Jump to content

Tevron

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    753

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Tevron

  1. Tevron

    Posted

    On 10/2/2021 at 4:58 AM, lilweirdward said:

    I honestly would be interested to see how Tev's thoughts have evolved on this topic in the year-and-a-half since he started this series. A lot of the criticisms surely have only been proven true: Oculus continues control, Cobrasphere basically imploded at least in small part because it couldn't escape its own chaotic energy. However, I think it could be argued that some others may have been either misguided or simply acted on: there were major shakeups in leadership both in RFI and elsewhere, alliances and coalitions have somewhat meaningfully shifted on the peripherals at least, etc. Also, it seems like it's around that time where a lot of the people in the community are in the mood to opine on the state of CN politics lol, and this blog always seemed great at being a space for people to do that relatively freely.

     

    One of the reasons there has been such a delay in my publication of the second conclusion is that it becomes increasingly difficult to evaluate our position now. As you have said, there were definitely some areas that were right on the money, while others were not. Then again, the actual pace of CN politics today might be a greater issue than expected.

  4. Tevron

    Posted

    On 9/22/2020 at 8:30 AM, Fen Dorbek said:

    Dear Tevron, 

     

    I was going to wait to hear your conclusions before commending you on a most interesting blog.  Kudos to you!  Thank you for your bravery in sharing your honest analysis!  You really do stand out and deserve recognition and appreciation!

     

    I don't understand exactly what you mean by "moralist" or "ex-moralist".  I was wondering if I could ask you for a Hegelian dialectic analysis of what you mean.  If moralists are the thesis, what is the anti-thesis and synthesis of the two?

     

    Thank you providing the opportunity to help clarify what morals are and who has morals and who doesn't.  I look very forward to your overall conclusions!  Good job and keep sharing!

     

    In friendship,

    Fen

    Moralism is not a tenuous concept governed by polarities. If we had to reduce it to a Hegelian dialectical analysis I would argue that the thesis is Idealism. The antithesis is realpolitik and the synthesis is perhaps what we have here, a bond known as drive. These drives tend to produce an aufheben in the sense that they do manage to create and destroy, cancel or maintain the political order that has existed in this game. Moralists were driven by their own drive but it was one that brought with it some fatal flaws. It would be a stage close to idealism, but their fatal flaw is that they were largely destroyed by the synthesis where realpolitik met idealism -- many years ago in the time of the Mushroom Kingdom Hegemony. 

     



    @SirGunz, maybe you should've read the other case studies, many of the things you seem to have cared about were in them.

  6. Tevron

    Posted · Edited by Tevron

    1 hour ago, Thrash said:

    Not true. They did but it was very limited. There was a lot more they could've done, but didn't for some strange reason.

    I'm not referring to the separate Oculus CB and declare. You are incorrect. 

     

    You're definitely right about Legion and FTW pulling most of the weight in Snake Eyes. Their commanders, Windmark and Kaznawim did really well at organizing internally.

  9. Tevron

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

     

    Saying you're not ideologically required to hit the biggest threat in the same sentence where you say your sphere always wanted to (and thus, did/do) because that's what you believe in no matter the cost just reinforces that it is in fact an ideological requirement.

     

     

    I can personally attest to that not being true on several individual alliance levels and at least one coalition scale level, if not two (it's been like eight years now), and that's just off the top of my head. Often times it really did boil down to, as you yourself said above, "defending our allies no matter the cost" even if that meant making politically questionable decisions. Decisions that further increased the external view that the sphere was unreliable with regards to being political assets. However they were viewed as reliable as a very specific kind of strategic asset:

     

     

    As implied above, yes. When you have a sphere that is uncompromising in moralism and will immediately swarm in exactly predictable ways, the only way to fit them into your interests it using them as cannon fodder (see: Equilibrium War) or as meat shields (see: Doom War). It also makes them targets tactically to summon their allies (again, see: Doom War, though it goes back to Dave War and before too), which coincides with being a strategic liability (per the above: politically questionable decisions).

    Overall, I agree with you in your responses, but I'm a bit lukewarm on the first point. I think they do have a vague ideology (Moralism) but that it suffers several contradictions that their leadership have not yet successfully digested. The biggest of these is how they are willing to do anything for their friends, but how they also limit themselves with constraints based on the supposed moralism. For them it's clear that moralism > friends. Unfortunately, it doesn't jive to me very much as an ideology because it is very inconsistent.

  10. Tevron

    Posted

    Quote

    You apparently don't know our sphere too well then

    Then where do we disagree in your post except over the next point?

     

    Quote

    None of us were required to hit the biggest threat, we wanted to hit the biggest threat, because we believed in defending our allies no matter the cost. Something CN has completely lost, we arennt called the moralist sphere for nothing. We aren't just allies, but true friends who have been there despite the overwhelming odds stacked against us. 

    You guys don't defend your allies no matter the cost though, if you did you'd learn a bit of strategy and try to make situations into ones where you actually could win or that would benefit your allies in the long term. If it was at the cost of the pride of an alliance in this sphere, they would never take the hit. These days, that false bravado about friends > infra is irksome, since it's not even the ex-moralist sphere's catchphrase. The short term LEROY JENKINS at the biggest scariest alliance in any global is not honor, it is pride along with moralism. This strain of moralism is one that claims friendship as a justification for diplomacy without making even minimal efforts to make any friends or maintain friendships. I'm sure that you've made huge efforts though in the last five years to change your foreign affairs position though and can also provide evidence of the other members' of the sphere actually doing anything other than seethe about their past grievances. Can you name a few things you've done on the FA side of things in the last five years?

     

    Quote

    Speaking of, there were a number of times we wanted to branch out into other spheres, but we were always shot down from those outside, usually by those big and blue, or friends of those people, we've been threatened even, for considering ties or actions that went against a certain spheres agenda. This created a lot of political instability within ourselves, because we feared being isolated by that side.

    Are you referring to the years when I was in Polaris and we were repeatedly rolled together (2010-2012)? I don't see how those people could've been shooting down your chances. Maybe you're mistaking them for the inept machinations of Liz or Xiph after SF's fall from grace. Polaris was looking at diversifying its foreign affairs which is how it (for a time) rose to the top and rolled NSO.

    Sure, you had political instability, what alliance hasn't? That doesn't make my statements less true.

     

    Quote

    Anytime a military conflict arose, it was our leadership following the coalitions wishes, to put it bluntly, we were cannon fodder for those bigger than us. At best, we were treated as irrelevant, and at worst, like garbage. In hindsight, we should have said screw it and did what we wanted anyway.

    That is my indictment against this sphere. You can't even talk about the existing ex-moralists in the present tense -- that's how removed these broken alliances are from the game, and they are the ones who were responsible: You're right.

     

    Quote

    It is actually more deeply rooted than that, and stemmed from a "pacifica bad, polar good" type of thing. Although, staying close to one of those spheres cost us more than we ever, ever benefited from it. There is quite a bit more details I could share, but I'm sure I'll have pissed off enough people posting this as is.

    The majority of the #beer-o-sphere was only on Polaris' side for a little while. The "Pacifica bad, DH bad" dilemma was much more significant than the decision to latch the sphere to Polaris. It's ridiculous to attempt to steer the blame onto them for your own sovereign alliances decisions though -- If you don't get what you give, that is the failing of alliance leadership and sphere politics. I know for a fact of times when Ex-AFM (as an example) had the opportunities to sign with three different spheres and reshuffle their politics. Instead, they stayed exactly where they were.

  11. Tevron

    Posted · Edited by Tevron

    On 9/13/2020 at 1:24 AM, Thrash said:

     

    I disagree. Moralist politics still exist. It's just that they don't serve a purpose since no one is willing to make moves.

     

    Also, very nice read.

    If something does nothing when observed from the outside, does it actually exist? Thank you for the compliment!

     

    On 9/13/2020 at 2:04 AM, General Kanabis said:

    I blame the general attitude that has developed within this community and is largely endorsed by the old group of players who basically run the show.

    When activity appears on the OWF, people are engaged, no matter how toxic.
    In fact, the toxicity levels and activity levels often correlate!

    "Waste of time"
    "Irrelevant"
    "Who cares"
    "Game is dead"

    That's not what generates active or spawns culture.
    It in fact, props a status quo among the residents of Bob that isolates any desire to participate in the game because the cool kids don't agree with it.
    The result; the only perceived villains left are those who dare rage against the dying of the light.

     

    Overall I agree with you again GK :). I think that you may have mistaken what I deemed as toxicity as being forum drama itself though. I think arguments, heated passion and so on are the lifeblood of the OWF! Watching people get owned, including my own side, in arguments over the Snake Eyes War (for example) are a positive form of activity that gives alliance leaders something to discuss and weigh in on. The toxicity that I meant is more the automatic disdain and undercutting that has become more and more frequent. Sure, we're all familiar to some extent, but it's simply boring when threads are always Us vs Them and there is little to no agreement or discussion. We have seen a huge decrease in people who are willing to argue about the issues -- just take a look at the lame riffs about not knowing the name of RFI from some of the active forum posters -- these unsubstantial contributions are meaningless and simply say "we don't like you" again and again.

     

    I view the people who constantly whine about the death of the game (in both OOC and IC areas) as nonsensical. The "waste of time" that is our simulated entertainment should probably matter more to these people, but they've become obsessed with a circlejerk that has been around for as long as I've been here. Unfortunately, the people who consistently cry in every breath about the "dead game" or "who cares" are clinging to their ivory towers and/or the sunken cost fallacy that keeps them around. They tend to be the same people who obsessively reference 2007 CN politics for whatever reason.

    Of course, this series is about the Death of Politics in our world, so I may be just as guilty of poo-pooing the state of the status quo, but this series obviously sets out to identify problems rather than to give in to the existing world and resign ourselves to simply waiting for the heat death of Bob.

     

    "

    Quote

    Activity is not politics." <-- it sure is better than inactivity, though, something that has plagued the majority of alliances in modern Cyber Nations and whom seem to be in no hurry getting out of. And, frankly, why are we acting like Cobrasphere isn't producing politics? Just because it's not the type of politics that RFOculus loves (hoarding all the treaties like you're Gollum) doesn't mean that it's nonexistant, and I frankly feel like it's a better type of politics than y'alls.

     

    Yeah, of course activity is better than inactivity, but that's not really the point of what I'm writing about. If I was evaluating the qualities of each sphere, Cobrasphere would get a lot of points for being active, having interesting character, etc. but that's not why I'm here! I would argue that Cobrasphere (and COBRA in particular) have only recently embraced the production of politics outside of micropolitics. One thing that makes your sphere interesting is that it appears to be changing at a rate much faster than the others. Treaty hoarding is something that is a valid critique, and I think i brought it up in the Oculus Case Study. I personally don't think treaties harm nor help politics. People will always be willing to throw allies under the bus, as history has shown. Hell, ODN didn't defend FTW in that NG-FTW conflict.

     

    Quote

    Your whole OWF thing <-- Why are you all not drowning us out? You outnumber us (as you do not hesitate to show during wartime) by at least 5/1, if not 10/1; there's no reason why you can't dominate OWF discourse. You all seem to be convinced that the OWF, the place that Admin specifically made for publicly discussing politics, is a "joke" that should not be used; change that mentality! Bring life back here, and functionally get rid of any "cloud of negativity and toxicity" that we could possibly create here! It'll surely make for a more interesting Bob.

    Not everyone likes to argue on internet forums. While I am one of the people who gets off on the heat of a debate and will chime in, many of my core membership have very explicitly told me at one point or another that they don't use the OWF anymore because they don't see how any good can come of it and that it's just angry &#33;@#&#036;posting. From the perspective of my own alliance, we use the OWF quite a bit more than other alliances. I remember at one point when I was AC, a third of all first page OWF posts were from my alliance. I will admit that I've recently opened less topics, but that was actually because of the Snake Eyes War and the overall feeling that we didn't want to post certain threads (like our individual treaty with Argent) simply because we knew it would turn into an anti-RFI circlejerk since that's what every single other thread was at the time. It was easier to celebrate with our wine glasses in private.

     

    I don't disagree with you though, that the best way to change a negative situation is to change your relationship to it. I intend to post more often once again for this reason.
     

    Quote

    Snake eyes <-- have you ever considered that we could have reasons for being generally distrustful of RFOculus for actual reasons? For example, Kapleo (the leader of my alliance) was a member of TPF (whose demise I assume that you're familiar with), and many others of our members likely have similar stories to tell. Regarding the war in particular, it was afaik your sphere's epic botching of diplomacy with regards to what was an unauthorized raid by a low-tier nation, followed by a war that would have expired after the protected period (as for why we don't believe peace would've been actually offered, see the first half of this paragraph), although I'm not super familiar with it myself.

     

    I think every alliance that isn't an ally to RFI or Oculus has a reason to distrust one if not the other. I don't see how that relates to the discussion though.. Clarify?

     

    Quote

    Discord <-- yes, we have (age-restricted) nsfw channels (gasp of horror!). And besides, RFI is really one to talk about unbecoming discord activities haha.

     

    Not what I was referring to, and I dismissed it myself as a minor complaint that impacts image but isn't a big deal.


     

    Quote

    Other micros <-- Take a look at the bottom-left two continents on this map and note the number of alliances there, most of which are fellow micros; I don't think that we're exactly destroying micros left, right, and centre. I don't know of JDA, but the only micro that I know we've attacked recently was WS, and even that was just for a day in response to repeated raids.

    I don't think Cobrapshere is destroying micros all the time either. I just was highlighting how curbstomping, which is considered to be an alliance killer and bad practice by most everyone (on the public level at least) is something that Cobrasphere is also guilty of. Their hands are not the most clean on that, since obviously the ex-moralists aren't rolling anyone at all.

  12. Tevron

    Posted

    Apologies for the delay in response. I wrote one up on my laptop, but it turns out the cache didn't save the response so I didn't get around to posting it. Here's my rewritten responses:

     

    Thank you for your thoughtful responses GK. I appreciate that you read this and had something to say! Overall, I think we largely in agreement! I cut out the parts that I just agree with and don't have any additional comments on!

     

    On 8/23/2020 at 12:59 PM, General Kanabis said:

    The problem here is that many of the micros that pop up these days are rerolls or just splinter groups (genuine or otherwise), which is OK but it goes back to what you said about an 'Old Guard'

    Same principle applies because habits is habits.

    What about protection status?

    A trend that seems to exist is the eventual merger of Protectorates to their protecting alliance, which I generally don't approve of unless that alliance is going inactive.

    But we need to understand why this happens-

    Are certain blocs as culturally prone to merging as ours is to violence? And if so, what can we do to encourage a symbiotic understanding between them?


    Protection status and protectorates + mergers don't really seem to do anything unless the protected alliance is going inactive.... The same can be said for the splinters themselves, they can be seen as positive except when they rob their host alliance of significant activity. I wish there were more new alliances that weren't either re-rolls or splinters, but I think we're basically down for the count with regards to that at this time, barring some sudden youtuber invasion.

    I would suggest that certain spheres do have cultural thrusts, but I think the individual leaders are probably more important than that overall sphere culture. An alliance leader can easily decide whether or not to break with the ideas of the past and head into new directions, but usually they have to do it more gradually or as a series of compromises. I think that COBRA, for example, is already a lot different than they were two years ago. Doubly so for alliances like CCC or Sparta that were literally dead until recently. As this relates to the culture of merge or violence, I do think in COBRA's case it is a genuine culture of aggression and military superiority over the micro-tier. From that perspective, it's kind of hard to deny that the reverse could be true. Maybe alliances in RFI, Oculus, Ex-Moralists are all simply more culturally driven to merge for a variety of reasons. What aspects of their cultures seem to individually support that?

     

    I've noticed merges of inactive alliances tend to be halted almost entirely by pride, so now instead of mostly inactive protectorates, there are simply only inactive ones.

     

    On 8/23/2020 at 12:59 PM, General Kanabis said:

    I leave on this note;

    An antagonizing force is essential to the survival of this game.

    Think back to the bad guys of yesterday and ask yourself how drastically different the landscape of today would look had they not existed.

    I agree with you that antagonizing forces are essential to the survival of the political game. I think the problem is that the bad guys are non-existent right now from a narrative perspective. One of the tragedies of the last five years has been that there has been no truly villainous sphere to rise up. There were times when people expected Polaris to bring about a kind of anti-oculus, Karma 2.0 but that narrative was made impossible by the very same people who acted like it could have been a possibility to begin with. Alliances like Non Grata who have certainly been the 'bad guy', ultimately joined the 'good guys' and became the neither good nor bad guys in Oculus. I wonder if part of the reason there are not strong villainous alliances right now is because moralist politics are near completely dead. More on that in the next blog post...

     

    On 8/23/2020 at 2:36 PM, Lucius Optimus said:

    I won't repeat everything GK said as he hit many of the big points, but some of your claims I do resent. You can DM me to discuss if you want. 

    Thanks for the response Lucius, but I believe GK and I didn't really disagree on many points. Could you tell me which of my claims you resent? If you want people to see that I have a biased or incorrect assessment, I think you should just reply here so that I can understand some of the insights that you have. Your vantage point is certainly a lot better than mine of your own sphere. 

     

    On 9/1/2020 at 1:38 AM, Kapleo said:

    Very interesting read from the other side's perspective.  Would lie if I say it wasn't pleasant to read, plus pretty much what my colleagues said.

    Thanks Kapleo, I appreciate your comment!

  13. Tevron

    Posted

    11 hours ago, lilweirdward said:

    if 2 of the 5 most powerful alliances in the game are essentially a complete result of mergers, then the concept can't be universally bad.

    These blog posts aren't about whether or not merger alliances can be powerful though. If it were I would talk about some of the positives, such as expanding the influence of the individual constituent alliances into something much more real, creating better tierage, etc. But when it comes to politics, mergers tend to be a bad thing for the overall health of the world.

     

    11 hours ago, lilweirdward said:

    Also, plenty of alliances have failed and died whether they merged with other alliances or not, so I'm not sure how useful of an indicator that is.

    It's a useful indicator when we consider political roles. There has never been a world leading or factional leading merger alliance, because almost all of them broke up due to infighting or were paper tigers since they had no standardized milcom. These historical realities are why they are indicators. Certainly history isn't predictive, but it's better than nothing.

     

    11 hours ago, lilweirdward said:

    'm just saying that the same thing maybe could have been done here for RFI, especially for issues such as high numbers of treaties and tendency towards mergers and political dynasties, which must have happened and are still being maintained because of some positive and/or negative force that is keeping them in place and disincentivizing change.

    I do think there are some positives here, but I would suggest they are mainly tied to security. RFI alliances don't live in the seeming fear of a permanent dogpile that most alliances did since the formation of Oculus. All these treaties create a precarious balance which does prevent global wars to some degree, but only ones that are horrendously unbalanced. If we consider the last time NADC was rolled, we can see that RFI functioned as a bloc since the war wrapped up rather quickly, it did not explode into a rolling of the entire ex-moralist sphere, and that was entirely due to their tie to Argent. So yeah, I agree that there are areas that could be highlighted as positive or not, but talking about the positives from an insider perspective is also a lot more sensitive since I know a lot more about what the bloc is doing/thinking etc.

  14. Tevron

    Posted

    On 8/13/2020 at 2:29 AM, lilweirdward said:

    It's really interesting to see your perspective on RFI as an insider, especially for me being very much an outsider. I know it's not easy to be critical of something you've put a lot of time helping to build, especially when other people will frequently do the job of criticizing it for you lol.

     

    One of the biggest things I would dare to disagree with is the idea that mergers are bad, or that RFI is somehow preventing people from leading alliances. I think both of these can be easily shown to be a symptom of the lack of an active player base left in the game, and in fact are the only things keeping the game from really imploding. Running any alliance is hard, and running one with several dozen+ to a hundred members takes a lot of time and patience, which is a luxury that very few people have, much less are willing to give to this game of all things. It is in fact extremely easy to be allowed to lead almost any alliance except maybe the top 5 or 10ish; most alliances are just kind of existing, and if you fit in with the community (this is actually very important but not so much for the point I'm making), most people are more than happy to hand the reigns to someone willing to actually do the work of running things these days. To that end, I think folks like you, Canik, Lowsten, and others who have been dedicated to keeping their communities alive and well for several years is actually a good thing and even admirable. These people are providing a home that isn't crumbling for those who still feel sentimentally attached to this game but don't have time to do much except log in and chat with friends, which is more than I think 95% of the player base can say.

     

    The same train of thought goes for mergers: being able to have a strong community that others will help manage is extremely desirable for most people these days. The political world isn't becoming stagnant because alliances are merging, but because the game is dying and simply can't support dozens of alliances worth of people who actually want to spend time managing trade circles and tech programs and recruiting messages and discord servers and...all the other things that a functioning alliance needs to manage. Mergers these days give communities the opportunity to stay alive while having those things managed for it, which prevents the game from collapsing.

     

    All this isn't to say you're wrong that these political dynasties aren't preventing global politics from being more dynamic. I agree that someone who has led the same alliance for over half a decade is going to have much more rigid opinions about politics than a newer leader, and having an entire bloc full of alliances set up this way is going to struggle to shake things up very often. I really liked your other points too, especially the last one that RFI is sort of a victim of its own success in not having any way to prove that it's actually a successful bloc because of the way it's managed political relationships. I would just posit that, unlike your evaluation of Oculus, there maybe wasn't enough credit given to the positive or desirable aspects that have led RFI to have the influence it has on the political world.

     

    I'm happy that you've joined the discussion! I disagree with your point about mergers though. I think mergers have genuinely never been all too successful in the history of CN. CLAWS & FTW might be the exceptions, (And to some extent GATO) but if that's true, then they are the only exceptions in the history of Cyber Nations. Many many merger alliances have come and gone including AI, my own ally TLR, CoTM, Last Call, Non Grata, my former alliance Atlas, and the list goes on. In all cases, the initial peaks of activity were quickly eroded because there were not enough positions of activity for such active communities. Mergers always centralize power and reduce the number of people total that govern over its constituent bodies. So, you get less active players in key roles AND there are less active players in other alliances to do exciting things. Credit on the last point to James Spanier (Lowsten). 

    I didn't feel like singing praises to a bloc that's so near to my heart. It would probably come off as a bit too biased but maybe I over-corrected a little.

  15. Tevron

    Posted

    I don't dismiss that as a political reality. These things are a lot more dynamic and the flows between stagnation and symptomatic results can be pretty unclear. That's why I'm trying to focus on how stagnation today is facilitated by the various powers at be. Tomorrow, it's RFI's turn. I think you're very right that the culprits for stagnation can be easily traced back to the individual leadership of a variety of alliances 6-8 years ago. A lack of new blood being one of the biggest problems. The best thing that new blood has to offer for alliances is that they do not necessarily value ties that have exited for months/years and they have new goals. When alliance leadership is/was not replaced as time goes on, it can lead to a hyper-stable world.

  16. Tevron

    Posted

    I'd say economic, military and political superiority are all pretty heavily connected. Most alliances tend to be good at a few of these. Historically, we can look at Polaris circa 2010-2014 and say they had arguably one of the best and robust economic systems, but they were politically unable to get out of a position to be rolled repeatedly, due to the political failings of Polaris in Bipolar. On the other hand, an alliance that is only militarily competent (FAN or COBRA perhaps?) tend to consistently be pushed to the margins by their political decision-making. An alliance that thrives only on political power... It's harder to come up with an example, but I suppose an alliance like RIA or Sparta could fit in there. Alliances with decent political positions at one time or another in CN history who were unable to capitalize on it due to their military or economic failings. Since the economic system an alliance has is often predictive of their military power, those areas tend to be very important. Political domination gives you unique leverages to expand your military and economic power relative to others, since you can roll out tanks if you perceive someone as an economic/military threat. So usually, military and economic domination act as tools to entrench dominance.

    I don't see tech and military advantages as something likely to change as the planet develops at this time. As you'll see in the next case studies, each existing political sphere has their own reasons, intended or not, for maintaining status-quo. 

  17. The Zigur

    Posted

    Quote

    MI6 was a deeply flawed alliance according to Vladimir's own analysis. The single driving force going for it was high activity, but it lacked an absolute sovereign or any kind of dicipline for that matter. 

    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.

     

    Quote

    *Producerism is not about growth. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" (one of our key mottos). Producerism is almost the opposite of what MI6 stood for. It is ultimately about control of growth, control of production, and control of all indigenous military and industrial assets. We pay high rates for tech because we see new nations not as tech slaves, but as a military-industrial investment. 


    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?

     

    Quote

    *I don't think you support the assertions you make in your second point. You use terms like feudalism, socialism and capitalism without explaining them, and somewhat ignorant of the fact that OOC societal systems don't apply to CN because the material conditions are much different. I've never claimed to be socialist, capitaist, or feudalist in CN, that's why I invented (IC) Producerism as an ideology specifically developed for Cybernations.


    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. 

     

    Quote

    *I don't see the advantages of a "capitalistic system of tech barter." If you mean a lassez-faire tech situation where individual alliance members sell tech across Planet Bob, that's not an efficient situation because the tech is not strengthening the position of your own alliance. Tech is a military asset, not simply an item of consumption. 


    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.

     

    Quote

    Producerism is actually designed to survive the opposite of tolerance, it is bred from the savagery of the more than half a dozen wars waged against the Imperium since we founded in 2014. We've incorporated many lessons from rogue entities like Monsters Inc into our own doctrine. We are ultimately capable of surviving even if our entire upper tier is hammered down into the 10k NS range. 


    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.

  18. The Zigur

    Posted

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...