How unified are the four blocs?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1307910124' post='2730017']
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that everybody defines a bloc by the same meaning, which has obviously proven to be false if you read any of the comments in the first 6 pages.

Like I said earlier, call it what you want. That isn't going to change how MK/GOONS/Umb members view it.

Edit: Completely forgot to answer the OP. I voted 'no' and '10-20'. I think there will be a split in some form or another but there's always that small chance.
[/quote]
When people start applying a different meaning to words in order to alter facts, it takes away the whole point of a commonly understood language. Using that logic I could make any false statement I wanted, then claim it was true after since I was applying a different meaning to the words. You guys are probably claiming its not a bloc since you don't want those in other blocs with DH members to realize their interests aren't top priority for you guys, but what you're doing isn't witty. The world is flat and my nukes are packed full of magical pixie dust, saying both those things would be fact on the same level as what Doom House claims to be fact.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Methrage

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1307770763' post='2729045']
My statement isn't one of insider knowledge but of reason. When you've got that many people with that many connections, something, somewhere eventually goes haywire. I mean, look at how far apart some of those people are. Do you think GR would rush to the defense of CSN? Or PC to FARK?
[/quote]
As long as alliances consider to think of treaties the way they do? Yes. These alliances are not all politically unified, but they have all allied themselves iwth each other, and unless the primary conflict is between signatories of any of these blocs, then they will all act in military unison. That unison might be active involvement, it might be stepping out of the way for everyone else, but the militaries of all these alliances are linked a million different ways.

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

There have been no proper blocs.
[/quote]
Continuum had a theme song, "The Final Countdown."


[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1307900183' post='2729925']
The biggest reason we went in with Umbrella and GOONS was because our 3 alliances together provide a great statistical spread to cover most tiers.

I can understand why people might assume it's a block, but they should accept that it isn't when we don't call it one.
[/quote]
"We signed a three-way treaty so we could all attack one target with our combined tiers--but we'r enot a bloc." Give me a break, Azaghul.

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1307903355' post='2729962']
No we didn't, do you not remember MK cancelling literally every single treaty we had? Don't go spouting about how we're being dellusional when you can't get your primary fact correct.
[/quote]
We also all remember MK re-signing almost all of them. Golf clap for your totally edgy FA move.

I made this graphic for a private discussion a few weeks ago, I never really planned on posting it on the OWF because frankly I've been around long enough to know it would have resulted in a discussion such as the one going on in this thread. But, since Supercool broguht it up, here it is. This graphic is not meant to show policy unity (see my remarks to Ardus at the top of the thread), rather, it simply shows where the NS is all tied together. Any alliance from outside these clusters that attacks an alliance in these clusters can expect to face all of them. NS is not double-counted for AAs in multiple blocs. NPO's allies aren't a bloc of course but (for the orinigal purposes of the dicussion this chart was made for) I included them for relativity. 1 dot=1m NS.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/nOTfF.png[/img]

[Lusitan]

I don't understand why Sentinel is not being considered.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307913137' post='2730044']We also all remember MK re-signing almost all of them. Golf clap for your totally edgy FA move.
[/quote]
Only if by almost all, you mean less than half. When we dropped our treaties, we had 15 treaty partners (not including protectorates, which would make 17). We now have 8,including the addition of TOP and an upgrade with Alchemy, meaning we resigned 6.

Also, your map is terrible, since Synergy, Aztec, Duckroll and Checkmate should all be included in the center power structure, based on having at least one treaty with other members of the central group (two or more for some, IIRC), which I would assume would gradually bring in the others as well.

Edited June 12, 2011 by flak attack

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307913137' post='2730044']
I made this graphic for a private discussion a few weeks ago, I never really planned on posting it on the OWF because frankly I've been around long enough to know it would have resulted in a discussion such as the one going on in this thread. But, since Supercool broguht it up, here it is. This graphic is not meant to show policy unity (see my remarks to Ardus at the top of the thread), rather, it simply shows where the NS is all tied together. Any alliance from outside these clusters that attacks an alliance in these clusters can expect to face all of them. NS is not double-counted for AAs in multiple blocs. NPO's allies aren't a bloc of course but (for the orinigal purposes of the dicussion this chart was made for) I included them for relativity. 1 dot=1m NS.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/nOTfF.png[/img]
[/quote]

While I don't necessarily see C&G, Stickmen, PB/DH, SF!, and Chestnut all fighting on the same in the next war, it's interesting to see how concentrated all of that NS is in its tight pockets. Also, NS-wise, it's interesting to see NPO and its non-bloc allies compare almost identically to the size (or larger than) of many blocs. Out of curiosity on that point, what did you constitute as allies of NPO (as in, long-term treaty partners who have actually fought? Treaties less than 2 chains away? etc)? Anyways, with the recent disbandment of Synergy, it just shows that should the cluster-$%&@-blob-from-Hell in the middle really mesh together in the next war, it doesn't look to promising for everyone else.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307913137' post='2730044']
As long as alliances consider to think of treaties the way they do? Yes. These alliances are not all politically unified, but they have all allied themselves iwth each other, and unless the primary conflict is between signatories of any of these blocs, then they will all act in military unison. That unison might be active involvement, it might be stepping out of the way for everyone else, but the militaries of all these alliances are linked a million different ways.


Continuum had a theme song, "The Final Countdown."



"We signed a three-way treaty so we could all attack one target with our combined tiers--but we'r enot a bloc." Give me a break, Azaghul.


We also all remember MK re-signing almost all of them. Golf clap for your totally edgy FA move.

I made this graphic for a private discussion a few weeks ago, I never really planned on posting it on the OWF because frankly I've been around long enough to know it would have resulted in a discussion such as the one going on in this thread. But, since Supercool broguht it up, here it is. This graphic is not meant to show policy unity (see my remarks to Ardus at the top of the thread), rather, it simply shows where the NS is all tied together. Any alliance from outside these clusters that attacks an alliance in these clusters can expect to face all of them. NS is not double-counted for AAs in multiple blocs. NPO's allies aren't a bloc of course but (for the orinigal purposes of the dicussion this chart was made for) I included them for relativity. 1 dot=1m NS.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/nOTfF.png[/img]
[/quote]
If everyone represented there not shown in the big cluster were to form a side to oppose the big cluster in the middle, they would still be at a disadvantage NS wise, for there to be a fight worth fighting for everyone bunched in the treaty cluster, someone needs to be willing to break away from the circle jerk. That the others were willing to attack a direct ally of a SF member previously leads me to believe it will them unless they decide to keep rolling over for the other blocs when they decide a SF ally is worth rolling, although with Fark and RoK already having left, the bloc continuing along that trend until its gone is also a possibility if they try staying in the cluster by putting the wants of others above SF members to try avoiding it.

CnG in the most recent war was as good of a puppet as anyone in DH or PB could of hoped for, so as long as that continues they won't need to worry about themselves being the next target. Only if CnG starts acting off script will they have reason to worry about being targeted. SF will continue to fall apart without the other blocs needing to fire a shot at them if SF continues to bend over in order to go along with a script written by DH/PB for them to follow in order to be on the same side. In the last war it was an ally of RoK targeted even if it left a SF alliance in a bad position, so not hard to imagine another alliance allied to SF being targeted next time even if it puts SF in a bad position.

Whoever plans for the war will get to put however many pieces in place as they want to try ensuring their victory before firing the first shot, as the ones attacked will be flustered while trying to turn a war around which according to the plans of the attackers they will lose, unless they're able to do something their attackers weren't able to plan for to turn the war around to give themselves the advantage. Whoever takes the initiative to plan the war gets to make it so they have the starting advantage when it begins, although also risk it backfiring badly if the plans are leaked or those they try getting on their side align with the other side instead.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Methrage

[Banksy]

God that graphic is hilarious. "If a make a picture and put some dots together without justifying it, it's true!"

[D34th]

The only interesting thing that I got from this thread is that MK doesn't like that people say that DH is a bloc.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1307915624' post='2730061']
Also, your map is terrible, since Synergy, Aztec, Duckroll and Checkmate should all be included in the center power structure, based on having at least one treaty with other members of the central group (two or more for some, IIRC), which I would assume would gradually bring in the others as well.
[/quote]
Thank you for telling me how my diagram works. I'm sorry I neglected to say "I only clustered based on extreme overlap" but I thought it would be pretty self-evident. I guess I should have foreseen some smuggo with a faster reply button than brain. The blocs are clustered based on large amounts of overlap. For example, I originally had BFF stuck to the largest cluster, but then realized they have less ties than I thought (only one). Having just one or even two treaties doesn't bind the way the alliances that are clustered together are bound--almost complete overlap with treaties.
For example, in the discussion that I created this diagram for, I was quickly told that XX should not be stuck to the largest cluster because they are not close to it, but we clearly see the huge amount of overlap:
MHA:
to SF, R&R
to DH, Umbrella
to PB, Umbrella

Sparta:
to DH, Umbrella
to PB, Umbrella
to C&G, ODN, Athens,
to SF, RIA
to Chestnut: TTK

R&R:
member, SF
to PB, Fok


[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307915814' post='2730062']
While I don't necessarily see C&G, Stickmen, PB/DH, SF!, and Chestnut all fighting on the same in the next war, it's interesting to see how concentrated all of that NS is in its tight pockets. Also, NS-wise, it's interesting to see NPO and its non-bloc allies compare almost identically to the size (or larger than) of many blocs. Out of curiosity on that point, what did you constitute as allies of NPO (as in, long-term treaty partners who have actually fought? Treaties less than 2 chains away? etc)? Anyways, with the recent disbandment of Synergy, it just shows that should the cluster-$%&@-blob-from-Hell in the middle really mesh together in the next war, it doesn't look to promising for everyone else.
[/quote]
NPO's little cluster is NPO, NpO, and Legion plus some other little AAs that aren't already included as part of a bloc elsewhere. Doom House and Pandora's Box consider them inseparably tied, so I went along with that stupidity just for argument's sake.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307916913' post='2730070']
God that graphic is hilarious. "If a make a picture and put some dots together without justifying it, it's true!"
[/quote]

Say that there is not a huge amount of treaty overlap with all those blocs. Then we'll just open the wiki. There's nothing to "justify" (which isn't even the right word) it's a bloc-level treaty-web with NS represented intead of AA names.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Ardus]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1307915859' post='2730063']
Whoever plans for the war will get to put however many pieces in place as they want to try ensuring their victory before firing the first shot, as the ones attacked will be flustered while trying to turn a war around which according to the plans of the attackers they will lose, unless they're able to do something their attackers weren't able to plan for to turn the war around to give themselves the advantage. Whoever takes the initiative to plan the war gets to make it so they have the starting advantage when it begins, although also risk it backfiring badly if the plans are leaked or those they try getting on their side align with the other side instead.
[/quote]
You just described every war in CN history. Congratulations.

[D34th]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307917050' post='2730072']
NPO's little cluster is NPO, NpO, and Legion plus some other little AAs that aren't already included as part of a bloc elsewhere. Doom House and Pandora's Box consider them inseparably tied, so I went along with that stupidity just for argument's sake.
[/quote]

Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)?

[Aeros]

People should not forget that for the most part Duckroll stayed out of the last major war. The translates into a serious tactical advantage.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918013' post='2730082']
Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)?
[/quote]People who matter consider you two roughly equivalent in terms of how awful you are, and there is a lot of agreement as to why you are both that awful.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Rocky Horror

[D34th]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1307918810' post='2730093']
People who matter consider you two roughly equivalent in terms of how awful you are, and for what reasons.
[/quote]

Yeah both NpO and NPO are awful, yet people care so much about us. You can hate Polaris and/or NPO but the fact is that both alliances are and will ever be more important to CN's history than your alliance ever was, no matter what alliance you are in.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918013' post='2730082']
Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)?
[/quote]

Reread what Schatt said in response to me (notably the second sentence) and that will answer your question.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918990' post='2730096']
Yeah both NpO and NPO are awful, yet people care so much about us. You can hate Polaris and/or NPO but the fact is that both alliances are and will ever be more important to CN's history than your alliance ever was, no matter what alliance you are in.
[/quote]
Well that's a stretch

[D34th]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307919009' post='2730097']
Reread what Schatt said in response to me (notably the second sentence) and that will answer your question.
[/quote]

True, I misread his answer. Thanks for pointing it out.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307919812' post='2730106']
True, I misread his answer. Thanks for pointing it out.
[/quote]

Aye, no problem. I don't think a large portion of the community would associate NpO and NPO as being linked to the hip in this day and age anyways.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307916913' post='2730070']
God that graphic is hilarious. "If a make a picture and put some dots together without justifying it, it's true!"
[/quote]

That is really a stupid thing to say. Perhaps Schatt's view of the politics atm is right, and perhaps it is wrong. That Schatt used a graphic to model his view of the world in a way so that he can easily describe it to others, is not really something to be criticized. Since the beginning of CN gaphics and treaty webs like that have played a big role in how people come to understand the political organization of CN.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1307922846' post='2730144']
That is really a stupid thing to say. Perhaps Schatt's view of the politics atm is right, and perhaps it is wrong. That Schatt used a graphic to model his view of the world in a way so that he can easily describe it to others, is not really something to be criticized. Since the beginning of CN gaphics and treaty webs like that have played a big role in how people come to understand the political organization of CN.
[/quote]
He's not saying graphics are, in and of themselves, dumb. He's saying Schatt's graphic is dumb, because he put it forth without arguing his case.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1307924254' post='2730165']
He's not saying graphics are, in and of themselves, dumb. He's saying Schatt's graphic is dumb, because he put it forth without arguing his case.
[/quote]
There's no case to argue, the alliances in all of those blocs are massively treaty-overlapped. The only argument might be that they are not politically unified, but I stipulate they are not all on the same political page (which only begs the question of why they're so treatied-up). If my post is dumb for not arguing a point, Banky's post (vocab issues aside) is just as silly because he clearly thinks the diagram is a farce but puts forth no reasoning, either. As I said to him, if anyone disagrees with the way I've grouped the middle, we can open the wiki. There's no argument unless people want to do an exercise in arguing for argument's sake, the diagram is a representation of fact--not because ~I'm Schattenmann and I'm always right~ but because that's just the way the treaties are lined up. And if there's an error, I'll fix the diagram (as I exemplified when I pulled BFF off the largest cluster).

Edited June 13, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Denial]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496']
Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere.
[/quote]
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1307894368' post='2729867']
Almost every alliance that has started a war since the time of Karma has been screamed and yelled at by the community at large for being aggressive. If you take out the alliances that are considered aggressive (TOP/MK/GOONS/NpO/VE ectt..) then all you are left with is alliances who are simply happy with existing. Those alliances have no political ambition and more importantly no set of balls. Unless the alliances that I've mentioned do anything then prepare for a long and boring summer/fall.
[/quote]
Above are two of the very, very few valuable comments in this discussion.

If you people put as much effort into improving your political position relative to those you consistently rail as you do putting dots and labels on maps, perhaps we'd have a more interesting Cyberverse.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918013' post='2730082']
Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)?
[/quote]
Well, sharing a common ally is enough justification for many aspects of the ~maps of the new hegemony~ that we see floating around.

[Schattenmann]

The world defers to Denial's expertise in creating a "more interesting Cyberverse" as a member of an alliance that left one bloc to join another one instead of "putting dots on maps." Double irony points for praising a guy from TOP, [i]TOP[/i], for his opinion on being a leader on the world stage. I like TOP a lot, but "aggressive" and "ambition" are not two words I associate with them.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1307938923' post='2730369']
Well, sharing a common ally is enough justification for many aspects of the ~maps of the new hegemony~ that we see floating around.
[/quote]
And as I told Banksy, if you disagree with the way I arranged my dots, you're welcome to try to refute it. Then we'll open the wiki or treaty compendium and you can re-join the rest of us here in the real world. And if you don't like that they're all stuck together, then maybe you should talk to your friends about allying every alliance they can think of, not the rest of us standing over here outside your treaty bonanza.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Schattenmann

[flak attack]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307918013' post='2730082']
Why Polaris is in NPO's cluster? Just because we share one common ally(Two if you consider TIO ODP with NPO)?
[/quote]
Because it benefits Schat's interests as to what group of people they should treaty if they want to break away from what he defines as the central power structure in his diagram.