The Myth of SuperGrievances

[Xiphosis]

The thing is, you said a lot of stuff that just isn't true:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Not [i]really[/i]. There were allies that hated each other, but in a lot of cases, they were shared allies [I'd give the MK-NpO and RoK-NpO ties as an example, as this was Grub's term and we all know how fond he was of SF & CnG], and in practice it actually was extremely similar to an alliance bloc; we had representatives, we had high gov channels, we had overarching policy and for a long time we had a pretty active SG members channel. It was just a non-offensive bloc, which I guess is an anomaly on CN.

[quote]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]

Sort of, sort of not. SG was going to exist whether the fear was there or not, because SG was the culmination of a lot of bad blood on an individual level getting patched up due to Karma. There [i]was[/i] concern that drove a lot of action that if we didn't have our !@#$ together, the ex-heg would rebound and ally into our spheres and turn us against one another. Luckily, we both had our !@#$ together, and they were far too incompetent to actually do that. There was never any fear of a direct ex-heg attack, that was always laughable. More parasitic in nature than that.

[quote]The thing about the SuperGrievances era was actually how little influence and power SF and C&G actually had[/quote]

Also pretty untrue. Anytime you have the number of ties that SF and CnG both had, and they're working in concert, it's going to carry a lot of influence and power. There are examples, but this isn't the place for it.

Edit: Looking through this topic, there's literally not a single person that was in any of the SG backchannels, so I'm not sure why any of you are comfortable debating what it was or wasn't.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Xiphosis

[Dexomega]

A clever ruse to mask the real issue at hand.

[u][b]SuperPandoraGrievances![/b][/u]

[Ogaden]

Well maybe at the highest levels it was smoother, but from where I was sitting it was herding cats, man.

[eyriq]

Xiphosis, from this and those logs where you defined your sphere pre-VE/NpO war as including NpO couldn't it be safer to say that you [i]saw[/i] this as a hegemonic bloc? I would say that due to your influence you helped make it as much a reality as possible, but when you look at actual outcomes during this time-frame it just doesn't look like the most accurate interpretation.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1307733429' post='2728742']
Xiphosis, from this and those logs where you defined your sphere pre-VE/NpO war as including NpO couldn't it be safer to say that you [i]saw[/i] this as a hegemonic bloc?
[/quote]

1) Throughout the SG period, NpO was in our sphere due to MK and RoK, not anything to due with me - Grub and I have no love for one another, and most will recall he was Emperor back then. SG was long gone before this last war, and I defined them in my sphere due to their current government and how they interact with me, and nothing else. It's fairly besides the point of this topic.

2) No, I don't think it was a matter of perspective. SF still has old threads discussing the result of policy discussions with C&G, the channel where a lot of it was done is still up, and there was concerted [and public] effort on both sides to tie the blocs closer and closer during that period.

[quote]Well maybe at the highest levels it was smoother, but from where I was sitting it was herding cats, man.[/quote]

This I have no doubt about But at higher levels it was never really in question except for a few times. Now and then someone in SF or C&G would get tired with the whole structure and threaten to bail [it was basically a monthly thing] until MK & FARK finally actually did. There was a year and a half prior to that, though.

[Omniscient1]

[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"[/quote]

Actually there was a push post Bi-Polar war for every CnG member to have at least one SF treaty and vice versa. I'm not sure where you were then though. It was an alliance of convience though.

[Van Hoo III]

I must have missed all the animosity in the SF/CnG backchannels. Perhaps I was playing video games at the time or something ...

[The Corrupt Teacher]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1307739721' post='2728789']
Actually there was a push post Bi-Polar war for every CnG member to have at least one SF treaty and vice versa. I'm not sure where you were then though. It was an alliance of convience though.
[/quote]


[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1307741439' post='2728808']
I must have missed all the animosity in the SF/CnG backchannels. Perhaps I was playing video games at the time or something ...
[/quote]

Yeah post-karma there was large FA push for CnG & SF to get closer bonds. It never was really directly as planned out as every CnG member must have an SF treaty but if I remember correctly the CSN-Athens and RIA-=LOST= treaties were a result of a concentrated effort to get closer.

Also I'd say the animosity was all pre-Karma. All the Rok-MK and MA-MK and RIA-MK bad blood. After Karma everything seemed pretty friendly too me (at least in government I know alot of general members didn't like vice versa etc.). I'd say at worst in regards of animosity there was a fear in CnG that SF was weak as MA and a few alliances went into stagnation in that period like Rok bleeding activity and members and CSN was a bit rocky if I recall for a month or so but that was about it.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Was there any truth to the rumor that it was SF policy for certain alliances to link up with alliances in CnG in order to cement the tie?

[supercoolyellow]

I like how this thread has become a QnA with Xiphosis on the SF CnG relationship

So what's the relationship like now?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307752847' post='2728904']
Was there any truth to the rumor that it was SF policy for certain alliances to link up with alliances in CnG in order to cement the tie?
[/quote]

Unfortunately I don't know if it worked the other way around or not. I just know the CnG side.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1307753089' post='2728908']
I like how this thread has become a QnA with Xiphosis on the SF CnG relationship

So what's the relationship like now?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet not as good.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307752847' post='2728904']
Was there any truth to the rumor that it was SF policy for certain alliances to link up with alliances in CnG in order to cement the tie?
[/quote]

Not really, for the sole reason that during the time period involved, SF couldn't agree on policy. The ones who believed SG was a good idea did attempt to lay solid ties to formalize it, as did the ones in CnG who really liked the idea [as Corrupt Teacher's mentioned a few posts above].

[ChairmanHal]

Call it 'Mickey Mouse' for all I care, what's important is its effective impact on the world stage. That it has had a major, continuing impact can't be overstated.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1307730842' post='2728723']
Edit: Looking through this topic, there's literally not a single person that was in any of the SG backchannels, so I'm not sure why any of you are comfortable debating what it was or wasn't.
[/quote]
Not true, I was in the first one that we made during Karma (can't remember the name of it now)!. Not that it was relevant to, well, anything that happened post Karma but still not accurate

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Dexomega' timestamp='1307731739' post='2728731']
A clever ruse to mask the real issue at hand.

[u][b]SuperPandoraGrievances![/b][/u]
[/quote]

I've always thought that SuperComplaintsBox sounded better.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1307730842' post='2728723']
Edit: Looking through this topic, there's literally not a single person that was in any of the SG backchannels, so I'm not sure why any of you are comfortable debating what it was or wasn't.
[/quote]

I take offense to that.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Meh should have abducted Londo and GreenMuffins when we had the chance.

[Aurion]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1307730842' post='2728723']
Edit: Looking through this topic, there's literally not a single person that was in any of the SG backchannels, so I'm not sure why any of you are comfortable debating what it was or wasn't.
[/quote]

Stop funsucking.

[Bob Janova]

Facts aside (and as pointed out there were a lot of treaties signed to make it more of a reality in the treaty web), people believed it existed, therefore it did. That's most of what made 'The Hegemony' exist, after all – the treaty ties between One Vision and Citadel, or Continuum and BLEU, were as weak as those between C&G and SF.

In 2009 and early 2010 we saw C&G and SF working together in almost everything FA wise, including starting a war as joint primary attackers (TPF), and providing a unified front against attack. Unification in attack and defence is as much a megabloc as it's possible to get.

[Prime minister Johns]

Nothing really changes, there is still a dominant bloc with core and client alliances and its enemies and scapegoats, with a few independents and neutrals. All that changes is who is playing which role, but the structure is the same.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307752847' post='2728904']
Was there any truth to the rumor that it was SF policy for certain alliances to link up with alliances in CnG in order to cement the tie?
[/quote]


I seem to remember this when I was RIA DMoFA. We pushed hard for =LOST= And I could have swore that I remember having a conversation with Delta where he basically just outlined a plan of every SF alliance having at least one C&G tie. Judging by Xiph's comment maybe it wasn't an established bloc wide policy voted upon by the SF delegates, but there definitely seemed to be a push behind it

[Ogaden]

In the period immediately prior to the formation of Pandora's Box there was a push from RIA to engage with C&G alliances, I know that because when I was HoFA I started that push. We got to know a lot of alliances we hadn't known much about until then and our ODP with =LOST= was the product of that.

I'm not denying there wasn't an effort to make SuperGrievances a reality, but that was because the ties were so tenuous that there was always such a risk of it all falling apart, and it nearly did on a dozen separate occasions, until it finally did.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1307812342' post='2729277']
I seem to remember this when I was RIA DMoFA. We pushed hard for =LOST= And I could have swore that I remember having a conversation with Delta where he basically just outlined a plan of every SF alliance having at least one C&G tie. Judging by Xiph's comment maybe it wasn't an established bloc wide policy voted upon by the SF delegates, but there definitely seemed to be a push behind it
[/quote]
Really? I don't remember that... Granted, I have a lot to remember, and things slip through the cracks, but still...

[The Corrupt Teacher]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1307730842' post='2728723']
Edit: Looking through this topic, there's literally not a single person that was in any of the SG backchannels, so I'm not sure why any of you are comfortable debating what it was or wasn't.
[/quote]

D: I'm hurt you didn't remember the like 3min convo we had in those back channels once. The one that was like "hi how's it? Good etc" I found it to be a defining point in my CN career.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1307789843' post='2729127']
Facts aside (and as pointed out there were a lot of treaties signed to make it more of a reality in the treaty web), people believed it existed, therefore it did. That's most of what made 'The Hegemony' exist, after all – the treaty ties between One Vision and Citadel, or Continuum and BLEU, were as weak as those between C&G and SF.

In 2009 and early 2010 we saw C&G and SF working together in almost everything FA wise, including starting a war as joint primary attackers (TPF), and providing a unified front against attack. Unification in attack and defence is as much a megabloc as it's possible to get.
[/quote]

I can tell you now that it was not that weak. We were definitely tighter than Q or WUT or any super block that preceded it. Not that it was a coordinated effort but it wasn't as hostile. Really its because neither of us really wanted to dominate the relationship. I know CnG never seriously talked about taking over CN I know we didn't want to get wiped out again like NoCB but we never talked about taking power. I can't talk for SF but I've never felt that they really sought total control over CN either.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1307832642' post='2729435']
D: I'm hurt you didn't remember the like 3min convo we had in those back channels once. The one that was like "hi how's it? Good etc" I found it to be a defining point in my CN career. [/quote]

I remembered! You posted after that.

[quote]I can tell you now that it was not that weak. We were definitely tighter than Q or WUT or any super block that preceded it. Not that it was a coordinated effort but it wasn't as hostile. Really its because neither of us really wanted to dominate the relationship. I know CnG never seriously talked about taking over CN I know we didn't want to get wiped out again like NoCB but we never talked about taking power. I can't talk for SF but I've never felt that they really sought total control over CN either.
[/quote]

Basically, yeah. I liked the confederation model a lot more than I would've liked centralized power.