Neutrality ?

[eyriq]

Broken Heads!

Come on over neutrals, the grass [i]really[/i] is greener on the other side.

[The Infinite Dunes]

[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]And conversely, neutral alliances don't understand why alliances who enjoy frequent bouts of war insist on remaining inside the MDP web. It seems to me that people complain when they get dragged into wars that have absolutely nothing to do with them and then also complain when they can't find anyone to war with because their too worried about causing the MDP web to erupt. Then people notice the neutral alliances sitting on the side lines, outside the MDP web, but aren't perpetually at war with outside aggressors and wonder how this is possible.

I don't take the view that neutral alliances are not attacked because they are neutral. Rather they are not attacked because they are generally smaller and untreatied. Neutral alliances aren't attacked because people think it would be taking candy from a baby. A baby with nukes. If an alliance decided to attack a neutral alliance they either look like: a) bullies because they're picking on someone smaller or who doesn't have anyone to call for help; b) weak and feeble if they have to request help from their allies because they're not doing so well in the war. Either way, the alliance is likely to lose respect in the community, maybe have treaties canceled with it and subsequently become a target itself.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1283530230' post='2440462']
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.
[/quote]I take objection that you think FAN is the armed neutral alliance. I had a quick look on the stats page and the Grey Council has larger military per head in all areas except nukes. I'm mildly upset about that, I feel I should disappear back to our forums and berate our members. An average eight nukes per head is unacceptable.


[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1283765931' post='2443578']
Broken Heads!

Come on over neutrals, the grass [i]really[/i] is greener on the other side.
[/quote]Only because it's growing in uranium saturated meadows. ;p

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Chaoshawk' timestamp='1283712373' post='2442837']
I think neutrality shouldn't exist for the disease could spread and obliterate Bob in its mission to cleanse the world of war.
[/quote]

It's incorrect to assume that just because an alliance is neutral, that their goal (stated or otherwise) is to cleans the world of war. I don't see The Grey Council or The Green Old Party leaders (or members, for that matter) making those arguments. Instead its most often "do what you want, just leave us out of it."

Also, ditto to this:

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1283756801' post='2443512']
if anyone touches the neutrals on Green without cause there is a very good chance I'll !@#$ing break your head.
[/quote]

I'd rather not have Lander Clan's neutral trade partners rolled, thank you. And I'm sure the leadership at BN who spend a great deal of time arranging our trades would not be very happy either.

[Aurion]

If people want to be in a "boring" alliance, I'm not sure why they can't/shouldn't be allowed to do so.

[Chaoshawk]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1283806277' post='2444297']
It's incorrect to assume that just because an alliance is neutral, that their goal (stated or otherwise) is to cleans the world of war. I don't see The Grey Council or The Green Old Party leaders (or members, for that matter) making those arguments. Instead its most often "do what you want, just leave us out of it."

[/quote]
My post was taken seriously.

[Vespassianus]

If someone wanna play CN as a nation simulator they should do that, but if someone choose "war is an option" at nation edit page he shouldn't be surprised if someone attack him.

[quote]I take objection that you think FAN is the armed neutral alliance. I had a quick look on the stats page and the Grey Council has larger military per head in all areas except nukes. I'm mildly upset about that, I feel I should disappear back to our forums and berate our members. An average eight nukes per head is unacceptable.[/quote]

Grey Council>FAN? Higher avg stats doesn't mean that you have better military...

[D34th]

[quote name='The Infinite Dunes' timestamp='1283793971' post='2444009']
I take objection that you think FAN is the armed neutral alliance. I had a quick look on the stats page and the Grey Council has larger military per head in all areas except nukes. I'm mildly upset about that, I feel I should disappear back to our forums and berate our members. An average eight nukes per head is unacceptable.
[/quote]

Sorry, you're right I really forgot about Grey Council

[potato]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1283714739' post='2442867']
There is so much difference, you might not imagine.
[/quote]

No, I don't. Hence why I'm !@#$@#$ asking. All I have to work with is "we're different". So, again, how are you different from one another?

[MrMuz]

Neutrals do have a strong effect on politics. At the very least, neutrals are good trade partners to more active alliances. They're much less likely to ragequit than your standard curbstomped nation. At best, they're retirement camps for when people get sick of war.

[Rokula]

Being neutral is inhuman, and anyone inhuman is a (ro)bot and needs to be eliminated. Neutrality is the curse of those outside of our world.

[Cerridwyn]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283855627' post='2445134']
No, I don't. Hence why I'm !@#$@#$ asking. All I have to work with is "we're different". So, again, how are you different from one another?
[/quote]

Some differences, other than the one I gave:

GPA is active here on the forums, it's green, and a respected member of green.
TDO is progressively more isolationist. It's aqua.
Ubercon is totally isolationist and occasionally gets respected for it.
Grey Council is a true neutral. They require you to be grey which is a commitment as there is no possibility of happiness bonus.
We're too young to know how we'll turn out. I am trying very hard to promote being non-isolationist.

Internally, they are all politically different. Go visit the forums of the big 3 and Grey Council and see. Read their charters, see who their friends are. The treatied neutrals should have somewhere, the wikia maybe? who are signatories of those neutrality treaties.

Are any of them members, inactive or active, of their color's trading blocs? I can't answer that one, but I bet that other members of said blocs can.

[jerdge]

[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]
The history and the origins of the three are different, with the common ground of being born out of aversion for war.

To name a few differences (as I know them - I might be inaccurate):

The GPA is a presidential democracy which is interested in the growth of her nations and also in foreign affairs and in alliance politics, but with the self-imposed commitment to not take sides when she's not involved. The GPA charters and policy documents are quite "light" and short.
It's a medium-large sized alliance with a significant-high ANS.

TDO is a parliamentary democracy which is primarily focused on economics and internal affairs. Their interest for foreign entities is (AFAIK) limited to economic accords: for the remaining they completely don't care. Their charter is more long and "complicated" than the GPA's.
It's a medium-large sized alliance with an "average" ANS.

The WTF is (AFAIK) a not much structured, collective/direct democracy which is completely focused on internal affairs and (I believe) military preparedness. They don't have a charter. They had and have treaties with military/intelligence clauses.
It's a medium-sized alliance with an high ANS.

I personally think that most of the members of these three alliances would theoretically excellently fit in either of the other two, but they don't move just because it's too much hassle and because of tradition.
I also think that that's valid for a lot of other alliances in CN, anyway: it's not specific of the neutrals.

[Rooman33]

Well, I won't weigh in on the various intricacies of this debate. Because there are as many different interpretations on what it means to be "neutral" as there are neutral alliances (hence why various neutral alliances exist).

But I will say this: I welcome the chance to kick in the teeth of anyone who wishes to test the GOP's resolve. Neutrality =/= pacifism.

I should also point out that the Green Old Party's "Don't Tread on Me" doctrine states that we reserve the right to defend against any attack on our "spheres of interest" (i.e. neutrality, the Green sphere, or Conservatism). So if anyone gets froggy and decides to attack a neutral alliance just because they think it'll be an "easy target," you'll be greeting our nukes in short order.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Rooman33

[Earl of Emyn Arnen]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1283973903' post='2446772']
Well, I won't weigh in on the various intricacies of this debate. Because there are as many different interpretations on what it means to be "neutral" as there are neutral alliances (hence why various neutral alliances exist).

But I will say this: I welcome the chance to kick in the teeth of anyone who wishes to test the GOP's resolve. Neutrality =/= pacifism.

I should also point out that the Green Old Party's "Don't Tread on Me" doctrine states that we reserve the right to defend against any attack on our "spheres of interest" (i.e. neutrality, the Green sphere, or Conservatism). So if anyone gets froggy and decides to attack a neutral alliance just because they think it'll be an "easy target," you'll be greeting our nukes in short order.
[/quote]

I think I agree with this Rooman33 guy.

[Cerridwyn]

Well said Rooman33

[Enrage]

One day when we're done beating the crap outta eachother, the neutrals will come out of the shadows and beat the living hell outta us.

[Reptyler]

[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.[/quote]
I'd venture that neutrality was the default state of the game in its earliest stages. All the inter-alliance politics are player-added functions; Admin originally didn't even have alliance affiliations, let alone sanctioned ones.

[quote]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]
I think that is a pretty shallow opinion. They have every right to play this game as you do. If you're jealous of their stats, feel free to attack the ones not in peace mode. But I for one will think you childish for doing so, and I hope you know that if you touch a neutral on Green, VE will beat your bloody brains out.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Reptyler