VIdiot the Great

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285042823' post='2459626'] Comparing current probable actions to actions done years ago under different leaders is different than your analogy.[/quote] My 'analogy' wasn't an analogy at all, just a statement of affairs. To wit: alliances even when they change leaders still have the treaties they had with the previous leaders, unless they affirmatively cancel the treaty (unless there's an automatic cancellation clause). [quote]A more accurate analogy would be, you are likely to defend alliance x, even though you havn't had a treaty with that alliance for 2-3 years, because 2-3 years ago you had a treaty![/quote] This isn't what I was saying at all. For instance, I'll use a CN example. TPF had a treaty with Pacifica long before you were the leader. Upon becoming leader, did that treaty become null and void? No, it didn't, because TPF didn't cancel it (well, they did, but I won't go there... ...yet.) [quote]The fact you state dropping a treaty is possible once leadership decides to change further supports my point, arguing that one can't escape the past is like stating a new regime has no authority to cancel a treaty or a past, it must simply continue with what it was given.[/quote] This is precisely my point. Slayer didn't have an individual treaty with NPO, TPF as an ALLIANCE did. That didn't go away just because he was no longer the leader. It's the alliance that retains the treaties (in most cases) not an individual leader. And my point was cancellations wouldn't be necessary if this wasn't the case. Since cancellations ARE necessary at times, it's further support of my point: to wit, TPF held the treaty, not Slayer. [quote]If we ran an experiment with leader A and got result 1 several times, then changed to leader B and got result 2 several times, but never result 1. If I made you bet on what would happen with the next sequence of the experiment with leader B, what would you guess the result would be?[/quote] What this has to do with my post is beyond me, however, I will grant that a change of leadership may well change how the alliance behaves dramatically (otherwise, why change leaders at all?). [quote]However I know you are stating the behavioral norms of CN. The rules here are made independent of logic or reason.[/quote] I'll put it into more concise terms: TPF signs contract with NPO (let's assume Slayer signed on behalf of the alliance). Slayer leaves. Is there still a contract between TPF and NPO as alliances? My assertion is yes, there still is. And you're right, this is my experience of the norm in CN. As to the question posed as to which TPF would I rather have a treaty with (assuming 'neither' wasn't a cognizable response), anyone who knows me will know the answer to that one. And of course TPF could well be different today (as I said in my previous post; not the one you quoted mhawk - it was back a few pages). But my assertion still stands: you fly the name, you take the shame. There are benefits to flying a particular name; treaties, history, boards, charter, etc. There is also a downside. Good with the bad and all - and by the way, that's no slam at you, mhawk, I certainly respected what you did in Karma.

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285008903' post='2459082'] I want you to make a list of current TPF leadership or within the last 12-18 months that were in UJW. Now make a list of mk members that were in TPF during UJW. Your simple one liners need some context to the last few years to be of any relevance. A majority of folks that had any clue what was going on in that war are likely in PC or other alliances by now. [b]Actions should be associated more with those in power to execute them, rather than to any particular name in ones AA.[/b] [/quote] Respectfully, the bolded section above is incorrect. An alliance is an alliance, and they are on the hook for their leaders' actions, including past leaders' actions. Just because leader X made a treaty with alliance Y doesn't mean that all of a sudden, upon a change of leadership, the treaty is invalid. Otherwise, cancellations wouldn't be necessary as often as they are because 'oh, hey, the old leaders made that treaty, when we took over, it didn't exist anymore.' The reason that sounds ridiculous is because it is. An Alliance is a coherent body with changing parts. It has traditions, actions and mores that transcend any individual member or leader. Otherwise, rename it. So long as that alliance has that particular name, it takes the history of that alliance right along with it, the good, the bad and the ugly.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1284685549' post='2456170'] It has always been this bad. Whats even worse is this game has lost some of its best posters and gained more of the people who tend to talk in circles and post uselessly. Its not so much about complexity of argument, since some of the best posters are the ones who post in this style, but rather its that people think they are being intelligent in their complexity and simply sounding like a drooling baboon. C'est la vie. [/quote] I agree with this as well. But further, I think it's much rarer to true political ideological differences between alliances and members than personal (IC) character driven ones. It appears that things have reached a stasis where everyone, to some degree, is safe in their sphere (because blocs tend to be the more important drivers, rather than alliances individually per se). Throw in the amount of time it can take to rebuild from a major war, and you have many members of many alliances that are not really willing to risk being on the bad side of a beatdown, which makes things predictable and causes many to 'tow the line' ideologically speaking of whomever is the current top-dog. Anyway, with no real ideological differences, I think people to 'overanalyze' what's going on, no matter how irrelevant, for entertainment purposes. Hopefully some characters will emerge and liven things up in this regard.

When I left this game, over a year ago, I remember thinking that the forums had been degenerating to a point that it was literally painful to read them. I don't care if you're 13, drafting a coherent sentence should not be above your ability level. Further, the amount of 'no u' posts is staggering. It's like I stumbled into Chuck-E-Cheese and no one has had their naps. A year ago, I didn't think it could get any worse. I stand corrected. The amount of idiotic polls, including this one, would make a developmentally disabled five year old stand up and say 'Goddamn, that's dumb.' Further, your failure to include GGA, which everyone who was around when they were in existence, is the only possible answer to 'WAE.' Which calls into question the need for any WAE poll by Chickenzilla, Legion, or anyone else for that matter. GGA was so bad it was as if Germany said 'hey, we don't have a Chancellor, anyone want it?' And everyone took off for Poland. Seriously, I can't believe we still have this discussion. In order to make sure this post is somewhat relevant, beyond the ranting, the poll fails to include this thread, and therefore fails on those grounds.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1283191377' post='2435920']Rules[/quote] Neither 'rule' is acceptable because it interferes with my nation's sovereignty. Should I choose to declare war, I will do so, as others may decide to declare on me. As another poster pointed out, I am not relinquishing one iota of sovereignty absent my consent to do so (for instance, agreeing to be bound by an alliance charter and treaties). If there are consequences to my declaration of war, then I have to accept those consequences as part and parcel to my actions.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1284122173' post='2448778'] Thanks (I guess I got a bit confused with the CC name). So I was right the first time. To go into more depth and counter Seipher's argument. Yes the alliances made up the Coalition of Cowards did ultimately fight in Karma. But claiming it was purely for strategic reasons doesn't sit well with me. [/quote] You're right, they didn't do it for strategic reasons. They did it out of shame. From my experience, TOP was a fantastic ally. From my review, IAA and CSN (the ones that backed up GATO) were stalwart alliances as well. And how is TPF in this discussion? If it wasn't a curbstomp, they weren't in (until they were shamed into Karma). Maybe things are different now, but TPF for most of its history was one of the more opportunist alliances in the Cyberverse.

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1284046455' post='2447683'] Depends on your definition of success. I mean if they are happy, growing, active etc they are succeeding. As for being the best alliance (as the thread is titled.) I would have to say they wouldn't fit the bill. [/quote] Depends on your definition of 'best' - if they're doing all the things you've outlined, that could qualify. I do agree popularity plays into it, but depending on your definition of 'best alliance' a relative unknown could certainly qualify.

Schatt, how many times do I have to tell you, if you don't send a proper invoice with the appropriate letterhead, you're not going to get a response. However, good luck collecting. Don't accept endorsed third party checks. Just a heads up.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1283701471' post='2442629'] Anyone who claims to be immune to 'fear of getting rolled' is either lying or stupid.[/quote] Hmm, is this multiple choice? I guess I'll go with a bit of both. [quote]Getting rolled greatly decreases your ability to project power, and that is a vital ability whatever your primary objectives within CN are.[/quote] This is very true, if that's your goal. [quote]For example, look at the NPO: they like to play the game in a deeply political way and control how the world works; they slipped up in that, got rolled and now they can't play the game that way because they lost enough of their power that they can't project it over enough of the world any more.[/quote] Also probably true. However, some folks may not care to determine the fate of nations other than their own. Maybe they play for the comraderie or fun of it all. Or to spectate. Both perfectly acceptable reasons to want to play. [quote]Or an alliance like NSO or \m/ which likes to play by annoying other players – by getting rolled (and having their allies either rolled with them or disconnected from them [i]de jure[/i] or [i]de facto[/i] by cancelling on them or not defending them) they would be unable to project enough power to make those provocative acts and would become irrelevant.[/quote] Or again, they may find such gameplay fun. Just because you're not a power broker means there isn't fun to be had outside of the typical 'I want to project my power.' Some folks have little interest in such things and manage to have a good time outside that paradigm. [quote]Or the Citadel alliances, who liked to play in a 'moralist' way and supported a 'just' world (all in quotes because they're RP concepts and I'm talking OOC here) – they could only have an effect on wars and politics, or do an initiative like CTC, because of their power; now most of the alliances got rolled and the bloc split up, those alliances are no longer able to project enough power to have that effect (as Grämlins demonstrated so spectacularly when they tried to enforce a 'moral' position on IRON without the force to do so). [/quote] Hey, no doubt some folks have fun shaping world politics. I certainly can't say that it is pointless, I'm sure there's a lot of interesting things to be done in that case. But I also don't think you can say that all players endeavor to control such things. [quote]An alliance that doesn't take its own security (i.e. not getting rolled) into account isn't doing its job. [/quote] Unless that alliance is more concerned with having a good time despite getting rolled. Sometimes a losing fight can be as much fun, if not more, than a winning one. And it can build a fun bond between the alliance that got rolled. Ultimately, it's about what you want to do, and power politics isn't always the aim of an alliance. And competing interests in gameplay is what makes this crazy world go 'round.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. The basis for my disagreement can be found here. I think it's way too soon to say that Karma failed. If Karma's goal was to defeat the hegemony, then it would appear that they were very successful. Ultimately, I don't think Karma answered my question posed in the post referenced above, either internally or externally. And without an answer to that specific question, you can't really judge whether it was a win or a loss. VI

'Unnecessary' is completely dependent upon the goals of the alliance and its individual member nations. There can be many reasons why fighting beside your alliance mates could be considered necessary, and reasons why it may not be. I would hazard a guess that we can agree that it would be the call of the individual member as to whether something was necessary or unnecessary. VI

All the 'blah blah blah' is you conceding the point that there's no objective scale. As to your question, it seems to presume that I support the terms given to the NPO. I have not stated one way or the other whether I do or not. Nor will I at this time. But I'll play along. Fortunately, the situation is not as hypothetical as you may think. During the NoV war, FS was faced by overwhelming odds. Certain nations were in peace mode in order to rebuild, and of course we took abuse for that. Anyway, it would piss me off no end if those were the terms offered to ME. Note I said 'me' because it's a subjective call. If I was a nation requested to do so? Yeah, I'd ask, but I'd do it. I do happen to be a co-Triumvir of FACE, but I think I can sit in someone else's shoes. If it were my alliance asking me to come out of peace mode, I'd do it, at great risk to my citizens, to be sure, but solid in the knowledge that I was fighting beside my friends [OOC - since they're imaginary citizens, this is not a tough call for me] and hope peace could be worked out. But that's what I'd do, and typically, I don't have the concern about attempting to remain a world power after the war, as I'm certainly not part of an alliance that was a world power before the war. In short, each alliance has to decide for themselves what is 'harsh,' 'too harsh,' or 'reasonable' based upon their goals and desires. As I mentioned, there is no objective scale because no two alliances have exactly the same set of concerns, desires, goals, personnel, etc. VI