Cyber Nations Forum Rules 07/03/2016Cyber Nations Forum Rules
In the process of registering on this forum, all players--including you--agreed to accept these terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of Invision Power Board. In doing so you essentially signed an electronic contract pledging to have read the rules and TOS and agreeing to follow the rules and TOS as written. It is your continued responsibility to read, follow, and keep up-to-date with the CN rules.
The following are basic guidelines for use of the Cyber Nations community forum. Anyone caught disobeying these guidelines will be issued a warning. The forum staff works on a five warn limit policy unless the situation calls for more appropriate action ranging from a verbal warning to a double warn and suspension to an immediate ban, etc. Just because something is not listed specifically here as illegal does not mean it's allowed. All players are expected to use common sense and are personally responsible for reading the pinned threads found in the Moderation forum. Questions regarding appropriateness or other concerns can be sent via PM to an appropriate moderator. A permanent ban on the forums results in a game ban, and vice versa. Please note that the in-game warn system works on a "three strikes you're out" policy and that in-game actions (including warnings and deletions) may not be appealed. For more information regarding in-game rules please read the Cyber Nations Game Rules. 1.) First Warning
2.) Second Warning
3.) Third Warning (48 hour suspension at the forum)
4.) Fourth Warning (120 hour suspension at the forum)
5.) Permanent Ban Game Bans and Forum Bans
If you receive a 100% warn level on the forums, you will be subject to removal from the forums AND have your nation deleted and banned from the game at moderator(s) discretion. If you are banned in the game, then you will be banned from the forums. Process of Appeals
Players may not appeal any in-game actions. This includes cheat flags, canceled trades, content removals, warn level increases, nation deletion, and bans from the game. Players may appeal individual forum warnings. You may only appeal a warning if you can show with evidence that it was unwarranted or unduly harsh. If a reasonable amount of time has passed (no less than one month and preferably longer) in which you have demonstrated reformed behavior than you may request a warning level reduction. Wasting staff time with inappropriately filed reports and/or unfounded appeals will result in a warn level raise. Repeat incidences will result in a ban from the forum. Bans are permanent. Banned players may appeal to the Senior Staff if they believe grounds exist (very, very rare) in which they state their case with evidence and why explain why they believe they deserve to be allowed back into Cyber Nations. This process is not quick and the investigation into cases may last three minutes or three weeks or more depending on the individual situation. The only place where discussion of moderator action is acceptable is in the appropriate Moderation forum. Posting commentary on or disagreement with moderator action elsewhere will result in a warn level raise. Posting
All posts must be in English. Common phrases in other languages will be allowed so long as they are translated upon request. Foreign languages are permitted in signatures and avatars, however. Certain areas of the forum require you to have a nation in either standard CN or CN:TE. If you have... A SE and a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are allowed to post in either SE or TE areas of the forum. You must have your CN:TE nation name listed in your profile to post in the CN:TE section of the forum.
Just an SE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are not allowed to post in any TE areas of the forum.
Just a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your TE nation name or ruler name. Your must have your CN:TE nation name listed correctly in your profile. You are not allowed to post in any of the SE areas. You are allowed to post in the water cooler, question center and the moderation forums. Other than that, all your posts need to stay in the TE area. Flame/Flamebait/Trolling
Flaming is expressing anger or lobbing insults at a person/player rather than a character, post, idea, etc. Flamebait are posts that are made with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking another user into rule-breaking. Trolling is submitting posts with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking a specific group into rule-breaking. Forum users should not be participating in any of these, and doing so will result in a warning. Topic Hijacking
Hijacking is forcing the current thread discussion off of the original topic and usually results in spam or flame from either side. Forum users found hijacking threads will be given a warning. Repeat Topics
One topic is enough. Repeat topics will be locked, removed, and the author given a warning. Users found creating repeat topics after others were locked by staff will receive a warn raise. Joke Topics
Topics created as a joke are prohibited. Joke topics will be locked and the author warned. This includes topics in which the author is making an announcement “for” another in-game alliance. Humorous threads are permitted; it is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what is merely satire and what is actually a joke topic. Spam
Spam is defined as creating posts or topics containing only contentless material of any kind. Users found spamming will receive a warning. Examples include (but are in no way limited to) posts containing nothing but smilies, "+1", "QFT", "this" any other one/few-word contentless combination, joke threads, or posts containing quotes and anything that counts as spam by itself. Adding words to a post with the express intent of avoiding a spam warn will result in a warning. These posts and other similar contributions have no substance and hence are considered spam. Posts of "Ave", "Hail" or any other one word congratulatory type are acceptable as one word posts. Emoticon type posts such as "o/" without accompanying text is still not allowed. Posts containing only images are considered spam, unless the image is being used in the Alliance Politics sub-forum and then the actual text of the image be placed into spoiler tags. Posting in All Caps
Posting large amounts of text in capital letters is not permitted. Use discretion when using your caps lock key. No Discussion Forums
There are forums that are not for discussion and are used strictly for game and forum staff to address certain issues, bugs, etc. The following forums are not open to discussion: Report Game Abuse, Report Forum Abuse, and Warn/Ban Appeals. Only moderators and the original poster may post in a thread, period, with absolutely no exceptions. Users found disobeying this guideline will receive an automatic warning for each offense. Moderation Forums
All Moderation forums also maintain pinned threads clearly marked as required reading before posting. Failure to read and follow required reading and procedure in a Moderation forum will result in a warning. Examples include posting requests in the wrong forum, failure to include all required information in posts, etc. The standard of conduct and enforcement of rules in Moderation forums is strictly enforced and the repercussions for disregarding rules or disrespecting staff are harsh. Read the pinned threads before posting and you will be fine. Namecalling
Excessive or unqualified namecalling is not allowed in IC forums; namecalling should also never make up the bulk of a post. Namecalling is prohibited entirely in all OOC forums. Filtered Words
Any attempts to evade the word filter will result in a warning. The terms we have filtered are filtered for a reason and no excuse for evasion will be accepted. Filter evasion includes censoring or deliberately misspelling part of a filtered word. If you link to a website, image, video, etc., containing profanity, please post a disclaimer before the link. The moderation staff may still remove links if the content is deemed too obscene. Harassment
Forum users should not be stalking/harassing others on the forums. Anyone found stalking players from topic to topic, etc., will be subject to a warning. Gravedigging
Gravedigging is not allowed anywhere on the forums. Gravedigging is "bumping" old topics which haven't been active for quite some time (four to seven days is standard depending on the nature of the thread and how many pages back it had been pushed before bump). Your warn level will be raised if you are caught doing this. The Suggestion Box and Black Market forums are partial exceptions to this rule. Suggestions/ideas in that forum may be posted in regardless of age PROVIDING that the reviving post contains constructive, on-topic input to the original topic or discussion. Black Market threads may be bumped by the author if there is new information about the offered exchange (i.e open aid slots). In the Player Created Alliances forum it will not be considered gravedigging to bump a topic up to a year old, so long as the alliance in question still exists and it is not a duplicate thread. Signatures
Those who fail to read and abide by these rules will have their signatures removed and receive a warning. You may have only one image per signature which may not exceed the maximum size of 450 pixels wide by 150 pixels tall. You may have no more than 8 lines of text and text size cannot exceed size 4. Each quote-tag, image and empty line count as a line. Inappropriate Images and Other Disallowed Images
Images that are sexual in nature or have sexual overtones are prohibited. It is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what constitutes sexual overtones. Depictions of kissing are permissible provided there are no sexual implications. Images depicting female nipples are prohibited outright. Making “ASCII art” is prohibited regardless of the image depicted. Using photos or likenesses of another Cyber Nations player is also prohibited. Drug References
Images and posts promoting illegal drug use are prohibited. References to drugs are acceptable only if the moderation staff deems that it is not promoting the use thereof. Obscene Content and/or "Account Suicide"
Anyone caught posting vulgar material (including but in no way limited to pornography, "gross," "tubgirl," "lemonparty," photos depicting RL illegal acts such as violence towards humans or animals, child pornography, death photos, and any other obscene or offensive material in either text form or picture form) will have their account(s) permanently banned, and their ISP contacted along with any other applicable internet and RL authorities. OOC Threats / Revealing Personal Information
An OOC threat of any nature will equate to an automatic ban from the game and forums. Likewise, the publishing of personal information of any other player without their explicit permission is grounds for warning and/or a ban from the game depending on the severity of the offense. Death Threats / Death Wishes
A death threat or a death wish of any nature (including but not limited to telling another player to commit suicide) will result in at very least a 40% warn level increase and 2 day suspension from the forums, with harsher punishments, including a complete ban from the forums and game, up to the discretion of the moderation staff. Quoting Rulebreaking Posts
Do not quote any post with obscene content or any other content that has to be removed by the moderation staff. Doing so makes it more difficult for the moderation staff to find and remove all such content and will result in a warn level increase. Putting rulebreaking posts of any kind in your signature is prohibited. Forum Names
With the exception of moderator accounts, all forum accounts must match up exactly with the ruler name or nation name of your in-game country. Those found not matching up will be warned and banned immediately. Forum account names may not be profane or offensive. Multiple Forum Accounts
With the exception of moderators, if you are caught with multiple forum accounts, the multiple account(s) will be banned, warn level raised, and your identity will be announced by a moderator to the CN community so rule-abiding players can take IC action against you. Multiple forum account offenders will receive a varying percentage warn level raise and/or a permanent ban on a case-by-case basis. Posting For Other Players
Posting for banned or suspended players is prohibited, as is posting for any person without a nation. This includes making warn and ban appeals on their behalf. Imitation &. Impersonation
Imitation in terms of this forum is mimicking the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in an attempt to be satirical or generally humorous. Impersonation in terms of this forum is copying the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in order to present the illusion that the person is in fact that user. Imitation is fine and can be quite funny. Impersonation is disruptive and is warnable. Please pay attention to the subtle difference between these two concepts. A player may not impersonate another player by emulating the characteristics of someone else's past or present account in an attempt to harass, stalk, or flamebait. Creating a new forum account in an attempt to impersonate a standing account will result in deletion and banning without notice. Any attempt at imitation and/or impersonation of moderators and game staff is strictly prohibited and will be met with harsh repercussions. Avatars
Size for avatars is limited by the forum mechanics, therefore there is no size issue for a user to worry about. Avatars must be in good taste, and any avatar containing a picture that is too violent, disgusting, sexually explicit, insulting to another player or staff member, etc. will be removed. Avatars that are potentially seizure inducing will not be permitted. Players may not "borrow" the avatars of any moderator past or present without permission. Swastikas and Nazi Imagery
The swastika may not be used in signatures or avatars. Pictures of swastika's are acceptable for use in the In Character (IC) sections of the roleplay forums, so long as its context is In Character, and not Out Of Character. Pictures of Hitler, mentioning of the Holocaust, etc... have no place in the roleplay forums, since these people and events existed in real life, and have no bearing or place in the Cyberverse. Other Nazi or SS imagery is forbidden in all forums. Moderation Staff
The revealing of the private identities of any Cyber Nations staffers past or present is strictly prohibited, and thus no speculation/accusation of identity is allowed. Doing so is grounds for moderator action against your account appropriate to the offense, including a full forum/game ban. Claims of moderator bias should be directed to the highest level of authority--the Head Game & Forum Mod/Admin, Keelah. Claims of moderator bias without supporting evidence is grounds for a warning. Blatant disrespect of the moderator staff is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to spoofing moderator accounts in any way, sig/avatar references, baiting, flaming, rude demands, mocking, attitude, and unsubstantiated claims of bias. They are volunteers hired to enforce the rules. If you have a problem with the way a moderator is enforcing the rules or the rules themselves please contact Keelah. Attempting to use the moderation staff as a weapon by abusing the report system in an attempt to get another player warned or banned is strictly prohibited. Do not ask about becoming or campaign to become a moderator. The moderators are drawn from CN membership but moderation positions are by invitation only. Asking to become one will substantially decrease your chances of ever being asked. Aiding Rule Violators
Any user found to know of a serious rule violation without reporting it to a game moderator (eg. knowledge of a user with multiple nations) will be given a warning or, in more serious cases, have their nation deleted. Aiding Banned Players
Any user found to be harboring, aiding or otherwise knowingly helping a banned user will be deleted. This includes knowing of their existence within the game without reporting it to the game-moderation staff. Questionable Actions and Content
The forum rules are not designed to cover every scenario. Any action that is seen to be counter-productive or harmful to the forum community may be met with moderator action against your account. The Cyber Nations Moderation Staff reserves the right to take action against your account without warning for any reason at any time. Private Transactions
Nation selling and other private transactions via such auction sites like eBay is against the Cyber Nations terms and conditions. While our moderators cannot control what people do outside of the game you are not allowed to promote such private exchanges on our forums without expressed permission from admin only. Anyone found to be engaging in such activity without permission will be banned from the game. Advertising
Advertising other browser games and forums is prohibited. Soliciting donations towards commercial causes is also prohibited. If you wish to ask for donations towards a charitable cause, please contact a moderator before doing so. Extorting Donations
Donations are excluded from any kind of IC payment. Anyone found extorting others for OOC payments will be warned in-game and/or banned. Third Party Software
Third party software is not allowed to be advertised on these forums by any means (post, signature, PM, etc). These programs can easily be used to put malware on the user's computer, and as such can cause huge security issues. Anybody who is caught spreading links to these will at the very least have their warning level increased. Other Forum Terms & Rules Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser. Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. USE THE WEB SITE AT YOUR OWN RISK. We will not be liable for any damages for any reason. THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'politics'.
Found 11 results
AtlasXero posted a blog entry in The Diplomacy CafeEveryone has someone they look up too. In fact, many create whats called an invisible counsel. A group of their greatest hero's to help direct them through life's toughest choices. In further thought this very counsel is what brought me to write this blog. It was one hero's idea to share what he had the most of. What do I have most of? Advice. So today I would like to give you reason to believe that Napoleon Bonaparte should be part of your influential counsel. Napoleon, at the age of 24, was named a general of the French army. In fact, where he began was artillery. The most remembered fight of his career that showed his genius was in Egypt. The french forces were outnumbered 20,000 to 60,000. The French military only lost 30 men. The enemy, 6,000. Remember how I said he was a general at 24? Well he also became the emperor of France for a time. Where there were over 400 newspapers, by the end of his reign he had silenced oppositions. There were only 4 newspapers left. So why do I recommend him? Not because of those feats alone. No. I recommend him for his leadership style. Earn the loyalty of those superior to you. Then the ones under you will soon follow. Make good on your promises. Promising Victory and earning Defeat will only show that you are dishonest. And lastly, he will insist that you be confident, lest you Fail.
I humbly request that the New Pacific Order levy formal charges against Invicta. The vagueness of the crime, makes it hard for me to counter. I may be guilty. But I want you to charge me. Give it to me straight. I want you to tell me why. If you do so privately, if you reply here; if the reason is something concrete, or you simply wanted some spice. I demand you respond. Yours sincerely, -KingWilliam
This afternoon, I noticed that a month ago I was asked what I thought about the Polaris-NG treaty. Yes, a month, I love you all, but I just don't care too much, anymore. I read my answer at Polaris' forum, and decided that it is sufficiently interesting to me that I know everyone else will be thrilled to read it. You're quite welcome. In all seriousness, even though the treaty itself is old news, the question became a platform to discuss philosophy, and I love talking foreign policy. I understand you're reducing your big FA moment down to a gotcha on me, but here's the serious answer. We will examine my opinion on Polaris' FA decision through the philosophy I have always used in regards to FA, illuminated by personal example. My opinion springs from my ideology, and ideology guides my actions, it all fits. My thoughts/philosophy on treaties in general should be well known enough, by now, (1, 2, 3) but I am keenly aware that my personality has overshadowed my message for a long time. So to recap, in short: First: A treaty is an endorsement, and a partnership, and it ties responsibility for one AA's actions to the other. For example, New Polar Order in 2007 can't PZI 20 people a year without being shored up by 3 or 4 different blocs, or NPO in 2008 can't keep GATO at war indefinitely for using peace mode without having 16 top flight AAs backing them up. Lip service does not change culpability. For example, if OsRavan says "I'm totally against reps" 500 times a day, then sits down in peace talks and says to Cult of Justitia "you will have no peace with ODN until you agree to pay GOONS $200,000,000" and to Legion "you will not have peace until you pay our allies $1 Billion" then what matters? The principles ODN says they hold, or the actions ODN takes? There can be no denying that a treaty is an endorsement and a partnership. Any such denial is intellectual dishonesty at best and in reality is simply a lie politicians tell each other, themselves, and the people in their AAs. Second: Alliances are organic entities. They are not static, they change. Recognition of that fact in foreign affairs and public discourse has always been central to my political stances. For example, Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" (I never really liked that word, but that's the parlance)—not because a hegemony existed, but because of how it acted: Viceroys, people banned from being gov, ZI transforming from a harsh punishment to PZI lists as eternal black lists that removed people from the game and then to EZI (parlance again, EZI is just PZI), forced disbandment, OOC attacks by the hegemony against their enemies, and so on. New Pacific Order and New Polar Order were central to that. It was a feedback loop: they did harsh crap by the endorsement of their allies, but their allies often did worse things while NPO/NpO pretended to be more civilized villains—they were all responsible for the results of their power politics, the results of their power politics were the point of their treaties. In 2007-08 New Polar Order wrecked my AA GOONS (which was a vile AA and I was too new to the game to really know it), then spent a year chasing all of us around, PZIing us, threatening alliances we joined, setting up proxy blocs on Black to dominate the Senate, and everything else in the history books. Post-Vox, as the leader of CoJ I penned blistering attacks on New Polar Order. Yet here I am, member of New Polar Order. Because I'm a hypocrite? No, because between the time Polaris PZIed me to the end of Karma, Polaris changed wildly. And then from the time I founded CoJ and wrote that essay to the time I allied CoJ to Polaris and then dissolved CoJ and joined Polaris, Polaris had undergone even more transformations. Therefore: Treaties and military cooperation are endorsement and culpability; therefore, alliances should choose allies whose actions align with their character and ideals, or accept the hypocrisy that their actions are at odds with their identity and move on. (Realpolitik is just that, the allegiance to a distasteful ally to get a hard job done.) But the prospective allies out their, alliances, are not beholden to the past. There is no inherent hypocrisy in allying an alliance that wasn't in line with one's ideals 5 years ago or even 5 weeks ago for that matter if they have changed. There is no hypocrisy in recognizing change. People make lazy ad hominem arguments, obsess about my over-the-top persona and ego, and simply label any shifting allegiance I make as "hypocrisy" or selling out. These processes are a complicated ideological discernment and judgement. Politics from ideology is complicated, people don't like it, they don't like to wade through it. What do I think about this treaty in particular? I haven't paid any attention at all to Planet Bob in at least a year. I've been quiet because I hate retractions; I don't post unless I know. It's fun to stick my head out and rip on OsRavan once a year, but it's also simply the case that the past is just about the only topic I'm informed to speak on intelligently. I don't know if this treaty is realpolitik, or if Non Grata has become significantly different to a degree that you're a perfect fit for Polaris. Or maybe Polaris has changed sufficiently that we're a perfect fit for an unchanged Non Grata (in which case I'll start AA shopping :P ) A dear old friend left Polaris because of this treaty, I respect his discernment and principled stance for his own nation. If there is a meeting of minds between NG and Polaris, I'm glad we're working together. If Polaris and NG are engaged in realpolitik, that's a reality an idealist like me has to swallow sometimes to get things done (I always was a chaos agent with a conscience, myself)—my problem would be if Polaris lent its NS to seriously bad behavior, or if Polaris shifted what should be a short-term cooperation (realpolitik) into a long term FA position (hypocrisy). I said "in short" so there you have it, Schattenmann is a liar.
Good afternoon. This weekend marked the ninth year since the founding of Schloss Eggenberg on Digiterra, the tiny Alpine domain which hides the Schattenmann, its enigmatic and long-lived protector, body-swapping observer of time. Over the past nine years, my star on Planet Bob has pulsated, burning high when passions rose, and dimming alternatively. Since 2013, I have receded from the public stage, so many of you will not know me, and it is not my intention to type out my history again. Below this post, I will quote myself from the past for those who are interested in history. Despite my increasing inactivity, I still receive many letters asking for advice or help. It pains me every time that I have little to say in the way of specifics, anymore. What I think about the state of things is that the solution to the atrophied nature of the political scene, the silence across IRC and this OWF, the solution to breaking this gridlock of apathy is to at last discover the nature of your alliances and follow your hearts. What we have is not peace or order, as some believe or claim, but walking death. An alliance is the sum of its constituent nations regardless of the political nature of its form, whether it takes the form of a democratic autocracy (as Pacifica and Polaris) or democracy, or whatever else, the entity is the nations acting in unison. You control your alliance by your association with it. You must examine your own values, and you must examine the values of your alliance. Every alliance exists for the same reason: mutual protection, mutual growth, but every alliance differs out from that. Find the alliance whose character aligns with your own, or work to build a consensus within your alliance around the character you want it to have. Is techraiding wrong or not? Are compulsory (M-level) treaties acceptable or not? How should team Senators be used? The answers to questions like these are the character of your alliance. Once an alliance understands its identity, it must understand that to sign military treaties with alliances whose character are opposed to its own ideals is to betray itself. Would you deny your values and embrace hypocrisy for, not peace, but false truce? War is not the inevitable result or even desired result of drawing a line between yourselves and those who do not share your values. This is not a call for chaos but for fidelity. And where conflict arises between alliances of differing values, are your ideals, your character, your values not worth war? Passion stirs activity. Alliances must work to create a global situation which draws their individual members into this world and enthralls their passions to better the alliance, to better their nations, to stand apart in the world and if necessary stand opposed to the world. This mewling stagnation born of political self-betrayal is the death of interest. This has been my message since Vox Populi overthrew the global order and showed that rulers do matter, that rulers of nations are the foundation of political play, and that when rulers associate and act based upon their shared values they are powerful. It is my message to you still on the event of my ninth anniversary. The idealist can only battle the world for so long. I am sorry that I have left you all. I regret that my growing disillusion across the years made me so acerbic as to be ineffectual in the twilight of my influential years. I am so glad that Van Hoo and Doitzel have returned lately, and I hope you will stick around, and make sparks. When no one else would touch me after Vox, Van Hoo put his fledgling alliance on the line, and invested in my ideas, and made Cult of Justitia and everything that flowed from it possible; anyone who insults him insults me. I miss my old friends, I was never good at keeping in touch from one alliance to the next. I am grateful to anyone who ever read my essays, tirades, and declarations and took some part of them to heart. Writing for all of you gave me joy, and I am glad that you were entertained or moved. I am proud of the things I accomplished, though so many were in the shadows, or seemed very small in the wider world—I always prided myself on making a big bang with a small charge. Yours, Schattenmann
Are the alliances in this game divided over political issues (democracy vs. totalitarianism, capitalism vs. socialism, what have you)? I can't find manifestos in any single place, so it is hard to tell the political shape of the world. I'm a new and idealistic nation that wants to be on the side of what it thinks of as "good".
Malik Shabazz posted a blog entry in Brother Malcolm SpeaksWith that out of the way, I would like to get into my discussion. We Americans like to think that we have this perfect utopia-like democracy, where people get a free vote. I think that this is funny, because there is no free vote. Look at the last Presidential election, out of the six people that ran; only two were allowed to debate. Yea, so much for "free and fair" elections. Our government likes to talk about "upholding democracy" around the world, when our republic is so flawed. Our republic has a lot of flaws, but to be specific one of the biggest flaws it has are the self-serving political parties. Americans, take a look at our country: Our economy is in the toilet and we have a do-nothing government. Why? Because of political parties. It has been argued that political parties are the foundation of any democracy. I think that this is a load of crap, because they only encourage division. Why do you think that every bill that has been proposed to fix our economy has gone nowhere? One of the two political parties always shuts the plan down, that's why. Then, the sheep who don't know any better argue about who's party is better and which party is responsible for what. Whenever I hear or see Americans argue about things like this, I . The reality is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans care about you or you interests, but only their own. Proof of this: When a plan is proposed that will fix the economy, depending on who's proposing it, one of the two parties will instantly vote against it. In contrast, when it's time to go to war or bail out some greedy corporation; they'll agree in an instant. Brothers and sisters, the reality is, political parties are not democratic. You can sit here and say that our founding fathers envisioned a republic and not a democracy, and as such it really does not matter whether or not they are democratic. As you can see in the quotes above, our founding fathers warned us against political parties and how they will divide the United States. Now they have. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because these are the people we vote into office. I'm not saying we should ban political parties, because that would also be undemocratic. I'm saying that we should grow balls and call these politicians out, even if they are in the same political party as you. Let's stop pointing fingers: "Those damn liberals, conservatives are retarded", and come to the realization that they're all just two separate turds in the same toilet. This is From the Mind of Loki, Thank You and God Bless, -Loki Laufeyson
In case you have not noticed, there is a new CN radio network, CyberNations International Broadcasting. Bloodfury and bros have put in a huge amount of work to put up the infrastructure, and several DJs have begun populating the network. After much pushing and pulling, Bloodfury got me to sign on to a bi-weekly show Thursdays at 9 PM EST (8 PM server). This week in CN will be a political talkshow dedicated to current events and interviews with headline-makers. Shows will be archived and re-played for those who couldn't tune in for the live broadcast. Our first show saw Pacifican Emperor and Bootleg Radio host Brehon as the guest for the hour. It will air again on Monday the 19th at 8 PM EST (7 PM server). Future re-runs might not be in that timeframe depending on how the DJ schedule pans out (right now that time slot is not occupied). After each replay, I'll post a link to a permanent stream. You can tune in directly from the network's forum, or via your favorite media program (WinAMP, WMP, REAL, or Quicktime) here: http://www.cnib-group.com/boards/index.php Enjoy!
Firstly, the Viridian war on Polar, which expanded due to the entry on both sides of several allies. The CB for our war is clear, laid out by Impero in our DoW thread and honestly I am surprised so many people seem to think it is weak. There are logs there of a foreign official discussing potential target alliances with a spy and telling him he should spy on VE, which he then did and reported back to the leader in question. I am in Viridian government and have been fully in support of Impero's moves since the logs were first brought to us. Yes, Dajobo and Polar got played by Lennox, who wasn't really trying to help them get information, he was trying to start a war. But he still sent Lennox to spy on VE. As for jumping straight into war, the political moves recently meant that when a good reason for war was presented to us, against an alliance in one of the Orders' power spheres, it was likely to be advantageous to take it. That made it extra silly to provide such a good one. Regarding the 'exposure' made by RV in World Affairs: a sting operation was carried out, after we had already received the logs and were fairly sure that there was a CB against Polar, to make absolutely sure that we weren't just being played by Lennox and that it really was Dajobo and Polaris involved. We did not set up the original logs, the meeting between Lennox and Dajobo or anything apart from the final screenshot handover that acts as final proof of Dajobo's involvement. And secondly, the Doomhouse war on Pacifica, which is also escalating through the entry of allies – alliances which were tangentially bound to the Polar war but had found ways not to enter find their own power sphere (and MDP partner, in many cases) under direct attack and have to respond. While I can understand some of the reasoning behind this attack, I cannot support it. I am not against pre-emptive or aggressive attacks in all circumstances. For example, one could argue that the Polar front of the War of the Coalition was pre-emptive, and it was certainly aggressive. I criticised C&G for playing the moral high ground card so strongly in Bipolar, because I believed TOP and IRON's move to mostly be a strategic mistake, rather than morally abhorrent as the C&G propaganda corps would have had you believe. However, there are two things which make this attack unsupportable to me. Firstly there is the obvious hypocrisy. Some ex-Hegemony propagandists who care more about PR than I do have gone through the Bipolar War threads and selected some relevant quotes to demonstrate it, but I'm sure we all remember how MK in particular (but also other alliances now fighting with them or supporting them) railed against the injustice of the pre-emptive attack on them, and used it as justification for imposing very large reparations on the pre-emptive attackers. It is then deeply hypocritical to perform a pre-emptive attack themselves. And the second problem with it is that it is not (unlike TOP and IRON) a genuine pre-empt. The NPO was attempting to stay out of the Polar part of this war – if the rumours are to be believed, going so far as to pressure mutual allies of the Polar and Pacific power spheres to find ways to stay out. That makes this not a pre-emptive attack, but simply an aggressive attack on an alliance at its moment of weakness. It is a sound material strategic move, but it is exactly the sort of actions that the Orders-led Hegemony was (rightly) demonised for. A lot of nonsense gets talked about Karma every time there is political drama. But I, at least, did not fight Karma simply to put a new alliance at the top of the tree – and, in fairness, the 'better world' really has been better so far. Rolling alliances because you don't like them and they represent some vague threat in the future is something most of us explicitly fought against, either from a moralist platform or through the experience of it happening to them. Have MK really forgotten the lessons of noCB? This war, or these wars, remind me strongly of the position Citadel found itself in in the War of the Coalition. We attacked Polar with a fairly good CB, but at the same time, some allies and allies-by-proxy attacked a related alliance with pretty much no CB at all. We ended up linked to them in the mess of coalition warfare, even though we were justified and they were not. Once again, my alliance and its coalition attacks Polar, and then a related but not aggressive alliance is attacked with (in this case literally) no CB. The dogs of war are now well and truly loosed, and the political fallout will come later. But I would ask those who have attacked simply because they could to look in the mirror and to pull back from the abyss. Do not become what you once fought against.
War has started once more. The propaganda machine has been turned on, slowly gearing up to churn out the drivel and rhetoric that infests the forums around war time. The usual heavy hitters can be seen advocating and debating for their respective side's (actions/stances, take your pick) in this rapidly engulfing conflict. Was NEW in the right? No. Was it ethical for them to do so? Undoubtedly no. Was it moral for them to take vengeance? Vengeance has never been moral. Did NEW exercise their right to take vengeance? Indeed, they did. Were PC/iFOK cowards for not outright defending their ally in NEW? Subjective to each person's independent view, though personally I can understand their position. Is it obvious that they tried their best at ending the conflict peacefully? Undoubtedly so. Did the current power structure surrounding Pandora's Box play a part in this situation? Yes. I do admit that it is a bit surprising to see the past motto of 'Friends > Infra' being used by the side labeled by most as Ex-heg/Polaris against SG/PB. Then again, politics is always in motion and the power that used to rest at Q's hand is now in the hands of SG/PB, there is no doubt about that. Will this war be a curbstomp? That still has to be seen depending on how the counter DoW's are done. Either way, war is war even when it might be vastly overwhelming on one side. All we're here is to play a war game behind a thin veil of a political simulator, not to stagnate the war game by overusing the "realpolitik" of the political simulator. PS: Happy Christmas and Happy Holidays, everybody.
It's war time again, and that means the inevitable attempts by both sides to paint themselves as the holy defenders beating back the barbarian aggressor hordes. That makes it a good time to look at aggression and defence in an objective fashion. First, let's make clear that there two different concepts here. There is the concept of aggression versus defence, and the concept of a justified or unjustified war ('valid CB' or 'invalid CB'). In this case, Ragnarok's CB is cast iron: a government official deliberately and knowingly aiding an enemy after being warned not to do so is the best CB of any war for some time. This is not a note about the CB, but about what it actually means to be the aggressor. There is a longstanding precedent that being provoked into a war doesn't make you the defender. The most obvious recent example is Karma, where NPO is almost universally considered to be the aggressor, despite their rather feeble attempts to justify it based on OV accepting screenshots. That situation is perhaps a little different in that they did not manage to prove that OV had committed 'acts of war' as so considered by most alliances, but no-one outside their immediate circle of friends would consider that anything other than aggressive. (And because OV couldn't be shown to have done anything seriously wrong, unjustified aggression at that, which is why so many alliances joined together to fight them at that moment.) Another approach to the argument is to point out that 'acts of war' – aid and in-game spying – do not actually put you in a state of war at all. It's therefore non-sensical to claim that such acts immediate put you in a state of defensive war – if you don't choose to start a war over them, there is no war at all, so how can it be defensive. With spying this is particularly true as many spy ops are not even revealed, so they clearly don't start a war because you don't even know who you're supposedly fighting! You can test this by aiding a rogue nation and observing how it doesn't immediately put you at war with the alliance upon which the rogue is going rogue, though you should expect to pay reparations for such an experiment. Let's take a look at a document which was well respected for a long time, and which actually defined the concept of 'aggression', the Citadel treaty: [OOC: Note that the Lux Aeterna was written before in-game spying. Espionage doesn't mean that.] It's one of the very few documents to actually make a stab at defining aggression and defence for legal purposes, and as far as I'm aware no-one ever challenged these definitions. In less lawyerly terms, it means that you are acting aggressively if you start a war unless (i) someone attacked you, (ii) you are activating an MDP or (iii) someone is (out of game, i.e. forum) spying on you. The addition of that third clause is interesting in itself, as in general spying is considered to be a solid CB but not in itself aggression, and in point of fact Citadel did not actually follow that clause when TOP was spied upon by Vox (Grämlins, FCC and Umbrella did not declare war on Vox). However, forum spying is so rare these days (everyone realises how dumb it is) that the presence of the espionage clause can be considered an interesting anomaly and is not directly relevant. What is clear is that being provoked into a war by words (TOP/IRON in Bipolar) or aid (RoK here) relieves you from being aggressors. Another place to look is the labyrinthine legalities of OBR treaties. For example, in their MDP with GR, we find this exception to defensive obligations: The second part of that is a standard non-chaining clause, but the first defines 'aggression' in the context of the treaty, and a declaration of war is considered aggressive (i.e. voids the defensive obligation) whatever justification it may have. (In the Writ de Credo one can find a very broad definition of 'hostility', but that treaty was, as we now know, drafted as a legal trap and its definitions chosen accordingly.) So we can see from three separate approaches – precedent, logic and well regarded legal documentation – that what counts as aggression is being the first ones to start the war. It can become blurred later in a war (for example is all of Karma defensive? or just the alliances which were attacked and their MDP partners?), but at the outset it is clear: the alliances which start the war (NPO in Karma, NpO in Bipolar, and RoK/GOD/R&R/VE here) are aggressors, and their immediate targets (OV, \m/ or NSO) are defenders. A final reminder that this is not a post about justification. It is possible to be a justified aggressor; a good example from history would be the attack on Golden Sabres for supporting FAN's senator during the FAN war. In this case that is unusually clear-cut because of NSO's willingness to put their alliance in a dangerous position (taking in active rogues) that others wouldn't.
Bob Janova posted a blog entry in Serian News CorporationAs we stand here today, the TOP/IRON-C&G front of the Bi-Polar War has been raging for a month and a half (the entirety of February, 12 days of March and 3 of January), and for almost all of that time has been a one sided destruction of the pre-emptive attackers. Peace negotiations are taking place, but so far the only terms offered by the winners are quite outrageous, and the rhetoric from C&G is not conciliatory – for example they have called the TOP/IRON counter-offer 'insulting' and suggested that they did not highball the original offer. The question begins to arise, how long can a war (and a defensive front of a war) be permitted to go on before it becomes oppression, extended war and all those other things used to describe Hegemonic wars? How long should C&G be able to claim the moral high ground associated with 'defence' (even though they could have avoided the front, as explained elsewhere, should they have not wished for the war) before bringing serious offers to the peace table? On this particular issue we are short of precedents. In Karma, the NPO was kept down for just on three months – but the NPO was paying for the sins of the entire Hegemony, and a large part of that time was a waiting game attempting to goad the larger nations out of peace mode. IRON received peace after one month, Echelon a month and a half, and as part of the 'Coalition of Cowards', their entry was considered aggressive by Karma. (The rest of the CoC received peace earlier and with lighter terms.) During the BLEU war and noCB, hostilities lasted one month in total (excluding OcUK). This conflict has also been used as precedent for peace terms, with then-record reparations being demanded, and the beginning of the end for 'draconian terms' like wonder decom and forced government changes, but today we are looking at the duration of war. Unlike in this war, the pre-empters won, but the arguments around the timing and terms of the peace were similar to today; Polaris was attacked for being a threat and peace was only offered when that was deemed to be no longer the case. This war – and the peace after – has long been used as an example of injustice, starting with the Vox Populi movement in the immediate aftermath of that war. Previous major wars also lasted one month or less. The time for the first 'extended war' in modern history – VietFAN (part 1), described as an 'occupation-like conflict' in its official history – was three months. FAN attacked the protectorate of a bloc member out of the blue, a significantly worse crime of aggression than a pre-emptive attack during an existing war. The CoC during Karma attacked already militarily engaged alliances during an existing war, a lesser crime of aggression. That would put the answer to the question at somewhere between one month and three for the intermediate crime of TOP/IRON. The only directly comparable precedent is that of Legion during GW3, though that war is not modern enough to be a direct guide – but Legion received a broadly comparable peace to the other League alliances, after three weeks. If directly applied now, that would mean a white peace or 1 billion reps applied several weeks ago! In conclusion, it appears that by the only direct precedent of the treatment of pre-emptive attacks during war, C&G would already have overstepped the mark for what is reasonable (in fact kept TOP/IRON down for twice as long as Legion were). On more recent precedents, of related but not identical situations, that time is round about now. People may point to the NPO in Karma, but most alliances in Karma received peace in less time than TOP/IRON have been kept at war, and the extended duration of the NPO front was down to waiting for 'peace mode warriors' (and perhaps nascent hegemonic thoughts from Athens, who have been at the forefront of neo-hegemonist actions since C&G became strong enough to do them). C&G should be coming to the table with the intention of actually negotiating a fair and reasonable peace settlement, not continuing with an extended, unbalanced war of occupation under the fig leaf of 'defence'.