Goldie's Fun House

You're worse than the Hegemony, Goldie.

The way the old hegemony behaved was completely unacceptable.

The way the new hegemony behaves is alot better, but still completely unacceptable.

The way the old hegemony behaved was completely unacceptable.

The way the new hegemony behaves is alot better, but still completely unacceptable.

Thank you for proving the point of this blog, that the word that used to describe the atrocious actions of a group of alliances is now used to described the significantly less atrocious actions (calling them 'atrocious' at all is debatable) of a different group of alliances, and the weight of the adjective has been reduced to nearly nothing.

Thank you for proving the point of this blog, that the word that used to describe the atrocious actions of a group of alliances is now used to described the significantly less atrocious actions (calling them 'atrocious' at all is debatable) of a different group of alliances, and the weight of the adjective has been reduced to nearly nothing.

Wait, did you write a blog post about the word hegemony, and not expect people to use the word in their replies? Really this argument won't end until its no longer relevant

Argument A: What hegemony did was wrong, but it doesn't make what you're doing, the things hegemony did but to a lesser degree, right either.

Argument B: Don't compare us to hegemony, there is no comparisons in degrees.

Personally I'm a cynic So I think that any alliance with enough power will throw its weight around and probably should if it help them enjoy the game. For example, I didn't batt any an eye at the Knights of Knee raiding) The reason why the alliances with the upper hand right now don't do as heinous things as alliances in the past, is that now, power is not centralized in NPO and a few other alliances.

Wait, did you write a blog post about the word hegemony, and not expect people to use the word in their replies? Really this argument won't end until its no longer relevant

Argument A: What hegemony did was wrong, but it doesn't make what you're doing, the things hegemony did but to a lesser degree, right either.

Argument B: Don't compare us to hegemony, there is no comparisons in degrees.

Personally I'm a cynic So I think that any alliance with enough power will throw its weight around and probably should if it help them enjoy the game. For example, I didn't batt any an eye at the Knights of Knee raiding) The reason why the alliances with the upper hand right now don't do as heinous things as alliances in the past, is that now, power is not centralized in NPO and a few other alliances.

You missed the point completely. It is not the word that is the subject of this post, it is the use of the word in comparison to alliances and actions in today's game that do not warrant the comparison, and by extension dilute the impact the comparison should have.

would it be easier to use words like Neo-Hegemony (not the the thread by SCY)or my favorite, Heg-Lite? seriously, i get that the term hegemony has long been associated with NPO and their allies, but guess what, it is still a term with a set definition that can be attached to other alliances within the game. we all need to stop attaching a greater meaning to hegemony than its actual definition.

would it be easier to use words like Neo-Hegemony (not the the thread by SCY)or my favorite, Heg-Lite? seriously, i get that the term hegemony has long been associated with NPO and their allies, but guess what, it is still a term with a set definition that can be attached to other alliances within the game. we all need to stop attaching a greater meaning to hegemony than its actual definition.

And what hegemonic actions have CnG/supercomplaints performed by what set definition?

And what hegemonic actions have CnG/supercomplaints performed by what set definition?

1) several aggressive wars launched on alliances for no reason.

2) one aggressive war launched on another alliance for a 4 month old CB without any diplomacy used first.

3) a general "might makes right" attitude that is becoming prevalent amongst ya'll.

so again, while not as bad as the Old Heg, the actions are quite similar. alliances without treaties that are small now have to fear attack simply because they have no treaties. alliances have to continue to worry about being attacked for reasons that are old (yes i actually agreed with the TPF war except for the whole no diplomacy used first bit) and may have no diplomacy used first to work out the issue. and the "might makes right" attitude about it all, does not help alliances feel any safer unless they are allied to SC/SG.

so yes, ya'll not nearly as bad as Old Heg, but alliances should fear ya'll due to the above. if alliances have any real reason to fear the dominant power, then that begins a dangerous slide.

I think you are giving people too much credit here. The "you are as bad as the Hegemony" meme is nothing more than a vapid response by vapid people.

The truly sad thing is that some people actually believe that meme is an argument in itself.

but guess what, it is still a term with a set definition that can be attached to other alliances within the game. we all need to stop attaching a greater meaning to hegemony than its actual definition.

Hegemony

1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. 2. leadership; predominance. 3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

I'm not sure what definition you are applying here but none of your subsequent examples of hegemonic behaviour attributed to C&G seem to fit the definition of hegemony above.

While the raid on KoN! was disgraceful I do not see it as hegemonic in anyway. The attack on TPF likewise. Athens felt aggrieved enough over revelations of an attempted infiltration to exact revenge on TPF. I cannot see any way that war was designed to achieve world domination. TPF was still a shell of its former self due to the Karma War and I fail to see how any eventuality from that war would increase Athens' or C&G's influence in the Cyberverse let alone move it closer to world domination.

In contast, the NPO and associated hangers-on routinely attacked alliances it saw as threatening their position as the predominant bloc in the Cyberverse and made no secret that world domination was their aim. Trying to say that C&G is a lighter version of the Continuum and its predecessors is ludicruous and nothing more than overly emotive language to vilify someone you dislike or disagree with.

Hegemony

1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. 2. leadership; predominance. 3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

I'm not sure what definition you are applying here but none of your subsequent examples of hegemonic behaviour attributed to C&G seem to fit the definition of hegemony above.

While the raid on KoN! was disgraceful I do not see it as hegemonic in anyway. The attack on TPF likewise. Athens felt aggrieved enough over revelations of an attempted infiltration to exact revenge on TPF. I cannot see any way that war was designed to achieve world domination. TPF was still a shell of its former self due to the Karma War and I fail to see how any eventuality from that war would increase Athens' or C&G's influence in the Cyberverse let alone move it closer to world domination.

In contast, the NPO and associated hangers-on routinely attacked alliances it saw as threatening their position as the predominant bloc in the Cyberverse and made no secret that world domination was their aim. Trying to say that C&G is a lighter version of the Continuum and its predecessors is ludicruous and nothing more than overly emotive language to vilify someone you dislike or disagree with.

yes because we all know that the RL definition of the term is the one that is ever used by CN. if that is the case, then the Old Heg would not have been called the Hegemony. yet, as we can see that is exactly what they were called.

so now we are using an excuse for Athens that NPO used? NPO fought many of its aggressive wars for the reason that it felt the enemy alliance did something to it. seriously, so NPO does it and it is Hegemonic. Athens does it and it is okay? seriously that is part of your argument...

as for how it can lead to world domination... TPF got crushed. the BBW also lined up anyone willing to defend TPF and it gave knowledge of how a good majority of treaties would fall should another aggressive war be launched by SG.

instead, we got this war where CnG is specifically attempting to destroy several alliances in order to "protect themselves in the future" (quotes are due to me essentially quoting ya'll not like air quotes). that is again similar to what the Old Heg did. in the process, the Old Heg gained world domination mainly due to weakened enemy. hmm..... seems that a lot of alliances opposing SG are weakened or still be destroyed.

KoN, FoA, SBA (2-3 times...) and California- all aggressive wars launched for no reason. to me this is simply a starting point since the precedent prior to this was to no raid large alliances. now that precedent is gone and as we can see, it is becoming more and more of an issue. i mean before there was at least an attempt to ensure the victim had no treaties. now with SBA, the attempt that was made was totally subpar and it seems that the war was solely because Echelon could not actually protect SBA. but you are right, nothing wrong with this at all. i mean alliances should be forced to play the game how others want.

and stating that everything that SG alliances have done is essentially okay (sorry one action was disgraceful) is not looking at anything objective and letting only your friendship get in your way. while admirable to a point, that is like you stating that Polaris never did any hegemonic actions, ever. i would say my description of SG is quite accurate given not only their attitudes, but their actions in and of themselves.

also, i dislike and disagree with SG because of their actions and recent attitude. before this, i was a major proponent of MK and others in SG. so my new opinion of certain alliances in SG is a direct reflection of what i feel about their actions and attitude. not just because i don't like them for no reason.

yes because we all know that the RL definition of the term is the one that is ever used by CN. if that is the case, then the Old Heg would not have been called the Hegemony. yet, as we can see that is exactly what they were called.

You are the one rambling about definitions and as I pointed out in my post you quoted, the Continuum were hegemonic in nature. I pointed out how that was the case, you obviously ignore it in your haste to post more emotive dribble. Whereas I pointed out that your accusations against C&G were clearly not hegemonic in any way shape or form. Again, you glossed over that to post more boiler plate garbage.

You can ramble on with as much nonsense as you like but when you boil it all down, you are wrong. C&G is not hegemonic and never has been. I do not believe they have any interest in becoming the new "Hegemony". I realise you are not interested in fact nor logic and your only aim is to scream nonsense as loudly and as often as you can in the hope someone will believe it. The only ones who believe it are the people who are conducting the same mission as you are.

You are the one rambling about definitions and as I pointed out in my post you quoted, the Continuum were hegemonic in nature. I pointed out how that was the case, you obviously ignore it in your haste to post more emotive dribble. Whereas I pointed out that your accusations against C&G were clearly not hegemonic in any way shape or form. Again, you glossed over that to post more boiler plate garbage.

You can ramble on with as much nonsense as you like but when you boil it all down, you are wrong. C&G is not hegemonic and never has been. I do not believe they have any interest in becoming the new "Hegemony". I realise you are not interested in fact nor logic and your only aim is to scream nonsense as loudly and as often as you can in the hope someone will believe it. The only ones who believe it are the people who are conducting the same mission as you are.

what did i gloss over? you posted about how the Old Heg was Hegemonic. where did i ever deny that? as for emotive dribble, lawlz. just plain lawlz. just because you may not agree with my opinion to start calling it dribble is quite amusing and does nothing to support your claims that CnG are not the least bit hegemonic. nor do you even come close to addressing anything i posted. i never stated that CnG was as hegemonic as NPO and crew. hence the term HegLite to address them.

as for nonsense, i have posted facts just like you have. but much like ya'll are quite able to point out Bob Janova's bias in his posts, you have your own Tyga. and it shows quite well. i also never stated that CnG or SG in general want to become the New Heg, yet they are quickly becoming the dominant power and from what i have seen thus far, the world will be only half as bad as under the old Heg.

in other words, sure, it won't be as bad as what was suffered under the old heg, but it won't be as good as it should be. again, regardless of what you state, SG are not the saints you paint them as. they are not the demons that the Old Heg were (though don't forget that many in SF were allied to Old Heg and have their own histories) either. this is what i have been saying.

the verbal "garbage" you seem to latch onto, is not what i have been saying. unlike many, i can do a comparison that is an actual comparison. this means that i compare the likes and dislikes and state both. i have not called SG "hegemonic" in a long time (if ever, but i am honestly not sure nor do i care to look it up so i will simply assume i have since Tyga seems hell bent on stating i have done this action) and have instead resorted to HegLite for a very simple reason. SG are not as bad as the Old Heg, but they are not the saints ya'll seem to want to paint them as. thus, HegLite. a lesser form of the Old Heg (in terms of "ebil" actions taken).

so yes, continue to state whatever you want. it makes you look just as foolish and biased as Bob Janova (much love mate, but seriously you are heavily biased and it makes many of your posts look foolish).

what did i gloss over? you posted about how the Old Heg was Hegemonic. where did i ever deny that?

Here:

yes because we all know that the RL definition of the term is the one that is ever used by CN. if that is the case, then the Old Heg would not have been called the Hegemony.

You clearly say that under the definition of Hegemony I provided (which is the actual definition so I fail to see why you mention RL as though Cybernations defines its own language) that the "Hegemony" would not have been labelled the "Hegemony". So, what you glossed over was the definition which is a perfectly applicable one to CN and the examples I provided that showed the behaviour of the Continuum was indeed hegemonic according to that definition.

as for emotive dribble, lawlz. just plain lawlz. just because you may not agree with my opinion to start calling it dribble is quite amusing and does nothing to support your claims that CnG are not the least bit hegemonic. nor do you even come close to addressing anything i posted. i never stated that CnG was as hegemonic as NPO and crew. hence the term HegLite to address them.

My evidence is that according to the definition of "Hegemony" nothing you cited supports the labelling of C&G as hegemonic. HegLite is just a buzzword you use because your argument is nonsense. You cannt and have not cited any evidence that supports your case. You raise a few issues that, while they may not be the most savoury of actions, are not hegemonic in nature at all.

as for nonsense, i have posted facts just like you have. but much like ya'll are quite able to point out Bob Janova's bias in his posts, you have your own Tyga. and it shows quite well. i also never stated that CnG or SG in general want to become the New Heg, yet they are quickly becoming the dominant power and from what i have seen thus far, the world will be only half as bad as under the old Heg.

You posted facts, sure. None of which supported your claims, however. I am allied to two C&G alliances and I make no secret of that (hard to as it is on the Wiki) but nothing I have posted has been anything but a definition of "Hegemony" and pointing out that the examples you produced to show C&G were hegemonic do not support your case at all. You make emotive reference to issues to create an illusion of hegemonic behaviour but produde nothing that I can see that fits the label at all.

in other words, sure, it won't be as bad as what was suffered under the old heg, but it won't be as good as it should be. again, regardless of what you state, SG are not the saints you paint them as. they are not the demons that the Old Heg were (though don't forget that many in SF were allied to Old Heg and have their own histories) either. this is what i have been saying.

If you can point out where I have pained C&G or SF as saints then be my guest. Although in this current situation, I find it hard to see how C&G can be painted as villains. All I have stated is that despite your emotive shouting from any soapbox you can find, nothing you have said fits the label you are applying here.

the verbal "garbage" you seem to latch onto, is not what i have been saying. unlike many, i can do a comparison that is an actual comparison. this means that i compare the likes and dislikes and state both. i have not called SG "hegemonic" in a long time (if ever, but i am honestly not sure nor do i care to look it up so i will simply assume i have since Tyga seems hell bent on stating i have done this action) and have instead resorted to HegLite for a very simple reason. SG are not as bad as the Old Heg, but they are not the saints ya'll seem to want to paint them as. thus, HegLite. a lesser form of the Old Heg (in terms of "ebil" actions taken).

You called them HegLite amongst other names and now you are saying that you are not calling them hegemonic?

so yes, continue to state whatever you want. it makes you look just as foolish and biased as Bob Janova (much love mate, but seriously you are heavily biased and it makes many of your posts look foolish).

Yes, me citing a definition and showing your examples do not remotely fit the lable you are applying to C&G makes me look biased and foolish. I guess the dictionary is in on my whole charade too. I have no personal stake in any of this so not sure how I'm being biased. I couldn't care less if you called C&G or SuperFriends HegLite but if you going to argue definitions and specifics then I'll point out where you are wrong. Which I have done. I fail to see how that makes me look foolish as I cannot see how anything I have posted has had any emotional investment in it at all, just cold hard facts.

Here:

You clearly say that under the definition of Hegemony I provided (which is the actual definition so I fail to see why you mention RL as though Cybernations defines its own language) that the "Hegemony" would not have been labelled the "Hegemony". So, what you glossed over was the definition which is a perfectly applicable one to CN and the examples I provided that showed the behaviour of the Continuum was indeed hegemonic according to that definition.

yes, under your definition it does not really fit. many words used in CN get twisted around. Hegemony is one of them. the reason for this is quite simple, it is hard to dominate the world in CN. unlike RL, where there are what around 200 or so nations, most of which are third world, in CN there are thousands of nations. to boot, we have no real First, Second, or Third world nation status. typically it is narrowed down to aligned or unaligned. at its height NPO/Heg dominated a third of the nations in this game. thus, your RL definition of "world domination" is out the window. and the first definition of "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others", is technically every single ruler out there. every person who plays this game exhibits that style of leadership as does the majority of alliance rulers. so, yeah i skipped over that one as it is the most common style hegemony out there. and NPO was the dominate alliance in the Heg after GOONS and Polaris were gone. that one i will give you is the only definition that fits word for word. but if that is the case, then it is quite clear that MK is the hegemony in CnG as MK is seen as the dominate alliance in CnG. so you also prove me more right than i was ever going for.

My evidence is that according to the definition of "Hegemony" nothing you cited supports the labelling of C&G as hegemonic. HegLite is just a buzzword you use because your argument is nonsense. You cannt and have not cited any evidence that supports your case. You raise a few issues that, while they may not be the most savoury of actions, are not hegemonic in nature at all.

according to your argument you are in fact in correct as stated above. according to my argument, i did not argue that CnG is hegemonic in the style you were trying to state i labeled CnG as. so if you could debate what i actually argued instead of using extremes, you may have something. this is not black and white, never has been.

i have cited evidence that supports my case. alliances for example, typically cannot just go around and hit other random alliances unless they have massive support behind them. look at the Polar-\m/ war, there was massive support for \m/ specifically from SG. sure Polar's side was bigger, but realize that many on Polar's side were allied to CnG. no one hit Athens or FoB when they raided KoN mainly due to CnG and allies backing Athens/FoB up. but yes, you are soooooo correct in that i have no evidence Tyga. keep on making yourself look like Bob Janova for SG's side.

You posted facts, sure. None of which supported your claims, however. I am allied to two C&G alliances and I make no secret of that (hard to as it is on the Wiki) but nothing I have posted has been anything but a definition of "Hegemony" and pointing out that the examples you produced to show C&G were hegemonic do not support your case at all. You make emotive reference to issues to create an illusion of hegemonic behaviour but produde nothing that I can see that fits the label at all.

i have posted the definitions of Hegemony that has been used in CN for years. so while you use RL definitions of which only 1 truly works in the CN landscape, i use the definitions that have been applied within CN. i mean for example, hegemony has been attached to Surrender terms, to certain war-like actions, and the like within CN. things that are nowhere in your definitions except aggression. expansionism for example is impossible within CN. you may steal land and tech from another nation but you do not actually expand into their territory as any nation can steal or buy other land without having to worry about you. but yes, you brought in one mostly unusable definition and have totally owned my argument... one that was not even one i was making.

if we go by your arguments even- Athens/FoB AGGRESSIVE attack on KoN- this fits your definition of #3 as you seem to be using it. PC/GOONS/\m/- AGGRESSIVE attack on FoA- again fits #3 as you are using it. Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/- AGGRESSIVE attack on TPF- again fits #3 as you are using it. that is 3 count them, 3 hegemonic actions as according to the definition that you are using. but you are once again obviously unbiased because you stated how your definition did not fit anything that SG alliances have done. did you even read your own definition Tyga? or are you just throwing !@#$ out there hoping something actually sticks?

If you can point out where I have pained C&G or SF as saints then be my guest. Although in this current situation, I find it hard to see how C&G can be painted as villains. All I have stated is that despite your emotive shouting from any soapbox you can find, nothing you have said fits the label you are applying here.

gee, you simply whitewashing everything they do. "while they may not be the most savoury of actions, are not hegemonic in nature at all". despite having never proven a damn thing and in fact, now being proven wrong by your own definition you stated that. i have never stated they were villains. just stated that their actions are similar to what the old Heg did, just not nearly as bad. i have no clue why you keep attacking this emotive crap to it as i am not anywhere close to emotional over this. you on the other hand appear to have grown as emotional over this as Bob Janova. (and yes, i will continue to use Bob as he is the only other person that is similar in style to you. intelligent but far too biased to one side and far to emotionally involved to actually make many good arguments other than "this is what i say. *lack of proof or pitiful proof*. so there. *proceeds to stick out tongue and plugs fingers into ears to not listen to the other side.* this is essentially what you and bob are doing)

You called them HegLite amongst other names and now you are saying that you are not calling them hegemonic?

what other names other than CnG, SG, SF, SC, and individual alliance names? they are not hegemonic in the definition that applies to NPO/crew. that is what i have been saying all along. something that you gloss over it seems since obviously you have to state i am calling them as hegemonic as NPO was in order to use your argument with any kind of coherency.

Yes, me citing a definition and showing your examples do not remotely fit the lable you are applying to C&G makes me look biased and foolish. I guess the dictionary is in on my whole charade too. I have no personal stake in any of this so not sure how I'm being biased. I couldn't care less if you called C&G or SuperFriends HegLite but if you going to argue definitions and specifics then I'll point out where you are wrong. Which I have done. I fail to see how that makes me look foolish as I cannot see how anything I have posted has had any emotional investment in it at all, just cold hard facts.

actually, you cited a definition and showed examples of how your labels do not work in order to prove me wrong in some way. not my labels, nor the ones i have seen tossed around these halls for years. so if you are gonna prove me wrong, make sure you bring the definitions used in these halls not in other halls. because by your definition, there is nothing hegemonic about any of the terms that NPO/crew used unless you stretch them. yet, that was the biggest thing that got NPO/crew called Hegemony other than controlling one side of the web. like i said before the #1 definition of hegemony applies to MK. the #3 can actually be applied to actions that Athens (twice), FoB, PC(twice), RoK, GOD, and \m/(twice) have done within the last few months. but yes, you are obviously unbiased since you stated that your definitions actually proved that CnG is not in any way hegemonic, when in fact, a little logic proves you wrong by your own definitions. but that is not the only definition of hegemony, otherwise we would not be seeing that term tossed around whenever surrender terms are discussed would we? so obviously, unless your definition begins to discuss surrender terms, then it cannot fully apply at all. this is where (by the way) that CnG and co do not land in the hegemonic camp. in fact, the #3 definition of "aggression" is incomplete (the second half is pretty much impossible to accomplish in CN) as you seem to have ignored it despite multiple aggressive wars conducted by SG alliance, of which Athens lead 2 and FoB helped Athens with 1. so 2 CnG alliances conducted a total of 2 aggressive assaults on other alliances. by your definition that equals hegemony. according to CN, neither one is entirely hegemonic as in 1 case, Athens/FoB paid reps (again reps/surrender terms are nowhere in your definition and yet are widely associated with hegemonic actions in CN, thus proving that your only 1 of your definitions is useful within CN, the other (hint, #3 is entirely useless. at the same time, #1 can easily be applied to MK) and Athens white peaced in the other. thus, according to CN, not entirely hegemonic or in some eyes, not hegemonic at all. the only way they would have been seen as hegemonic would be to lay down crippling reps, or harsh terms at the end of the war.

but please continue to act as if you have proven me wrong in any way shape or form. you haven't. HegLite fits even by your standards. the fact that you failed to see this shows how much you are biased.

yes, under your definition it does not really fit. many words used in CN get twisted around. Hegemony is one of them. the reason for this is quite simple, it is hard to dominate the world in CN. unlike RL, where there are what around 200 or so nations, most of which are third world, in CN there are thousands of nations. to boot, we have no real First, Second, or Third world nation status. typically it is narrowed down to aligned or unaligned. at its height NPO/Heg dominated a third of the nations in this game. thus, your RL definition of "world domination" is out the window.

In CN, the nation is more equivalent to the RL individual and the alliance akin to the RL nation. That aside, the Continuum and its predecessors did quite a good job of world domination so it is not "out the window" at all. The Continuum dominated the political scene as well as any RL superpower, probably even moreso as there was no other power anywhere near as strong for the majority of their reign. I have never seen the definition of "hegemony" twisted around except for people like you trying to change the meaning of a word to fit your accusations.

and the first definition of "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others", is technically every single ruler out there. every person who plays this game exhibits that style of leadership as does the majority of alliance rulers. so, yeah i skipped over that one as it is the most common style hegemony out there. and NPO was the dominate alliance in the Heg after GOONS and Polaris were gone. that one i will give you is the only definition that fits word for word. but if that is the case, then it is quite clear that MK is the hegemony in CnG as MK is seen as the dominate alliance in CnG. so you also prove me more right than i was ever going for.

Nonsense. Every individual nation leader does not exhibit predominant influence over other nations. Less so when you treat an individual nation in CN as equivalent to a RL individual person. You skipped it because it doesn't fit C&G and scuttles your argument. As for your rambling about MK, how does them being the dominant alliance (in your opinion) in C&G have anything to do with the accusations you are making about C&G in general?

according to your argument you are in fact in correct as stated above. according to my argument, i did not argue that CnG is hegemonic in the style you were trying to state i labeled CnG as. so if you could debate what i actually argued instead of using extremes, you may have something. this is not black and white, never has been.

My argument is based on an accepted definition of "hegemony". Yours is based on some nebulous definition that changes its shape to fit your arguments. You labelled C&G "HegLite", I am arguing against what you argued. That is, nonsense.

i have cited evidence that supports my case. alliances for example, typically cannot just go around and hit other random alliances unless they have massive support behind them. look at the Polar-\m/ war, there was massive support for \m/ specifically from SG. sure Polar's side was bigger, but realize that many on Polar's side were allied to CnG. no one hit Athens or FoB when they raided KoN mainly due to CnG and allies backing Athens/FoB up. but yes, you are soooooo correct in that i have no evidence Tyga. keep on making yourself look like Bob Janova for SG's side.

None of your evidence supports the accusations you make against the accepted definition of "hegemony". MK, in the KoN! case, were quite vocal in pulling Athens back into line. How does that support your case that C&G, who according to you is dominated by MK, is hegemonic? As I said, your agument makes no sense at all and is just emotive language and shifting definitions.

i have posted the definitions of Hegemony that has been used in CN for years.

No you haven't. I've been playing this game for a long time and have never, ever seen a CN "definition" of Hegemony. I have seen a lot of people throw the word around with apparently no clue as to what the word means.

so while you use RL definitions of which only 1 truly works in the CN landscape, i use the definitions that have been applied within CN.

No, you used a definition you made up to fit your argument. You see the difference yet? My argument is based on an accepted definition of "hegemony". Yours is based on a definition you made up.

i mean for example, hegemony has been attached to Surrender terms, to certain war-like actions, and the like within CN. things that are nowhere in your definitions except aggression. expansionism for example is impossible within CN. you may steal land and tech from another nation but you do not actually expand into their territory as any nation can steal or buy other land without having to worry about you. but yes, you brought in one mostly unusable definition and have totally owned my argument... one that was not even one i was making.

They were actions carried out by a hegemony, not actions that defined them as a hegemony.

if we go by your arguments even- Athens/FoB AGGRESSIVE attack on KoN- this fits your definition of #3 as you seem to be using it. PC/GOONS/\m/- AGGRESSIVE attack on FoA- again fits #3 as you are using it. Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/- AGGRESSIVE attack on TPF- again fits #3 as you are using it. that is 3 count them, 3 hegemonic actions as according to the definition that you are using. but you are once again obviously unbiased because you stated how your definition did not fit anything that SG alliances have done. did you even read your own definition Tyga? or are you just throwing !@#$ out there hoping something actually sticks?

Ah, the beauty of omitting important words from the definition. Aggressive actions to further world domination was the definition. How did the raid on KoN! further world domination other than bring the bloc into disrepute? How did the raid on \m/ further world domination? How did the attack on a war-weakened TPF further world domination? Short answer, they didn't. Therefore they were not hegemonic acts, just acts of aggression.

So, yes, I did read the definition I posted. Thank you. Ironic it is you accusing me of throwing !@#$ out there and hoping something sticks when it is you up on your soapbox at every opportunity making accusations with made up definitions and ill-fitting evidence. I did chuckle, so thanks for that.

gee, you simply whitewashing everything they do. "while they may not be the most savoury of actions, are not hegemonic in nature at all". despite having never proven a damn thing and in fact, now being proven wrong by your own definition you stated that.

How is saying the actions were unsavoury whitewashing them? The only thing I said was they were not hegemonic actions and no, I was not proven wrong using my own definition. You left off half the definition and thought no one would notice.

i have never stated they were villains. just stated that their actions are similar to what the old Heg did, just not nearly as bad.

The actions that are similar are not hegemonic as I have pointed out a number of times. That is the difference.

i have no clue why you keep attacking this emotive crap to it as i am not anywhere close to emotional over this. you on the other hand appear to have grown as emotional over this as Bob Janova. (and yes, i will continue to use Bob as he is the only other person that is similar in style to you. intelligent but far too biased to one side and far to emotionally involved to actually make many good arguments other than "this is what i say. *lack of proof or pitiful proof*. so there. *proceeds to stick out tongue and plugs fingers into ears to not listen to the other side.* this is essentially what you and bob are doing)

Because this must be the 4th or 5th "you are as bad as the hegemony" rant you have made since Karma War ended. You clearly have some emotional attachment to it and will resort to posting any nonsense to try and convince people of your argument. On the other hand, I think my comments here have been nothing but fact and supporting evidence. I love how you accuse everyone else of bias but yourself. You have a barrow to push and no hill is too high to stop you forging forward with made up definitions and evidence that does not fit the accusations you are making.

what other names other than CnG, SG, SF, SC, and individual alliance names? they are not hegemonic in the definition that applies to NPO/crew. that is what i have been saying all along. something that you gloss over it seems since obviously you have to state i am calling them as hegemonic as NPO was in order to use your argument with any kind of coherency.

Wait, so there are multiple definitions of "hegemony" now to fit all sorts of alliances and blocs? Heh, no wonder everyone is the new hegemony!

actually, you cited a definition and showed examples of how your labels do not work in order to prove me wrong in some way. not my labels, nor the ones i have seen tossed around these halls for years.

My labels..you mean, the actual definition of the word? You can't just make up meanings for words to suit your argument and as for the labels that have "been tossed around these halls for years", bollocks. The label hegemony was applied to the Continuum during the Karma War as they were the most influential and powerful bloc in the game and "world domination" was their goal. The actions they carried out to further that goal made them hegemonic and thus a hegemony. You can;t then pick out 2 or 3 aggressive acts and say that because the Hegemony also carried out aggressive acts then the other party must also be hegemonic. It is ridiculous.

so if you are gonna prove me wrong, make sure you bring the definitions used in these halls not in other halls. because by your definition, there is nothing hegemonic about any of the terms that NPO/crew used unless you stretch them. yet, that was the biggest thing that got NPO/crew called Hegemony other than controlling one side of the web. like i said before the #1 definition of hegemony applies to MK. the #3 can actually be applied to actions that Athens (twice), FoB, PC(twice), RoK, GOD, and \m/(twice) have done within the last few months. but yes, you are obviously unbiased since you stated that your definitions actually proved that CnG is not in any way hegemonic, when in fact, a little logic proves you wrong by your own definitions. but that is not the only definition of hegemony, otherwise we would not be seeing that term tossed around whenever surrender terms are discussed would we? so obviously, unless your definition begins to discuss surrender terms, then it cannot fully apply at all. this is where (by the way) that CnG and co do not land in the hegemonic camp. in fact, the #3 definition of "aggression" is incomplete (the second half is pretty much impossible to accomplish in CN) as you seem to have ignored it despite multiple aggressive wars conducted by SG alliance, of which Athens lead 2 and FoB helped Athens with 1. so 2 CnG alliances conducted a total of 2 aggressive assaults on other alliances. by your definition that equals hegemony. according to CN, neither one is entirely hegemonic as in 1 case, Athens/FoB paid reps (again reps/surrender terms are nowhere in your definition and yet are widely associated with hegemonic actions in CN, thus proving that your only 1 of your definitions is useful within CN, the other (hint, #3 is entirely useless. at the same time, #1 can easily be applied to MK) and Athens white peaced in the other. thus, according to CN, not entirely hegemonic or in some eyes, not hegemonic at all. the only way they would have been seen as hegemonic would be to lay down crippling reps, or harsh terms at the end of the war.

Ah, so to argue with you I have to use your definitions, the ones you made up to make your case and not actual deifinitions of words. Why, with powers like that you'll never lose an argument. Up could become down in Dochartaigh-land!

but please continue to act as if you have proven me wrong in any way shape or form. you haven't. HegLite fits even by your standards. the fact that you failed to see this shows how much you are biased.

HegLite doesn't fit by my standards and my standards are actual definitions of words. So, I have proven you wrong because nothing you have offered shows C&G to be hegemonic at all. The fact that you fail to see that your definition is bollocks is evidence that you are so deeply invested in proving C&G to be hegemonic you have lose contact with all logic.

In CN, the nation is more equivalent to the RL individual and the alliance akin to the RL nation. That aside, the Continuum and its predecessors did quite a good job of world domination so it is not "out the window" at all. The Continuum dominated the political scene as well as any RL superpower, probably even moreso as there was no other power anywhere near as strong for the majority of their reign. I have never seen the definition of "hegemony" twisted around except for people like you trying to change the meaning of a word to fit your accusations.

either way you put how CN is, no one has had world domination ever. most have had political domination but nothing close to world domination. the fact that the majority of CN live outside of the politically active alliances, proves that no one can have world domination. thus, the definition of hegemony had to shift slightly to fit the context of CN. as for me "twisting" it. bull. you are telling me that no one has ever used the word hegemonic for terms? obviously, you are simply using it to fit your needs and ignoring the usage of the word here in CN.

Nonsense. Every individual nation leader does not exhibit predominant influence over other nations. Less so when you treat an individual nation in CN as equivalent to a RL individual person. You skipped it because it doesn't fit C&G and scuttles your argument. As for your rambling about MK, how does them being the dominant alliance (in your opinion) in C&G have anything to do with the accusations you are making about C&G in general?

so wait, who is twisting the definition to fit their needs now? seems like you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of.

actually, my "ramblings" about MK simply prove you wrong. since you stated that CnG is not hegemonic, yet i can prove that individual alliances who make up CnG are. using your definition. then you get into were a few are hegemonic in the group and the group supports/condones/accepts said behavior and you have exactly what many in the old Heg were accused of. being hegemonic simply for condoning/supporting/accepting NPO being hegemonic. (yet again, another CN twist to your precious definition that you refuse to see since it shatters everything you are arguing for.)

My argument is based on an accepted definition of "hegemony". Yours is based on some nebulous definition that changes its shape to fit your arguments. You labelled C&G "HegLite", I am arguing against what you argued. That is, nonsense.

your argument is based on the RL definition of the word and does not even attempt to recognize the fact that said word has been twisted severely in CN. i have not shaped the CN definition of Hegemony in the least. did not need to. in fact, i am not even arguing that CnG is hegemonic by CN definition. HegLite is not total hegemony, it is basically a partial version. but yes, keep stating you are arguing against what i am arguing when you have no clue what i am actually arguing. not to mention, by your RL definition, then Athens/FoB/MK are clearly Hegemonic as is several other alliances on the SG side. and that is by your own precious definition.

None of your evidence supports the accusations you make against the accepted definition of "hegemony". MK, in the KoN! case, were quite vocal in pulling Athens back into line. How does that support your case that C&G, who according to you is dominated by MK, is hegemonic? As I said, your agument makes no sense at all and is just emotive language and shifting definitions.

Umm.... seriously. i stated that MK is seen as the dominate alliance within CnG. where the hell did i ever state a thing about MK pulling Athens back from KoN? umm... nowhere. but if you wish to use that example, it proves your #1 definition (i.e. read your own definition it has 2 parts. part 1 or #1 and part 3 or #3. now that you have your own definition squared away. learn it and see how it applies to CnG without being biased). thus, if MK pulled Athens in line, would that not make MK dominate over Athens? umm.... i think it would. thus proving that MK is the dominate alliance in CnG. how does your own example not support my case? not to mention the actions of Athens themselves. your own definition (#3) stated aggression is an act of Hegemony. Athens AGGRESSIVELY attacked another alliance. this is by your definition. so what are you talking about? i have not shifted my definition at all. i have stated that the CN hegemony is not only about aggressive assaults, predominance in the political scene, but also about surrender terms (i.e. harsh/draconian). thus, my definition has never shifted in the least despite your attempts to state otherwise. if any definition has shifted it is yours since you stated that NPO/Crew were hegemonic, but skew the definition you use when it comes to CnG. for example, this paragraph of yours above.

No you haven't. I've been playing this game for a long time and have never, ever seen a CN "definition" of Hegemony. I have seen a lot of people throw the word around with apparently no clue as to what the word means.

guess what- when people throw the word around and those circumstances are accepted by the majority of CN, that changes the meaning. i don't care whether you like it or not. it simply is. if you don't accept it, then fine. this argument is obviously done because i am using the CN version that you have finally acknowledged, exists. and you are using the RL definition. the difference is, the CN version actually makes CnG look better than your RL version which has CnG as full on Hegemonic. since your RL version is "pre-dominance or leadership exerted from one nation over the other" which means that since MK is dominate in just CnG, they are hegemonic. there is no need for them to dominate the entire political scene as NPO had to do in order to be considered hegemonic with the CN version. nor does your RL version distinguish between aggressive actions. thus, tech raids are hegemonic according to your definition in which aggression=hegemonic.

No, you used a definition you made up to fit your argument. You see the difference yet? My argument is based on an accepted definition of "hegemony". Yours is based on a definition you made up.

seriously you have no idea what my argument is. that is quite obvious. the CN version- you have acknowledged. thus, how am i shifting it? you have this weird idea that i am shifting the definition of hegemony in order to call CnG HegLite? like i honestly care enough. if i truly wanted to be emotive and demonize CnG, why would i stop with HegLite? why wouldn't i just go full on CnG=HEGEMONY WORSE THAN NPO EVAH WAS!!!!!! so how about you stop with your own nonsense and actually realize what it is i am arguing. since you have no actual clue it seems.

your argument, as you stated above, is not the accepted CN definition in the least. it is the RL definition. two distinct versions one of which is useless in CN since it now describes actions in a different way that hegemony was used to describe NPO/crew. thus, your version is actually NOT the accepted version for CN. your version actually turns CnG into a hegemony. the CN version, ensures that unless they begin acting exactly like NPO, they will never be considered a true hegemony.

They were actions carried out by a hegemony, not actions that defined them as a hegemony.

i agree, but CN does not. those actions are exactly what defined them as hegemonic.

Ah, the beauty of omitting important words from the definition. Aggressive actions to further world domination was the definition. How did the raid on KoN! further world domination other than bring the bloc into disrepute? How did the raid on \m/ further world domination? How did the attack on a war-weakened TPF further world domination? Short answer, they didn't. Therefore they were not hegemonic acts, just acts of aggression.

so how did NPO's beating up GPA achieve world domination? how did NPO beating up MK achieve world domination? in fact, how did any of NPO's/Q's/1V's/etc aggressive assaults ever achieve world domination? fact is, none of them ever did. none of them could ever further promote world domination. in CN, world domination is impossible since the Planet Bob can increase in number of nations at a whim, has no limit to land mass, nor anything else that makes actual world domination possible. thus, this goes to prove my point. your definition is useless. Political dominance=/=world domination. so now that we have established once again, how useless your definition is for CN, we can move on.

So, yes, I did read the definition I posted. Thank you. Ironic it is you accusing me of throwing !@#$ out there and hoping something sticks when it is you up on your soapbox at every opportunity making accusations with made up definitions and ill-fitting evidence. I did chuckle, so thanks for that.

yes, every opportunity. lawlz. made up definitions that you recognized people creating just in this post. and what ill-fitting evidence. again, you seriously have no idea what i am arguing. you think this is emotive? not really. if i was up on a soapbox, why would i simply be arguing that SG (this is how clueless you are to my argument. i said SC/SG, never singled CnG out until you came into this argument. you are the one who singled out CnG, not me. you are the one who stated i was calling CnG this, not SG. just so you know SG being CnG/SF. so yes, i know CnG are in there, but it is the combination of the two that makes them truly heglite as CnG by itself cannot dominate the political scene. but CnG/SF most assuredly can.) is a partial incomplete version of an actual Hegemony? if i was so emotive about it, why would i not go balls out and call them a worse hegemony than NPO ever was? so yes, you are throwing !@#$ out there hoping it sticks since you think that by continuing to state i made my definition is made up [which it is, but i did not make it up. CN made it up], that i continue to shift my definition [when i have never shifted it. i used your definition against you, but that is not me shifting mine.], state that i am "emotive dribbling" and things like that, when it is clear i am nowhere close to that.

How is saying the actions were unsavoury whitewashing them? The only thing I said was they were not hegemonic actions and no, I was not proven wrong using my own definition. You left off half the definition and thought no one would notice.

actually no. i stated first off that your second definition of hegemony was useless to CN since world domination is unachievable. you refused to believe me. thus, i used it the way i did to get you to actually see the second half of the definition. now that you have. again, world domination is unachievable in CN. since nations can increase and land is limitless, there is simply no possible way to actually achieve world domination. the only thing achievable in CN is political domination. thus, since your definition does not include political domination anywhere in it, it is useless to CN as world domination is simply unachievable. NPO cannot physically dominate MK. never actually could. NPO could only politically dominate MK. if NPO actually dominated MK as in "world domination", then NPO would have to be capable of occupying MK land. since that is impossible to actually do. your definition is again useless.

The actions that are similar are not hegemonic as I have pointed out a number of times. That is the difference.

i have no clue why you keep attacking this emotive crap to it as i am not anywhere close to emotional over this. you on the other hand appear to have grown as emotional over this as Bob Janova. (and yes, i will continue to use Bob as he is the only other person that is similar in style to you. intelligent but far too biased to one side and far to emotionally involved to actually make many good arguments other than "this is what i say. *lack of proof or pitiful proof*. so there. *proceeds to stick out tongue and plugs fingers into ears to not listen to the other side.* this is essentially what you and bob are doing)

Because this must be the 4th or 5th "you are as bad as the hegemony" rant you have made since Karma War ended. You clearly have some emotional attachment to it and will resort to posting any nonsense to try and convince people of your argument. On the other hand, I think my comments here have been nothing but fact and supporting evidence. I love how you accuse everyone else of bias but yourself. You have a barrow to push and no hill is too high to stop you forging forward with made up definitions and evidence that does not fit the accusations you are making.

wrong. again, you have no clue what you speak of it seems. read my arguments. where have i stated anywhere in this blog that CnG is as bad as the hegemony? other than of course, using your RL definition.

what other names other than CnG, SG, SF, SC, and individual alliance names? they are not hegemonic in the definition that applies to NPO/crew. that is what i have been saying all along. something that you gloss over it seems since obviously you have to state i am calling them as hegemonic as NPO was in order to use your argument with any kind of coherency.

Wait, so there are multiple definitions of "hegemony" now to fit all sorts of alliances and blocs? Heh, no wonder everyone is the new hegemony!

nope. there is only the RL definition and the CN definition. again, the same thing i have been arguing with you this entire time. but good of you to attempt to add new elements into this since it is actually only the Remnants and SG that are labeled as hegemonic in any way. but yes, keep being the one who can actually be called emotional over this argument.

actually, you cited a definition and showed examples of how your labels do not work in order to prove me wrong in some way. not my labels, nor the ones i have seen tossed around these halls for years.

My labels..you mean, the actual definition of the word? You can't just make up meanings for words to suit your argument and as for the labels that have "been tossed around these halls for years", bollocks. The label hegemony was applied to the Continuum during the Karma War as they were the most influential and powerful bloc in the game and "world domination" was their goal. The actions they carried out to further that goal made them hegemonic and thus a hegemony. You can;t then pick out 2 or 3 aggressive acts and say that because the Hegemony also carried out aggressive acts then the other party must also be hegemonic. It is ridiculous.

WUT also had the label of hegemony. also, world domination is impossible. WUT's and Q's goals were political dominance. not world. unless of course you wish to change the definition of world domination? i don't think WUT or Q ever stated their goals were to dominate the world. thus, you are adding actions to them in order to fit your own definition and preconceived notions.

so wait, you state that Q claimed to state they wanted world domination and thus, you can label their actions as furthering some hegemonic goal? yet you have no proof of it at all. i dont recall Q ever claiming to want world dominance? where is this grand statement of yours? unless you provide proof, you are simply accusing and not providing evidence. hmm... again, something to which you claim i am doing. but i have the proof i need to call SG HegLite by CN standards. i honestly dont care about your RL standards as out of the 2 definitions you used. only one is applicable to CN.

so if you are gonna prove me wrong, make sure you bring the definitions used in these halls not in other halls. because by your definition, there is nothing hegemonic about any of the terms that NPO/crew used unless you stretch them. yet, that was the biggest thing that got NPO/crew called Hegemony other than controlling one side of the web. like i said before the #1 definition of hegemony applies to MK. the #3 can actually be applied to actions that Athens (twice), FoB, PC(twice), RoK, GOD, and \m/(twice) have done within the last few months. but yes, you are obviously unbiased since you stated that your definitions actually proved that CnG is not in any way hegemonic, when in fact, a little logic proves you wrong by your own definitions. but that is not the only definition of hegemony, otherwise we would not be seeing that term tossed around whenever surrender terms are discussed would we? so obviously, unless your definition begins to discuss surrender terms, then it cannot fully apply at all. this is where (by the way) that CnG and co do not land in the hegemonic camp. in fact, the #3 definition of "aggression" is incomplete (the second half is pretty much impossible to accomplish in CN) as you seem to have ignored it despite multiple aggressive wars conducted by SG alliance, of which Athens lead 2 and FoB helped Athens with 1. so 2 CnG alliances conducted a total of 2 aggressive assaults on other alliances. by your definition that equals hegemony. according to CN, neither one is entirely hegemonic as in 1 case, Athens/FoB paid reps (again reps/surrender terms are nowhere in your definition and yet are widely associated with hegemonic actions in CN, thus proving that your only 1 of your definitions is useful within CN, the other (hint, #3 is entirely useless. at the same time, #1 can easily be applied to MK) and Athens white peaced in the other. thus, according to CN, not entirely hegemonic or in some eyes, not hegemonic at all. the only way they would have been seen as hegemonic would be to lay down crippling reps, or harsh terms at the end of the war.

Ah, so to argue with you I have to use your definitions, the ones you made up to make your case and not actual deifinitions of words. Why, with powers like that you'll never lose an argument. Up could become down in Dochartaigh-land!

considering i already stated that only 1 of the two definitions you used is not applicable to CN since there is no way to dominate the world of Planet Bob. alliances can only dominate the politics of planet bob. not the actual world. there is a difference that you seem to refuse to see. but yes, it is quite cute what you are doing. Tygaland truly does suit you since you are also off in your own dreamworld it seems.

but please continue to act as if you have proven me wrong in any way shape or form. you haven't. HegLite fits even by your standards. the fact that you failed to see this shows how much you are biased.

HegLite doesn't fit by my standards and my standards are actual definitions of words. So, I have proven you wrong because nothing you have offered shows C&G to be hegemonic at all. The fact that you fail to see that your definition is bollocks is evidence that you are so deeply invested in proving C&G to be hegemonic you have lose contact with all logic.

actually, i never stated i agree with the CN definition. but if we are to discuss CN things, it makes since to use the CN version. about the only part that i would literally change from your definition is the world domination to political domination. that is it. and to me, that is simply because one cannot achieve world domination in CN. it is impossible. thus, unless we throw out the term Hegemony altogether, we need to change it slightly to actually fit CN. the rest of the CN definition to me, is useless. but unlike you, it is what has been used to define hegemony in CN.

you are the one who is technically changing the definition of Hegemony to fit your needs. albeit to a more accurate version, but alas, it does not matter. unless we are going to stop calling NPO hegemonic if we use your definition. but it seems you are attempting to twist your own definition to continue to make NPO/Q/WUT/etc as hegemony while stating it is untrue for others.

so if you truly wish to use logic. no one can fit the total definition of hegemony as no one can actually dominate the world of CN.