How unified are the four blocs?

[Banksy]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307844615' post='2729517']
I'll assume that you mention XX because of my AA.

Necessitating whether doing something makes something a political entity is a fallacy.

There is positive power and negative power. The ability to get someone to do something they normally wouldn't and the ability to prevent someone from doing something they might do otherwise.

You reference compellance, or positive power to be the only quality an entity must have in order to be considered a pole.

Detterrance, or the ability to stop someone from doing what they would normally do is also a quality of a pole (and inconsequentially, the reason most oft associated with forming one. In CN usually in the form of long-term ramifications coupled with an alliances treaties, indirect and direct, and most importantly strength.)

Each bloc and individual alliance has a certain amount of compellance and deterrant power, with varying degrees of such.

If each alliance/bloc decides that it is not in its best interest "to do something," because of another bloc/alliance's detterrance, it does not make them any less of an alliance or bloc.

You reference sides as if there's always two. There are about as many individual sides to every large conflict as there are alliances.
The norm is that alliances co-operate only in their self-interest and it is often in one's self-interest to avoid war due to the long-term ramifications and cost versus the satisfaction that victory would provide at a given time.

Otherwise we'd just all be at war with eachother all of the time.
[/quote]
This is perhaps the most convoluted attempt to justify a bloc i've ever seen.

If simply existing is power and politics to you, than have fun!

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1307845341' post='2729528']
You seem to be misrepresenting the idea of a bloc. It is a collectivization of interests. When you collective interests multilaterally at the alliance level, it is similar to what occurs at the nation level; you arrive at a powerful actor. The more collectivized NS there is the more power there is. I've seen you comment on politics before and I doubt you are unaware of something that basic, so I can only assume you have some sort of grudge against the current power dynamics, for whatever reason. Or you are aware of the state of current bloc cohesion and you know that several of the bloc no longer function, but I doubt that would apply to XX since they are so new.
[/quote]
You have described what blocs should do (OOC: Or even RL collective security arrangements). However, the norm with CN blocs is that they do no create a powerful single entity, they tend to act as a collection of treaties. Because we have so many treaties, the existence of a bloc doesn't really change anything. If treaties were rarer, then perhaps they would actually mean something. There are a few exceptions, but largely blocs fail to live up to expectations.


[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307847068' post='2729547']
There are well organized alliances and poorly organized alliances. They're both still alliances. So it goes with blocs. You may have formed it as a joke, but you still formed it. Unless the treaty you signed is actually a joke and none of you consider it binding, you're part of a bloc whether it's a serious effort in coordination or just a legal artifact on paper.

I'm mystified as to why you have such a problem with this. It's like Ram and his unconditional surrender all over again.
[/quote]
This is honestly one of the most bizarre ways i've heard to define a bloc. Using your reasoning, a bilateral treaty is a two way bloc. There is a distinction between a bloc and an alliance, and that is that a bloc is *supposed* to be a single political entity to increase the power of the alliances through unified representation. A alliance isn't designed in that way, it's just an agreement to defend each other. DH is a three way treaty with no bloc structure. GOONS and Umbrella are already in a perfectly good bloc, and MK dislikes blocs.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307849586' post='2729567']
This is perhaps the most convoluted attempt to justify a bloc i've ever seen.

If simply existing is power and politics to you, than have fun!


You have described what blocs should do (OOC: Or even RL collective security arrangements). However, the norm with CN blocs is that they do no create a powerful single entity, they tend to act as a collection of treaties. Because we have so many treaties, the existence of a bloc doesn't really change anything. If treaties were rarer, then perhaps they would actually mean something. There are a few exceptions, but largely blocs fail to live up to expectations.



This is honestly one of the most bizarre ways i've heard to define a bloc. Using your reasoning, a bilateral treaty is a two way bloc. There is a distinction between a bloc and an alliance, and that is that a bloc is *supposed* to be a single political entity to increase the power of the alliances through unified representation. A alliance isn't designed in that way, it's just an agreement to defend each other. DH is a three way treaty with no bloc structure. GOONS and Umbrella are already in a perfectly good bloc, and MK dislikes blocs.
[/quote]
Considering my definition is "A defensive treaty with more than two signatories" no, it isn't. Fine, you don't have structure. An incompetent, disorganized bloc is still a bloc. If you don't like blocs, don't join them. It's like saying you dislike alliances, so MK must not be an alliance because you're a member.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1307845512' post='2729532']
This is irrelevant, [b]the next war won't be taking place for another...what 7-10 months? [/b](according to recent history anyway) A lot can and will change between now and then. One of these blocs might not even be around.
[/quote]

Oh god I sure as hell hope it doesn't take that long.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1307851092' post='2729573']
Oh god I sure as hell hope it doesn't take that long.
[/quote]
It will probably be longer with the way people moan and !@#$%* any time an alliance actually does anything.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307850757' post='2729570']
Considering my definition is "A defensive treaty with more than two signatories" no, it isn't. Fine, you don't have structure. An incompetent, disorganized bloc is still a bloc. If you don't like blocs, don't join them. It's like saying you dislike alliances, so MK must not be an alliance because you're a member.
[/quote]
So the real issue is that you are using a definition of a bloc that has no resemblance to the intended function of a bloc.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307852171' post='2729591']
So the real issue is that you are using a definition of a bloc that has no resemblance to the intended function of a bloc.
[/quote]
*ahem*
And I quote:
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307849586' post='2729567']
You have described what blocs should do (OOC: Or even RL collective security arrangements). However, the norm with CN blocs is that they do no create a powerful single entity, they tend to act as a collection of treaties. Because we have so many treaties, the existence of a bloc doesn't really change anything. If treaties were rarer, then perhaps they would actually mean something. There are a few exceptions, but largely blocs fail to live up to expectations.
[/quote]


You've literally been arguing thus entire time that it doesn't "count" as a bloc unless it creates a single cohesive political entity in a real sense rather than just a legal sense. You then go on to say that most blocs don't live up to [I]this very expectation[/I] and merely function as a collection of treaties. So you've stated that Doomhouse is the equivalent of a collection of treaties, and that most blocs are just a collection of treaties.

You aren't making a case that Doomhouse is not a bloc. You're making a case that Doomhouse is an inconsequential failure of a bloc.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Delta1212

[Mogar]

you are !@#$@#$ retarded if you think all 4 blocs mentioned = one super bloc.

[King Louis the II]

I vote on 50-60% but I think would be 55-65%. While the 4 blocs are surely NOT a single entity, they don't perceive each other as natural enemies. The fact that so many treaties are shared between then make it more likely that they end in the same side. However the reasons for the next war is what will ultimately dictate which side each bloc will stay.

[JoshuaR]

I, for one, think Doomhouse is a bloc.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1307855435' post='2729628']
I, for one, think Doomhouse is a bloc.
[/quote]
You should throw a bloc party to help bring your mates around.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307849586' post='2729567']
This is perhaps the most convoluted attempt to justify a bloc i've ever seen.

If simply existing is power and politics to you, than have fun!


You have described what blocs should do (OOC: Or even RL collective security arrangements). However, the norm with CN blocs is that they do no create a powerful single entity, they tend to act as a collection of treaties. Because we have so many treaties, the existence of a bloc doesn't really change anything. If treaties were rarer, then perhaps they would actually mean something. There are a few exceptions, but largely blocs fail to live up to expectations.



This is honestly one of the most bizarre ways i've heard to define a bloc. Using your reasoning, a bilateral treaty is a two way bloc. There is a distinction between a bloc and an alliance, and that is that a bloc is *supposed* to be a single political entity to increase the power of the alliances through unified representation. A alliance isn't designed in that way, it's just an agreement to defend each other. DH is a three way treaty with no bloc structure. GOONS and Umbrella are already in a perfectly good bloc, and MK dislikes blocs.
[/quote]
It is not terribly difficult. For five years the universally accepted definition of a bloc has been an obligatory defense treaty with three or more signatories. Doomhouse fits this definition and thus is considered by most to be a bloc. So what if you don't have forums? AcTi has no forums, but they're an alliance. So what if there's no leadership? There have been leaderless alliances before, yet they were still alliances. The definition of a bloc, like the definition of an alliance, has never had anything to do with internal structure. You folks are more than welcome to call it "not a bloc". Hell, call it a ham sandwich or a girl scout troop. Call it whatever you want. Please know, however, that it does fit the accepted definition of a bloc and thus will be considered one by most people. It is rather perplexing that you are so uptight about people calling it one.

-Bama

[Monster]

I've tried to refrain from posting because I end up getting stuck in, but it doesn't function as a bloc would.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1307856896' post='2729639']
I've tried to refrain from posting because I end up getting stuck in, but it doesn't function as a bloc would.
[/quote]
Roq, no offense, but I'm pretty sure that applies to a majority of the world's blocs throughout history.

[Ogaden]

A proper bloc needs a theme song.

There have been no proper blocs.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1307857686' post='2729646']
A proper bloc needs a theme song.

There have been no proper blocs.
[/quote]
This is a valid argument.

[Monster]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307856961' post='2729640']
Roq, no offense, but I'm pretty sure that applies to a majority of the world's blocs throughout history.
[/quote]

Difference is in how they were intended to function.

[pd73bassman]

Voted no and 0-10%

[supercoolyellow]

Things blocs do

declare wars in unison some times

have sigs

have IRC channels

have forums

Based on the following I see DH as a half bloc. I don't think there are any forums or IRC channels for DH, although I really wouldn't know.

Really though what makes a bloc a bloc, or more blocy , more than any of the formal things blocs do, is the spirit of unity and closeness between the members. I don't think that's something DH lacks.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1307858436' post='2729656']
Difference is in how they were intended to function.
[/quote]
You can make a bloc without intending it to function as a bloc. It's a bad idea because it means that you're basically using it as a set of individual treaties that you can't cancel individually, but it's still a bloc. It's just one that was created with the intent of being dysfunctional.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307849586' post='2729567']
This is perhaps the most convoluted attempt to justify a bloc i've ever seen.

If simply existing is power and politics to you, than have fun!
[/quote]


Simply existing is power.

To cease to exist may require an attack by an opponent and force them to allocate resources they might use productively elsewhere.

See, we're getting somewhere!

[Banksy]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307852502' post='2729597']
*ahem*
And I quote:



You've literally been arguing thus entire time that it doesn't "count" as a bloc unless it creates a single cohesive political entity in a real sense rather than just a legal sense. You then go on to say that most blocs don't live up to [I]this very expectation[/I] and merely function as a collection of treaties. So you've stated that Doomhouse is the equivalent of a collection of treaties, and that most blocs are just a collection of treaties.

You aren't making a case that Doomhouse is not a bloc. You're making a case that Doomhouse is an inconsequential failure of a bloc.
[/quote]
No, i've been talking about intent to be a bloc being different to actually being a bloc and having power. DH was never intended to be a bloc, and it doesn't function as a bloc. A bloc such as Synergy was intended to be a bloc, and didn't function as a bloc. That is a key difference.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307860690' post='2729681']
Simply existing is power.[/quote]
This sort of thinking is why this planet is dead.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307861434' post='2729689']

This sort of thinking is why this planet is dead.
[/quote]


No, that's because bad rulers are weeded out and alliances make fewer miscalculations about eachother's compellance and deterrance power.

You say dead, I say people got smarter.

OOC: You could blame people "getting good," at a political simulator, though.

That's what this game is at its very heart, after all. /OOC

Edit: OOC tags.

Edited June 12, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307861434' post='2729689']
No, i've been talking about intent to be a bloc being different to actually being a bloc and having power. DH was never intended to be a bloc, and it doesn't function as a bloc. A bloc such as Synergy was intended to be a bloc, and didn't function as a bloc. That is a key difference.


This sort of thinking is why this planet is dead.
[/quote]
Ok, so the difference is that you [I]meant[/I] to form a bloc that nobody should take seriously?

[Thunder Strike]

Doombox is a bloc as well.

[Snowbound Milk]

I don't think RIA is in a bloc, because I don't like them.


Oh, but you can keep the treaties Delta.