Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Welcome to NATO

EFFECTIVE AT MIDNIGHT ON OCTOBER 16TH, 2008

NATO Official business will begin to be conducted in our new forums located at: http://cnnato.org/
For more details see this topic: ATTENTION ALL NATO MEMBERS

sup?

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can't do much. If you register, you'll be able to do lots more. Registration is simple, fast and free.

Register here!

Once you are done registering, log in and post in the masking thread (just ignore the message that says an admin has to approve before you can post).

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Right Way; Foreign Affairs Piece
Topic Started: Jun 8 2008, 07:10:02 PM (350 Views)
bigwoody
Member Avatar


I'm not so much for long speeches, but I'm going to give it a shot. Feel free to ask questions, thats where I can actually get some focused ideas out. Anyways...

CN today is nothing like CN when I arrived. There are so many alliances out there that no one alliances can survive if isolated, no matter their size. In this game, you are as strong as your allies. At least thats my take on it, but most alliances that disagree have seen themselves on the wrong end of the ENTIRE FRICKIN' WORLD at some point and been beaten to a pulp.

As an alliance leader, I have adopted a Golden Rule of Cybernations:

"Treat your allies like gold."

Following this rule will take you far. There are alliances out there who hardball everyone, and are widely disliked, but will likely never see themselves destroyed because they follow this very rule religiously (I won't name names). I believe in a different approach than hardballing everyone, but thats for later on.

What does this rule mean in practice?

#1: Never ever call out your allies in public. I have had many heated disagreements with my allies. You never hear about it unless you're the one doing wrong. Calling out allies in public is a great way to cause lingering resentment, and often is embarrassing to both parties. The best way to explain this is with a fictional example:

Let's say NATO decides to stomp some alliance, but the reasoning is known to be false by me (whether by mistake or ill intent). Choices:
-Call NATO out in public: Conspiracy nuts get material. TORN might get some ++PR with the general public, but insiders see us as someone who fights with allies. Someone is also wrong now, and will take a hit in image.
-Take the issue private, stay quiet in public: Everyone can win here. If the issue gets settled, NATO saves face by appearing to back down from an erroneous stance WITHOUT outside pressure. Image of unity remains.

This is a simplistic example, but you can see many examples on the CN forums of this rule being broken as well, and if you track your history, you see it doesn't tend to end well. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a public call out by an ally, you can further appreciate this policy.

#2: Only sign treaties you intend to follow. This sounds incredibly obvious, and requires a bit of foresight, granted. But, if you back off on a treaty when bad times hits an ally, even if you get public backing by being with the political majority, THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER WILL NOTICE. Even if you don't get told about it, every alliance leader has a blacklist of alliances they won't sign military treaties with. Backing out of treaties is a great way to get on a lot of these. The solution? Personally, I take two steps:

Rule 2a: Work to make sure your allies get along with each other. I go to great pains to make sure my allies keep at least stable relations, if not friendly. Anyone politically active during the Unjust War saw what happens when you have to choose between allies: broken friendships, chaos, lingering resentment. It is worth the effort to avoid this if you can.

Rule 2b: If an alliance is in a politically precarious position, and might get stomped on someday, either commit to defending them when the time comes, or don't sign. Not signing a treaty can hurt feelings a bit, backing out on an existing treaty leaves a black mark that doesn't go away. Ask Legion how long an alliance can harbor resentment over a broken MDP (NPO, GW1).

If you treat your allies like gold, you should find that over time your allies will return the favor more and more, until you can be confident in your position in the world. Just be vigilant: Building trust takes time, and one mistake can ruin months of goodwill.


:drunk: Why can't we be friends? :drunk:

In CN, alliances in general tend to default to backing their friends when there is a too close to call decision. The reasoning is simple: This is a community game. If all my friends here leave, there isn't anything to play for, really. I'll ride into hell for my real friends here. You better believe it goes both ways.

It follows then that the best way to make lasting allies is to become friends with them. Talk in their IRC channel, become known. Talk with their leaders, get to know each other on a personal level. Talk often. Build an OOC friendship (on a comfortable and sensible level). The "on paper" stuff that then goes up on the forums is but a formality rather than an undertaking. I've had a treaty discussion go roughly like this:

"MADP time?"
"Shiat, you know we roll with you, when do you wanna post it?"

This is of course built on a lot of shooting the Shiat on IRC, Skype (use it), and various forums. You'll also find it easier to trust your longtime friends, allowing for openness and honesty, which is so important for an allegiance to last.

Of course, I can't tell you how to be personable...but if you are and use it, you can go far.

Dealing with conflicts.

I have a simple philosophy for dealing with conflicts.

If its a small issue, I will try to be compromising and giving. We will often go above and beyond expectations if we have a rogue out of our alliance, and merciful in regards to rogues from other alliances hitting us (so long as the source alliance really wants nothing to do with the guy). While one could push small issues to always try and get the most favorable results for themselves, and usually get away with it, giving breaks on small issues builds positive feelings about your alliance. That comes in handy...

If its a big issue, don't ever back down. If a serious wrong is done upon you, exact justice, and do not compromise for anything short of it. This is where you "cash in" all that karma you build up by letting the small stuff go. Because you've done so, when you make a stand on an issue, people will take notice and respect it, whereas if you make issues out of everything, you become a lot like the "boy that cried wolf" and you will fail to get the backing you need.

Know and honor your debts.

What? Debt?

Sometimes someone will do you a favor, and you should recognize it and plan to repay it in kind.

Best example, TORN would not exist if not for IRON, period. We came very...very close to being a stillborn alliance, targeted and destroyed on formation. Many people were ready to label us as an extension of GOONS, \m/, etc. before we got a chance to establish our own identity. IRON lobbied hard on our behalf, encouraging leaders to at the very least talk to me and get to know me before judging me. The vast majority listened, and because of that we were able to build our respected image we carry today. If they someday are in a position where they need to call in that favor, we are honor bound to do so. This is on no piece of paper, nor will it be. The world at large won't notice if we ignored it. But its the right way to do it.

"The Right Way."

Questions? Forgive me if this was a bit cluttered, it was stream of consciousness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hakim
Member Avatar
Former NATO
Guests
Wow, that was an awesome read....thank you very much.

I especially liked the part about unwritten loyalties and how imprtant it is to be of high character in this game. We here at NATO just went through a stage of being to literal in what we do, trying to gt things down on paper as in a set of laws. But what I get from your post is that sometimes the unwritten responsibilities are as or even more importan than what is written down.

How would you explain to your alliance members this need to honor "debts", when it isnt written down? I ask because I know if we tried to do that here there would be questions.

Thanks again for an awesome post
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


Hakim
Jun 8 2008, 07:30:51 PM
Wow, that was an awesome read....thank you very much.

I especially liked the part about unwritten loyalties and how imprtant it is to be of high character in this game. We here at NATO just went through a stage of being to literal in what we do, trying to gt things down on paper as in a set of laws. But what I get from your post is that sometimes the unwritten responsibilities are as or even more importan than what is written down.

How would you explain to your alliance members this need to honor "debts", when it isnt written down? I ask because I know if we tried to do that here there would be questions.

Thanks again for an awesome post
Its kind of a trick question. You don't need to, the older members know who helped the alliance get where they are.

There was a bit of a hidden meaning behind my section on debts...did you catch it?

Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilber


Good read. It's very similar to my philosophy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duncan King
Member Avatar


Very good piece, bigwoody.

How do you deal with situations where one of your allies strongly dislikes another one of your allies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


Duncan King
Jun 9 2008, 02:12:06 PM
Very good piece, bigwoody.

How do you deal with situations where one of your allies strongly dislikes another one of your allies?
In stages.

#1: If its to the stage where war is possible, I try to talk to each and get them to at least stop and breathe. Somewhat of a prelim towards getting them to talk.

#2: Get them to meet while mediating it. In this game, we all have a lot in common. We're all playing a nation sim. You probably have more in common with your worst IC rival than you do with your co-workers. You can exploit this to get people friendly.

This topic in general is very important for me. I never want to be in a position where I have to choose between allies, so I proactively work to keep them on good terms whenever possible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Golden Boy
Member Avatar


bigwoody
Jun 8 2008, 07:10:02 PM


Dealing with conflicts.

I have a simple philosophy for dealing with conflicts.

If its a small issue, I will try to be compromising and giving. We will often go above and beyond expectations if we have a rogue out of our alliance, and merciful in regards to rogues from other alliances hitting us (so long as the source alliance really wants nothing to do with the guy). While one could push small issues to always try and get the most favorable results for themselves, and usually get away with it, giving breaks on small issues builds positive feelings about your alliance. That comes in handy...

If its a big issue, don't ever back down. If a serious wrong is done upon you, exact justice, and do not compromise for anything short of it. This is where you "cash in" all that karma you build up by letting the small stuff go. Because you've done so, when you make a stand on an issue, people will take notice and respect it, whereas if you make issues out of everything, you become a lot like the "boy that cried wolf" and you will fail to get the backing you need.

Nice read all the way through, but this part I couldnt agree with more!

Used it myself many times :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hakim
Member Avatar
Former NATO
Guests
So when dealing with other alliances, what are some of the things besides the obvious flaws, makes you uneasy about dealing with them or treaty'ing with them? (i.e. form of govt, tech raid approval, their friends)

Also when do you think an alliance over extends itself in its treaties?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Golden Boy
Member Avatar


Hakim
Jun 9 2008, 05:03:55 PM
So when dealing with other alliances, what are some of the things besides the obvious flaws, makes you uneasy about dealing with them or treaty'ing with them? (i.e. form of govt, tech raid approval, their friends)

Also when do you think an alliance over extends itself in its treaties?
If you don't mind Ill throw my answer out there for this.

Before I even meet the alliance, as shallow as it is, I do judge them on their friends. If they are allied to alliances I respect and know well, then its plus points. On the other end, if they are allied to alliances that I do not particularly care for, I may be more hesitant.

Form of government is not a major concern of mine, but I do want to know the organization of it, whatever it may be. Also tech raiding rules, if they make it work then it's fine with me.

Once we start talking, the best allies show respect. I can tell a lot from some alliances seeing how they talk to me. Also the amount of helpful members is important to me. If there is one amazing gov member, but no one else, that can be a problem in dealing with them, and especially treaty'ing them.

Over extending: I think I'd have to be in that alliance to know. If you have a lot of close friends, then many treaties is ok. It depends
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


Hakim
Jun 9 2008, 05:03:55 PM
So when dealing with other alliances, what are some of the things besides the obvious flaws, makes you uneasy about dealing with them or treaty'ing with them? (i.e. form of govt, tech raid approval, their friends)

Also when do you think an alliance over extends itself in its treaties?
I'd say the overriding factor on deciding how to treaty an alliance comes with govt-govt talks. Getting to know the other leaders on a personal level gives me the info I need. Its hard to quantify that...I just get a gut feeling.

"Over-extending" is a relative term. But if an alliance is overextended, it does cheapen the perceived value of an MDP with that alliance, which is a read I will stick with unless my personal read on the other alliance's leadership overrides that.

Clarification: There isn't a set number of MDPs that makes an alliance over-extended. Theres other things that matter more, such as standards of communication with your MDP allies.
Edited by bigwoody, Jun 9 2008, 06:26:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hakim
Member Avatar
Former NATO
Guests
If an alliance that you were very close to and have over the months and sometimes years, had a complete overhaul of its leadership, not due to a coup, but due to elections, or that member not running for re-election, would that change how you view "said" alliance?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


It could.

Obviously I'd reach out to the new leaders, but they ARE new people. You need to start the process of trusting them all over again, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bodvar Jarl


Pretty much what I go by too. I can disagree with my allies decisions, and I usually will let them know about it, but I will respect their right to make that decision as they please, and support their choice as if I agree 100% with it. The well being of my allies is my most important interest.

As this topic seems appropriate for it, and the matter was briefly discussed, I'll go a bit deeper into the subject of picking one's allies, on the assumption that you are scouting out someone and make the first move, if they take the initative most of these points will still apply. This is the way I work with an alliance that have caught my eye for one reason or another:

1. Preliminary research:
-register on their forums and apply for a mask.
-go to their IRC-channel.
-study their in-game stats
In this phase there are a few things you want to know:
-Who are in government?
-How many of them hangs out on IRC?
-What treaties do they have?
-How are their nations built, infra, tech, wonders, the works?
-How many aid-transactions do they have? How efficient is their aid systems as far as you can discern? Do they tech trade a lot? How many transactions per member do they have?

Once you have all that info sorted out, you make contact, you should already know who their MoFA are, normally he's the guy to contact, sometimes it's the president/leader, but it's up for you to judge. I like to go through all of the things above, to get their take of their aid-systems, their treaty partners, why they signed them and so on. Get a general feel of the guy and the alliance.

Next step is to see if you share any common allies or friends, ask them about their thoughts on the alliance in question, ask people in your alliance if they have any experience with them, you may have an ex-member of the alliance in question, or a close ally, or perhaps someone that worked as ambassador to them? Maybe the assigned ambassador is doing his job well and knows them?

Doing the same process with their other allies at the same time gives you a lot of things to cross-reference with.

From here, you should have a decent idea of where they stand in the political landscape, and normally you know if there's a point in pursuing closer things, you should be fairly open about various possibilites with everyone you deal with, next step really depends on what you want.

For TOP, I am not about to sign an MDP with someone I cannot trust completely, and even if I can trust an alliance of 200k NS, they wont get an MDP, a protectorate arrangement is another matter though. But in principle, I'll be open to sign an ODP with anyone I initate something with just to have a result if things goes reasonably well and I dont want to leave a bad feeling behind, it also gives a good excuse to come back. MDP requires that I believe I can trust them enough, and they can punch hard enough that the risk I take when signing an MDP is acceptable. So I screen their alliance based on the firepower and/or economical benefits (tech trades, trade circles etc) they bring to the table, political capital, growth potential and reliability is also criteria's on my list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


Bodvar Jarl
Jun 10 2008, 12:14:22 AM
Pretty much what I go by too. I can disagree with my allies decisions, and I usually will let them know about it, but I will respect their right to make that decision as they please, and support their choice as if I agree 100% with it. The well being of my allies is my most important interest.
I think the emphasized point, which some forget, amazingly, is to make the disagreement private. The world at large should generally never know, unless it degrades to the point of the allegiance breaking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Golden Boy
Member Avatar


bigwoody
Jun 10 2008, 03:38:35 AM
Bodvar Jarl
Jun 10 2008, 12:14:22 AM
Pretty much what I go by too. I can disagree with my allies decisions, and I usually will let them know about it, but I will respect their right to make that decision as they please, and support their choice as if I agree 100% with it. The well being of my allies is my most important interest.
I think the emphasized point, which some forget, amazingly, is to make the disagreement private. The world at large should generally never know, unless it degrades to the point of the allegiance breaking.
Now I do generally agree with you. Private discussions are much better if you disagree on something.

I find it hard to do at some times however. Sometimes, private discussions are exactly what the wrong party wants. (Wrong in my opinion that is)

In private, it gives the offenders as much time and freedom to say whatever they want to you. Of course logs can be posted, but in this day one never knows if they are fake or real.

Posting in public has its one advantage. Everyone is a witness of it and all readers get the same information and answers.

Is it right to do? Probably not, which is why I very rarely post in any major thread. But there are times (AHEAD) when I cannot contain myself and feel the need to help out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hakim
Member Avatar
Former NATO
Guests
I find from time to time, especially in tC posts or DoW's where certain members within an alliance speak out against said DoW or CB. Now I personally do not want to supress public opnion, but I agree wholeheartedly that what makes a bloc or an alliance strong is a unified front.

Keep your opinion if in discord within the alliance, that is what it is there for, but if you can't post in support on the OWF then you probably shouldn't be posting in the first place.

I do the same in RL, when my CC or Director of Operations, within my SQ, have a policy which I don't agree with or I see as potentially harmful or disruptive, I go to their office, close the door, and discuss, sometimes heated, (my position within the Squadron (SQ) allows me that luxury. But if I am told to shut up and color, then I put on my game face and support them. It is different in that these are not elected individuals, they are "placed" in charge. But the precept of supporting your commander or leader in this game, is the same.

I have seen Blocs disintegrate in this game when disagrements are taken public when they could have been discussed or handled privately.

my .02
Edited by Hakim, Jun 10 2008, 11:14:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


Golden Boy
Jun 10 2008, 11:06:13 AM
bigwoody
Jun 10 2008, 03:38:35 AM
Bodvar Jarl
Jun 10 2008, 12:14:22 AM
Pretty much what I go by too. I can disagree with my allies decisions, and I usually will let them know about it, but I will respect their right to make that decision as they please, and support their choice as if I agree 100% with it. The well being of my allies is my most important interest.
I think the emphasized point, which some forget, amazingly, is to make the disagreement private. The world at large should generally never know, unless it degrades to the point of the allegiance breaking.
Now I do generally agree with you. Private discussions are much better if you disagree on something.

I find it hard to do at some times however. Sometimes, private discussions are exactly what the wrong party wants. (Wrong in my opinion that is)

In private, it gives the offenders as much time and freedom to say whatever they want to you. Of course logs can be posted, but in this day one never knows if they are fake or real.

Posting in public has its one advantage. Everyone is a witness of it and all readers get the same information and answers.

Is it right to do? Probably not, which is why I very rarely post in any major thread. But there are times (AHEAD) when I cannot contain myself and feel the need to help out.
I think we are referring to different things.

My stance was never to call out ALLIES in public if you can avoid it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Golden Boy
Member Avatar


AH ok sorry bigwoody we were talking about different things.

I agree 100% that allies should never call each other out. For the exact reason Hakim noted.

My bad on the misread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duncan King
Member Avatar


What is your opinion of treatying alliances that are already treatyed to your allies or that are already a signatory of a bloc with you? Would the existence of these treaties make you more or less likely to treaty them?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigwoody
Member Avatar


A bloc, maybe. Treaties with other allies of mine, not at all. It plays in to the idea that I want my allies to get along.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · CN Leadership Conference · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Theme designed by Sith of Outline