What is your playstyle as a general/marshal?

[Lorgan]

I don't think you can make something as "trust" the default in a game, it's a human connection, it takes time.

But perhaps you could find a way to make it more obvious that in this social experiment of a game, trust is the key to success.

[Constantine]

I don't think that has to be the case, though. I'd really love to create an environment where trust is the default, not suspicion and an insistence on being #1 from at least 1/3 of the players.

You should have tweaked the rules correspondingly then.
In Ikalak people were doing (still doing btw) absolutely crazy stuff out of spite or just for no reason. I know I can trust maybe half a dozen people there and inevitably it leads to secret councils and minimizes delegation of power.

[Indirik]

I think you just can't expect the same level of respect, trust and focus that existed in Perdan between players that knew eachother for many years and had an established power base as in Sandalak where you've all been thrown in the pit together just a couple of months ago.

See, that's a problem. Your default *should* be to trust your realm-mates. They are your team. The SI is a team-based island. Innumerable people have been saying that from the beginning. Yet quite a few of the people that have been saying that continue to play on SI as if it was a single-player game, and they are the central, most important part of the entire realm. Where's the cooperation?

[Indirik]

In Ikalak people were doing (still doing btw) absolutely crazy stuff out of spite or just for no reason. I know I can trust maybe half a dozen people there and inevitably it leads to secret councils and minimizes delegation of power.

I can't even begin to recall the complete list of Ikalaks who have contacted Sandalak and offered to betray their realm for one reason or another.

Not to mention the fact that all of the SI realms are riddled with spies, sending as much info as they can to other realms. Really disappointing. It kind of dilutes the entire purpose of the island.

[Anaris]

You should have tweaked the rules correspondingly then.

Tweaked the rules how?

If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.

[Lorgan]

Well if you expect trust to be a given you just do away with the politics aspect of the game. You need to make the right decisions and make your nobles happy if you want their trust.

At least that's how it should work, and in my experience it's always worked like that.

Edit:
Granted I'm not on the war islands just because I do enjoy the politics aspect and especially the diplomacy aspect and thought there wouldn't be much of either on SI.

Also, of course there's always exceptions and people you just can't work with. That's what the banhammer is for.

[Anaris]

Well if you expect trust to be a given you just do away with the politics aspect of the game. You need to make the right decisions and make your nobles happy if you want their trust.

At least that's how it should work, and in my experience it's always worked like that.

But that's a very absolutist way of looking at it—as if "trust" were something you either gave completely, or not at all. And I certainly see that there are people who treat it that way.

But in reality, it can be much more nuanced than that. To take a very simple example, you can choose to trust new players and new characters in your realm, welcoming them rather than instantly suspecting them—but still not giving them access to your most secret counsels. In general, players should trust their realm-mates, but this does not preclude a certain amount of politicking, and even spying.

An attitude has arisen in the past several years—and I think it is due, at least in part, to the rise of SMA—that the default position of every noble should be to be out for their own good, and screw everyone else who gets in their way.

Personally, I find that to be an exhausting way to play the game. I've done it, and done well—Alanna Anaris held the throne of Pian en Luries for years in an environment that was practically a distillation of that attitude—but I don't think it's what we want for the game. It's not, for most people, fun. And fun for most people is what we should be striving for. Not fun that has to be fought for, but fun that's given—and, more importantly, shared.

[Graeth]

One small step on the war island might be to remove the ability to talk directly to another realm unless you're in office.  You could still have region speech enabled so that armies could banter with each other.

[Indirik]

Remove the ability to talk to someone outside your realm unless you are in the same region. Period.

[Anaris]

Remove the ability to talk to someone outside your realm unless you are in the same region. Period.

On the SI, that might actually be workable. It would require some changes to prevent replies to old messages, though, as well as blocking the addition of contacts from outside the realm.

[Lorgan]

But that's a very absolutist way of looking at it—as if "trust" were something you either gave completely, or not at all. And I certainly see that there are people who treat it that way.

But in reality, it can be much more nuanced than that. To take a very simple example, you can choose to trust new players and new characters in your realm, welcoming them rather than instantly suspecting them—but still not giving them access to your most secret counsels. In general, players should trust their realm-mates, but this does not preclude a certain amount of politicking, and even spying.

An attitude has arisen in the past several years—and I think it is due, at least in part, to the rise of SMA—that the default position of every noble should be to be out for their own good, and screw everyone else who gets in their way.

Personally, I find that to be an exhausting way to play the game. I've done it, and done well—Alanna Anaris held the throne of Pian en Luries for years in an environment that was practically a distillation of that attitude—but I don't think it's what we want for the game. It's not, for most people, fun. And fun for most people is what we should be striving for. Not fun that has to be fought for, but fun that's given—and, more importantly, shared.

I agree completely. But I think that by not just expecting trust from characters you don't know but knowing you have to work for it with the tools you have (and that doesn't mean overwhelming them with private messages or all your realm's information necessarily, but does necessarily mean making them feel accepted and involved) is the best way to combat that attitude of distrust in an SMA BM.

[Kai]

The extreme self interest powergaming is often justified by character, but apparently all of these characters are psychopaths who have no family or ties to a realm that would cause them to want to see it prosper. That is, it is unrealistic and unhistorical.

The problem is also that the concentration of the attitude tends to increase because trust-default people leave the game as concentration of selfish people rises. This is even theoretically seen in prisoner's dilemma between TFT and always betray strategy.

[Anaris]

The extreme self interest powergaming is often justified by character, but apparently all of these characters are psychopaths who have no family or ties to a realm that would cause them to want to see it prosper. That is, it is unrealistic and unhistorical.

The problem is also that the concentration of the attitude tends to increase because trust-default people leave the game as concentration of selfish people rises. This is even theoretically seen in prisoner's dilemma between TFT and always betray strategy.

I think the sky must be falling, because I am in complete agreement with Kai

What's needed is a cultural shift. I'm trying to come up with ideas for how to begin nudging people in the right direction for it.

[Chenier]

Tweaked the rules how?

If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.

As has already been said, my very short stay on SI was enough to demonstrate an atrocious spy problem. Removing inter-realm communications is a must. Heck, even for government members, may as well make it hard. Slap a 50 gold cost to every inter-realm communication a government member wants to send. Alternatively, don't bother putting a ton of custom restrictions for normal nobles, and just slap the 50 gold cost to everyone: that, in itself, should cut inter-realm communications significantly. Or have it be even higher: 100 gold, 250 gold! That way, it'll have to be something very important, and no one will be able to afford leaking orders every turn.

My stay in Sandalak has also shown a weak hierarchy. This was also pointed out: the realms are composed of a ton of nobles mashed together just a few months ago. From players who are used to getting positions easily. For years, a minimum of activity would get you a lordship. In most places, even a government position isn't all that hard. They come to SI expecting to have it their way, because they always do. But because there aren't as much positions to throw around, "competition" for these greatly increases. Peers are turned into rivals. What's the solution? I can't think of one right now, but the governments need some kind of "divine" legitimacy. If people were presented with the cold fact that they could not replace it to better suit their ambitions (ego), then maybe they'd just cease wanting to pursue them.

In the same line of thought, loyalty is equally weak. Nobles seem to switch from one side to the other at whim. In the old days, doing so would result in an immediate ban. Might be time to bring this back, at least for SI. And reduce the H/P cost of executions. But punishing lack of loyalty isn't enough: a reward system might help as well. Not sure what kind of reward would be appropriate, but something  that is only granted to the players of the winning realm and that scales with how long they've been there might help.

[Constantine]

Tweaked the rules how?

If you've got suggestions, I'm open to them.

Simple. Disallow switching realms.
Hate Ikalak? Retire your character and start a new one in a chosen realm.