Anarchia

Oh I don't care. When I reroll I'l just take non-nuclear weakling.

You're entitled to think so, but as people said earlier your syntax is mediocre and you have too many CN jargon words. I try to elucidate terms I can, and frame things so important things are first. I do not see any of that in your work. It is a personal essay written for a specific niche. If you gave in my Pol002 class it would get a C+

Intelligence and spy attacks help

VOX and War [size="6"] [center]1. we pre-emptively nuke if someone joins with nukes 2. we target your weakest banks 3. we fight and kill inactives 3. we use spy raise to decommission nuclear weapons [/center] -Anarchia VOX[/size]

Also if you are VOX but are imperalist presently, good job and please contact me!

Hey there. As you saw, I wrote a term paper on the governments of CN, how the compare, and what seem to be sound principles for government. TO help delicate the Cybernations Institute will produce Volume II: Where Ideology meets Real Life. This would interview and analyze why ideology alliances have been more stable than once, and why military action to attack leftist alliances is less likely. We need both NoR and co-sec one, as well as people from CPCN, CN, SE, all of SWF, and the resistance and LSF. If you know or belong, hook up with me. If you don't, be a administrator for the page.

Thanks for the feedback, I I hope one edgy to publish this independently and show that I know how to conduct social science, which is my major. This was thrown together in two days, edited recently in one. I could provably cut half out and have an amazing five pages. Btw, if you've got more experience or less but more active, can you help me write a more relevant sequel. How about a photoshop person to ad relevant graphs AP stats style. [b] tl;dr Cool. Also help me write from late 2008 to 2012 .. [/b]

Btw I will still try to cause havoc I have logs of an LSF and SWF pre-emptive straight on May 1st againt NoV and any allies who helped them in the previous war they fought. INT and UCR know about it. WHy Optimistic told me, no clue.

Comparative Government in Virtual World Anarchia aka AndelProvinces aka Kazmarov aka Isis IV aka AngolaThree aka Marx Warden One of the many processes that political scientists want to examine is how governments are formed from a state of nature- of nothing at all. Unfortunately, that really does not happen these days- most states that are formed of at least some previous form of government, no matter how anarchic. However, the Internet has allowed one to view people coming together and choosing the rules by which they will be governed and how their leaders behave, and what powers they hold- from nothing at all besides their own ideas and preconceptions. One of these simulations is CyberNations[1], a game where players simulate their own nation, with resources, trade, armies, and conflict. What is most interesting is when they come together to form “alliances” of multiple nations- this is when they decide to form a staggering number of governments. Some are easy analogues of modern nations, others have no relation to real-life nations whatsoever. This paper will examine the structure of various case-studies of alliances in CyberNations, and how they affect the function- and the thus the subsequent success or failure- of the alliance Real World People and Their Virtual Counterparts The most critical factor to consider when analyzing the governments constructed in a virtual world is the prejudices and culture brought by the people that play the game. In the case of CyberNations, while no exhaustive census has been done, some information can be gleaned. Most of them come from democratic backgrounds, in countries such as the United States and the states of the British Commonwealth- though some such as the Nusantra Elite Warriors do hail from emerging democracies, Indonesia in that case; also FOK and iFOK have Dutch origin. A majority appear to be white, middle class or above (there is a self-selection by means of having the time to invest in the game and having access to the Internet), and a large group may fit the interest patterns of Internet fans- lovers of technology, video games, and various memes. Some come from other websites, such as GOONS and Fark (both from humor websites) and a few have national identities attached. FOK! is mostly Dutch again, NEW Indonesian, there have been past Armenian alliances. Thus the question of goals comes into play. Not everyone endeavours to set up a serious government. Many are out to have fun, insult others (FARK v. GOONS, both v. /b/ and LUE among forms outside of CN), or roleplay. Many alliances have themes which means they may not pick a government they think is best, they pick the one that fits a certain set of criteria other than political and structural quality. Also, there is a principle, elucidated by many, that anonymity makes people more selfish and aggressive than they are in real life. Thus governments may be more unstable, warmongering, and full of those aspiring for power than in a real government, company, or hierarchy of any kind. With this in mind, countries must be selected carefully for study. They must seem to have been sincere in their attempts to establish a government; that is unless the point is to study those that do not seek serious or well-run government. They must have a clear set of institutions, government officers, data, and documentation to use for comparison. And they must be willing to cooperate to give inside information as to why their alliance is made the way it is, for everything else is simple speculation.  The Types of Government in CyberNations A rather impressive amount of government types pervade the world of CyberNations. Some are simple: the single man strong-arm autocracy, the full-participation democracy, and the various compromises in between. Some are unique to the game- taking a cue from the Romans the triumvirate is incredibly popular as a way of running the executive. This is because while a single person executive relies on that person constantly being active in the game, the triumvirate can have only two of three people on and still make legitimate decisions. Democracies are often attempted have issues to their success; they require an interested electorate much like in the real world. Since players don’t have this as a full time job like politicians, the more people involved in a process, the slower the process ultimately goes. Nevertheless, the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization (GATO) is a democracy and the oldest alliance in the game, at over five years of age,[2] proving the potential viability of democracy. Generally, most alliances have a voting body- some are republican in nature and have elected groups usually called a Senate or Assembly, some have every member in good standing as a voting member on all issues. Ministers tend to run departments like defense, internal affairs, economics, trade, and foreign affairs- often they sit on a council and can make executive decisions. Overall, most top alliances are either a autocratic state of some sort (a monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy), or a representative democracy. Some are mixed, with much of the government being elected, but some executive or ceremonial positions being held long-term or for life. Keeping this in mind, what follows is a series of case studies investigating both orthodox and unorthodox alliances in the game, and their methods of government. Case Study: New Pacific Order (Autocracy) Through most of CyberNations’ history, the New Pacific Order (NPO) has stood for two things- autocracy done well and hegemony on the world stage. With a small group of extremely able civil servants aiding a single executive, NPO’s government may not be democratic, but it is efficient, fast, and full of expert opinion and analysis. Former Emperor Moo-Cows was interviewed on the subject of NPO’s government and its success; he attributed it to “decision making in the hands of just a few” so that “we were able to move quickly in response to various situations. We did not have to wait for a vote or anything like that.”[3] Being in a position to give advice, he said that a mistake alliances make obviously be “democratic or have too many making the final decisions, i.e. triumvirates, councils, etc.”[4] Ultimately, NPO was unseated by a group of rival alliances in a loose coalition calling themselves “Karma” in 2009, but is still one of the most powerful alliances in the game, and has a lot of historical clout. Their theory of government is very influential, led by thinkers such as Vladimir, who frequently contributes to the academic body of work on CyberNations and its body of theory. Many alliances attempt to emulate them, but as Moo-Cows stated above, they often can stray by not being efficient enough. However, some democracies have worked, and worked well, for many years. Next, a institution beyond all others. Case Study: Global Alliance and Treaty Organization (Democracy- Warring) The grandfather alliance, over five years old now, GATO is also unusual for being fully democratic- they have an amazing array of elected positions and frequent elections along with an active polity; they show it is possible for alliances to be stable and long-lasting, while having a representative government. However, they have also been consistently the losers of many a war, this is due to a foreign policy that often rejected joining a hegemonic group for smaller allies, which did not stack up well in conflict. Issues raised by GATO include whether having representative governments lead to more or less mainstream foreign policy, and if autocrats had controlled GATO, would they would have been on the other side of some of the wars of the past? Case Study: MCXA (joint appointed executive and elected legislative- constitutional monarchy) Case Study: Libertarian Socialist Federation (Unorthodox/Direct Democracy) Most CyberNations alliances fundamentally have some sort of executive and legislature, and despite many variations, operate in practicality roughly the same way. The Libertarian Socialist Federation (LSF) a long-running leftist alliance, however, has almost no government- each member-nation is a sovereign entity that voluntarily enters into a compact- and they vote on organizers rather than rulers. As an LSF member said when asked about why he chose the alliance “I liked the sense of freedom. Most other alliances were very authoritarian in structure, but with the LSF came freedom.”[6] When asked why he thought alliances did not choose more libertarian government styles, he said that “People like power. Be it IRL or in game, most people like the ability to command and control, and open government means less power to those who are in office.”[7] LSF, however, is not without its faults. The member said that “Well, it is definitely [sic] hectic. There is alot [sic] of strife, and everything is done democratically.”[8] Also, because member states have a lot of autonomy, they can often do actions which can put the whole alliance at risk- bad behavior is not discouraged by a hierarchy. LSF is an experiment that has succeeded somewhat, and it works on the scale and with the leftist membership it has. Were it to expand to people less willing to play their game, it would certainly not be as successful- though that could be said of any system. Case Study: Vox Populi (Guerrilla Action) Vox Populi was an orthodox alliance that reformed under new leadership in the War of the Coalition, where they saw unjust actions being taken by the current hegemony, as they moved against a powerful once-ally in the New Polar Order. Announcing a document signed “by the followers of the principles of Vox Populi, and those who wish to see a free world where you do not have to live in fear, “[9] they launched a coordinated series of attacks against nations in the New Pacific Order and its allies. It gained power, mostly through guerrilla tactics and through frequent usage of propaganda- posting announcements daily to demoralize opponents and inspire support. Many prominent players who had grievances with the hegemony ended up joining, despite the fact that it would mark them forever as traitors. Vox also openly used espionage, something employed by some alliances but a reason for war in almost all cases if uncovered. Using this they flummoxed opposition by digging up embarrassing or incriminating information in Internet Relay Chat conversations or Internet forums. Their successful campaign to cause havoc on NPO’s home red color by gaining a sanctioning Senator who was able to lift sanctions that favored NPO and attacked Vox and its supporters. Overall, Vox was organized and run much like a modern day resistance group- some would say a terrorist organization. They did not believe in any rules of war, sought no terms, and would use whatever means to destroy the enemy. Employing constant and sophisticated propaganda, they gained sympathy, and also refused to surrender, even after losing most of their membership and power. Parallels between this and say, the Taliban in Afghanistan can easily be made. Vox clearly was not modeled after a normal, orthodox government, but rather a mobile, guerrilla movement of the people. Judicial Systems Though not common, some alliances do choose to create court systems that have varying levels of power, including judicial review, the power to mediate and arbitrate disputes, and the power to expel members for violations of alliance charter protocol. Most alliances choose to administer justice through their executive- a monarch or council will decree or vote on the fate of a misbehaving member-state, for example. Separation of powers, however, does exist in a way Americans would recognize. Led by longtime Chief Justice Liffer, the Multicolored Cross-X Alliance administers a code law court system, and expels members, overturns laws that are against the charter, and offers advisory opinions. The Republic goes even further, having multiple levels of courts, with appeals and much of the complexity one would expect in a legitimate, sovereign state. The Role of Blocs in CN Governments The hierarchy of CyberNations goes from virtual citizens, to member-nations, to alliances, and finally to confederations of alliances known as blocs. These coalesce with treaties between individual alliances in a messy contraption known as the “treaty web,” which resembles pre-World War I European diplomacy- many convoluted and confusing treaties. Blocs serve to provide leverage against threads, and come in various flavors (the same holds for treaties as well). Optional Defense Pact (ODP)- Alliances in this bloc/treaty may assist in defending one another from a hostile attack, but are not obliged to. Mutual Defense Pact (MDP)- Alliances are obliged to defend each other, but only in defensive wars, not wars launched by a member alliance. Mutual Defense, optional Aggression Pact (MDoAP)- Same as an MDP, but alliances may, but don’t have to assist in offensive wars. Mutual Defense and Aggression Pact (MDAP)- Rarely seen in the modern game, this requires alliances to support their allies in all wars, regardless of circumstances. Blocs have traditionally been the source of hegemony in the CyberNations political world, starting with the World Unity Treaty, which lasted from before the Second Great War in the beginning of 2007[10] until a schism later that year. Later blocs replicated having all the dominating alliances united, such as The Continuum, 1 Vision, and Pandora’s Box and Doomhouse in an unofficial bloc confederation. However, no hegemony has ever lasted. The New Pacific Order, long the most powerful non-neutral alliance and winner of most major wars, was crushed by a coalition calling itself “Karma”- comprised of the many people it had wronged in the past.[11]. Addendum: post Karma has had some work, though Superfriends-MK or Unjust Path descendents has lead to conflict openly. It is an issue to keep disparate alliances together into a relevant powerful bloc. What Breeds Success in CN? Success in CyberNations is not an easy thing. It requires first of all excellent member-states with excellent real-life players behind them. Secondly, it requires a solid government foundation that suits the players you have- if you have democratically-minded liberals playing and you set up an autocracy, it’s simply a recipe for dramatics. Thirdly, it requires good foreign policy- good treaties and getting into blocs that are stable and powerful. Finally, it requires a will to be involved day in and day out for months at a time- only though that can you recruit the players you need, gain the international respect you have to obtain, and get the treaties you need to be secure. Besides that, it seems that the fewer chiefs, the better. Open democracies work with true believers (see LSF, above), but otherwise are a bad idea for stability’s sake, except in cases like GATO and GDA from Blue Team. They’re slow- who wants to wait 48 hours on every decision. A triumvirate can work if the people involved are active enough, but a single executive has proven to be the best- the best alliances all had a single leader backed up by a good ministerial pool, advisers, and a solid member body. There is no good reason to have more chiefs than one can sensibly explain. Additionally, membership requirements of some sort have benefited a number of alliances. Making nations go through training, meet certain strength requirements, or otherwise be elite makes you more effective in war, more competent, and better toe-to-toe than other alliances. Conclusion Much more can be said about CyberNations, and will in the future as the author continues to gather data and study its structures. However, at this point trends and data indicate that success comes from sticking to a simple mantra- follow the leader, whether one or many. Imitation of the best alliances is the best idea of all- their structure and practices help make other alliances better. Through this, CyberNations may become less diverse, but the governments become more stable and successful, vying for power in an ever-changing world. [1] CyberNations is available at http://cybernations.net/. Additional information is at the official forums, http://forums.cybernations.net/, and the wiki at http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. [2] “Global Alliance and Treaty Organization,” CyberNations Wiki, http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Global_Alliance_and_Treaty_Organization (accessed April 16 2011) [3] IRC chat with Moo-Cows, 17 April 2011 [4] Ibid [5] “Continuum-GPA War,” CyberNations Wiki, http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Woodstock_Massacre (accessed April 17 2011) [6] IRC chat with Ayatollah_Brohmenini, 17 April 2011. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid [9] “Vox Populi Resistance Movement,” CyberNations Wiki, http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Vox_Populi_Resistance_Movement (accessed April 17 2011) [10] “Second Great War,” Cybernations Wiki, http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Great_War (accessed April 17 2011) [11] “Karma War,” Cybernations Wiki, http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_War (accessed April 17 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DZsQwYEs0 Crap with war check new thread about Timberland being a dbag

And I nuked _Gunner_ from MK and your allies in Unjust four times. It's largely the past and the present converging. Btw, GOONS is pretty terrible at elicting most people's sympathy. Ask FARK or NpO about your elicting sympathy, you concern trolling SRS-supporting eejit.

Sorry, server glitched

Here's a paper I showed users and got mixed up (I admit it, my conclusion was factually week) and insulted occasionaly, including wandering to GOONS and getting beezed out. Here is is, it's comparing treaties of CN government types. I think the triumvirate of elected or sem-appointed officials work best, maybe opposed by an independent and co-equal judiciary and an impartial military that focuses on just and prudent action. I think an executive with more than one and less than ten works well. Any more or one person has issues with rounding good people up. POSTED WITH CITATIONS BELOW

As a non-neutral but non-agressive warring group, we focus on networking and ODP and below stuff. We also oppose raiding, ZI an other stuff that affects game player retention in the short and long term.