Enter Bal Masqué

[Monster]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335249631' post='2958390']
You still advocate a hegemony though, your roots are showing.
[/quote]

I mean, I was called naive before for not stating what I believe will or should take place in the event of a power vacuum. There will always be a dominant political force and unless everyone limited themselves to like one or two treaties, there's no avoiding it. Those who should have influence are those who are able to provide for the benefit of as many as possible.

My actual philosophy, which was outlined in another thread: "Roqism," is about anyone being able to realize their potential to become a real force, not about people being "used" and "discarded." None of it is is inconsistent with what I've said.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin

[Phineas]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335249209' post='2958387']
I'm not making any normative claims on the whole "people are discarded when they're no longer useful" It's a descriptive claim and it doesn't really mean I agree with the mentality. In fact, I think, in the end doing that ends with you in a similar position to NPO when Karma came.

The vision I have is not one where the dominant powers are dominant by virtue of their cultural hegemony which entices people to buy into how cool they are, but rather what the dominant power can offer you.

There has been a hegemony of ideology and brute force and there's been the cool kind. I advocate a different one.
[/quote]

And this is why I continue to believe you have enormous potential for what I call "good." So far the different path you propose is simply unknown to the world at large. Work on communicating what the next dominant power you envision can offer and watch to see how and where things fall. Right now I think you are perceived as the retrospective Archon & his hollow platitudes. These are what have everyone in the natural "opposition" to the present powers so jaded and distrustful. Offer real, tangible principles you really believe and be judged.

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335249751' post='2958392']
I mean, I was called naive before for not stating what I believe will or should take place in the event of a power vacuum. There will always be a dominant political force and unless everyone limited themselves to like one or two treaties, there's no avoiding it. Those who should have influence are those who are able to provide for the benefit of as many as possible.
[/quote]

By that logic, the current hegemony is just fine. They are treatied one way or another to like, 2/3 of the planet. Just ask yourself when analyzing why one cannot attack GOONS first as the focal point of any strategy. That guarantee of being on the winning side seems like a pretty good benefit to "as many as possible". I personally think it makes a lot of those benefiting from it survivalist shills, but you seem to be suggesting that they do exactly the same thing, just for a different master with whom you haven't had an individual falling out. I'm not sure how that is logically any better for those of us who dislike the structure, not the master.

[Brehon]

Bravo Phineas

[Monster]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335250119' post='2958395']
By that logic, the current hegemony is just fine. They are treatied one way or another to like, 2/3 of the planet. Just ask yourself when analyzing why one cannot attack GOONS first as the focal point of any strategy. That guarantee of being on the winning side seems like a pretty good benefit to "as many as possible". I personally think it makes a lot of those benefiting from it survivalist shills, but you seem to be suggesting that they do exactly the same thing, just for a different master with whom you haven't had an individual falling out. I'm not sure how that is logically any better for those of us who dislike the structure, not the master.
[/quote]

Here goes: you're stating that my issues stem exclusively from a personal falling out with them rather than various policy disagreements and differences in attitude that already existed. The vast majority of alliances [b]do not[/b] benefit from the current power structure and some that do maintain ties to it will find themselves on the receiving end of its fury.

I think something you don't understand is that eventually parts of a side get jettisoned and become the "next target" and some are traded in for another thing. Consequently, it is not beneficial to anyone outside of the "core" long-term to maintain the current power structure. Cannibalization is something that will always result from such power systems. The premise of the next big battle is a temporary set of allies being jettisoned in such a fashion because they were never liked to begin with.

Now, having an especially dominant political force can be avoided if enough people are willing to do their own thing. I don't see this as very likely as the mentality a lot of people have is "we just want to be left alone and we'll let someone else be in command of politics." As long as most people don't want to be in command of their own destiny, there will be an especially dominant political force.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335250306' post='2958397']
Now, having an especially dominant political force can be avoided if enough people are willing to do their own thing. I don't see this as very likely as the mentality a lot of people have is "we just want to be left alone and we'll let someone else be in command of politics." As long as most people don't want to be in command of their own destiny, there will be an especially dominant political force.
[/quote]
If you accept that then what's wrong with this one?

Pacifica was removed to do what, install MK? So you want to remove MK to install whom? Where does that get anyone, used by a new master who can carve off non-core neo-neo-hegemony alliances for the next target? You don't like the people in power, that's apparent. Stop acting like you don't like the play though, if all you want to do is change the actors.

[Monster]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335250742' post='2958401']
If you accept that then what's wrong with this one?

Pacifica was removed to do what, install MK? So you want to remove MK to install whom? Where does that get anyone, used by a new master who can carve off non-core neo-neo-hegemony alliances for the next target? You don't like the people in power, that's apparent. Stop acting like you don't like the play though, if all you want to do is change the actors.
[/quote]


It certainly wasn't my intent or anyone's really to install MK. MK had the right underdog story and other people didn't want to compete for the spotlight. I don't like anyone having an excess of control, but it's inevitable until people stop trying to be "well we just want to be safe, we just care about what affects us directly right now." If anything, it was kind of dismaying and I've spoken in-depth on the subject. MK were the cool guys and everyone was at the Restaurant? They raided alliances before GOONS ever made a scene? so what, archon was the hero of CN.

So with that being given, I would prefer a softer dominant power over the one that exists. There was a thread called "The IRON age" and I was asked in a certain an embassy what I expected to happen after. The issue is, the people who make the most sense to rule don't want it in many cases. Everyone assumed that was the case with Umbrella when it's only really been the case for the past maybe 9 months?

Or let's like say Sparta and MHA chose to take dominant political roles after Karma, things would have been different.

SF didn't want to be in the spotlight and Xiphosis has frequently said, "it just happened" after BiPolar.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin

[Phineas]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335250306' post='2958397']
Here goes: you're stating that my issues stem exclusively from a personal falling out with them rather than various policy disagreements and differences in attitude that already existed. The vast majority of alliances [b]do not[/b] benefit from the current power structure and some that do maintain ties to it will find themselves on the receiving end of its fury.

I think something you don't understand is that eventually parts of a side get jettisoned and become the "next target" and some are traded in for another thing. Consequently, it is not beneficial to anyone outside of the "core" long-term to maintain the current power structure. Cannibalization is something that will always result from such power systems.

Now, having an especially dominant political force can be avoided if enough people are willing to do their own thing. I don't see this as very likely as the mentality a lot of people have is "we just want to be left alone and we'll let someone else be in command of politics." As long as most people don't want to be in command of their own destiny, there will be an especially dominant political force.
[/quote]

In the days and weeks ahead, outline and present these policy disagreements and differences in attitude for the world to see, point by point. So far, most just see your agenda as centered on a personal falling out, which was why I completely empathized with you from the start, and still do. Then, let's focus on the why, outline your principle differences, not necessarily here, but later and somewhere else, be it in embassies or blogs or threads, in an organized fashion. Simply disregard the MK & co. personal attacks stuff, I think most see right through them.


[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335250742' post='2958401']
If you accept that then what's wrong with this one?

Pacifica was removed to do what, install MK? So you want to remove MK to install whom? Where does that get anyone, used by a new master who can carve off non-core neo-neo-hegemony alliances for the next target? You don't like the people in power, that's apparent. Stop acting like you don't like the play though, if all you want to do is change the actors.
[/quote]

Exactly. The world is tiring of the hegemonic game of musical chairs.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335251030' post='2958402']
It certainly wasn't my intent or anyone's really to install MK. MK had the right underdog story and other people didn't want to compete for the spotlight. I don't like anyone having an excess of control, but it's inevitable until people stop trying to be "well we just want to be safe, we just care about what affects us directly right now." If anything, it was kind of dismaying and I've spoken in-depth on the subject. MK were the cool guys and everyone was at the Restaurant? They raided alliances before GOONS ever made a scene? so what, archon was the hero of CN.

So with that being given, I would prefer a softer dominant power over the one that exists. There was a thread called "The IRON age" and I was asked in a certain an embassy what I expected to happen after. The issue is, the people who make the most sense to rule don't want it in many cases. Everyone assumed that was the case with Umbrella when it's only really been the case for the past maybe 9 months?
[/quote]

I agree, they really did have a great narrative with the terms they were under, etc. I also agree that they probably don't like being the center of attention now. Again, and not here, but in the days ahead, think about what you mean by a "softer" hegemonic power. Beyond not being a bully, what can you see the next power offering? The more you can center on in terms of principles, the better.

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335251030' post='2958402']
Everyone assumed that was the case with Umbrella when it's only really been the case for the past maybe 9 months?
[/quote]
I for one am curious to see how MK deals with having two hats now, what with TOP cozy-ing up to Everything.Must.Die now. Who will be the fancy Sunday hat? Who will be the everyday suncap? Will MK have to find new mudboots now that their current pair has proven leaky? Only time will tell...

Seriously though, installing a soft power is a fool's errand. You could install NSO and they would manage to stop failing out of the sheer momentum of power. The only cure for the system is to obliterate the web and re-create a multi-polar world (shout out to the '06 color wars). The only way for that to happen is for those who are every bit as strong as the current power alliances (or much more so, if we count GOONS as a "power" alliance) to grow a pair and assert themselves. We don't want someone in charge, we want lots of people not in charge fighting each other bare-knuckle and 1 v 1. Curbstomps are for cowards and are the inevitable result of the current treaty web structure.

[Monster]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335251750' post='2958405']
In the days and weeks ahead, outline and present these policy disagreements and differences in attitude for the world to see, point by point. So far, most just see your agenda as centered on a personal falling out, which was why I completely empathized with you from the start, and still do. Then, let's focus on the why, outline your principle differences, not necessarily here, but later and somewhere else, be it in embassies or blogs or threads, in an organized fashion. Simply disregard the MK & co. personal attacks stuff, I think most see right through them.
[/quote]

Here: for the most part I don't believe consigning people to the rubbish heap because they're perceived to be incompetent. Like I don't really remember giving people like MCXA a lot of crap before or attacking Cheshire Cat because he RPs his cat character on IRC. The attitude is distinct as well. Keep in mind my attitudes to some of the most disliked alliances in the game. Reparations in general were something I simply wasn't for, not during Karma, not after, and have never been a proponent for imposing them.


[quote]

I agree, they really did have a great narrative with the terms they were under, etc. I also agree that they probably don't like being the center of attention now. Again, and not here, but in the days ahead, think about what you mean by a "softer" hegemonic power. Beyond not being a bully, what can you see the next power offering? The more you can center on in terms of principles, the better.
[/quote]

I disagree entirely, tbh. They shifted themselves right back into the spotlight right after DH-NPO when they had been mostly in a backseat position following the mass treaty cancellation. There is a reason they started losing award categories to other alliances around that time. The whole anti-SF crusade elevated them back to an undisputed position of dominance when most people had thought they were in decline before that.

So one thing I've seen that's been semi-successful is competent alliances lending less proficient a helping hand. I mean, it doesn't make much to suggest reforms or have advisors go over there to supervise them. I mean especially when they ask for it. In a lot of cases, loyalty has been based on "well, they built us up," and I think that's one approach that be taken.


[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335251939' post='2958406']
I for one am curious to see how MK deals with having two hats now, what with TOP cozy-ing up to Everything.Must.Die now. Who will be the fancy Sunday hat? Who will be the everyday suncap? Will MK have to find new mudboots now that their current pair has proven leaky? Only time will tell...

Seriously though, installing a soft power is a fool's errand. You could install NSO and they would manage to stop failing out of the sheer momentum of power. The only cure for the system is to obliterate the web and re-create a multi-polar world (shout out to the '06 color wars). The only way for that to happen is for those who are every bit as strong as the current power alliances (or much more so, if we count GOONS as a "power" alliance) to grow a pair and assert themselves. We don't want someone in charge, we want lots of people not in charge fighting each other bare-knuckle and 1 v 1. Curbstomps are for cowards and are the inevitable result of the current treaty web structure.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that's not possible, I'm just saying I don't see it as realistic unless people don't want to be second-string alliances and assert themselves as you're saying.

In many cases, alliances simply want to be there. If the mentality doesn't change, you can't get what you want. Like you couldn't inspire certain alliances to be more proactive in general, so there will always be "followers."

Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin

[Phineas]

First, awesome responses and exchanges all around. That, above all else, makes this worthwhile.

Second, keep and build on your feelings on reps and anything else like that and platform it.

Third, yeah, I don't know how, but I forgot how much MK loves the spotlight.

Fourth, yes, a lot of alliances are perfectly content with being followers. This is why we need good leaders.

Fifth, thank you for this open discussion and I repeat my best wishes for Bal Masque.

Sixth, time for bed here.

[Monster]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335253041' post='2958413']
First, awesome responses and exchanges all around. That, above all else, makes this worthwhile.

Second, keep and build on your feelings on reps and anything else like that and platform it.

Third, yeah, I don't know how, but I forgot how much MK loves the spotlight.

Fourth, yes, a lot of alliances are perfectly content with being followers. This is why we need good leaders.

Fifth, thank you for this open discussion and I repeat my best wishes for Bal Masque.

Sixth, time for bed here.
[/quote]

The issue with me actually campaigning on stuff is that I'm not necessarily trying to install myself as anything.

The followers thing is a real issue because it's always going to be like "we never really want to get power, it's not our style." Like honestly, I'd love it if there were like 5 or 6 completely distinct powerblocs. That's not necessarily going to happen though. Like Kzoppistan was upset that Mjolnir disbanded and that did have some merit. I don't have an overarching desire to be some sort of shepherd like people accuse me of frequently.

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335252228' post='2958410']
I'm not saying that's not possible, I'm just saying I don't see it as realistic unless people don't want to be second-string alliances and assert themselves as you're saying.

In many cases, alliances simply want to be there. If the mentality doesn't change, you can't get what you want.
[/quote]

The mentality has changed for you and Bal Masque and its membership, has it not? Isn't that the whole point of this thread? I think one more alliance seeing things our way and wanting change is always a good thing, as long as you want change and not just changeover.

[Monster]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335253482' post='2958417']
The mentality has changed for you and Bal Masque and its membership, has it not? Isn't that the whole point of this thread? I think one more alliance seeing things our way and wanting change is always a good thing, as long as you want change and not just changeover.
[/quote]

How exactly? Yes, I favor consolidation, but I've always wanted to grow my alliance and more micros should definitely merge and I'm not saying merge into my alliance. I've always been an ambitious person. I do want change and not just changeover, but ambitions being limited in certain sectors of CN makes it somewhat unlikely.

If there's a unified opposition short-term, the issues of "nominal power", "x faction fighting a hard earned victory while we fight easy fronts" won't really be there and there'll be the opportunity for multipolarity to develop. The issue with most wars for people is someone will take the bigger hits when you go after someone. If that's not at issue and damage is relatively equal amongst coalition participants, then multipolarity can develop. That's what I've been trying to get at too. I think the discontent exists along with the requisite NS for a relatively non-crippling war for any particular faction that would need to participate. It just has to be "all in," more or less.

[Don Chele]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335253816' post='2958419']
How exactly?
[/quote]
I articulated my point poorly. I mean you have changed mentality from your days as "evil architect of DH-NPO" to being a promoter of removing the current power structure. Your members and your newly merged partners have similarly shed whatever pasts they may have to join your resistance. Bal Masque is proof that it is not [i]entirely[/i] impossible to convince people change is good, progress is just slow and/or sporadic.

[Monster]

[quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335254370' post='2958422']
I articulated my point poorly. I mean you have changed mentality from your days as "evil architect of DH-NPO" to being a promoter of removing the current power structure. Your members and your newly merged partners have similarly shed whatever pasts they may have to join your resistance. Bal Masque is proof that it is not [i]entirely[/i] impossible to convince people change is good, progress is just slow and/or sporadic.
[/quote]

I didn't really go out of my way to be evil about it tbh. I frequently addressed claims where people were saying "YOU DID IT FOR THE HELL OF IT" and gave pragmatic political reasons for doing it when it was framed as an anti-political move. Not that anyone wanted to believe it at the time anyway, but I wouldn't characterize it as me being "MUAAHAHAA IM THE BAD GUY." NPO was an easy enemy to have and even SirPaul said he didn't think people should want to disband NPO because they're a foil. Like NAAC and other alliances for Moldavi. I think the whole "entering, not entering" issue has been put to bed at this point, so I don't really want to go through it again.

edit:Even people on the other side were appreciative of the fact that I was willing to put the effort into debating it.


http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=211&showentry=2729

Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin

[Canik]

I think this is a good move for both alliances. It will be interesting to see what this leads. Good luck in your endeavors.

[xoindotnler]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335253041' post='2958413']
First, awesome responses and exchanges all around. That, above all else, makes this worthwhile.

Second, keep and build on your feelings on reps and anything else like that and platform it.

Third, yeah, I don't know how, but I forgot how much MK loves the spotlight.

Fourth, yes, a lot of alliances are perfectly content with being followers. This is why we need good leaders.

Fifth, thank you for this open discussion and I repeat my best wishes for Bal Masque.

Sixth, time for bed here.
[/quote]
Seven, say hi to Schattenmann and come back to us .

[Monster]

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1335261973' post='2958433']
I think this is a good move for both alliances. It will be interesting to see what this leads. Good luck in your endeavors.
[/quote]

Thanks and I realize there have been quite a few of these posts and I really appreciate them.

[Amossio]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335202014' post='2957827']
I don't really take yours seriously and neither does anyone else, except for its ornamental statistical might. Everything said about MHA applies to Umbrella moreso except the inactivity claims, though you will get closer to it eventually. I'd be careful to talk !@#$ about alliances considering your list of previous choices.

I mean people used to call IRON, RON but Umbrella needs an analogue, because you sure fit the title more than anyone previous.


Quinoa: Raken. Not sure why you're being obtuse.
[/quote]

You talking as if I represent the alliance as a whole despite not even being gov, I said I don't take you, yourself seriously, me not taking you seriously is my own judgement, as for my opinion on SOS it's also my own judgement based on actually being part of the aa at one stage, nevertheless I quickly realized the alliance was not suited for me.

As for talking !@#$, if that's the case then most on here shouldn't be saying anything at all, everyone has done choices which can be considered bad or good from different view points.

[Tromp]

Wishing you lot the best of luck. I'll be visiting soon. (Don't abandon ship now! )

[SoADarthCyfe6]

It won't be long before this alliance will need to fly the SOS again.

[Monster]

Is that a threat? I already made it clear I don't give a !@#$ about that for a wide variety of reasons. It's your alliance that will crack when you encounter real opposition and precious GATO has a lot more stats to burn. What will you do when you don't have soft targets or dogpiles?

Edited April 28, 2012 by Roquentin

[Iotupa]

[quote name='Bernkastel' timestamp='1335057113' post='2956884']
That you are important. When you really aren't. You good sir, are a has-been.

NsO is certainly more well respected and has far more class and dignity than you will ever have. All you need is class and dignity, something that might be a fairly foreign concept to you.

Eh, we all have dreams or wants and those typically don't come true, ridiculous or not.
[/quote]

Roq has more class than 99% of Planet Bob.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335572414' post='2960233']
Is that a threat? I already made it clear I don't give a !@#$ about that for a wide variety of reasons. It's your alliance that will crack when you encounter real opposition and precious GATO has a lot more stats to burn. What will you do when you don't have soft targets or dogpiles?
[/quote]

Tell us how you really feel.

It was more so a reference to your asinine leadership is going to run your own alliance into the ground. I seriously doubt I will have any effect what so ever on your alliance other then invading your OWF threads. Plus, how could I not post here? Would it really be the same without me baiting Roq?