What does the Eunuch Teach us about CN?

[Monster]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1336712174' post='2966194']




Not unprecedented Roq. Q was doing worse to us in 2008 - and unlike today, no one dared criticise. They eventually attacked us and everyone that was shocked and outraged in private were still mindlessly hailing in public. The level of fear in those days has never come back after Karma. Yes, Karma was a disappointment in a lot of ways, it was gutted before it was half done and it was co-opted by would be hegemons from the start, I know. I imagined it going a lot better, and it was a bitter pill to swallow seeing what became of it. But still, there was some real change. If this was 2008 and you had left TOP instead of Umbrella, you wouldnt have an alliance, you would be on EZI and the entire OWF would be hailing the wisdom of that - or else afraid to speak of it at all. [/quote]

I mean, just because E-ZI was used as something to rail against and make a taboo, doesn't mean it has equivalents. Instead of e-zi, it's just discrediting people with BS. At this point, most people realize that merely posting isn't going to do anything, so they don't try to silence dissent at all.

[quote]

Now on that we agree. That would not be a wise course of action. But neither is going off half-cocked. Neither is precipitating conflict at an unfavourable time. Neither is imagining an existential threat where one does not, in fact, exist, Wise rulers dont move too quickly, without first making sure of the terrain. [/quote]


I have never advocated going half-cocked. "Favorable" time is a matter of perception. In many ways, the longer there is a wait, the longer it will take. Existential threats are something that every alliance of considerable size has to take into consideration.


[quote]Given that that is demonstrably false, your conclusion is bizaare and unwarranted. Declaring and fighting a hopeless war against overwhelming odds in defense of an alliance that I had no obligation to, simply because the CB stunk, is hardly the act of a non-interventionist. Just because I dont rush to intervene when and where YOU would like me to do so doesnt mean I wont do it when I judge it warranted.[/quote]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your overall approach to politics is non-interventionist since you don't have an interest in what happens.



[quote]Being smaller has both advantages and disadvantages, and I dont think that is really the important part here. In terms of Q, I was in agreement with Delta on that. It had become so powerful and so uncivilised it was a threat to everything and everyone on the planet. It was a mad dog that had to be put down. And I just dont agree that the situation today is anywhere near that extreme.
[/quote]

I mean, it's just as uncivilized and powerful. They can do most of what they want. Of course, being powerful is determined by how many non-core alliances you can whip into line at any given point. If non-core severs from the core progessively, then we get what we had with Karma.


B[quote]elieve it or not I agree with your thrust here too. The most agonising, frustrating, heartbreaking thing I ever had to face in this game was the realisation that I could not defend those who would not defend themselves. People that genuinely fall into that category ARE dangerous to the rest of us, if only because they encourage bad actors and bad habits. But the sort of criticism you give out doesnt help - it's counterproductive, it doesnt inspire improvement but only communicates contempt. And that problem is hardly the preserve of neutrals - lots of toady alliances essentially fall into the same boat, and probably if their members just deserted them for a neutral alliance that would be an improvement, frankly. With fewer of those types of players in non-neutral alliances you might see the non-neutral alliances capable of more daring moves. It's internal politics that normally holds things back, and members that are afraid of a fight creates the internal political conditions that result in alliances unwilling to risk a beating. Shuffle all those members out to neutral alliances and what is left would be much more capable of taking risks. [/quote]

I mean generally when someone tells you to stand up for yourself, it's supposed to inspire change.



[quote]Well if you really want to do something about those acts, it seems to me that learning to avoid being rude and repetitive and alienating large swaths of potential supporters in every post would be a good start down that road.
[/quote]

I mean, I don't really know how it's supposed to alienate potential supporters if it's being rude to the people I dislike for the most part. It's important to understand that I go up against entire posting squads of alliances frequently and a balance in that regard should be considered desirable. Of course some people like I said have an elitist attitude about agitation and owf posting in general and think staying above the fray is the way to go, but I don't. If you let a certain sector of people dominate the owf, then they will shape the narrative with great ease.

[Azaghul]

Kzoppistan is right. The world's more complicated than a centralized "hegemony" and two set "sides". What we have is a collection of blocks and alliances with somewhat fluid relations with each other. Sometimes aspects of that become less fluid and a dichotomy emerges and sometimes it doesn't. The circumstances of a war often strongly influence how it will end.

For example NPO screwed up attacking a direct partner of a C&G alliance, a SF alliance, and VE. While many elements connected to C&G and SF leaned towards opposing NPO, NPO losing a war in 2009 was by no means guaranteed.

In Bipolar the sides were mixed and muddled.

Before this last war PB and MJ were close to the verge of war over the DT/FOK issue. SF, XX, and NpO being on the same losing side came about largely as a result of various of a diverse set of alliances on the winning side having various rivalries, grievances, and grudges with various members on the SF, XX, and NpO side. Those did more to make that war happen than the work of any particular individuals.

[Monster]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1336714372' post='2966204']
Kzoppistan is right. The world's more complicated than a centralized "hegemony" and two set "sides". What we have is a collection of blocks and alliances with somewhat fluid relations with each other. Sometimes aspects of that become less fluid and a dichotomy emerges and sometimes it doesn't. The circumstances of a war often strongly influence how it will end.

For example NPO screwed up attacking a direct partner of a C&G alliance, a SF alliance, and VE. While many elements connected to C&G and SF leaned towards opposing NPO, NPO losing a war in 2009 was by no means guaranteed.

In Bipolar the sides were mixed and muddled.

Before this last war PB and MJ were close to the verge of war over the DT/FOK issue. SF, XX, and NpO being on the same losing side came about largely as a result of various of a diverse set of alliances on the winning side having various rivalries, grievances, and grudges with various members on the SF, XX, and NpO side. Those did more to make that war happen than the work of any particular individuals.
[/quote]

The Hegemony is a cultural one in addition to being a set of relations presently. I previously asserted the current Hegemonic bloc is Doomhouse and Complaint Grievances. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it is a mass of NS that will always be on the same side along with various extra-bloc elements. ie Non Grata, Alchemy, Deinos, etc. It comes down to who that bloc of NS can influence. C&G is given relatively little flak despite being part of the core since people see in them something that's not there.

The reason the NS exists to defeat the above is precisely because the relations DH/C&G has with other blocs like PF/DR/NPO/NPO alliesetc. are fluid and not unconditional.


It's a similar situation since certain parts that aren't tightly linked with Doomhouse/Complaints and Grievances are not willing to go to bat for one another. For instance, a lot of people who don't like Doomhouse/C&G/Non Grata don't like Superfriends either and because GOD is a stigmatized pariah target, they focus on trashing the latter.

The reason DH/C&G/NG along with auxiliaries is the most powerful is because it's the biggest bloc of NS that will roll together.

One of the leaders of a former Mjolnir alliance had the idea of building a DR/PF/Mjolnir axis. Obviously that did not come to fruition and consequently DH/C&G/NG is dominant.

The FOK/DT was only going to go to war because an alliance uninterested in politics as much as MK(FOK) was willing to hardball over a perceived mistreatment and damn the political consequences, but it's not the norm.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1336714372' post='2966204']
Kzoppistan is right. The world's more complicated than a centralized "hegemony" and two set "sides". What we have is a collection of blocks and alliances with somewhat fluid relations with each other. Sometimes aspects of that become less fluid and a dichotomy emerges and sometimes it doesn't. The circumstances of a war often strongly influence how it will end.

For example NPO screwed up attacking a direct partner of a C&G alliance, a SF alliance, and VE. While many elements connected to C&G and SF leaned towards opposing NPO, NPO losing a war in 2009 was by no means guaranteed.

In Bipolar the sides were mixed and muddled.

Before this last war PB and MJ were close to the verge of war over the DT/FOK issue. SF, XX, and NpO being on the same losing side came about largely as a result of various of a diverse set of alliances on the winning side having various rivalries, grievances, and grudges with various members on the SF, XX, and NpO side. Those did more to make that war happen than the work of any particular individuals.[/quote]Uncontrollable trends tend to dominate the political flow of the game, but individual agency and personality have a substantial impact on the contours they take. Grub's reign in Polar is pretty great example, insofar as BiPolar, and the past several years of OMG POLAR MUST DIE, were dependent not only on the decisions he made before, during, and after the war, but also the ones he made to position Polar before, during and after Karma.

[Monster]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1336728227' post='2966237']
Uncontrollable trends tend to dominate the political flow of the game, but individual agency and personality have a substantial impact on the contours they take. Grub's reign in Polar is pretty great example, insofar as BiPolar, and the past several years of OMG POLAR MUST DIE, were dependent not only on the decisions he made before, during, and after the war, but also the ones he made to position Polar before, during and after Karma.
[/quote]

I agree. The issue is, Polar functioned as an easy boogeyman for a lot of people who didn't feel strongly on it either way. It kind of meant "it's at least not us," the issue is also Polar was an incredibly popular alliance and then pretty much everyone had beef with them before BiPolar got to see them fall off the pedestal, even if Grub's actions had been beneficial to them.

[Kzoppistan]

nm

Edited May 11, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1336631182' post='2965737']
You are right, SCY. The illusion of invincibility is what keeps hegemonies going.
[/quote]
Or the unwillingness of anyone to do anything outside of the status quo.

[Monster]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1336747757' post='2966268']
Or the unwillingness of anyone to do anything outside of the status quo.
[/quote]

This is also true.

[lebubu]

could be an issue that alliances who are not in the hegemony don't care enough to do anything because they're not treated badly enough

something about ambition

[Freddy]

The thing is, Roq's message is resonating among the diverse nations of CN. There are a lot of people thinking things, but they don't dare to speak or act on their swayed opinions. Roq has made the ground fertile for action, but that alone will amount to nothing. There must an event which requires action. Joining a coalition isn't an adequate event. No one wants to be the first to step forward and risk taking part in a failed cause. They would all gladly leave their comfort zones to roll someone they know they can roll. Roq has done fine in his goals so far. Why shouldn't he? He knows of herd mentality. The masses don't want to be first, or rise above - they want to be anonymous. They don't want to take action or make decisions - they want leaders to decide for them and to follow the actions of others. So what is needed is for the atmosphere created by Roq to be sparked by action - action by Roq, not by the herd. Then the herd will join and follow.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1336784728' post='2966400']
The thing is, Roq's message is resonating among the diverse nations of CN. There are a lot of people thinking things, but they don't dare to speak or act on their swayed opinions. Roq has made the ground fertile for action, but that alone will amount to nothing. There must an event which requires action. Joining a coalition isn't an adequate event. No one wants to be the first to step forward and risk taking part in a failed cause. They would all gladly leave their comfort zones to roll someone they know they can roll. Roq has done fine in his goals so far. Why shouldn't he? He knows of herd mentality. The masses don't want to be first, or rise above - they want to be anonymous. They don't want to take action or make decisions - they want leaders to decide for them and to follow the actions of others. So what is needed is for the atmosphere created by Roq to be sparked by action - action by Roq, not by the herd. Then the herd will join and follow.
[/quote]

The thing is that Roq preaches a message that from what I can tell is talking about the alliances with less power rising against the alliances in power and taking that power from them. From what I've seen in CN, power that is on top of CN doesn't fall from outside threats, but from inward division after the core of the web becomes too bloated.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1336683117' post='2966046']
In most alliances you're kept in the dark and out of the "fun" of the backroom stuff due to opsec
[/quote]
Only in boring alliances.

[Monster]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1336785074' post='2966403']
The thing is that Roq preaches a message that from what I can tell is talking about the alliances with less power rising against the alliances in power and taking that power from them. From what I've seen in CN, power that is on top of CN doesn't fall from outside threats, but from inward division after the core of the web becomes too bloated.
[/quote]

Well, I already said where there are clashes within the winning side of the last war and a lot of people don't like each other within it. The main actors within the "core" are trying to stave off trouble by pushing for a repeat of the last one, but it's kind of foolhardy. It has become too bloated(winner's side and not core) though I would say it's not so much the core of the treaty web. Can't keep all of those people on the same side forever. It's more about the blocs not tightly linked to Doomhouse or C&G taking control of their own destiny.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Roquentin

[Starfox101]

Every empire comes to an end. The only difference is how long it takes.

[Hereno]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1336785074' post='2966403']
The thing is that Roq preaches a message that from what I can tell is talking about the alliances with less power rising against the alliances in power and taking that power from them. From what I've seen in CN, power that is on top of CN doesn't fall from outside threats, but from inward division after the core of the web becomes too bloated.
[/quote]

Between this and your OP, you've said everything I came in here to say. If only your RL politics were so good.

[Laslo Kenez]

I think lebubu has probably made the best point. Nobody, or at least not enough of the population, has really been treated badly enough to drive the political necessity of building up "now-or-never" opposition for a while. People have at times been treated badly, but not in sufficient quantity, and not badly enough.

Ambition as a result is lacking in the people that could, if really committed to that, take the risks to change things around. As things are, risk is low for everyone, so why shake things up? Particularly as I feel the game-history punishes people who prove incapable of functioning in a team without trying to hijack the show, or subvert the expectations of their coalition.

Aside from some notable irrational individuals, I think most leaders now tend to make a judgment as to the worth of stirring up trouble... and decide that they're better suited to playing a long game of trying to isolate a small disliked section of their coalition while maintaining the same picture overall.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Laslo Kenez

[Freddy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1336785074' post='2966403']
The thing is that Roq preaches a message that from what I can tell is talking about the alliances with less power rising against the alliances in power and taking that power from them. From what I've seen in CN, power that is on top of CN doesn't fall from outside threats, but from inward division after the core of the web becomes too bloated.
[/quote]

His message may or may not be crap, but he is saying it constantly. It's simple...band together to roll the unrollable. He has proposed the challenge and people have weighed it in their mind. Many would fight the hegemony, if there was an appropriate catalyst that made them believe the resistance side was capable of winning. Like in the op, the core of the web will fall apart, if they can't control the message and the momentum. It's ideas and words that control the message and the momentum. For MK to change that they need to show their power in a way that gains positive PR.

[Monster]

The issue is, some segements of the web don't like MK. For instance, a lot of non-TOP PF has a less than favorable opinion. Now if you can make people who have less than favorable opinions more proactive, then the battle is already won. The sentiment against them and the others exists, it just has to be acted on. The issue is, the people who are most suitable to form a core of opposition aren't the most boatrocking individuals around.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Roquentin

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1336787874' post='2966422']
I think lebubu has probably made the best point. Nobody, or at least not enough of the population, has really been treated badly enough to drive the political necessity of building up "now-or-never" opposition for a while. People have at times been treated badly, but not in sufficient quantity, and not badly enough.

Ambition as a result is lacking in the people that could, if really committed to that, take the risks to change things around. As things are, risk is low for everyone, so why shake things up? Particularly as I feel the game-history punishes people who prove incapable of functioning in a team without trying to hijack the show, or subvert the expectations of their coalition.

Aside from some notable irrational individuals, I think most leaders now tend to make a judgment as to the worth of stirring up trouble... and decide that they're better suited to playing a long game of trying to isolate a small disliked section of their coalition while maintaining the same picture overall.
[/quote]
That's been the problem for a while. The world has become reactionary to a problem, as opposed to being fueled by ambition. Instead of vying to become to the top dog, we have people content where they are, only taking action when necessary. If you are a leader without ambition, you are failing your alliance. You should be vying for the top by any means necessary. Instead of waiting for the world to piss you off, you could manuever your way to the top.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Starfox101

[Monster]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1336801863' post='2966479']
That's been the problem for a while. The world has become reactionary to a problem, as opposed to being fueled by ambition. Instead of vying to become to the top dog, we have people content where they are, only taking action when necessary. If you are a leader without ambition, you are failing your alliance. You should be vying for the top by any means necessary. Instead of waiting for the world to piss you off, you could manuever your way to the top.
[/quote]

This is also true. Here's the thing, a lot of people remind me of Citadel pre-Karma all the potential to shape the world, but no desire to do it. Other people had to make it happen and I mean Syzygy could have risen to the status of world-king or whatever if he had desired it.

Or even now, if someone like Bob Janova wanted to be a leader in the wider political game, it'd certainly be possible. He would have to be more aggressive than he is now and willing to single out alliances as political opponents, though.

Reaction doesn't have to be a bad thing, if it's escalated to proactivity in general against things you don't like that don't necessarily affect you directly.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Roquentin

[Scandalous Rumour]

It isn't helped by the fact that Nuclear war, unsurprisingly, is highly damaging to any alliance's standing, even if they extract an absolute tonne of reparations afterwards, they will have lost position relative to those who elected not to fight. In the same way the threat of heavy reparations drives alliances to fight longer to avoid them, increasing the damage done on all sides.

NS on Bob just keeps on climbing, and most alliances are happier to avoid shaking the ladders too often in favour of consolidating strength than to pursue dynamic political goals that seem often to result in full scale destruction.

SR.