890765

First of all, maybe you should look at my scale, and see it has nothing to do with leftists at all. Secondly, instead of just saying it isn't informative, give a suggestion to make it better. I'll work on something tonight. I've never made anything 3d before, but I'll give it a try. As for the Z axis, I will probably make the polls Isolationist and Globalist. Also, updated the OP.

I do see where you are coming from. My initial intention for the Y axis was for alliances who focused more on building up their top nations to be on the top, and nations who focused more on building their smaller nations on the bottom. (Sort of an elitism --- socialism? scale as far as internal alliance affairs go.

In my opinion, Sycophant works great here, but it is definitely a negative term. Minions works, but still has a slight negative connotation. I'll put it as minions for now until somebody thinks of something better. The only potential conflict I see is labeling the Blue quadrant "Hegemony." Currently, I believe Karma upholds the status quo. In months/years to come, that may change again. Should I make that quadrant Karma? Right now, we are just looking at names for that would accurately describe alliances that have been categorized. Alliance strength definitely has an effect on their political ideologies. A weaker smaller alliance may tend to to drift towards the conservative side to avoid attracting unwanted Of course alliance strength isn't all just numbers though. If/when I start placing alliances on this chart, things such as internal policies, military efficiency, will all be taken into effect. Higher strength alliances and more efficient ones will be placed near the top.

Structured seems like a very subjective term. My alliance is highly structured. We plan lots of tech raids in a very structured fashion. Also, I like brokenhead's suggestions. I knew there would probably be a problem with Lulz/honor when I made the chart, but he was the first who actually made a viable suggestion. I appreciate the constructive criticism. There's the updated version. As far as alliance strength goes, I was thinking about using score as a measure. Score usually is a decent measure of how much impact an alliance has pixel for pixel.

Well obviously that's what a good compass is, but as I said, no scale that tries to classify groups of people will ever be perfect. Nobody has the same exact view of each other. Anything like this would just attempt to classify alliances by what the general worldview of them is. Personally, I would put poison clan towards the upper middle of the scale, and slightly to the left of the center. It doesn't presuppose anything. You are just looking at the extremes of the chart and assuming that's all there is. If the same chart said Anarchist on the left and Fascist on the right, would you claim that anyone who isn't a Fascist is an anarchist?

You say my logic is faulty, but I fail to understand yours. Usually extortionist level reps are given by extortionists. White Peace is usually given by, well, moralists. Obviously this is not the case every time, but in general it stands true. Actually you are the only one who is implying anything at all is negative here. I think honor and more specifically morality in cybernations are typically a bad thing, and Lulz and dishonor are a positive thing. Your own personal beliefs are simply making my attempt at a neutral post appear skewed towards Lulz being negative. I am a great proponent of the Lulz. Look at my AA. I completely agree with you. You cannot base a scale solely off of ANS. That is why ANS is just the title of the scale, since in a broad amount of cases, the title makes sense for what it is trying to quantify. If I do make an actual way of measuring where alliances would lie on this scale it would not simply be taking their ANS off of their alliance stats. (although it would be a factor) Placing someone on this scale would require analysis of their internal workings and policies, regardless of what their current ANS is. I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here. Citadel-type alliances may be near some of the extreme ends of my compass, but that doesn't make them the only factor that governs where everyone else lands.

That's also a good way of thinking about it. In most cases it would probably be pretty clear cut, and others maybe not so much.

Like I said, Lulz and honor are probably the wrong words. Morality would be more of a correct term, Lulz and honor are just typically on the extremes of each. In MK's case, I see fighting for someone just to help them more of an honorable move than a lulzy one. Therefore, I would probably place you on the Moral side of the scale, rather than the amoral side. Again, it all comes down to what you personally believe the definition of morality is. I believe morality sums up the whole seriousness and honor thing. Less serious alliances typically are less moral, as they don't really care too much. More serious alliances believe in things like "honor" in cybernations, and are typically more moral. To be perfectly honest, I don't think there is a centrist position on anything. Nothing is ever totally neutral when it comes to a scale like this. Even inaction would place you on the scale.

Meh Any ideas on how I could improve it? It was very broadly based off of this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Yeah I'm sure it's going to start some debate, since my AA pretty much gives up where I stand on the issue.

Lulz is probably the wrong word for it, in reality it would just be Morality in general. Lulz was just smaller and fit better. There will obviously be bias in any sort of scale that anyone would try to create. When you try to make a scale that classifies groups according to your beliefs, the scale me be somewhat biased towards your own beliefs if you belong in one of the groups. Care to point out where you think I was biased? Of course lulz and honor have nothing to do with one and other, that's why they are on opposing ends of the pole. Lulz are typically associated with amoral alliances, while honor is typically associated with moral alliances. Obviously its broad, and probably the wrong word, but what you should look at as a whole is the word "Morality." If you believe that morality and personal beliefs have nothing to do with reparation amounts, you clearly are very naive. Lulz have nothing to do with it. Alliances that would demand high reparation payments may have immoral motives. Alliances that give white peace typically have moral tendencies. As for the ANS scale, I think it is definitely political, since ANS is directly affected by alliance economic policies, recruitment policies, and other internal polices. As for what the qualities of a High ANS and a low ANS alliance are, would you care to enlighten me since I got it so wrong?

Alright, Here is the most updated version, after some discussions with some people on here. I tried to incorporate Delta's scale, and eliminated the Alliance strength scale, and changed it to Isolationist-Globalist. This chart attempts to map different alliance/block positions on the political spectrum. On the X axis is the motives scale. Alliances placed on the extreme left are concerned mostly with upsetting the establishment, while alliances placed on the extreme right are concerned with upholding the status quo. As an example, in the Pre-Karma era, The Vox Populi would be placed on the far left, and the NPO would be placed on the extreme right. The Y axis attempts to categorize how involved an alliance is in respect to foreign affairs. If an alliance's goal is to spread their influence as far as possible, they would be located near the top of the scale, while a neutral alliance would be placed near the bottom of the scale. The more treaties an alliance has, the higher up they are on the scale. Alliances who allow or encourage tech raiding will be placed higher than those who don't. Alliances that are more vocal on the OWF are placed higher than those that aren't. Any suggestions/ideas? If everyone seems satisfied with this scale, I will attempt to create some sort of form to accurately evaluate where alliances stand on the scale.

I sat down and thought about this for a bit. My post is slightly off topic for this thread, so I put it here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=68534 In general, I think a measure of CN politics would need to be focused on Morality, and ANS. Those two variables govern the majority of actions that alliances take.

To be perfectly honest, I still don't think they understand it.

Kids just don't know bout our IS huh Good luck to all former IS members

Congrats Athens!

HAIL Bel AIR!

I hope you learned your lesson.

Oh you Rest in Peace IS, its a shame it came to this.

Pink was voted the worst sphere ever! Why would I want to leave for something else?

Hippies are bad, mkay? Gl AHF

Don't forget how you single-handedly forced exorbitant amounts of repartions on us.

^This [ooc]post[/ooc] couldn't have summed up my feelings better. [ooc]I lold hard[/ooc]

I can imagine some people raging over this. Maybe I should reform the Centurion Defense Cell and merge with you. We could Call it The Centurion Brotherhood! edit: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bro..._%28alliance%29

The best part is, we didn't even need to start, or post in those topics for them to get to over 9000 pages.

Pink: The obvious choice.