Denial
-
Posts
2,860 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Denial
-
-
So, you're allowed to have nations in PM "for a variety of reasons, from strategic to people being away on vacation (or just not being able to be online as much as a protracted war necessitates) and so on.", but NPO is not?
OK.
Yes.
Just try and stop us.
-
Yeah, we've got nations in peace mode for a variety of reasons, from strategic to people being away on vacation (or just not being able to be online as much as a protracted war necessitates) and so on. Yes, we are making surrender for NPO reliant upon them bringing out a sizeable proportion of their peace mode corps into war mode, for a specific period of time. The reason for this is simple. We entered this war for both short-term tactical and long-term strategic reasons.
In terms of the latter, it was important to successfully remove a significant amount of NPO's fighting capacity because the Hopeless Coalition - in both peace and war - is wholly reliant upon Pacific for strength and direction. Weakening NPO is in essence removing the head and sword arm of those that oppose us. Now, we will achieve our goals. The only variable is whether it is done quickly, or protracted over several more weeks. Given that the vast majority of our forces are in fact not in peace mode, we are able to not only fund a lengthy war, but also begin rebuilding. The longer that NPO and the Hopeless Coalition chooses to drag this out, the more they set their own reconstruction back.
So, yeah, we've got people in peace mode. So what? We have the capacity to keep them there, NPO does not. I really couldn't care less if the dregs of the Cyberverse call it "hypocrisy". Plan your wars a little better next time.
-
I completely agree. Whenever I post my feelings on this, however, it usually gets disregarded by the 'other side' as propaganda or a PR campaign or part of some invisible hegemonist plot, so it's nice to see it from someone who can loosely be associated with that 'other side'.
Edit: I forgot to mention that, in my eyes, this line of thinking also applies to those in the dominant side who are content with enjoying the status quo and have an aversion to taking risks for the sake of fun. If I have any say in the matter (admittedly, I don't have much, with my self-imposed restriction to only low-level alliance positions due to time constraints), it won't be allowed to continue that way for much longer.
-
Very well thought out, as no one else has ever taken this approach to the world war cycle.
That is not true. What Vladimir has presented here is a line of thinking that has existed within the Cyberverse since at least mid 2007, in the midst of the post-Great War era dominance of The Initiative. Predominantly, it was created in order to display the inherent weaknesses of the Initiative-focused hegemony of that time, and highlight the capacity for the ruling parties to turn on themselves and end their own reign. Admittedly, the theory also emerged partly as a calculated response to the popularly-perceived military and political insurmountability of The Initiative at the time; if the theory held true, there was hope for those on the receiving end of regular injustice, whereas if the theory was false, all hope was lost. The fact that the theory did not catch on as pervasively then as it has now is down to two primary reasons.
Firstly, it was in the interests of the ruling parties of the time to deny such a cycle in Cyberverse affairs, as its acceptance would have served as an admission of the possibility of disunity, divergent ambitions, and an ensuing 'civil war'. As anyone that was present in the '07 Cyberverse would remember, The Initiative was denying the possibility of any fractures in its hegemony all the way up until the declarations of war were issued in the Unjust War. The consistent denial of even the possibility of discord was crucial for the maintenance of The Initiative's power. Perpetuating the image and reputation of invincibility has been important for all ruling groups, but none more so than The Initiative.
Secondly, and rather simply, there now exists more evidence to support the theory. With the downfall of the CoaLUEtion/League, The Initiative, and Continuum, it is now difficult not to accept the cyclical nature of Cyberverse ascendancy (I exclude the downfall of Karma, as mentioned in the original piece, due to reasons that Bob Janova has already asserted). This is despite the fact that this theory provides hope, motivation and ammunition for those that have been defeated in the past one or two global conflicts and are building towards an eventual attempt towards revenge. The propensity for the theory to be utilised as a political tool for the subordinated 'side' of can be demonstrated by this very article. All one must do to discover the motivations for such a piece is take a casual glance at the title and the concluding paragraph. However, I must note that the efficacy of this theory as a weapon against a 'hegemony' is determined by whether or not the perceived enemies of the wielder actually constitute a real hegemony or not.
Great analysis. It does seem though that the C&G hegemony is still yet rather underdeveloped when viewed from within this framework. Periphery alliances such as Sparta, VE, NpO, Umbrella, Fok, MHA, etc could all form spheres of influence of their own, almost instantly breaking up the core's hold on a hegemony.
In essence, this is what I was speaking of in my previous paragraph. It is quite clear that some groups may attempt to exploit this theory as a political tool against the alleged 'hegemony' of Super Friends, Complaints & Grievances, and associated alliances. Such methods will quickly be renedered ineffective, as the perpetrators are fighting an invisible enemy; there is no such thing as a 'Super Complaints'/'Super Grievances' hegemony. The aforementioned two blocs may currently be militarily and politically eminent, yet there is a world of difference between the power gap that separates 'Super Grievances' and its alleged opponents, and the power gap that existed between The Initiative or The Continuum and its detractors.
Interestingly, there is a bit of confusion emerging between the budding writings on the supposed evils of the 'Super Grievances' informal partnership. As previously mentioned, Vladimir's rather impotent call to arms aimed at 'second tier' alliances within the dominant group relies on the existence of a true hegemony. In contrast, other critiques of, and rallying calls against, 'Super Grievances' have been based upon the argument that the currently dominant group is in fact not a true hegemony and is not in any way insurmountable or invincible.
For any that are curious, despite sitting inside what many call the core of Super Grievances, I lean more towards the latter. The idea that there is a true hegemonic force in the Cyberverse is ludicrous. All that it would take for any group to retake the throne is time and some creative leadership. There is plenty of the former, but our opponents seem sorely lacking in the latter.
-
I place the blame solely on HDocho for our loss.
-
If TOP were trying to roll you until you were 'no longer a threat', then yes. But they're not (they've offered peace any time you want it).
Your argument might hold some water if it didn't completely disregard factual accuracy.
1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.
2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat.
3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.
4. Why in the $%&@ would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants?
5. If the positions were reversed, and C&G attacked TOP in the manner that they have attacked us, I bet we would still be subjected to your anti-C&G diatribes.
6. You're a joke and a gooddamn hypocrite with double standards depending on alliance affiliation.
-
We believe that TOP and coalition partners' poorly chosen entry to the war is not sufficient reason to deny them peace, and that C&G's desire to prosecute the war until TOP are 'no longer a threat' is reminiscent of the Hegemony.
TOP & IRON attacked C&G because they perceived us as a threat. Does that mean...
OH !@#$ EVERYONE IS THE HEGEMONY
-
If we are to go down, we will not go down without a fight.This seems to fly in the face of the large peace mode contingent you're maintaining.
-
Someone just read up on electoral systems
Nice write up, though. Electoral systems and psephology are two areas I've studied quite extensively, and it's pleasing to see there's at least one other person perhaps interested in those areas.Personally, I don't see the game of Cyber Nations as complex enough (and thus the demands of an elected position), or alliance elections large and infrequent enough, to warrant applying electoral system theory and implementing complex and time-consuming systems. If alliances aren't content with first-past-the-post, then a run-off vote system would offer an adequate alternative. Moving beyond that takes you to territory where elections become a serious pain in the $@!, as we're all relying on forum software rather than secret ballots and ballot boxes.
-
I'd rather see a codified alliance system to prevent ghosts entirely. Yes I realize it comes with its own set of problems, but damn it would make life so much easier in terms of issues like this and for other alliances in general.For the love of God, yes. I forget how long I've been trying to convince people this is necessary. It really would save a lot of hassle.
Also, yes, change the sanction system. It's ridiculous in its current state.
-
III. keep RL politics / beliefs or CN alliance politics OUT of suggestions. That will not lead to *any* results.
It's a shame the latter has been the driving force behind many suggestions. For example, the proposed senate change that received quite a lot of attention and discussion, both from players and the staff.
-
As long as the total nation count grows, the alliance count will grow. That's simple math.
It's a shame that the total nation count has been consistently declining, then
-
'Aegis' (a name coined by a member of the opposition, if I remember right)
Actually, the name of Aegis was coined by me. I was tired of typing "GATO and its allies" so I chose a name I thought was appropriate, and it caught on.
Nice write up, though. Electoral systems and psephology are two areas I've studied quite extensively, and it's pleasing to see there's at least one other person perhaps interested in those areas.
MK Hegemony: Why it must fall
in Reverend Ryan's Blog
A blog by Ryan Greenberg in General
Posted
This is a perfect display of an author having a particular conclusion in mind at the beginning of writing, and then warping the facts as much as necessary to fit that conclusion (and even then, doing a piss poor job).
If you take your head out of the sand and look around a little, it'll become apparent how ridiculous it is to claim MK is at the centre of everything and pulling all the puppet strings.