Ivan Moldavi

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1287020599' post='2484012'] There is a fine line between persistence and obstinacy. I have come to realise the key is to choose an objective that is worth persistent effort. If you're satisfied to remain a has-been forever, simply because your attempt to seize power failed once before, I suppose that's up to you. Personally I think you'd make a much more interesting leader (and perhaps opponent) than Cortath, but oh well. [/quote] I would much rather continue as a "has-been" that was leader of the Orders than as a "never-was" that is just a rank and file member of one of the worst social experiments in the history of the Cyberverse. Regardless of that, considering that my words today still evidently carry some weight in regards to the supposed ideas of an "opposition" implies that I am perhaps more of a "simply isn't right now" than something that has come and gone forever. And, for the record, my attempt to seize power was fully realized and legal. Others took steps outside the realms of this reality (OOC database theft and deletion) in order to wrest it from me. Within the confines of this construct, I have never lost power that I did not willingly give up.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1287019578' post='2484007'] Heh. Just coup Cortath already. [/quote] Hmm. I retook the NPO once already and was couped and got banned from the new forum after those couping me deleted the database. It didn't work out so well. Interestingly enough, primarily because of the public support GOONS and some of the others associated with this bloc gave Moo. That was a few months before they betrayed him and validated my position on them. Oh well.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1286997749' post='2483766'] That's even worse than our CB. Let me get this straight. You were going to roll a group of alliances for [i]maybe[/i] (you know, since we didn't) attacking an alliance that you aren't even treatied to, because we hypothetically discussed using UPN to bring in C&G even though such hypothetical discussions happen in all war planning rooms AND even during peace time? And considering that UPN were the ones that were talking to ODN at the time, AND that UPN were the main ones to want to use ODN to use C&G, well you'd have to attack UPN first and foremost really. Although I won't complain if you act. Watching C&G move without MK would be [i]interesting.[/i] [/quote] To be fair, there were a lot of "leader" types in that discussion effectively planning the means to engage a war. I have seen a [i]lot[/i] less cause major conflicts. If the guns were in my possession and I was handed a log like that, tanks would already be rolling. But I am a warmonger.

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286945868' post='2483284'] Indeed. But a constant [i]what[/i] history has yet to determine. [/quote] Yes. Since I refer to myself as a constant in the context of a logical constant, where Ivan Moldavi holds the same value in relation to X under all circumstances then any interpretation of X can be made to fit the formula.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286945919' post='2483285'] I don't even see moves to pull away allies or even begin to form a future coalition, which I would have expected even in such a situation. Could it merely be that a strong figure with a stronger backbone is needed to start forging such a move? It could simply be a lack of fortitude instead of competence. Pingu: Realism would also dictate that true cooperation is impossible. The closest thing I see to realism being seen on Bob is with Pacifica and WUT. Pacifica used cooperation to achieve an ends and then abandoned it when it felt that its security and relative power was being threatened (i.e. knocking of FAN, GOONS, VE, etc. after they were removed from WUT). [/quote] That implies the need for a "Great Man" theory of history and discounts the idea of cultural politics in regards to the overall schematic of the Cyberverse. It would equate the masses to nothing more than Pavlovian respondents to an external stimuli offered up by a select cadre of well spoken individuals. While my personal style of interaction might support such a position, by and large the communities surrounding the alliance constructs of this realm do not support that endeavor. In which case, one would have to concede that perhaps it isn't so much that the inferior (statistically speaking) position does not see the necessity of immediate action but that said side has the inability to act because of its own political self-grindings in regards to activism against a perceived threat. However, it seems to me that regardless of the immediacy of such action, the position remains that those in the new power structure are not wholly separate from the old power structure and therefore maintain the current status quo, which could easily result in a lack of response from the opposing forces. Why work when no gain or loss is readily apparent?

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286945459' post='2483269'] Thank you, Ivan, for confirming what was already known of your views on democracy and cake. You have the virtue of consistency, at least. [/quote] I am a constant.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286945077' post='2483264'] I find this to be a more accurate rebuttal to my argument. However, I feel like that by this line of thinking the inability of the opposition is to blame for its failures to pull away or break up the current power structure. [/quote] The problem with that position, as I see it, is that the current power structure has demonstrated that it will not act against a major oppositional alliance for fear of losing statistical ground without clear and concise boundaries or expectations in place, therefore the opposition can rightly act in extremely limited response to this new alignment because there is no immediate threat stemming from this bloc. Further, limited response weakens the planning ability of the primary bloc sense the prevalent alignment that would result in such direct and swift response would be clearly defined.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944478' post='2483253'] I tend to agree. But that coincides with the point I made in the post you quoted. If that is in fact the case then that straight out disproves the realist notion that actors are always aiming to achieve their best interests and grab the most relative power possible. Such an environment of apathy just cannot coexist with said theory. That being said, I do think that there has been enough fumbled opportunities in the oppositions side to question the strategic capability of many of their leaders. [/quote] Only when they have disagreed with, or failed to inquire about, my opinion on a given plan. But that is neither here nor there. *coughs* Cluster$%&@ War *coughs* Regardless, I am not so certain that a lack of cohesive action will demonstrate a failing of the theory. Since what I describe is indicative of positions within both "sides" then it is likely that this realignment will simply see a continuation of the status quo, where one side has somewhat obvious numeric superiority while the other has the threat of equalization through future action. The threat will remain even if the act does not materialize in a vacuum (i.e. outside of a declaration on a major opposing power) so those in the newish bloc(s) will still not engage those in the standalone microcosms because of the fear of associated full response.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944016' post='2483240'] Indeed. Thats what I was saying when I stated that it would be interesting to see if this disproved realist theory on Bob. If these actors don't counter balance such a move then realist theory doesn't hold. [/quote] Unfortunately I do not see it as a lack of talent or even will in regards to the actors presently in position to pose such a counter. Instead it is a general malaise that has been cultivated through a schematic cultural depression in which it is considered extraordinary to have two large scale wars within a period of a year and a half coupled with the idea that the fear of losing position or relative strength is enough to offset any formerly existing principles against perceived injustices.

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286943958' post='2483238'] Our well-known commitments to democracy and cake have not wavered from February 2006 to the present. We resolved to stand by these values through good times and bad, have seen plenty of both, and are here today still standing proud, our resolution unwavering. I am impressed that despite your well-known hatred for both democracy and cake, you can see the value of our commitment (even if compelled to disavow this publicly for reasons of image maintenance). [/quote] Considering that I see the former as just a position of fear from which to avoid making certain tough leadership decisions that might end up having ill effects on the nations within the alliance I do not consider it a virtue in the same sense that you wish to note it. And cake is for fat people.

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286943163' post='2483225'] I thank you for this tribute to my alliance, however belated and subtle (others might have missed it, so I'm sure you'll forgive my pointing it out). [/quote] That would imply that you had some level of resolve initially and that such resolve actually still existed today. Are you secretly part of another alliance Pingu?

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286941986' post='2483197'] I don't see how any of that changes the fact that you sucked up to Polar but I guess it all makes sense...in your mind. [/quote] If you were correct in stating that "fact" then you might have a point. But you don't. Anyone in the Polar government can tell you very quickly exactly how much I suck up to anyone in any venue. I speak my mind in all instances, for good or ill. When you speak from a position of a lack of knowledge, such as you are doing here, you score no points. Or were you an Imperial Advisor in Polar at one point in the last four years and I have just forgotten you?

[quote name='Reptyler' timestamp='1286941900' post='2483196'] Ivan, as a starry-eyed CN recruit learning the ropes of CN politics, I never thought I'd see the day where your name didn't command respect and fear. But here it is. Funny how we all grow up to find disappointments like that. Now where is my Moldavi Triathlon sig? [/quote] As someone that has never considered the feelings of my detractors in my actions or my statements I can confidently say that I do not care at all if you wish to espouse some fleeting wistfulness in regards to past accomplishments in this realm. If I am getting a response at all that means it is working. The fact that I know I have no alliance to command, no coalition to send to the trenches and no active influence to affect change in the Cyberverse really doesn't mean I can't speak my opinion on the current state of affairs. The fact that you and your cadre feel the need to reply at all implies that my own estimations might be in error. So sure, please continue to go on about how I used to be this or that or how I used to command this or that while avoiding the points I make. It only shows your own position in this discussion.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286941591' post='2483188'] You make me laugh, I'll give you that. Though somehow I don't think that's your intention. [/quote] At least we both have qualities that the other finds entertaining. Mine just happen to come with reasoned responses as well.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286941541' post='2483187'] I'll spell it out for you. N-e-w P-o-l-a-r O-r-d-e-r. [/quote] I see. Well considering that I created the New Polar Order and am still a member of that alliance I will take that as praise. Yes, indeed, I would consider myself at some stages to be better than myself at others. Thanks.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286941453' post='2483183'] You know what I think the problem is? The current opposition is too incompetent, unorganized, and impatient to actually form any sort of counter. I was opposed to NPO hegemony for more than 2 years and eventually saw my side win out. In the end, our side played on the mistakes of an enemy and used our Foreign Policy ability to overcome them in strength of allies and dissolve their coalition. The best your side has done in 18 months is fall flat on your face in the TOP war because of how horribly incompetent your strategy was and then join together in #stratego and flail about like a bunch of infants. For God sakes if you want Bob to be more interesting then start [b]working[/b] towards making it so. I know I already have. Its your turn. Also, this is not directed at anyone in particular, just tired of all the crying about a Hegemony that doesn't actually even exist. /End old man rant. [/quote] I think for the first time in four (or so) years, I agree with you.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286941273' post='2483178'] Oh spare me. You had guns for a year and all you did was suck up to your betters and attack RAD (badass I know). [/quote] Again, please point out these "betters" you speak of. And having control of a third tier alliance, even if somewhat influential with a few larger ones, is not what I mean in the analogy. I apologize if it was too complex for you. I thought a four word explanation would be simple enough, I was mistaken.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286940556' post='2483166'] Capable? Yes. Has the dominant force done that? No. The only experience you speak from is creating an alliance that is so short-sighted and plagued by incompetence that rather than devise a plan and set some goals that may lead to success, you try and 'taunt' larger alliances by doing idiotic things like aiding rogue nations. Great job! And to use your analogy, if you don't have 'guns', and aren't attempting to get some 'guns', then you are really in no place to be criticising how those that do possess guns are using them. Stop demanding that your betters fight themselves for your entertainment. If you want entertainment, create some. Either by bringing the fight to your betters, or hey, how about all you fine gentlemen complaining about the 'stagnant Cyberverse' fight amongst yourselves? Or maybe are you attempting (rather poorly) to utilise the idea of 'stagnancy' and the 'lack of conflict' as a political tool? [/quote] First, I haven't seen anyone post around here that I would consider my "better" in a very long time. I am an egotistical, arrogant sociopath that manipulates people for my personal entertainment when I am bored - finding my equal among the befuddled masses is no small task. But keep trying. Second, I made no demands whatsoever. You highlighted that having two major conflicts in a year and a half was somehow an exceptional exploit on the part of the stat collectors currently running the Cyberverse. I made a sarcastic comment because I believe such an evaluation to be "shortsighted and plagued by incompetence" from the point of view of those that like to think that those that "possess guns" actually should use them. The experience that I speak from is having nearly a decade of actionable effectiveness in venues such as this where I have observed and created multiple situations that drove the underlying currents of the realm at large, sometimes for good, mainly not, always to be entertaining. In regards to your specific point, I would simply counter that by asking what you ever did independently without someone else holding your hand that you can show for it. I have three fine examples in my signature, each of which I am proud of here. The fact that an alliance can make a mistake, take a real beating and still stand proud is a sign of something better than just having the most guns at this particular point in history anyway, in my opinion. The number of guns can change over time, integrity and resolve rarely do.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286939987' post='2483154'] Two wars that changed the face of the Cyberverse where the results were by no means determined before the first shots were fired. Compared to the era of the Hegemony, which while comprised of more wars, those conflicts were pre-determined with the opponents severely outnumbered. The former provided entertainment and political dynamism for a sustained period of time, whereas the latter only contributed a small, short-lived buzz for the alliances that were fabricating the justification upon which they curbstomped others. Again, as I said to Alterego, if you want more conflict, get your !@#$ together and bring it. [/quote] *rollseyes* First, I have no guns. Second, anyone that knows anything about this place knows that if I did have guns, they would be firing. That is just how it is. Considering that the term "hegemony" can refer to myriad social/economic/militaristic structures don't you believe it is time to perhaps give up the concept in the context from which you are utilizing it? The apparatus you describe has not existed coherently in nearly two years. And the one that has replaced it is every bit as capable of pushing the same forms of "atrocities" as those you bemoan when it suits them. I speak on that from experience.

Wow, two whole wars in a year and a half? Amazing.

[img]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7844/screenshot20101012at110.png[/img] May Arminius continue to share his grace with you.

Congratulations.

[quote name='lakerzz8' timestamp='1286691349' post='2480220'] 99% of the time, the STA's stance on any kind of bloc is: No. The 1% of the time when you can get a bloc that involves 4 (ex)emperors of the NpO, we'll try it for a few months Edit: I guess you were referring to a war coalition and not a treaty-tied bloc. [/quote] This made me smile.

These are great.

[quote name='andrew734' timestamp='1284355659' post='2452025'] Yea . . . no not at all. A lot of us at IRON liked you guys but were not happy with the way NSO had been acting recently so we had asked gov to go and talk about how we felt. Some of us wanted a cancellation but some did not. It was really split 50/50 [/quote] Just to clarify, I believe it was expressed by your government that the overwhelming majority supported cancellation based on some ongoing discussion topic. Which is fine, alliances should be free to align to whomever they wish. Just saying.