If people complain so much about the tangled treaty web...

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314814191' post='2791687']
I see what you did there. But in the post pax pacifica world, the same happens, except no infraction is necessary.
Simply being disliked is reason enough.[/quote]
If you mean that you think I was taking a swipe at NPO, no, you didn't see. The patterns of behavior now are repetitions of the behavior learned in the Pax Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less, just a statement of fact.


[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314814191' post='2791687']Blocks having individual alliances signing MDPs with alliances in other blocks are benefited by said treaty [i]even if their goal is to alienate another block/alliance.[/i]

You're thinking too much into it. What really happens isn't as elaborate as some people think, it's more or less an alliance version of high school "politics". Everyone wants to be in the "in" crowd and not be bullied, so they sign declarations of "friendship" to force others to come to their help in case they get to be bandwagoned. Its crystal clear, there's a big effort by everyone to be on the "right" side of a curbstomp before, during and after every war.

Which on the long term, whether treaties are optional or mutual (optional treaties taken seriously [b]are[/b] mutual), guarantees the stagnation of the whole web.
[/quote]
Blocks are things you build with, blocs are political bodies. You and Azaghul!

Your phrasing made it sound like you were going to contradict me, but then you just summarized what I said, so, I don't know what to say.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677']
The solution, as I mentioned above is courage. Not courage in the sense that alliances who sign lots of treaties are cowards, but courage in the sense of self-confidence, motivation, and ambition. Alliances have to stop thinking of themselves in terms of "how do I git into this machine" and think instead in terms of "how can I advance my[b]self[/b]." [/quote]
Honestly, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the above. But then you do this:
[quote]
Yeah, that war completely altered the entire treaty web, Impero is a visio-- oh, hold on, actually there were no [u]big [/u]changes. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
[/quote]
Once you yourself argued that there was a SG led hegemony in place; going from that to the current political climate took the last war. This change is more fundamental then you make it look like here and I think you know that.
Treaties aren't everything and don't dictate what alliances can nor will do. In fact, most of them are used only as tools to ensure some level of security and in a more broad sense, political capital in times of peace. And as said, when a war actually starts most all treaties lose most of their value, since at the very least the spirit of a lot of treaties is violated thanks to a conflict in interests.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314812694' post='2791678']
Since when someone need balls to start a curbstomp?
[/quote]
Wasn't the Polar line that you weren't at all defeated when you signed that peace?

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314816964' post='2791712']
Since it takes alliances severing ties with one another and overlooking personal interest for a principle.
[/quote]

Fair point.

[deSouza]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314817003' post='2791713']
If you mean that you think I was taking a swipe at NPO, no, you didn't see. The patterns of behavior now are repetitions of the behavior learned in the Pax Pacifica. Nothing more, nothing less, just a statement of fact.
[/quote]

A fact based on your assumptions that pax pacifica was ebil, ate children and brainwashed people onto acting the way they do.
It didn't.
Pax pacifica is long gone and some behaviors are still here (and would be here regardless), just a statement of fact.

Its a war game and people group with each other. Its only logical that people outside the group will face the consequences. At least during pax pacifica a CB was (more or less) necessary.


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314817003' post='2791713']
Blocks are things you build with, blocs are political bodies. You and Azaghul!

Your phrasing made it sound like you were going to contradict me, but then you just summarized what I said, so, I don't know what to say.
[/quote]

I did contradict you. You brought up division of powers and alliances working in a sophisticated, government-like form, I brought attention to the fact that most systems and actors involved are way more [b]raw[/b] than you'd claim.
Alliances are basically thinking of their self interest (and not being on the curbstomped side a big part of it), which is why political bodies are "organized" on the first place, and to think that they would give up said self interest for whatever reason you'd want is at best asinine.

[DocOctane]

Color Wars problem solved.....

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1314786908' post='2791550']
C&G didn't fit that because it was a suicide pact, but it probably does now.
[/quote]

Care to elaborate on what you mean? Just curious.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1314819220' post='2791729']
Care to elaborate on what you mean? Just curious.
[/quote]

It's plainly obviously that C&G is no longer a 'suicide pact' given the current political climate.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314819610' post='2791731']
It's plainly obviously that C&G is no longer a 'suicide pact' given the current political climate.
[/quote]

What I'm asking is what do you mean by 'suicide pact', how would that make it not fit, and what changed that makes you (or, him, as it were) see them now as just a bloc who is stagnating things.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[MrMuz]

Actually, blocs are quite good at detangling the treaty web. I like how Gre and BN are rather isolated, as well as PF's clause to prioritize their bloc over all other conflicts. Yes, blocs are much harder to attack. But the thing inhibiting most wars are the massive web of defensive treaties activating when you hit someone. An entangled small bloc like C&G is as hard to attack as a strong, isolated bloc.

I don't feel that mergers are a good idea unless things are going bad, since they introduce their own little problems, and those problems are dampened by blocs (hence NG and tlr's great success in not falling to internal conflict after a merger of that size). Blocs should be used to unify people into one political corner. Too many people are using it as some kind of group MDoAP. It makes little sense to have a bloc, when every individual in that bloc has a direct political tie to every alliance on every side of the treaty web. You hit some random bloc, and you end up fighting a coalition against a third of Planet Bob, probably 1-3 of the enemy coalition being your allies.

The problem is that everyone wants to protect their friends. In fact, most alliances sign treaties as a friendship, not for power. Most CN players are fairly casual. Most alliances step in between of taking the game lightly and wanting a bit of power on the side, though the friends > power thing takes priority.

It makes more sense to have ODPs to protect your non-ally friends when you feel like it, but then some alliances don't recognize ODPs as valid treaties. So they get upgraded to MDPs, and later MDoAPs for no reason than to upgrade a treaty with a close friend. And then those alliances grow older and have multiple MDoAPs, so they decide to make a bloc to decide which MDoAPs to prioritize over the others. After a few years, they join into a second (or more!) bloc to appease another group of friends. It's the natural order of things, and it takes effort not to go that route.

Treaties don't really bring safety. They're just to protect allies. After all, the alliances with the least treaties get into the least wars (but hit by more rogues). Blocs don't bring safety either, I'm sure anyone going in and out of a bloc could clearly see how many more enemies they make just by being in a bloc.

Everyone sees the logic, but it's just not going to happen. If someone drops all treaties/blocs, they'd end up vulnerable. If someone decides that hey, let's merge lots of alliances into us, become huge and isolated and encourage wars, they end up like NPO last war. Or AcTi (which actually had excellent stats at one point). And seeing how this thread by someone in an alliance who hit NPO while it was politically vulnerable, I think this thread will be counter-productive, and just encourage more people to dig themselves deeper into the treaty web.

[Emperor Whimsical]

It is inarguable that today's treaty web is considerably less centralized than ones of 2008 with the NPO in the center of everything. We have polar's corner, we have SF, CnG, XX, PF, and tentatively we have Pandora's box in the middle of it all, rather than a nucleus of control that the NPO had.

Only some are tied to others, not nearly as much as it used to be. Of course it was wasn't even decentralized in 07, as someone posted earlier.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Emperor Whimsical

[D34th]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314817178' post='2791715']
Wasn't the Polar line that you weren't at all defeated when you signed that peace?
[/quote]

And how that changes the fact that you don't need any courage to start a war when you know that you have a tremendous vantage at your side?

[Banksy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1314819833' post='2791733']
What I'm asking is what do you mean by 'suicide pact', how would that make it not fit, and what changed that makes you (or, him, as it were) see them now as just a bloc who is stagnating things.
[/quote]
The bloc formed because the alliances in it knew that they would be attacked by the NPO soon, and so they formed a MADP bloc to ensure that no matter what occurred they would be fighting together. The idea wasn't to create more political power, as they were unable to gain any traction with treaty negotiations outside of C&G as they were designated international pariahs by the NPO, so they signed with each other in an unbreakable pact.

While that is all very melodramatic, it does show that instead of existing to gain power, the bloc was actually formed for the sole purpose of fighting a losing war. Later on, of course, it became one of the four pre-eminent blocs of 2009/early 2010 and contributed to stagnation because it had outside connections.

[Tromp]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314827557' post='2791776']
And how that changes the fact that you don't need any courage to start a war when you know that you have a tremendous vantage at your side?
[/quote]
I never made this argument, please learn to read.
(And by the way, it'd help you a lot if you'd stick to one story, that of tough guy or of a 'victim', when making this argument. Which is the last I'm going to say about this silly exchange.)

[D34th]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314829017' post='2791792']
I never made this argument, please learn to read.
(And by the way, it'd help you a lot if you'd stick to one story, that of tough guy or of a 'victim', when making this argument. Which is the last I'm going to say about this silly exchange.)
[/quote]

Yes you did:

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314746449' post='2791268']
(For that, I salute men like Impero, who actually [b]had the balls[/b] to start something and blow the web up, intentional or not.)
[/quote]

Now please answer me or accept that you were wrong: Why would he needs balls to start a war when he had an enormous vantage at their side?

Also both stories can exist at the same time: Yeah we were victims of a trap and had to fight against giant odds, but besides that we were tough enough to damage VE in half of their NS(5m) and lose less members than they did.

[Tromp]

All you have there is that I say that Impero has balls. Which is not a bad thing at all! Yet your mistake is that you make up a completely new context, which is why I said you should learn to read.

In easy terms for you:
What I said there was that because of the war Impero started we collectively have entered a new era on Bob, more specifically one that is not dominated by something like SG, Q, or whatever. That comment wasn't in any way related to the 'fairness' (in terms of stats) of the war itself, contrary to what you seem to read in it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314818280' post='2791722']I did contradict you.[/quote]

deSouza, you did not contradict me. You summarized me:

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677']
The motivator is a sort of "shiny things" effect. The world at large sees treaties as a positive thing, so alliances want treaties so that other people think they're a good alliance. MoFAs want to be seen as busy and good at their job, so they go out and sign treaties[/quote]
[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314814191' post='2791687']
it's more or less an alliance version of high school "politics". Everyone wants to be in the "in" crowd[/quote]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677']
Alliances also want to be winners, but it's much more difficult to get to the top of the world like NPO or MK, so instead of the hard work, they associate and huddle around the biggest mass of NS.[/quote]
[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314814191' post='2791687']
and not be bullied, so they sign declarations of "friendship" to force others to come to their help in case they get to be bandwagoned. Its crystal clear, there's a big effort by everyone to be on the "right" side of a curbstomp before, during and after every war.
[/quote]






[quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1314818280' post='2791722']
A fact based on your assumptions that pax pacifica was ebil, ate children and brainwashed people onto acting the way they do.
It didn't.
Pax pacifica is long gone and some behaviors are still here (and would be here regardless), just a statement of fact.
[/quote]
It is the judgement of the world that the Pax Pacifica was, in your Pax-Pacifica-era term, ebil, not my assumption; you are free to disagree with History over there in a corner by yourself if you like, and while you're there you can keep focusing on the emotions of a statement based on your AA while I make dispassionate arguments using historica references as jsut what they are: references. That aside . . .
Your argument that the trends in foreign affairs that are still practiced today were not made during the Pax Pacifica is completely erroneous. The practice of treatying everything with a pulse and forming big, overlapping blocs is a Pax Pacifica creation. It could even be called a defining trait of the Pax Pacifica. That's just the way it is.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Schattenmann

[D34th]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314831115' post='2791809']
All you have there is that I say that Impero has balls. Which is not a bad thing at all! Yet your mistake is that you make up a completely new context, which is why I said you should learn to read.

In easy terms for you:
What I said there was that because of the war Impero started we collectively have entered a new era on Bob, more specifically one that is not dominated by something like SG, Q, or whatever. That comment wasn't in any way related to the 'fairness' (in terms of stats) of the war itself, contrary to what you seem to read in it.
[/quote]

Excuse me if when you say that he "has balls" I understand this as you saying he has courage since it's the most common meaning for this expression.

[Tromp]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314831837' post='2791812']
Excuse me if when you say that he "has balls" I understand this as you saying he has courage since it's the most common meaning for this expression.
[/quote]
You say: "Impero doesn't need any courage to start a war when [he knows] that [he has] a tremendous vantage at [his] side!"

I say: "Impero has balls for starting a war that changed the global political order."

(Can) you figure out the difference...?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Tromp

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314832094' post='2791814']
You say: "Impero doesn't need any courage to start a war when [he knows] that [he has] a tremendous vantage at [his] side!"

I say: "Impero has balls for starting a war that changed the global political order."

(Can) you figure out the difference...?
[/quote]
Explain the difference between the political order before Impero's war and after it, apart from the fact that Pandora's Box is annoyed at Superfriends for not lockstepping tightly enough with their agenda.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1314833719' post='2791825']
Explain the difference between the political order before Impero's war and after it, apart from the fact that Pandora's Box is annoyed at Superfriends for not lockstepping tightly enough with their agenda.
[/quote]
Before the war, there was cohesion, cooperation in what was then known as SG. Compare that to today, where you can recognize huge differences in opinion between (former) allies, sometimes to the point of hostility too. This doesn't even involve just PB and SF.
And by the way, I'm only an outsider these days, so I don't see why you need me to state the obvious.

[D34th]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314832094' post='2791814']
You say: "Impero doesn't need any courage to start a war when [he knows] that [he has] a tremendous vantage at [his] side!"

I say: "Impero has balls for starting a war that changed the global political order."

(Can) you figure out the difference...?
[/quote]

Yeah I figure the difference, you say he has ball and I say that this is irrelevant. This is like you say "I have hands, I can run!" when you run with your legs, not with your hands. Since the existence or lack of balls are irrelevant when there was no need of it, so what you said was irrelevant and wrong, first because one doesn't need balls to do what he did, second because Global Political Order hasn't changed, the same groups who were in power before VE declare war on NpO are the same who are still in power now(See PB/DH).

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1314834075' post='2791828']
Before the war, there was cohesion, cooperation in what was then known as SG. Compare that to today, where you can recognize huge differences in opinion between (former) allies, sometimes to the point of hostility too. This doesn't even involve just PB and SF.
And by the way, I'm only an outsider these days, so I don't see why you need me to state the obvious.
[/quote]
To be fair to you, I did forget that Xiphosis wrecked SuperFriends as a result of the VE-NpO War.

[Tromp]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314834103' post='2791829'][s]
Yeah I figure the difference, you say he has ball and I say that this is irrelevant. This is like you say "I have hands, I can run!" when you run with your legs, not with your hands. Since the existence or lack of balls are irrelevant when there was no need of it, so what you said was irrelevant and wrong, first because one doesn't need balls to do what he did,[/s] second because Global Political Order hasn't changed, the same groups who were in power before VE declare war on NpO are the same who are still in power now(See PB/DH).
[/quote]
No.
What you see today is nothing but the remainder of what once was SG. It is true that PB/DH are being supported still, and that's because they have the luxury that the other blocs are dependent on them to be able to win a fight. But the longer that situation lasts, the more it becomes a burden. Which is because the basis on which that power rests is already instable, it is fragmented into parts that are hostile towards each other. This situation will only get worse because the 'top dog' also always has to make sure its supporters get their part of the cake, meaning satisfying a desire of them - say destruction of group X/protection from group Y - so that they may continue to count on their support. This essentially means favoring one over another, a situation that is unsustainable and will eventually blow up. That's when the whole house of cards falls apart.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314834150' post='2791830']
To be fair to you, I did forget that Xiphosis wrecked SuperFriends as a result of the VE-NpO War.
[/quote]
The endresult wasn't pretty, I'll agree with you on that!

Edited September 1, 2011 by Tromp

[IYIyTh]

Political acumen has increased and things are the way they are because it suits individuals to do certain things.

Very few alliances want to fight a fair fight, and, those that do are generally in the minority, if not at their membership at their leadership level, and if not there then in the context of the macro-evaluation of the political climate.

It's the same reason you have the generally hyper-active and/or somewhat impulsive low-government always drumming up support for conflict while the upper level government ends up playing role of the old wise man, laying all marginal benefits costs etc to waging war over any given issue. If the positives do not outweigh the negatives, scale s not tipped, war is not sought out. Instead of direct conflict agressor is labled as dangerous, isolated, and the potential victim starts looking for any friends it can find, which it usually can.

Advocating for the removal of politics, or the reversal of it in a political simulator which has generally seen Realism creep into its roots over time is something not irreversible but highly improbable for the aforementioned reason.

People will generally only complain about the political system only when it doesn't suit them, while people will encourage it privately and/or publicly when it does.

It will be interesting to see if numbers continue to drop whether this minority is given more creedence though.

The fact that being an aggressor has evolved into a long-term unpopular political mode hasn't really changed and has only become more pronounced with the advances of networking and/or fear of large-scale destruction to those who would sit on the sideline.

Edited September 1, 2011 by IYIyTh

[deSouza]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314831791' post='2791811']
deSouza, you did not contradict me. You summarized me:
[/quote]

You suggested that digiterra was way more complex than it actually is, and me pointing that out is a contradiction whether you like it or not. This is a moot point by the way.








[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314831791' post='2791811']
It is the judgement of the world that the Pax Pacifica was, in your Pax-Pacifica-era term, ebil, not my assumption; you are free to disagree with History over there in a corner by yourself if you like, and while you're there you can keep focusing on the emotions of a statement based on your AA
[/quote]

During "pax pacifica" i was in the anti NPO camp, I prefer my judgements without emotions please.

And my judgement is that you did (and still do) promote the notion that pacificans eat babies and pax pacifica was an ebil, ebil thing. Even though babies are exquisite.



[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314831791' post='2791811']
while I make dispassionate arguments using historica references as jsut what they are: references. That aside . . .
[/quote]

They're "historical" "references" charged with your dispassionate "detached" agenda, which in my opinion has emotional origins.




[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314831791' post='2791811']
Your argument that the trends in foreign affairs that are still practiced today were not made during the Pax Pacifica is completely erroneous. The practice of treatying everything with a pulse and forming big, overlapping blocs is a Pax Pacifica creation. It could even be called a defining trait of the Pax Pacifica. That's just the way it is.
[/quote]

The practice of rolling people outside your own big, overlapping blocks is what was in question, because it is what motivated the practice of getting as many treaties as possible (for self defense). Not surprisingly, the world still constitutes of a humongous block, except this time the dominant party chooses to use of informal power rather than formal, and prefers to rule via influence rather than formal obligation, yet everyone is still more or less connected, lives in fear of getting the short end of the stick, and the only thing that really changed with karma was the amount of influence various groups had.