Jump to content

Tevron

Members
  • Content Count

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tevron

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Global Alliance and Treaty Organization
  • Nation Name
    Devion
  • Alliance Name
    GATO/WAE
  • Resource 1
    Wine
  • Resource 2
    Gems
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Devion
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    New Desolate Order

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Then you don't understand the alliance. It was micromanaged by Chim a lot. The Ms acted as the absolute authorities, but Chim had the greatest say over most anything that happened. You cannot separate control of growth from growth. The opposite of growth would be stagnation, it isn't whatever you decide is the opposite thereof. If Producerism is the opposite of "Growth for the sake of growth" than it would be "nongrowth for the sake of nongrowth" -- which is far from your point. The control of production and control of growth is something that almost every alliance prioritizes. The difference here appears to be through the high tech rate then? I am certain that ideas about societal structures are not purely OOC, as they are largely the very structures that are used in the design of each fundamental alliance. If you would like me to explain feudalism, socialism, and capitalism in rough terms, I can, but I really don't think I should have to when you have a perfectly functioning brain of your own. I do not mean what you are asserting I mean. I am saying that tech is the fundamental unit of true growth for nation, and that the system by which tech is generated is built upon a barter system entirely. This is something that is not overcome when considering the material as ideology, because by doing so you would notice that the system itself has an ideology to it. The barter system that your alliance uses still supports the same type of bartering that other alliances do, it's just that yours functions on different rates. It may be designed for this purpose, but it never has been tested. I am of the belief that isx would fail if it were grinded multiple times a la MI6 or even Polaris. In this case, neither of us will see the answer to the question unless you do go to war repeatedly in curbstomps, which I presume is unlikely.
  2. Your statement about material analysis fails to include the example of mi6, who successfully produced and grew at a rate far greater than any other alliance, and yet still was struck down repeatedly and later disbanded by the exact forces that you tie to progression. Focusing on material as ideological fails to account for the actual system by which growth is produced, within a capitalistic barter system of tech dealing as well as the system of power within the individual alliances, which is generally a feudalistic system. Feudalism continually prevailed over democratic and socialistic systems within the history of bob, and that is largely due to the regressive system of growth employed by all alliances, and the use of war purely as a way to leverage an economy over another in order to prevent future growth. In totality, I feel like you are not examining your own ideology critically. The ideology of Producerism only persists by virtue of tolerance, whereas an actual Producerist that transcended yours (Mi6) was swiftly destroyed. If you ever reach the same heights, I am certain that Snax and the LPCN will be struck down swiftly.
  3. Tevron

    New adventure

    Join Atlas You've been messaged
  4. I don't think the sizes of the alliance is the problem. I think the problem is that only micro and mid sized alliances are willing to take any risks whatsoever.
  5. I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm suggesting that alliances force terms on other alliances during larger scaled conflicts.
  6. Just do it anyway then?
  7. Golden truth right there.
  8. Yeah, I'm actually happy with how MI is as an alliance, regardless of us being on opposite ends of conflict and your constant hatred of Atlas
  9. Politics are largely driven by power dynamics, the master-slave relationship, and the economic or political gains that result from war. It is said simply, that the politics of Planet Bob are those centered around theoretical global conflicts that could be created at any moment. Originally, these were created naturally through legitimate CB's as alliances tried to leverage political power over each other. In the Post-Karma era, it became increasingly less possible for alliances to make significant political moves due to a combination of a "lack of justification" and due to the decreasing size of the game. In the NpO-PB war, a fabricated CB was created in order to bind a coalition of like-minded individuals who sought to continue to retain status quo. Over the next few years, the then Hegemony, the Mushroom Kingdom - dominated war by centering it around the mechanics of the game itself. They allied themselves to the upper tier and with other members of the overall powers at be - continued to orchestrate "safe wars" ie: wars that were guaranteed victories. (Grudge War, Dave War). While MK faded from the alliance listings with its disbandment, DBDC and the former parts of MK's sphere would continue to play by these rules (Doom War) while the New Pacific Order would mainly focus on stability and increasing the ties between power centers in the web. The Beer-O-Sphere spent its time largely trying to reach out (poorly) to these "two sides" that were far more interconnected than their own. While some progress was made, the New Polar Order showed they could not play ball in this arena of safe politics when they declared war on the New Sith Order. It was unfortunate really, because it demonstrated the detachment the Beer-O-Sphere had from the rest of the web. They were only able to win the war through TOP's entry at the beginning of the conflict. Today, if you look at the web you will notice that the lines that connect obvious centers of power (IRON, NPO, Umbrella, etc.) often cross between not just themselves, but their allies and the allies of their allies. These treaty maneuvers exist solely for stability's sake, because in the current system stability is the only factor of any political import. It is as simple as our last global war, the Doom War. Attack Invicta. Why? Invicta does not have sufficient treaty ties, nor do their allies. The war is already over. We beat each other up and potentially shift some power within the larger structure of the web while we destroy the lower. In this system pieces break off. (Aftermath, Sparta, MI6) and they become candidates for future political ties, which are only actually effective if they tie themselves between clusters of power centers. We can see the resistance that meets these alliances through their images. Each of these alliances (including those once in AM) all have terrible images publicly, and while I'm not arguing there is not good reasons to dislike or hate these alliances, I am saying their reputations are at least partially a result of their current political position. Cracks and jokes can be made, but how the people who make real foreign affairs decisions perceive alliances or believe they are perceived is the most important factor in treaty partner selections, unless you happen to be in the beer-o-sphere, where friendship has often taken the front seat in political decision making. In order for Planet Bob to become a more exciting location for the politically minded to enjoy, drastic steps need to be taken. These steps are not exact, nor required to achieve a state where politics can live freely again, but rather suggestions and courses of actions that could help solidify and reinvigorate the backrooms of governments. Re-institute Defeat. When someone goes to war with your alliance, give them terms. Make them write an orange juice review. 1B in reps. Tech. Viceroy (Buzzword). Require the defeated alliance to cancel all existing treaties and live under your protection for two months before freeing them from your overall control. Take the risk. Go to war over issues that could be resolved diplomatically if your government thinks the other one should "know better." Create drama, but make it have stakes. Don't go to war with someone for no reason. Fabricate a CB. Plant someone in their govt and fake logs; I don't care - make Planet Bob interesting by being interesting.
  10. Tevron

    The 'C' word

    Keep up the good fight Dajobo! You're a great leader and have been a good friend to me, though we haven't got to catch up since I came back. I hope the surgery went well!
×
×
  • Create New...