Qaianna

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1299988319' post='2662264'] At this point everyone will start jeering NPO for engaging in the actions that mpol says FAN wants from NPO. [/quote] You were three posts too late, Schattenmann. Then again, I would've figured it would start at post two. As far as the results? That is, naturally, a decision to be made by the Federation itself. I wonder if certain commentators here are trying to influence them for their own ends by casting their howls of derision..

[IMG]http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh52/camartin45/PRFlag.png[/IMG] Hereby Phoenix Rising activates article 2 of the The Fiery Sith Accords and declares war on the Mushroom Kingdom in defence of our friend and ally New Sith Order. Signed: [i][b]Andre27[/b], Minister of Exterior [b]fallenguardian[/b], Minister of Defense [b]Qaianna[/b], Minister of Interior [b]Pintos5150[/b], Eternal [b]dagger08[/b], Eternal and Founder [b]Sognatore[/b], Eternal and Founder [b]Emperor Charlemagne[/b], Eternal and Founder [/i]

Congratulations on the long neutrality. If nothing else, it's a very difficult line to toe.

The main concern here, I think, is to address folks whipping up IC conflict into justifying RL potshots at folks for concerns. The intent seems more just 'step back and have some sympathy when it happens'--basically, the reverse of what you're talking about. The other thing is that using RL issues as a reason to attack is already frowned on; that argument's closed, as far as I can tell. This is just reminding folks to respect that barrier going the other way.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1296393435' post='2611064'] That's fair enough. I wouldn't say you're ruining the game though, as far as I'm concerned the people who are 'ruining' the game are the alliance leaders who wield substantial amounts of power yet have no ambition to throw it at someone. Lone players rarely have much impact on how the game is played in the grand scheme of things. [/quote] It could be a matter of how to throw the power. Sometimes throwing it around is like a monkey throwing its ... um, mocking OWF posts.

[quote name='The Big Bad' timestamp='1296096135' post='2603950'] Sadly my people have continued to refuse to accept this wonderful gov choice despite many attempts by others to get them to join. Perhaps I should do it for them since it is all the rage. Self Anarchy its what the cool kids are doing. [/quote] The cool kids are the ones who always get stuff handed to them. One has to earn anarchy.

[quote name='Epiphanus' timestamp='1296067168' post='2602949'] The morality which you are talking about is separate from the defined (or undefined) version of "moralist" that CN is plagued with. You can disagree with me whether it is a plague, but to me, the moralist stance is not a healthy one for the good of CN. If we all just got along and sang hippy songs together, we'd all be versions of the GPA. If an alliance chooses to partake in the competitive part of CN, which includes global politics, then they do so at their own risk. No one is averse to people creating their own RP communities separate from the CN community at large. Alliances like GPA and WTF have done a pretty good job over the years. However, when you step into the true muck and grime of CN politics, it is all about personal gains for you and yours. Anyone who argues that they play CN politics to get along with everyone is either lying or disillusioned. Cybernations has a war component for a reason. I'm not saying that we don't need some values in this game. You are right that a foundation of trust must occur for anyone to get along. Without some level of morality the world would delve into chaos. However, saying we all have to be moralists for the world to survive is taking your definition of morality to the extreme. It's obvious you understand this by your first statement. However, if you fall into the hive-mind of collective people spouting off about what you call moralistic issues involved in our actions, then I have every right to type-cast you into the mold you are filling so well. It's like a shoe trying to say that he's not a shoe because he's actually a basketball shoe. A shoe is a shoe, whether you think you are different from all the other shoes out there or you don't want to be called a shoe because you say you aren't a shoe, the fact remains you are still a shoe. We all have a different grasp on the level of morality that is needed in the world. Those who adhere to strict moral codes get called moralists. If you want to spout of rhetoric from that mindset, you will get called a moralist whether you like it or not. [/quote] I think one issue is that a certain set of people have turned 'moralist' into a snarl-word, used to stifle debate with the ridicule of jeering masses rather than actually answer questions. And I think that's what I find most disappointing about the current big names--the screaming, the jeering, the fact that so many consider hurling cheap insults as the pinnacle of wit. (Expensive insults are, of course, fine, and a well-crafted one I find is more entertaining. And I usually reserve 'NO U' for when I'm looking for uranium trades or correcting spelling of my name.) Even during the run-up to Karma, I preferred actual discussion and talk rather than just going along with a cheering mass. Granted, there were times when I did find Schattennman's tone a little too ... shrill for my tastes. Still, I even try to avoid hails in threads announcing things. (I can't even remember if I ever did respond to any of my own alliances' threads. I think I did at some point.) As far as the 'Everything Must Die' propoganda is concerned ... I've stated my opinion elsewhere. (I forget which thread. Probably both.) I'll see if I'm wrong.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295943614' post='2599576'] I find it amusing to see to see you saying all this Vladimir, it contradicts your other essays about power spheres. Our "hegemony" allows for far more dissent. People don't fear that we will kick in their door if one of their members criticizes us, like in the past. We don't EZI anyone for opposing us. We don't impose viceroys or forced disbandments. You attacked people for contrived CBs. Many people have been calling for a more "honest" CB, one that says that "we don't like you". Well, here it is, and everyone is still complaining. This war will be a lot closer than the curbstomps from when NPO was in power. [/quote] Who exactly were the ones calling for people to use the 'we don't liek you' casus belli? (This is a legitimate question..)

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1295941003' post='2599458'] The problem with your spiel is the underlying premise that you are being assaulted by a hegemonic force; you are not. SF/C&G axis had hegemonic potential as long as they maintained the balance between the SF periphery and the C&G periphery. They passed on the chance to consolidate that balance by never forming a bloc the equivalent of the Continuum before them. Credit to them for staying true to the purpose of the Karma war (forming a competitive environment). Double credit to them for solidifying the SF periphery into PB, and triple credit to MK for breaking ties to the C&G periphery and allowing the Polar sphere to drift away. What you are being attacked by is the best of what the old potential hegemony has to offer, and yeah you'll lose, but no you are not getting stomped and yes you do have a fighting chance; these guys are not school yard bullies. MK, Umbrella and GOONS are continuing to make the moves necessary to facilitate a competitive and vibrant environment, exactly in the tradition of Karma. By no means will this world end if Doom House wins, quite the opposite actually. Edit: took out a ooc reference [/quote] Here's some irony..I think that you may find many people who actually saw that there were still actual ties, even when Pandora's Box formed. Acting in near lock-step doesn't help (trust me on this). Remember, there were two blocs at the top of the roost pre-Karma (well, at least pre-War of the Coalition): the Continuum and One Vision. Neither were exactly seen as nice by the forces that would make up Karma. They did have one common overt link, but in the day where many of the in-crowd profess the joy of not having actual treaties ... Edit: curse you, absolutist language..

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1295939621' post='2599376'] Oh god the melodrama just !@#$@#$ war would ya....jeez. [/quote] But what if eloquence is the spice that enhances the innate flavour of conflict? Would you decree that such cannot be? Or is it that others cannot enjoy the situation as they see fit?

[quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1295937181' post='2599215'] While i agree with most of what you said, I do not believe it will be the end of the game if MK wins. Yes this sets up a new precedent where the powers that be can attack whomever they wish. But the powers that be will turn against one another and wars will continue as always. It may not be the "graceful" backdoor politicking during the reign of the New Pacific Order, but there will be bloody wars for power. Sooner or later Archon will meet his match, and will fall just as the New Pacific Order did in Karma. However, we must do everything we can to not let this happen. The backdoor politics adds a huge twist into the game, where its about how wise you are when it comes to your decisions, and how well you are able to convince others.Its not just about the power that you wield, its about how you wield it when dealing with allies and allies of allies. To define the next generation of cybernations, this war will rage for months to come. All will burn, and then once the dust finally settles, all will be rebuilt. [/quote] From the bile I've seen, it's hard to think [i]all[/i] will be rebuilt.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1295938001' post='2599278'] Um, most of us just don't really give a !@#$ anymore, but if trying to fit our behaviour into traditional CN norms makes you happy, please continue. OOC: Cya on the moon etc. [/quote] If you don't care anymore, why destroy that which others care for? Many times in my childhood, I would try to play games with my family. Those games would end when one party stopped caring. When the rules and the play money meant nothing. Politics is at times called a great game among nations, but with real soldiers instead of chessmen. If that's the case, I hate to see what happens when the 'smash the board' clique really takes hold.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1295168086' post='2577001'] Poor theory, IMO. There are some who lead by being generals and marching into battle with their men. Then there are others who focus only on recruiting, building a strong culture, FA. Besides, I'm sure everyone has a few ultra high tier guys who make horrible leaders. Imagine what would happen if those guys were the leaders of your alliance. It's not hard at all to build a large nation. All you have to do is keep selling, then buying tech, and build your nation up without being reckless. And maybe even donate a bit and dodge a few wars. Leaders who are poor nation builders will never be able to work with the economics of an alliance, but that doesn't mean that they can't hire and keep good economists. ... [/quote] Tell me about it. Nothing like seeing one of your top nations, two days into the war, show up in a list begging for mercy and claiming to have been a ghost. And yeah, leaders--especially ones that get news--do tend to get special attention. And if someone's been following a leader into lots of wars, well..

Honestly, I think there should be some sort of accountability. However, Admin in His wisdom has left it to us to uphold those concepts. And watching what's going on over the skies of Francograd, I think we see where it leads.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1295674608' post='2591062'] I agree with you, make things more serious and less "lulz", we are playing a political simulator not a clown simulator. [/quote] Agreed on this front. Still, as far as hardcoding treaties, I don't see that working at all. Alliances are in, of course, but how would you work a treaty into that? As far as the nature of treaties? Honestly, I don't see that ever changing. It's almost as if politics is rearing its head when it comes to figuring out war strategies..