Ogaden

Going to have to agree with Myth here, the idea that there's such a thing as justice on planet Bob is a cruel joke at best

I agree with Steve about people being too busy looking towards the next war to commit to the one they're fighting, I think the last great war where there wasn't some postwar agenda warping the way the war was fought was Grudge. Even as early as the Dave war I remember a lot of alliances were prepping for the Eq war even then, and pushing that agenda to get everything lined up for Eq before Dave was even over.

Some exhibit A stuff going on right now...

Alliances that get into the habit of finessing wars in this fashion tend not to get very many willing participants in their future campaigns

I feel the need to comment on this issue due to this possibly being the most egregious case of treaty chess I have seen in some time. Treaty chess is the cynical exploitation of treaties built around trust, common interest and friendship between two or more alliances in order to negate the ability of an alliance to receive assistance from their allies. This can take two forms: 1) Chain-baiting. Chain-baiting is the result of an alliance having a treaty or treaties that make it extremely inconvenient to directly attack, thus triggering all manner of defensive treaties. The treaty-chess player instructs an alliance or alliances to attack the desired targets less well connected allies in order to compel the target alliance to "take the bait" and attack the bait alliance. Due to agreements made prior to the war, this relieves obligations of defense due to non-chaining clauses, opposing coalitions, or whatnot. 2) Treaty Conflicts. The second and more commonly used exploitation of treaties in treaty chess is to get alliances to counter or attack a target alliance where the attacking alliance has treaties which are also held by the target alliance, therefore making it impossible for the target alliance's allies to defend them without violating their treaty with the attacking alliance. The first instance I find more acceptable than the second, as the target in the first instance, their allies should recognize what is going on and defend their ally regardless. The second instance I have long considered to be an abuse, and alliances should not agree to be used in that way. The rationale for treaty chess and the arguments as to why treaty chess is ok that I have heard largely involve the treaty web, and how offensive action is inherently more difficult than defensive action (due to there being a hell of a lot more mutual defense clauses than optional aggression clauses) but ultimately treaty chess involves exploiting the ties that bind alliances together for cynical ends. This goes both ways. Not defending an ally because they are obvious bait does not diminish the fact that they are still your ally, and they signed their treaty in good faith with you. Treaty chess is the ultimate dehumanizing element of coalition warfare, it reduces your alliance down to a NS value and a treaty list. Alliances that do not contest being exploited or sacrificed for treaty chess abandon their sovereignty in exchange for better odds for "the coalition", but where will the coalition be when the war is over? Your coalition partner today ordering you to hit your ally's ally instead of defending your own ally is your enemy tomorrow, who rejoices at your diminished state, fewer allies, and damaged credibility.

I believe I've been called out :v I have a big mirror right next to me, my hair is fabulous

I'm not making value judgments or saying might makes moral, but if you go against the current of what is the consensus, you might get props on the OWF from a few bystanders, but in terms of ingame action, you are treated like a mad dog to be put down. I'm also not saying that you should avoid doing so, I've certainly seen my share of attempts of various alliances looking to put RIA down once and for all.

This phrase, "Might Makes Right" I have been seeing this a lot lately, used to criticize both coalitions. The Doom Squad coalition using the phrase to morally criticize the Disorder War, and the Polar coalition using the phrase to criticize the actions of alliances such as the Doombirds who attack people several times smaller than they are on a regular basis. The problem is, might does make right. It is not a pithy phrase, we live in a brutal world where the law of the jungle reigns supreme. The only reason there is any peace or safety for anyone in this world is the various consequences that would be inflicted upon a nation that "went rogue" and attacked a protected nation. Ultimately, the issue is sovereignty. Sovereignty is not an inherent value in an alliance, despite the fact that social norms would dictate that alliances should be viewed as sovereign entities. In my own view, an alliance is not sovereign unless it can defend itself (maybe not win, but defend itself) when attacked, has complete control over their own foreign policy and vigorously defends both when challenged. If an alliance fails to defend its members from attack or allows their foreign policy to be dictated by a third party, they cease to be sovereign as they have surrendered their sovereignty. Too many alliances take their sovereignty for granted. They surrender their foreign policy to an ally or powerful blocmate, they do nothing when attacked by powerful rogues and cower in the corner. Take back your sovereignty, stop being so complacent and scared.

Stopping at 30? I see how it is

I completely disagree, I think declaring war on an alliance in order to start a broader conflict is itself a Casus Belli. Casus Belli or Case for War is a justification that you use to justify a conflict to yourself and the rest of the world. If your cause for war is good enough for those who would support you and justification enough to declare war, then it is a valid cause for war. No war is ever just for the target of war, but there is a belief that if the Casus Belli for a war is found to be flawed, that would fatally undermine the aggressive war coalition, so people will attack "the CB" for days, weeks and months. This is completely pointless because for the attacker, the war is its own justification, and that alliance's allies are there for their allies, not for the CB. Causes for war is not politics. Coalition building, stoking grievances, stroking egos, promising quid pro quo, fear and loathing, rampant paranoia, raw hatred, webs of lies and deceit, THAT is politics. Politics is a dirty game of smoke filled rooms, where people trade influence for power, and power for influence. Never trust anyone who is really good at the political game. Doing what you say you are going to do, honoring your commitments and defending your allies is behaving properly and honorably. Coming up with a turd of a CB is not honorable or proper behavior, it is a fig leaf.

The whole concept of poaching is kind of absurd. In non-democratic alliances or clique democracies, leaving for greener pastures is often the only real way for your voice to be heard, voting with your feet as it where.

I am the monster

The main forums were moderated into oblivion between 2007-2010 at which point all serious politics and discussions moved to alliance boards, IRC and Skype. Even though moderation is less draconian, this forum remains a place to announce things and then make snarky comments about said announcements (but not too snarky, that would be against the rules) and effectively nothing else. Maybe only 10% of the player base ever reads anything posted here, and half of them don't even have an account.

It's easy to be moral when you have no power, the test of a nation or alliance is when they have real power. Nations taking responsibility for their mistakes is true morality, as is staying your hand when you have the power to destroy utterly those who wronged you.

Spheres are intellectual constructs that are the manifestations of uncountable personal relationships of trust between alliances and individual leaders of those alliances. Ultimately, every alliance is their own sphere.