[Declaration of Victory]

Bob has a big warchest. VE's warchests are split between two banks at the direction of GGA.

[My Proudest CN Achievement]

u don't even know the stoy!

You're hardly worth responding to, but briefly, GGA was a NPO satellite state and at that time the NPO-run hegemony (the Initiative) ruled the world. To have a peaceful reformation that compromise was necessary. Some people prefer never to compromise, and those people enjoy three digit NS and never grow to be meaningful. If you think that the treaty with GGA after reformation was ever loved by VE, you really don't know the story.

Oh, Bob, there's the Grämlin in you, all about the stats and all about the curling up in someone's lap. I'd rather have 3 NS and my dignity than 300,000 NS and have the terms of my existence dictated to me. And in point of fact, that's exactly how I've lived.

[World Order and Polarity]

Thanks to all of you who have responded.

I will write a response to some of your criticism later this week, when I have spare time.

Just to clarify, the "Hah!" at the beginning of my first reply was a "hah, this has been up 24 hrs and I just now saw it" not a "hah! you are dumb" I went to bed right after posting and I was like grrr I bet I sounded snotty. :/

[World Order and Polarity]

I do have to commend your thought and time in this. In my blog, I got a bunch of idiots saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" but when pushed, none of them could name another pole or even just say why they think I'm wrong.

But again, the idea that people on the same side of a war are in one pole is just bad and it's a shortcoming of this "sides" thing.

In fact, I view this "sides" term as a direct result of the hamhandedness of the current hegemony. It's playground terminology. My side your side, bad guy good guy, cowboys indians. It plays ok until you look at it--can we really say that GATO, MCXA, and NpO are unified and part of a pole because they were in the same coalition? Reality bears out that they are not, and neither are the alliances left on the battlefield.

[World Order and Polarity]

Hah! I just read this, sorry.

The problem with your assessment is the same problem everyone has who make-believes that there is more than one pole: That a bloc=a pole, and that a pole=1 bloc, and that a "power sphere" is a pole. All of these premises are patently false, and lead to the erroneous assessment that so many of you arrive at.

To be a pole, a group must possess real power--political and military. AZTEC is a bloc, it is relatively strong, but it is has no political power, it is not a pole simple for existing (even if I love NV). AZTEC cannot exert it's will upon anything except perhaps the odd single alliance. On down the line, same thing for Duckroll, Peace and Love Train before it disbanded, Ragnabloc, Terra Cotta, etc -- you get it I'm not going to name every bloc. All of these blocs have a large combined strength, they all have a shared vision, but they have no power and no influence outside their own tiny spheres of influence.

Now, take any of those, and we see that due to the childish way in which alliances manage their foreign policies (if they can be called that) and we see now that a big war is on that all of them have interconnecting treaties. So, the wayward observer--such as Impero in my blog--jumps to the conclusion that they are all unified because they are all on one side. This is why I hate this subjective, immature term "side" that has crept into use lately. It has no meaning outside the context of war, and that is precisely why the use of the two interchangeably as has been done is wrong. Despite interconnecting treaties, these many blocs have no unified vision, no unified philosophy, no common enemy (until last week), and no desire whatever to actually be united for more than one round of war.

In stark contrast--stark--stands PB-Dh-C&G-SF.

PB, C&G, and Dh present a lockstep group of blocs; Superfriends is more diverse in terms of its internal politics, but its members' foreign policies align it without fail to this pole. This group is the only group with the power to exert their will on any other bloc, by virtue of their interconnectedness, individual blocs in this group can exert in such a way, or even individual alliances. This is the only group without military rivals. Their political unity taken with their military power makes this group the only one with serious power. They are the only pole; they can be the only pole, they are the only group that meets the criteria.

Bob posted his power spheres, and he's right, they are spheres of concentrated alliances, and they do have some measure of power, but they are playthings. "Invict-o-sphere" is used as a joke precisely because it is not a world contender. While NpO's sphere of influence demonstrated that sloppy treaties can bring in a lot of nations for a minute, there is no cohesion--no pole--as alliances scamper off and try to keep their dignity with "we met our obligations." What's left on Bob's power spheres? PB, C&G, SF/Maroon; they act as one (SF even to the point of sacrificing Rok), their membership overlaps, they're all MDoAPed to each other, and they're all one the same political page.

You are correct that alliances are too insecure to sustain a multipolar world. Alliances so afraid of or so fragile that they cannot withstand conflict have no ambitions but survival; they should disband, and save themselves the worry. Even alliances which have the resources to create truly independent poles and pursue their own expansion of power have become too accustomed to bootlicking to do so, instead of exercising their own muscle, they subjugate themselves to each other in exchange for security in the pursuit of the lie that absolute unassailability is a win in CyberNations. In other words, they want to be NPO. But they fail to understand NPO's win. NPO was on top not because they were unassailable, but because alliances bent to their will. Are the alliances in this new hegemony unassailable as Pacifica was? Sure. Have they achieved NPO's heights? Not hardly. I don't see it yet. They're new money; they have the power but they don't have the status, and they may be free to do whatever they want, but they're using the wrong fork.

But the idea that any of the blocs or spheres or whatever you want to call them is a true pole without unity, without pull, without power that can be exerted is laughable. It is a lie constructed to pacify the masses and skirt the label and connotations of what this pole is and is doing.

[Fourteen Years Later...]

Darn. Judging by the the title I thought this was going to be a blog about first armpit hair.

This blog is much more topical now.

[Fourteen Years Later...]

Darn. Judging by the the title I thought this was going to be a blog about first armpit hair.

[My 'New Computer Update']

Don't forget one of these:

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

Haha at the suggestion that there was any reason for C&G to roll on the Polar side. For one, Polar has generally treated them terribly. You can find insults of ODN all over the place. They had an incident with =LOST=, canceled GR, no relations with Int, and tried to attack Athens in the past. GATO didn't want to burn for Polar for similar reasons. It has nothing to do with being on the losing side. Polar's crap FA is reason enough.

As for the multipolarity stuff, you failed to kill us. Deal with it.

Nothing to do with my topic, don't care, hope you guys are having fun on the side.

This approach makes absolutely no sense. If you are using "you" in the singular, and addressing me: I have never tried to kill--well, now we get muddly, don't we, since you're in two blocs. I have argued that once your new subservient bloc was made you would do exactly what you are doing, and I have argued war on GOONS, but I have never tried to kill Umbrella or PB or Dh (I actually even missed Dh's founding and wasn't aware of it til after PB was made).

If you are using "you" in the plural (more correctly "you all"), and addressing the world, you still make no sense. The two blocs you're in have existed for, what, 3 months? Your reply is just the ironic product of what I am saying: There is no "you." There is no one to kill you or to try to kill you. Until two weeks ago, no one even had a reason to try, and despite your best efforts, the rivalry you're trying to catalyze is just turning into the big chunks of NS crapping out and walking away.

You have such an idiotic reply and it wouldn't matter if you didn't think it was so clever. Wowwww, you rolled two alliances with fair-weather allies that no one likes using over half the world's NS, you're so cutting edge and good at this! If only we had killed you!

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

If I recall correctly, Citadel where mostly uninvolved in politics, 1V had four members, and Q could have taken probably the rest of the world alone.

And the theory was Schattenmann's, not mine. Although I agree.

You continue to demonstrate your incomprehension. Citadel was directly treatied to Continuum via Grämlins and Old Guard, plus TOP's undying love for NPO. A bloc's number of members has no bearing on its political power (and 1V's was immense), and Q was specifically designed to encompass every power base to create one pole.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

I don't even consider your monstrosity one pole. There is an argument to be made with PB and DH, but SF and C&G are pretty separate entities. I see a pole in Polaris and the alliances who for some reason still trust them, as well as in NPO and the dozen-odd alliances who entered to defend them. Aztec and their affiliates also act as a pole, and the major independents like Sparta, MHA, and Fark can also be trusted to fight on the same side. Poles aren't all the same size, nor do they have the same level of unity. What you seem to be looking for are two large, permanent, evenly matched coalitions, and that probably won't ever happen. (Maybe Warcaft is more your game?)

Thank you, I was certain that I could trust you to demonstrate your ignorance on the matter.

You claim that C&G is a separate entity from PB and Dh, when:

ODN is directly allied to Umbrella, which is PB and Dh

ODN is directly allied to MK, which is Dh

LOST is directly allied to GOONS, which is PB and Dh

LOST is directly allied to MK, which is Dh

Athens is directly allied to MK, which is Dh

Athens is directly allied to PC, which is PB

International is directly alliedied to Fok, which is PB

I mean, I'm upset that you dared to make such a brazenly false claim, I'm insulted.

You claim that Sparta is a major independent, while it is directly allied to Umbrella (Dh, PB), Athens (C&G), GOD (SF), RoK (SF), and ODN (C&G)

Maybe you just didn't know what you were stepping in, maybe you're really that ignorant, I don't know, but I know--and have demonstrated--that you are wrong without even getting into SF, which is just as tied-in.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

considering during Q's time, Q/Cit/SF/1V was basically the dominant force (4 different blocs) and in fact, considering Cit did not much like Q except for TOP, SF had no membership in Q, and 1V had like 3 members in Q (DH has 2 members in PB), i would say it is quite similar to a singular pole as it in the past it was called such.

yours is not even an interesting theory really.

But, Doch! if there is more than one bloc there must be more than one pole! Durrr

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

heh. GR and Athens are allied to IAA, where is CnG? oh that is right, helping the other side. ODN/Athens are allied to GATO, where was CnG? again, helping the other side. Athens is allied to TIO, where is CnG? again, helping the other side.

it appears that helping the allies that are on the winning side is clearly the maneuver best suited for CnG.

i would say that given all of that, sure, it is not exactly acrobatics but ya'll simply ignoring any treaty that will put CnG on the losing side.

ODN classic and now ODN is biggest dog in C&G; what else should we expect?

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

You're wrong, anyone who claims otherwise is oblivious or a lair. Or has a slightly different perspective or philosophy than me.

Name a second pole. Go on, I dare you.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

Are you really making the argument, in the middle of the most even war in recent memory, that the world is not multi-polar? With your candidate for single ruling power being a mash-up of four different blocs with little membership overlap, one of which can't decide which side to fight on? Interesting theory.

Everyone likes to say there are many poles. I would think that if you are claiming I am incorrect, you'd make an argument rather than asking a question. So, then, name the pole(s) other than the lockstep blocs of DH, C&G, PB, and SF which is fighting on one side of these wars with the exception of RoK who was betrayed by the rest of the bloc.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

OsRavan, the simple fact of the matter is that whether one considers your lulzy entrance into the NPO front acrobatics or creative chaining, neither is the argument laid out in the blog. So !@#$@#$ respond to the argument not to one sentence in it and maybe I'll dignify your presence. You're the twit trying to side-step, "oh look, a blog about poles, I'll talk about CBs and treaties."

There is one pole, DH-C&G-PB, anyone who claims otherwise is oblivious or a liar.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

Thank you, mhawk, let's also not forget that. But, frankly, the "we had a good reason" thing is a diversion on OsRavan's part, the issue at hand is not CBs, it's lack of poles.

[Let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest]

"And tonight, with C&G's magnificent acrobatics to join Doomhouse's aggressive war, let now all lies of multipolarity be put to rest."

Heh... stretching much? That's a pretty ridiculous statement, even coming from you.

Acrobatics? There were no ghost dow involved in our coming in. No optional clauses. The chaining was as straight forward as you will find in CN.

LOST's MDP with goons was activated. LOST activated their MA with the rest of CnG.

That's as straight forward a way to enter a war as you will see... ever.

Contestant Number 1 tonight is OsRavan, the ODN SecGen who has made it his administration's centerpiece, hallmark, and number 1 goal to sign as many treaties with two blocs as possible and forego all independent power-building in the interest of cronyism and assured security.

Did C&G need to unnecessarily involve itself in what GOONS has been yelling as loudly as possible is a walk in the park because in fact GOONS is in way over its tiny head, or because they're not content with one curbstomp?

[On the Crime of Aggression]

Wow - so much to comment on. It's all well written, but you start from some basic assumptions that not everyone would agree with in the least.

1. From an OOC perspective, I personally can't see why ANYONE would prefer "war" in CN over the many many other options out there. All you do is click on buttons on the screen. Can't move around, very limited choice in weapons to use, graphics are just pics - and the same old ones at that. They don't even have a random selection of a few different ones!

We don't even get the WHOOSH! sound effect for cruise missiles anymore! D:

[On the Crime of Aggression]

I get really tired of the morality=pacifist falsehood. Most people regard myself as a moralist and CoJ as a moralist AA. We have 3 optional treaties and we have been in every war that involved any of those three AAs, and in between that we've got in between GOONS and a couple micros without any guarantee of backup, as well as convening a coalition to discuss entry into the GOONS-Ninjas war.

Everyone wants to pigeonhole whole groups of people into their prejudicial stereotypes. Get over it, the world is bigger than "moralist" and "people doing something."

If your only idea of doing something is shooting at things non-stop, then stop playing this geo-political simulator and buy a copy of a first person shooter.

[Submitted without comment]

If that was the defining, climactic moment of that war, it must've been a pretty boring one.

[The Molon Labe Situation]

I know that some level of discussion occurred and ML was in fact given a chance to get out of this, but I don't know more than that.

Get out of what? You attacked their MDP partner.

[The Molon Labe Situation]

Thanks for that breakdown, Hal, much needed.

Frankly, people in my alliance under attack by MK were also asking me what the Hell was going on with no DoW by us on MK or by MK on us, and also wanted to know whether or not they were rogues; they asked me to go talk to MK about it and figure things out.

I'm a cynic and I told them I understood their confusion, but that they just have to understand that MK is bored and wants to burn down the world and that doesn't include following 4 yrs of tradition surrouning formal declarations and war and treaties.

As I've said, fine: go nuts. But if you change the game out of nowhere, don't act all surprised and confused when people start asking you what your problem is or responding in the same way.

Anyway, it's a transparent attempt to lure the alliances they are attacking without DoWs into posting their own recognitions of war or hostilities so that MK's allies can turn it around and start "defending" MK.

[The Molon Labe Situation]

Well they have to try their best to win the illusory 'PR War' since the actual war is a lost cause to them.

Don't be ignorant. If you want to see a full frontal assault on the PR front all you need do is open up Archon's DoW, check the replies in CoJ's DoW, or check out MK's super duper double standard ML thread. Oh yeah, and this totally stellar blog.

e: lol @ TypoNinja working up the gall to call other people stupid.

[The Molon Labe Situation]

You know, Umbrella isn't all that big and scary when they've got nobody in their range.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say. I can just hear Umbrella now, "Don't make me come down there!"

Smooth, as was pretty roundly said in the first few pages of MK and Umbrella's thread, it's one thing for them not to declare war on alliances they're attacking, it's another thing to then turn around and grandstand over another alliance do the same thing to them.

You ask do we really need a 70-page thread to argue it, but here you are opening theargument up in a blog. I mean if you want to get that special feeling just hop in the shower or lock your bedroom door for a few minutes and get it over with.

This is actually pretty delicious. MK & Umbrella dont' declare war then grandstand over ML not declaring war; Smooth gets pissy about a debate on an issue so he opens a second debate on the issue. I guess you folks just like to have and eat your cake.