Jump to content
  • entries
    24
  • comments
    385
  • views
    19,060

A Special Interview with Xiphosis

Sign in to follow this  
hawk11

974 views

I enjoy giving people a shot on the soap-box to speak. It's one of the reasons I got into this blog and this podcast: getting the full story; so when Chief Savage Man made the following request

is xiph a lunatic or savvy political operator

these are your only two options you cannot pick anything in between or anything else

I felt obliged to get the story. Below is an unaltered interview with Xiphosis. It's lengthy, but I encourage you to read the entire thing. Afterwards, Chief Savage Man and the community at large, can decide the answer. These logs are unabridged.

[21:39] <hawk_11> hello

[21:41] <Xiphosis[GOD]> hey

[21:42] <hawk_11> how are you?

[21:44] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm good, you?

[21:44] <hawk_11> doing well

[21:45] <hawk_11> so I'd like to interview you for the cybernations talkshow blog

[21:46] <hawk_11> basically I'm going to publish this query verbtaim

[21:46] <hawk_11> *verbatim

[21:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> yep

[21:46] <hawk_11> so I encourage you not to use too many word-filtered words

[21:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> xD

[21:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> We'll see how that goes <_<

[21:46] <hawk_11> yeah I swear a lot also

[21:46] <hawk_11> but if we're both doing that, then we're going to end up with a giant post of asterisks

[21:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> yeah

[21:47] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I hear you

[21:47] <hawk_11> yep

[21:47] <hawk_11> also I encourage you to keep a copy of this query for future reference in case you feel I didn't accurately represent you

[21:47] <hawk_11> disclaimers and everything

[21:47] <Xiphosis[GOD]> always

[21:47] <hawk_11> ok then

[21:48] <hawk_11> now that we got that out of the way, let's get down to business

[21:48] <hawk_11> so basically our reader base has expressed interest in getting to know more about the CN alliance leader xiphosis

[21:49] <Xiphosis[GOD]> mhm

[21:49] <hawk_11> specifically, chief savage man wants to know if you're "a raving lunatic or a savvy political operator"

[21:49] <hawk_11> I'm not that cut and dry though

[21:49] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Hahaha

[21:50] <hawk_11> so first I've got the basic questions before we get into this

[21:50] <hawk_11> how did you come across CyberNations?

[21:50] <hawk_11> you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to, for reference

[21:51] <Xiphosis[GOD]> 'k

[21:51] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I had a friend who linked me CN

[21:51] <Xiphosis[GOD]> ..and then quit within a week.

[21:51] <hawk_11> nice.

[21:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> yeah :/

[21:52] <hawk_11> that's actually how I came about to this game too

[21:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I reckon a lot of us did <_<

[21:52] <hawk_11> he finds it moronic that I still play it at this level after five years

[21:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Lol.

[21:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> My mate actually quite because he had a break down OOC on some meds.

[21:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> :/

[21:53] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The rest that joined with me mostly stayed though [a lot of the GOD core are about that old]

[21:53] <Xiphosis[GOD]> quit*

[21:55] <hawk_11> So GOD is the alliance that you started with?

[21:56] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Nope. I originally applied to NPO [The commie names of the senators on Red were appealing] but had some issues with my application disappearing, so I joined the alliance my friend was in - Illuminati.

[21:57] <hawk_11> I see

[21:58] <hawk_11> Alright, I think we've got enough background, let's get into the nitty gritty

[21:58] <hawk_11> I take it the driving motivation behind our readers' interest in discussing you is the somewhat-recent going-ons between GOD and GOONS

[21:58] <Xiphosis[GOD]> mhm

[21:59] <hawk_11> You've already posted enough on that subject to fill a good amount of space, but I want to know a few things

[21:59] <Xiphosis[GOD]> sure

[22:00] <hawk_11> First question: I've felt it's often extremely important for alliance leaders to stand by their decisions. Do you still stand by your decision to cancel the treaty with GOONS?

[22:00] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I wouldn't have done it if I didn't.

[22:00] <Xiphosis[GOD]> [Yes]

[22:02] <hawk_11> sorry, distracted

[22:03] <Xiphosis[GOD]> No prob.

[22:04] <hawk_11> anyway

[22:05] <hawk_11> The treaty cancellation itself raised a lot of drama after GOONS went public saying you were trying to strong-arm them into influencing an ally's treaty with MK. Do you feel that they misconstrued your intentions or is that spot on?

[22:05] <hawk_11> I'm sorry, let me rephrase

[22:05] <hawk_11> MK's treaty with TOP

[22:05] <hawk_11> I'm correct now right?

[22:06] <Xiphosis[GOD]> yeah.

[22:06] <hawk_11> alright

[22:08] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yeah, it was misconstrued a bit. I think it hurt Sardonic's feelings a bit and I guess he needed to explain what had happened, but prior to the cancelation itself there was no "If MK does x I'll drop you - so you better make sure it doesn't happen." Our position regarding TOP being allowed within the side was made clear to... pretty much everyone including TOP and MK a long time before that treaty went up. I skipped the "Them or

[22:09] <hawk_11> you cut at "them or

[22:09] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Lot less messy and dramatic overall.

[22:09] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I skipped the "Them or us" phase with GOONS and simply canceled.

[22:09] <Xiphosis[GOD]> "Them" being MK.

[22:10] <hawk_11> I see

[22:10] <hawk_11> so GOD's position on TOP; what is the background of that relationship straight from the head of GOD?

[22:10] <hawk_11> I mean it's apparent you guys aren't fans

[22:11] * Xiphosis[GOD] shrugs

[22:13] <hawk_11> so I take it that it's a combination of many things?

[22:13] <Xiphosis[GOD]> We've had pretty bad interactions with them, both prior to Karma, during and after the fact. They proved rather unreliable in Karma, if not... completely untrustworthy, and just as a general rule I don't repeat mistakes; and fighting next to them was a mistake. A lot of the alliances we ended up friendly with [Kronos, etc] suffered a fair bit for their ties to TOP, as well, so I simply have no interest in repeating it.

[22:13] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If I cut again, let me know

[22:13] <hawk_11> will do

[22:14] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Quite ironically, many of the things I was accused of doing to GOONS in that thread were things TOP had actually done a great deal of in the past - and it was a decent portion of why I want nothing to do with them.

[22:15] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They've always had a high opinion of their influence and worth in the world, and whatever necessity I had for fighting with them in Karma is gone now. They chose IRON over us - over FOK, over Umbrella, over Kronos. That was their call; I'm content to let them live with it.

[22:16] <hawk_11> So basically you viewed aligning with TOP at all as an alliance of opportunity to take down the "bigger threat" of the time, which would be the alliances dubbed the hegemony

[22:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Actually, nope.

[22:17] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I just accepted it as part and parcel of how stuff chains.

[22:17] <hawk_11> so indifference

[22:18] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Basically.

[22:18] <Xiphosis[GOD]> There was a lot of that.

[22:18] <hawk_11> Sounds about right

[22:18] <hawk_11> I don't like asking speculative questions, but I feel that the line of questioning begs it: in the future, could you see TOP causing a split in what you've termed your "side?"

[22:19] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Nope.

[22:19] <hawk_11> for the record though, would you like to say what exactly your side is

[22:19] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Hah, that's... a harder question.

[22:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Well, I'll say it although I think a lot of people will disagree with it anyway.

[22:22] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'd consider the collective 'spheres' of PB, SF, CnG and Polaris to be my side, along with Maroon, Sparta, and Genesis/ARES.

[22:23] <hawk_11> and I take it the "other side" would be however is aligned with my alliance, the new pacific order

[22:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The other side is everyone not included in what I just listed.

[22:23] <hawk_11> pretty big side

[22:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I don't consider everyone outside of that by default "with NPO" - but I don't consider them on my side either.

[22:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Hm.

[22:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> It's hard to phrase that right.

[22:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I think NPO has it's own side, but I more generally it's part of a larger umbrella of alliances not on my side.

[22:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People who share no interest and no stake in my well being and whom I have no consideration or duty to myself, basically.

[22:25] <hawk_11> So we've got your side, the disinterested (both you being disinterested in them and them being disinterested in general), and the other side which almost certainly has the NPO in it

[22:25] <hawk_11> but maybe not

[22:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That's more or less it

[22:27] <hawk_11> sounds about right

[22:27] <hawk_11> so that series brings us to this question: currently, as the world is, do you think there is one power bloc who is "in control"

[22:28] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Nope.

[22:28] <hawk_11> Personally I view the world as currently in a state of flux. Do you agree?

[22:28] <Xiphosis[GOD]> We've not had a world where one power bloc was in control since Q's time. The time prior to PB forming was SF/CnG keeping the peace within our side in tandem, now it's roughly PB/SF/CnG/Polar doing that.

[22:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Control basically is that - eliminating costly wars for bad or shallow reasons between allies or side-mates.

[22:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And you can't do that without several blocs cooperating.

[22:30] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The idea and capacity for central authority has been fairly thoroughly torn down.

[22:30] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The result is more close calls - NEW being a great example - but a lot more even share of the power pie rather than it being concentrated in, as with Q, an NPO-like alliance.

[22:31] <hawk_11> Ah

[22:31] <Xiphosis[GOD]> As for flux - I think FARK leaving SF, MK leaving CnG and then PB forming shortly afterwards threw it into chaos for a minute, but no, I'd say we've all settled back to normal roles.

[22:32] <hawk_11> hm

[22:33] <hawk_11> I believe we could probably go tit-for-tat on comparisons of the past and present power structures for a while, but we should reserve that for the on-air podcast if you're interested

[22:33] <hawk_11> continuing though

[22:33] <hawk_11> what would you currently view as the biggest "threat" to the current structure

[22:34] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Short sightedness

[22:34] <hawk_11> care to elaborate?

[22:34] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yeah, it'll take a minute to type out.

[22:34] <hawk_11> no problem

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Examples would be evident in different leadership approaches to the current peace. Some will want to hedge [adding TOP, and anyone else they can grab up, for example] but this is short sighted for a couple of reasons - it ignores the enormous NS already possesed by our side, and in the attempt to hedge bets weakens good will amongst the side. There are others who will want to isolationist it - and

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> simply focus on 'them' and their own affairs, and that similarly is short sighted.

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> When you remove yourself from the dialogues, you lose your say and the world will almost inevitably go down a path that you will hate and really not have much fun in - any leader worth his salt wouldn't do that, but isolationism has it's temptations so in the short term, that can sway someone who's not careful.

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People simply have to think long-term, not what is fun or tempting in the short term.

[22:40] <hawk_11> cut somewhere between isolationist and simply

[22:40] <hawk_11> got the rest after that

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I cut it myself

[22:40] <hawk_11> oh

[22:40] <hawk_11> alright then

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> There are others who will want to isolationist it - and

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> then "simply"

[22:41] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And I don't mean this in a realpolitik way, either.

[22:41] <hawk_11> oh?

[22:42] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Our [leaderships] jobs, as far as we have them, is ensuring the integrity/security of our AA's.

[22:42] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That is, fundamentally, why alliances exist.

[22:42] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And why we appoint and designate people to guide them.

[22:43] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Which you know, but warrants repeating after... 5 or so years of CN.

[22:43] <Xiphosis[GOD]> You can only actually do that job by thinking long-term.

[22:43] <hawk_11> so what would you view the long term goals of your side to be then?

[22:43] <Xiphosis[GOD]> By choosing now who you want backing you up and who is likely to slip a knife in your back. By deciding what IA programs to run and what is best left for later.

[22:43] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That is the long term goal of my side, as far as I'm concerned.

[22:43] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Collective security.

[22:44] <hawk_11> I see

[22:44] <hawk_11> This begs the question though: how far exactly are you willing to go for this security?

[22:44] <Xiphosis[GOD]> In terms of what?

[22:44] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Morality?

[22:45] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Or specific actions?

[22:45] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm not sure what you have in mind.

[22:45] <hawk_11> well, on a scale of one to hegemony

[22:45] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Haha.

[22:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> So in terms of world management?

[22:46] <hawk_11> yes

[22:46] <hawk_11> Some viewed your actions towards GOONS as a step in the "right" direction

[22:46] <Xiphosis[GOD]> From total anarchy to active intervention in everyones affairs, including situations my allies have no part in?

[22:46] <hawk_11> do you think these are just knee-jerk opinions?

[22:47] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They are, fundamentally because I have no interest in even attempting to run a hegemony. It's not possible.

[22:48] <Xiphosis[GOD]> It's really just managing my own affairs, something people are loathe to do nowadays.

[22:48] <Xiphosis[GOD]> It's more normal to let a treaty [including an MDP or higher] sit than take that step.

[22:48] <Xiphosis[GOD]> But I have no such constrictions [mental or charter-wise].

[22:49] <Xiphosis[GOD]> To answer the original question, if I see an action that will tangibly ensure the security of GOD or anyone else I've pledged to protect, I will take it, and I will sleep very soundly having done so.

[22:49] <hawk_11> I question I got asked to ask was whether or not you had the full support of GOD when you made this cancellation

[22:49] <hawk_11> care to comment?

[22:50] <hawk_11> *A question

[22:51] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Two part answer to that one. First of all, GOD is my alliance. We make it very clear from Day 1 you join the alliance that if you have an issue with how the alliance is run - including the decisions taken by myself or other Lords - you speak it, but you continue to follow orders. Dissent is allowed, but disobedience gets you marched out with extreme hostility.

[22:51] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That is how we are.

[22:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Specifically to the GOONS point, we had two members who were opposed to the cancelation.

[22:52] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And they voiced it internally.

[22:53] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Many of my members, and government, felt it was necessary - if not pleasant, or particularly a happy occassion - and this was voiced to me to encourage me to cancel the treaty before I did so.

[22:53] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Whatever love we have for GOONS does not override the lack of willingness in GOD to have military obligations to any sector of the world tainted by TOP, basically.

[22:53] <Xiphosis[GOD]> We've been there, we're smart enough not to go back.

[22:56] <hawk_11> I see

[22:57] <hawk_11> Though going back to the security thing there. You said that it's "not possible" to run a hegemony

[22:57] <hawk_11> this is in light of the shift in geopolitics since KARMA?

[22:57] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yeah.

[22:57] <hawk_11> makes sense

[22:58] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Well.

[22:58] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Hm.

[22:58] <Xiphosis[GOD]> More specifically

[22:58] <Xiphosis[GOD]> You can run a hegemony two ways.

[22:59] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Fear. Which is what Q did - you're either with us, or you're dead. WUT did the same as well, although it intervened and controlled a lot less of the world - I don't think it ever cared to.

[22:59] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Or universal respect to the point where a significant amount of alliances are willing to defer to you in all cases, and by default.

[22:59] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Which does not exist.

[23:00] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The amount of NS I've seen any one alliance capable of gathering simply by respect is far outweighed by the remainder of what's left in the world, and you're not a hegemony unless you're unchallengable.

[23:00] <Xiphosis[GOD]> So yeah, I don't think it's possible.

[23:04] <hawk_11> So do you think, given the explanations you've given me, that it is possible for any one alliance bloc to ever rise to the prominence that the NPO did with the World Unity Treaty and the Continuum?

[23:04] <Xiphosis[GOD]> No.

[23:04] <hawk_11> So, in effect, the NPO won CyberNations and we can all go home?

[23:05] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People have had a few years worth of independence and free speech [both in IRC and the forums], they won't surrender it without a sharp enough backlash to overrun anyone who attempted it.

[23:05] <Xiphosis[GOD]> In effect, NPO conditioned CN to never allow another NPO.

[23:05] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm not sure that's a success.

[23:06] <hawk_11> I don't know, sounds good to me

[23:06] <hawk_11> Rise to the top and be the only ones to ever achieve that position

[23:06] * Xiphosis[GOD] shrugs.

[23:06] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Rise to the top surrounded by who you were with in Q?

[23:06] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That matters as much as the position, -shrug-.

[23:07] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'd take another 2 years at the bottom if I wasn't surrounded by TPF's and such.

[23:07] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Quality of life/play has to be weighed against ambition.

[23:07] <hawk_11> Well, I would like to point out that some of the guys in Q are now on your side

[23:07] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm aware

[23:08] <hawk_11> I mean hell, remember the Ordinance of Order?

[23:08] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Very much so.

[23:08] <hawk_11> So, in effect, couldn't it be said that your side is trying to rise to the top while surrounding itself by who surrounded us in Q?

[23:09] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Nope.

[23:09] <hawk_11> How so?

[23:10] <Xiphosis[GOD]> For one thing, my side already is the top. For another, we're collectively at the top; not just GOD. NPO alone rose to the top on top of Q's power.

[23:10] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And to tie this back to the quality of life point, part of what makes our side stable is the ability to choose who's in your specific circle of friends without surrendering the overwhelming firepower the side brings behind you.

[23:11] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I can still be untouchable allied to only 5 alliances I like, if I so choose, by simply having a strong tie back to one of the core blocs. That was not the case with Q.

[23:11] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Because ultimately, if NPO wanted that one tie gone - it'd be gone.

[23:12] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And the individual interested in keeping that tie had no security whatsoever if they chose to dig in their feet, even if they were members of Q.

[23:13] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Essentially, my side is on top precisely for the opposite reason Q was.

[23:13] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Q rose to the top because of centralization, mine did so because of flexibility.

[23:14] <Xiphosis[GOD]> While not falling into the trap the LUEnited and AEGIS did - so much anarchy that a side and unity couldn't be mustered at will, and with ease.

[23:15] <hawk_11> well yeah, personally I find it extremely easy to say your side is "on top" when it almost includes everyone but the NPO

[23:15] <hawk_11> and their allies

[23:15] <Xiphosis[GOD]> So do I. :P

[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Easy points can be accurate. /shrug

[23:16] <hawk_11> so for those of us who don't really define your side as "everyone besides the NPO and their allies," I feel almost obligated to ask how you're so confident in that assertion

[23:17] <hawk_11> then I've got a few questions stormsend wired me and we're done

[23:19] <Xiphosis[GOD]> The alliances and groups I listed as part of my side have had each others back beforehand and backed up their promises, that is why I can be confident. Similarly, I don't want TOP around because quite unlike them, TOP didn't back up their words and I wouldn't be able to be so confident if alliances of their kind were to begin being assimilated into the side.

[23:19] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I can be confident because I'm careful. The alliances I trust, I trust for reasons that go beyond promises.

[23:19] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And fluffy words.

[23:20] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And private ass kissing, and all the other crap that comes with FA.

[23:20] <hawk_11> I noticed you said that alliances on your side have had each other's backs beforehand

[23:20] <hawk_11> and you listed Polar on your side

[23:20] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Indeed.

[23:20] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yup.

[23:20] <hawk_11> Even though Polar is known throughout a good amount of the Cyberverse as "backstabbing my idols"

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And yet, I gave them white peace in the same incident.

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I think that demonstrates that I don't share the opinion, lol.

[23:21] <hawk_11> I see.

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Certainly I don't trust Grub whatsoever.

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I do trust Penguin, Dajabo and Random.

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And for the past 12 months since BiPolar, they've run that show.

[23:21] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Not Grub.

[23:22] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I feel confident in them.

[23:23] <hawk_11> Yet TOP, who some can argue has pulled similar things, doesn't deserve the same treatment

[23:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yup.

[23:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I explained this in the GOONS thread.

[23:23] <hawk_11> No need to explain it again then

[23:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> TOP is a democracy, to the highest level.

[23:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Polaris is not, I can be confident that if I trust the current Emperor, I can trust the alliance.

[23:23] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Not so with TOP - therefore, different treatment.

[23:24] <hawk_11> Alright, let's get to some of stormsend's questions

[23:24] <Xiphosis[GOD]> k

[23:24] <hawk_11> "You and MK have had a roller-coaster relationship. When RoK and MA cancelled on them, you were on the front lines verbally attacking MK every chance you got. What changed that?"

[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> At the time MK and RoK/MA were falling out I was very disillusioned with their government. It felt to me at the time that Trace and AirMe had all but hijacked the alliance for their own goals and dragged MK away from it's roots more towards their friends - Polaris, etc.

[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> To MK's detriment [NoCB].

[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I was very, very vocal bashing those two individually for that.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> On top of that, there was an incident between RIA and MK a few months prior to that which I felt wouldn't have been handled by MK the way they handled it

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Had the generation of government that was there when MK-GOD were MADP'd still been in power

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Tolk, Archon, etc.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Archon was around, but he had stepped back.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> When it came down to it, MK had stopped treating us like friends or brothers.

[23:28] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And I felt zero obligation to be quiet about how I felt about the change - I'd just gone through an absolute !@#$storm on behalf of my tie to them, and it made me fairly raw about the change.

[23:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> AirMe/Trace leaving in the year or so after the war and Archon becoming more active again changed it, as well as a lot more interaction between myself and MK's membership.

[23:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> ..along with a hell of a lot of conversation about that RIA incident.

[23:30] <hawk_11> alright, looks good

[23:30] <hawk_11> last question is anonymous

[23:30] <hawk_11> "GOD has shown on multiple occassions that you plan to side with Polar in 90% of the possible war scenarios. Also within 90% of those scenarios, VE will likely be with Pandoras Box on the opposite side. What is GOD doing to prevent that scenario given your long term friendship and treaty obligations to VE?"

[23:31] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Essentially, we're ensuring PB and Polaris don't view themselves as inherent enemies.

[23:32] <Xiphosis[GOD]> As baffling or unrealistic as that sounds, knowing the individual leaders of PB and the leadership of Polaris as well as I do, I can say it's far from unrealistic.

[23:33] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Some walls got thrown up between the two because of some childishly short-sighted wishes on behalf of a few people ["fun" war] and I've spent a good deal of time, along with a number of PB alliances, Polaris itself and her allies tearing those walls back down.

[23:34] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Members of this side aren't isolated and thrown to the wolves without extremely good reasons. That is part of the flexibility.

[23:35] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And similarly, you will not see that done to NpO.

[23:36] <hawk_11> Ok

[23:36] <hawk_11> well that about wraps it up. Thank you for your time

[23:36] <Xiphosis[GOD]> No problem

[23:36] <hawk_11> And again I invite you to come onto the podcast some time for the round table

[23:37] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of difference between then and now, if you're interested, but I have to decline the invitation.

[23:37] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I don't use the voice-based things.

[23:37] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Too personal for my level of involvement in the game

[23:38] <hawk_11> Well that's disappointing. I'll take you up on the offer some time though

[23:38] <hawk_11> I forgot to ask at the beginning, but you're ok with me publishing this right?

[23:38] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Yeah.

[23:38] <hawk_11> Alright then

[23:38] <hawk_11> Take care

[23:38] <Xiphosis[GOD]> You too.

Sign in to follow this  


41 Comments


Recommended Comments



is xiph a lunatic or savvy political operator

these are your only two options you cannot pick anything in between or anything else

Actually from my convo's with Xiph I'd say both. I remember you guys once talking on your radio show about RV's level on insanity. He does crazy things which in the end happen to be just right. Xiph is basically the same way. He does some of the craziest things, but in the end it all turns out to work exactly the way he wanted it to.

Good interview :)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Interesting read.

The question, and contradiction, in my mind is that MK/TOP ties are established. So is he trying to take MK and close allies (GOONS, Umbrella, etc.) off his side because of it? That's really what it amounts to. You either have a pointless protest, and destabilizing his 'side' for no good reason. Or he's intentionally excluding MK, GOONS, Umbrella, FOK, etc. from his 'side' because of the tie to TOP.

It's pretty ridiculous to try to kick us (MK, GOONS, Umbrella, etc.) off his 'side' just because he doesn't trust TOP. Loose a bunch of major alliances because you might not be able to trust one. How much sense does that make?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Interesting read.

The question, and contradiction, in my mind is that MK/TOP ties are established. So is he trying to take MK and close allies (GOONS, Umbrella, etc.) off his side because of it? That's really what it amounts to. You either have a pointless protest, and destabilizing his 'side' for no good reason. Or he's intentionally excluding MK, GOONS, Umbrella, FOK, etc. from his 'side' because of the tie to TOP.

It's pretty ridiculous to try to kick us (MK, GOONS, Umbrella, etc.) off his 'side' just because he doesn't trust TOP. Loose a bunch of major alliances because you might not be able to trust one. How much sense does that make?

Where did he say that he was doing that? 0_o

Regardless, I don't like Xiph much politically. He knows this. I've never made any secret of it. I do like the guy OOC, though.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Where did he say that he was doing that? 0_o

Regardless, I don't like Xiph much politically. He knows this. I've never made any secret of it. I do like the guy OOC, though.

I generally get along with him, or at least did when we have interacted in the past. (I like him OOC).

If you'll read what I said it's an either/or situation. Either he's excluding us from his 'side' or he isn't. Either way it is very shortsighted. If he isn't excluding us, it's a pointless and unnecessarily destabilizing move. If he is he's cutting off his nose to spite his face, sacrificing several major alliances because he can't trust one.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Also his argument's about the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship don't fly with me. Almighty Grub couldn't have done what he did without the support of his alliance. Having been high government in MK, which is similar to NpO in terms of leadership structure, I know that an "absolute" leader still has to listen to other government and general membership.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Actually from my convo's with Xiph I'd say both. I remember you guys once talking on your radio show about RV's level on insanity. He does crazy things which in the end happen to be just right. Xiph is basically the same way. He does some of the craziest things, but in the end it all turns out to work exactly the way he wanted it to.

Good interview :)

Xiphosis, there is no higher compliment than being compared to the illustrious Rebel Virginia.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Also his argument's about the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship don't fly with me. Almighty Grub couldn't have done what he did without the support of his alliance. Having been high government in MK, which is similar to NpO in terms of leadership structure, I know that an "absolute" leader still has to listen to other government and general membership.

Are you saying that Archon can't do whatever he want with MK? :rolleyes:

Also interesting interview.

Share this comment


Link to comment
It's pretty ridiculous to try to kick us (MK, GOONS, Umbrella, etc.) off his 'side' just because he doesn't trust TOP. Loose a bunch of major alliances because you might not be able to trust one. How much sense does that make?

Actually he says the opposite. He says one of the side's strengths is flexibility. You lot can still be on his "side" but he feels the need to distance himself. He mentions Q, where you didn't have that option. If you distanced yourself at all, suddenly all fire and brimstone came calling. (VE, UJW, I'm sure there's others I cant think of atm)

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think the democracy argument is somewhat flawed. NpO has seen 3 emperors over the last year, so a turnover every 4 months. TOP saw Feanor as Grand Master for roughly 6 months and he was a member of the Council, either as Grand Chancellor or Grand Legate for an additional four. There isn't huge turnover and radical change of direction from one election to the other.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I find it interesting that he included the NpO in his assessment of his side. Alliance blocs like PB/SF/C&G have very different goals from Neo-BLEU (least of all being raiding vs moralism), so I'm not entirely sure that is correct.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Interesting read and I like Xiph more for reading it as it turns out we share a lot of views.

Sides imho, break down because the less centralised the side is the more there is disagreement of who's in the side, because each power cluster within a side has it's own ideas of who should be included/excluded. Dialogue can only solve so much.

However the Q-style centralisation, that Xiph warns about, is a cure far worse than the original disease. Besides, instability in and off itself can prevent stagnation.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's a good interview. Being with GOD's closest ally, I knew most of this already, so I can't tell if it was a revealing interview, but kudos on it.

Share this comment


Link to comment
[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People simply have to think long-term, not what is fun or tempting in the short term.

Best part of the interview.

Also I'm going to go with "pretentious idiot".

Share this comment


Link to comment

I find it interesting that he included the NpO in his assessment of his side. Alliance blocs like PB/SF/C&G have very different goals from Neo-BLEU (least of all being raiding vs moralism), so I'm not entirely sure that is correct.

He said "his side" not "our side". You are correct with the statement of very different goals though.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Xiph's 'NpO good TOP bad' always confuses me. Considering most of their other ties I think he's being optomistic in not seeing potential conflicts between the Polar sphere and PB, though so far people have made sure bad situations don't chain that far.

Share this comment


Link to comment
[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> At the time MK and RoK/MA were falling out I was very disillusioned with their government. It felt to me at the time that Trace and AirMe had all but hijacked the alliance for their own goals and dragged MK away from it's roots more towards their friends - Polaris, etc.

[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> To MK's detriment [NoCB].

[23:26] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I was very, very vocal bashing those two individually for that.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> On top of that, there was an incident between RIA and MK a few months prior to that which I felt wouldn't have been handled by MK the way they handled it

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Had the generation of government that was there when MK-GOD were MADP'd still been in power

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Tolk, Archon, etc.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Archon was around, but he had stepped back.

[23:27] <Xiphosis[GOD]> When it came down to it, MK had stopped treating us like friends or brothers.

[23:28] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And I felt zero obligation to be quiet about how I felt about the change - I'd just gone through an absolute !@#$storm on behalf of my tie to them, and it made me fairly raw about the change.

[23:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> AirMe/Trace leaving in the year or so after the war and Archon becoming more active again changed it, as well as a lot more interaction between myself and MK's membership.

[23:29] <Xiphosis[GOD]> ..along with a hell of a lot of conversation about that RIA incident.

Even after all the conversation we have had in the last 2 years, it pains me to see you still have a very unrealistic view of how that all went down.

Except for the RIA incident...that could have been handled totally differently and to this day I do not know why that happened the way it did.

We stopped treating you guys like friends? Your allies were the ones running out and signing treaties with GGA and Valhalla who were always actively looking to get us rolled and WE were the ones dropped for signing a treaty with STA. You seem to forget everything we did back could have gotten us rolled while you were cozy'd up to Q.

Damn it now I am all fired up again. It should also be noted that nothing happened in MK back then without Archon's stamp of approval so the line of thinking that Trace and I hijacked things is laughable at best. Our main goal back then was to avoid a situation in where we would get rolled by someone who wouldn't give us peace. Only vigilant work by all members of government back then accomplished that mission.

Share this comment


Link to comment

[23:20] <hawk_11> Even though Polar is known throughout a good amount of the Cyberverse as "backstabbing my idols"

Great word filter. :v:

Yeah, I was sitting here wondering what happened with that one.

[14:37] <hawk_11> also does [heylookwordfilter] filter to my idol on the owf

[14:38] <bros> iirc it does

[14:38] <hawk_11> kind of breaks flow of that sentence

[14:38] <hawk_11> "<hawk_11> Even though Polar is known throughout a good amount of the Cyberverse as "backstabbing my idols""

[14:38] <Stormsend|MK> you are an my idol

[14:38] <Stormsend|MK> what

Share this comment


Link to comment

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People simply have to think long-term, not what is fun or tempting in the short term.

Pretty much sums up what is wrong with CN, disregarding mechanics issues.

GAMES ARE NOT MEANT TO HAVE FUN WITH! :rolleyes:

Share this comment


Link to comment

Even after all the conversation we have had in the last 2 years, it pains me to see you still have a very unrealistic view of how that all went down.

Except for the RIA incident...that could have been handled totally differently and to this day I do not know why that happened the way it did.

Slow down man. :P I know I was wrong, I was giving an accurate representation of my MISCONCEPTIONS about then - ie, explaining why stuff between us got bad. But how the RIA incident was treated was exactly what I meant by 'stopped treating us like brothers' - the whole approach to that situation was not how you'd approach a situation involving a friend, so I don't know how else we were meant to feel.

Damn it now I am all fired up again. It should also be noted that nothing happened in MK back then without Archon's stamp of approval so the line of thinking that Trace and I hijacked things is laughable at best. Our main goal back then was to avoid a situation in where we would get rolled by someone who wouldn't give us peace. Only vigilant work by all members of government back then accomplished that mission.

Again, I do know this. Really. I was just explaining my point of view at that time.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Slow down man. :P I know I was wrong, I was giving an accurate representation of my MISCONCEPTIONS about then - ie, explaining why stuff between us got bad. But how the RIA incident was treated was exactly what I meant by 'stopped treating us like brothers' - the whole approach to that situation was not how you'd approach a situation involving a friend, so I don't know how else we were meant to feel.

Again, I do know this. Really. I was just explaining my point of view at that time.

Ok. Apology accepted. :P

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...