Grigoris Lambrakis

An interesting discussion but I disagree with your estimation Hereno. I think that CN has been a lot more "immoral" in the past: forced disbandment of alliances, PZI lists, using threats and force to silence criticism on OWF, huge reps with no other foundation than the right of might. All these are examples where "moralism" has actually won and has made a more "moral" stance the norm. But these are choices which depend on the decision of the collective. The "no nuclear strike first policy" to which you refer is a case which depends more on the choices of individual nation rulers. As such, it has been abandoned more because it was hard to enforce than for any other reason. EQ's "an attack on one is an attack on all" policy is still relatively new and it remains to see whether it will dominate future wars or not. However, while it changes one of our rules, it is not moral or immoral as such. One could claim that it is yet a victory of "moralism", since the web allowed for all the backstabbing and leaving alliances to dry that we have seen in the past. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is perhaps a less rigid rule, but it is a more moral rule, at least from Kant's point of view. I think that what you are trying to grasp is a certain feeling of vainness, which is however the result of the victory of moralism rather than the opposite. You see there used to be bad guys and good guys and this was meaningful for both, cause the bad guys would profit (alliance reps following globals are an excellent example) while the good guys had a cause to fight for. While nowdays everyone is "good" or simply "less good", which makes it less exciting for everyone (I seriously don't know why to fight in wars any more). Ofc this is natural because the good guys will naturally tend to win in a situation where you can't exterminate the opponent... -Rigas

If you get NEAT in too, this will start looking like a nice micro-leftist bloc opening some interesting possibilities, although it also has lilmitations known to all. I wish you all success :) .

You sir are a hypocrite, CBs don't matter to you, treaties don't matter to you, nothing matters to you, but you seem to really love your pixels, if you honour your treaties only when you have the upper hand. Is this the moral high ground from which you judge us? I shall not discuss this further here. It's being discussed in private channels and is in a correct direction.

I'll keep this quote from VL, cause it really is the core of it: Talking BS on OWF will certainly get us nowhere.

Orite, I'll walk right into your trap and sum up some of the info and arguments that are already well known. Int's side: 1) An oA is optional. 2) Rogues??? Where's my CB??? 3) It's hard to attack the treaty partner of our allies just based on an oA, without a CB and with NoR offering peace. 4) We tried nevertheless. 5) Wtf was that IRON thingy? And a secret message, really??? 6) Trot, wtf? 7) I thought you had some more allies? LSF's side: 1) Trot said you'd back us. 2) We are LSF, your brothers of always, they are NoR... 3) Ghost us or sth, we are being stomped... These are the two sides' arguments. I call this grey because I'm a softy when it comes to LSF. -Rigas

I'll give it a shot then. All the exchanges I had with Momentum have indeed been both pleasant and productive. He has this rare metal of character, where pragmatism is put in the service of ideals, that I always search in people I hope I can call brothers and friends. Q is also made of the same material, which makes me confident about the future of The International. -Rigas

I fought in the LSF-NoR war and even did the peace negotiations and prepared the peace treaty for LSF before quitting to join Int. You got it wrong sir. Only seldom are things painted black and white and I can tell you that this picture was mostly grey. Your powindah efforts to fuel a sad conflict between leftists has been dully noted. But please bear in mind that interfering in familly bussiness is not a gentleman's way. -Rigas

It feels good to have Q back. Reminds me of really old times :) . -Rigas

The Silent threads were loads of fun. I didn't lose a single one of them, posting as passionately as M-S does now. Who would think back then that, instead of fighting, so many of us would end up in the same alliance? The Left will heal from this as it has from everything else. -Rigas

Welcome NoR. I think it's about time I change my sig :).

The whole divide is amusing at best. Some guys claiming that they are pragmatic while they fight a suicide war. And some other guys claiming to be idealists while adding themselves to a dog pile. I should rebuild PFJ or something, there's too much Monty Python material being tossed around.

I would welcome a conference discussing what the Left on planet Bob is and could be in 2013. This could be fun and perhaps even productive. Although there's too much bad blood right now. I agree that neutrality would be a more consistent choice for the Left. However, our stance, LSF's and Int's at least, has been forged by our history to a point of no return. Chosing a side was not only a question of principles but also of survival, especialy at times when NoV/NoR was far more aggressive, allied to the dominant side and rolling us for the kicks. Now, after all these years and wars we've fought, if we were to declare neutrality, no one would take it seriously or conceder it sincere. It's too late for that. Furthermore, despite the general feeling, there are traces of ideology on Bob which are worth defending from a leftist or at least "progressive" point of view, a set of principles, formed through the opposition to the Hegemony and Q, formed and applied through the Karma revolution: no forced disbandment of alliances, no reps paid for alliance wars, no perma ZI lists, no rolling people for speaking their mind. That's what the world was before Karma, you didn't even dare speak your mind on OWF, or you would end up blitzed the very next day. I do hope that you can see how the left relates to ideas such as free expression, self determination (no forced disbandment), opposing exploitation (no reps based on the right of might), protecting minimal individual rights (no perma ZI) etc. From this point of view, embedding ourselves into this particular power bloc can be regarded very consistent with our ideals, which I'm not certain whether LSF can say about their recent choices.

Cata said it all in less than 2 lines. Anyone that has been here long enough can see in just how many ways this is profoundly wrong. I do not see the point of perpetuating an empty exchange of words when actions are what matters.

Your targets were all Int, you only acquiered ODN targets after all our slots were taken. And it's hard to bellieve that it's not personal when you have just produced a libellous materpiece abour our "Babylonian" ways. Furthermore, UCR has no excuses. I still welcome the change of tone and perspective.

I can see where we differ M-S, but I never thought it would come to fighting over this. Nor do I think that this is the result of -passionately- applied reason. It's an act dictated by the feeling of betrayal perhaps, but still irrational and profoundly wrong. I obviously don't care about the weight of two micros when I'm in the war I'm in. If anyone thinks that, he obviously can't read stats. But I always had the left in heart, it has always been my reason to stay around, and this situation genuinely aggrieves me.