A Modern Foreign Affairs Primer

[The Zigur]

Well here:
 

you seem to be saying that alliances that enter a war based on a "lesser" treaty (i.e. optional vs mandatory) should be "punished" more than those who are involved due to mandatory obligations.

While here:
 

you seem to back of somewhat using a generic term "behavior."

What I want to know is do you place entering a war through an optional treaty as "behavior" that should be "punished" or do you think it's okay all of the time. If you're answer remains "it depends" - then provide some concrete (as opposed to just using broad terms like "honorable" and "cooperative") idea of what it depends on.

---------------

Also, my personal opinion is that if you teach that peace terms (imposed by winners - not by some neutral 3rd party) should be based on some sort of behavior of the alliance during the war, then you are doing your students harm. War, by it's very nature, involves what would normally be considered bad behavior and thus will and from a strategic standpoint often should occur. Both "sides" will act badly. That's why nations and alliances generally work hard to resolve matters diplomatically. War is not a continuation of proper behavior, it's a failure to behave properly.

If as a community we REALLY want to punish bad behavior, then terms would be based on how both parties behaved prior to the war - i.e. whether or not it started based on a good CB and the offending alliance failed to meet reasonable "terms" to avoid war.

 

1. The simply answer is that many factors have to be analyzed before good wartime decision making is executed. The primary objective of a coalition is to defeat the threat force, but beyond that, the way that the war ends should be influenced by stabilizing policies when possible. Thus, punishing those who deliberately obstruct you is necessary, while leniency when one's opponent bends the knee is also necessary. The examples I provided are not set in stone but rather more like guidance, and the final outcome depends upon judgment and analysis. Intentions of the defeated should be considered closely in determining their capacity as a future threat or ally.

 

2. There isn't any objective "bad behavior," in my view, but rather actions that have either stabilizing or destabilizing results. It is in the interests of those sharing in prosperity to stabilize the situation, and it is in the interests of those excluded from prosperity to destabilize the situation. Thus the ideal solution is to include as many nations and alliances as possible in the opportunity to achieve prosperity and potential. This can be done in a system where uncertainty is abolished from war, and rational actors know which side to pick. When this can be done, egalitarian stability can be achieved to a greater degree.

 

 

 

Before going into detail, Remember, the Lannister News Network included a University pitch in this publication, but does not necessarily represent the position of the University as a whole. Dissolving the Party in favor for a University is an attempt to reduce polarization and politics within the University proper.

 

 

1. In my opinion, it is the thought that counts, not just the actions. Neo-Imperialism in my mind was something that needed to be rectified, regardless of how much time had elapsed after the plotting itself. Defeating NSO coalition would more importantly provide a platform for stability and the university itself after the war.

 

 

2. I'm not going to claim the war was ended perfectly, especially since I left high government in early January and thus had little influence from within the coalition near the end of the war. I originally did not actively support terms on NPO while within high govt, and would have been content with victories broken down by front, but after some discussion I came to see how terms could be useful in NPO's case. With their use of upper tier peace mode, and attempt at leadership and obstruction of Coalition goals, I don't think the terms were unfair. Wars often evolve, and new objectives often become apparent. Did some alliances enter the war with punitive goals in mind? Certainly, and I am glad for their participation, but for me the war was ideological in nature.

 

This seems to confirm my suspicious -- that the listed CB was not the true reason for the conflict.  It was a means to gain supremacy over a potential rival, not to counter an immediate threat. No real difference then between this war and a ton of other coalition wars that people rail against.  The end is neither here nor there -- the motivations are what was suspect.

 

3. Between the Mushqaeda and Disorder wars, there were some diplomatic incidents between HB and NSO. However, it all turned out well, the past is the past, and I hope NSO will reform and seek friendship with HB now that I am no longer in government.

 

So diplomacy prevailed. Doesn't seem inherently destabilizing.

 

4. From my experience with leadership in both Polar and TOP, I have found them both rational, competent and favorable to global stability. In my opinion, however, TOP and Polar should not be the sole major partners in this relationship. Ideally, I would someday like to see NPO, IRON, DT and others become core members of the political relationship, thus providing further stability, but there are major hurdles to overcome. The more alliances who join the current Polardoxia arrangement, the more certain the outcome of future wars and more stable the global environment.

 

Not being flip, but you seem to be saying that you want people in power because you like the way they think and act, and the means to those ends is justified.   That doesn't strike me as significantly different than what everybody wants -- their friends in power.  It doesn't strike me as a particularly "revolutionary" line of thought. Stability under your terms doesn't appeal to me any more or less than stability under anyone else's terms.  Your people may or may not be in power until people get tired of them, and then someone else will take over via the same political/treaty machinations.  And I'm not sure anyone in my alliance will notice or care. Right now it is like the last page of Animal Farm: I look from man to pig and pig to man, and I cannot see a difference.  DBDC, Polar-TOP and NPO-CnG may all be playing a grand game, but it is like World Cup soccer -- no one's good, no one's evil, and I don't care two whits about the outcome. A world dominated by Rayvon doesn't look much different to me than a world dominated by Dajobo or Cuba or Brehon or anyone else.   Revolutions are born of need, and I don't think most of us on Bob feel that need. Have fun, and good luck, but I'm watching other things on my TV.

 

 

1. The motivations for the war varied from state actor to state actor. My motivation was ideological in nature, and thus I cannot speak for every other leader in the coalition.

 

2. When state actors are educated, they are more likely to act in a rational manner, and rational actors act according to the reality of the situation. Generally state actors only fall when their policies fall out of alignment with reality, thus with the University I hope that working together, nation leaders can become informed and make the right decisions for their alliances and for the international community as a whole. If everyone is on the same page, stability is much more likely.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[jerdge]

I offer my best wishes for this initiative to actually group people to spread knowledge and to enhance the level of Planet Avril's Foreign Affairs and general discourse. I naturally remain neutral on the subject of the political goals and objectives of the founder.

 

[spoiler]ooc: thanks Tywin for bringing content to these forums - it's appreciated.[/spoiler]

[Walshington]

 When state actors are educated, they are more likely to act in a rational manner, and rational actors act according to the reality of the situation. Generally state actors only fall when their policies fall out of alignment with reality, thus with the University I hope that working together, nation leaders can become informed and make the right decisions for their alliances and for the international community as a whole. If everyone is on the same page, stability is much more likely.

 

If everyone was on the same page, there would be no war.

 

There are only two rational acts in war:

1.  Defend your alliance's best interests

2.  Join the winning side.

 

Often these rational acts are diametrically opposed, and reduce treaties to simple strategic decisions. I much prefer the friends>infra crowd, regardless of its impact on global stability. ODAP is the real revolution -- every time one gets posted, some decry it as looking as an "out" from defending allies.  I look at them as the ability to enter a war because I want to.  My hand isn't forced -- if I am war with you, it is because I chose to be, irrational or not (and granted, SRA's war record reflects that). I think most global wars would have looked much different if people entered because they believed in the CB or not. ODAP's would give us a true stabilizing force -- people would not enter wars frivolously knowing others would be compelled to have their backs.  We'd see a lot more Second NoR-LSF wars and a lot less Dave Wars.  (I realize that LSF had MD's, but most of Bob seemed to think that they had made some bad decisions that got them into trouble, whereas when Echelon fought HB in the Dave War I don't believe either of them gave two $#!%$ about "Dave".

[The Zigur]

 

If everyone was on the same page, there would be no war.

 

There are only two rational acts in war:

1.  Defend your alliance's best interests

2.  Join the winning side.

 

Often these rational acts are diametrically opposed, and reduce treaties to simple strategic decisions. I much prefer the friends>infra crowd, regardless of its impact on global stability. ODAP is the real revolution -- every time one gets posted, some decry it as looking as an "out" from defending allies.  I look at them as the ability to enter a war because I want to.  My hand isn't forced -- if I am war with you, it is because I chose to be, irrational or not (and granted, SRA's war record reflects that). I think most global wars would have looked much different if people entered because they believed in the CB or not. ODAP's would give us a true stabilizing force -- people would not enter wars frivolously knowing others would be compelled to have their backs.  We'd see a lot more Second NoR-LSF wars and a lot less Dave Wars.  (I realize that LSF had MD's, but most of Bob seemed to think that they had made some bad decisions that got them into trouble, whereas when Echelon fought HB in the Dave War I don't believe either of them gave two $#!%$ about "Dave".

 

You are correct that often actions 1 and 2 are "diametrically opposed" in a destabilized environment, especially the political environment of the last few years. However, in a stable environment, actions 1 and 2 will be more often than not aligned. You can prefer the friends>infra crowd all you want, but the world is changing, and those who chose to cling to an outdated philosophy better suited to the less stable world of yesterday will simply be marginalized in the long run.

 

Ultimately, this is because the "winning side" will not be determined by whichever clique is dominant (i.e. the lulzist "friends" of MK), but rather by who chooses to cooperate with the dominant hegemonic entity. In this situation, anyone will be able to join in a more egalitarian political system regardless of clique or former personal affiliations. With the pendulum swinging back towards Order this is in many ways inevitable, as demonstrated by the Disorder War. Those who chose to marginalize themselves rather than participate may do so, but they will only limit their own potential and position.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Walshington]

 

 

Ultimately, this is because the "winning side" will not be determined by whichever clique is dominant (i.e. the lulzist "friends" of MK), but rather by who chooses to cooperate with the dominant hegemonic entity. In this situation, anyone will be able to join in a more egalitarian political system regardless of clique or former personal affiliations. With the pendulum swinging back towards Order this is in many ways inevitable, as demonstrated by the Disorder War. Those who chose to marginalize themselves rather than participate may do so, but they will only limit their own potential and position.

 

Man to pig, pig to man.  Same as it ever was -- cooperate with those in power, and you will be on the winning side.  MK was the dominant hegemonic entity -- life was pretty good for their allies for a while.  Same with the new (and future) dominant hegemonies.  As long as there is a dominant hegemony, there is no egalitarianism.

[The Zigur]

 

Man to pig, pig to man.  Same as it ever was -- cooperate with those in power, and you will be on the winning side.  MK was the dominant hegemonic entity -- life was pretty good for their allies for a while.  Same with the new (and future) dominant hegemonies.  As long as there is a dominant hegemony, there is no egalitarianism.

 

This goes back to the education and philosophical orientation of the dominant hegemony at the time. In the case of MK, it was friends>infra based... essentially clique based, meaning many were excluded from prosperity, including NPO. In the case of a stability based emphasis, participation will be offered to all parties, regardless of former affiliations. Thus, politics is elevated from personal relationships to professional relationships. Exclusion from hegemonic prosperity will only happen to those who try to overthrow it because they would rather rule with their clique and satisfy their egomania, rather than participate as an equal member of the global international community.

 

This system is inherently fairer, and provides more opportunity to more people, regardless of "knowing people." The fact that some would rather reign over others is unfortunate, but they will marginalize themselves through their own selfishness and outdated thought patterns.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[White Chocolate]

There isn't any objective "bad behavior," in my view, but rather actions that have either stabilizing or destabilizing results. It is in the interests of those sharing in prosperity to stabilize the situation, and it is in the interests of those excluded from prosperity to destabilize the situation. Thus the ideal solution is to include as many nations and alliances as possible in the opportunity to achieve prosperity and potential. This can be done in a system where uncertainty is abolished from war, and rational actors know which side to pick. When this can be done, egalitarian stability can be achieved to a greater degree.

 

 

Although I think there are objective behaviors that are arguabley "bad", there are some instances where they are regardless  necessary.  To try to say they aren't bad and find ways to jusitfy them is propoghanda if one knows better and naive if one does not.  The naive side is more dangerous as the only type of person (or alliance or set of alliances) worse than a tyrant is a tyrant who believes that what he/she/they are doing is for the good of everyone.   

 

Also, although I am in no way opposed to stability and prosperity, it's not what I personally consider my guiding principal as far as politics are concerned.  Neither is friends > infra, although it is important (even where poltics are concerned) to have friends.  What I personally see as most important is alliance soverignity and since one of the biggest advantages of being sovereign is the ability to decide when to declare war and when to stay out of war, if I want allies but I don't want to give up the right to determine what wars to support and what wars to stay out of, the treaties need to be optional. 

 

In terms of "stability" - you and I have different views.  Stability by your definition favors one "side" staying in control over another.    This being the case, I get how optional treaties may be seen as threatening and thus worthy of being discouraged ("punishment" is not about good and bad, it's about discouraging one behavior in favor of another.)  The reason is entirely political.  If one is going to start a war, one wants to be assured in advance that ones side has the man/fire power to win.  Mandatory treaties make it easier to figure out the numbers and optional ones (especially if a group has optional treaties on both sides or - admin forbid! some group decides to get involved without any treaty at all) cause uncertainy.  On the flip side, the group not currently in power wants uncertainity as far as the numbers go because the group in power is not going to risk losing it's power if it is believed that they might actually lose the war. 

 

Thus, IF one TRULY wants to give alliances the "opportunity to achieve prosperity", some uncertainity (call it lack of stability) is necessary.  A close war favors no one and so no one wants starts one.  Thus in this situation, alliance leaders are very careful not to give some other alliance a good reason for war and if it happens, it's quietly resolved and both alliances can continue to prosper.

Edited February 26, 2014 by White Chocolate

[Sephiroth]

DBDC is a force for good in this world. Did you know on most color spheres if your actions go against the norms, such as you initiate a war without treaties, you can be labeled a rogue and sanctioned regardless of whether your cause is just?

 

Doombirds will do their best so nations on pink never get sanctioned. Doombirds is one of the few truly libertarian alliances who value freedom above all else. They go against the political norms so many have become accustomed to, with many of those political norms being bad. If GOONS are trying to drive a nation to deletion with their mercy board practices, if the nation refuses; with a simple request GOONS can get that nation sanctioned on almost every color. That is what is wrong with the current political environment, but DBDC stands up against tyranny and abuse of sanctions.

[The Zigur]

White Chocolate, different types of treaties aren't very important. What is more important is how well communication and a spirit of trust is maintained between alliances. If communication is more or less constant, and is also reliable and honest, treaties do not matter as much anymore. What is more important is that everyone moves to the same op tempo. The beauty of a well oiled and directed system is that it multiplies the effect of the individual. This was revealed by the astonishing efficiency of the Disorder War. The sort of efficiency of this war would have been undreamed of in my day.

 

Comrade... er, colleague Methrage. Rogue causes are almost never justified. In the case of GOONS, they were playing around with Loki a bit and giving him a hard time for being silly yet again. They aren't going to actually make Loki eat cat food. I joined in the joke myself because Loki went against my wishes, but nobody actually intended for him to eat cat food lol. You libertarians need to learn humor sometimes :P

 

But yes, rogues go about it in totally the wrong way. Rather than inflicting violence, they should first try to air their cause to the media or allied authorities to the perpetrator. Rogues are not justified in attacking an alliance for a perceived wrong, and it is not the rogues place to impose judgement on hundreds of other people. The wealth and extreme bourgeois of DBDC does not place them in a position to judge hundreds of people either.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Sephiroth]

White Chocolate, different types of treaties aren't very important. What is more important is how well communication and a spirit of trust is maintained between alliances. If communication is more or less constant, and is also reliable and honest, treaties do not matter as much anymore. What is more important is that everyone moves to the same op tempo. The beauty of a well oiled and directed system is that it multiplies the effect of the individual. This was revealed by the astonishing efficiency of the Disorder War. The sort of efficiency of this war would have been undreamed of in my day.

 

Comrade... er, colleague Methrage. Rogue causes are almost never justified. In the case of GOONS, they were playing around with Loki a bit and giving him a hard time for being silly yet again. They aren't going to actually make Loki eat cat food. I joined in the joke myself because Loki went against my wishes, but nobody actually intended for him to eat cat food lol. You libertarians need to learn humor sometimes :P

 

But yes, rogues go about it in totally the wrong way. Rather than inflicting violence, they should first try to air their cause to the media or allied authorities to the perpetrator. Rogues are not justified in attacking an alliance for a perceived wrong, and it is not the rogues place to impose judgement on hundreds of other people. The wealth and extreme bourgeois of DBDC does not place them in a position to judge hundreds of people either.

Loki sent me a PM letting me know they aren't serious about peace and still jerking him around, so he could use the aid and without it he will be forced to delete. This is after Sardonic said he would get involved in giving him real terms. After discussions with Loki, since he has no wonders we've agreed it will be more efficient for him to reroll and for me to aid his new nation, as well as advise him on how to best grow with the aid.

 

Without my intervention, Loki likely would of deleted and never looked back, just as many other nations have after ending up in conflict with GOONS. My first war with GOONS also started with me aiding a nation who didn't want to give up all dignity for the amusement of GOONS on their mercy board, that nation is among many others gone due to GOONS mercy board forcing nations to delete who don't feel like humoring a bunch of immature people who derive their amusements in demented ways. If you want to focus on an alliance which is a threat to stability, it is GOONS. GOONS are allowed to prosper not because of their own strength, but because of their allies and their heavy use of sanctions on those who resist.

 

Edit: Also I never said I thought the dog or cat food thing were serious terms, I said I would aid him if they don't give him terms which aren't humiliating or degrading.They did not, so I'm doing what I can to keep the player base from shrinking further due to the actions of some sadists.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Methrage

[The Zigur]

Why is there this huge obsession with a lack of personal responsibility in this world? Loki was warned multiple times not to attack GOONS and did it anyway. This is not a first time thing with him and GOONS, either. GOONS didn't just go out and randomly attack Loki, in fact it was the other way around: Loki didn't finish his NPO application and decided instead to go on a random crusade against GOONS. An alliance of over a hundred members should not be put on the timeline of a random repeat rogue, and this is the type of DBDC style arrogance that has come to characterize them.

 

This is not the grand arena, and Loki isn't some freedom fighter Mal.

 

[Sephiroth]

Why is there this huge obsession with a lack of personal responsibility in this world? Loki was warned multiple times not to attack GOONS and did it anyway. This is not a first time thing with him and GOONS, either. GOONS didn't just go out and randomly attack Loki, in fact it was the other way around: Loki didn't finish his NPO application and decided instead to go on a random crusade against GOONS. An alliance of over a hundred members should not be put on the timeline of a random repeat rogue, and this is the type of DBDC style arrogance that has come to characterize them.

 

This is not the grand arena, and Loki isn't some freedom fighter Mal.

You try to prop up the alliances who enable GOONS to do as they want, which includes raiding alliances and making them submit to their mercy board. Then you claim to be for order and stability, but then you support GOONS actions even when they are forcing one of your few party members into deletion.

 

What is your goal and what are you fighting for? Is the order you seek one of oppression, negligence and sadism, such as what GOONS represent?

[The Zigur]

You try to prop up the alliances who enable GOONS to do as they want, which includes raiding alliances and making them submit to their mercy board. Then you claim to be for order and stability, but then you support GOONS actions even when they are forcing one of your few party members into deletion.

 

What is your goal and what are you fighting for? Is the order you seek one of oppression, negligence and sadism, such as what GOONS represent?

 

GOONS didn't attack Loki, Loki attacked GOONS. It was an action I repeatedly advised Loki against, and I spent alot of time attempting to deter him, but he was confident that his was the true revolution. He made his choice and has to lie with it. I mean, he's barely been on there that long, and several times he's just cursed out GOONS. Here's the topic.

[Sephiroth]

 

GOONS didn't attack Loki, Loki attacked GOONS. It was an action I repeatedly advised Loki against, and I spent alot of time attempting to deter him, but he was confident that his was the true revolution. He made his choice and has to lie with it. I mean, he's barely been on there that long, and several times he's just cursed out GOONS. Here's the topic.

He did what he did because of the injustices committed by GOONS and the unwillingness of major alliances to move against them, due to GOONS being a tech farm for some of the major players. Even if he didn't win, he stood up for his beliefs and what he thought was right. He made a more clear point on what he stood for than all these countless threads you've made with his actions. If you think fighting for what he believed in does so he either deserves to be forced into deletion or give up all his dignity, then I pity you. Wars occur all the time and the defeated are almost never made to give up all their dignity, just an admission of defeat or surrender should be enough. Being forced into begging for mercy on a board as they jerk you around for their own amusement is uncalled for.

[The Zigur]

He did what he did because of the injustices committed by GOONS and the unwillingness of major alliances to move against them, due to GOONS being a tech farm for some of the major players. Even if he didn't win, he stood up for his beliefs and what he thought was right. He made a more clear point on what he stood for than all these countless threads you've made with his actions. If you think fighting for what he believed in does so he either deserves to be forced into deletion or give up all his dignity, then I pity you. Wars occur all the time and the defeated are almost never made to give up all their dignity, just an admission of defeat or surrender should be enough. Being forced into begging for mercy on a board as they jerk you around for their own amusement is uncalled for.

 

Let's say someone robs your house. In the middle of the robbery, you point a shotgun at him, and he's like, shit. Now, if you just let him go with an "admission of defeat," how much of a deterrent do you think that is? Think he might come back and rob you again, especially if you simply want an "admission of surrender" twice. That's not a deterrent at all. GOONS experience on the mercy board is equivalent to a kid sticking his hand on the burning cigarette. "Ow!" It's supposed to burn.

 

Honestly, if he's wanting to quit over a week or two on the mercy board (on or off), he really doesnt know how hard some of us old timers had it. I was EZI'd by NPO for months simply for defeating a treaty ally, but I didn't just roll over either. it's time for a little discipline and order to be restored in this world.

[Sephiroth]

 

Let's say someone robs your house. In the middle of the robbery, you point a shotgun at him, and he's like, !@#$. Now, if you just let him go with an "admission of defeat," how much of a deterrent do you think that is? Think he might come back and rob you again, especially if you simply want an "admission of surrender" twice. That's not a deterrent at all. GOONS experience on the mercy board is equivalent to a kid sticking his hand on the burning cigarette. "Ow!" It's supposed to burn.

 

Honestly, if he's wanting to quit over a week or two on the mercy board (on or off), he really doesnt know how hard some of us old timers had it. I was EZI'd by NPO for months simply for defeating a treaty ally, but I didn't just roll over either. it's time for a little discipline and order to be restored in this world.

ZI would be an appropriate punishment, EZI is something all major alliances have agreed is wrong and not to do. GOONS work their way around this by saying a nation has the option to do the mercy board to get off the hook, but as far as I'm concerned what they do is no better than EZI.

 

So if you think EZI was good practice and should make a comeback, keep supporting GOONS and what they do. I think when a nation hits ZI or ZI/ZT, there is no point in continuing the war. GOONS see things differently.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Methrage

[Farnsworth]

I figured this flustercluck of war must have been Tywin's doings! I just knew it! And now everybody knows it. 

[The Zigur]

ZI would be an appropriate punishment, EZI is something all major alliances have agreed is wrong and not to do. GOONS work their way around this by saying a nation has the option to do the mercy board to get off the hook, but as far as I'm concerned what they do is no better than EZI.

 

So if you think EZI was good practice and should make a comeback, keep supporting GOONS and what they do. I think when a nation hits ZI or ZI/ZT, there is no point in continuing the war. GOONS see things differently.

 

I don't think EZI is good either, although for different reasons. My point is that a couple weeks on the mercy board is nowhere near as bad, and if you read through the thread, you will see Loki is the one who has extended his stay, not GOONS. I'm no big friend of GOONS, but I'm not a big fan of pointless rogue actions either, and when rogues are not dealt with properly, it invites more rogue actions in the future.

[Sephiroth]

 

I don't think EZI is good either, although for different reasons. My point is that a couple weeks on the mercy board is nowhere near as bad, and if you read through the thread, you will see Loki is the one who has extended his stay, not GOONS. I'm no big friend of GOONS, but I'm not a big fan of pointless rogue actions either, and when rogues are not dealt with properly, it invites more rogue actions in the future.

Sometimes it takes a rogue to do what is right and lead by example on what people should be fighting for if they didn't have so many obligations to their allies. A rogue is someone who fights for what he believes in without dragging others down with them if its an uphill fight. People don't always follow the rogues lead, but many would like to when the rogues cause is just. One man's rogue is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Edit: Also Vox, which you consider your involvement to be one of your greater achievements, were all rogues. In the end the rogues were right and more followed until they were rogues no longer.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Methrage

[The Zigur]

I figured this flustercluck of war must have been Tywin's doings! I just knew it! And now everybody knows it. 

 

I've Won! Just as planned! :p

 

Sometimes it takes a rogue to do what is right and lead by example on what people should be fighting for if they didn't have so many obligations to their allies. A rogue is someone who fights for what he believes in without dragging others down with them if its an uphill fight. People don't always follow the rogues lead, but many would like to when the rogues cause is just. One man's rogue is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Edit: Also Vox, which you consider your involvement to be one of your greater achievements, were all rogues. In the end the rogues were right and more followed until they were rogues no longer.

 

Vox Populi was an organized political front, comprised of many EZI'd leaders. If I was not EZI'd and my alliance disbanded, I would not have been there. Two completely different situations, you can't compare a mass uprising with realistic goals to Loki's random action as a rogue after failing to carry through with his NPO application.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Sephiroth]

 

I've Won! Just as planned! :P

 

 

Vox Populi was an organized political front, comprised of many EZI'd leaders. If I was not EZI'd and my alliance disbanded, I would not have been there. Two completely different situations, you can't compare a mass uprising with realistic goals to Loki's random action as a rogue after failing to carry through with his NPO application.

Vox started with just one or two nations if I recall and grew from there. It didn't start with alliance leaders like Electron Sponge in it. That was only after it started gaining traction prominent former leaders started joining. Vox might of become more organized as it went on, but it did not start as an organized political front.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Methrage

[White Chocolate]

When it is time for surrender negotiations, it is generally good to weight the terms according to the treaty options the defeated alliance had: those alliances which had the legal option to not fight against stability operations should be treated more punitively, while those who sincerely had no option but to defend their ally should receive the lightest terms. In this way, over a period of wars, wars will become more minimal and controlled in nature, resulting in greater certainty and stability.

and now

White Chocolate, different types of treaties aren't very important. What is more important is how well communication and a spirit of trust is maintained between alliances. If communication is more or less constant, and is also reliable and honest, treaties do not matter as much anymore.

It makes my point well enough I think.

[Starfox101]

This is about the only thing I can agree with.  The tight and very strategic NpO-TOP partnership is what is the controlling power in our world right now.

I wouldn't say anyone controls anything. There are multiple power spheres, and no total hegemonic domination. Honestly who knows what will happen a year down the line. There hasn't really been a dominant top dog in a while, unless you consider TOP-Umbrella to be the longest reigning untouchables. 

 

Has Umbrella ever lost a war? Yes, they surrendered in EQ, but that certainly wasn't from their own personal military defeat.

 

DBDC is a force for good in this world. Did you know on most color spheres if your actions go against the norms, such as you initiate a war without treaties, you can be labeled a rogue and sanctioned regardless of whether your cause is just?

 

Doombirds will do their best so nations on pink never get sanctioned. Doombirds is one of the few truly libertarian alliances who value freedom above all else. They go against the political norms so many have become accustomed to, with many of those political norms being bad. If GOONS are trying to drive a nation to deletion with their mercy board practices, if the nation refuses; with a simple request GOONS can get that nation sanctioned on almost every color. That is what is wrong with the current political environment, but DBDC stands up against tyranny and abuse of sanctions.

Honestly, I have nothing against DBDC and don't care because it is way above my level - but attempting to paint people who raid nations 1/4 their size and utterly destroy them if they fight back, as heroes, is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen. Also, I don't think DBDC has any problem with GOONS - and you're attempting to speak on their behalf likely without taking their opinion into account. 

 

While I've certainly had my problems with GOONS and the mercy board in the past, times have changed and GOONS have certainly mellowed out 

 

Sometimes it takes a rogue to do what is right and lead by example on what people should be fighting for if they didn't have so many obligations to their allies. A rogue is someone who fights for what he believes in without dragging others down with them if its an uphill fight. People don't always follow the rogues lead, but many would like to when the rogues cause is just. One man's rogue is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Edit: Also Vox, which you consider your involvement to be one of your greater achievements, were all rogues. In the end the rogues were right and more followed until they were rogues no longer.

Oh no, you credited Tywinn with involvement in Vox. You've opened Pandora's box and continued to feed one of the biggest lies ever

 

Vox started with just one or two nations if I recall and grew from there. It didn't start with alliance leaders like Electron Sponge in it. That was only after it started gaining traction prominent former leaders started joining. Vox might of become more organized as it went on, but it did not start as an organized political front.

It started with me and MegaAros, and expanded to Doitzel and from there every PZI leader we could find, which was quite a few given the time. It certainly had an air of legitimacy from the beginning, and it showed based off the massive influx of members. 

 

Loki is Loki. No relation whatsoever.

[The Zigur]

I wasnt involved in Vox, and yet you said you stole an election from me. :facepalm:

[Starfox101]

Yeah that pretty much proves you weren't involved in anything