next »

[ZombieR]

Yesterday the clans decided to attack many lower level bases while players were verily in slumber. These bases were in the range of 30-60 and were level 45 attackers.. so basically they were in range of our current site in Varmint Woods. The clan organizations involved were Spartanz, Destructive Rebellion (DSR) and Army of Virtue. This doesn't really concern us except that:

• A player has revealed, in hindsight, a plan to attack us was made and would have occured sometime after their third attack on the omni org Slow Motion.
• The same player helped clan forces with attacking an omni tower site, causing a temporary alliance and halt of their plans to attack us, but at the same time violating tower policy and creating problems with omni relations.
• Finally, the attacks concern us because monitoring of all attacks between factions could be of some possible strategic benefit, but this is not the purpose of this post today.

First, is the issue with tower policy. I don't think it has outlived it usefullness, it was designed because of very instances like this in the past when we were attacked by omni orgs like CoNtaminated (Circle of Notum) because members purposefully attacked orgs without cause or were attacking clans for no real purpose or benefit to the org.

    From section 4 of the tower policy:
    The Defiant is a Neutral organization and does not take sides in the ongoing war between Omni and Clan.

The recent attacks by Defiant on clan Liberty are essentially also violations of tower policy because of collusion with omni. But, Knight is a founder and does what he wants and that is that. For other players it is not their right or responsibility to create new diplomacy for the entire org, especially sacrificing other current peaceful relations.

    From section 3 of the tower policy:
    Please do not purposefully attack enemy towers without first asking a general if this is okay.

    From section 2 of the tower policy:
    ... players should be mindful of the effects of Player versus Player combat on organization diplomacy ...

Even though the player involved is a general, and generals can authorize attacks, decisions for the org are expected to be made with careful thought. This "rule" was written during a time when generals mostly did NOT authorize attacks and if done so, because of an imminent and foreseeable, immediate problem or because of an ongoing threat where war was already an option, given certain circumstances (such as attacks by enemies on the Defiant.. opportunity strikes with other neutrals, etc). Otherwise, options should be discussed first with the org.

    From section 5 of the tower policy:
    ... The Defiant cooperates with other Neutral organizations and on occasion Omni and Clan for help defending neutral LCA's.

Last, I want to address our relations with omni and the overarching relations between neutrals and other factions. We have generally peaceful relations with omni because they often do not attack neutrals and this is true of probably 90-95% of all neutral organizations with tower sites. For a fact, clans attack neutrals much more than omnis do. Neutrals also often provoke clans and create a cycle of violence. On the flipside, because of Defiant's past behaviour we have been attacked by omnis probably more than any other neutral org in recent history, perhaps aside from the now dismantled Rubi-Ka Defence Party.

The omnis that do attack other neutrals are often considered "rogue" organizations that do not represent the overall condtion of relations between omni and neutrals. And because of neutrals low population, uninterested approach to notum wars, and hostile relations with clans... help from omnis is the main reason neutrals have any chance of controlling higher level sites.

There are many players in The Defiant with clan or omni alts and often neutrals "lean" one way or another. That is fine and acceptable. But it goes too far if deciding to help one side or the other with tower wars using characters that are in the Defiant. Also, omnis and clans can be in our channel relaying info to their side and even advising us, but we don't have to listen to them explicitly or otherwise, as we are a neutral org with our own policies.

For my opinion, we now have slightly better relations with clans at the cost of disharmony with omni. And this truce will only last for as long as we don't attack clans, otherwise it likely will be seen as a betrayal and trigger a quick response. We have been making enemies with clans, omnis, and other neutrals..! And to me, ideally, when we attack it should be with other members of the org and united, not players by theirself.

I realize some of this is just opinion but I wanted to explain past and current events and their effects on the org and neutrals as I see them in one topic. This is not a complete discourse on neutrals and their history or even their participation in notum wars and I hope others post their thoughts on the subject.

[Leileena]

But, Knight is a founder and does what he wants and that is that.

All I can say is to that is... Yeah.

In my oppinion there is nothing wrong with The Defiant's tower policy as it is, a model that is commonly used and proven usefull. If The Defiant has any seriousness towards Notum Wars, it should have a policy like that present.

However for something like this to function, -everyone- needs to keep to the policy, otherwise it's useless (you only need 1 person to start a war, yet an army of bureaucrats to stop it). For starters the commanding officers (including Knight).

If this criteria can't be met, persumably due to something quoted above, it is better for the org's credibility to have no rules at all. So the possibilities as it is now would be:
1. Org with rules = structurized and self-respective[/li][/list]
2. Org without rules = chaos but self-respective[/li][/list]
3. Org with rules but not keeping to them = chaos with failure to keep to promices[/li][/list]

These are the only 3 options I can think of, a partial rule would mean asmuch as part 3 as it would be unclear and incomplete.

Now I know that The Defiant likes their business as unlimited as possible, the second option would be the easiest to achive.
1. That however comes with the downside of:

• Everyone attacking everything
• Defiant not having any sort of respect in PvP situations (thus no help from others)
• Defiant eventually losing all towerfields

2. Having a policy would mean:

• Getting Defiantmembers to behave and follow policy in PvP situations

3. Having a policy but nobody keeping to it would result in:

• All points listed under part 1
• People being aimless about what to do and who to listen to, resulting in /org leave

Judging from these points we can conclude that having a towerpolicy much (if not completely) like the one present today has the least downsides, although will be the hardest to achive with current officers.

For the wellbeing of The Defiant as newbie-friendly org, even as an org where everything is possible, it should have somesort of rules and guidelines, otherwise the new players just swim untill they drown, with nothing to hang on to.


That's my vision, oppinion and responds to this topic.
--Leileena

[ZombieR]

I pretty much agree with all of that Leileena. People often leave the org when there is fighting over the stupid towers! Others don't care for PvP and they certainly don't want to be told to go help with it.

Then, yes, tower sites are often lost because of attacking others, which is really justifiable to me. If you play with fire.. Anyways, there's usually some base that an org with enough members can find eventually, but jumping from site to site seems silly to me and confusing for players.

I think many players (and orgs) don't want to participate or help if attacks aren't "righteous". That is, if the attacks made don't have much purpose or are totally random. I know that is how I feel. We have lost much support from some orgs that used to come help us defend. There could be other reasons, but this is likely the main one.

I think new players will know if they fit into a place pretty soon, without having tons of rules and regulations to define the org. Some players aren't right for this org, some really don't belong in any org and then there's those that probably shouldn't be allowed around other people altogether. But players new to the game and new to orgs in general should have some sort of guidance.

Unfortuneatly for new players, the game does have a steep learning curve and it might be best that new players explore the game for awhile without an org. That might sound contradictory but I really think the discovery process is important.

Also, many new players have not decided which faction they would like to join or even what that is all about. There's also many advanced concepts concerning organizations that can't be readily explained to new players. Towers are definitely one of these things.

[ZombieR]

Oh and a couple more things.

I think good judgement, cooperation and understanding are good replacements for a rulebook. I imagine there's no need whatsoever for tower policies in some orgs, but since we get in way too much trouble we really need the stuff outlined. Especially since we have many PvP players in the org, for whatever reason. Towers and diplomacy can be confusing, but for most other stuff I think sensibility is really all that's needed.

Finally, to clarify, omnis have attacked some other neutral orgs quite a bit lately but, to me, these would be the "rogue" orgs I mentioned, that are disconnected from the central philosophies shared by larger and more powerful omni orgs.

[Leileena]

Good judgement, cooperation and understanding is certainly something that could replace all rules, in AO or in RL. Though RL proves us that there is a need for rules, as simply there arn't enough people who have good judgement, people who don't get along and can't understand each other.

From that I think Defiant is no different, by a playerbase with all kinds of people, it's impossible to just loosely base org regulations on the judgement of senior staff. It would be wonderfull if it was possible, but from what I know it is not.