eyriq

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1302562403' post='2688837'] edit: Given this thread isn't about NPO at all, I don't really want to speak more on the subject in here and we can take it to PM if you want mireille, expect something in your inbox because I don't want to keep derailing. I know it's not readily apparent to a lot of people, but that's pretty much a bunk hypothetical. VE didn't just go out and declare war out of the blue. It's like asking "how would the war have gone if Dajobo never talked to Lennox?" from my perspective. [/quote] Given the context of SF's potency or lack thereof in the hypothetical 'hegemonic' grouping it is a valid hypothetical to refer to. Of course since the parent idea of you guys being 'hegemonic' is bunk in the first place the entire hypothetical is useless for practical purposes.

The art work is pretty boss. Cograts on sharing a mutual tech farm/recruiting ground Ok, I kid. This is awesome to see!

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1302541024' post='2688617'] The Pre-War SF had a total NS of about 15 mill...plus/minus actual number might be a bit off that. The entire SF didn't fight on the same side of the war (or even entirely on one side individually in RIA's case). Given that "DH" is actually DH+PB+C&G+non-SF allies, if R&R, CSN, and GOD had vaporized in an unfortunate meteorite strike, without question there was still sufficient force present to take down both Orders and their allies. It was have been a bit of a harder fight on the Polaris Front, but the outcome there was reasonable clear. Anti-Polaris forces had a decisive NS advantage. [/quote] If SF completely had avoided the VE coalition it changes the narrative drastically, putting much greater strain on alliances like Sparta and MHA, while greatly increasing the likelihood of SF fully committing to the NpO coalition. SF may be deteriorating but they still wield vast amounts of political power, to the point where their overall effect is greater than the sum of their parts.

Good to see. Top notch military training and an economic booster to boot. This was a wise choice by TOOL leadership.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1302458719' post='2687934'] Careful CJ, you don't wanna end up paying them reps for lampooning them like me. Anyway, they're saving you from NPO, you should be thanking them. [/quote] You really need to abstract [i]your position[/i] in the treaty web from your analysis of global politics. I'm honestly surprised you are still spinning MK/Umbrella and company as hegemonic. Their power is directly proportional to the residual dissatisfaction with the [i]old hegemony[/i]. Edit: Whoops, I used the wrong quote. Fixed with my Ninja editing skillz

Yeah, what Hoo said. Love the public library's delivery service.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1302290535' post='2687009'] I'm always mad, literally. Also, I disagree, and I'm not pretending to degenerate (did you mean degrade maybe?) him, I think I've been doing it pretty overtly. [/quote] I don't know, I'll have to check, I most times just throw a word out there that feels right and if it doesn't get underlined in red I consider it a success. I'm also horrible at scrabble. The main point that I'm making is really that Schatt's viewpoints have obvious value based on the past successes of his work, and supported by a sound analysis of his philosophy. Not liking him or what he says specifically in regards to your affairs isn't sound reason to disparage his character, and a narrative supported by said dislike isn't one that should be left unchallenged. My emotions are like strings on a banjo, and your post happened to have hit a cord. Edited: Couldn't stand the typos/bad grammar

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1302276111' post='2686833'] Times change. People change. You should know this better then most, since you went from being a respected and somewhat revered member of the community to an over the top joke of a human being who makes an ass of himself at every turn since he cant cope with the fact that the days of TWIP are over. We still hold a treaty with RIA, and still hold treaties and good relationships with all our other allies save Rok. We've done the things that are best for us, the things that needed to be done, and do not hold regret simply because a cancellation wrought of misconception without any attempt to make those concerns known may have came about as a result. We are disappointed that this came to pass, but if there is any consolation, it's that we all get to see the ridiculous side of you that comes out every time you smell a VE thread in the air. [/quote] Haha, you mad. Don't pretend to degenerate Schattenmann, his worth is established and isn't going anywhere simply because you dislike him.

Hey, Alterego does the Charlie Sheen shtick quite entertainingly! Another example of CN using a joke to good profit is the DoomHouse's use of Rebecca Black! Haha, I smile just thinking about it.

Nordreich appear to be ready and able leaders. I'm highly optimistic about this treaty.

You've begun the evolution of emoticon. Congratulations, mutant.

Hey, that is for my next blog! To pass a moral judgement in this case and in all cases you have to analyze all its varying parts. For instance, what are the motivations underlying the behavior? Is Nation A seeking justice because Nation B accepted 3 million for a harbor and is now breaching their contract by not accepting the trade? Did nation B reply to the trade request with a vulgar response? Is nation A acting off of greed and a feeling of entitlement? All of those elements would shed light on the morality of the act. Now, Nation A is a minor player in scheme of things and by no means is a threat to the social structure in and of himself. Is this characteristic shared by a group? Then the impact becomes more potent. I think the more accurate question to ask though isn't if the characteristic is shared by the group but what if it was shared by a group. Such is the slippery slope of a single action leading to a communal threat, and how the morality of We clearly defines such precipitous behaviors as deviant and immoral.

The difference really is at the root of my entire point. War is natural and does not harm the community in an abstract sense; it is part of the game design and purpose and a heavy influence on how we socialize. Within the social structure itself it begins to synthesize with our own human nature. The morality of We only deals with this synthesis, and specifically only when a synthetic form of war threatens to destroy the very social structure that spawns it. An ideal stating that 'I don't want to be attacked and shouldn't be attacked' is based on what I believe to be a false premise, namely that war is a mutually occurring function in the game. Trades and foreign aid are mutually occurring functions in that I can send you a trade or aid and for this relationship to be actualized you have to hit the accept button. Nothing such as this exists in the game's design for war. I can't submit to you a request to war to which you can either reject or accept.

That sounds exceptionally stubborn of you! In the real world 'boxing' is a specifically defined competitive behavior, a human proscribed system with rules and regulations. An effect of its rules and regulations is the creation of an environment that specifically recognizes the arbitrary nature of 'boxing'. For instance, it could not be said that we would be boxing at all if I wasn't a willing participant and didn't first agree to enter into said boxing environment. It would indeed then be assault as it would fall outside of any regulatory system. Boxing and Cybernations share in the feature of being regulated and defined systems that have very clear and defined functions. War is not some socially arbitrary system that the community has created but instead is inherent in the core-system itself. So when you enter into said system and are engaged in war in the most abstract sense this cannot be considered a violation of individual rights, as your free choice has led to you enter into the system of which war is a part. Aggressive and hostile war is a very appropriate and natural behavior in this game. When you walk into a boxing ring you had better be prepared via the appropriate tools and training. The same goes in CN. If you get suckered punched because of a lack of preparation and training than you end up on the wrong side of a win/lose relationship. It happens, you learn from it, and you get better, train harder, and fight another day. When your opponent keeps you down, continues to beat on you, and eventually your very survival is at risk, well that is a whole different story.

Who is this Eyrig and what did he do to Eyriq Also, I don't know that your Boxing analogy works quite that way. For instance if 'boxing' is in your analogy synonymous with war then you need to consider that each nation has a 'to box or not to box option' via the war/peace preference and that in the abstract sense me boxing you cannot be immoral as you've entered a boxing environment willingly. Now, where I think the interaction has a clear moral line is when boxing leads to the vital impairment of your ability to 'box'. So either you can't play the game at all or you have to stay in peace mode indefinitely and can't play the game via that route either. This ruins the fun for everyone as now the initial attacker has one less opponent and the one attacked has his ability to play the game stunted over the long term.

The sheer daunting nature of your WoT is such that I'm probably just going to agree with you. I can see why you'd find fault in the premise that "we" need to suck it up at times and protect the community above all else. That doesn't clearly describe past 'diplomatic realities' as you say. However, while I can see why you'd say that there are two examples that I think may support this morality of "We"; 1. Karma, in particular the Vox narrative that drove it, justified the war against NPO and company as punishment for crimes such as forced disbandments, EZI/PZI, and alliance wide perma-wars such as Viet-Fan. 2. Other community based games 'dying' when one group centralizes enough power to make competition impossible. Both examples point to diverse systems needing to maintain competitive balance for continued designed functioning. Which is why I used a sports league analogy, they consist of teams that want to win at all costs but also that want to maintain the integrity of their playing environment. Which is why we see such things as a luxury tax, revenue sharing, salary caps, drafts, etc, all falling outside the game's initial design but found to be integral to maintain the meta-environment. They realize that while they want to win those win/lose interactions, ultimately of even more importance is that they want to sustain the environment in which those win/lose interactions take place. They choose to follow a community specific morality of "We" in order to sustain that environment. This is the universal solidarity that I'm really trying to get at. That we can conquer and destroy all day but not to the detriment of the community, which is the lesson that I think Vox and then Karma conveyed. There is a clear line that is crossed when we engage in perma-wars, force disbandments, PZI/EZI and other win/lose engagements of such a lasting nature as to void "We", which while serving to secure one's security and serving to propagate one's identity ultimately work to undermine the entire community and ultimately result in a lose/lose engagement at its logical conclusion.

Was the April fools joke that you guys are active? :iceburn: Seriously though, love the site and hope to get involved in some RP games.

This tourney lost me a lot of tech. March Madness

Greed embodies the self-centered motivations for war not directly tied to the domain of 'survival'. As I don't think that gained prestige/superiority is entirely self-centered I threw in 'Power' as a core motivation. Thank you for your suggestion.

I miss Grämlins

Hm, ok, I went ahead and added that. I was gonna say that is a superficial reason for going to war and usually masks something deeper but then I remembered 10.10.10. Also, you are the first ever to respond to my blog! Not that I am checking all the time or anything.

Was is active; either hot or cold, direct or indirect. I'm going to focus on direct war today. It connects individuals and groups in a struggle for dominance, whether in a wide or narrow window. War is the key transaction around which our system of politics is built, due to its disproportional influence on NS. Direct war is one of five transactions for connecting our nations. They are War, Trade, Aid, Spy, and Make Donation. Aid, trade, and donations are all conducive to the accumulation of NS; War and Spy are aversive. Pragmatically then, the more efficient we are with our slot usage the closer we get to absolute profit. These five transactions bind us to each other; efficiency in the social network translates to efficiency in slot usage. In terms of my previous entry, the games' many transactions represent the different "I", "We", and "You" consciousness. "I" manage all the isolated transactions like taxes, bills, and so on. "We" trade, send aid, and exchange donations. "You" war and spy against "I" or "We". War is a base level interaction, an "I" or "We" vs "You" interaction, and a natural product of our rank system and the game mechanics. This "I" or "We" vs "You" interaction is one of the most profound interactions offered in the game, but its logic shouldn't be the most dominant. War should be governed by the morality of "We". "We" allows for a conducive environment where all three interactions can take place; War, or the "I" and "We" vs "You" interaction, can destroy this environment if unchecked by the morality of "We". The needed dominance of the morality of "We" over War has several implications for the morality of any given war. To understand these implications we will need to explore the universal human experience regarding our motivations and goals for war, and then contrast those motivations and goals against the morality of "We". (I may or may not have missed some stuff, feel free and let me know). Motivations for War: Greed Removing a threat Stoping unwanted behavior Negative emotional attatchment, or the "I don't like you" logic Boredom Power Goals for War: Profiting Removing enough relative NS to satisfy initial motivation (perhaps range specific) Setting a condition which will precipitate future aggression Reaching a point of control over future behaviors Gaining supiority/presitige through victory Entertainment The morality of "We" is simply my nerdy way for describing our community holistically. We are all part of one big system. This system is defined by its rules and design. To state it simply, this game isn't designed with a specific end game in mind, or at least I don't see one. Instead we have something more akin to a sports' association. At the base level you have competitive win/lose interactions, or what I refer to as "I" or "We" vs "You". However, the base level realizes that there is value to be found in continuing those competitions and so they band together to create an association, or what I refer to as "We", or the complete system wide merger of "I" and "You". This is the win/win game that each participant plays. This association then serves to keep the base 'win/lose' interactions in check, so that those interactions don't end up destroying a part of the community and undermining the entire system as a result. It keeps the system from cutting off its nose to spite its face. Cyber Nations is a similar type of system. So the morality of "We" boils down to not destroying other players to the point of undermining the entire system. We have seen the negative impact of this from such wars as the NPO/FAN war, and such practices as PZI/EZI. Each war will have a unique perspective on the abstract motivations and goals that I listed, but each war and its leaders should keep in mind their foremost responsibility, that being the well being of the community at large. Xiph once mentioned that the forces charged with preserving our community, the forces that make up our "CN Association" if you will, are embodied by Admin and his Moderators. I don't agree. Those charged with preserving our community are those very same people that we choose to lead.

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1301207944' post='2678069'] you got half of it. i still have the link. i stole it form the simpsons so its ok. [/quote] Nah man, I don't doubt what you say, I could tell it wasn't an original piece. Pretty funny flag if you ask me, so good job!

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1301199484' post='2677869'] Hell i love PS im a big fan. Even the fact you stole your flag off my forum i let it go. I also was good freinds with jack sheppard who started PS. I have no ill will just protecting my aa. [/quote] We got our flag from your forums? Interesting.

It's so random I can't help but laugh