On the Nature of Politics and War; a reply to user Kurdanak

[Jodo]

Like I said, partially. 

[Jodo]

Well if you've been in multiple world you're probably aware of this:

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Woodstock_Massacre

 

Do you think the same people who did this atrocity do not also have nations on P&W? I am not saying war is always bad, but there are people out there who when all you want is peace will hit you in the face with a sledgehammer. Yes this is a "game" and yes our nations are made of pixels, but if you log into your nation every day by definition you have some attachment to it.

 

Anyway I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else. And I apologize if I have.

Also, to touch on this: I'm not pissed, its all good. And I am aware of that event, though I will admit I lack in depth knowledge to it. I'd actually love to hear an account of it from someone who was involved, or at the very least has a good understanding. I'll gladly swap a war story for it from TEst's history.

[Dwynn]

I find it hilarious that Hereno is arguing the merits and meanings of English words, while disregarding the commonplace standards of Engish such as capitalization, etc.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Hereno]

I find it hilarious that Hereno is arguing the merits and meanings of English words, while disregarding the commonplace standards of Engish such as capitalization, etc.

>Engish

 

not only do you make the "point" of a 13-year-old youtube commenter but you do it while undermining yourself according to your own "standards of discourse"

[Hereno]

let's be honest, the thread content could have been anything and test would have done nothing but sh@tpost

 

i don't think i've ever seen them NOT sh@tposting

aslan, did you edit this post? why does it say "sh@tposting" rather than "shitposting"?

 

e: woah where did the filter go

Edited December 9, 2014 by Hereno

[Prefontaine]

I'm still searching for the point in all this nonsense. Going back to the OP, was this not a direct reply to a single user from a comment found elsewhere? Something about private channels comes to mind. Sorry to detract from the pointlessness. Carry on.

[Hereno]

I'm still searching for the point in all this nonsense. Going back to the OP, was this not a direct reply to a single user from a comment found elsewhere? Something about private channels comes to mind. Sorry to detract from the pointlessness. Carry on.

"prefontaine" must be french for "pretentious"

 

you are perhaps the biggest try-hard in this thread and that's saying something

[Dwynn]

>Engish

 

not only do you make the "point" of a 13-year-old youtube commenter but you do it while undermining yourself according to your own "standards of discourse"

The difference being I was not attacking an argument, merely enjoying the irony of it. Also it's nice to see you continuing to resort to personal insults when people point out your flawed logic.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Hereno]

The difference being I was not attacking an argument, merely enjoying the irony of it. Also it's nice to see you continuing to resort to personal insults when people point out your flawed logic.

look my post @pre wasn't meant to incite challengers to his throne

[Dwynn]

Ahhh never change Hereno. You always provide for cheap chuckles.

[Hereno]

had you read the OP you would know that that is impossible

[Jodo]

Hereno, be honest. How drunk are you?

[Hereno]

Hereno, be honest. How drunk are you?

abv = 0.00

 

i would never post a political essay while intoxicated; i take my position very seriously

[Jodo]

Highly then? Godspeed young warrior. Cheers.

[Aslan]

I'd like to remind everyone to stay on topic and abstain from insults, but I'm not sure one is possible without the other.  I'm monitoring this thread though and glancing at the lock button.

 

Hereno: "shit" is included in the word filter, but "shitposting" was not, so I manually edited those posts and then added it to the filter.  We do allow players as young as 13, so most words like that will be in the filter.

[Ayayay]

abv = 0.00

 

i would never post a political essay while intoxicated; i take my position very seriously

[saeton]

it was an inclusive, generalized "we" in reference to all of orbis and the humans which comprise it

 

And here I was under the assumption that all creatures of Orbis were free, not just humans. 

 

Hmph. 

[Niklaus]

Keeping all the stuff like ends and outcomes (as in relation to our perception of reality) which I think was intended to be philosophical in nature relatively in the background, here are my views on the topic at hand -

Nature of victories in P&W cannot be permanent. I don't know what you consider not "temporary" but considering the long term (and tired as I am, trying to think as long term as I can ) and OOC effects (what OOC effects did you mean anyway? Real life friendships being broken? Highly unlikely to happen over a game), let's say a permanent victory would mean complete annihilation of your opponent; politically (no scope for improving their post war FA position or aligning such that they can cause harm to you), militarily (no scope for developing a stronger military than you) and economically (devastated economy, pretty much beyond repair). You cannot get any of the three here, not completely. This is because the game mechanics and player dynamics would simply not allow you to. Thereby, making every victory temporary, if the time span taken is large.
 
To conclude, nature of victory depends on the time span being considered. Consider a few weeks or months, your victory now is truly a victory. Take it into account the various new factors that come to fore over a longer span of time, your victory today may turn out to be a catalyst of a bitter defeat at some point in future. It would also follow that if victories are not permanent nor are the defeats, long term considered.
 
Which leads to the second point of whether one who plays to win victories (temporary when taken long term, as established before) and is only concerned with the end he has created for himself and not with the present moment  has any fun or not. Such a person does not get any enjoyment unless he gets a victory(short-term), which is not always possible. If he gets a short term victory, his established end or goal has been met and he will have his "fun". 
 
Most sensible people don't play like that. I don't think its even possible to completely ignore the little joys of the present and focus only on the final result of your strategy and planning; certainly, not possible in a "game". So for the majority of players, those who are actually relevant, the day to day gameplay is fun in itself and their short term victories or defeats don't really raise or set them back to a great extent. (Again, no one can be "completely detached", based on my experience. Never met anyone who was/is.)
 
 

 

i never got into the mechanism which spoils the fun but temporary victories are both tolerance-inducing and dependent on agreeing to a particular set of rules that are not beneficial to either party at the end of a conflict but whom both parties believe are natural - and which are required for the temporary victories that we win - and so we actually act against our own interests by supporting the cycle

it is not false that a person can enjoy the work for its own sake and be detached from the outcomes of events, but if this were the case, the people here would not act as they currently do. "official" victories are sought which are otherwise strictly hurtful to the aggrieving party; that is, in the long-term, any sort of terms other than white peace for an alliance are non-beneficial to *either* alliance, strategically speaking, or on an OOC-level

why?

because making warfare and the achievement of temporary victories more costly, they are spread apart and made harder to achieve for anyone in the future, which causes a negative feedback cycle until you get to the point where alliances are nearly politically static and the war cycle is completely intolerable

it is said that browser games run on grudges, but that is also entirely false - grudges and other personal relationships limit politics based on extraneous factors that strangle the already-dull political realm and are completely divorced from proper strategy which would be to always act in the longest-term interests of the alliance

but this is not happening, and not only started out awful due to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) baggage but additionally has gotten worse in spite of attempts by myself to limit the damage of this sort of behavior to the fledgling political community.

 

 
I gave my views on most of it above. To address the remaining parts -

White peace is a good way to end a war. However, it does not make the war beneficial for either alliance except for PR gain in some instances, it just prevents further imbalanced damage (more to one, less to the other) to either party. PR gain, in itself, is temporary.

Practically, wars don't become increasingly costly upto an indefinite point (edit). Their usually occurs a rise in severity of terms which stabilizes after reaching the then perceived max point, again decreases or fluctuates at that point. This is because the community acts as a check against repeated use of very harsh repercussions. Doesn't mean that the cost of war does not gradually increase, making timing of wars, their extent and general pattern somewhat predictable but the game still continues, the motive still being short-term victories (though now the time span to be considered, even for short-term consequences will be larger). The fun factor remains there for all categories of the players - those playing in the present moment with less of a concern for the final outcome (completely detached), those playing in the present moment while always keeping in mind their final goal (majority of players do this) and those completely fixated on their end goal (never met anyone who did this). In fact, the increasing wait, only makes the fruit sweeter. The planning may become more exhausting or tiresome but there is a unique kind of enjoyment, even in that.

Browser games do run on grudes. But the grudges from one game should not be carried on from one game to another. Hate, greed and jealousy are the major driving forces behind politics and in the end, it is all centered around protection of egos and increase of individual power or alliance influence. You cannot have actual politics, as seen in the real world, without grudges or hate. Remove these and you will be left with an utopia which would be as stagnant as scum on standing water in a pool. To reiterate, greed, grudges and hate are not necessarily bad for the game but they should not be carried over from one realm to another.

Shorter version for those who don't like wall of texts which I am so in habit of making, inspite of me starting the post with the intention of being succinct -

The enjoyment a player gets out of the game depends on the end or goal he establishes for himself and the priority he gives to that goal in relation to the day to day fun that can be had from the game. The time span taken into account will decide the nature of outcome of a war - whether permanent or temporary. Grudges are a part of the game, they act as a political catalyst. Mixing politics of two realms is bad however.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Niklaus

[Hereno]

@Niklaus:

 

A chess player makes moves now and thinks three turns forward with the ultimate goal of winning the game. Because this game cannot be won, the best move is not to play. And by not play I do not mean quit the game, I mean that the best move is to simply do what GPA does (and not play politics at all) or what Guardian does (pretends to not play politics while doing so). Still, because most of us actually enjoy the political game, we will play it knowing that it can only hurt us in the long-term because we value getting to war and playing politics and actually spending our political capital on shorter-term achievements. But the best and most profitable way to do this for all parties involved is to limit damages to everyone, avoid enforcing terms, and to actively work toward ending wars quickly; even before all targets are disabled from fighting. This increases the amount of victories and defeats - as well as wars - that we have, and thereby maximizes the amount of fun that we have. It is playing the short-term with the long-term in mind. Because, like you said, you can't actually get someone out of the game forever, and in fact that is not what we actually want because we need other people to be around in order to have fun. Friends today can be enemies tomorrow, and so the alliance truly acting in its own self-interest will not encourage the devolution into 3-month wars, once-a-year wars, and several-months of reparations after each.

 

The problem with grudges is not that they are not useful to politics, but one, as you said, strangle politics through OOC means, but also because they encourage behavior that contributes to the detriment of the fun of everyone (namely, punishing other alliances beyond the scope of simply winning the war and moving on).

[Reagan]

In short, I agree that extensive reparations can be harmful, especially at this stage of the game.  I won't go as far as to say that alliances should never demand some form of compensation for the losses they took, depending on the situation.  There are too many scenarios to name.  In most cases, bragging rights can suffice.  I don't want to see actions that cause an environment which stifles the game, causes players to lose interest in playing, and make being on the losing end of a war so costly that it's not worth continuing to put effort into the game.  I can only hope that alliances will take these things into account in the aftermath of war.

 

Pertaining to grudges, I would love it if everyone can view this game as it's own entity, because that's what it is.  Carrying grudges over from somewhere else is futile, but it's also only logical that it will happen.  Take two warring alliances from another realm and introduce them both here.  Can the players behind the keyboard interact with their rivals from that other place in two different capacities?  Probably not.  It's the human element.  If I dislike a person, or an alliance, and that person or alliance moves here, my perception of who they are, how they behave, their tactics, and so forth will not be forgotten simply because we're on different soil.  I'd like to think I could try to separate the two, but most people would be lying if they said they could.

[Niklaus]

I don't think not playing the game is the best way. I feel winning ultimately depends on player preference. It is the player who sets his form of victory in his mind. A player cannot have a clear victory or defeat. He himself sets the parameters of his ideal win and works towards the attainment of his objectives while keeping the parameters he defined for himself in mind. An example of long term victory, can perhaps be great personal influence. By which I mean, influence that can be wielded regardless of your nation's stats or your government title. But sad thing is that if we increase the time span to be considered, this victory would not be permanent as well. But since personal influence never truly dies completely so such a winner would retain some of his prize even long after the moves have been made. Maybe this kind of approach is the best  or at the very least better than not playing as it ensures some semblance of long lasting reward, even though such a reward depreciates with time.

 

In regards to grudges, I think the role of any grudge is finished after a war has been fought over it. No grudge warrant more than one war, at the very worst maybe two wars. You cannot base your politics always on the same past grudges. In that case they become more of a crippling factor rather than a catalyst.

[Niklaus]

In short, I agree that extensive reparations can be harmful, especially at this stage of the game.  I won't go as far as to say that alliances should never demand some form of compensation for the losses they took, depending on the situation.  There are too many scenarios to name.  In most cases, bragging rights can suffice.  I don't want to see actions that cause an environment which stifles the game, causes players to lose interest in playing, and make being on the losing end of a war so costly that it's not worth continuing to put effort into the game.  I can only hope that alliances will take these things into account in the aftermath of war.

 

Pertaining to grudges, I would love it if everyone can view this game as it's own entity, because that's what it is.  Carrying grudges over from somewhere else is futile, but it's also only logical that it will happen.  Take two warring alliances from another realm and introduce them both here.  Can the players behind the keyboard interact with their rivals from that other place in two different capacities?  Probably not.  It's the human element.  If I dislike a person, or an alliance, and that person or alliance moves here, my perception of who they are, how they behave, their tactics, and so forth will not be forgotten simply because we're on different soil.  I'd like to think I could try to separate the two, but most people would be lying if they said they could.

 

Agreed. But the leaders should atleast consciously make efforts to separate the two. By making efforts I mean, not trying to look for "CBs" to declare on your opponents from another games. When you have to actively search for a CB or cook up a lulzy reason to declare someone as your enemy in a new realm, you are not really making efforts to leave your old grudges at door. You don't have to befriend your former adversaries but for sake of preserving the politics of the new realm you have made your home, you can atleast not look for opportunities to harm them without reasonable cause given to you in this very realm.

 

Since the alliance leaders are trusted to play the political game by their respective alliance members, it is as such their duty towards the game and the community as a whole to ensure that the politics of this realm remains untainted by grudges from another realms.  

[SoS]

The goals and wins here are all ego based. Who is smart and clever. This provides fun throughout the process and outcome.

 

Unless you're really not as superior as you think, then it's not fun and not fair.

[Chaos]

Good posts following my first. That like button

 

For me personally, speaking from history of other worlds, the process and route to an event is the fun part. If I develop a project, mechanic, etc for my alliance, see its success, and the outcomes of that success, I have fun.

 

As for the political side, there are way too many views of what is fun. Based on only the replies ITT, it would appear TE has fun with the gif's and other random posts. Hereno has fun being serious with his poli-posts. Just trying to say we all have our own view of what is fun. Putting down a set of rules defining how to have fun is funny to think about; it would never work.

 

Trolls, shitposts, lack of true/fair CB, etc will always exist because the people at work behind those things are having fun while doing it. Might be at someone else's expense but if you ask them, they will tell you that they don't care, or ask if you are butthurt.

[Memph]

Well, so far the two biggest wars in this game have ended in white peace and pseudo white peace, so I'm not sure what's with the concern about crushing peace terms.

 

As for grudges from other games, I have somewhat mixed feelings, so I'll play devil's advocate for saying it's not that big a deal. If Alliance A decides to smash Alliance B in PW over something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that might seem like a bad thing, but at least now Alliance B will have motivation for scheming to get revenge, which will drive politics and cause Alliance B to take a strong interest in the game, gather allies, recruit members, etc.

 

At this point, even though it started out over something that happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), things are already starting to diverge. Presumably, this started over Alliance B smashing Alliance A in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You now have two wars between the same alliances, but with opposite outcomes. Members of Alliance A or their allies in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), especially those not playing PW, are going to be responding to defeat, and Alliance A in PW is going to be responding to victory.

 

Furthermore, PW is hardly a mirror image of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). There is some overlap, but there are alliances in PW with no presence in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and vice versa, and even those that have a presence in both games aren't going to have the same clout in one game as in the other. Plus you'll have many alliances here with players from multiple (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances. So players and allies Alliance B will rally to their cause aren't going to be the same as if it happened in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

So especially as players and alliances become more invested in PW than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), even if there are certain parallels at first, the paths will diverge more and more with time.

 

And of course even if some alliances act on grudges from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), there have already been wars fought that had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), so it's already a rather different world imo.