Jump to content

The Myth of SuperGrievances


Ogaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

Having been in SF government for a good chunk of the latter half of the SuperGrievances era, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the supposed eponymous hegemonic era of "SuperGrievances" when SF and C&G ran the world.

The truth of the matter is that SuperGrievances was more of an interregnum in between the Continuum and Pandoras Box and Doomhouse, and the political realignment of the post-Karma era is still establishing itself.

SF and C&G were tenuously connected and indeed nearly went to war on a number of occasions, and it was more of a "UN Security Council" than an alliance or power bloc.

The only thing that kept SF and C&G together was fear of the old hegemony. It sounds stupid to say now, but SF had been under the Old Hegemony for so long that the feeling was if the SF and C&G security council situation broke down, the Old Hegemony would immediately resurface and destroy us all. This was an actual, real fear.

The thing is eventually the Old Hegemony became so weak and divided this became a farce. SF and C&G were not exactly friends, we didn't have the same goals or vision or anything, we just REALLY didn't want to live in a world where NPO was in charge again. Once this ceased to be an issue, SuperGrievances just stopped, it's raison d'etre was gone.

There were no treaties that needed to be cancelled or grudges to surface for this to happen, because SuperGrievances was never actually established in the first place in any formal way. I think the ultimate end was when MK cancelled all their treaties and then Pandoras Box and Doomhouse established an entirely new political reality.

The thing about the SuperGrievances era was actually how little influence and power SF and C&G actually had. There were many blocs with comparable power and influence, and the treaty web in aggregate just clustered around SF and C&G, but this wasn't even by design, and SF and C&G essentially had no say over this, the vast majority of their strength and power in war coalitions. Alliances like Sparta, VE, GATO, ODN (until they joined C&G), the LEO alliances, Stickmen etc etc etc (Skipping over dozens upon dozens). SF and C&G were in the middle, but we weren't actually in charge.

TL;DR: The SuperGrievances Era should really be called the Post-Karma Interregnum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1307696132' post='2728515']
I'm open to correction but I don't remember C&G and SF almost going to war several times.
[/quote]

There were at least two times that I personally participated in avoiding conflict between the two.
There were many, many more.

Edited by James Dahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuperGrievances was one of those things that was a handy rhetorical tool more than anything else. I'm not sure how many people espousing the idea actually believed it. Although, the notion that SF, of all groups, was afraid of the "old" hegemony is kind of entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1307696386' post='2728517']
There were at least two times that I personally participated in avoiding conflict between the two.
There were many, many more.
[/quote]

I know that there were a fair few people in C&G who wanted to roll SF, tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1307696799' post='2728518']Although, the notion that SF, of all groups, was afraid of the "old" hegemony is kind of entertaining.[/quote]
Oh they were.
You'd be surprised at how many of the nominally Karma-aligned alliances were [s]afraid[/s][b]paranoid[/b] that the big bad NPO would be coming back to EZI them all.

Also, the OP is spot on. CnG and SF were never a cohesive hegemony, more regents for the power that was to come.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many in tC didn't like each other either. You still stuck with each other and your members tied yourselves in such as way that to take on one bloc was to defacto take on the other bloc.

Now, while both blocs are not the premiere blocs in the current ruling hegemony, they are still snuggled into the middle of the pack through their treaty ties. Especially now that SF has shed RoK and their Polar treaty and appeared to choose VE over complete bloc unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307697495' post='2728522']
I think the name was created by Alterego of all people.

It was a strawman concept. There was no organisation. We didn't even like most SF alliances.
[/quote]

This is essentially my view from a different CnG alliance than MK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1307698826' post='2728526']
Many in tC didn't like each other either. You still stuck with each other and your members tied yourselves in such as way that to take on one bloc was to defacto take on the other bloc.

Now, while both blocs are not the premiere blocs in the current ruling hegemony, they are still snuggled into the middle of the pack through their treaty ties. Especially now that SF has shed RoK and their Polar treaty and appeared to choose VE over complete bloc unity.
[/quote]
The only reason it was a de facto bloc was because no one was competent enough to challenge the status quo and no one in SF or C&G really felt like doing it for them by attacking each other. If anyone made a political play after TOP, it would have been a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of treaties that were shared between SF and C&G almost made it a de facto bloc. Now that SF is a shadow of what it once was, is more exposed than at any time since before karma & are seemingly in the PB/DH/TOP dog house you have decided to tell people it was a myth. When that name first appeared some people laughed it off despite the very strong treaty ties but in the 18 months that followed the two blocs and their shared allies went treaty wild making sure everyone was locked in at multiple points. SG might not have been an apt name when it was concieved but it became apt especially when you cemented your position in the TPF war.




[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307697495' post='2728522']
I think the name was created by Alterego of all people.

It was a strawman concept. There was no organisation. We didn't even like most SF alliances.
[/quote]
I dont think that was mine. I came up with something but I dont think it was that one.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307700308' post='2728535']
The only reason it was a de facto bloc was because no one was competent enough to challenge the status quo and no one in SF or C&G really felt like doing it for them by attacking each other. If anyone made a political play after TOP, it would have been a different story.
[/quote]

No, the reason it was a defacto bloc is not because you didnt have an enemy its because you SF, C&G and shared allies went on a treaty spree that had so many overlapping treaties it was impossible not to be fighting along side each other. It took two years and the last war to break the monopoly but by then MK had PB/DH/TOP.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307697495' post='2728522']
I think the name was created by Alterego of all people.

It was a strawman concept. There was no organisation. We didn't even like most SF alliances.
[/quote]

I think the feelings were mutual! [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of what you said, but disagree with your last point when you try to play yourselves as powerless in everything.

And while it did not exist as an official bloc, I would say that there certainly was the aspect of a coalition-wide treaty with regard to things. There was a steady stream of information flowing between all of the alliances in the SG 'cluster', and when war came or war preparations came, the military coordination was of a higher level than any one bloc could have hoped to achieve.

As for the 'wars' that almost started, there would always be issues between fringe alliances and/or micros that could potentially pit people against each other, and OOC stuff, but there never was really a time when the prospect of 'infighting between SG' was ever real beyond the simplest cooling of tempers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about SuperComplaints (or Grievances, whichever you call them) is that they never had many treaties connecting them until they started to try to after BiPolar (and most didn't last too long), and in the build-up to the TPF war when the world was as MultiPolar as it could possibly be, SuperComplaints became a coalition-wide mentality thanks to Athens and RoK combining together against TPF, a virtual repeat of the Karma coalition sans Citadel and (possibly/likely) BLEU 2.0. This also seems to me why MK/C&G turned against defending Polar in the \m/ part of BiPolar, despite probably having more treaty connections to Polar/STA/NV - there was a definite fear that the old Hegemony + BLEU would come back to rule again.

SuperComplaints seemed to have been a phenomenon that lasted from the TPF war in late December 2009 until September of 2010 or so. Fark and MK leaving their respective blocs, in addition to the creation of PB, definitely eclipsed both of the two blocs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people can lump everyone that was ever treatied to the NPO or Continuum together as "Ex Hegemony", then other people can lump SF, C&G and all of their cronies together into SuperComplaints. In reality, many of the alliances that were lumped into being members of the NPO Hegemony had no direct connection to the NPO core and were only allies of more peripheral alliances. The SuperComplaints area was a bit more interconnected as there were a few interblock treaties between SF and C&G alliances that did tie that whole sector together. Many SuperComplaints alliances had (and still have) more MDP level treaties than alliances that were not a part of their sphere of influence, thus increasing the interconnectedness of that area of the planet.

So although you may not have made decisions as a sort of hive mind, you were definitely seeing each other at the company picnic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1307693929' post='2728510']
The only thing that kept SF and C&G together was fear of the old hegemony. It sounds stupid to say now, but SF had been under the Old Hegemony for so long that the feeling was if the SF and C&G security council situation broke down, the Old Hegemony would immediately resurface and destroy us all. This was an actual, real fear.
[/quote]

I thought this was common knowledge. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't exactly the most coherent group of alliances to ever exist, that much is certain.

I think a few of the people posting might be projecting their current opinions backwards a bit though. At absolute worst, C&G was a considerably preferable alternative to the other groups floating around.

Edited by Aurion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1307702878' post='2728542']
The amount of treaties that were shared between SF and C&G almost made it a de facto bloc. Now that SF is a shadow of what it once was, is more exposed than at any time since before karma & are seemingly in the PB/DH/TOP dog house you have decided to tell people it was a myth. When that name first appeared some people laughed it off despite the very strong treaty ties but in the 18 months that followed the two blocs and their shared allies went treaty wild making sure everyone was locked in at multiple points. SG might not have been an apt name when it was concieved but it became apt especially when you cemented your position in the TPF war.





I dont think that was mine. I came up with something but I dont think it was that one.



No, the reason it was a defacto bloc is not because you didnt have an enemy its because you SF, C&G and shared allies went on a treaty spree that had so many overlapping treaties it was impossible not to be fighting along side each other. It took two years and the last war to break the monopoly but by then MK had PB/DH/TOP.
[/quote]
SF and C&G never liked each other even going back to the days when I was in SF government. Sure some of us got along individually and were able to work together when it was an absolute necessity but there was never a cohesive "SuperGrievances"

And as far as treaties go, when you look at the era leading up to and immediately following Karma the web was such a mess that you could draw those ties to most anyone who was on the "Karma" side.

Edited by King Srqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1307696132' post='2728515']
I'm open to correction but I don't remember C&G and SF almost going to war several times.
[/quote]
I remember CnG backing STA over \m/ at least once, possibly twice and I seem to recall the same happening with us backing NV over an SF ally once, but I'm not certain on that one.

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1307715726' post='2728606']a virtual repeat of the Karma coalition sans Citadel and (possibly/likely) BLEU 2.0.
[/quote]
We had the BLEU 2.0 alliances.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1307702878' post='2728542']
The amount of treaties that were shared between SF and C&G almost made it a de facto bloc.
[/quote]
Yes, all three or four treaties between the blocs.

SF and CnG were more closely connected to alliances like Sparta and those that would become PB than directly to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I love you Dahl, but I'm going to disagree [and also point out that for the entire time, you weren't in high [i]enough[/i] gov to really know better]. There was concerted effort on SF & C&G's part to align our policies and cooperate to keep both spheres safe and as far as actions go, it was a de facto MDP that got formalized by some ties later on. Delta, Archon, Shamedmonkey, me and some others already had personal ties that went back fairly far, and that's what developed the bloc-bloc relationship as Karma wound down. We never did conduct any unilateral wars using it; it's main function was to settle disputes between people allied into the SF sphere and people allied into the C&G sphere and to ensure mutual security for each bloc.

SG ended for the simple reason that in short succession, MK and FARK both left C&G and SF. It knocked both blocs on our asses, and considering MK was a big factor on the C&G side that was holding it together, it tanked the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea good topic, but wasn't all this stuff already known?

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1307696132' post='2728515']
I'm open to correction but I don't remember C&G and SF almost going to war several times.
[/quote]

I personally recall around 4 times in one month where this was a concern. In a lot of cases it wasn't actually that scary, because we all knew allies would be ditched if they had to in order to keep NPO down, but it still could have happened. That's why I self-titled myself "savior of Super-Greivances" even though I actually only done anything once. GATO with our treaties to CnG, Synergy, and VE always seemed to somehow be connected to the disputes though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...