LB-log

Omni hit the nail on the head.

How can NSO be a part of the "Ex-Hegemony" if we were never in the Hegemony?

I think the reason the ex-Heg is so tightly bound together is the fact that Super-Grievances refuse to touch these alliances. They have no other options, but to treaty with each other.

I don't really think this is true. How many ex-Heg alliances have actually tried?

Corinan, you are part of ex-Hegemony because you've aligned yourselves with them. Duh. The name is functional not symbolic, it doesn't matter if you were actually Hegemony in the Karma War if you've sided with them now.

I don't really think this is true. How many ex-Heg alliances have actually tried?

Corinan, you are part of ex-Hegemony because you've aligned yourselves with them. Duh. The name is functional not symbolic, it doesn't matter if you were actually Hegemony in the Karma War if you've sided with them now.

If it's functional than that only applies to alliances that were formerly of the hegemony.

If it's functional than that only applies to alliances that were formerly of the hegemony.

It's a name that works, because no other name is forthcoming (seeing as you all seem to deny you exist at all, I can see why). Coincidence Coalition is alright I suppose.

It's a name that works, because no other name is forthcoming (seeing as you all seem to deny you exist at all, I can see why). Coincidence Coalition is alright I suppose.

One day we shall be called BAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Thats my dream, and how I like to think of it.

You're missing a lot of ties on both charts, broseph.

You're missing a lot of ties on both charts, broseph.

So tell me what I'm missing then...

Next time I'll make your circle smaller, how do you like that?

I feel excluded

I believe the second web has less ties because you didn't count the blocs that bind them.

I believe the second web has less ties because you didn't count the blocs that bind them.

What would be the point of counting bloc ties though?

NEWSFLASH: Alliances in blocs with 7 members have treaties with 6 other alliances in the bloc

I don't really think this is true. How many ex-Heg alliances have actually tried?

Corinan, you are part of ex-Hegemony because you've aligned yourselves with them. Duh. The name is functional not symbolic, it doesn't matter if you were actually Hegemony in the Karma War if you've sided with them now.

Oh come on we both know that what I said is true. Let's count how many ex-Heg alliances have reached out: Legion, IRON, TOP, NPO, Invicta, NADC, NATO the list goes on and on. Just follow the Q&A threads my friend. No one will touch these alliances, because they think they're only trying to get treaties so that they can break up SG (this could be true or false no secret knowledge there). For example, when Iunctus signed just a NAP with Invicta do you know how everyone responded? They bashed Iunctus and then kept repeating Invicta is a terrible alliance. While I have no love for Invicta either, I think it's a perfect example of why people don't sign anything with ex-Heg.

Oh come on we both know that what I said is true. Let's count how many ex-Heg alliances have reached out: Legion, IRON, TOP, NPO, Invicta, NADC, NATO the list goes on and on. Just follow the Q&A threads my friend. No one will touch these alliances, because they think they're only trying to get treaties so that they can break up SG (this could be true or false no secret knowledge there). For example, when Iunctus signed just a NAP with Invicta do you know how everyone responded? They bashed Iunctus and then kept repeating Invicta is a terrible alliance. While I have no love for Invicta either, I think it's a perfect example of why people don't sign anything with ex-Heg.

I can't say I've noticed any attempts by the alliances you listed to "reach out", although I suppose such things are often private.

I have in fact discussed the matter with government members of certain alliances I would classify as "Ex-Hegemony", and they did express that they felt trapped on that side of the web because nobody on our side would welcome them. That was merely what they predicted though, they didn't really make any real attempt because of that belief. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that ex-Heg alliances feel they will be rejected and so they don't bother at all.

What would be the point of counting bloc ties though?

NEWSFLASH: Alliances in blocs with 7 members have treaties with 6 other alliances in the bloc

Right but that proves that the SF/CnG bloc is actually more clustered than the former hegemony correct? I thought that's what these webs were made for..

Right but that proves that the SF/CnG bloc is actually more clustered than the former hegemony correct? I thought that's what these webs were made for..

The idea was to show the level of inter-bloc integration, not intra-bloc. Obviously SF is very clustered with itself, it's a bloc.

I can't say I've noticed any attempts by the alliances you listed to "reach out", although I suppose such things are often private.

I have in fact discussed the matter with government members of certain alliances I would classify as "Ex-Hegemony", and they did express that they felt trapped on that side of the web because nobody on our side would welcome them. That was merely what they predicted though, they didn't really make any real attempt because of that belief. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that ex-Heg alliances feel they will be rejected and so they don't bother at all.

Possibly so, don't get me wrong there are some people on that side of the web I wouldn't treaty for a thousand years, but some of those people up there aren't quite given a fair shake by our side.

No, I can say we made quite a few attempts to build bridges with SF and CnG. Granted I cannot say the original problems were not entirely our fault, as some of our old leaders had a tendency to do things that few loved. Nevertheless, major changes took to the alliance. After BiPolar we solidified ties with those whom would allow ties to be made, as well as reach out once again to SF and CnG (although not directly). Third parties have successfully rendered some of our efforts in vain, with their careful nudges to some alliances to remind them not to sign anything with us. The NSO is where it is for a reason.

No, I can say we made quite a few attempts to build bridges with SF and CnG. Granted I cannot say the original problems were not entirely our fault, as some of our old leaders had a tendency to do things that few loved. Nevertheless, major changes took to the alliance. After BiPolar we solidified ties with those whom would allow ties to be made, as well as reach out once again to SF and CnG (although not directly). Third parties have successfully rendered some of our efforts in vain, with their careful nudges to some alliances to remind them not to sign anything with us. The NSO is where it is for a reason.

But life finds a way, so we're hardly morose about it.

We'll kick everyone's butts eventually.

No, I can say we made quite a few attempts to build bridges with SF and CnG. Granted I cannot say the original problems were not entirely our fault, as some of our old leaders had a tendency to do things that few loved. Nevertheless, major changes took to the alliance. After BiPolar we solidified ties with those whom would allow ties to be made, as well as reach out once again to SF and CnG (although not directly). Third parties have successfully rendered some of our efforts in vain, with their careful nudges to some alliances to remind them not to sign anything with us. The NSO is where it is for a reason.

Assuming this is true, I would say you're probably an exception, since you do more to antagonize those in power than anyone except maybe Pacifica.

Assuming this is true, I would say you're probably an exception, since you do more to antagonize those in power than anyone except maybe Pacifica.

Does Pacifica even do anything, though? I havn't seen it.

Does Pacifica even do anything, though? I havn't seen it.

You're right, you guys definitely do more than Pacifica. It was mostly during their peace terms period where they were really pushing the "defiant prisoner" thing.

You're right, you guys definitely do more than Pacifica. It was mostly during their peace terms period where they were really pushing the "defiant prisoner" thing.

Ah, so playing the victim.

Point well taken.

Assuming this is true

There is no need to assume, you have a case of Legion in front of you, you may also recall the case of FoK giving ultimatum to TOP to cancel on IRON or else FOK will cancel on them..these are just the two cases that came out in open, there are several more. There is then case of RnR and NPO that came to light on OWF recently. Just trying to spare you the assumptions

There is no need to assume, you have a case of Legion in front of you, you may also recall the case of FoK giving ultimatum to TOP to cancel on IRON or else FOK will cancel on them..these are just the two cases that came out in open, there are several more. There is then case of RnR and NPO that came to light on OWF recently. Just trying to spare you the assumptions

I know this is probably hard for you to understand, but before the second Unjust War the situation was different from afterwards.

We didn't give TOP an ultimatum, we wanted them to finally make a choice. They knew the problems with the treatyweb as it was back then, IRON simply would never align itself next to us, let alone SF. So the TOP tie was problematic for us (the TPF fiasco proven this beyond doubt), and we had been discussing that with TOP for months.

In the end, TOP wasn't honest with FOK, fine I'll accept that. So to say we're responsible for where they (and IRON) ended up is plain stupid.

We didn't give TOP an ultimatum, we wanted them to finally make a choice.

An ultimatum is where you insist someone makes a choice.

Anyway.

Those clusters are funny. Echelon and GDA are about as marginalized as you can get.

You should put the total NS beside each circle too.

An ultimatum is where you insist someone makes a choice.

Out of a given set of options. FOK has never said to them: "do x before z, or y will happen". Which is what Shah implied.

What we wanted to know what TOPs plans for the future were, so we could jointly operate in FA matters.

They chose to stall and/or lie to us about their intentions, whereas we had been honest about our plans (with them) for months prior.

We made them aware of how we interpreted the situation, and still nothing ever came from it. So we came to a conclusion ourself.

Had they chosen to do something with the concerns we had expressed to them, they may have had a right to complain.

Now, not so much.