Jump to content
  • entries
    46
  • comments
    875
  • views
    50,200

Irreparable Damage: Justitian Ideology and the World

Sign in to follow this  
Schattenmann

773 views

Ok, so, as is often the case, a discussion about politics turned into a discussion about Schattenmann; it's a cross I bear for celebrity :smug: But I find politics more interesting than Schattenmann, and I don't like to de-rail, so, ta-da!: blog.

You mooks sit around complaining about how boring things are and about how you can't do anything; members of MK and their allies have the audacity to open threads and go on diatribes about how moralists are tying their hands at every turn; anyone with a brainstem knows it's a load, but then again no one ever accused folks from the lulz alliances of deep political thinking, so it gets applause.

Well, here we are! Again. Yet again. Who's treaties are the ties that bind? Who is holding everything up? Who is stumbling all over each other to pull together enough red herring DoWs and pre-empts to keep everything, everything, at a standstill again?

You're running scared. You're all pathetic. Big damned heroes and sooooo smug until you have to face the reality of your own house of cards; not one of us out here looking in is impressed. What an embarrassment!

I'm going to ramble at you... and everything I say is obviously my opinion of you and your points not hard fact ;:end disclaimer::

I like how the rage is always coming from people not involved in the incident in question and in your case not even indirectly tied.

I just want to stop right here with the "rage" thing. I get this a lot, AirMe and some other folks in a ~very exclusive~ :rolleyes: IRC channel from time-to-time give me a ribbing over my being angry, and we all have a laugh about it.

Let me assure you, I'm "animated" and "passionate," not "angry." Apparently I'm not good at not sounding angry, so I'll just say that you can tell the difference by whether or not I start calling people mean names, like the other day when I called New Frontier an "ignorant piss" (which I regret now, but oh well).

Other than that, "u mad" by any other means smells as funky. Whether or not I'm "raging" has no bearing on any argument at hand, and pointing it out to try to undermine the content of what I'm saying (or anyone else, really) is silly, in my opinion. Some of my best posts are angry posts :awesome: And if you really want to see angry, you should go around and ask folks for some of my embassy posts or private messages.

What exactly is the issue? Now is your issue specifically int/lsf? If it is, i'll just go back to ignoring you and you can go back to raging and rattling the OWF saber and attacking me, int, whoever. Since, while you certainly have the right to voice an opinion... said opinion is irrelevant as the issue doesn't even remotely involve you. Rage all you want, and personally i'll only take it as conformation that everyone involved did the right thing. (I think int should be far more concerned about their actions if they ever find themselves in a position where you are actually congratulating them).

Speaking only personally, the day *I* start to worry about an alliance is when they are so weak willed they let OWF ragers and complainers actually dictate their actions or world view. That to me is a sign of a weak alliance. A strong alliance does what they feel is right and if the OWF complains... screw the OWF. Speaking personally, I don't serve ODN to win the support of random OWF alliance. I serve to further *my* memvbers and *my* friends goals, dreams, vision, and morals. Are THEY satisfied? Yes? Then the rest of you can go jump off the nearest bridge for all I care.

Seriously. Every time I read a thread like this i'm always (cue sarcasm) amazed at how the oddest people seem to suddenly care about my alliance or my allies alliance.

I'm trying to cut down on how many quote blocks I have so that this is more readable, I think this section is a complete set of ideas that I'll respond to at once.

The idea that people who aren't directly involved in one situation or another have no stake in that situation and/or have no business talking about it is simply wrong. This is a game (in the IC sense) of global politics, and we all live on this globe; there are very few things that don't mater to everyone; this is all the more true in matters of war.

In this specific situation, the issue is that The International is deliberately ignoring a treaty obligation, and they are now facing a public and private backlash over it. Their highest gov have already publicly admitted to this fact, so while OsRavan may choose to argue it (he may not), I will not reply on that point again. It is a fact, it is confirmed by The International, there is no argument to be had.

You are annoyed that me and ChairmanHal have vocally taken this issue up, along with others. Fine. You think that while we might have the right to do so, we have no business doing so. Wrong. This manoeuvre does in fact directly involve Hal's alliance Valhalla, and it does in fact effect all of us as noted above. Global war effects everyone, and the way that C&G conducts itself concerns everyone.

Ignore the OWF at your own peril. I happen to know personally that writing it off is certainly your prerogative, but it's just not smart. Alliances are made up of people, and those peoples' opinions effect alliances in one way or another, sooner or later.

For example... I have all sorts of issues with how you, Schatt, run an alliance and what I view personally as the a-moral actions of CoJ and Schatt that are causing irreparable damage to the Planet.

Irreparable damage? Yeesh! Sounds bad! Here we go, Schattenboogeymann. At once irrelevant and destroying the world; my own irrelevant power never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not even just saying that for this thread. If I was being honest I actually think your world view is in large part whats wrong with Bob (and the game)and I find it grates on my nerves to even think about. I'm sure you think the same of me. We can debate that on forum or PM sometime if you like.

First, let's make sure you (and everyone else out there in TV Land) even know what my world view is.

CoJ is a direct result of the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, a quasi-terroristic campaign waged by Vox Populi against The Continuum and its power superstructure with the aim of increasing both individual freedom (for example for individuals to participate in OWF discussions without fear of endangering their alliance or nation) and inter-alliance freedom (that is, a world with as many power structures as naturally occur, with distinct interests and the freedom [through a more fractured treat web] to pursue them, win, lose, or draw). The charge of Vox Populi's last Vox Dei, Doitzel, as delivered upon the suspension (not disbandment) of Vox Populi operations here (click) is central to Cult of Justitia's mission. As the last remaining post-Vox AA (TJO and TLC having disbanded), CoJ takes this charge all the more seriously.

CoJ seeks to fulfill its mission by first embodying those ideals itself. Foremost in that is our prohibition of compulsive ("M") treaties (which reduce freedom of action and thought). Also to that end are our position that any war is fair game where our interests can be advanced (thus entry in defense of NPO) with or without treaty obligations; vocal and persistent advocacy of our ideals on the OWF; and advocacy of our ideals in foreign embassies.

Far, far to the contrary of your position that CoJ's philosophy is destroying the world is first this: CoJ's philosophy is a fringe philosophy, it has no bearing whatever on global affairs. In the three years since CoJ's founding, the world has in fact started at a point closest to CoJ's ideals, and rapidly moved further and further away from them back to a Pax Pacifica mode of doing things: Massive blocs tied together via masses of treaties; the antithesis of Justitian thought. It is impossible that CoJ's philosophy is destroying the world, because CoJ and only an extremely few other alliances practice it, and none to any degree that has caused an effect on global politics.

The result of Justitian ideology is a world where alliances and blocs form distinct identities. They have distinct, intrinsic ideologies, beliefs, and values, and from that seed of identity they grow natural allegiance to some alliances, and natural animosity toward others. They ally themselves based on political relationships that grow out of identity-based amity. These natural allies have a vested interest in the success and defense of each other, and will defend each other with conviction and dedication. Unencumbered by no (or few) illogical, friendship-only, or convenience-based treaties, these alliances or blocs are free to go to war when war is called for, or free not to go to war when war is not called for.

This is not, as you touched on, a LSF-International thing. Int and LSF are just the current fill-ins for the ever-present variable. In that past I've made the same stand on the Europa-Invicta treaty, or the Mjolnir-DH/PB union, etc etc. Like you, too many people get caught up in who (Schattenmann) is posting, and not what I am saying. I do not care that The Interational is ignoring its treaty because of its illogical, entangled foreign policy, I care that any alliance is doing that or in that situation.

As to your issues with the way I run an alliance or the morality of what we do, that's vague, I can only guess at what you mean.

If you are saying that CoJ is immoral for spying on ODN, get real. Your own allies spy on people (they run CNtel), your own allies have been saying for the past year that more alliances should spy on other alliances.

If you are saying that CoJ is immoral because we "threatened" The Flood Empire, we've been over that. ODN was at war with CoJ, TFE was sending tech to ODN, CoJ told TFE that aiding an alliance at war is an act of war, and asked them to stop or possibly face the reality of their transgression. Telling people the facts of life on Digiterra is not immoral.

If you're saying that CoJ is immoral because we spammed your ODN Applicant AA and informed them that ODN was at war and they should pick a different alliance to join or face war immediately upon acceptance into ODN, again, these were statements of fact.

In all three cases--which upset ODN to no end during our war--my response remains simple and the same that it was since day 1: ODN declared war on CoJ, an organization of 20 nations already at war with GOONS, MK, and Umbrella, in "defense" of MK despite the fact that MK was attacking CoJ and CoJ was not attacking MK. That is not defense, and you worded it that way to avoid a Senate vote on declaring war, or you're just dumb and you don't know the difference between defense and mutual aggression--you cannot defend MK from us if we're not attacking them or planning on attacking them, or you're not dumb, but you were being cute. It doesn't matter which in the end.

Faced with your DoW which you knew we could not physically respond to (and you declared war I'm sure feeling that you would not have to deal with CoJ), CoJ responded as we could. War is war, my friend, and if you don't want to go to war with Cult of Justitia, then do not declare war on Cult of Justitia. Simple as that. And if you do declare war on Cult of Justitia, know this: CoJ will execute any war by any means necessary, excluding nothing except OOC tactics.

If that's not what you were talking about when you say we're immoral, I don't know what you mean.

As for how I run CoJ, if you're talking about my personal style of leadership, that's just, like, your opinion, man. If you're talking about our philosophies, I've covered that.

But I also recognize that's just my personal code of morality, and as long as you arent directly doing anything to my allies or alliance (and dont cross an ooc line) you shouldn't be forced to conform to my view. And I won't go out of my way to try and MAKE people agree with me.

The point of the OWF is to talk about things, to make arguments and convince people. In line with earlier comments, if you don't want to participate, by all means stay home.

Argument is key to politics, and it is not immoral.

On the other hand, if your goal here is less about int/sf specifically and more about raging at the world, I have to disagree with you. Bob is imo clearly multi-polar and ever changing/shifting. Despite the propaganda of some, MK doesnt actually control all that much. The world changes slowly but it changes. And most people take actions for their own reasons not for yours or for MK's or anyone else. You should strive to honestly get what motivates individual alliances not paint people with your brush or try to play back-seat quarterback.

Just as they did in the Pax Pacifica, alliances align themselves to MK's agenda of their own free will; in that sense, MK does not "control" or "rule" anyone any more than NPO did. But the fact of the matter is that regardless of why, MK is steering the boat. I do not believe I have ever stated or implied that MK exercises direct control over anyone, and I'm saying now that they don't have direct control or perhaps even direct involvement in everything that pops up. It is simple fact that MK's victory in Karma, winning personality, and ability to deliver victory (via its network of treaties) mean that MK is the center of the universe. This, uh, "self-leashing" (if you will) is precisely why you will find that I talk about the dogs more than I talk about MK--the dogs are the problem. I took the same position and tack during the Pax Pacifica.

Your problem (in my opinion) is you are trying to force everything into a dualistic frame that suits your purpose and view. But the world is actually far more complex and doens't fit when shoved like that. By trying to make everything (including this) about your crusade of whats wrong with Bob you overlook and dismiss the actual motivations and significances of specific events 'on the ground' so to speak. And you unfairly take away agency from the alliances actually involved.

I do not need to force the world into a dualistic frame, it has fashioned its own dualistic frame. Multiple blocs does not equate to multiple poles; in fact, "Supergrievances" and then DH/PB very deftly avoided the creation of a Continuum-like all-unifying bloc precisely because they knew that while they stayed unified via individual treaties people could say "oh, see, lots of blocs, ergo, lots of poles" but the very second any very large bloc appeared, it would've immediately stirred up a real storm (and of course, yes, they never could quite get over their paranoia toward each other, anyway). At this very moment, this self-leashing is happening as The International "dishonors" (their word) a treaty and lets an ally bur rather than risk breaking the superstructure that has MK at its center (whether MK put itself there or whether MK was put there by all the dogs around it). Along the same lines, Duckroll has, over the years, ignored CB after CB and made compromise after compromise for the same cause. BFF, Checkmate, Stickmen, etc etc--all the same.


So, whew. As many people have told me lately, it's been a long time since there was a good ole fashioned Schattenmann wall of text; I hope this satisfies and that I've made my points without too much rage. I get frustrated and I argue my beliefs because I want what everyone says they want: A more dynamic, faster-paced, genuine, fun Digiterra. The difference is, I will put my butt on the line out here on the fringe to enact it, and I have a plan that we don't already know is broken, unlike this rehash of the Pax Pacifica (albeit with less pomp and legalism).

Source: A Note of Concern and Assistance

Sign in to follow this  


15 Comments


Recommended Comments

I think everyone knew INT's treaty spiral was going to cause problems at some point, the issue was more so when and how.

A well-written post. PF may not be quite as bad as the other blocs according to Justitianism or whatever I should call the philosophy, can't fault you there.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm curious, the International is not the only alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF. So would you say that every alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF should be attacking Nor and now IRON?

Assuming the wiki is up to date, that list would be:

NATO, INT, UCR, New Sakura and the Resistance and the Socialist Workers Front.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm curious, the International is not the only alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF. So would you say that every alliance with a Mandatory treaty with LSF should be attacking Nor and now IRON?Assuming the wiki is up to date, that list would be:NATO, INT, UCR, New Sakura and the Resistance and the Socialist Workers Front.

I've been in continuous contact with an LSF ally about this war since it began, and here is the difference between The International and the rest of LSF's allies: LSF was given some kind of assurances from Int that they were all for a war with NoR, and that they would be right beside LSF. When the war began, LSF fully expected The International to go to war as well, but when it happened, Int dragged out a reply for a few days and then told LSF "tough luck." At that point, LSF told the rest of its allies to just let it ride, not to activate the treaties. While Int was asked and declined to honor their treaty, the other allies were never asked to go to war to begin with.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Though this is dated, I'd like to clarify that I'm not the highest FA representative in our gov. If you did your homework, you'd know that would be Trot, and that Trot and I completely disagreed on the outcome. And any democratic alliance can tell you of the disastrous results of gov members disagreeing about heated issues.

That all being said, a thorough analysis this was and while I disagree with the conclusions as usual, a tip of the hat to you Schatt.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Thanks, Vlad.

It is dated (but with a million blogs knocking things off page one, everythign is dated) but I'm thinking of adapting this to an essay, but until then/if not, I've placed the link in my sig because I think it's important that people understand our world view. CoJ has suffered the consequences of letting our beliefs be too much of a mystery.

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...