Some suggestions for future Global War names

[Keegoz]

Alright so the way we do this for me has been pretty annoyingly dumb. It seems to be getting worse and at this point I am just a grumpy old player who has had enough.

So some suggestions:

1) It's pretty simple, don't open war name suggestions until the war concludes. It ends up with stupid names like "let's make this war christmas themed even though it wasn't even over christmas" and then another war DOES go over christmas.

2) If they are basically the same, don't add like 5 christmas themed options. Take the most popular one.

3) This is the big one, I'm sorry but non-combatants should NOT have a say in what the war is called. Combatants should be the only ones to be able to suggest the names. Voting can stay with the wider community. The ability to simply name wars that the combatants do not recognise is too easy now, more so if we continue to do so via bulletins.

Not sure if this is a suggestion but I am still not sure how I feel about pushing bulletins to run this. Quite frankly being an active part of the community imo is being on these forums and on discord. Most important forum links are shared around on discord, even if the engagement on the forum post itself is low.

I'd just like to thank @Dr Rush for organising these. I'm aware it takes time and effort to run these and it's more or less a thankless job. This is not a direct attack on anything you do or try out but I think it needs further refinement.

[Arln]

I love you keegoz

Quite frankly everything on this post is something I can agree with

[Soumajit Sen]

This is so true, Keegoz.

[Schnauzerguy]

Based and red pilled. I wholeheartedly agree, especially with only letting combatants suggest names

Edited January 10, 2022 by Schnauzerguy

[Artifex]

I agree with all three. Naming needs to be a post war activity that only includes people who actually participated in the war. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Malleator

[Vice]

Agreed on all fronts. 

[Ronan Iroha]

so true

[Arthur Wellington]

Why not just let the victors choose? 

[zigbigadorlou]

Or we have war name as peace terms. It always struck me as weird to have a global popularity contest dictate how you discussed your own events. 

With regards to the forums, they have their place but so does in game stuff. People share those links too (you clearly did) and you can see them directly. They're also generally less toxic, don't require a second account, and noobs are much more likely to see it.

[Chad]

All these suggestions are good and definitely should be implemented.  

[Keegoz]

55 minutes ago, Arthur Wellington said:

Why not just let the victors choose? 

There isn't always a 'victor'

 

40 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Or we have war name as peace terms. It always struck me as weird to have a global popularity contest dictate how you discussed your own events. 

With regards to the forums, they have their place but so does in game stuff. People share those links too (you clearly did) and you can see them directly. They're also generally less toxic, don't require a second account, and noobs are much more likely to see it.

I can see that being untenable if there is no clear winner in a war.

[Hodor]

4 hours ago, Keegoz said:

grumpy

We're accepting applications.   

4 hours ago, Keegoz said:

3) This is the big one, I'm sorry but non-combatants should NOT have a say in what the war is called. Combatants should be the only ones to be able to suggest the names. Voting can stay with the wider community. The ability to simply name wars that the combatants do not recognise is too easy now, more so if we continue to do so via bulletins.

Disagree with this one. Say it's an even match and the combatants can't agree on a name, especially if it's contentious, the greater community's impression of the conflict should have an influence. If NPO won NPOLT it would have been named something like "The Righteous Crusade of Roquentin Against the P&W Gatekeepers" or some lame shit like that. I think it's fine that a war can be referred to as multiple different names if an alliance wants to maintain an alternate history RP or whatever, but the common "wiki" name should be one that reflects the whole of Orbis. Kind of like how in the south the Civil War is the War of Northern Aggression, or in Russia they call WW2 the Great Patriotic War, or how in Australia they call it the Great Patriotic War but everyone else knows it as the Emu War.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Keegz if you want to truly embrace that grumpy lifestyle, then you shouldn't care what they call the wars, because you are going to forget what they are called about 2 weeks later, and refer to them with whatever name you want.

[Arthur Wellington]

2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

There isn't always a 'victor'

 

I can see that being untenable if there is no clear winner in a war.

The side with most net dmg at the time of peace signing*

 

[Keegoz]

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Disagree with this one. Say it's an even match and the combatants can't agree on a name, especially if it's contentious, the greater community's impression of the conflict should have an influence. If NPO won NPOLT it would have been named something like "The Righteous Crusade of Roquentin Against the P&W Gatekeepers" or some lame shit like that. I think it's fine that a war can be referred to as multiple different names if an alliance wants to maintain an alternate history RP or whatever, but the common "wiki" name should be one that reflects the whole of Orbis. Kind of like how in the south the Civil War is the War of Northern Aggression, or in Russia they call WW2 the Great Patriotic War, or how in Australia they call it the Great Patriotic War but everyone else knows it as the Emu War.

I'm not saying they choose the war name, just suggest the options to vote for. In globals this end up with quite a few alliances who could post suggestions. The community can then vote (literally everyone in the game). I don't think the current war name voting is avoiding dumb names either.

As for the rl references, most ended up being named by one of the combatants. More often than not the victors. The Emu War was named by Australians just fyi because it was reported as such, so I guess the losing side does get to name a war every now and then .

[Mayor]

The war naming scheme has been terrible for a long, long time but I think the problem is a lot of the suggestions are not curated. If as you say in your first suggestion that multiple names are cut down if they are similar is good, and also in the name suggestions maybe have a bit of info explaining the name decision. I also think the community should not name all wars, maybe global wars, but it annoyed me greatly when RON is trying to name every smaller conflict and also casually repress any viewpoints and history about the plight of Armenians. Armenia matters and is a proud and ancient nation but the authoritarian oppressor's at RON flippantly dismiss any posts in support of Armenia and try to hurt Armenias Revenge in the name suggestion vote by stating "Our Manias Revenge" (and then deleting the suggestion completely). Classic Armenia suppression from a bunch of fascists at RON. We all remember RON trying to take de-facto war naming authority on the forums by stating that everyone use RON. Well we all know a certain group that does not get any representation on RON and that is Armenians. #DNN is the only tolerant and accepting news group not controlled by thugs and corporate interests.

Armenia's Revenge is not just simply a war name, it is a movement.

[Guest Zephyr]

It could be more interesting if the victors provide the war name, only running polls when it's a white peace or the leaders on the victorious side are divided in opinion. Maybe it'll encourage more coalitions to hold out for a concession of defeat if only for opportunity to make a creative war name?

[Arthur Wellington]

This is a game and not RL. GWs dont have to be neutral, it could considered fun to have weird sounding names that clearly favor the winner. Winners would actually gain a price in these white peace GWs. 

A popularity vote will either result in a very incrowd name or a very neutral name. And the Bloc with the best ability to mobilize forum votes can fix it easily. 

[Keegoz]

18 hours ago, Arthur Wellington said:

This is a game and not RL. GWs dont have to be neutral, it could considered fun to have weird sounding names that clearly favor the winner. Winners would actually gain a price in these white peace GWs. 

A popularity vote will either result in a very incrowd name or a very neutral name. And the Bloc with the best ability to mobilize forum votes can fix it easily. 

There have been clear instances where tiers have been impossible to beat that have resulted in stalemates. The public form an opinion of who won even with White peace. In GnR, we couldn't really push much further down it was already kinda crazy how far we did push down which is why it is viewed as a HW win. However there was nothing stopping Rose/Oasis/Minc from holding out as a lot in Oasis/Minc were barely touched.

I can't see coalitions holding out over a name. Most people don't drag peace for even just saying they win which is why white peace will likely trend, there is no point in the end. It just hurts financially for basically ego/PR.

[Dr Rush]

On 1/10/2022 at 4:32 AM, Keegoz said:

Alright so the way we do this for me has been pretty annoyingly dumb. It seems to be getting worse and at this point I am just a grumpy old player who has had enough.

So some suggestions:

1) It's pretty simple, don't open war name suggestions until the war concludes. It ends up with stupid names like "let's make this war christmas themed even though it wasn't even over christmas" and then another war DOES go over christmas.

2) If they are basically the same, don't add like 5 christmas themed options. Take the most popular one.

3) This is the big one, I'm sorry but non-combatants should NOT have a say in what the war is called. Combatants should be the only ones to be able to suggest the names. Voting can stay with the wider community. The ability to simply name wars that the combatants do not recognise is too easy now, more so if we continue to do so via bulletins.

Not sure if this is a suggestion but I am still not sure how I feel about pushing bulletins to run this. Quite frankly being an active part of the community imo is being on these forums and on discord. Most important forum links are shared around on discord, even if the engagement on the forum post itself is low.

I'd just like to thank @Dr Rush for organising these. I'm aware it takes time and effort to run these and it's more or less a thankless job. This is not a direct attack on anything you do or try out but I think it needs further refinement.

Your not saying anything I've not though about myself and this has been a topic I've been meaning to address for awhile.

1. On principle I wholly agree, actually. However, pretty much the most consistent complaint I remember getting over the years doing this is that it's too long and I should start the vote sooner. There have been a few occasions where people have sniped the nomination process and even the vote if I'm even a couple days behind or even before the war has ended. In that latter case that can be a real issue; GnR for instance was as a name in serious danger of getting blocked because of DMCA/Trademark concerns and I had to clear it with Alex. I could largely resolve this by asking the various mod teams to block those threads but that requires a community consensus first.

2. I  and some mixture of a 3rd party can curate much more than just tossing names that are inappropriate if that's what the community wants. But because that is me and whoever basically stripping power from the community the community needs to give support to that before I'll do it.

3a. I do see where you coming from, but I think the community has a concern in the matter as well. At the end of the day it's not just the combatants who will need to use the name. The rest of community is stuck with it as well. That being said maybe the combatants could be given some more say somewhere perhaps as a weighted vote and/or in nominations.

3b. I also understand wanting the people voting to understand what is going on. I would proffer however the noobs are never going to know what is going on and will never become interested in figuring it out if they are not being exposed to it. At a certain point this is also an officially endorsed event and that comes with certain baggage as a turn of phrase. Because it's official it needs to also consider overall goals of Alex and staff like community growth and player engagement. Which means being open to and trying to engage everyone. 

There are also technical challenges to consider. Just limiting it to people who actually have accounts limits venue to 3 options; The forum, the discord, and the game itself. Of the 3 the forum has been in decline for some time, which is a reflection of the times tbh. I'm not seeing its totally dead and worthless but it is a strong consideration in both directing community traffic and also seeing participation. I gave serious thought to doing some or all of this on the discord. I didn't because it would have been a huge mess overall and the shortlisting vote would have been illegible if I was even able to set it up. That leaves the game, I agree bulletins are messy, particularly without a proper poll system being added yet. It's vastly overridden as a concern though by being accessible easily.

In game there is also the option of setting up a specialized system just for this purpose. However that means alex forking out time and cash to develop it in leu of other things. So convincing him to do it is going to require not just the majority but the bulk of the active community to agree to it and then aside from maybe tweaking a few numbers or setting that is the system the community will be largely stuck with. 

 

On 1/10/2022 at 7:41 AM, zigbigadorlou said:

Or we have war name as peace terms. It always struck me as weird to have a global popularity contest dictate how you discussed your own events. 

With regards to the forums, they have their place but so does in game stuff. People share those links too (you clearly did) and you can see them directly. They're also generally less toxic, don't require a second account, and noobs are much more likely to see it.

On 1/11/2022 at 3:38 AM, Zephyr said:

It could be more interesting if the victors provide the war name, only running polls when it's a white peace or the leaders on the victorious side are divided in opinion. Maybe it'll encourage more coalitions to hold out for a concession of defeat if only for opportunity to make a creative war name?

4. So a few issues with this. What happens if the parties don't provide a name? What if the name chosen has to be moderated? Also, it would be confusing to have names chosen in such radically different manners war to war.  Also, the dev team has spent many hours trying to figure out how to make wars shorter and more frequent. Adding another reason to remain at war would work against that goal.

--------------------

5. As a proposal system to try and balance everything out. I'm of course open to alterations and such. Just seeing if this is moving in the right direction.
 

1. War name nominations start at the declaration of war in a bulletin started by a staff rep. Nominations run for 72 hours or so after all parties are peaced out.
2. Staff collects the nominations and culls anything objectionable.
3. A selection of reps from each side, individually go through the nominations and select a specified number of them to advance.
4. After the advancements each rep then votes them in a ranked choice vote.
5. The top x number options from the reps ranked choice vote are offered to the community in a bulletin vote (with a proper poll system.)

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

25 minutes ago, Dr Rush said:

Also, the dev team has spent many hours trying to figure out how to make wars shorter and more frequent. Adding another reason to remain at war would work against that goal.

Not going to say this is a waste of your time, but the lengths of war are more dictated by politics and stubbornness, than minor changes to war mechanics.

[Guest Zephyr]

12 hours ago, Dr Rush said:

4. So a few issues with this. What happens if the parties don't provide a name? What if the name chosen has to be moderated? Also, it would be confusing to have names chosen in such radically different manners war to war.  Also, the dev team has spent many hours trying to figure out how to make wars shorter and more frequent. Adding another reason to remain at war would work against that goal.

Presumably war names would have to respect the game rules, which I think should have us safely covered for grounds on blocking inappropriate suggestions. Have each leader of an alliance of the victorious coalition (still a combatant till war conclusion) confirm the nominated war name. Give them 48 hours after war conclusion to each confirm the nomination, if the nomination is rejected due to moderation or not all parties agreed to the same name then give them another 24 hours to all confirm a new nomination before otherwise initiating the war naming process with the community.

What I image will happen is the victors will organise their own discussions and negotiations amongst themselves to name the war, probably well before the war is even over (and maybe even before it begins). Requiring unanimity means that the naming doesn't simply go to the sphere/bloc/whatever that pops enough bigheads into the fight to dominate coalition opinions, and necessitates inclusivity and respect of all coalition victors or they all lose the opportunity to determine the war name and surrender it to the whims of the community.

I doubt coalitions will actually waste significant time and money prolonging wars just to secure war naming rights, but I also don't think it's a problem we need to fix. If coalitions legitimately feel that is a prize worth fighting for, then that's just part of the political play at that point.

 

Some alternatives I like, in order of preference, are:

1. Only taking nominations and votes from war participants.
2. Stop bothering with it altogether, just use great war abbreviations (e.g. "GW21") on the wiki and let the community popularise and circulate their own war names within their social circles. An argument for this may be that it makes the wiki pages more impartial by removing potential political narratives inserted into war names.

Having said all that, I don't think the current system is particularly bad but do wish we at least prohibited suggestions based on apparent game accessibility issues. I think it's pretty stupid seeing suggestions flogging game uptime every war name vote. The joke is old and unfunny, but more importantly it seems like an insult to make a war name completely unrelated to the actual war itself.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Zephyr

[Keegoz]

On 1/12/2022 at 10:10 PM, Dr Rush said:

1. War name nominations start at the declaration of war in a bulletin started by a staff rep. Nominations run for 72 hours or so after all parties are peaced out.
2. Staff collects the nominations and culls anything objectionable.
3. A selection of reps from each side, individually go through the nominations and select a specified number of them to advance.
4. After the advancements each rep then votes them in a ranked choice vote.
5. The top x number options from the reps ranked choice vote are offered to the community in a bulletin vote (with a proper poll system.)

I assume #1 is suppose to be at the declaration of peace? Other than that these seem like good changes to me.

[Landon And Emma]

How about "The War or Corruption"?

[Sval]

Best way to name a war is to see what the combattants start calling it throughout, and then have a vote on the most common one after the war is over.