Shadow's Vault

You seem to have an oddly... dare I say it? Optional... view of treaties. Are you honestly telling me, that you approve of alliances going "You know, that CB doesn't seem coherent. I'm not going to honor my treaty or defend my friends."

Even leaving aside the fact that ive never seen one side approve of the others CB *ever* in CN. That claims of 'that cb is weak' seems like war dodging to me. Even leaving that aside. Are you honestly implying to me that a MDP can and should be treated like trash because of the CB?

If so, then i'm sorry to say our views on Treaties, Friendship, and Honor are simply not compatible.

When UPN wanted to go to war you had a very different position, didn't you? Or you already forgot that you payed reps without UPN consenting just to avoid the obligation of defend UPN?

ODN values friendship and honor just regarding their treaties with the bigger side of an war, nothing new.

You contradict yourself. The fact that they are an ineffectual bunch who are incapable of working together, managing their alliances, or outputting enough damage does not make them any less of a "side". Post war, you may be correct, though there is no way to tell at the moment, but prior to this conflict and as it stands now, yes there are two sides.

The mere fact that NPO and allies required a completely separate declaration to enter the war completely disproves this. If there was any "this side, that side" mentality at all, NPO would have jumped into the war days after the initial declaration. Thus, they constitute two separate "mini-poles" that would stand quite well if it weren't for the massiveness of the DH-PB pole.

As I said CN was down :;shrugs::

You clearly didnt pick up the sarcasm/joking manner of my comment to Mhawk.

Let me spell the point out here. Anyway you slice it, if an alliance comes in via an MDP or a MA they are acting in the correct manner. To accuse them of doing otherwise when there are no Ghost DOW, no optional treaties being used... just straight forward MDP/MA.... and you are saying they acted wrongly? Then I say it is you who are wrong.

If that is the case and you are accusing them of shady dealings you have a double standard or an Agenda to push.

Short and simple. And on that note i'll leave you to your debate about poles or whatever else.

i never stated anything remotely close to what you are talking about here. if that is what you meant to say to Mhawk, aiight. but that has nothing to do with what i said.

Realistically, I think the only way for this to be overcome would be by mutual venture. The other poles would have to agree to fight the DH/PB/CnG-dominant world, then agree to go their separate ways afterward. Of course, this wouldn't have to be as obvious, it could really just happen by proxy if all the poles would be roped into a curbstomp together. For instance, if Duckroll joined the current war on the Pacific/Polar sides, DH would be overwhelmed, and the splitup of themega-pole could occur through careful moves by the multi-poles.

well for that to happen sufficiently, IRON would have to go on the opposite side of TOP. and even then, if DR joined in against DH, they may be larger than DH but you still have CnG to worry about. there won't be much of a split as it would just cause CnG to saddle up against DR as well as DH being against DR.

If I recall correctly, Citadel where mostly uninvolved in politics, 1V had four members, and Q could have taken probably the rest of the world alone.

And the theory was Schattenmann's, not mine. Although I agree.

TOP was very much involved in politics and Gre was as well. Argent, OG, and Umbrella were to an extent. Q could not have taken on the world by itself which is why it died when it faced the rest of the world (minus TOP who did not join on Q's side). so your hypothesis there was already proven wrong by Karma.

1V had 4 members, DH has 3 that is not much of a difference. 3 members of 1V were part of Q (after Polaris was booted) while 1 (GGA) was not. the theory may have been Schatt's but you disagreed. and somehow agree with me when i state that PB/DH/SF/CnG constitute a single pole.

We gave our support to Poison Clan within the first 24 hours of the initial declaration of war. Burn for Polaris? hahahahaa. No.

oh i get that mate. but IAA, GATO, and TIO are not Polaris. anyways, i have no real issues with what CnG did as i already figured ya'll to be on PB's side. my posts were just about OsRavan calling Mhawk on optional treaties.

In other words, imagine if our coalition had Duckroll and TOP. You lose.

Not really no.

Schattenmann: when you call out individual alliances or blocs and in general make obviously false statements about them in your argument, it doesn't make sense to later claim, "That wasn't the point!" when someone reminds you that you were lying. If you want people to stay focused on the point of your argument, you should try maybe telling the truth through the whole thing.

Not really no.

Honestly yea I think so. The war was/is tight already if it was Pacifica and co./Duckroll/TOP and Argent/Polar/Synergy/RoK vs. SF/CnG/Doomhouse/PB. I think the Polar side has a statistical advantage.

Honestly yea I think so. The war was/is tight already if it was Pacifica and co./Duckroll/TOP and Argent/Polar/Synergy/RoK vs. SF/CnG/Doomhouse/PB. I think the Polar side has a statistical advantage.

TOP would never fight for Polaris particularly given their tie to MK. Argent is far more tied to PB/CnG/DH/SF than Polar/Pacifica side. Even if this were true, the stats would still favor DH/PB/SF/CnG at least in the upper ranks. the lower and possibly mid-ranks would favor Polar/Pacifican side but only so much can be done there. Unless all alliances on Polar/Pacifican side were willing to do what DAWN/IRON did against Gremlins, then there is only so much that could be done.

Excellent, excellent post.

An argument can be made that the Polar and Pacific groups have been forced together into an accidental pole of sorts for the war, making the world temporarily bipolar, but even that is collapsing. I would certainly argue that the world was unipolar prewar and will be unipolar when the main combat is done in a month or two and we settle into a long guerilla war.

Traditionally the community has defined a pole by these three criteria:

1. The supposed pole may contain sub-factions, but they must be, to some extent, united.

2. The supposed pole must not be part of a larger faction.

3. The supposed pole must have a significant share of global power.

Prewar, the only group that fit these criteria was the PB-DH-SF-C&G-allies amalgamation. There's enough overlap to consider them a pole, they're not part of a larger faction, and they have a significant share of global power. I would argue that the groups around NPO and NpO were not poles because of their lack of significant global power. Aside from neither one being very large on its own, both were considered pariahs. Duckroll has the potential to become a pole but right now I don't think they have enough of a share of global power to be considered one.

When most of the fighting ends, there will be only one pole. The Polar and Pacific spheres will be shattered, disunited, and will have their leading alliances stuck in a guerilla war. Duckroll, like I said, has the potential to form a pole down the road, but isn't one now and probably won't be in a month or two. It's also possible that SF or CnG could break off and form a pole down the road, but for the near future they're part of the "Accidental Q".

-Bama