2440472']

You missed my point entirely.

An alliance [and possible allies] on the "smaller side" of the treaty web are also vulnerable to being at the mercy of others.
[/quote]

Yes but wouldn't you agree that a group of alliances combined for a greater amount of stats pose as a greater deterrent than one alliance standing alone ?

[potato]

The real question is: why are there more than one? What's so different between GPA, TDO or WTF?

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283531217' post='2440482']
Yes but wouldn't you agree that a group of alliances combined for a greater amount of stats pose as a greater deterrent than one alliance standing alone ?
[/quote]

It depends a lot on how involved an analysis you want.

In many regards, GPA/TDO/WTF have [i]more[/i] deterrent than NSO does, because for someone to attack one of them there is essentially no gain whatsoever - no strengthening of political position (likely weakening it), no relevant statistic gain save casualties (if/when the war would go nuclear), likely alienating themselves from other alliances due to "moral" objections, etc. The only gain is from war being "fun."

Whereas attacking an alliance involved in the treaty web actually provides benefits for all the above - while you likely lose infra/tech/land overall you at least further political and relative positions compared to other alliances. Attacking a neutral alliance essentially provides none of those gains.

Likewise, a large bloc of neutrals (perhaps say those three above) would suddenly become a more relevant 'threat' [assuming you believe neutral alliances actually are a threat in the first place] that might actually incite action against them. Three 10M ns alliances that are independent and incredibly unlikely to ally are no threat at all, but if those three were allied, even if the actual intent to be a threat didn't exist the [i]perceived[/i] threat would increase.

[jerdge]

Politics don't simply mean "signing treaties", thus we neutrals [i]do[/i] participate in the politics of the game.

Being "pacifist" is a way to participate in CN politics, by the way.

I think that the main reasons behind neutrality are ...
[list][*]the desire of many to "just" build their nations
(which at one point becomes basically impossible in Peace Mode - see the economical damage inflicted to IRON by The Grämlins in their last war) ...
[*]without having to deal with the in-game war system ...
(which ultimately I find horribly boring, dull and mind-boggling, especially because it's a continuous curb-stomping and nuke-attack checklist-driven clicking after the first round of war)
[*]without having to deal with the horribly entangled treaty web ...
[*]without having to keep in check and under scrutiny your twenty-seven treatied partner to be "sure" that they are not going to have you rolled ...
[*]and without having to spend too much time in this game.[/list]
There are pro's and con's, and we just made our choice.

Nobody is forced to be neutral and yet there are people that are neutral since the game begun, thus there [i]musts[/i] be some fun in it. If some people can't deal with a reality they don't understand it's not the neutrals' fault.

Being neutral is much less risky than being aligned, anyway, and it will always be like that as long as the main wars are just one-sided curbstomps triggered by wild treaty-chaining (which IMHO means "forever"). I won't reveal anything ground-breaking if I say that aligneds generally need to think of their competitors and can't generally waste their energies in fighting non-competitors. It's really very simple to understand.

"Moralistic" stances against the neutrals "for the sake of the game" are silly. Neutrals [i]don't like[/i] CN war and treaty-based politics: if they will think that staying neutral became impossible/unfunny they'll just leave the game. This is what happened with hundreds of players with the Woodstock Massacre (and this is a reason some aligned leaders don't wish to have a WM2.0 for - ITT).
Kicking people out of the game is stupid because it makes more difficult for everybody to find trades and because, ultimately, kicking people out of the game is stupid griefing that doesn't add anything to anybody's cause.

Neutrality is not being "cowards" nor "avoiding consequences", as again the WM proved (assuming there was the need to prove it, anyway).

Also, quigon is correct as usual.

[i](I might add more if/when I'll have other time: for now I don't have any more of it.)[/i]


[size="2"][b]Edit:[/b] grammar.[/size]

Edited September 3, 2010 by jerdge