Isjaki Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 Let's be honest, NPO's Last Time was long, toxic and we are all glad that the war is finally over. But there is nothing that prevents such a thing from happening again, and thus, I thought about drafting a set of principles that alliances in Orbis agree to abide by, to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen anymore. The idea is not to kill wars, but rather, to avoid toxic permawar like situations, as opposed to fun, non-toxic pixel burning. These are the pointers I came up with, ya'll can discuss those, as well as add points of your own, and then I would request all alliances to become signatories and ratify this in their own alliance (Kinda like UN treaties irl, but not quite UN) All signatories agree that they will never participate in any activity intending to 'kill' the game. Killing the game is defined as any activity which tries to drive away players from this game, and also prevents new players from joining this game. This includes, but isn't limited to, permawar in an effort to drive members of the losing side out of the game and mass-spamming false reviews about the game. All signatories to this treaty agree that they will never cheat themselves, nor will they shelter cheaters. They further agree to fully cooperate with the game administration to investigate/prevent cheating. All signatories agree to pursue peace negotiations in good faith. They further agree that the peace terms will involve only the game in it's scope, and no term shall involve an irl activity (whether it be something serious like eating dog food or something more innocuous like writing essays). All signatories (if/when they are on the winning side) agree that they will reveal all the peace terms upfront to the alliances on the losing side. All signatories agree not to attack the protectorates of hostile alliances, unless the said protectorate is aiding the said alliance's war effort. All signatories agree to not bully smaller players/alliances. All signatories agree to not develop grudges, and pursue friendly and respectful relations with alliances on the opposing side, after the war is over. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denison Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons We all know how this has worked out... Edited February 20, 2020 by Denison Quote Janny Larpers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messi Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 Smh guys this game is politics and war not kind of chess that we have to shake hands after. Rivalries and grudges is part of the game, we can't have game with good side only, that will get boring quickly. There should be a good side and bad side (and of course everyone will think they are the good ones) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isjaki Posted February 20, 2020 Author Share Posted February 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, Messi said: Smh guys this game is politics and war not kind of chess that we have to shake hands after. Rivalries and grudges is part of the game, we can't have game with good side only, that will get boring quickly. There should be a good side and bad side (and of course everyone will think they are the good ones) Rivalries and grudges shouldn't be such that you wish to drive your enemies away from the game. It's just a game, exactly, and we can have competition in good faith with pixel sacrifices in regular intervals, without it becoming a Sith vs Jedi thing. We could learn from the foreign policy of Arrgh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 17 minutes ago, Isjaki said: Rivalries and grudges shouldn't be such that you wish to drive your enemies away from the game. It's just a game, exactly, and we can have competition in good faith with pixel sacrifices in regular intervals, without it becoming a Sith vs Jedi thing. We could learn from the foreign policy of Arrgh. Rivalries and grudges are good for the game as long as they stay within reason. If alliance A beats alliance B then its natural for alliance B to try to beat alliance A, however grudges and rivalries should never progress to the point of wanting to hurt the overall game and it should never be the goal to get others to delete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 The problem with a fair bit of what you listed is subjectivity. Define killing the game. Not everyone will agree so how do you know if it qualifies? Define good faith. Not everyone will agree, how will you know if someone isn't? Agreeing not to attack protectorates is retarded. There's a reason they're targetted when able to be. It's because they have a tendency to treat their prots like an actual MDP instead of the one sided defense pacts they actually are. Define bullying smaller alliances. I know lots of people who think I'm doing God's Work when I decide to !@#$ slap a shitty micro that, in all likelihood, is little better than a blackhole sucking players into inactivity for all time. Is that bullying? Because a serious case can be made it's a medically necessary amputation Not developing grudges is even dumber. Humans are intrinsically tribalistic, so for starters, they'd do it anyway even if they signed because it's literal biology. Secondly, rivalries and grudges are make wars more interesting than something to do because you got bored of pixel farming. They add stakes, they add dialogue and substance to what would otherwise be a game of laser tag. The politics of the game does not exist without this. Well, I guess the politics which color of laser is best to tag people with. How exciting. Well intentioned post, but clearly not thought through for more than 30 seconds past the hippy dippy feelsgood vibes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) There's a couple of flaws in those principles. Obviously #1 through #4 are solid and should be signed by everyone posthaste, but... #5: hitting protectorates? If you're hitting the main alliance, why wouldn't you hit the protectorates? Anyone planning on setting up their own alliance fundamentally needs to be prepared for it, and if they aren't then that's their problem and their protector's problem to solve rather than something that should hobble the activities of everyone else. Besides, a few rounds of non-toxic war does nothing but help smaller and less experienced alliances grow into something stronger and better. As long as the war is kept reasonable, protectorates really shouldn't get more of a pass than anyone else gets. #6: If by "bully" you mean "persistently raid ad nauseam without the possiblity of reasonable surrender", then that's covered in the first four, but does bear repeating and clarifying. If by "bully" you mean "declare war on" then that just prevents anyone from taking the initiative in a conflict, especially the 'larger' alliance. Besides, that's what politics and foreign affairs efforts are for. Let's take KT for an immediate example. They're hitting a bunch of small alliances while relatively large, yes, but (and I could be wrong about this) they're not going to be keeping that war going ad infinitum nor ask for insane terms. Like I said before: war improves alliances and communities. War happens, people act rationally, the point is that peace happens in a reasonable timeframe and at a reasonable cost. Sometimes you get hit and lose. It's not the end of the game if you do, despite what certain alliances tragically and fallaciously believed. #7: You really can't reasonably ask for people to put aside their hatreds, and you really can't reasonably ask for people to "develop friendly relations" after the war is over... The best you can ask for is for grudges to remain playful and IC as opposed to going to OOC places. There's a world of difference between raging out at someone's persona versus accusing them of very serious IRL crimes. So, I'd say that the sentiment here is good, but it has to be more limited in scope. I've been thinking about this myself for some time, and it's very far from easy to codify these principles in an acceptable and realistic manner. We do definitely need to get this done, so discussion on the subject is most welcome IMO. Edited February 20, 2020 by Sir Scarfalot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Isjaki said: Let's be honest, NPO's Last Time was long, toxic and we are all glad that the war is finally over. But there is nothing that prevents such a thing from happening again, and thus, I thought about drafting a set of principles that alliances in Orbis agree to abide by, to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen anymore. The idea is not to kill wars, but rather, to avoid toxic permawar like situations, as opposed to fun, non-toxic pixel burning. These are the pointers I came up with, ya'll can discuss those, as well as add points of your own, and then I would request all alliances to become signatories and ratify this in their own alliance (Kinda like UN treaties irl, but not quite UN) All signatories agree that they will never participate in any activity intending to 'kill' the game. Killing the game is defined as any activity which tries to drive away players from this game, and also prevents new players from joining this game. This includes, but isn't limited to, permawar in an effort to drive members of the losing side out of the game and mass-spamming false reviews about the game. All signatories to this treaty agree that they will never cheat themselves, nor will they shelter cheaters. They further agree to fully cooperate with the game administration to investigate/prevent cheating. All signatories agree to pursue peace negotiations in good faith. They further agree that the peace terms will involve only the game in it's scope, and no term shall involve an irl activity (whether it be something serious like eating dog food or something more innocuous like writing essays). All signatories (if/when they are on the winning side) agree that they will reveal all the peace terms upfront to the alliances on the losing side. All signatories agree not to attack the protectorates of hostile alliances, unless the said protectorate is aiding the said alliance's war effort. All signatories agree to not bully smaller players/alliances. All signatories agree to not develop grudges, and pursue friendly and respectful relations with alliances on the opposing side, after the war is over. Well yes but actually no 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etat Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 This is a great conversation to have right now!! The environment is ripe for debate and compromise, and the concepts introduced by the op are a good start. @Akuryo yes subjectivity exists, the question is can a middle ground be reached that renders everyone partially unhappy and partially happy?? Just because we all experience subjectivity does not mean agreement cannot be reached. Also please see the following regarding the term 'good faith', I think you'll find this definition is broadly accepted https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith With regards to bullying, the bully rarely thinks he/she is bullying. A good guide to whether or not bullying is occurring is a) do not look to your deity fearing drinking buddies who are egging you on, but b) take the pulse of the broader community, open your eyes and ears, and practice a little empathy for your 'opponent'. I do agree however that specifically morally disallowing the hitting of protectorates and grudge-holding is impractical, somewhat game-stifling and virtually impossible anyway. Also that IMO grudge holding is psychological rather than biological i.e. it is an acquired pathological behaviour that damages the grudger greatly more than the grudgee. @Epi your PnW 'Bushido' idea is interesting, and if intelligently created and introduced will still allow for a good level of banter, conflict and political angling while supporting a degree of decorum IC and OOC. Having some very few ethical precepts of this type that underpin interpersonal interaction on the forum and in-game is all that it would take to minimize toxicity. 1 1 Quote Celer Et Audax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgotPants Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 i don't think we need Orbis Accords of how to play the game but we do need Orbis Accords of Civility. This war brought out the worst in both sides and the forums were a pool of hatred, mockery and petty behaviour. This is what we need to avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 7 hours ago, Isjaki said: something more innocuous like writing essays). My gov makes me do this Everytime we have to do a forum post... We don't have many forum posts, but it's still cruel ;( 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rygus Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Isjaki said: All signatories agree not to attack the protectorates of hostile alliances, unless the said protectorate is aiding the said alliance's war effort. All signatories agree to not bully smaller players/alliances. How about, no and no? Edited February 20, 2020 by Rygus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uriah 'the Fox' Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 3 hours ago, CitrusK said: My gov makes me do this Everytime we have to do a forum post... We don't have many forum posts, but it's still cruel ;( This response to this post was not in form of at least a 500 word essay, go back and try again @CitrusK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 Items I agree with: All signatories agree that they will never participate in any activity intending to 'kill' the game. Killing the game is defined as any activity which tries to drive away players from this game, and also prevents new players from joining this game. This includes, but isn't limited to, permawar in an effort to drive members of the losing side out of the game and mass-spamming false reviews about the game. All signatories to this treaty agree that they will never cheat themselves, nor will they shelter cheaters. They further agree to fully cooperate with the game administration to investigate/prevent cheating. All signatories agree to pursue peace negotiations in good faith. They further agree that the peace terms will involve only the game in it's scope, and no term shall involve an irl activity (whether it be something serious like eating dog food or something more innocuous like writing essays). All signatories (if/when they are on the winning side) agree that they will reveal all the peace terms upfront to the alliances on the losing side. Items I don't agree with, because it's unrealistic, too-subjective, and/or not actually good for the game: All signatories agree not to attack the protectorates of hostile alliances, unless the said protectorate is aiding the said alliance's war effort. All signatories agree to not bully smaller players/alliances. All signatories agree to not develop grudges, and pursue friendly and respectful relations with alliances on the opposing side, after the war is over. Items I'd suggest: All signatories agree to contain wars to a reasonable length, generally no more than 1-2 months. All signatories, in the absence of any immediate and current provocation, to avoid wars against alliances that are just coming out of and rebuilding from another war. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraggle Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 17 hours ago, Denison said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons We all know how this has worked out... Very well for Fraggle 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.