Jump to content

Bob

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Bob

  3. Bob Janova

    Posted

    This type of rhetoric is common in the losing side throughout history. Go back and read your own side's posts during noCB, for example. The onus is always on the winning side to come up with a reasonable end to the war. And no, paying for all of your damage is not 'reasonable', it has not been reasonable since at least the Unjust War and it never will be.

    I'm sorry..but did you just state that they were validated in attacking Hyperion for absolutely no reason? Rhetoric? No. That's just an established fact that they just wanted to kill Hyperion and took advantage of the situation. There is NO comparison here, unless you are stating that TOP is GGA/Valhalla, who won that war despite having started it for little reason.

    If you are referring to Polaris, then your point is irrelevant. As has been stated by many who fought against Polaris, Hyperion was completely unrelated and a decisions by GGA/Valhalla etc, not to get at Polaris. MK fought on the same side as Polaris, but not for Polaris. His "side" produced no rhetoric. Just facts :v

  6. Coursca

    Posted

    I may have inadvertently gathered a point. I think Pacifica is a lesson in not letting your grudges factor (too much) into your political calculations. I think it significantly skews your world view to the point of making incorrect realpolitik calculations (not right/wrong or good/evil, but incorrect), ones which have (self)destructive consequences. In other words, grudges if allowed to manifest themselves too deeply into a political culture can cause poor policy decisions.

    There's a saying I have: "There is no 'u' in good policy."

    I'd have to agree. But, at the same time, a grudge that burrows in deep can cause the risky policy decisions necessary to topple the alliance who is hated.

  7. Coursca

    Posted

    Interesting perspective, one which calls into question whether we're asking the right question from the start. Perhaps the question isn't so much "are there grudges in the world?", but rather "how does the grudge affect politics?" The survey touches upon it only briefly, though the responses to the question of objectivity are, so far, quite interesting.

    I'd have to say this is a more valid assessment. As has been stated, it is a part of human nature to hold grudges against those who have "wronged" (differing views exist on what exactly is a "wrong" you.

    Would you say that the pursuit of realpolitik goals is equivalent to the pursuit of a grudge? Diplomatic isolation is, after all, ultimately a calculation and decision made through realpolitik thought. Unfortunately, Pacifica held this as the keystone of their repertoire of tools rather than as a tool of last resort. It was wielded as easily as was a fork at a meal.

    It is an interesting way to put it, and to some extent I can agree with what you stated. I think that the pursuit of a grudge can on more occasions then one cross with realpolitik, or realpolitik can be used to advance a grudge. I view the realpolitik as a means to an end, with the grudge being the driving factor behind it, in most cases. However, as you have stated Pacifica held this as their entire policy, not just an aspect of it. Realpolitik was what they did, and not always over grudges, just in pursuit of power. That is where mistakes can be made, as I think people understand grudges as a valid reasoning for realpolitik to occur, at least in some cases. However, people don't view the advance of an individual alliance through realpolitik as favorably from my point of view, as that is one of the reasons NPO fell.

    I don't think I'm really driving at a point here, but instead just stating the variety of ways in which grudges and realpolitik can interact within the Cyberverse.

  8. Coursca

    Posted

    Of course I hold a grudge. Of course it influences me. It is the extent to which I pursue said grudge which is determining. I view there as being two separate levels, one being holding a grudge and being unwilling to get involved with that alliance, and then actively seeking the destruction of an alliance through isolation.

    I'm a firm believer in the first, and the second is not as tolerable. However, when sides start to form and divisive splits between former allies due to their positioning with more friends on another side (see FOK/TOP), you end up with the first level I stated being confused with the second.

    I've seen the active destruction/isolation of an alliance pursued, and in the majority of cases it has been offensive to me. I would not wish that upon my worst enemy. However, when said enemy puts themselves in an extremely weak position, such as NPO did by attacking OV, I have no reservations in taking advantage of said position and destroying said alliance.

    I hope that's relatively clear, wrote it pretty quickly and don't have much time to check it D:

  18. Ragashingo

    Posted

    There have been *numerous* posts to the effect of saying that popular sentiment within Mushroom Kingdom was in support of Grub's move. All up until the "Not appropriate vs. wrong" debacle.

    So...Yes, really.

    And you would know better then MK members~

    The comments were more that there was support not for the move but for our allies, not the /complete/ dropoff of support that occured after that.

  22. watchman

    Posted

    Still no answer.

    Deflect = fail

    EDIT: I think you misinterpreted the statement entirely. smile.gif <-- as rish said, that's your answer.

    I've been out of Greenland Republic for months now, and I am still silently overseeing everything they do. It doesn't mean I am a part of their alliance, or have access to their forums, it just means I am watching over them (not really silently though >_>) and making sure everything is going well with them.

    Really though, the statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but the fact that NPO has no problems with it means that no one else has any reason to either.

×
×
  • Create New...