The Genuine Alliances Experiment

[LordNivlek]

I'm sure a fair number of you have heard me grandstanding or whining (depending on your perspective) in one of the games I'm in. In my search for a game with trustworthy allies and perhaps to provide a rallying point for improving a culture of credibility in Diplomacy, I am currently in the first of a series of Genuine Alliances games. The plan is to have three unranked games to see if people can bring themselves to adhere to an "alliance" once made and to meet those genuine players who understand the meaning of the word "diplomacy." Then perhaps two DSS games to see how a bit of gain impacts behavior, and lastly, SoS games to see if alliances continue to hold. There are three concepts around which the series will revolve.

Genuine Alliances - The name of the game is "Diplomacy" and backstabbing is not even a necessary part of the game. I think people have just chosen to make it a quintessential element because they lust for the rush of doing something dastardly and despicable which they can't in real life. It's made more despicable by people rationalizing their acts with arguments such as "allies betray each other all the time" and "you weren't really my ally" and "it's was just convenient to stab you." Firstly, allies actually rarely betray each other, especially given the times most of the maps represent. Honoring alliances and commitments was one of the causes of the Great War, for crying out loud! In the anarchic world stage, especially in the Westphalian order and during the Long Peace, a state's word is crucial in dealing with others in the liberal world order. Secondly, because of the first point, the word "ally" and its variations should be taken seriously. Throw the word "partner" or "cooperative" around as you like, but stand by your alliances. Thirdly, I agree its important to have a good defense and allies should discuss how they'll do that, but there are only so many units in this game. The most efficient joint plan is to be able to maximize your forces in the front. Your alliance can achieve so much more if you are true to one another, work together, grow together, and maximize your forces out there expanding your collective sphere together.

No Anonymity - If you are true to the spirit of the first point, there is no need to hide your identity. Be proud of your good and honorable name as you strengthen its reputation.

No Discrimination to Players Picking Up Civil Disorders - I am probably slightly biased but after giving some thought to reasons given for prejudicial aggression against replacement players such as "you brought nothing to the pot" or "you came late," came to the conclusion that they're 90% crap and an excuse to take advantage of a weakened partner. We need to stop maligning players who take over civil disorders. They are an essential function of this site so idle factions don't end up favoring the closest neighbor. On top of that, they should not be maligned for potentially benefiting from the pot. Firstly, the player who neglected his responsibilities to the game contributed a sum to the pot that remains in the pot. Therefore, the new player is not taking anything away, but rather is now part of the game just like every other player, deserving of the same considerations. Secondly, even if their joining took a little away from the pot, which it doesn't, I wouldn't complain since they are usually entering into situations of varying disadvantages. More importantly, they are helping the game as mentioned. And lastly, they just want to have fun. Therefore, I find most of the excuses for picking on late joins are merely excuses for animosity and aggression. Even worse, when it involves backstabbing declared "allies," such discrimination is irrational at best and weak covers for cowardly treachery at worst.

PS - Random thought, mostly for the mods...should not the word for people who donate be "donor" versus "donator"?