I want to know what other people think about diplomacy between guilds. personally ive had only bad experiences with it and have yet to see the benefits. especially the lack of guild events within Itan.

I think the benefit lies in the drama that ensues when diplomacy inevitably breaks down. Then there's some sort of basic rp reason to fight.

lol

A fair point Whistler .

Its just another aspect of the game for folk who enjoy that type of RP . The work that goes into diplomacy is of interest to the poeple involved and adds to the overall feeling of vo.

The ancient miner remembers a 'taur docking in Dau K10. A Mr Cham-Ba Lane opens the door , waves a piece of paper and declares " Peace in our Time"

Tin hats on chaps.....

i hope it breaks down soon then, im tired of these endless talk about guild members breaking naps. i could use a war now.

War is bad peace is good do it the Itani way not the Akanese way bean Eo told us so.

WAR WAR WAR!!!!

But seriously its called vendetta online, war is good.

jb

war is peace

freedom is slavery

ignorance is strength

and shooting is fun.

"Its just another aspect of the game for folk who enjoy that type of RP"
davejohn has a good point in what he's saying. also war = explosions, so its all good there!!

Diplomacy will play a bigger part once things "heat up" in the game. VO is very tame right now. Even in grey, the majority of fights are consensual. Which is fine considering there's usually very few people on. I admittedly haven't attacked a person who hasn't wanted a fight in months.

However, once/if numbers increase and nation/guild presence becomes much larger in space there will be more non-consensual combat. Itani guilds will start attacking Serco guilds on sight again and vice-versa. Once this starts happening, diplomacy will be much more worthwhile.

The only people who are keeping the sense of danger in the game right now are the pirates. If we get more players, all fights will become like pirates attacking traders. No more, "Would anyone care to fight?" Hopefully, VO will move away from that direction eventually.

Traditionally, diplomacy is used to organize groups of people. When there are more groups than there are individuals, organization will become more important than population.

What a clear and lucid pair of sentences, Lakche Seisu.

"Traditionally, diplomacy is used to organize groups of people"
No, diplomacy is used to resolve conflicts by non-military means. As such diplomacy has been used to avoid war, or in the run-up to war, or to continue the conflict, or limit the scope of the war, or to broaden it (with allies).

"When there are more groups than there are individuals" - basically a nonsense sentence. Mathematically possible in set theory, but not realistic for most purposes involving real people, including the VO community. If there really were more groups than there are individuals, the reverse would hold true: it would be simpler to organize by reference to the individuals.

Diplomacy *can* be used to resolve conflicts by non-military means, yes. My insights went a bit farther, and I recognized that it can also be used to begin wars, that it can both with military means or not. Therefor, the most conclusion definition I can come up with is that it simply a method for organizing groups to a specific task. That is a vague statement. That was my point. The word "diplomacy" is most often used as a B.S. term to avoid being specific. Coincidentally, some people might say the very act of dodging around a touchy subject is being diplomatic.

You're free to interpret the second statement as you will, but it's my own personal guarantee that the more groups you belong to, the exponentially harder it gets to organize anything. Imagine trying to schedule your week for 10 different 4 activities as opposed to 4 different 10 hour activities. Wisdom awaits you if you're willing to at least imagine situations that may not occur realistically. You might for example discover just why they're not realistic.

I am not in a guild. None the less, I have engaged in various diplomatic pursuits. In what may well have been my first peace agreement, I successfully negotiated a "Non Aggression Pact" between myself and [TGFT]. While this agreement underwent some strain in it's earliest stages, it has since become a major milestone in galactic history, and is perhaps the longest standing treaty to date. This is perhaps more the exception than than the rule, as few guild appear to have the determination and resolve to uphold their treaties on par with the consistency [TGFT] has demonstrated. I continue to pursue diplomacy, and have established an impressive number of treaties with a number of guilds, most of which continue to honor their agreements even to this day.
A treaty is worth only as much as you make it worth. Only your actions can justify your words. It would be better for you to never sign a treaty, than to sign it and break it.

And finally, to the point, the whole point of diplomacy is to establish a mutually beneficial state of interaction. The many treaties I have signed, have afforded a great number of pilots the liberty to pass by me without concern, as they pursue other interest, and afforded myself the luxury of focusing my attention on my worst enemies. I place great value on these treaties, and consider them to be among my greatest assets.

Aye, we still have treaties with long dead guilds. <.<

Err, Roda, you just harrass people until they give in. TGFT has an agreement with you because you're less annoying that way, and you pursued an agreement with them (and others) so you wouldn't be overwhelmed by the complete disdain you inspire in people.

The topic of this thread was stated as something along the lines of "What is the point of diplomacy?".
To which I have responded, "Diplomacy is to arrange terms of interaction that you would not necessarily enjoy otherwise."
I think that "less annoying" fits in that category, so I am somehow failing to see how your point deviates from my own. Further more, you further state that my intentions are so that I will not be overwhelmed by combatants, which appears to me to be what I've already said, and still completely in line with my response. I do indeed harass pilots. I specifically target pilots that harass or otherwise "annoy" myself. The very purpose of a non aggression pact is to limit these kinds of interactions, and if there where no threat of these type of interactions in the first place, there would be no point in a treaty to limit them. There are guild which I have never pursued diplomacy, because it is completely unnecessary. They will never "annoy" me, and I will never "annoy" them. Diplomacy is uncalled for when all expected forms of interaction are perfectly acceptable to all parties involved.
Diplomacy is not alway appropriate. There are some guilds that diplomacy is not only a complete waste, but an actual disadvantage. Diplomacy is generally only beneficial between entities that will honor an agreement, and in the case of guilds, this means guilds that are generally principle oriented. Some guilds will accept any member that will join, and never expel any member for any reason. These types of guilds are only guilds in a technical sense. In contrast, some guilds exact a specific code of behavior on their members, under threat of expulsion, and these are the type of guilds that can act and behave in a unified manner. Pursuing diplomacy with a guild that will not enforce it's commitments is generically a waste of time, as the agreement will almost certainly be broken at some point. Thus it is not at all surprising that some treaties end up being more a point of contention than having no treaty in the first place. The pursuit of diplomacy is an art, not only in the diplomacy in it self, but also in correctly judging who is worthy of diplomacy in the first place.