Näktergal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

[quote name='Neuromancer7' date='27 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1267249742' post='2205996'] I'm in agreement with this statement. Skim milk makes me sad inside. [/quote] It's like yellow dishwater. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_extra/post_icons/icon2.gif[/img]

Since Sith leadership technically changes hands when the current leader is defeated, shouldn't that make Fark as a whole the new Sith Emperor?

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='20 February 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1266689246' post='2193834'] Crymson is our brother though thick and thin. What on Earth would possess you think we would consider the abandonment or shunning of a brother? [/quote] On at least one occasion in the past, he himself showed a willingness to demand a change in leadership in an alliance that was an [i]ally[/i], on very spurious grounds, under not entirely veiled threat, so it wouldn't be entirely out of the question for a similar suggestion to be made against him by actual enemies formulating surrender terms.

I like people on both sides of this particular declaration, so allow me to be the first to root for Hegelian Synthesis - after two days of fighting, both sides fall in love, fuse into the Fifth Siberian Tiger Column Confederliance, and then declare war on Admin. [quote name='LoveaLot' date='10 February 2010 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1265781328' post='2172101'][quote name='Qaianna' date='10 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1265781121' post='2172091'] At what point does the treaty chain come around full circle? [/quote] It already did, NpO is on both sides. [/quote] At this point, the only thing left is to see an alliance forced to declare war on itself. I'm hoping we get to see it before this whole mess is over.

[quote name='Adrian LaCroix' date='06 February 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1265436438' post='2163431'] This war isn't even trying to make any sense anymore. [/quote] Has anyone used the term "lolpocalypse" for a war in CN yet? Because I think it's starting to become more and more appropriate for this one.

[quote name='Neuromancer7' date='04 February 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1265270254' post='2158540'] I'm afraid we're just old fashioned like that. We still have some active NAP's that are older then... Well, they're pretty old. [/quote] Your oldest NAP is older than 95% of the nations that currently still exist in the world.

Tyrannies control people through force, but democracies manufacture the consent of the governed. --- Walter Lippman (paraphrased) Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. --- usually misattributed to Benjamin Franklin In other words, democracy isn't necessarily a defense against criticism, because not only can it completely disenfranchise the minority (even if the difference between the majority and minority is a small one), but the value of democracy hinges on having a fully informed voter base - which is rarely the case in modern times (and alliance politics in general). In terms of most voting populations, democracy fails because the voters don't know enough about what's really going on (either because the information is withheld from them, or because they simply don't care enough to learn), so their vote has little to do with the actual issues or policies, and instead is influenced by parroted soundbites and popularity contests. Democracy (even representative democracy) is essentially being eternally trapped in the hell of high school politics, where the popular kid winds up being Student Council President even if they're completely inept. Then again, alliance politics in general often descends to a level akin to high school cliques feuding, so it isn't entirely surprising. I actually have no idea what's going on internally with the Grämlins (or why), and I'm certainly not pointing fingers or assigning blame (mainly because I have no clue what the disagreements are, let along who's wrong), but the democracy angle doesn't really justify much of anything. Plenty of people have been democratically elected throughout history who were horribly bad in their jobs. I remember back when it was considered somewhat outrageous to suggest 500 million as a comfortable warchest. Ahh, now I feel old.

Are they really, though? In a number of cases, a reformed alliance is created (or recreated) by someone other than the person who created the original alliance (or the person in power when the original version was disbanded). They don't always manage to maintain a direct line of descent from the original, and often, at least some of the former members don't recognize the validity of the new version. And ultimately, the alliance that is recreated is almost always different in a number of ways from the original. While they may choose to deliberately claim the name, symbolism, and heritage of the original alliance, a very valid argument can be made that they lack direct continuity with the original alliance (and thus, are a different alliance). If someone reformed NAAC or LUE tomorrow, with only a few of the original members joining (and other former members objecting to said "reformation") and nearly 3 years having passed since NAAC disbanded, how many people would recognize and accept it as a legitimate rebirth of the original alliance, rather than a new alliance wearing old clothes? If someone were to declare that they were reforming INC (the Imperial Nations Coalition) tomorrow, in spite of the fact that it only existed for about a month and has been dead for 4 years, would they immediately count as the oldest alliance in CN? In the real world, how many people consider the "Atari" that exists today to be the same Atari that existed in 1980? To most people who know the history, they are two entirely different companies, with the modern version simply having bought the name for the purpose of brand recognition, to fool people who don't know better into thinking they're related to the original in some way, rather than being a company founded in the early 90's with no real connection to the original. Yet the modern company uses the name, the symbols, and puts out games cashing in on the original company's intellectual property. In CN, the Wiki deliberately differentiates between the first and second incarnations of disbanded/reformed alliances, which is implicit acceptance of the idea that they're different alliances. Many people consider reformations to be the "second version" of an alliance, rather than a continuation of the first version. Which makes it VERY problematic for any attempt to document oldest alliances while counting reformed alliances as the originals, and ignoring the "interregnum" between them. And that's not even counting the fact that it means alliances with such periods of discontinuity have technically existed for less time than ones that are technically younger - for example, you've got IAA ranked #21 while RIA is #22, yet IAA has only existed for 938 days while RIA has existed for 1268 days. Wouldn't that make RIA the older alliance? Nor does it take into account the question of name changes. Are CATO and GATO the same alliance for purposes of dating? Should TAB technically be considered to have been founded on Oct 12, 2006, since it considers itself the direct descendant of the original BTA, only with a name change? For that matter, what does that do to the claim of the current BTA, recreated 32 months after the original BTA became TAB? If we accept the premise that only the name matters, and that any claim of reformation is valid, does that mean someone could attempt to reform CATO tomorrow, and preempt GATO's claim on CATO's founding date and identity? Does every alliance that has merged into a larger one forfeit all right or claim on their past heritage the moment the name changes? If someone attempted to reform Camelot tomorrow, would Athens object? Would Ragnarok be annoyed if someone wanted to reform the Atlantic Shadow Confederation? How about IRON and CON? Or do we just assume that a merger isn't the combination of two entities, but their destruction? Ultimately, the problem is, unless we're talking about alliances that were born and maintained the same identity continuously from birth to now, any oldest alliances list is going to have a hell of a lot of asterisks on it.

I was hoping someone would call it The "Two For Flinching" War.

Oh, I absolutely agree. My point was less that it's something that would ever happen, as much as it being something I would welcome if it did. The idea being that there isn't anything inherently wrong with providing a safe haven for newer or individualistic players but expecting them to change teams to benefit from it. Whereas the "if they don't like it, they can join an alliance" argument is actually much weaker in terms of its utility to new/casual players. Except that, for people who have no interest or desire in joining an alliance, "Eternal Peace Mode" is exactly what you are essentially suggesting. Someone who doesn't want to join an alliance but who also doesn't want to be vindictively farmed by "honorable" and "sadistic" raiders alike would be forced into Peace Mode, where they'd be suffering economic penalties and -9 Happiness... and at lower strength levels, that's crippling. People on the forums tend to be people who've spent most of their time in alliances (I know I've spent all of one day out of 1261 not in an alliance), and it seems like most forum posters have very little perspective or sympathy to actually give a damn about anyone who doesn't play the game the same way they do. That even extends to the more active players looking at each other - it seems people who love war always act like anyone who prefers peace is insane and boring, while the more pacifistic/political players tend to look at the warmongers like little more than childish thugs. Some people seem to try and consider points-of-view other than their own, but most people seem to cling to a "The way I play CN is the only RIGHT way to play CN" sort of mentality, either consciously or unconsciously, and that affects a lot of how they see the problems of other players. (as some people have pointed out, the same even applies to people who hate Tech raiding in general, and think it should be completely outlawed, because they're closing their eyes to the fact that a fair number of people enjoy it) But that's an incredibly short-sighted and egotistic way to look at the world, and it ignores the fact that plenty of people may absolutely hate everything you love about the game. Different people play for different reasons, and in different ways, and basically telling people "Hey, play the way I do or go screw" really isn't the optimum way to deal with problems. Saying that "there's absolutely no problem with Tech raiding because people can always join an alliance" doesn't address the fact that some people enjoy being independent, or forming small alliances with real-life friends, or simply don't feel like being forced to conform to the ways other people think the game should be played. And in that sense, looking for solutions that can benefit "non-forum" players is absolutely a valid effort, and dismissing those sorts of discussions on the grounds of "hey, tell 'em to join an alliance" is missing the point by a mile. Worse, the idea that preying on new players forces them to join alliances and get more involved isn't very realistic. That sort of frustration is far more likely to simply convince them that this game (and most of the people playing it) suck. The same goes for people who just want to casually log in every now and then and play without joining an alliance or being forced to interact on a deeper level. And the worst part of all is that, sometimes, new players or casual players may grow interested in alliance-level and forum-level play gradually, in spite of themselves, if the appeal is there... but will never get the chance because they get so frustrated by constant attacks early on that they just stop playing entirely.

In a game with a player turnover rate like the one CN has, it's entirely possible that you can be on wonderful terms with an alliance, and then even a few months later, the entire leadership of said alliance has changed and their stance on general policy is completely different from when you signed the treaty with them. It's even possible that, if nothing blatant occurs to give away those shifts, you will have absolutely no idea just how much that alliance has changed until they do something completely idiotic or incredibly offensive in public. Thus, the first signs that they're no longer the same alliance you made that agreement with might be the exact moment when you are also going to be expected to defend them from the consequences of their own reprehensible or foolish actions. Is it less honorable to take a moral stand and tell your allies you can no longer support them because of their actions? Or to completely sacrifice every principle you have solely because you made an agreement with people months ago who may not even BE in the other alliance anymore, when said alliance clearly has absolutely no regard for what sort of consequences their actions are going to have for you? One of the major arguments during the Coalition War and Karma War was that "Friends > Infra". That there are things more important than simple pixels on a screen. Yet what you are essentially saying is that "Paper" isn't just more important than "Friends" (if a treaty would force you to fight against people you like and respect), it's more important than every other consideration, ever. If I married someone in real life (about as close as individuals can get to signing a "treaty" of mutual support), and they were wonderful and sweet and considerate for the entire time I knew them, and then, spontaneously, for no good reason I could see and with no obvious advanced warning, they gunned down three kids and two cops, then ran home and wanted me to help them make a getaway, should I feel obligated to do it? If the SWAT team shows up and surrounds the house, and my husband decides he's going to go out in a blaze of glory, should I feel obligated to pick up a gun and join in? Or should my own revulsion for what he did and my desire to not get shot for something I had nothing to do with and consider to have been a horrible act trump the "agreement" between us? Would you say that the fact that I failed to magically foresee his actions in advance and divorce him before he did it somehow makes me morally and legally responsible for his actions, and obligated to defend and support him no matter what happens? And if I did choose to leave him to his fate, to suffer the inevitable consequences of his own freely chosen actions, would you think that it would be right if everyone from that point on treated me like a horrible person? "Sure, he shot five innocent people," they'd say, "but you MARRIED him. You're a horrible person because you didn't join him in his rampage!" The idea of "Loyalty > All" might be comforting in a gang-mentality sort of way, but it isn't very practical in the real world. And it also doesn't take into account that, if you're going to expect someone to stay loyal to you, maybe you should stay loyal to them. And not just in a "letter of the law" sort of way, but in the true spirit of the original agreement. And if you drag other people into your messes because you're doing incredibly stupid things and not considering the consequences to yourself or others, what exactly have you done to EARN the loyalty you're demanding? Why do you DESERVE to have people stand by you no matter what, when you've shown absolutely no respect or consideration for THEM?

Because one forces you to spend time and effort joining a group, then maintaining the mimimal activity requirements of said group, conforming to the obligations said group places upon you (like sending aid to other members), and being tied to the political aspirations of said group, possibly forcing you to fight wars over issues you don't actually give a damn about... while the other simply has you make the one-time effort to move into a color sphere and continue to set your own desired level of activity? Actually, it's worth noting that I was very not fond of the NPO when the Revenge Doctrine was established, was fully aware that it was set up for selfish reasons (ie, more independents in Red means more trades for the NPO without the threat of political opposition), and had always been fairly opposed to the Moldavi Doctrine in principle, yet I still welcomed the offer of sanctuary by a power that could back it up. THAT solution required players to switch trading spheres to avoid the big bad raiders, yet I in no way objected to it at all. So, hypothetically speaking, if we had a scenario were three or four major blocs got together and basically said something along the lines of "Okay, raiding is now off-limits against anyone in Pink, and anyone who raids a Pink nation will be completely ZIed", I'd be fine with it. Or, conversely, if a large majority of alliances that condone or endorse Tech raiding were to get together to sign a treaty where they voluntarily agree not to raid in a single color sphere, and to aggressively police themselves to make sure no one breaks the treaty, I'd be delighted. In that vein, the only reason I don't fully advocate nations simply switching to Green and joining the GPA is because we've already seen that people are more than willing to dogpile the GPA as soon as it becomes politically convenient. And I honestly don't consider "Eternal Peace Mode" to be an option for newer players, since it cripples growth early and makes things far, far harder (and frustrating).

This statement actually sums up one of the mentalities I find reprehensible in CN. "I don't care what sort of horrible thing you did, or how morally repugnant I might find it myself, because I signed a piece of (digital) paper X months ago so now I'm obligated to defend you no matter why you're getting attacked." One could suggest an alliance should cancel treaties before that sort of moral conflict occurs - and that's true to some extent - but what if it's the first majorly stupid thing you ally has done, so you've never seen a problem with them before that point? You can't cancel at that point - alliances that cancel in situations like that are usually reviled and accused of cowardice. When if you ask me, it actually takes a hell of a lot more courage to cling to your convictions than it does to mindlessly support an ally who is seriously transgressing. Worse, the nature of the treaty web itself means you can easily get chain-dragged into wars being fought over an issue you disagree with, because one of your allies is treatied to someone, who is treatied to someone else, who is obligated to defend someone else, who does something stupid (an argument against chaining treaties if there ever was one). CN is basically trapped in a permanent state of politics akin to pre-WWI Europe - even the tiniest (or stupidest) spark can ignite global war. Politics today can easily create situations where a player has to say "I completely and utterly object to what you did, and are seriously pissed at you for it, but I'm obligated to defend you anyway. And if I try to sit out for moral reasons, people will spend the next few months bashing my reputation." And there's something seriously not right with that.

To be fair, you are implicitly and voluntarily giving up a degree of sovereignty when you join a bloc. Just like you implicitly and voluntarily give up a degree of national sovereignty when you join an alliance. Essentially, you are trading the freedom to act in any way you choose for the security of having allies to defend you. The power, influence, and safety that comes from having strong allies goes hand-in-hand with the responsibility to not completely screw those allies over with your own ill-planned and dangerous behavior. As soon as you tie yourself to others, so that they may have to suffer the consequences of YOUR actions, you have an obligation to do your best to make sure you consider the consequences of your actions before acting, so you DON'T drag your allies down over something stupid. And in that sense, if people in Fark feel like RIA are starting completely unnecessary trouble and are generally acting like tools, then Fark would absolutely have the right to go out of their way to try and smooth things over and stop things from going really, really bad. Doubly so if there's a significant chance that Fark is eventually going to wind up get sucked into a major war over it. In real life, if I go out with one of my friends, and he gets drunk starts picking fights with random strangers, I'm fully entitled to try to talk him down, try and talk the other person (maybe by pointing out he's completely drunk and doesn't mean what he's saying), or otherwise trying to keep him from getting himself and other friends into trouble. And if he doesn't listen, and it becomes a repetitive sort of behavior, I'll almost certainly stop talking to that person, or hanging out with them. So in that sense, if RIA starts doing things that their close allies feel are foolish or self-destructive, those allies are fully within their rights to try and convince RIA to step down, or try to otherwise stop things from going too far. And if they keep pushing policy that their allies simply cannot justify, or keep putting those allies in unnecessary danger because they selfishly refuse to consider the consequences of their actions, their allies would be fully justified in cutting ties entirely. Now I'm not saying RIA is behaving like that, but if Fark thinks they are, then I see nothing wrong with Fark trying to do something about it. You can criticize how the situation was handled, but trying to use individual sovereignty as a catch-all defense for any and all behavior shouldn't even be on the table from anyone who is actually over the age of 12. Life simply doesn't work that way. And the premise that alliances should support the actions of their allies, regardless of how horrifically bad their behavior or foreign policy happens to be, or how many situations they provoke, is quite frankly one of the stupidest concepts CN has ever managed to produce.

I know I always said the Revenge Doctrine was one of the best policies the NPO ever had, globally speaking. A place where players could realistically exist in small cliquish alliances of real life friends or even go it alone without fear of being annihilated by more hardcore raiding alliances, and without having to hide in Peace Mode and suffer crippling limits to growth, goes a long way towards allowing more casual players a bit of freedom and security. I absolutely consider that the only real tragedy of the Karma War - the utter destruction of that safe haven for players who don't feel like dealing with the usual forum-based BS. It was inevitable, though, since the Revenge Doctrine was intimately tied to the Moldavi Doctrine, which was a tool of control that helped the NPO maintain dominance. I suspect that, if the NPO tried to reestablish a similar protectorate over the entire sphere, most people would condemn it out of hand as an attempt to restore the Moldavi Doctrine and criticize it as an attack on the sovereignty of other alliances, there'd be a lot of chest-thumping and threats, and in the end, the NPO would have to back down on it. The Revenge Doctrine worked because of how powerful the NPO was at the time - the same policy without the power to enforce it (and with powerful interests opposed to it) is basically just Yellow No. 5. I'm half-surprised that no other alliance (or bloc) has considered staking out a color and making it a similar refuge, though... considering how it could boost the number of nations in the color and thus improve availability of trades in general. I think it would be interesting if TOP/IRON/ODN pushed for an Orange Preserve (pun intended), or if the NpO could pull together some support to declare Blue a sanctuary for individualist nations. Aqua and Green are other spheres I could think of as candidates for such a thing, but Aqua's a bit too fractious to really set it up, and Green would probably only work if the GPA was willing to be a bit more militant and devote themselves to offering their protection to Green nations outside of their AA. And I'm sure some of the other colors could pull it off with a bit of desire and organization.

I think it's more like a "treaty pentagon" now, with five separate corners (which are themselves at least partially connected), and a bunch of outliers who don't quite fit into any of the five main orbits.

I don't know. From what I've seen, it seems like most Tech raiders are in it for two things - quick and easy profit, or the lure of a vastly outmatched battle that they can win and get a bit of ego-stroke from without having to actually worry about losing. The mentality of "if you're attacked, surrender peacefully, and if you fight back I'll call in my friends to help me beat you to death" doesn't seem like it's the exception, but the majority. And that is absolutely the mentality of the bully who wants victims, not challenges. If people were actually looking for the thrill of an evenly-matched fight, we'd see a lot more wargames and less raiding. I know I'd look much less harshly on raiding (and have a bit more respect for people who do it) if nearly every alliance that allows raiding would have a "if you raid, you forfeit all support from the alliance until your raiding war ends" clause in their charter, and it was actually strictly enforced. Most raiders are too cocky because they KNOW they're going to be able to call in help, even if their alliance technically says they're on their own. The problem with nuclear escalation is, as Yevgeni Luchenkov said, that people who are looking for a curbstomping will use it as a justification for the beating that they wanted to deliver the entire time. They go into the raid looking for an excuse to flex their muscles, and welcome the nuke as the "casus belli" they wanted. In that sense, the deterrent value fails because the raider uses it as an excuse to act worse, and their alliance and the community as a whole turns a blind eye. So yes, it makes sense for a raiding victim to passively accept their fate in an attempt to get out alive, in the same way it makes sense for a woman to not fight back against a rapist for fear of getting killed. That doesn't make it right, though. Regardless, it will continue as long as CN as a whole simply doesn't care. From the moral perspective, though, I consider it absolutely justifiable to go nuclear if you are raided. In real life, if someone chooses to break into your house to rob you, they are fully aware of the fact that you may be armed, and are implicitly accepting the possibility that they may be shot and killed before they ever get inside. Thus, I have absolutely no problem with a homeowner shooting a burglar in self-defense and in defense of their home and property, and firmly believe that whether the burglar is wounded or killed, there should absolutely be no grounds to legally punish the homeowner. In CN terms, you are fully aware when you raid whether or not your opponent has nuclear weapons, and are implicitly accepting the possibility of being nuked before you ever raid them. If they nuke you, it's your own damned fault, and is no different than if they ground attacked you, or fired off some CMs, or whatever. Either suck it up, or admit that you're nothing more than an opportunistic coward. If you don't want them to retaliate in any way, don't attack them in the first place. If you attack them anyway, then throw a hissy fit when they attempt to defend themselves, and have to call in friends to help you beat them down, then all you're really doing is proving that you're a coward, a weakling, and scum in general. And then wonder why the new player retention rate is lower than the old player attrition rate, so that the overall population of CN has either remained steady or slowly dropped for more than two years now. Attacking people who don't know any better, or who just want to be left alone, is annoying to them. Once they've been attacked multiple times, it gets frustrating. Eventually, they'll just say "Oh, screw this", and there's one less player. I said years ago that there's a disturbing trend on the forums for players to think "anyone who doesn't play the game the way I do is wrong", and to dismiss anything and everything those people think as unimportant - and that hasn't changed. There is a HUGE disconnect between most "forum veteran" players and more casual players and newer players in general, and I absolutely think it translates into fewer new players coming in and deciding to stay for the long haul. I don't think Tech raiding is the problem. I think it's just a symptom of the real problem.

Some of Polar's enemies absolutely had that intention. They were just in the minority, and lacked the capacity to finish the job themselves if their more moderate allies pulled out. Much like GWI, when there were certainly elements within the CoaLUEtion that wanted the Orders completely crushed and disbanded, but who were forced to settle for peace because their allies thought the Orders had been punished enough and were planning to pull out, leaving the more bloodthirsty alliances in a very difficult position if they didn't do the same. For that matter, the same could be said of the Karma War - there were absolutely alliances that wanted to see the NPO completely broken and disbanded, but lacked the firepower to get the job done once the more moderate alliances started saying the NPO had been punished enough and should be offered terms. Realistically speaking, \m/ almost certainly could have survived if they'd managed to hold on until public opinion shifted, but their internal problems made it impossible. Simple as that. You want to talk to alliances that basically faced the full might of most of the known world and still didn't buckle under pressure to fold, go talk to someone in FAN. Not enough was done at the time to really emphasize the Citadel stance that "We're not part of the Coalition, we're doing this for personal reasons of our own", so it's essentially been lost to history and people blur the political lines. The fact that most of the alliances in Citadel were using the excuse to settle a personal grudge with Sponge and the NpO rather than acting in accord with the Continuum objectives/intentions is something most people outside of Citadel really aren't aware of. If anything, the fact that TOP had a burning hatred of Sponge and was actively trying to fan the flames against the NpO in Citadel (and that both Umbrella and the Grämlins shared that emotion to a degree) argues against the idea that the Citadel front was simply motivated by following along with Continuum. Honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe that TOP talked the NPO into making a move rather than the reverse.

I know you're still pissed at the alliance as a whole for personal reasons, but honestly, I'd have to say that neither of those statements are even remotely accurate in any way.

Näktergal Technically, it should probably be pronounced something like "Neck-ter-gall", though I've always pronounced it "Nack-ter-gall".

Hate to say it, but I've been playing since mid-2006 and I don't ever remember that ever being the dominant paradigm. Sure, there were always lone individuals and alliances that proclaimed that "Might Should Serve Right" rather than "Might Makes Right", but ultimately, CN politics have almost always been a case of the Strong preying upon the Weak, and then re-writing history after the fact to "prove" that they were right all along. I don't really see it changing any time soon, either. Now we'll just get to see it play out with a whole new cast of characters instead of the old villains.

Or to put it another way, the Doctrine describes how they think the world SHOULD be, while their behavior is forced to reflect the way the world currently IS. Which describes most politics in CN, really - morality and idealism in general tend to take a back-seat to practicality.

Damn it, this is why you're supposed to save your old rollover minutes!

When you're dealing with OBR, an ODP is probably worth more than an MDP with a lot of other alliances.