Näktergal

Yes, we absolutely are. And that time started at least three years ago. Like it or not, to anyone who is paying attention, CN has always been like this. There have always been alliances who sign treaties and weasel out of them when convenient, just like there have always been alliances that will hold to their word even if it kills them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of people who seem willing to compromise their honor or principles for the sake of survival or power has always outnumbered those who felt that their word and their ideals were worth far more than their lives. If it seems to you that the world has less honor today than it's had in the past, then I'm going to suggest that either your perspective is colored by your personal biases, your memories of the past and completely tainted by nostalgia, or you simply weren't paying attention. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned? And this tends to be one of the problems with CN politics, really. Most treaties are written, signed, interpreted, and enforced by people who have very little understanding of how real-world treaties or contract law actually works, and the obsession with following the letter of the law while folding, spindling, and mutilating the spirit of the agreement into oblivion basically turns global political interaction into little more than a farce. The second one is absolutely E-lawyering, and represents one of the worst mentalities ever to enter the collective mind of CN politics - namely, the idea that the only way a war can be just or valid is if it's triggered by treaties. Never mind the fact that two alliances may be very friendly without ever actually signing a treaty, if someone attacks one and the other chooses to come to the aid of their friends, THEY are treated like scum. Even if the attacking alliance is doing so for spurious reasons, or for no reason at all. In CN, it's considered more honorable to let your friends die than it is to act without paper. And, quite franky, that's incredibly stupid. Every alliance should feel free to take action if they feel action is justified. Whether that action is to defend a friend without a treaty, or to attack an alliance they feel is doing great evil even if they don't have a treaty with the victims, or even to stand against a growing power because they see a future threat against themselves developing. Alliances should be judged based on their actions, not whether or not they have a "permission slip" for those actions. When it comes to the other two examples, the first one is more quibbling than anything (which means it sort of is E-lawyering), and the last one is really the only valid point. Though even that descends into E-lawyering when you get into squabbling over whether or not a treaty is technically being cancelled, or if the other party violated it first and broke the treaty. Personally, I'd rather that the CONCEPT of E-lawyering be consigned to history rather than simply the term. As long as people continue to exist who treat every single post, document, or statement as a puzzle to be unraveled and then used as a weapon against anyone they don't like, they should absolutely be called out for it. We don't, though I wish we did. There is no reason why anyone should be required to produce documentation to justify who their friends are. During the course of my life, I've never been expected to write up contracts with every one of my friends, then post them publicly so the world can see the degree to which I'd be willing to help them during future crises. I don't have a MADP with my best friend and PIATs with work acquaintances. A treaty is simply a contract formalizing the relationship that already exists between two alliances, or is purely a business deal between two alliances who feel they can benefit each other. That does not mean that two alliances cannot be extremely friendly without putting it to paper. Or that everyone should be barred from ever helping anyone without a binding contract compelling them to do so. In a sense, what you're essentially arguing is akin to saying that no one should ever have sex before marriage. After all, their relationship isn't worth anything unless they have a contract to validate it. And what makes it worse is that CN in general has accepted this model for ages. Everything not compulsory is forbidden! In a sense, in terms of contract law, the only people who have any right to care whether or not a treaty was broken, or what the terms are in the first place, are the people who signed it in the first place. When people who aren't in either alliance - and are at least two or three links in the treaty chain away from either - are fuming with righteous indignation, something has gone seriously wrong with the world. About the only input outside parties should have at all is to see who broke the treaty, and why, so they can decide how trustworthy that alliance is to help decide whether or not they should sign a treaty with them in the future. Anything more than that - especially if you fly into a rage that makes it seem like the offending alliance came into your house and beat up your family - is absolutely E-lawyering. The current obsession with E-lawyering probably never would have developed to the point it has if not for the tendency of alliances to sign almost any treaty offered to them, in the hopes that the more paper they have, the safer they'll be. Which is why the MDP web is such a mess, why even small sparks in the right place can trigger global wars, and why people are so willing to break treaties when they get drawn into wars essentially being forced to defend people they don't even care about (or actively dislike). Anti-chaining clauses in treaties helped alleviate some of the pressure, but it's still a problem. And it will continue to be so, until people stop thinking that treaties should be the only justification for entering any war, or seeing them as a shortcut to power and political influence. I wouldn't take it as a point of pride. Mostly because it almost always tends to boil down to an obsessive focus on the literal interpretation of what is being said rather than the actual intended meaning. It's the letter of the law versus the spirit of it, and usually ceases to even be about the point in question, as much as it becomes an opportunity to score points off the other person. Most arguments about treaties or politics in CN is less about an objective interpretation of events, and more about a massive PR campaign to demonize anyone on the other side of the line from you. Here's something I was told many years ago, and I absolutely agree with it. Winning a debate doesn't mean you're right, or that you've proved your point. It just means you're better at arguing than the other person. I have absolutely seen examples - both in real life and on these boards - of people whose stance is correct, but who essentially lose the argument anyway because the person they were arguing against was far more eloquent, skilled at debate, and able to set verbal traps for the unwary. It's like asking someone "Yes or no answers only - have you stopped beating your wife yet?" No matter what they answer, you've won. I should point you guys over to the FCC forums, where they're currently having an argument over whether or not logic is a valid means of deductive reasoning. So far, they've apparently demonstrated that every member of the alliance is a goat.

Just want to say, I do love it when problems can be solved with words rather than guns. Though it's sad that a topic like this, where people put aside their differences and agree to try and get along, only gets a handful of posts, while topics about violent slaughter and hate get page after page after page...

I think his point was more along the lines of, there are things that the NPO has done which are deserving of respect, but those are far outweighed by the things they've done that deserve disdain. So that, as long as the leadership remains in power, the good will never match the bad, and thus, the alliance as a whole, overall, does not deserve respect. As others have said, whether or not those nations held the gun, or even fired it, they still made it possible for others to do so, or profited from those actions after the fact. While most legal systems will differentiate between the principle agent and accessories to the crime - even accessory after the fact - both are still considered crimes. Nations that joined late enough to not have had anything to do with the past actions of the NPO still chose to join an alliance that did those things. Even if the nation in question was unaware of those actions when they joined, if they have since learned of them, then they still possess the means to undo that choice. If they do not, then they are either implicitly accepting the past actions of the Order, or remain blissfully ignorant of history. I never liked the Karma war moniker because I think it was fundamentally misleading about what "karma" is. It's a common Western culture mistake to think of karma as this magical force that rewards the good and punishes the bad, so that bullies ultimately wind up getting bullied while the meek inherit the Earth, but really, that's not what karma is at all. If anything, in order to be an accurate name, the Karma War would have to involve slaughtering every member of the NPO, then having them reincarnate, with their place in their new lives entirely dependent on their actions during this life. In fact, considering the PZI aspirations of some Karma members, and the occasional demands that the NPO be completely broken and scattered, perhaps the name is more fitting than most realize.

Does that mean, since BTA never actually disbanded when it became TAB, never changed color (BTA was Aqua at the time of the name change, and remained Aqua), and the final government in place in BTA before the name change remained in place when it became TAB, that those facets of your reasoning can be dismissed? I mean, that just leaves the new name and a different political outlook on the world. And since any number of alliances have changed their political viewpoint in the past without being accused of somehow forfeiting their entire identity (is the GGA of today the same as the one from July 2006? Is the Legion of today the same as the one from 2006?), we're back to the entire argument of identity riding on the name. So again, I ask, does that mean CATO and GATO are different alliances? Does that mean CGS and the two different versions of CDS are different alliances? Does TPF have no real connection to Total Fark or COLD? No alliance in the past which has changed its name but maintained every other facet of its existence has ever been assumed to have completely forfeited their former identity. In every such case, attempts to reform alliances which either changed their name or merged into another alliance are usually condemned, both by the original alliance, as well as the general public. This instance isn't different, and shouldn't be treated as such.

So then you'd essentially be arguing that the founder of an alliance retains all rights, regardless of how much time has passed, how many other people have been members, or what events have occurred since that founding? Again, by that logic, what right to alliances like the NPO, GGA, or GATO have to their names and identities, now that their founders are no longer there? And if you argue that the original founder has full claim over the name/identity of an alliance, unless the original alliance is still using the original name, then I ask again, why is it that the name alone holds that power, while every other consideration - like the beliefs of the members, the forums, the history, the continuity, etc - are meaningless? And again, why did almost no one question TPF's right to be offended when someone tried to "reform" Total Fark, if they gave up all right to their own past when they changed their name? The actual terms of the surrender don't use the term "disband" anywhere in them. In fact, the terms in question use the words "BTA chooses a new name", which is itself an implicit statement that the alliance itself has not changed, only the name. The original acceptance terms were signed by the last official government that used the BTA name, which was also the first official government to use the TAB name. Mandated by outside sources or not, it's not as if BTA was completely disbanded and some of the survivors founded TAB, BTA became TAB. TAB served out the surrender terms given to BTA by CIS, because TAB is BTA. Perhaps, if MD wants to assert his rights to use the BTA name, he should be willing to pay TAB back the full amount of reparations that TAB paid to atone for his actions, in the name of BTA? After all, if TAB isn't BTA, and was never BTA, then it shouldn't have had to pay those reps, either.

And my point is, as expressed, is that BTA still exists as well, even if the name has changed. Name alone is not the sum entirety of the identity of an alliance. True, but if the content was something that a majority of people disagreed with (or indeed, even an active minority disagreed with), it would have been long-since edited to reflect an alternative interpretation. The fact remains that TAB has always been considered to be the direct evolution of BTA, and no one really had an issue with that or somehow implied otherwise until MD attempted to reform something which didn't need to be reformed in the first place. I believe the logic was, since multiple attempts to discourage this in private were completely ignored, and the DoE was taken public, TAB should express its dissatisfaction with same publicly as well. That in no way rules out further private discussions or agreements to address the problem. Sort of a flawed analogy, since TSO essentially broke off while MCXA still existed. On the other hand, if TSO had formed while MCXA was "disbanding", and TSO retained the MCXA forums, and nearly all of the MCXA membership, and the current members of MCXA at the time directly acknowledged TSO as the direct inheritor of MCXA's identity, to the point where the entire transfer is essentially little more than a name-change, then yes, TSO would own the rights to MCXA's name. As Random has sort of suggested, if the New Pacific Order changed their name to Nova Pacifica or something, but still considered themselves to be the direct inheritors of NPO tradition, history, and heritage, most people would freely admit that wouldn't somehow give Ivan the right to "re-found" the New Pacific Order.

Then wouldn't your opinion have absolutely no value, as you speak on subjects you freely admit you have no understanding of?

The problem with that logic is that the membership of BTA, by accepting the shift to TAB, were essentially validating the change. It's been nearly a year since CIS ceased to exist (the new version notwithstanding), and yet TAB never chose to revert to the original name, or invite the old leadership back. While TAB honors its past and remembers its time as the BTA with pride, it's also built a number of relationships and established history as TAB as well. And in the aftermath of the debacle in question, the BTA members freely admitted that MD was the one responsible for the alliance's problems, and thus, forfeited any real right he had. In the same way the NPO rejected Ivan, or the GGA cast Prodigal Chieftain out, it's long-since established in CN that no alliance founder necessarily has carte blanche to control or own the identity of any alliance in perpetuity - especially if their actions directly harm that alliance. When multiple members of TAB who have been with the alliance since the BTA era - along with former BTA members who are now in various other alliances - all state that TAB is BTA, and that MD is wrong for what he's doing, perhaps that says a great deal about the validity of such things.

Out of curiosity, would you then say that the only thing that somehow invalidates the claim of an alliance's current membership over that of its founder is the name? Because otherwise, it would seem that your argument is that someone like Prodigal Chieftain could come back and attempt to form a new GGA, and you'd assume he'd have more right to the name/identity than the alliance that has been using the name for the last 3 years. Or that Depraved should have exclusive rights to the concept of GATO. Or Ivan would have the right to reestablish a new New Pacific Order. If you ARE suggesting that the only continuity an alliance retains is via the name, I'd have to ask, when the Coalition of Green States changed their name to the Coalition of Dark States, and then later to the Coalition of Defensive States, was that one alliance, or three? At the time, there wasn't a single person in CN who would have claimed they were different, and if someone attempted to do so, they'd be laughed at. As I asked in the other thread, did the shift from "Cross Atlantic Treaty Organization" to "Global Alliance and Treaty Organization" somehow transform GATO into a different alliance? I suspect they'd say no. When attempts were made to "re-form" Total Fark, TPF reacted poorly. But why, if they didn't consider themselves to be the rightful continuation of the former alliance? If the people who left MCXA to form TSO had called themselves the Multi Colored Coalition Force, would MCXA have just shrugged and went, "Ahh, well, it's not like we're using the name any more, who cares?" The sum of an alliance's identity is more than just the name. And TAB has never made a secret of being the direct evolution of BTA. The Wiki flat-out describes TAB as BTA's direct successor. BTA's original forums will currently show up as TAB's old forums. TAB has medals that directly reflect membership in BTA. In short, it's not just a question of the name, it's a question of tradition. A tradition which TAB has always honored, and which the "revival" of an alliance that never actually "died" is a direct attack upon. Claiming to "reform" BTA is essentially denying the fact that TAB retains continuity from the BTA , and is more or less spitting in the face of TAB's right to its own heritage. So... why WOULDN'T TAB object to that, or otherwise assert their displeasure? ...and was essentially informed, by everyone he asked, that it was a horrible idea, and he should reconsider. Apparently, though, the fact that no one threatened to ZI him over it or otherwise completely overreact, and tried to deal with the situation calmly and politely, completely went over his head. How much more would you suggest that TAB have done beforehand to discourage him? Sort of preemptively ZIing him or something else that would have been equally frowned upon?

As Crush already pointed out, there are extenuating circumstances. But it bears repeating - there is a massive difference between an alliance having a "predecessor" in the sense that it came from and grew out of another alliance, and an alliance essentially BEING the same alliance under a different name. While MK isn't really LUE2 and GR isn't NAAC, TAB basically is BTA in almost every way that matters. It certainly retains continuity of identity in ways that make "reestablishing" BTA a joke at best and an insult at worst. Imagine the reaction had the members who left MCXA to form TSO had instead declared that they were reforming the Cross-X Alliance. It's safe to say most people probably wouldn't have considered that a very classy move. How do you think GATO would respond if someone claimed to be "reforming" the Cross Atlantic Treaty Organization? Hell, for that matter, we all SAW how TPF felt about people attempting to "reform" Total Fark. It's been accepted as common wisdom for years that the BTA became TAB (hey, just check the Wiki, or note that the old BTA forums are identified as TAB). Claiming to "reform" BTA is essentially denying that truth, and spitting in the face of TAB's right to its own heritage.

Well, to be fair, they had a lot more opportunities to demand reps than the FCC did.

Look on the bright side, it means you're less of a nerd than the rest of us.

I can see - and somewhat support - the use of the term bandwagoning to describe alliances completely disconnected from the current conflict joining in late solely for the purpose of trying to gain cred with the winning side. On the other hand, the term is definitely used far too often, and usually in cases where it doesn't (or shouldn't apply). Whether it be an alliance that feels so strongly about a cause that they're willing to choose sides without a treaty forcing them to do so, or one that is willing to enter immediately but is asked by allies to wait until later rounds for tactical advantage, or joining a war late due to an inability to get the war machine moving in the span of 20 minutes, or so on. Essentially, I'm willing to accept almost any justification that doesn't boil down to "we jumped in late, at little risk to ourselves, in hopes of reaping great rewards". CN politics in general has gotten far too rules lawyer-y, to the point where the legalize absolutely tends to trump common sense, to the point of stupidity.

That actually reminds me - considering the fact that there was a time when MK was actually interested in joining Citadel, and considering one of the major objections to said application (along with the FCC signing treaties of any kind with MK) was due to a fear that it would effectively annoy the NPO... I'm curious as to how the FCC and Citadel currently view MK. Has the weakening of the NPO and fighting more or less on the same "side" of the current war increased respect for MK? It's a very old, custom FCC treaty. It read like an ODP, at least for the NpO-FCC version. It's the greatest treaty ever written in the history of CyberNations, written by one of the most awesome players ever. The author was one of the most attractive, charming, sweet, and downright humble people anyone could ever hope to meet, and the world would be a far better place if more people were like her.

The FCC long ago decided that everyone is Junka.

Quick question. We're all aware that many of the leaders of OG who were the core of the problem have left the alliance, and I'm personally aware that at least a few outsiders, ex-members, and friends of the alliance have actually joined in the last week or two solely to help OG weather the current situation. In other words, it might be safe to say that a significant percentage of OG today is different from what it was a month ago. It's probably also safe to predict that current events and the dramatic shake-up in membership will lead OG to re-evaluate its place, its methods, its policies, and its friendships. So where I'm going with this is, hypothetically speaking, would there ever come a time when OG has changed enough to successfully reapply to Citadel and be taken seriously? Or would the scars from this particular incident and fears that history might repeat itself block any such future plans? If there's a sentiment that OG would be welcomed back if they "correct" what Citadel saw as their flaws, precisely what sort of changes or reforms would Citadel expect before being willing to give them a second chance? Just curious. I've seen this come up a few times, but I haven't seen anyone else bring this up yet, so I will: How much information did OG members have to make educated decisions on their own? Essentially, what I'm asking is, how much information was disseminated throughout the alliance, that would allow them to question the decisions of their leadership in the first place? For instance, if most important Citadel-related info was restricted to top-level diplomats, and Reyne was able to filter any information coming in before it reached OG's general membership, it's entirely possible that the members simply rubber-stamped her decisions because they lacked the necessarily information to know her decisions were flawed in any way. If that was the case, then accusations of either apathy or ill-intent on their part are incorrect, as they were as much victims as anyone else. Past experience suggests that there are certainly alliances - even ones in Citadel - where the members are absolutely not told everything their leaders know, or are given highly compressed versions of talks going on at higher levels. At least, this was the case in the past, and I can only assume it's still the case now. So, just how much information did the OG rank and file have? Could Reyne and other leadership have passed inaccurate and manipulative information on to the general membership? Is it possible that the membership would have been more critical of her actions if they'd been getting information from alternate news sources? I honestly don't know, but I'd like to hear some perspectives on this.

To be fair, the CoaLUEtion didn't necessarily show mercy. In the end, the light terms the Orders got in GWI were prompted by multiple stronger alliances growing tired of the war and making individual peace, which meant the alliances still left in the war were facing the prospect that they'd eventually wind up outnumbered against two alliances who were very badly beaten, but not yet broken. If the war hawks had insisted on continuing, it may have actually resulted in a reversal of fortunes - so tactically, it was far better to withdraw than to keep fighting. Had LUE (or any of the other really bloodthirsty alliances involved) been able to fight the war entirely on their own with no risk of losing, I don't think they would have ever lifted the boot from the Orders' necks until they were well and truly dead. But with Legion out and GATO hinting that they would be pulling out as well, there wasn't much choice. Mercy means you have the power to inflict far more harm, but choose not to. In that particular case, it was more a tactical decision than a merciful one. That being said, I wouldn't say that's an argument for treating the NPO with mercy. After all, they themselves are a prime example that giving more lenient terms does not always result in future harmony and peace.

You have CN mono!

It was my understanding that there was an agreement on the part of Argent to effectively guarantee she'd never be allowed to run for office even if she wanted to, in order to cool some of the louder voices calling for her blood. I freely admit this may be a distorted interpretation of the actual facts, since I heard it like seventh-hand, but I definitely got the impression it was less she was choosing to opt out as much as she was being locked out as a condition of being allowed to join Argent at all.

Expected. Very, very expected. But also sad. Maybe even unfortunate, since as others have suggested, it doesn't seem to actually address the real problem, such as it was. If the guilty party goes free, and the people who are punished for the crime erred more through inaction than action, has justice really been served? If said punishment also deprives the entire bloc of about 2 million NS (give or take, post-rebuilding), and accomplishes little of substance, was it a wise decision? Or was it an act fueled by anger and hurt feelings? I still have much love for the people of Citadel, but I think this may ultimately have been a mistake. It may even set a dangerous precedent, since I can think of at least two incidents in the past where the judgment and/or integrity of a Citadel alliance's leadership was called into question, and angry words and hurt feelings absolutely came into play. Where would Citadel be now if either (or both) of those issues had been pushed to the point of punishing an entire alliance with expulsion? I think there were other options that could have been pursued. I'm not sure they were considered as strongly as they should have been, or WOULD have been, if not for people nursing old grudges and looking for payback rather than resolution.

I'd be tempted to help, but you'd still be 103 members short. So, you know, if you find another 103, give me a call.

Flight, invulnerability, laser beam eyes? Don't forget the awesome power that is the Prism Protection Front. We all know they secretly control most of the global politics in CN from the shadows.

I know I've been leadership of varying types in smaller alliances, and it's always too much work for my taste. I always take the jobs more out of a sense of obligation than excitement, so they feel even more like unpaid work. Plus, I lack the driving need to be in charge so that people will love and respect me, so the allure of a leadership position really isn't all that strong. So yes, leadership positions do tend to decrease fun while increasing stress and tedium. And, of course, with the advent of "IRC politics", the job tends to more or less force you to spend far more time in IRC than is healthy for anyone over the age of 16. My biggest problem has always been one of balance - on the one hand, I want the freedom to be able to think, act, and speak on my own, without being shackled by alliance policy or orders from above I vehemently disagree with. On the other hand, that freedom usually only comes hand-in-hand with power, especially in larger alliances, which means anyone who doesn't want to be just another cog has to work their way up into a leadership position of some kind. Smaller alliances tend to be better for freedom and sense of community, but at the same time, they also tend to have fewer people capable of leading, so able-bodied people tend to get drafted into positions of responsibility whether they want to or not. I've always thought it was unfair to simply dismiss every new smaller start-up alliance as being the pet project of a few people who want to lead but aren't good enough to work their way up into power in larger alliances. But maybe that's because most of the people I've known who have started smaller alliances always had other reasons for it. And often, those reasons were less "I WANNA BE A POWER IN CN!" and more "I want a place where my friends and I can hang out in a less serious environment."

That particular propaganda campaign was where I would have lost a lot of respect for the CN "collective", if I'd still had any left after, oh, GWIII or so. Like it or not, "The Masses" of CN have ALWAYS flocked to support strong PR over facts, truth, or anything resembling justice or fair play. The NPO understood that fact for YEARS, and ever since GWIII, it's been child's play to know who was going to get rolled next simply by paying attention to who the hype machine was starting to slander at any given time. Almost like textbook, the demonizing phase always preceded the beat-down phase by a month or two - by making your intended target the villain, you isolate them from help when the time came to attack. By forcing them into positions where they would make mistakes or buckle under pressure, you gain even more fuel for your campaign to paint them as inept or evil to help justify the future aggression that you've already started planning. But to anyone paying attention, every single war has been telegraphed weeks (if not months) in advance. I've accurately predicted every single war in CN since GWI months in advance simply by paying attention to who was getting picked apart on the forums, and who the most vocal voices against them were. The only ones I got wrong were the second FAN war and the attack on the GPA - and that only because the anti-GPA campaign started so early, I was expecting the GPA to get hit first, then FAN, rather than the reverse. It's always been so damned obvious, it was actually frustrating how many people always bought into the PR. It's like, hasn't anyone been paying attention? I know I'm not the only one who's been playing the game long enough to see these patterns emerge. It's always been surprising how many otherwise intelligent and aware individuals seemed to become so oblivious when you put them in large groups on the OWF or in IRC - it's mob psychology at its finest. One of the reasons why public opinion turned against the NPO so hard in the current war has very little to do with righteousness or justice or retribution, as much as it has to do with the fact that some of the best PR artists in CN finally wound up on the other side. With the likes of Sponge, Doitzel, Zog, Archon, and others all firing off round after round of PR, while the NPO itself went uncharacteristically quiet, the war of opinions was all but won long before the war even started.

Not going to go into a long rant or ramble, but I'm just going to point out that I think anyone who believes that the only solution to dealing with the twisted and abnormal cultural values and morality of CN is to basically reject everything resembling morality and resort to pure ID-driven self-gratification no matter who else has to suffer to be just as misguided, if not moreso. It's certainly the more childish and immature answer, not some mark of maturity or wisdom. It's not an either-or scenario. And if you're not going to bother trying to be better than the people you're complaining about, you sure as hell forfeit the right to complain when you decide to be just as bad (or worse) than they are. World's smallest violin, and all that.