In Opposition to Neutrality

[Foltest]

Obviously Mensa's thread has garnered plenty of response, lots of jokes, and mention of weed whacking; but GPA, and their morally superior defenders, still seem to be in the dark on why many of us take an anti-neutral attitude. So I'm going to take the liberty of compiling the reasons here, under one post, for convenience - and add a little of my own

 

 

So firstly, I'd like to pick apart the very first pro-GPA post - presented by Maxwell. Using spoilers so I don't create a too-massive wall of text:

 

 

 

 

 

Why do people insist that the only true way to play this game is to be fighting all the time? The game is about politics and war. You go to war when politics necessitate it. I am pretty confident in saying that our politics definitely did not necessitate this war, so it's ultimately pointless, and it makes no sense to praise Mensa for "playing the game as it's meant to be played" by fighting us as I expect will be done in short order.

 

We were happy to just sit around building up our nations. That's why we exist. We are the players of this game, of equal stature to everyone else, who just want to build. Why not let us? Leave us be, you guys can do your thing while we do ours. Warring is fun for most players, those who are in non-neutral alliances, who open themselves up to the possibility of war. But why insist that the players who joined an alliance and abide by strict neutrality, specifically for the purpose of avoiding war, also go to war? We became neutrals because we want to not go to war, so why ruin our fun? What did we ever do to you? We're not pacifists of course, but we only fight defensively, so we may as well be.

 

Anyways, I know this will get misinterpreted to hell and back and the train will keep on chugging along to page 50 or whatever. I just want to say it for the record, this war is utterly pointless and accomplishes nothing in the end but to bring our and Mensa's score down, there are no politics at play here.

 

And I lifted my self-imposed gag order.

 

 

 

Point by point, if you will.

 

1. "You go to war when politics necessitate it" - Not only an untrue statement, but a sentiment that I personally believe is destroying games like PnW. The clinging to a real-life-equivalent roleplay of being a defensive alliance and never striking out to fulfill your own goals or desires creates an incredibly dull atmosphere not to mention that no one moves ahead without making moves.

 

2. "We just want to build, why not let us?" - There could be a variety of reasons here, but mainly because GPA as a combined affiliation occupies the number one spot in the game due to their very rare moments of true pixel loss compared to the rest of us. Not only this, but since when in history (this game or in the real world) have nations allowed other nations to grow unhampered because they trusted their intentions? You may never intend to attack anyone, but the fact that you grow unchecked makes you a potential threat.

 

3. "We're not Pacifists, we only fight defensively" - tying into the "you're a threat, whether or not you admit it" category, every single global war ever waged has made some modicum of effort to appear defensive in order to be able to activate defensive treaties. How many non-neutral groups have used "we're fighting defensively" reasoning just in the past global war? The fact that you are self-admittedly non-pacifist eliminates any possibility (what little there was) that you could claim to be a passive entity not worthy of attack.

 

 

 

 

So thanks for providing a decent baseline for this post, Max. But these are not the only reasons Neutrality should be opposed.

 

 

 

Arrogance - You thought you could rest in your cradle of power, unmolested, with no allies to come to your aid?

 

Greed - You thought you would keep the number one spot, continuing to reach new nation heights, and any who dared to challenge you for it were somehow in the moral wrong?

 

Sloth - You represent, and even idolize, the very sentiments that are suffocating worlds like Orbis. Your indifference and inaction within the greater realm has not only made you weak, it has taken away from what could've been since your founding. GPA isn't the only group who is guilty of this, but they are the most obvious choice. There are others, who even hold treaties, who think they can remain untouched and unchallenged for the #1 spot, but they are just as blind as you.

 

 

 

 

Neutrality, and more importantly the multiple sentiments that govern and surround it, is something that takes away from the world at large. You contribute nothing, and you made the mistake of leaving yourself a perfect target while asking the world at large why. Hopefully this latest dance with Mensa will finally force your hand and get you involved, even if you involve yourself against people like us. I hope you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tl;dr - you thought you were safe, but you were deceived.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdgmH9Vv2-I

[hadesflames]

Join me in watching GPA's flag get smaller while TEst's and Mensa's remain the same:

 

https://tools.britanniapw.com/map

[Ayayay]

You forgot the most important part, they hurt my feelings

 

You guys won't believe this but those monsters in GPA had the audacity to permanently blacklist me from their alliance on made up and totally bullshit charges like raiding, extorting, and nuking them. Can you guys imagine me doing such a thing? I'm such a sweet little angel and those lying bastards broke my heart with their false accusations. In fact, all I've ever wanted to do in life was be a neutral, war profiteer and farm my pixels while everyone else in the game has fun in global wars but those heartless bastards won't let me. Anyone who doesn't attack GPA is clearly in full support of their fascist lies and deserves to be dowed themselves.

Edited July 5, 2016 by underlordgc

[hadesflames]

You forgot the most important part, they hurt my feelings

 

You guys won't believe this but those monsters in GPA had the audacity to permanently blacklist me from their alliance on made up and totally bullshit charges like raiding, extorting, and nuking them. Can you guys imagine me doing such a thing? I'm such a sweet little angel and those lying bastards broke my heart with their false accusations. In fact, all I've ever wanted to do in life was be a neutral, war profiteer and farm my pixels while everyone else in the game has fun in global wars but those heartless bastards won't let me. Anyone who doesn't attack GPA is clearly in full support of their fascist lies and deserves to be dowed themselves.

You poor baby. =,(

[Ayayay]

Neutrality, and more importantly the multiple sentiments that govern and surround it, is something that takes away from the world at large. You contribute nothing, and you made the mistake of leaving yourself a perfect target while asking the world at large why. Hopefully this latest dance with Mensa will finally force your hand and get you involved, even if you involve yourself against people like us. I hope you do.

Just want to point out that GPA was literally created 10 years ago by people who got pissy about getting rolled in a war (that their own alliance started, no less) and therefore have a well established history of being whiny !@#$. Also, they have a !@#$ed up definition of neutrality as well.

 

Taken from the GPA charter:

(B.) The GPA reserves the right to defend, by whatever means it chooses, against any actual or perceived attack on the Green Sphere or Neutrality as a whole.

If this line seems vaguely familiar to any of you it may be because this was one of the reasons GPA was hit in St. Patrick's. Grillick himself used this as a threat on the OWF some time after his aggressive spy op.

 

 

tl;dr GPA's definition of neutrality is as grounded in logic as a teenage girl believing anal sex doesn't count as losing her virginity.

Edited July 5, 2016 by underlordgc

[Apeman]

Just want to point out that GPA was literally created 10 years ago by people who got pissy about getting rolled in a war (that their own alliance started, no less) and therefore have a well established history of being whiny !@#$. Also, they have a !@#$ed up definition of neutrality as well.

 

Taken from the GPA charter:

If this line seems vaguely familiar to any of you it's because this was one of the reasons GPA was hit in St. Patrick's. GPA's definition of neutrality is as grounded in logic as a teenage girl believing anal sex doesn't count as losing her virginity.

Congrats on keeping your virginity GPA

[naTia]

GPA represent what few care to agree with - being boring in an online game. Pacifism isn't inherently bad, but god does it make you seem insufferable when you say "we're just here to build and defend ourselves". If you don't wish to play politics or go to war, so be it, but nobody will be there to defend you.

[Ayayay]

GPA represent what few care to agree with - being boring in an online game.

That's basically it tbh. But it takes all the fun out of shitting on them when you say it like that so you gotta spice it up a bit like what OP and I did. Edited July 5, 2016 by underlordgc

[Lyrositor]

Neutrality isn't a shield from any attack. I understand the rationale for choosing to attack the high-infra and cities nations which might potentially defect to other alliances; while in GPA, they can grow faster and farther than any other nation could in a regular nation. I also have and still take issue with the way GPA defines its neutrality.

 

However, where I disagree is when people claim neutrals as a whole should not be a part of the game, for any number of reasons. Whether or not you agree with their playstyle, the purpose of any game ultimately is to have fun, and neutrals have more fun slowly building nations while taking a more backseat approach to politics, if they get involved in politics at all. Any claim that they are destroying the game seems absurd to me; they keep the market alive, draw more players to the game and make for the occasional global war when everybody decides to give them a beating for whatever reason. Is it a dull experience? Probably if you're not interested in it yourself, but it remains confined to the alliance. You can hardly blame GPA for making Orbis more dull - if anything, the increasingly complex treaty web is to blame for that.

 

Of course GPA hit #1 - again. The entire point of the alliance is to slowly accrue more and more points. If you don't like it, declare war, but don't claim it's nigh-on sinful to be a part of a neutral alliance because of this. I greatly enjoyed my time in GPA and Sigma, even though many would consider it pointless and uninteresting; in the end, all that matters is that you enjoy yourself while playing Politics & War. If the very existence of GPA prevents you from doing so, I am at a loss to understand.

 

Happy war, everyone.

[LordRahl2]

And also Dio.

[BeachBunny]

DIO DIO DIO! DIO WILLS IT!

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Of course GPA hit #1 - again. The entire point of the alliance is to slowly accrue more and more points. If you don't like it, declare war, but don't claim it's nigh-on sinful to be a part of a neutral alliance because of this. 

 

 

My apologies, kind sir, but you are mistaken. As the High Priest of Dio Brando, I have it on good authority that Dio Brando frowns upon heresies such as being neutral, pig-disgusting, or preferring snow over sand. 

[Ayayay]

[Ole]

 

My apologies, kind sir, but you are mistaken. As the High Priest of Dio Brando, I have it on good authority that Dio Brando frowns upon heresies such as being neutral, pig-disgusting, or preferring snow over sand. 

 

Got a problem with Heresy?

Edited July 5, 2016 by Ole

[Ogaden]

Chaotic Neutral is best neutral

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Got a problem with Heresy?

 

Only heresies which God Emperor Dio Brando does not approve. We couldn't care less about heresies against that impostor from Terra, the so-called God Emperor of Mankind.

[Eumirbago]

Got a problem with Heresy?

What's wrong with Hennessy?

[Foltest]

Neutrality isn't a shield from any attack. I understand the rationale for choosing to attack the high-infra and cities nations which might potentially defect to other alliances; while in GPA, they can grow faster and farther than any other nation could in a regular nation. I also have and still take issue with the way GPA defines its neutrality.

 

However, where I disagree is when people claim neutrals as a whole should not be a part of the game, for any number of reasons. Whether or not you agree with their playstyle, the purpose of any game ultimately is to have fun, and neutrals have more fun slowly building nations while taking a more backseat approach to politics, if they get involved in politics at all. Any claim that they are destroying the game seems absurd to me; they keep the market alive, draw more players to the game and make for the occasional global war when everybody decides to give them a beating for whatever reason. Is it a dull experience? Probably if you're not interested in it yourself, but it remains confined to the alliance. You can hardly blame GPA for making Orbis more dull - if anything, the increasingly complex treaty web is to blame for that.

 

Of course GPA hit #1 - again. The entire point of the alliance is to slowly accrue more and more points. If you don't like it, declare war, but don't claim it's nigh-on sinful to be a part of a neutral alliance because of this. I greatly enjoyed my time in GPA and Sigma, even though many would consider it pointless and uninteresting; in the end, all that matters is that you enjoy yourself while playing Politics & War. If the very existence of GPA prevents you from doing so, I am at a loss to understand.

 

Happy war, everyone.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming that GPA is specifically ruining our ability to enjoy the game.

 

My argument is that the sentiment of "I'm going to form a large alliance and then purposefully do nothing" is ruining the game. The neutral expressly do it, Pantheon tries to not be seen as doing it, Sparta did it for awhile, many people in both coalitions do it.

 

People claim treaties are killing the game, but how many alliances have to be shamed into defending an ally? How many would willingly take up a pseudo-neutral perspective on many of the global wars fought if they weren't contractually/socially obligated to fight?

 

 

 

The attitude of "protect my pixels" isn't just boring in the sense that you don't want to go to war in-game. It's boring in the sense that people avoid creating IC drama for the community to thrive on - even to the extent of creating an alliance specifically designated to not participate in the greater community.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad Mensa wants, and tries, to bring GPA into the global community.

[Woot]

Congrats on keeping your virginity GPA

 

And condolences to NPO

[Chapsie]

Defending neutrality here is like throwing meat to piranha's and expecting the meat to be untouched.

 

Also, I enjoy the name of the thread OP, _{little baby meta}

[Peacity Peace]

Screw GPA.

 

This is politics and war.

 

Not politics and circle jerking in "neutrality".

 

 

If you're not with us, you're against us.

 

 

 

Live footage of a GPA member playing P&W:

 

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Peacity Peace

[Sketchy]

Join me in watching GPA's flag get smaller while TEst's and Mensa's remain the same:

 

https://tools.britanniapw.com/map

 

You forgot Roz Wei in your web.

[Doktor Avalanche]

It is often called a "Neutral Menace" for a reason.

[Valakias]

I fully condone burning the treaty web to smithereens and let a fully anarchic world be born. 

[hadesflames]

You forgot Roz Wei in your web.

I asked baronus, he said they weren't intending on actually attacking GPA. Or something along those lines. He asked me not to add Roz Wei in any case, so I didn't.