Jump to content

10AM General

  • entries
    5
  • comments
    33
  • views
    4,045

10AM General points out some absurdities.


hawk11

502 views

 Share

The Reason for War is that There's Reason to War.

The Independent Republic of Orange Nations and the Order of Paradox declared war against the New Polar Order on November 25th, 2011 just before midnight. Welcome to war, CyberNations. Many have suggested this war was no secret. Indeed, looking at the recent thread titles one can assume the winter theme meant the Polar Bears may or may not have something coming towards them. After all, with the demise of the National Alliance for Arctic Countries (NAAC) a long, long time ago, the Polar Bears are really the only arctic-themed alliance worth mentioning. 10AMG did not analyze Polar stats running up to the conflict because, frankly, there wasn’t enough interest. But at the time of print, the Polar Bears at least look roused with an 81% activity rate. And with 153 out of 268 nations in peace mode, 57% of their alliance, they must have seen it coming.

However, there is a lot of outcry about the reason for war. The call rising from the Polar denizens is that the Orange Uber Allies don’t have a valid “CB” for declaring this war. First of all, “CB” is a dirty term. If you must use the Latin casus belli, spell it out. Otherwise you look stupid because we all know smart people completely spell out and italicize Latin phrases. Second of all, how do the Orange Uber Allies not have a legitimate reason to fight? If they did not feel they had a legitimate reason to fight, why would they declare war in the first place?

What we’re looking at right now is The CyberNations Spin Cycle. The supporters of the chilly side of the war believe that they were attacked unjustly by their own definition. Now, the individuals who compose that side have decided to tell the world that the war isn’t valid because they don’t believe it is. The reason the Orange Uber Allies have given for smashing their shinies isn’t good enough.

Who cares?

Well, the chilly side of course. The 10AMG tries to stay objective, but one can only stay so objective in the face of a ridiculous argument. Let’s clear one thing up: when two sides are at war, they disagree with each other over why the fight is happening. I think we can all agree on that. You saw it in the Great Wars, you saw it in the Unjust War, and you saw it in KARMA. It happens. But it does not change that IRON and TOP felt enough animosity towards the Polar Bears to attack. 10AMG will tell you every single day of the year: there is no such thing as a valid reason for war in the opinion of the defender, and Hate Is A Motivator (also known as the Inigo Montoya). 10AMG has no clue what world we live in that a valid reason for war is even necessary. An alliance can launch an attack on another alliance for any given reason at any time; it’s how the game works. Having a good reason to do it only serves to have people stay out of the fight. It’s not necessary, but it sure makes warfare easier. IRON and TOP have spelled out their reason for fighting. It’s revenge. IRON and TOP don’t care about whether or not Polar “gets” why they’re being attacked. They only want sweet, sweet retribution. Whether or not the CyberNations community views this reason as good or bad is a nonissue.

On the other hand, Polar and their side are calling for a valid reason for war. 10AMG will tell you here first: no reason for war is ever valid if you’re on the defensive. End of discussion. Who is going to honestly say “Hey, that’s a really good reason for attacking my alliance?” Quick answer: not Polar. But Polar is demanding one. Essentially, Polar wants everyone to stop fighting until the Orange Uber Allies convince them (the defender) that the Orange Uber Allies have a right to come into their base and kill all their dudes.

Fat. Chance. Frankly, 10AMG finds that line of logic insulting. We are much more partial to TOP and IRON’s line of reasoning: “Hello. Our names are TOP and IRON. You stabbed us in the back. Prepare to die.”

It’s far less absurd than “Give me an excellent reason for punching my face and I will let you.”

Taking Cover is Not For Wussies: Over the course of every war, there is always a large public outcry over the use of peace mode. People claim that peace mode is a way to avoid combat and turtle out a war. Alliances should be willing to stand directly in front of the barrel of a gun and take the shot it in the chest rather than brace themselves for impact against the large blow they are about to receive. Anything less is “dishonorable” and “for cowards.” 10AMG finds that premise absurd. Any general worth his salt will tell you these days that if you’re going to be in one place for a long time, you build defenses.

CyberNations wars are no longer the “honorable” affairs of the past. Gone are the days of the past where warfare was a sparring match that would be fought between two alliances for short periods of time. To put this in perspective, consider the following: the First Polar War started on February 5th, 2006 and was fought solely between the New Pacific Order and the defunct National Alliance for Arctic Countries. The war ended on February 9th, 2006 with an NPO victory. No draconian terms were issued. The NAAC was not destroyed (that would happen much later). The two sides fought until it was clear who the victor was, and then it ended. The NAAC was put under a viceroyalty for less than two weeks. A few months later they fought again.

The Second NPO War with FAN lasted 695 days. It is one of the longest conflicts in CyberNations history, and the intended goal of the aggressor was to wipe the defender off the face of the earth. Arguably, the only reason that war ever ended was because the Red Menace found itself embroiled in a different conflict: the KARMA War. The KARMA War lasted from April 20th, 2009 to July 19th, 2009 and involved more alliances than I have space to list. The purpose of KARMA has been disputed multiple times. Some claim the intended goal was to pacify Pacifica, others claim the goal was total annihilation.

The rules of warfare have long since changed. No longer are there treaties like the “Think of the Children” pact, which was a multi-alliance agreement against nuclear first-strikes. Alliances now aim to kill each other in combat. The initiation of combat represents an alliance that has issues with another alliance so great that diplomacy will no longer solve them. They’re looking to kill.

A good amount of people who wake up at ten o’clock in the morning and put on their general cap (cough) still believe in the romantic notion of warfare that there are rules. One of these unwritten rules is, apparently, that the defender has to take the first punch on the chin no matter what. There is a reason these guys wake up at 10AM and are not in-charge of their alliance’s military: because they are stupid. The goal of modern CyberNations warfare is complete destruction. The first blow always, always happens around midnight (in God’s Time Zone) specifically because no one with a life is going to be awake and prepared at that time. At best, an alliance will muster a quarter of their members with an announcement that says “WE MAY POSSIBLY BE ATTACKED AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT MAYBE.” People like their infrastructure, but people with jobs and school in the morning don’t care enough for that.

Enter peace mode. Peace mode is how the common man competes with “Those That Have No Life.” When you put half your alliance into peace mode, you are capable of 1) surviving the initial onslaught the inevitable Quadruple Attack That Opens the War inflicts, and 2) preserves a force ready to counter-attack. It allows the defender to not be instantly annihilated. Putting it this way, it’s hard to believe that anyone is legitimately against this strategy because anyone can be attacked.

You’ll notice that every war the only people decrying the peace mode tactic are on the aggressing side. Jeers such as “the hippy shield” have long been a staple of CyberNations warfare, and the 10AMG acknowledges that there are ways to exploit peace mode to needlessly lengthen a war. However, that’s an entirely different situation. When alliances hide behind peace mode and refuse to negotiate an end to the war, then it is “the hippy shield.” Before then, it’s a defensive strategy. Where is the line drawn? That will forever be a point of debate, but 10AMG offers this reasonable definition: The Hippy Shield Comes Up At 60%. That conveniently puts the Polar Bears just below the definition, we know. However, it can no longer be argued that your alliance is reasonably fighting when a senatorial super-majority of them are untouchably out of combat. We think that’s fair.

Instead of complaining that your opponents are successfully playing the game in a way that blunts your attack, you could try being better at CyberNations. A good way to be better at CyberNations and ensure your opponent doesn’t get nations into peace mode is to not broadcast your war plans through a bullhorn. An even better tactic would be to not have so many different governments involved because, as we know, the more people involved, the more likely it is for your plans to leak. However, it’s impossible to have small warfare due to the All-Powerful Treaty Matrix. We’ll talk about that some other time.

The Romans Are Long Dead: CyberNations factions have the annoying tendency to use Latin for everything. The only other places Latin is used more are the Catholic Church, academia, and the court system (going off the United States here). However, the Catholic Church backed off the Latin train with Vatican II, and we’re betting that a majority of CyberNations players aren’t Catholics fighting against Pope John XXIII’s decision to move the Church into the modern age by having the Holy Mass read in the host congregation’s native tongue. 10AMG does predict a good amount of CyberNations players don’t care for the Holy See at all, but not for that reason.

A good amount of players are college-educated, and at least two players have admitted to having Juris Doctorates (with more probably hiding in the brush). Therefore, 10AMG proposes the theory that CyberNations Players Love to Sound Smart.

The events of last night support 10AMG’s theory. Hell, the thread in which IRON declares war is titled “Polaris Delenda Est.” This roughly translates to “The blotting out of [Polaris].”

SnuyQ.png

About this roughly.

Admittedly, Google Translate is far from a perfect translation. It’s the only source we care to seek out at the moment. Latin is still a dead language. You will only find it spoken in remote areas or situations. Arguably, perfect translations are far from possible due to the lack of native speakers.

And that’s exactly why CyberNations loves it. The only people who bother to learn Latin are those who want to learn Latin. It has no practical application in the real world, save for those already-mentioned niche areas where Latin is still used. You can also use it to have snide side-conversations amongst fellow Latin-speakers to make fun of those who don’t fully appreciate the beauty that is Latin. You can do that with any language though, so that isn’t special.

Though it doesn’t have a noted practical application (to our knowledge anyway), Latin isn’t useless. Studying Latin gives you a proper understanding of the roots other languages use today. The study of Latin is the ultimate academic pursuit: knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Knowing it opens up other doorways. It is taught in high schools as an advanced language, and those who learn it in college are typically utilizing it to progress within their field of study. Latin phrases are utilized all the time to replace common scenarios in areas of knowledge. For example, here’s a Latin phrase we use all the time in CyberNations: casus belli. We can easily say “reason for war.” In fact, 10AMG is of the opinion the phrase should be dropped all-together, but it serves the purpose as a replacement. We all know exactly what casus belli means. We don’t know these other stupid Latin phrases we shoe-horn into everything, and last night was a fine example.

I digress. Before we talk about an example of shoe-horning, let us look at an example of proper use. Continuing to examine IRON’s declaration of war, the entire event wrapped up with the phrase “Ferro Credimus.” IRON gets a free pass on this one because it’s clearly their motto. This is a good example of Latin use in CyberNations. This was not shoe-horned in; the phrase means something. It is the phrase that embodies what the alliance is. According to Google Translate, the idea that unites the Independent Republic of Orange Nations and everything the alliance stands for is “We believe that the sword.” Believing that Google Translate is way off on this one, I sought an expert who corrected me: “In IRON we trust.” Much better.

Back on track, an example of shoe-horning in Latin goes to Mr Damsky. It does not go to the Federation of Armed Resistance for Capitalist Enterprises because that is just Mr Damsky under a pseudonym. 10AMG states that One Man Alliances Aren’t Alliances. Not even the Prism Protection Front was an alliance until it picked up at least one more member. Mr Damsky wrapped up his announcement with the phrase “Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.” Mr Damsky then immediately translated the Latin to English as “Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” First, the English phrase sounds far more inspiring. That’s not the issue though. The issue is why bother using the phrase if you’re just going to translate it immediately afterwards? Shoe-horned.

Through all of this musing on Latin, 10AMG cannot help but wonder why not just write it in English. Latin is clearly preferred for symbolic purposes like mottos, but then you have the cases were people just blatantly throw it into posts and leave the rest of us who did not take high school Latin confused. CyberNations Players Love to Sound Smart.

Swaggerjacking: Swaggerjacking is the act of taking someone else’s style and claiming it as your own. Swaggerjacking, much like plagiarizing, can be either intentional or unintentional. However, unlike plagiarizing, swaggerjacking is not illegal. Thus, you will never see someone receive any punishment for jacking someone else’s swagger. It should still be frowned upon in society. In an effort to assist public shame, 10AMG will point out instances of swaggerjacking through CyberNations.

The first instance of swaggerjacking that must be pointed out is 10AM General. 10AM General is a new blog in CyberNations that takes an approach to blogging very similar to Gregg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback. In fact, the names are a dead giveaway. The blogger must know what’s going on. The blog is even broken down into subdivisions and uses similar tone. Rest assured ladies and gentleman, 10AMG has acknowledged the similarities between the two blog styles. When contacted, 10AMG was delighted that “someone in CyberNations was also a fan of Gregg Easterbrook’s work.” The creator says that 10AM General is “inspired by Greg Easterbrook’s look at professional football as an absurd, artificial reality and believes that CyberNations can benefit from a blogger with a similar approach.” When asked why mimic TMQ’s style, 10AMG shrugged and said “I am really bad at blogging. I figure I will make my first entry in this style then morph into my own style over time.” Hopefully there are no legal ramifications.

The second instance of swaggerjacking that must be pointed out is that of Marneus Calgar, creator of the image atop the IRON declaration of war on the Polar Bears. Here is his work:

apLet.png

Strangely enough, there's no spoilering in blogs. Weird.

To 10AMG, long, long time observer of CyberNations, the swaggerjacking was obvious. It was also obvious to alyster, another long-time CyberNations observer. The work that this image was based off originally belonged to New Pacific Order member Teeters. Teeters is no longer in CyberNations for comment. Here is his original anti-Vox Populi image.

QfAFf.png

This one is probably a page stretcher.

Marneus Calgar follows up with the following comment: “God damn. I was in NPO for the entirety of the Vox time and I'd missed that. Still, both look good.” Whether or not this was an intentional swaggerjack is forever subjective. 10AMG has its own opinion: For shame, Marneus Calgar. All you needed to do was cite your source rather than bask in your own glow.

Stat of the Day 1: So far, the New Polar Order has only lost 48,756NS at time of print. To 10AMG, this could have been a lot worse. Kudos to the Polar Bears for successfully surviving a direct assault.

Edit: I've been informed Polar has lost over 100,000NS. After checking the charts, it's true.

Stat of the Day 2: Sparta, the number five alliance, currently has 4,273 nuclear weapons. That is a lot of teeth. For comparison, number one Mostly Harmless Alliance only has 3,923.

Stat of the Day 3: Those wily Spartans have jumped 178,797NS in the past game cycle at time of print. IRON didn’t even have that big a jump before attacking. Hope you all noticed.

Next Time: 10AMG takes a look at the war and examines more of CyberNations’s tendencies. Maybe we’ll talk about the All-Powerful Treaty Matrix.

About this blog: 10AM General is a blog dedicated to examining the CyberNations community for what it is: an absurd fabricated reality that we all play in. It is the intent, nay, the duty of this blog to point out the strange and bizarre practices of the CyberNations community that we have deemed acceptable and expose them for how absurd they are. If you notice something you think fits in line with 10AMG's sacred mission, feel free to send a PM to the blog creator. If you were upset by anything posted in this blog, welcome to 10AMG. It is an opinionated piece not intended to portray objective fact. Don't get us wrong though: we fact check. If we're clearly wrong, send us a PM and we'll fix it. We may even apologize depending on how wrong we are. But if you disagree with an opinion, post a comment so 10AMG can ignore it.

If you're here to sue 10AMG, please don't. We'll stop it, we swear. We're really push-overs in the end.

 Share

23 Comments


Recommended Comments

"The Hippy Shield Comes Up At 60%."

If the "hippy shield", in your words, is only bad if it's used to "refuse to negotiate an end to the war", shouldn't your definition be based on a length of time, rather than just a nation percentage?

Link to comment

Saying that you're a fan of Gregg Easterbrook is on the same level as declaring that you're a massive admirer of prostate cancer.Otherwise, nice read etc.

Acknowledged. I really only read his football blog.

Link to comment

"The Hippy Shield Comes Up At 60%."If the "hippy shield", in your words, is only bad if it's used to "refuse to negotiate an end to the war", shouldn't your definition be based on a length of time, rather than just a nation percentage?

I initially thought about that, but I figure it'd be difficult to have people agree on what is an acceptable length of time in peace mode. They could counter-attack after a week or a month, and personally I believe a month is too long. But wars last forever these days, and some might feel a month is acceptable.

However, I don't think anyone can believe an alliance is truly fighting a war if 60% or more of their alliance is in peace mode. That's the basis of my definition.

Link to comment
"The Hippy Shield Comes Up At 60%."If the "hippy shield", in your words, is only bad if it's used to "refuse to negotiate an end to the war", shouldn't your definition be based on a length of time, rather than just a nation percentage?
I initially thought about that, but I figure it'd be difficult to have people agree on what is an acceptable length of time in peace mode. They could counter-attack after a week or a month, and personally I believe a month is too long. But wars last forever these days, and some might feel a month is acceptable.However, I don't think anyone can believe an alliance is truly fighting a war if 60% or more of their alliance is in peace mode. That's the basis of my definition.

Yeah, 60% isn't a bad number, but there should probably be some leeway for the start of the war. Like you said, if peace mode is a good strategic tool for avoiding an initial onslaught, having 100% in peace mode would be an amazing tactical move.

If this were still the case more than a week into the war, then yes, I'd agree with you. But seeing as peace mode lasts five days, I see anywhere between 5-7 days to be a fair freebie in terms of PM.

(That being said, there should probably be an NS-dependent term in that as well. If your top 50% is all in PM, while your bottom 50% are all in war mode, there's a problem there too).

Link to comment
"The Hippy Shield Comes Up At 60%."If the "hippy shield", in your words, is only bad if it's used to "refuse to negotiate an end to the war", shouldn't your definition be based on a length of time, rather than just a nation percentage?
I initially thought about that, but I figure it'd be difficult to have people agree on what is an acceptable length of time in peace mode. They could counter-attack after a week or a month, and personally I believe a month is too long. But wars last forever these days, and some might feel a month is acceptable.However, I don't think anyone can believe an alliance is truly fighting a war if 60% or more of their alliance is in peace mode. That's the basis of my definition.
Yeah, 60% isn't a bad number, but there should probably be some leeway for the start of the war. Like you said, if peace mode is a good strategic tool for avoiding an initial onslaught, having 100% in peace mode would be an amazing tactical move.If this were still the case more than a week into the war, then yes, I'd agree with you. But seeing as peace mode lasts five days, I see anywhere between 5-7 days to be a fair freebie in terms of PM.(That being said, there should probably be an NS-dependent term in that as well. If your top 50% is all in PM, while your bottom 50% are all in war mode, there's a problem there too).

Having 100% of your nations in peace mode sounds amazing in theory, but in practice it stops the war from even happening. If there's no war, you're not really on the defensive. It becomes a debate of where the line is drawn; how many nations need to be outside peace mode for it to be an actual fight? Is 80% in too much? Is 70%? I'm of the opinion 60% is too much. That's where I drew the line.

Link to comment
The Romans Are Long Dead

I beg to differ. :ph34r:

However, even though I actually manage to fall into all three of your categories of people who can legitimately use Latin, I do agree with your point on that and it annoys the hell out of me. Abuse of italicized Latin around here ranks up there with overusing the words hegemony, paradigm, ad hominem (which gets dual citizenship in both annoyance categories), etc. I have a whole list written up somewhere. IRON's play on Cato was at least fitting if not a bit overused though.

Link to comment
Good read. Though a correction. NpO lost +100k NS I think.
I went off their chart. At the time I wrote it, it was about there. I do appreciate the update.

Thats weird. Few hours after update and they already have lost 100k. Even when I checked 5-6hrs ago. Maybe a nation ghosted them for a while :/

Link to comment
Good read. Though a correction. NpO lost +100k NS I think.
I went off their chart. At the time I wrote it, it was about there. I do appreciate the update.
Thats weird. Few hours after update and they already have lost 100k. Even when I checked 5-6hrs ago. Maybe a nation ghosted them for a while :/

I don't know. Either way I'll fix it.

Link to comment
For example, here’s a Latin phrase we use all the time in CyberNations: casus belli. We can easily say “reason for war.” In fact, 10AMG is of the opinion the phrase should be dropped all-together, but it serves the purpose as a replacement. We all know exactly what casus belli means. We don’t know these other stupid Latin phrases we shoe-horn into everything, and last night was a fine example.

Casus belli is actually a phrase used often in international affairs dating back to the 1700's.

Link to comment

At their most literal, the phrase casus belli and Polaris delendum est are translated as "cause of war" and "Polaris must be destroyed," respectively.

I enjoyed this column very much.

Link to comment

I'd like to further add that the "legitimacy" of a casus belli is irrelevant; the cause can be absolutely anything. Justification is a separate train of thought under the Just War Theory.

Exactly; there's a big difference between a reason for war and the right to wage war. In theory, the justness of the war determines whether others support it, and to some extent that does happen around here...however, often as not the treaty framework that we've created ends up superseding that.

It's a tradeoff that may be necessary; if the primary determinant in who goes where is whether a declared war is definitively just, the rational course for any actor is to avoid taking any risks that could cause one to end up with the short straw...both ensuring that you don't leave another party fully justified in rolling you (read: doing absolutely nothing), and avoiding making a declaration yourself on anything less than ironclad grounds. That's great in a real world international system, where the goal is to have as little war as possible; it's not nearly as great in this game, where eternal world peace would be a death blow.

Link to comment

If the leaders of an alliance that is attacked for whatever reason thought that it was justified, the war probably would have been avoided entirely because the leaders would have done something to make up for their original screw up. (I say probably because this is CN and the side with the original grievance may say "no" to any attempts at this.)

Like it or not, a good casus belli can strongly affect the outcome of the war. There are some alliances that will war no matter what, however many people actually do care what the basic justification for the war is and may or may not agree to get involved based on what they think.

I think the Legion/Tetris/NSO war is a good example of having a casus belli that people can stomach. It didn't expand all that much. Considering the amount of people I heard who (even though they were not fans of The Legion) had no desire to get involved, I was never surprised.

Public opinion does matter.

Link to comment

Interesting article. There's one point I'd like to address: your criticisms of the use of "Polaris delenda est." This statement is a reference to "Carthago delenda est"--Carthage must be destroyed--a phrase uttered by the Roman senator Cato the Elder at the end of every speech he gave--regardless of the speech's actual content--in the period leading up to Rome's eventual declaration of war upon Carthage (which initiated the Third Punic War). An argument of Latin with the ancient Romans would lack any foundation; and as far as I'm concerned, Cato the Elder's mastery of Latin trumps that of Google Translate.

Link to comment

Interesting article. There's one point I'd like to address: your criticisms of the use of "Polaris delenda est." This statement is a reference to "Carthago delenda est"--Carthage must be destroyed--a phrase uttered by the Roman senator Cato the Elder at the end of every speech he gave--regardless of the speech's actual content--in the period leading up to Rome's eventual declaration of war upon Carthage (which initiated the Third Punic War). An argument of Latin with the ancient Romans would lack any foundation; and as far as I'm concerned, Cato the Elder's mastery of Latin trumps that of Google Translate.

"CyberNations Players Love To Sound Smart."

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...