Jump to content

Ideas on how to end the Global War


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

I participated in Isjaki's fictional experiment on how to end the Global War and I thought it was a good one. I stopped participating after the part of Swamp that I was in was no longer in Swamp, but was certainly interesting while it lasted. In the spirit of that Discord server discussion, I invite others to contribute ideas here for how to end this global war.

 

I will start off with my own theory as to what may help.

During the Discord server discussion, I brought up my belief that what may help end the war are some investigations as to people deeply involved in the initiation and continuation of this war:

 

1- The Quack side could question Boyce as to what evidence he had that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack in December/January.

 

2- The anti Quack side could try to find out one or more of the following:

a- Who Ronnie's HM leader source was.

b- Find out exactly what Ronnie's HM leader's source meant when he made this statement to Ronnie and possibly others:

**

Time for a chat my friends. Swamp reached out to me and told me they are talking with TCW about joining together to counter Quack's growth. They are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that allowing Quack to grow and waiting for them to magically break up is a good idea.

**

 

c- Find out if Ronnie's HM leader source actually spoke to someone in Swamp and if they did, who, as well as their own take on what they were trying to convey.

  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or....Perhaps we just end the war with white peace which will pretty much happen with 70% certainty in my opinion. 

 

I however must concede that I admire your dedication in trying to find out alternative solutions. In Politics and War however, that's usually just not how the meta is. 

2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

This...is not how wars end lmao

Tl;dr for my post- What Partisan said lel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

This...is not how wars end lmao

Yeah I know, peace treaties and all. However, I think there's no denying that this war started in large part over Quack's belief that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to initiate a first strike on Quack. If we could get to the bottom of whether that was true or not, and exactly who was involved if it was, I think we can all agree that this could help end the war.

5 minutes ago, Polar Bear ArcticExplorer said:

Or....Perhaps we just end the war with white peace which will pretty much happen with 70% certainty in my opinion. 

 

I however must concede that I admire your dedication in trying to find out alternative solutions. In Politics and War however, that's usually just not how the meta is. 

 

Fair enough. But it's always possible that something different happens this time :-). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zoot said:

No. We can't agree to that in the slightest. At this point the reason the war started does not matter even a tiny bit. Discussing who said what or who was going to do what does not matter with regards to peace. If anything getting bogged down in that kind of discussions will make the war drag out longer.

Peace will come once the leaders of the respective alliances agree to it. It will probably end in something close to white peace with probably a NAP and some other minor terms.

Exactly when it will happen depends on whether one of the sides decide that they want to drag the war out a bit longer to cause more damage. If they do, it'll likely last between a few more weeks to a month. If not, I would expect peace before Christmas.

I base this on years of experience with how peace negotiations in this game and similar games work.

 

Peace, like war, happens for a reason, frequently more than one. If we could get both sides to essentially agree on what initiated it, I think that could be a good start to ending this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Peace, like war, happens for a reason, frequently more than one. If we could get both sides to essentially agree on what initiated it, I think that could be a good start to ending this war.

Peace in this game happens because people understand that there is decreasing marginal benefit for the dogpilers and increasing marginal benefit for the people getting dogpiled for each day the war extends, and therefore there comes a time at which both sides are satisfied to end it.

Edited by WarriorSoul
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Peace, like war, happens for a reason, frequently more than one. If we could get both sides to essentially agree on what initiated it, I think that could be a good start to ending this war.

And that just goes to show that you have no clue how the politics of this game works.

The reason for the war doesn't matter. Try asking older players if they remember the official reason behind the large wars of the past and chances are they won't remember it. All they will remember is that there were two sides that formed because one side wanted to bring down the other.

9 out of 10 times the "reason" for war is nothing but an excuse to attack people you want to attack, either because you feel threatened by them or because you want to take them down before they become an actual threat...or simply because you are bored of peace.

All the discussion on the "reason" for war is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Most of the people engaging in these discussions know that it doesn't matter. They know that regardless of the outcome of the discussion it won't change anything with regards to the war. The best they can hope for is that it will make people think an extra time before trusting someone another time and even that is doubtful.

Peace negotiations don't happen in the public, they don't happen because someone uncovers the truth. They happen because both sides have decided that there is no benefit in continuing the war. The way the war system of this game work, after a certain point the return on continuing the war just isn't there. The losing side has nothing left for the winning side to destroy and the winning side is so superior in terms of military that the only way the losing side can do damage is by attacking inactives or by throwing nukes and missiles.

The only exception to the above is the rare wars where one side, for one reason or another, is determined to destroy their opponents. This happens very rarely and is most certainly not the case with this war.

Edited by Zoot
spelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said:

Peace in this game happens because people understand that there is decreasing marginal benefit for the dogpilers and increasing marginal benefit for the people getting dogpiled for each day the war extends, and therefore there comes a time at which both sides are satisfied to end it.

This may certainly have an affect on the war, but I know that I'm not the only one who believes that the causes of the war, or at least the perception of the causes, plays a part in its continuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zoot said:

And that just goes to show that you have no clue how the politics of this game works.

The reason for the war doesn't matter. Try asking older players if they remember the official reason behind the large wars of the past and chances are they won't remember it. All they will remember is that there were two sides that formed because one side wanted to bring down the other.

9 out of 10 times the "reason" for war is nothing but an excuse to attack people you want to attack, either because you feel threatened by them or because you want to take them down before they become an actual threat...or simply because you are bored of peace.

Those are all actual reasons :-p. It seems clear that in this war, Quack felt threatened by TCW/HM/Swamp and so decided to attack TCW/HM for starters. the -reason- they felt threatened had to do with some things that Sphinx said, but I think far more important was Boyce' interpretation of what Sphinx said, and Boyce' prediction that TCW/HM/Swamp would attack Quack in December/January. 

 

Now, you could argue that it wouldn't matter if it was discovered that Boyce' interpretation was mistaken, but I don't think so. As to people not remembering why old wars end, that's understandable. I frequently don't remember why I had an argument with someone, but while I'm -having- it, I certainly do, and there are definitely reasons as to why I end them beyond it being too tiresome or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Those are all actual reasons :-p. It seems clear that in this war, Quack felt threatened by TCW/HM/Swamp and so decided to attack TCW/HM for starters. the -reason- they felt threatened had to do with some things that Sphinx said, but I think far more important was Boyce' interpretation of what Sphinx said, and Boyce' prediction that TCW/HM/Swamp would attack Quack in December/January. 

 

Now, you could argue that it wouldn't matter if it was discovered that Boyce' interpretation was mistaken, but I don't think so. As to people not remembering why old wars end, that's understandable. I frequently don't remember why I had an argument with someone, but while I'm -having- it, I certainly do, and there are definitely reasons as to why I end them beyond it being too tiresome or something like that. 

I am not arguing that it doesn't matter whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not. I am stating it as a 100% fact. 

Regardless of whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not, the war has happened and while, as seen by the discussions on these forums, some people are more than willing to discuss the validity of his interpretation, it does not matter with regards to the peace negotiations.

Now you are, of course, welcome to continue ignoring what experienced players are telling you, but it won't change the facts and the facts are that the discussions taking place on these forums have absolutely no influence on peace negotiations. The leaders of the different alliances aren't going to read these discussions and suddenly decide to change their stance based on them. Hell the majority of alliance leaders aren't going to read these discussions at all.

And before you start with something about the will of the people influencing the leaders of the different alliances you have to understand that the clear majority of alliances function as dictatorships and that includes most of the ones that style themselves as democratic. There is simply too much OPSEC information to allow anything remotely resembling direct democracy to work.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I think there's no denying that this war started in large part over Quack's evidence that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to initiate a first strike on Quack.

Fixed that for you.

  • Upvote 1

<~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.
<+Curufinwe> Can confirm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zoot said:

I am not arguing that it doesn't matter whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not. I am stating it as a 100% fact. 

Regardless of whether Boyce's interpretation was mistaken or not, the war has happened and while, as seen by the discussions on these forums, some people are more than willing to discuss the validity of his interpretation, it does not matter with regards to the peace negotiations.

Now you are, of course, welcome to continue ignoring what experienced players are telling you, but it won't change the facts and the facts are that the discussions taking place on these forums have absolutely no influence on peace negotiations. The leaders of the different alliances aren't going to read these discussions and suddenly decide to change their stance based on them. Hell the majority of alliance leaders aren't going to read these discussions at all.

And before you start with something about the will of the people influencing the leaders of the different alliances you have to understand that the clear majority of alliances function as dictatorships and that includes most of the ones that style themselves as democratic. There is simply too much OPSEC information to allow anything remotely resembling direct democracy to work.

 

Well, I'm a big believer in everyone thinking for themselves, so I'll continue to put in my 2 cents. From my experience in Isjaki's Discord Server, I know for a fact that some people who aren't leaders have thought quite a bit about the reasons for this war and how to end it and I encourage people to continue thinking of such things, even if they don't hold any governmental position. I think it's good to remember that everyone can vote with their feet if they want to. 

4 minutes ago, Sval said:

Fixed that for you.

No, you just changed what I said :-p. That being said, I do grant that you guys do have a bit of evidence supporting certain beliefs that played a large role in starting this war. I just don't think that that evidence is very strong and I'm certainly not alone in believing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Well, I'm a big believer in everyone thinking for themselves, so I'll continue to put in my 2 cents. From my experience in Isjaki's Discord Server, I know for a fact that some people who aren't leaders have thought quite a bit about the reasons for this war and how to end it and I encourage people to continue thinking of such things, even if they don't hold any governmental position. I think it's good to remember that everyone can vote with their feet if they want to. 

And by all means, continue thinking for yourself, just don't kid yourself that it will have any influence on the outcome.

As for voting with ones feet. While it sounds good in theory, you have to remember that the majority of the player base never interacts with anyone outside their home alliance and maybe its closest allies. The majority of the player base does not read the forums. The majority of the player base does not seek information besides what is given to them by their leadership. The majority of the playerbase is happy simply trusting their leaders to make decisions on their behalf.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

No, you just changed what I said :-p. That being said, I do grant that you guys do have a bit of evidence supporting certain beliefs that played a large role in starting this war. I just don't think that that evidence is very strong and I'm certainly not alone in believing that. 

I changed what you said, fixing it in the process.

You and any other number of people are more than welcome to believe the sky is purple and that it rains Swiss cheese on the third Friday of every month, if you so choose. Doesn't much change the facts, however.

<~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.
<+Curufinwe> Can confirm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Zoot said:

And by all means, continue thinking for yourself, just don't kid yourself that it will have any influence on the outcome.

As for voting with ones feet. While it sounds good in theory, you have to remember that the majority of the player base never interacts with anyone outside their home alliance and maybe its closest allies. The majority of the player base does not read the forums. The majority of the player base does not seek information besides what is given to them by their leadership. The majority of the playerbase is happy simply trusting their leaders to make decisions on their behalf.

 

And there are those activist types like me that like questioning the established narratives. I think you may underestimate the value of having people in the forum constantly questioning the established narratives and the influence they may have on the outcome of this war and wars to come. Also, I know for a fact that I have encouraged non gov players to come to the forums and listen if not make comments themselves and I definitely that's a good thing as well. 

27 minutes ago, Sval said:

I changed what you said, fixing it in the process.

You and any other number of people are more than welcome to believe the sky is purple and that it rains Swiss cheese on the third Friday of every month, if you so choose. Doesn't much change the facts, however.

 

Very funny :-p. The facts remain facts regardless of what we believe those facts are. But I do believe that if we carefully scrutinize what we believe to be true, check the sources, etc., we may all come to a greater understanding of what the truth in these matters really is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

This may certainly have an affect on the war, but I know that I'm not the only one who believes that the causes of the war, or at least the perception of the causes, plays a part in its continuation.

I regret to inform you that you probably are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.