Neutrality ?

[Itsuki Koizumi]

eh neutrals have been declared on in the past, i say we do it again.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283531597' post='2440494']
The real question is: why are there more than one? What's so different between GPA, TDO or WTF?
[/quote]


Why is C&G not just one alliance?

[KingEd]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283531597' post='2440494']
The real question is: why are there more than one? What's so different between GPA, TDO or WTF?
[/quote]

Like many other things this is beyond my comprehension.


[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1283531603' post='2440495']
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."


[color="#008000"]The Continuum didn't lose any political standing did they? As for the moral objections---you wish it could be true but I think even the neutrals are beginning to realize that eventually "morals" will become a thing of the past. [/color]


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.


[color="#2E8B57"]True. However, igniting a Global War for the sake of furthering ones political agenda is pretty difficult and often plans for war dissolve due to this. One example is the IAA-GOD incident which was resolved diplomatically. The objective is not "What you can gain" is how easy it is to begin the war in the first place. Against a neutral alliance, 2 seconds...against NSO...allies have to discuss, plan, make sure everyone is "on-board". And for the record, I think stripping the neutrals of their sanctions is a pretty fair prize---besides your nuclear arsenals aren't at all impressive and us "non-neutrals" don't care very much for our pixels. [/color]


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.

[color="#2E8B57"]The neutrals are already a threat whether they are aligned or not. Hell, even NPO after a year of reps is a threat due to the massive war-chest they accumulated over the year of those reparations. GPA, TDO, WTF: All have nations with probably the biggest war-chest in the game due to lack of fighting, and rebuilding. If you ask me, the only thing that reduces the threat neutrals do face is their non-existent fighting abilities. [/color]

[/quote]

Edited September 3, 2010 by KingEd

[Biff Webster]

Also, there is plenty of politics within a neutral alliance. GPA has had some nasty infighting in her history.

[Horatio Longworth]

I'm fine with neutrals. There are plenty of non-Neutrals to keep the game exciting.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283535337' post='2440544']
The Continuum didn't lose any political standing did they? As for the moral objections---you wish it could be true but I think even the neutrals are beginning to realize that eventually "morals" will become a thing of the past.
[/quote]

Plenty of people hold that action against NPO to this day.

Not to mention that at the time, eliminating a lot of "top 5%" nations (from GPA) caused an increase in the availability of nukes that would not have happened otherwise (this was pre-MP).

[quote]True. However, igniting a Global War for the sake of furthering ones political agenda is pretty difficult and often plans for war dissolve due to this. One example is the IAA-GOD incident which was resolved diplomatically. The objective is not "What you can gain" is how easy it is to begin the war in the first place. Against a neutral alliance, 2 seconds...against NSO...allies have to discuss, plan, make sure everyone is "on-board". [/quote]

Of course the objective is "what you gain." Whether its fun, ingame status, or something else - no one will start a war they gain literally nothing from - that is insane. People might have different objectives (casualties, satisfaction of paranoia, etc) but there is still a reason for the war.

Most wars do not end up being global wars (in the sense the war is somewhat evenly matched, and not a curbstomp). See recent war for an example.

[quote]And for the record, I think stripping the neutrals of their sanctions is a pretty fair prize---besides your nuclear arsenals aren't at all impressive and us "non-neutrals" don't care very much for our pixels.
[/quote]

This is flawed for a variety of reasons. First, how do you determine if an alliance is neutral? Number of treaties? What if we (GPA) were to treaty TDO in a "we'll fight to defend neutrality" treaty? Are we neutral still? We do have a treaty. Or if all the neutrals formed a "neutral" bloc (united to other alliances)? Then we'd be in a bloc, and not neutral by this sense at all.

What about number of wars fought? GPA has fought in a war, so this doesn't make sense either as plenty of newer, non-neutral alliances have not fought in wars.

Determining which alliances are neutral in terms of this gameplay definition would require a fair bit of manual work and some subjective analysis. Granted, it wouldn't be impossible or that hard. But it would be an arbitrary imposition from the gameplay staff that "neutrality is not supported in CN" that would be rather poor from the development side.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283531597' post='2440494']
The real question is: why are there more than one? What's so different between GPA, TDO or WTF?
[/quote]

To be perfectly fair, this broadly applies to CN as a whole. There are plenty of alliances out there that are quite similar to other ones in terms of gameplay positions.

The variety is in the alliance [i]culture[/i].

[CRexx]

[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]

Yes.

GPA caved like a paper bag. Half of the nations had no stomach for war and those willing to fight clearly lacked training, war chests or military wonders. Q vs GPA wasn't a war, it was a massive scale tech raid. 3x the NS would have been just fine with Q leadership. Most Q alliances were screaming for more targets within a few days because everyone they'd hit had moved to a PoW camp or turtled. Most mid tier alliances with an active military could take the GPA out back and beat it up for its lunch money. My target just went active and let his nation die. We never even nuked him, hit him with solely conventional warfare and he left the game over it.

Neutrals are a great place to hide spare banks, for losers to hide after the war or tech raid when you need to tune up your military.

Edited September 3, 2010 by CRex of Gulo Gulo

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='CRex of Gulo Gulo' timestamp='1283542838' post='2440632']
Yes.

GPA caved like a paper bag. Half of the nations had no stomach for war and those willing to fight clearly lacked training, war chests or military wonders. Q vs GPA wasn't a war, it was a massive scale tech raid. 3x the NS would have been just fine with Q leadership. Most Q alliances were screaming for more targets within a few days because everyone they'd hit had moved to a PoW camp or turtled. Most mid tier alliances with an active military could take the GPA out back and beat it up for its lunch money. My target just went active and let his nation die. We never even nuked him, hit him with solely conventional warfare and he left the game over it.

Neutrals are a great place to hide spare banks, for losers to hide after the war or tech raid when you need to tune up your military.
[/quote]

You do realize you are currently in (or ghosting) a neutral alliance right?

[Hereno]

Should the game itself allow neutral alliances? Of course. Why wouldn't it? Let people do with the game what they want.

Should non-neutrals allow neutral alliances? Yes, but only when it's convenient to allow them to exist. I think it'd be awesome if a few alliances got together and started raiding neutrals, and turned them all into a source of cash, tech, and members. Or if they just forced them to disband or imposed some neat kind of reps. For example, having them sign an MDP treaty which only the non-neutral alliance can cancel. So I guess what I'm saying is that destroying neutrals or turning them into tributaries would be my favored plan of action.

[Homeboy]

War is the best way of elimination. Time to attack the neutrals

[Näktergal]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283526386' post='2440405']Lastly, please state whether you think being neutral should be allowed by the world at large or by [i]Admin[/i] himself.[/quote]
Yes, considering admin shouldn't interfere with the actual political process of alliances in any way, regardless of what it might be. Suggesting he should outright ban "neutrality" is like suggesting he should make it a ban-worthy offense for any alliance to tech raid, or that any alliance that signs an MDP and doesn't activate it within 24 hours after an ally is attack should have all their nations auto-deleted.

Just because you don't agree with the political policy does not necessarily make it "wrong", "bad", or worthy of scorn. And it certainly doesn't call for paternalistic micromanaging on the part of admin to insure the game is only played the way you think it should be.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283526386' post='2440405']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]
The biggest counter to that would be that there really isn't a point in ANY alliance having a sanction, as they have no real functional value in-game. Maybe admin should remove them entirely?

At most, there's an argument to be made that having your alliance listed as a sanctioned alliance in-game makes it more likely that undecided new players would pick that alliance to join at random, but that's not necessarily a GOOD thing. After all, if you're an active militaristic alliance, why would want an increased influx of ghosts and non-loyal strangers to fly your flag? And as for newer players who fully intend to be more active both politically and militarily, if they "accidentally" wind up in a neutral alliance solely because it's sanctioned, odds are they'd move on of their own accord regardless.



[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.[/quote]
Does that mean that every militaristic alliance should also be forced into a state of perpetual war? Because otherwise, you're just playing semantics.

Of course, you COULD just mean that it isn't "fair" for an alliance to declare itself "neutral" and somehow become "untouchable" militarily, but honestly, how often has that stopped ANYONE who wanted to roll a neutral alliance? It's not as if there was a massive public outcry or counter-response to the NPO deciding it wanted the #1 ranking spot that the GPA held and were fully willing to take it by force. And plenty of other smaller neutral alliances have absolutely been attacked over the years by opportunistic or aggressive alliances who didn't give a damn about their neutrality. So just how effective is this mythical neutral "shield" when push comes to shove?

The flip-side of that is that most neutrals maintain their position by trying to be friendly with everyone (or, at least, by going out of their way to not provoke anyone else), which is pretty much how most alliances in the game wind up negotiating treaties with other alliances in the first place. Most neutral alliances ARE involved in the political game, even if they're not playing it the way you think they should be. In fact, some of them actually invest far more time into the political side of things than non-neutral alliances who will simply throw paper at the first alliance that makes them an offer or simply looks pretty tough. From that perspective, why are neutrals any "worse" than non-neutral alliances who keep to themselves, or are more or less inactive in general?

Neutral alliances aren't magically invulnerable to war. It's not a pseudo-peace mode that lets them avoid ever having to fight while avoiding the actual drawbacks of peace mode. They still have to play the political game and organize to protect themselves in the same way that even the most militaristic alliances do to avoid being constantly outnumbered and pounded by enemies. If not picking sides makes it slightly easier for neutrals to avoid provoking people and to be friendly to other alliances, it's also harder for them to defend themselves when someone DOES attack (not having long strings of ill-thought out MDPs and MADPs triggering as soon as they're attacked), so it balances out.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283527648' post='2440424']These moral high grounds need to deteriorate quickly for the sake of the game.[/quote]
The MDP web itself has done FAR more to calcify alliances, stagnate politics, restrict wars, and generally harm the overall excitement of the game than any dozen neutral alliances combined ever have. If you're going to use the "for the sake of the game" argument, you'd be better off actually directing at something that would actually accomplish something of substance. Why not push to abolish official blocs and treaties entirely? You'd be amazed at how quickly and radically the political situation in CN would shift if every war didn't consist of a few alliances fencing for position early and then everyone else being dragged in after the fact (and potentially against their will) because of agreements they signed months or years ago.

That would certainly be better for the game than, you know, going on a witch-hunt for people you think don't play the game "properly", and driving even more people out of the game when it's already slowly bleeding out. Or were you foolishly convinced that simply forcing every neutral to fight/sign treaties was going to somehow magically make them all love war and the playground politics as opposed to simply driving them away from the game entirely? Or naively and idealistically believe turning the game into more of a combat simulator than a political simulator is somehow going to convince a massive flood of new players to sign up for the game and revitalize it?



[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.[/quote]
A non-chaining MDP bloc with alliances able to opt out if there was clear implication of misconduct on the part of a member (say, getting attacked because you were taunting someone on the OWF) would negate almost any danger such a neutral bloc would pose to its members. Exempting member alliances from having to defend their allies against "justifiable" attacks wouldn't be difficult to establish in a treaty at all. And that's even assuming they didn't just go with a basic ODP agreement where each alliance can easily decide on a case-by-case basis whether they should act or not.

The flaw in your thinking is that the only reason neutral alliances might be hesitant to sign treaties is because they're afraid for their precious pixels. Which shows a profound ignorance of the actual mentality of a lot of neutral groups - which is itself is a cardinal sin if you're going to go around making definitive statements about how horribly wrong they are and why they're such a blight on the world. Perhaps you should actually research your subject a bit more before lecturing so authoritatively about it?



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283530289' post='2440465']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]
There isn't a single bloc in the entire game, past, present, or future which is completely immune to attack. People who assume their current bloc (no matter what it is, or how powerful it might be at the moment) somehow magically protects them from all outside aggression are fooling themselves - and worse, lulling themselves into a false sense of security. If enough people want you dead, or if someone is willing to devote a LOT of effort into making you dead, having a handful of treaties isn't necessarily going to protect you.

The NPO isn't stupid - they essentially prefaced their attack on the GPA with months of smear campaign and PR work to isolate the GPA and paint them as "the bad guy" (and any idiot who was paying attention at the time should have been able to read the writing on the wall and predict the attack on the GPA months in advance - in fact, many people DID predict it at the time). By doing so, they limited the number of outside alliances who would have been willing to come to the GPA's aid, and made sure the whole operation would be a brutal curbstomp as they greatly outnumbered their targets. Had the GPA been part of a larger bloc of neutrals, the NPO would simply have directed their PR campaign against the bloc as a whole and neutrals in general. It might have taken longer to pull off, but the result would likely have been the same. And lest people forget, it isn't just "isolated" neutrals who can fall victim to this sort of tactic.

If you don't think this sort of PR campaign can shatter even strong militaristic and "politically aligned" blocs, look no farther than the Karma War. A large part of what ultimately led to the fall of Continuum and the NPO being toppled was the systematic campaign of propaganda and influence directed at them for months prior to the actual war, turning potential allies away from them and weakening their connections to other alliances. When the war came and a number of their theoretical allies sat back or switched sides, a large part of that is because a deliberate attempt was made to drive wedges between them and those who might support them. Had the PR been less effective, or had a number of things happened even slightly differently, right now we'd be talking about how the NPO and their allies ground the "Karma rebellion" into dust and continued their dominance. But the fact that we AREN'T shows that no single bloc - no matter how connected, and no matter how individually powerful - is ever going to be immune to getting blindsided if people work hard enough to isolate it.

The neutral alliances, who already start out somewhat isolated, don't have much of a chance whether they bloc together or not. Even agreements like, say, a "Declaration of Neutrality" and alliances signing it to show they respect the position aren't much of a defense when someone decides they really want you dead.



[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283531597' post='2440494']The real question is: why are there more than one? What's so different between GPA, TDO or WTF?[/quote]
Have you ever joined any of them? Spent time on any of their forums? Talked to any member of any of those alliances in general and got a feel for what their overall culture was, and how it might be different from other groups?

Biff Webster asked why C&G isn't a single alliance, but I'll take it a step further - if we assume that there can be no other possible distinguishing features or aspects of any group which considers itself to be politically neutral, then why is there a difference between ANY alliance? After all, we're all mostly pursuing the same explicit goals in-game - why not just have everyone merge into one single awesome alliance?

Or, if we assume that such an answer wouldn't work because it eliminates warfare from CN entirely, why not just merge every single alliance in CN into TWO separate alliances (which we can just call Red and Blue), who can then constantly fight each other? Hell, that would lead to a far more active and vital game, with none of this crap where everyone waits 3-4 months for a global war to break out. If we want a bit more variety, we could always just abolish alliances entirely and everyone's political alignment is determined solely by which color sphere they're in, with every sphere considered in a permanent state of war with every other sphere. That's a dozen different teams constantly fighting! That's exciting, right? Who cares if people on each team get along with each other, have different interests, or feel like their sphere should have specific philosophy or culture? None of that stuff matters!

I look at alliances like GOONS, Poison Clan, and \m/, and quite frankly, they all look exactly the same to me. Why should they all get to exist simultaneously? But I'm sure members of each would be quite outraged if someone were to suggest they should all be forced to merge, and would explicitly and in detail explain exactly what their differences are and why they're happy being separate. The same could probably be said about neutral alliances, if you ever bothered to ask them.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283535337' post='2440544']The neutrals are already a threat whether they are aligned or not. Hell, even NPO after a year of reps is a threat due to the massive war-chest they accumulated over the year of those reparations.[/quote]
Every single nation and alliance in the game is a potential threat to you. Why aren't you calling for admin to outlaw anyone who isn't you? For that matter, why aren't you in a state of perpetual war with everyone else on the planet?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Näktergal

[wickedj]

[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 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).
[/quote]
First, i agree with this man 100%

secondly, somewhere old man Goose is still shuddering at the mere mention of GUARD

[potato]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1283534902' post='2440539']
Why is C&G not just one alliance?
[/quote]

We are just one, controlled by Archon. Now that you're done being "witty", do you have anything to add to the conversation?

C&G isn't just one alliance because we're completely different, among other things but I'm going to let you figure it out on your own. Athens isn't MK. MK isn't LOST. LOST isn't ODN. ODN isn't GR. GR isn't FoB. Notice a pattern? The same way MK and NPO are different, TOP and GOD are different as well as NSO and TPF. Neutrality in such a game baffles me but heh... I don't understand how you can "play the neutrality game" in so many different ways. Apparently you can. And that was my question: how are GPA, TDO and WTF, to name the main neutral alliances, different from each other? Besides the name, for you smartarses.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
Yes, considering admin shouldn't interfere with the actual political process of alliances in any way, regardless of what it might be. Suggesting he should outright ban "neutrality" is like suggesting he should make it a ban-worthy offense for any alliance to tech raid, or that any alliance that signs an MDP and doesn't activate it within 24 hours after an ally is attack should have all their nations auto-deleted.

Just because you don't agree with the political policy does not necessarily make it "wrong", "bad", or worthy of scorn. And it certainly doesn't call for paternalistic micromanaging on the part of admin to insure the game is only played the way you think it should be.
[/quote]

I don't think Admin should do anything I ask of him. I was merely suggesting what people's opinion are regarding my comment. In reality, everyone should have the right to play the game as they wish but that doesn't exactly make the game any more fun. Imagine the different dynamic of the game (MDP Web) if those 3 alliances got involved in the treaty web out of the blue. Not only would it bring a new face and potential power player because of their size but a rise in tensions depending on which side of the web they joined.


[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
The biggest counter to that would be that there really isn't a point in ANY alliance having a sanction, as they have no real functional value in-game. Maybe admin should remove them entirely? [/quote]

I know that. My only valid point to that initial statement is that I think other alliances deserve the PiP's on the OWF's because non-neutrals tend to be more vocal on the forums and the neutrals. Then again, Admin could also make it so every alliance has a PiP.








[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
The MDP web itself has done FAR more to calcify alliances, stagnate politics, restrict wars, and generally harm the overall excitement of the game than any dozen neutral alliances combined ever have. If you're going to use the "for the sake of the game" argument, you'd be better off actually directing at something that would actually accomplish something of substance. Why not push to abolish official blocs and treaties entirely? You'd be amazed at how quickly and radically the political situation in CN would shift if every war didn't consist of a few alliances fencing for position early and then everyone else being dragged in after the fact (and potentially against their will) because of agreements they signed months or years ago.

That would certainly be better for the game than, you know, going on a witch-hunt for people you think don't play the game "properly", and driving even more people out of the game when it's already slowly bleeding out. Or were you foolishly convinced that simply forcing every neutral to fight/sign treaties was going to somehow magically make them all love war and the playground politics as opposed to simply driving them away from the game entirely? Or naively and idealistically believe turning the game into more of a combat simulator than a political simulator is somehow going to convince a massive flood of new players to sign up for the game and revitalize it?
[/quote]

Witch Hunt? Did you read the OP. I even asked about the origins of neutrality on BOB and not one single poster has said anything regarding the "original" neutrals. Do I like neutrality? No, I think it's useless. But at the same time I can't change it nor am I in a position to change it. The only thing I can do is begin a discussion to see what others thoughts are on the matter. But I do agree with you that the MDP web is the major reason for the lack of "war", but that's an unchangeable fact. Since the web began it has been growing and growing and it's nearly impossible to shrink it without the very thing it prevents--war. So the game is bleeding out...we all know it, and there isn't anything we can do about it. If your argument is that leaving the neutrals be will preserve the game, please explain to me...Why?

[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
Perhaps you should actually research your subject a bit more before lecturing so authoritatively about it?[/quote]

I did ask in the OP yet no one has added anything relevant to the origins of neutrality. I am also entitled to my opinion and I don't think I need to research something in order to bring it forth in a discussion...not that I could...Wiki didn't help much...



[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
There isn't a single bloc in the entire game, past, present, or future which is completely immune to attack. People who assume their current bloc (no matter what it is, or how powerful it might be at the moment) somehow magically protects them from all outside aggression are fooling themselves - and worse, lulling themselves into a false sense of security. If enough people want you dead, or if someone is willing to devote a LOT of effort into making you dead, having a handful of treaties isn't necessarily going to protect you.[/quote]

I would have loved to watched someone try going against Q when all 12 signatories remained. Oh wait, no one did or would ever attempt it. It would be suicide. Just as no one from the other side of the Web would dare to declare War on a C&G or SF member. Yes they can be attacked; however, the success of that attack is minimal.


[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
Every single nation and alliance in the game is a potential threat to you. Why aren't you calling for admin to outlaw anyone who isn't you? For that matter, why aren't you in a state of perpetual war with everyone else on the planet?
[/quote]

The MDP Web

[potato]

[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1283548836' post='2440709']
Have you ever joined any of them? Spent time on any of their forums? Talked to any member of any of those alliances in general and got a feel for what their overall culture was, and how it might be different from other groups?

Biff Webster asked why C&G isn't a single alliance, but I'll take it a step further - if we assume that there can be no other possible distinguishing features or aspects of any group which considers itself to be politically neutral, then why is there a difference between ANY alliance? After all, we're all mostly pursuing the same explicit goals in-game - why not just have everyone merge into one single awesome alliance?

Or, if we assume that such an answer wouldn't work because it eliminates warfare from CN entirely, why not just merge every single alliance in CN into TWO separate alliances (which we can just call Red and Blue), who can then constantly fight each other? Hell, that would lead to a far more active and vital game, with none of this crap where everyone waits 3-4 months for a global war to break out. If we want a bit more variety, we could always just abolish alliances entirely and everyone's political alignment is determined solely by which color sphere they're in, with every sphere considered in a permanent state of war with every other sphere. That's a dozen different teams constantly fighting! That's exciting, right? Who cares if people on each team get along with each other, have different interests, or feel like their sphere should have specific philosophy or culture? None of that stuff matters!

I look at alliances like GOONS, Poison Clan, and \m/, and quite frankly, they all look exactly the same to me. Why should they all get to exist simultaneously? But I'm sure members of each would be quite outraged if someone were to suggest they should all be forced to merge, and would explicitly and in detail explain exactly what their differences are and why they're happy being separate. The same could probably be said about neutral alliances, if you ever bothered to ask them.
[/quote]

Interesting points. Even if you put way too much into my words. I merely asked what the differences between GPA, WTF and TDO were. No where did I say that we should roll them for being neutral. Nor that we should roll two of them. Not that I would mind if we did but that's beside the point. And, yes, before you ask, I know there are plenty of plain alliances out there, who all look the same and that you could swap and not notice the difference if it wasn't for the name. That being said, if you think NPO, MK, TOP, GOONS, PC, \m/ or NSO all look the same, you're either being dense on purpose to prove a point or you're not paying attention. I may not like all of them but at least they make the game interesting.

To answer your initial enquiry though: no, yes, yes, yes. You want me to ask them questions? That's what I'm doing here and now.

Edited September 3, 2010 by potato

[Siocthastoirm]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']
Text wall.
[/quote]

I'm confused Ed. First you were calling for our destruction, now you're saying we have a right to "play the game as [we] wish."

Would you mind clarifying your position please?

[Grumpdogg]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552180' post='2440769']
We are just one, controlled by Archon. Now that you're done being "witty", do you have anything to add to the conversation?

C&G isn't just one alliance because we're completely different, among other things but I'm going to let you figure it out on your own. Athens isn't MK. MK isn't LOST. LOST isn't ODN. ODN isn't GR. GR isn't FoB. Notice a pattern? The same way MK and NPO are different, TOP and GOD are different as well as NSO and TPF. Neutrality in such a game baffles me but heh... I don't understand how you can "play the neutrality game" in so many different ways. Apparently you can. And that was my question: how are GPA, TDO and WTF, to name the main neutral alliances, different from each other? Besides the name, for you smartarses.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should elaborate on why CnG isn't all one alliance, beyond your extremely thin explanation "Athens isn't MK. MK isn't LOST...", before demanding clarity "besides the name" from anyone else.

[New Frontier]

[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're only saying that because you're in a neutral alliance.

[Näktergal]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I don't think Admin should do anything I ask of him. I was merely suggesting what people's opinion are regarding my comment.[/quote]
You asked what people thought, and then immediately followed up by pretty clearly indicating your own stance in multiple posts that followed. I'm merely doing the same and pointing out why I disagree with the idea of admin not "allowing" any sort of political viewpoint, let alone neutrality.

You obviously seem to believe that the sheer existence of neutral alliances is somehow detrimental to the game itself (and have as much as said so outright). I'm obviously pointing out that I believe that premise to be utter garbage.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']In reality, everyone should have the right to play the game as they wish but that doesn't exactly make the game any more fun.[/quote]
Even aside from the fact that what is and isn't "fun" is an incredibly subjective question (and the fact that you don't get to be sole arbiter of what is and isn't fun, or even what is and isn't "acceptable" fun), how would admin not "allowing" neutrality somehow make the game more fun for people who have pretty clearly expressed an interest in remaining neutral, for whatever reason? Would forcing the GPA to sign treaties somehow magically make every GPA member enjoy CN more? Would it make the game more awesome for everyone else? Would it result in an influx of new players who didn't want to sign up when there were neutral alliances, but oh boy, NOW it's going to be great?

And again, would whatever benefit you gained from doing so somehow offset the number of neutral players who simply decided to up and stop playing the game because they didn't like the change?



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I know that. My only valid point to that initial statement is that I think other alliances deserve the PiP's on the OWF's because non-neutrals tend to be more vocal on the forums and the neutrals.[/quote]
If that's your logic, why not abolish in-game sanctions entirely and award forum pips based on the amount of posts the members of any given alliance have? That would be the fairest method for making sure pips aren't wasted on alliances that don't post very much.

Of course, we could always say that's way too hard for board admins and mods to administer, so why not just have any alliance that wants a pip submit the names of their top 10 posters, and whichever alliances have the most posts that way get one?

As it stands now, Fark ( a non-neutral alliance!) generally avoids posting in quantity on the forums but are sanctioned in-game and have a forum icon. Should that be revoked because it's not fair to alliances that post more? If not, why should neutral alliances be penalized that way solely because they don't play the game the way you think they should?



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']Witch Hunt? Did you read the OP. I even asked about the origins of neutrality on BOB and not one single poster has said anything regarding the "original" neutrals.[/quote]
No, but my reply isn't 100% entirely about what you and you alone said, even if you're the one I quoted to say it.

That being said, have you pretty much established a point of view that you consider neutrality to be a horrible thing, that you wish wasn't allowed in the game? Yes. Have you expressed the view that the game would be better if all the neutral alliances didn't exist? Yes. Have you responded to every post in this thread that disagrees with counter-arguments that suggest an attempt to sway people to your point of view? Yes. Have you suggested that the "moral high ground" that it's considered less honorable to attack neutrals should be abolished "for the sake of the game", implying that more people going after neutrals for more spurious reasons would somehow benefit the game? Yes. Have some people in this topic expressed the point of view that the best way to get rid of neutrals is to attack them into submission? Yes.

So yes, I stand by my chosen terminology. Pointing to a specific group of players who play the game differently than you do and proclaiming that they make the game worse simply by existing, and asking if you think they should be allowed to play that way is ABSOLUTELY a witch-hunt, whether you're literally advocating attacking them or not.

If anything, phrasing it as if it were a mere unbiased question in the first post and then pursuing a specific agenda in the rest of your posts in the thread is somewhat disingenuous.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']Do I like neutrality? No, I think it's useless. But at the same time I can't change it nor am I in a position to change it. The only thing I can do is begin a discussion to see what others thoughts are on the matter.[/quote]
And then rather than simply seeing what other people have to say, actively debating with anyone who disagrees with you in an attempt to get them to change their mind. That's less a case of "I want to see what other people think" and more a case of "I want other people to see what I think", shading into "I want to encourage people to think the same thing I do".



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']But I do agree with you that the MDP web is the major reason for the lack of "war", but that's an unchangeable fact.[/quote]
Is it? Admin could just as easily not "allow" treaties as easily as he could not "allow" neutrality, so why is one discussion clearly rational and logical while the other is ridiculous and unaddressable?

If you feel that neutrality is such a pox on the game that it absolutely needs to be discussed, and that how other people feel about it absolutely needs to be known, why not ask the same discussion about an aspect of the game that does far greater harm?

And if you're willing to rail against the lesser evil while the greater evil thrives, then what good are you really doing, other than venting a personal dislike?



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']If your argument is that leaving the neutrals be will preserve the game, please explain to me...Why?[/quote]
My argument is more akin to suggesting that NOT "leaving the neutrals" will do absolutely nothing to benefit the game while doing a number of things to harm it. I offer nothing to offset the slow stasis, but what you're suggesting would almost certainly accelerate the decay without solving a damned thing. Like trying to cure an infected toe with a shotgun.

If people want to attack neutrals, that's fine - I'm not saying neutrals SHOULD be bulletproof or immune to DoWs. People have declared war on neutrals before, and the time will certainly come when someone else will again. But at least have the decency to not try and disguise it as a moral imperative that's somehow saving the world. It's not, and it never will be.

And asking whether admin should "allow" neutrality is basically asking whether or not something which isn't actually a problem should be fixed by a solution which is far, far worse.



[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I would have loved to watched someone try going against Q when all 12 signatories remained. Oh wait, no one did or would ever attempt it. It would be suicide. Just as no one from the other side of the Web would dare to declare War on a C&G or SF member. Yes they can be attacked; however, the success of that attack is minimal. [/quote]
Yes, assuming everyone simply woke up one day and decided to attack the entire bloc without drumming up support, seeking allies, or otherwise attempting to cause rifts in the opposing side. Because that's totally how wars are fought in CN. Totally.

Do you think all 12 signatories of Q just wandered off on their own for no real reason? Do you honestly think that everyone who walked away later rather than sooner did so having been completely uninfluenced by other alliances and blocs or attempts to turn them against the NPO in general through discussion and PR? Or perhaps, just perhaps, there were multiple people in multiple alliances deliberately cultivating relationships and arranging closer communication with people on "the other side" while simultaneously spreading intel and propaganda which would limit the likelihood of relatively undecided outsiders getting involved on the "wrong" side?

And as pointed out, that's a tactic that works on any bloc, if done correctly. Whether a given bloc is neutral or not, regardless of how many treaties they might have, and so on.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Näktergal

[Näktergal]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552180' post='2440769']We are just one, controlled by Archon. Now that you're done being "witty", do you have anything to add to the conversation?

C&G isn't just one alliance because we're completely different[/quote]
Congratulations - you just figured out the point he was making. The reason why C&G is multiple alliances - namely, that each one has its own unique culture, identity, history, and means of viewing the world - is not somehow trumped by the overlying fact that they share similar political beliefs. In the same sense, while various neutral alliances exist, the fact that they ARE neutral doesn't somehow trump every single other aspect that makes them unique groups.



[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']Interesting points. Even if you put way too much into my words. I merely asked what the differences between GPA, WTF and TDO were.[/quote]
I'm not just specifically replying to your words and your words alone, though, as much as I'm addressing the issue as a whole, and how it relates to the topic we're currently discussing (as per the topic title/first post/trend of discussion). You can consider the post of yours I quoted as being a jumping off point for related ideas, directed at people who DO feel the way I implied.

As for the direct response, you basically asked what the differences were in a way that implied you were skeptical that any exist at all. My reply implied that such is a somewhat naive point of view to have. Of COURSE there are differences, even if they aren't immediately obvious to outsiders who never actually spent much time trying to find out what those differences are.



[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']That being said, if you think NPO, MK, TOP, GOONS, PC, \m/ or NSO all look the same, you're either being dense on purpose to prove a point or you're not paying attention. I may not like all of them but at least they make the game interesting.[/quote]
All of them together? No. But you're also being deliberately obtuse if you're going to deny that, say, TOP and the NPO have any number of superficial similarities of style and political method to anyone who doesn't examine either closely, or that alliances like GOONS, \m/, and PC have very similar cultures and political ideologies that look very much alike from the outside.

Is that to say that GOONS and PC are identical in every way? No. But it does suggest that surface similarities aren't always the best possible way to completely judge and condemn entire groups, or suggest that one is completely superfluous because a similar group already exists.



[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']I may not like all of them but at least they make the game interesting.[/quote]
On the other hand, one person's interesting is another person's annoying. How many players were driven away by the way the NPO played the game when they were in power? How many people actively dislike the GOONS now (and/or disliked their original incarnation)? How many people hate the very aspects of the game that you enjoy, or vice-versa?

Now why should your opinion hold any more weight than theirs does?

Sometimes, that sort of dislike some of the more active alliances can generate will spur interesting interaction or outright wars. Sometimes, it just spurs disinterest and frustration which leads people to hate the game and stop playing. But again, is that any reason to say that particular style of play should be outright banned? Why does there always seem to be such a drive on the part of some CN players to enforce some sort of One True Way to play the game, condemning every other possible style as being heresy?

Why is it so unacceptable to say that some people like playing the game one way, and that's fine, while other people like playing the game a different way, which is also fine? As long as someone isn't outright cheating or breaking the rules, why should they be forced to conform to a style they clearly don't prefer but others think is "right"?



[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']To answer your initial enquiry though: no, yes, yes, yes. You want me to ask them questions? That's what I'm doing here and now.
[/quote]
To be fair, you're not actually asking them where it would actually do any good, though. You're asking them on a board filled with people who parrot along with each other and self-reinforce existing biases, where the single dominant paradigm of any given moment tends to shout out dissenting points of view by virtue of some people posting far too much and other people not posting enough. Many neutral alliances by nature avoid the main forums to avoid stupid drama, and some of the ones who DO come here have something akin to a gag-order which would prevent them from answering you even if they wanted to.

I mean, honestly, I'm probably putting the most energy into defending neutral alliances in this topic right now, and I've never been in a truly neutral alliance in the 4+ years I've been in CN. I can't tell you how the GPA sees the world, or how WTF sees the world, or how any other given alliance sees the world. But I can tell you that just because you can't see the differences doesn't mean they don't exist, any more than all "lulz" alliances were/are the same, or all "srs bzn" alliances were/are all the same, and so on. And I can tell you that I've known people in the GPA and people in other neutral alliances, and that it's easy to see that some of them probably wouldn't fit in different neutral alliances. I absolutely know some people who consider themselves neutrals who would be thrown out of the GPA in less than a month because their ideology would massively clash with the dominant culture.

If you were actually interested in the answers, rather than simply throwing the questions out as a challenge meant to express and reinforce what you already believe, you'd be asking them of the actual neutrals in question, on their own boards. If you went to the GPA boards and asked individual members to explain why they're part of the GPA as opposed to any other neutral alliance, or what they perceive as the difference between the GPA and other groups (and if you didn't phrase your initial post in a way that comes across like a blatantly insulting attack thinly-veiled as sincere interest), you'd probably get any number of actual answers.

[emperor keith]

What wrong with political and cultural Laissez-faire? Neutrality is a political shield one puts up to abstain from the destruction of a well established society. Who wants to build up a way of life only for it to be detroyed in a defensive war? Why do you think switizerland is soo succesfull? In fact they are soo sucessful that there central bank is struggling to keep down the price of the franc. Yes in the real world War is a way to boom to your economy on the short term, but persistanly remaining neutral can open up many doors and many markets to anyone. So ask yourself this what is the point of war? Anything can happen by peaceful processes.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Siocthastoirm' timestamp='1283555852' post='2440813']
I'm confused Ed. First you were calling for our destruction, now you're saying we have a right to "play the game as [we] wish."

Would you mind clarifying your position please?
[/quote]

What I mean is that I agreed that Admin shouldn't interfere in the way the game is played, politically at least. However, I still think the community at large does have a say and indeed have the power to change things if we wanted too.

I hope this clarifies my position. I don't hate neutrals, but I don't see the point for their existence either.


Lastly, I will answer the 4 pg essay Näktergal wrote above at some other point. My head is spinning atm.

[HeroofTime55]

I say we roll the neutrals and force them to participate in politics. By "we" I don't mean any group I am part of, SG needs to do it because if anyone else does, SG will jump on them citing their "criminal actions" and that's not too cool. But yes, please, roll the neutrals. You want to bring excitement back to the game, there's one low impact way of doing it, you probably won't hear many complaints except from the hippies themselves.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283526386' post='2440405']
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.
[/quote]


You would have to define neutral better for me to answer certain questions because in all technicality FAN could be neutral since they don't have treaties, likewise a peaceful alliance that has only optional pacts could be neutral. I know neutrality can be boring but its a valid way to play the game and the only way to outlaw neutrality would be to force war at some interval.