Declaration from Vox Populi

[Amossio]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345560431' post='3024049']
I wasn't referring to you having to malign Xiph. It was directed at people like MK who had to have public opinion against him in order to execute their war. Feel free to say I "know nothing" or "no one takes me seriously", but in this case I probably have the most information of anyone. I talk a lot of !@#$. However, being extremely good friends with CSN gov, being IAA's only active government member with a long friendship with the LoSS government at the time, and keeping in constant contact with them, DT, and CSN I know what I'm talking about.

I actually recall having quite a few laughs at a lot of people during that time. I do remember laughing at DT for trying to pull out early, laughing at Leet for whining to Gibs, and laughing at the government of GATO for believing they could strongarm CSN when they didn't even have the balls to fight smaller maroon alliances for a week. I never laughed at you, because no one has a !@#$@#$ clue who you are.

Also, Xiph was angry at Nemesis for not standing by him during Karma. Of course Nemesis canceled on LoSS for simply signing a PIAT with TOOL, so I guess Nemesis was just a !@#$%* alliance with no loyalty.
[/quote]
I'm not saying Xiph is bad or good but he did have to do with a antagonist feeling directed at SF, I'm not saying he's innocent but that's exactly what you're trying to say [quote]Mainly because I realize he didn't have as much to do with the issue. Of course stating that is contrary to the !@#$%^&* those in power feed us all, but I don't care.
[/quote] What's funny though is that you stand there and say "I wasn't referring to you having to malign Xiph and Mk blah blah" but that's exactly what you did. You said what I was saying was part of the malignant trash being directed at Xiph. Then you try and say the comment wasn't directed at me so you can sit on your moral high-horse and even question loyalty. Probably good that no-one knows who I am, at least they won't know the amount of times I $%&@ed up. That's not directed at you omni, don't worry son.

[IYIyTh]

For someone who doesn't care about a certain leader of GOD, they have a way of putting their name in their mouth a lot more often than anything should be put in their mouth.

[Crymson]

Xiphosis is an megalomaniac. He is as disliked as he is because of his amazing penchant for making and keeping enemies. This idea that he was somehow the target of a "character assassination" campaign is hilarious. What does that even mean?

Edited August 21, 2012 by Crymson

[bkphysics]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1345571853' post='3024093']
Xiphosis is an megalomaniac. He is as disliked as he is because of his amazing penchant for making and keeping enemies. This idea that he was somehow the target of a "character assassination" campaign is hilarious. What does that even mean?
[/quote]

In regards to the "character assassination" campaign, I think of it more as a a collective of people who were rectally offended by Xiph's actions and decided to get revenge. The level of rectal-damage varies, but all in all, those who did partake came off to many as just being petulant children, but that is aside from the point.

Characterizing someone as a megalomaniac is pretty egotistical. To do such means you are in a position to quantify Xiph's accomplishments, the amount of power he contains, and the level of ascension in the world he has obtained. I am not sure about everyone else, but I certainly don't find anyone qualified to make such assertions, least of all yourself. Unless of course you feel your are the standing authority for validating someone's accomplishments and status on Bob?

Of course you could of been simply making a personal character attack rather than a validated assertion so I will just have to leave it at that.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1345573771' post='3024098']
Characterizing someone as a megalomaniac is pretty egotistical.
[/quote]

This is Crymson we're talking about here. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[wickedj]

Solution: Roll Schattenmann

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Amossio' timestamp='1345545297' post='3024018']
I highly doubt those friends in LoSS would have told you anything of great importance at the time, Maybe you have a few friends in LoSS but I do remember having a laugh a couple of times at your expense in LoSS chan. It's not so much as nobody cares about who you are, but not many people take your word seriously or regard you with any importance, afterall none knows where you gona end up next after a 3 week spell somewhere. As for me having a interest in seeing Xiphosis maligned, I really don't care about xiph, but to play him as a innocent by stander that didn't do anything to hurt anyone, that's complete and utter balls. GOD even had beef with Nemesis one time, funny times, unfortunately though I can't remember much on that one, there are people who can though. Xiph being a innocent pot of flowers, being marginalised by big bad amossio with an interest in hurting the poor petal in order to get one up for umbrella, you're hilarious mate.

anyways http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98618 got some lovely spoilers there.
[/quote]
That was a classic answer dodge there. Start off with the "you're not cool like us", and then move to the "you're irrelevant", and then finish with calling him an alliance hopper. Good job, brother.

[quote name='King Srqt' timestamp='1345561706' post='3024053']
Azaghul, I agree this era is not as bad as the last, it is worse.

Nowadays EVRYONE is too damned concerned with self preservation that they have turned this world into a mind numbingly boring wasteland. The last era was not much better in this regard but there was at least always a remainder of the old "North/south" webs from the GW era. Now everything is so tangled and intertwined that individual alliances have lost their identities and alliance leaders are too afraid of their own shadows to act.
[/quote]
Welcome back. Good to see you around.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1345571853' post='3024093']
Xiphosis is an megalomaniac. He is as disliked as he is because of his amazing penchant for making and keeping enemies. This idea that he was somehow the target of a "character assassination" campaign is hilarious. What does that even mean?
[/quote]
I don't think you're in a position to throw around terms like that. Do you really feel like you are respected like that?

Edited August 21, 2012 by Starfox101

[D34th]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1345571853' post='3024093']
Xiphosis is an megalomaniac. He is as disliked as he is because of his amazing penchant for making and keeping enemies.
[/quote]

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1345565823' post='3024076']
The treaty was worded as an ODP, despite being sold to Nemesis as a PIAT, this is self admitted by LoSS Triums at the time, so yea, read more son. They signed with someone we mortally hated, the membership of Nemesis hated TOOL. The treaty was put up for review by our membership upon finding out we were mislead by them calling it a PIAT when it was a ODP, and written as such. WE dropped them based on the memberships vote. CGB was an abusive little !@#$. I was first hand witness to his rant. I was glad it was dropped and so was the members. It didn't end out friendship with each others members. Had you had a single clue about the dynamics of our relationship with LoSS then you would clearly not have made that !@#$ bird comment I have bold.

It's nice to see you hail us and say you love Nemesis to !@#$ talk them when they are gone and buried. Stay cool you hipster kid.

Or maybe just shut up ya goonbah.

To quote you in that very cancellation thread.





Much love back to ya!
[/quote]

My apologies simple over reaction. There are a lot of good people who came from Nemesis. Yawoo, Bob Illyani, Hoo, and others I've missed. There's certainly two sides to that story though, but it's so long in the past we don't need to drag it up. If you're interested in discussing it feel free to pm me. I think I already have an active conversation going on with you.

@amossio If you have no proof to drag up other than "I laughed at you in LoSS's private channel"; then I'll just have to leave. They always say don't argue with idiots, because from a distance you can't tell who is who.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345560431' post='3024049']
Also, Xiph was angry at Nemesis for not standing by him during Karma. Of course Nemesis canceled on LoSS for simply signing a PIAT with TOOL, so I guess Nemesis was just a !@#$%* alliance with no loyalty.
[/quote]

A great example in context of this declaration! Thanks, Omni.

When Nemesis cancelled their treaty with LoSS over LoSS's entry into an ODP (not PIAT) relationship with TOOL, Nemesis practiced exactly the sort of action and judgement that I am advocating here. As I put it at the time:
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1274243825' post='2302971']
It is outright irresponsible, ignorant, and negligent to maintain a high-level military treaty with an alliance whose foreign affairs are not in line with your own. Nemesis' cancellation is not punitive, it is realistic. And that is what Digiterra needs more than anything: More logic in its treatying, and less emotion. It is the treaty-whoring and treaty-hoarding of your [The Big Bad] generation that created some of the worst acts in Digiterran history, and it will be realism in foreign affairs that prevents repeats in the present and future. Every alliance should tell every one of its allies exactly how prospective treaties will effect current relations, and every alliance should alter its treaties when the changing foreign affairs policies of its allies are not in line with its own foreign affairs.

The hurfdurfing mobs of rulers have already disregarded the several other factors that are extraneous to the TOOL treaty that went into this decision--and there were plenty; however, in respect to all the reasons, I for one applaud and laud Nemesis' decision to conduct [i]its own affairs[/i] in [i]its own interests[/i]!
[/quote]
Continuing that thought:

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1345460686' post='3023706']
You may say that "MK is not the problem" but you are saying that having any kind of powerful group (I'll give you credit for not just saying "MK is all powerful!" but looking at the group) is the problem. It's still a blatant attempt to try to convince people to not tie themselves into our sphere because of "abuses". And then you give credit to others (NPO) even though they are doing what you criticize, signing treaties all over the map including into C&G which is tied to us.
[/quote]
The vast majority of treaties signed are based on friendships. Sometimes, there is a legitimate political unity underlying those treaties, and by "political unity" I mean the treaties have a specific goal behind them. But most often, a treaty is simply more like a Valentine card, or a means by which an alliance can show the world it's still active. The problem with this is that [OOC] CyberNations is a geopolitical simulator, not Facebook-with-nations, and also not simply a war simulator, [/OOC] and while we go to war with people we dislike, we don't go to war simply because of dislike. We go to war over politics. And when the rubber hits the road, all those friendship ties make everything a mess--they become broken promises and tools by which the very few who understand that this is a political simulator manipulate dupes into doing their dirty work. Yes, dupes.

In my specific example to which Azaghul was responding, I said that NPO is on the right track to my philosophy that (1) alliances must become more self aware, develop identities, values, and philosophies, and base their actions on them and (2) alliances must develop foreign policies which are aligned with their internal identity, and sign treaties that are politically-based (treaties with a purpose).

Azaghul's reply belies a basic misunderstanding either of what I was saying or what NPO is doing. First off, NPO with its Francoism is a quintessential example of part 1 of the philosophy I laid out. Second, while NPO is signing treaties all over the place right now, NPO is cearly doing it with a purpose, with a goal, and these treaties are clearly political. Anyone that can't see that is in honest terms: stupid.

Right now, while NPO is on the way to its goal (whatever that may be) they are definitely in positions that create tension between NPO's internal values and its treaty obligations; Brehon made that clear-as-day at the onset of the last war, and I have infamously stated that "the Emperor's feet disagree with his mouth." [b]BUT[/b], that is not the same as [i]maintaining [/i]a permanent, static foreign policy that has no cohesion, no reflection, and/or no direction. It will not happen in one day, as NPO reestablishes its world presence, big shifts are happening, and as in all things political (politics is how we decide who gets what), people who stand to lose influence, power, etc will be working to stop or slow NPO's advances. As such, there is going to be a period where NPO, its old allies, its new allies, its old enemies, and its new enemies are all going to be doing things they will not be doing once things are settled. That's change. And when things settle, some treaties will be gone, some new ones will be there, and their foreign policy will once more march closer in step with their internal philosophies. Because NPO is already a prime example of the model I am advocating, and NPO knows that it is a superior model.


And they say that the OWF is dead.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Schattenmann

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='King Srqt' timestamp='1345561706' post='3024053']
Azaghul, I agree this era is not as bad as the last, it is worse.

Nowadays EVRYONE is too damned concerned with self preservation that they have turned this world into a mind numbingly boring wasteland. The last era was not much better in this regard but there was at least always a remainder of the old "North/south" webs from the GW era. Now everything is so tangled and intertwined that individual alliances have lost their identities and alliance leaders are too afraid of their own shadows to act.
[/quote]
Oh wow, hey Srqt. Welcome back.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1345565823' post='3024076']
The treaty was worded as an ODP, despite being sold to Nemesis as a PIAT, this is self admitted by LoSS Triums at the time, so yea, read more son. They signed with someone we mortally hated, the membership of Nemesis hated TOOL. The treaty was put up for review by our membership upon finding out we were mislead by them calling it a PIAT when it was a ODP, and written as such.
[/quote]
Oh dear.

There is not and has never been any meaningful difference between an ODP and a PIAT. ODPs say "optional defense" and PIATs say something like "optional aid of a financial, military, or diplomatic variety in times of war." In practice they are the same treaty and that is why practically no one signs PIATs anymore. If you seriously raised a stink, to the point of canceling a treaty, over the distinctions between an ODP and a PIAT, that is silly and LoSS was better off without you.

Can you remind me why y'all even hated TOOL again? I sort of remember when negotiations rolled around in Karma we found out you guys despised us, and we didn't even know who you were except for vaguely remembering that Hoo used to be around there. It was kinda weird. I'm interested to hear what we did to be... erm... "morally hated" by Nemesis.

-Bama

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345601180' post='3024191']
My apologies simple over reaction. There are a lot of good people who came from Nemesis. Yawoo, Bob Illyani, Hoo, and others I've missed. There's certainly two sides to that story though, but it's so long in the past we don't need to drag it up. If you're interested in discussing it feel free to pm me. I think I already have an active conversation going on with you.

@amossio If you have no proof to drag up other than "I laughed at you in LoSS's private channel"; then I'll just have to leave. They always say don't argue with idiots, because from a distance you can't tell who is who.
[/quote]


I don't need to discuss it with you, I was just pointing out some FACTS about that particular situation. I just dislike some of the quality guys that were there being accused of something they were most certainly not The situation was not black and white, and unless you were either Nemesis or LoSS then you would be missing quite a huge chunk of the story.


[quote]Oh dear.

There is not and has never been any meaningful difference between an ODP and a PIAT. ODPs say "optional defense" and PIATs say something like "optional aid of a financial, military, or diplomatic variety in times of war." In practice they are the same treaty and that is why practically no one signs PIATs anymore. If you seriously raised a stink, to the point of canceling a treaty, over the distinctions between an ODP and a PIAT, that is silly and LoSS was better off without you.

Can you remind me why y'all even hated TOOL again? I sort of remember when negotiations rolled around in Karma we found out you guys despised us, and we didn't even know who you were except for vaguely remembering that Hoo used to be around there. It was kinda weird. I'm interested to hear what we did to be... erm... "morally hated" by Nemesis.[/quote]

Clearly an ex TOOL, then I wont be discussing anything with you

Edited August 22, 2012 by Hiro Nakara

[Amossio]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1345592646' post='3024168']
That was a classic answer dodge there. Start off with the "you're not cool like us", and then move to the "you're irrelevant", and then finish with calling him an alliance hopper. Good job, brother.
[/quote]

Actually I didn't, he said xiph didn't have much to do with the DT-LoSS situation and I posted the DT announcement which did have logs of when xiph was involved. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98618
He then stated that the bad feeling directed at xiph was trash created by our side, hahaha, seriously, if he thinks that xiph didn't have to do anything with the situation just made me feel he didn't either. In my time as LoSS MOD and triumvir, xiph, god and csn was strongly disliked by us and allies, so was CSN, the reason being is because they created a bad feel towards themselves.
dosn't matter anyways, not gona carry on arguing over pointless !@#$.
[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345606252' post='3024217']
When Nemesis cancelled their treaty with LoSS over LoSS's entry into an ODP (not PIAT) relationship with TOOL, Nemesis practiced exactly the sort of action and judgement that I am advocating here. As I put it at the time:
[/quote]

Nemesis was your ally and I don't remember you losing much sleep over that move. None of what I said above was really aimded at you mate, I don't care if you hate umbrella and others I still respect you. The thing I hate though is those that use clearly stupid hypocritical arguments to try and make a point, like xiph being a innocent princess, meh doesn't matter really.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Amossio

[Yawoo]

Nemesis' actions are in the past. There is no reason to try to incite disgruntlement or add salt to old wounds on account of its behalf, of that I assure you. We had our reasons for the cancellation with LoSS, and they were told to LoSS at the time. It was not an easy decision, and caused much division even amongst our own ranks let alone the stress it caused our friends in LoSS and CoJ.

Congratulations on your anniversary Vox, you certainly have spiced up our world.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345606252' post='3024217']
A great example in context of this declaration! Thanks, Omni.

When Nemesis cancelled their treaty with LoSS over LoSS's entry into an ODP (not PIAT) relationship with TOOL, Nemesis practiced exactly the sort of action and judgement that I am advocating here. As I put it at the time:

Continuing that thought:


The vast majority of treaties signed are based on friendships. Sometimes, there is a legitimate political unity underlying those treaties, and by "political unity" I mean the treaties have a specific goal behind them. But most often, a treaty is simply more like a Valentine card, or a means by which an alliance can show the world it's still active. The problem with this is that [OOC] CyberNations is a geopolitical simulator, not Facebook-with-nations, and also not simply a war simulator, [/OOC] and while we go to war with people we dislike, we don't go to war simply because of dislike. We go to war over politics. And when the rubber hits the road, all those friendship ties make everything a mess--they become broken promises and tools by which the very few who understand that this is a political simulator manipulate dupes into doing their dirty work. Yes, dupes.

In my specific example to which Azaghul was responding, I said that NPO is on the right track to my philosophy that (1) alliances must become more self aware, develop identities, values, and philosophies, and base their actions on them and (2) alliances must develop foreign policies which are aligned with their internal identity, and sign treaties that are politically-based (treaties with a purpose).

Azaghul's reply belies a basic misunderstanding either of what I was saying or what NPO is doing. First off, NPO with its Francoism is a quintessential example of part 1 of the philosophy I laid out. Second, while NPO is signing treaties all over the place right now, NPO is cearly doing it with a purpose, with a goal, and these treaties are clearly political. Anyone that can't see that is in honest terms: stupid.

Right now, while NPO is on the way to its goal (whatever that may be) they are definitely in positions that create tension between NPO's internal values and its treaty obligations; Brehon made that clear-as-day at the onset of the last war, and I have infamously stated that "the Emperor's feet disagree with his mouth." [b]BUT[/b], that is not the same as [i]maintaining [/i]a permanent, static foreign policy that has no cohesion, no reflection, and/or no direction. It will not happen in one day, as NPO reestablishes its world presence, big shifts are happening, and as in all things political (politics is how we decide who gets what), people who stand to lose influence, power, etc will be working to stop or slow NPO's advances. As such, there is going to be a period where NPO, its old allies, its new allies, its old enemies, and its new enemies are all going to be doing things they will not be doing once things are settled. That's change. And when things settle, some treaties will be gone, some new ones will be there, and their foreign policy will once more march closer in step with their internal philosophies. Because NPO is already a prime example of the model I am advocating, and NPO knows that it is a superior model.


And they say that the OWF is dead.
[/quote]

[size="2"]"Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave."

[/size]
I find Schatt's assessment to be an oversimplification of CN foreign affairs. (Surprise Schat!!)

While I've seen great "praise," given to those who have "a treaty set," it is often overlooked that other people exist in that "treaty set," for their own self-interest. Same goes for acquiring a "treaty set." Just because an NPO will cut ties with an alliance like Invicta over fears of cuddling too closely to a different "treaty set," or an MK might be willing to offer its previously staunch ally up as future bait in exchange for an alliance conveniently forgetting their own despite no actual treaty between the two does not mean this behavior pervades in CN. In fact, as is quite readily admitted -- it is the minority.

Why, you ask? Because it is not the most efficient way of achieving ones ends. There are better alternatives to your own theory, and I question whether the vanity of being the one's in the spotlight of their "treaty sphere," is willingly or inadvertently clouding better options available. When these alliances grab the spotlight -- It's bright. When the light fades, it gets far darker than it ever would had you never stepped into the spotlight at all.

For instance. Take GOD, NPO, MK, and old GOONS.

These four alliances would very much fit Schattenman's description. These four alliances have had great successes. But each has tasted the pavement just as much as they have enjoyed hegemony to some degree. Each of the four alliances has faced multiple beatdowns for its time in the limelight, and every single one has had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play. This can not be denied.

I (and I know people love to baww at the suggestion out of hand for some reason (perhaps the suggestion that nothing is achieved in this game alone unsettles some,),) argue that survival, the ability to survive and grow relatively unimpeded and the ability to influence with the smallest amount of opportunity cost in doing is the most effecient means of achieving ones ends.

Taking the top ten alliances in the game by score. Removing the two neutral alliances (for fun, because whether you like it or not they actually follow your philosophy better than your best example,) you have IRON, Umbrella, ODN, MHA , GATO, TOP, NPO, NpO (Anarchy Inc. aside because they are simply too young and to take the sum of their historical parts would be inappropriate for the exercise.) Aside from NPO, NpO, Non Grata to a lesser and TOP to a much lesser extent, I believe the other alliances to have been doing quite well despite having many current or previous treaties linked to friendship rather than political expediency. These treaties didn't create their own spheres (and for the love of Xiphosis, Umbrella treating anyone does not a sphere-centric treaty make it,) but were either borne out of membership or government level friendship. They also served a political purpose, and were fulfilled until that bond broke or a combination of that bond weakening and the bond becoming strenuous occurred at an unobtainable level. If you journey farther down the alliance list, you find many more examples of alliances who have held treaties with alliances in seperate "treaty sets," but have been honored nonetheless.

Furthermore, there is another inherent flaw with Schatt's proposal.

Every alliance is self-aware to some degree, has an identity, values, and even a philosophy that they do base their actions upon.
That does not mean they are held to the same degree, that identity means as much from one to the other or that values can not be eschewed for expediency. Nor does it mean an alliance has to have a well-document spokesman, frontman, or thirty page essay to have a general guiding philosophy -- whether it be static or dynamic -- and alliances generally do base their decisions on all of these things.

I think to ignore that is quite damaging to your suggestion, Schat. I also disagree that treaties have to be politically based in order to meet your criterion. For example: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107426"]The Apparatus defended the Mostly Harmless Alliance[/url] on a vastly greater foe in GATO, de-facto declaring on the entire Complaints and Grievances Union. It was not politically expedient for The Apparatus to defend MHA on an ODP, but they had developed what you refer to as "a friendship," based treaty. The Apparatus' identity was one of honor and to defend its allies whom it felt were being unjustly attacked/persecuted. It was political only in that it increased the relatively small alliances standing in the world -- but at the potential cost of devastating losses from a much greater foe whose allies had been known to willingfully disband or encourage the disbandment of smaller alliances for sport. There are many, many more examples of said treaties. For example, R&R and FOK's treaty was a chip stuck in the roof of Pandora's Box's mouth for quite some time. While you claim treaties like this (or one with Int,) serve no purpose, I would beg you to speak to an alliance who dealt in government channels in the previous two wars and how difficult those tiny, insignificant, friendship based treaties made their world -- there are few who question R&R would be hurting much more than it has do to its relationships with Int and FOK. Even a relationship to a completely different bloc can have quite the role in negotiations, potential opportunity when an attack is poorly planned to injure one of the parties assailing the alliance on the receiving end of a curbstomp, or any other imaginable boon.

Sure, these things fail -- often spectacularly over time. We've all seen the fall of eternal treaties. We've seen hell freeze over, and then have seen lingering resentment about Continuum era treaties not being fulfilled on the eve of Karma. I have seen many pontificate on the value of the treaty, but often those doing so do not hold the actual treaty. The treaty itself is what those who hold make of it. Only when one of the alliance bends to the will of others for a more economical relationship does that bond break -- not a moment sooner -- usually at a time when those values change.

Unless it explicitly or covertly a joke -- no treaty is without purpose, and certainly that value of purpose varies by signatory, observer and greater planet. Goals are not limited to overextended campaigns that inevitably implode -- they can be much smaller or much more covert than the public peanut gallery would ever know of.

If I didn't know any better I'd say that your philosophy was either flattery or a setup to get certain people to take more credit for their future or past actions than what they deserve before the clock strikes twelve again.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1345723437' post='3024535']
[size="2"]"Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave."[/size]

I find Schatt's assessment to be an oversimplification of CN foreign affairs. (Surprise Schat!!)

While I've seen great "praise," given to those who have "a treaty set," it is often overlooked that other people exist in that "treaty set," for their own self-interest. Same goes for acquiring a "treaty set." Just because an NPO will cut ties with an alliance like Invicta over fears of cuddling too closely to a different "treaty set," or an MK might be willing to offer its previously staunch ally up as future bait in exchange for an alliance conveniently forgetting their own despite no actual treaty between the two does not mean this behavior pervades in CN. In fact, as is quite readily admitted -- it is the minority.

Why, you ask? Because it is not the most efficient way of achieving ones ends. There are better alternatives to your own theory, and I question whether the vanity of being the one's in the spotlight of their "treaty sphere," is willingly or inadvertently clouding better options available. When these alliances grab the spotlight -- It's bright. When the light fades, it gets far darker than it ever would had you never stepped into the spotlight at all.

For instance. Take GOD, NPO, MK, and old GOONS. [/quote]
If your two arguments flow from this foundation, then your entire premise is flawed and really doesn't justify much of a reply; however, replying is what I do, so: lucky you.
In fact, by reading this opening, I'm not even sure that you understand what I'm arguing against or for. In the most mean terms: I am for more goal-based, politics-centric foreign policies; I am against social treaties, so-called trip-wire treaties, and treaties-as-activity.
You cite NPO, GOD, MK, and old GOONS as examples of alliances that demonstrate why I'm wrong based on their eventual falls from power and/or grace, but none of these alliances fit your argument.
[b]NPO[/b]'s philosophy Francoism calls for control--"bringing order to chaos" being the 2012 update on the 2008 "state of nature" language. Within Pacifica, the various internal structures achieve the goal at home. On the world stage, the [i]Pax Pacifica[/i] was the final achievement of this foreign policy goal: by tying up all the world powers within Continuum, Pacifica kept major action anywhere in the world within its power. This is a prime example of Justitian philosophy: It was a identity, political, goal-based FP. Paradoxically, at the same time, Pacifica's specific approach depended on lots of clingers-on and base survivalists to buy into its sphere based on a google-eyed pursuit of treaties for treaties' sake. These legions of peripheral alliances with no mind for politics became the enablers and pawns of Pacifica, and their laziness and complicity account for the ability of the Continuum, One Vision, and BLEU to commit the great crimes of the past.
[b]Old GOONS[/b] may have been pursuing politically-based or goal-oriented treaties, but they certainly didn't pursue a plan of an independent, distinguishable power sphere. The UnJust Path was a subset of the World Unity Treaty. What's more, with some person-to-person exceptions, GOONS as an alliance considered itself boon pals with NPO and expected the golden parachute based on friendship and WUT right up to the very end. GOONS is not an example of the practice or failure of this philosophy.
[b]MK [/b]is also not an example of failure of this philosophy. You state that MK (and the others) "had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play" but that is neither a failure nor a refutation of the philosophy I am a proponent of; in fact, it is the result, it is the [u]goal[/u]. Up until MK's MoFA went nuts and torpedoed their treaties, MK's FP was a patchwork quilt. Afterwards, they actually have been much more politically-aware in their FP of "Creative Annihilation" but the friends>infra system they created has constantly gotten in their own way (as you yourself note later in your reply). Azaghul himself--one of MK's last philosophers--has already argued against the friends>infra model that MK created in his essay "[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=75668"]Is "friendship really a great basis for treaties?[/url]" (which is also why it's so hilarious that MK lock-stepper OsRavan still clings so tightly to that mode)
[b]GOD [/b]may itself be politically-minded in FP; for example, their cancellation on GOONS. And, GOD has faced a lot of ire and resistance because of their insistence on this model. But again, getting attacked is not a failure of the philosophy, war--more of it, more often, but smaller--is one inevitable result. In the interest of disclosure, I was burned out and not paying much attention to most of the SuperFriends era, but its failures are writ large.

[quote]These four alliances would very much fit Schattenman's description. These four alliances have had great successes. But each has tasted the pavement just as much as they have enjoyed hegemony to some degree. Each of the four alliances has faced multiple beatdowns for its time in the limelight, and every single one has had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play. This can not be denied. I argue that survival, the ability to survive and grow relatively unimpeded and the ability to influence with the smallest amount of opportunity cost in doing is the most effecient means of achieving ones ends.[/quote]
So, in fact, half of your examples do not fit my description, NPO is a shining example of the success of the model, and GOD could go either way.But, in the end, as I first stated, this entire venture is folly: You have taken [i]your [/i]idea of what constitutes success (in basic terms "stat collecting") noted that [i]my [/i]Voxian/Justitian philsophy does not produce [i]your [/i]idea of success, and is therefore a failure. That is not an argument against the philosophy's viability or superiority. It's an argument that the philosophy doesn't do something that it is not meant to do in the first place. Well: no duh.

[quote]Taking the top ten alliances in the game by score. Removing the two neutral alliances (for fun, because whether you like it or not they actually follow your philosophy better than your best example,) you have IRON, Umbrella, ODN, MHA , GATO, TOP, NPO, NpO (Anarchy Inc. aside because they are simply too young.) Aside from NPO, NpO, Non Grata to a lesser and TOP to a much lesser extent, I believe the other alliances to have been doing quite well despite having many current or previous treaties linked to friendship rather than political expediency. These treaties didn't create their own spheres (and for the love of Xiphosis, Umbrella treating anyone does not a sphere-centric treaty make it,) but were either born[s]e[/s] out of membership or government level friendship. They also served a political purpose, and were fulfilled until that bond broke or a combination of that bond weakening and the bond becoming strenuous occurred at an unobtainable level. If you journey farther down the alliance list, you find many more examples of alliances who have held treaties with alliances in seperate "treaty sets," but have been honored nonetheless.

I also disagree that treaties have to be politically based in order to meet your criterion. For example: The Apparatus defended the Mostly Harmless Alliance on a vastly greater foe in GATO, de-facto declaring on the entire Complaints and Grievances Union. It was not politically expedient for The Apparatus to defend MHA on an ODP, but they had developed what you refer to as "a friendship," based treaty. The Apparatus' identity was one of honor and to defend its allies whom it felt were being unjustly attacked/persecuted. It was political only in that it increased the relatively small alliances standing in the world -- but at the potential cost of devastating losses from a much greater foe whose allies had been known to willingfully disband or encourage the disbandment of smaller alliances for sport. There are many, many more examples of said treaties. For example, R&R and FOK's treaty was a chip stuck in the roof of Pandora's Box's mouth for quite some time. While you claim treaties like this (or one with Int,) serve no purpose, I would beg you to speak to an alliance who dealt in government channels in the previous two wars and how difficult those tiny, insignificant, friendship based treaties made their world -- there are few who question R&R would be hurting much more than it has do to its relationships with Int and FOK. Even a relationship to a completely different bloc can have quite the role in negotiations, potential opportunity when an attack is poorly planned to injure one of the parties assailing the alliance on the receiving end of a curbstomp, or any other imaginable boon.

Sure, these things fail -- often spectacularly over time. We've all seen the fall of eternal treaties. We've seen hell freeze over, and then have seen lingering resentment about Continuum era treaties not being fulfilled on the eve of Karma. I have seen many pontificate on the value of the treaty, but often those doing so do not hold the actual treaty. The treaty itself is what those who hold make of it. Only when one of the alliance bends to the will of others for a more economical relationship does that bond break -- not a moment sooner -- usually at a time when those values change.[/quote]
Again, you've taken a stats-based approach to whether or not illogical treaties work. Of course making lots of friends then signing lots of treaties with lots of people keeps an alliance out of war, and advance [b]your [/b]goals (not mine) of "survival, the ability to survive and grow relatively unimpeded and the ability to influence with the smallest amount of opportunity cost."
But, as you so generously pointed out, if that were the goal of Justitian thought, then I would suggest everyone become neutral. The goal is a more dynamic world that moves faster, moves smaller amounts of NS at once, and increases justice.

In the case of many of those listed AAs, they have entered into short-term political unions. They're generally the AAs at the top (just like NPO as I outlined above) and so they're not really the problem in terms of action, though their methods have required and promoted friends>infra treaties.

After that, you list a couple of red herring instances of friends defending their allies. Shocker. Yes, of course there are times when an alliance will rush headlong into complete obliteration based on nothing but a feeling of obligation to a friend. But that is not the normal.

[quote]Furthermore, there is another inherent flaw with Schatt's proposal.

Every alliance is self-aware to some degree, has an identity, values, and even a philosophy that they do base their actions upon.
That does not mean they are held to the same degree, that identity means as much from one to the other or that values can not be eschewed for expediency. Nor does it mean an alliance has to have a well-document spokesman, frontman, or thirty page essay to have a general guiding philosophy -- whether it be static or dynamic -- and alliances generally do base their decisions on all of these things.

I think to ignore that is quite damaging to your suggestion, Schat. [/quote]
There is a dominant base set of "values" the vast majority of AAs cling to, which is--big surprise here, hold onto your butts--centered around the dominant approach to FA: loyalty, honor, keeping your word, friendship, and whatever other nice words people can think of. VE has been the posterchild for this sort of "identity" and they have also been the posterchild for all the problems associated with it.
"Creative Annihilation" is a philosophy, Francoism is a philosophy, GATO and ODN's religious attachment to democracy is a philosophy. "We will defend our allies to the death" is to philosophy as crayons are to nib pens.

[quote]Unless it explicitly or covertly a joke -- no treaty is without purpose, and certainly that value of purpose varies by signatory, observer and greater planet. Goals are not limited to overextended campaigns that inevitably implode -- they can be much smaller or much more covert than the public peanut gallery would ever know of.[/quote]
More argument of something I never said. I've never said any treaties have no purpose, I've said that the purpose of absent-minded treaties is bad.

[quote]If I didn't know any better I'd say that your philosophy was either flattery or a setup to get certain people to take more credit for their future or past actions than what they deserve before the clock strikes twelve again. [/quote]
If I want accolades or to be flattered, I'll join ODN and call offensive wars defensive, or join International and ignore treaties, or join MK or Non Grata and post people's personal photos on CNtel. The prophet's job is thankless, and I knew that before I moved out here to the Euroslavian Steppe.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130']
If your two arguments flow from this foundation, then your entire premise is flawed and really doesn't justify much of a reply; however, replying is what I do, so: lucky you.
In fact, by reading this opening, I'm not even sure that you understand what I'm arguing against or for. In the most mean terms: I am for more goal-based, politics-centric foreign policies; I am against social treaties, so-called trip-wire treaties, and treaties-as-activity. [/quote]

My premise is drawn from your own.


I've simply argued that they're one in the same. You have identified "social treaties, trip wire treaties, treaties-as-activity" which are as you state "bad," but provide no examples of them. I'm challenging you on the idea that these qualities are entirely subjective. I'm also willing to bet some of your idealogue's hold some of these nefarious treaties depending on perspective.



[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130']
You cite NPO, GOD, MK, and old GOONS as examples of alliances that demonstrate why I'm wrong based on their eventual falls from power and/or grace, but none of these alliances fit your argument. [/quote]

No. I don't cite them as why [i]you're wrong,[/i] per se. I cite them as why your philosophy is not in their best interest -- and that alliances who do signify this philosophy have often faced more often than others the bane of realism -- extinction / the threat of forced disbandment.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
[b]NPO[/b]'s philosophy Francoism calls for control--"bringing order to chaos" being the 2012 update on the 2008 "state of nature" language. Within Pacifica, the various internal structures achieve the goal at home. On the world stage, the [i]Pax Pacifica[/i] was the final achievement of this foreign policy goal: by tying up all the world powers within Continuum, Pacifica kept major action anywhere in the world within its power. This is a prime example of Justitian philosophy: It was a identity, political, goal-based FP. Paradoxically, at the same time, Pacifica's specific approach depended on lots of clingers-on and base survivalists to buy into its sphere based on a google-eyed pursuit of treaties for treaties' sake. These legions of peripheral alliances with no mind for politics became the enablers and pawns of Pacifica, and their laziness and complicity account for the ability of the Continuum, One Vision, and BLEU to commit the great crimes of the past.

[b]Old GOONS[/b] may have been pursuing politically-based or goal-oriented treaties, but they certainly didn't pursue a plan of an independent, distinguishable power sphere. The UnJust Path was a subset of the World Unity Treaty. What's more, with some person-to-person exceptions, GOONS as an alliance considered itself boon pals with NPO and expected the golden parachute based on friendship and WUT right up to the very end. GOONS is not an example of the practice or failure of this philosophy. [/quote]

Your philosophy is flawed in that Francoism only works if the people buy into it. Similarly, the only reason NPO held dominance over tC, et al was because others were more than happy for them to take the lead. Either they had internal matters to look after on their own, or simply weren't interested in taking the lead in-- or at the very latest stages -- participating in those "crimes." This is the disconnect I have with Vox and indeed the old Pacifica in taking much more of the credit/blame than was actually deserved. Vox was a movement, sure, but it was occurring with/without-- Vox just sped it up a little. Similarly, Pacifica filled a vacuum of personality/ability/organization that someone within tC would've assumed had Pacifica not existed. That's not to diminish the accomplishments/crimes depending on perspective -- just to reiterate these things weren't done on the pulpit of Francoism and instead on a collective of alliances interested in being part of the cool group and wielding power.

@Goons I disagree. It's simply an example of how your philosophy can fail alliance despite it being followed.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
[b]MK [/b]is also not an example of failure of this philosophy. You state that MK (and the others) "had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play" but that is neither a failure nor a refutation of the philosophy I am a proponent of; in fact, it is the result, it is the [u]goal[/u]. Up until MK's MoFA went nuts and torpedoed their treaties, MK's FP was a patchwork quilt. Afterwards, they actually have been much more politically-aware in their FP of "Creative Annihilation" but the friends>infra system they created has constantly gotten in their own way (as you yourself note later in your reply). Azaghul himself--one of MK's last philosophers--has already argued against the friends>infra model that MK created in his essay "[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=75668"]Is "friendship really a great basis for treaties?[/url]" (which is also why it's so hilarious that MK lock-stepper OsRavan still clings so tightly to that mode) [/quote]

That post is from late 2009. That post from Azaghul is an OOC post. Given that most of MK's current treaties contradict his essay and he has in fact worked to build those ties as a senior government member of MK through the very structure he has questioned I find it inapplicable. Not because perhaps it's the ideal way of how things should work -- but because it does work. I think you have failed to appreciate the goal based diplomacy of late employed by MK. Nordreich is easily an example of one of those treaties that was either in your words A. Designed for an objective or B. Trip-wire treaty. It can be both, but the way you treat them as not being mutually exclusive is a flaw in your organization of treaties. Every treaty has a purpose -- MK's usually have two or three.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
[b]GOD [/b]may itself be politically-minded in FP; for example, their cancellation on GOONS. And, GOD has faced a lot of ire and resistance because of their insistence on this model. But again, getting attacked is not a failure of the philosophy, war--more of it, more often, but smaller--is one inevitable result. In the interest of disclosure, I was burned out and not paying much attention to most of the SuperFriends era, but its failures are writ large.

So, in fact, half of your examples do not fit my description, NPO is a shining example of the success of the model, and GOD could go either way.But, in the end, as I first stated, this entire venture is folly: You have taken [i]your [/i]idea of what constitutes success (in basic terms "stat collecting") noted that [i]my [/i]Voxian/Justitian philsophy does not produce [i]your [/i]idea of success, and is therefore a failure. That is not an argument against the philosophy's viability or superiority. It's an argument that the philosophy doesn't do something that it is not meant to do in the first place. Well: no duh.[/quote]

Your inclusion of who is/isn't following your principles seems a bit subjective (much like the philosophy in general.) Again, I believe those you have chosen as shining examples of your philosophy (and even the one's I still maintain are examples despite your protest,) only maintain that identity through the willingness of others to allow them to hold it. Your first born son, NPO, is a premier example of that. While much is heralded of "change," and what have you about the Order -- they're still the same red alliance we all love/hate. The only change that occurred was the willingness to allow them back into the political arena when people felt like it was getting a little boring without them. (Additionally, I believe one of those so-called "friendship treaties," which also had a political objective played a very large part in getting them back on track.)


[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
Again, you've taken a stats-based approach to whether or not illogical treaties work. Of course making lots of friends then signing lots of treaties with lots of people keeps an alliance out of war, and advance [b]your [/b]goals (not mine) of "survival, the ability to survive and grow relatively unimpeded and the ability to influence with the smallest amount of opportunity cost."
But, as you so generously pointed out, if that were the goal of Justitian thought, then I would suggest everyone become neutral. The goal is a more dynamic world that moves faster, moves smaller amounts of NS at once, and increases justice. [/quote]

Actually, I argued that the lesser less glamorous alliances you've ignored follow your philosophy better than you give them credit, and it's simply your stubbornness that gets in the way of accepting that they're doing it on a smaller scale and producing tangibly more successful results -- relatively.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
In the case of many of those listed AAs, they have entered into short-term political unions. They're generally the AAs at the top (just like NPO as I outlined above) and so they're not really the problem in terms of action, though their methods have required and promoted friends>infra treaties. [/quote]

Treaties that have served a political purpose, or in line with their own internal character/identity.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
After that, you list a couple of red herring instances of friends defending their allies. Shocker. Yes, of course there are times when an alliance will rush headlong into complete obliteration based on nothing but a feeling of obligation to a friend. But that is not the normal. [/quote]

Do you consider this "normal," a bad thing or the result of alliances employing your philosophy more ruthlessly?

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
There is a dominant base set of "values" the vast majority of AAs cling to, which is--big surprise here, hold onto your butts--centered around the dominant approach to FA: loyalty, honor, keeping your word, friendship, and whatever other nice words people can think of. VE has been the posterchild for this sort of "identity" and they have also been the posterchild for all the problems associated with it.
"Creative Annihilation" is a philosophy, Francoism is a philosophy, GATO and ODN's religious attachment to democracy is a philosophy. "We will defend our allies to the death" is to philosophy as crayons are to nib pens. [/quote]

That misses the point. Each and every alliance has a philosophy that is governed by their own principles -- static or dynamic. Whether or not it has had the OWF name it, or that it publishes it has little to do with whether it exists or not. Claiming that alliances are too simple is in my opinion an ironic assessment.

Also. I don't know what nib pens are.

[size="3"][quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130'][/size]
More argument of something I never said. I've never said any treaties have no purpose, I've said that the purpose of absent-minded treaties is bad.

If I want accolades or to be flattered, I'll join ODN and call offensive wars defensive, or join International and ignore treaties, or join MK or Non Grata and post people's personal photos on CNtel. The prophet's job is thankless, and I knew that before I moved out here to the Euroslavian Steppe.
[/quote]

Of course they are. But you haven't defined what an absent-minded treaty looks or smells like. If I were to agree that absent-treaties are bad, I would hope to be able to point to a given treaty that defines it. I have not that with your philosophy, only that they're somewhere out there and if you're not careful, you just might sign one.

You could always just post a topic about your self created values semi-annually instead.
[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img]

Edited August 25, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Schattenmann]

<DonChele[CoJ]> CN Rhetoric 101
<DonChele[CoJ]> "You're wrong because now I'm going to talk about something else."

Myth, you are once more not responding to what I'm saying.

[quote]Your philosophy is flawed in that Francoism only works if the people buy into it.
. . .
someone within tC would've assumed had Pacifica not existed. That's not to diminish the accomplishments/crimes depending on perspective -- just to reiterate these things weren't done on the pulpit of Francoism and instead on a collective of alliances interested in being part of the cool group and wielding power.[/quote]
I didn't say that The Continuum was Francoist, I said that NPO is Francoist and their foreign policy was Francoist.

I could go on with more examples--I [i]want [/i]to go on--but it's a fool's errand given your penchant to not-answer me, and your apparent continuing inability to understand the goal of this philosophy, and therefore to apply largely NS-related goals to it which are not its native goals, point out its failures to meet those goals, and proclaim it a failure.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Schattenmann

[IYIyTh]

I've said that alliances who follow your philosophy are either A. Not Successful -- to the extent of risking elimination or B. Successful in spite of their philosophy, not because of it. I've provided you with a litany of resources and examples from which to contest if you would but you have not so much debated the fact above so much as wished to avoid that argument entirely.

You claim that more alliances should adopt your philosophy or those of which you value, and in doing so these alliances would be more successful (with the assumption that these seemingly incoherent, incompetent, wavering alliances are not.). The claim that success is in the eye of the beholder is not enough to defend your premise that more alliances should adopt such a philosophy without tangibly justifying it being in their best interest.

I'm challenging your philosophy and instead of defending it you have either chosen to pursue tautology in claiming that it simply is the best because you say so or are not understanding me.

[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]

Edited August 28, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Schattenmann]

No, Myth. The problem is that when I say the goal of something is more war, and then you say that it is not successful because practitioners of it risk war, then there really is nothing to go one with you. Because you don't get it.

Your examples are not examples, and when that was explained, you carried on with weird misunderstandings of what was said. "Francoism only works if people buy into it?" It's been 9 years and literally tens of thousands of people. What am I supposed to say to some pinhead that is going to argue whether or not people "buy into" something that is stronger than and has outlasted everything else?

What is anyone supposed to say to you about foreign affairs when you hold up The International as a positive example when at this very moment their ally is under attack and they are not doing anything about it?

You're not challenging this philosophy, you cannot because you cannot think beyond statistics on the micro level.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Schattenmann

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346163355' post='3025980']
No, Myth. The problem is that when I say the goal of something is more war, and then you say that it is not successful because practitioners of it risk war, then there really is nothing to go one with you. Because you don't get it.

Your examples are not examples, and when that was explained, you carried on with weird misunderstandings of what was said. "Francoism only works if people buy into it?" It's been 9 years and literally tens of thousands of people. What am I supposed to say to some pinhead that is going to argue whether or not people "buy into" something that is stronger than and has outlasted everything else?

What is anyone supposed to say to you about foreign affairs when you hold up The International as a positive example when at this very moment their ally is under attack and they are not doing anything about it?

You're not challenging this philosophy, you cannot because you cannot think beyond statistics on the micro level.
[/quote]


Schat, respond to my posts and then I will let you get away.

You're not even reading my posts. If you go back and actually read them -- you'll find the only mention of The International was by you.

I've offered you several talking points and you've balked on each of them. All of which are based on your original premise that this philosophy is inherently good for an alliance/that it actually does create more war. You restate that your argument is that more people should agree to adopt policies that you claim will make the chance of war more likely. But you stop short of questioning whether it is the "philosophy," that is causes war at all. Furthermore, you belittle alliances you claim don't follow the example but stop short of going into specific details of treaties in the game that don't fit your philosophy.

I've challenged whether philosophy at all makes an alliance great - a la NPO. I would argue that talent and activity are far more greater causes for any success/activism/global stewardship that has come from NPO rather than "Francoism." I've also suggested that without the NPO in the latter bloc years, someone would've taken the reigns to commit the same "crimes," or achieved the same "accomplishments." You fail to acknowledge that the "success," or "failure," of NPO during that area was more likely dependent on the alliances who were allied to it just as much (and arguably much, much more,) as the NPO who was presumably the greatest puppet master in the world. Their foreign policy only works because their allies wanted them to take the lead and had tech/prestige to gain from riding their coattails. Not because of Francoism or the NPO's belief in Francoism. If people outside of the world don't buy into the NPO's vision you claim is shaped by Francoism -- there is no success and you end up with something that looks more like what you claim is MK's "creative annihilation," because it runs out of steam.

You've also flippantly decided that since NPO was considered top dog during that era it is decidedly of all things "Francoism," that allowed their ascent. You relent on some aspects of other examples I gave you in which they very much fit your mold but you've decided that do to an equally subjective measure of how a philosophy advances/detracts from one's position suddenly MK is no longer comparable to the NPO (when in fact they have held very similar FA approaches now and in the past.)

Further, without expounding on whether you've properly identified if it is this "philosophy," that causes more war you've also decided that it is better for alliances to partake in it regardless of if its actual effects on the alliance and we should all just take a lesson from Uncle Schat and trust him.. When I intimated that your sales skills were a little short in this essay and provide examples of how it simply doesn't add up, you reply:

[color="#1C2837"][size="4"]You state that MK (and the others) "had its very existence threatened due to its dynamic play" but that is neither a failure nor a refutation of the philosophy I am a proponent of; in fact, it is the result, it is the [/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="4"][u]goal[/u][/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="4"]. [/size][/color]


That's kind of a hard sell.

I've argued you can achieve more, create more war with risking far less (with examples). I do not feel you've compelled me to consider that philosophy is behind more war so much as talent, willpower, and perceived/actual realism based threats. I've offered tangible examples while you're saying that since I'm using tangible means of comparison (stats, actual treaties, actual FA approach/results,) they are irrelevant or red herring. Your argument that something has been around long does not make it an overarching grand strategy and am left wondering if you even believe in your own philosophy.

Edited August 28, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1346182023' post='3026021']
Schat, respond to my posts and then I will let you get away.

You're not even reading my posts. If you go back and actually read them -- you'll find the only mention of The International was by you. [/quote]
Mythhhhh, must we do this?
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1345723437' post='3024535']
While you claim treaties like this [b](or one with Int,)[/b] serve no purpose,[/quote]
Am I to continue on and one with this, when you don't know your own argument?

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1346182023' post='3026021']
I've challenged whether philosophy at all makes an alliance great - a la NPO. I would argue that talent and activity are far more greater causes for any success/activism/global stewardship that has come from NPO rather than "Francoism."[/quote]
No, you have not. You have argued that every alliance has an identity even if they don't have any outward signs of it.

On and on, that's why I am not getting 6-feet-deep into this with you, because with every reply, you change your argument.

You main criticism seems to be that I have not enumerated this philosophy. This is a matter of myopic vision on your part. I have been outlining and explaining this FP approach for 3 years, most recently, in June: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=93&showentry=3459

You seem almost honest in your ignorance on what exactly I'm advocating despite my 3-year loop, so I'll go over it one more time very quickly:

What is the obvious result of a global system wherein alliances with distinct, reflective identities who are unencumbered by the entanglements of a granny-knot treaty web? To borrow the Eggenberger economist Friedman's term (but not theory, I can't bear economics): A flat world. What does a flat Digiterra look like? No one is unassailable; therefore, everyone is more accountable. No one is tied down; therefore, everyone is more free.

Let's take an alliance [b]with the understanding that the argument is not the alliance itself[/b], (as you've done with NPO, and poorly) but [b]simply [/b]an example: The International. Rather than trying to sign treaties with other commies, be in C&G, and unify a color, an alliance like The International can go from identity diffusion to identity achievement, focusing on goals united by a coherence. They are now free to act when they want to, or when they must, or not to act when they need not. They need not (but could bc it's fun) scheme to get the spice of war, because somewhere, another alliance has its own goals and one day they will come into conflict. [i]BUT[/i], The International need not fear that war and sell short their values or allies to avoid it, because the world is flatter, and they're not going to be faced with 50% of the world's NS. They're just having a bout, and it will end, and someone will have lost and won, and they'll all fight again one day, and they'll do it a lot sooner because the ability to completely decimate The International isn't there in a flat world--neither in terms of NS nor political ability.

Why does anyone want this? Your small horizon view of this is that it is not in the interest of any alliance to propagate a system in which in might face danger. But why is Digiterra dying? Life is not worth living in a bubble; "utopia" only recently came to mean "paradise" its first meaning was a place devoid of pain, yes, but also of pleasure. A nothingness. While we still have the big wars, we do not have the spice that we could have. Fighting for no reason is not fun, siting in peace mode for 4 months is not fun. I've done both, you've done both; you know that's true.

This is a global system, not a matter of alliance charts. Your economic critique, again, belies your failure to come to grips with what I am advocating. Your focus on semantics belies your disinterest in the true intellectual discussion, that is why I'm giving you the brush-off by-and-large.

A flat world is a more just world. It is a more free world. It is a more dynamic world despite the connotations of the word "flat." It is a more engaged world.

It is what everyone says they want. And if you all will have it, you will put aside your lust for stats.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Brehon]

After I get some sleep after the Marathon run on bootleg for celebration I have a snippet of the show I will add here that is a response to Francoism in Myths post. There is a great misunderstanding and an argument of scemantics that is improperly placed.

24 hours of bootleg has left me drain o/

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346217161' post='3026283']
scemantics
[/quote]

Is this supposed to be Schematics or Semantics?

Or is it a portmanteau of them both?

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']
Mythhhhh, must we do this? [/quote]

Well I wanted to. Then it became more than me just poking holes in your philosophy. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif[/img]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']

Am I to continue on and one with this, when you don't know your own argument? [/quote]

I don't know. I know what argument you want to make but I'm simply not making that one. You keep going back to it as if my argument is anything but your philosophy falls short of explaining its necessity or why it should be accepted as if they currently do not have one (which I contest,) or that it's not successful (also contested.)

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']
No, you have not. You have argued that every alliance has an identity even if they don't have any outward signs of it. [/quote]

That's a sub-point in what I found wrong with your philosophy -- you openly indicate that only a select elite minority of the CN community follow your philosophy. I've made the suggestion you've confused identity for an aggressive foreign policy -- or that identity does into whom you consider lesser advanced alliances just as much as their ideals, even if not publicized and dynamic.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']

On and on, that's why I am not getting 6-feet-deep into this with you, because with every reply, you change your argument. [/quote]


I've approached you in conversation and have raised significant doubts as to the strength of your philosophy. Instead of addressing these weaknesses you keep switching gears on me but the weaknesses are still there.


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']
You main criticism seems to be that I have not enumerated this philosophy. This is a matter of myopic vision on your part. I have been outlining and explaining this FP approach for 3 years, most recently, in June: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=93&showentry=3459"]http://forums.cybern...&showentry=3459[/url] [/quote]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112699&view=findpost&p=3024535"]My main criticism[/url] is that you advocate for alliances to adopt "your philosophy," claiming it is a cure-all for the world. I've pointed out that even those who have most closely actively followed such a philosophy to a t (which you've either disputed in part or in whole, granted,) have failed while clutching it. While you've rebutted that success is subjective -- my argument that survival isn't & those who are more attuned to such a philosophy face greater instances of near extinction can not be ignored.

You also belittled those you claim to have not follow(ed,) such a philosophy and suggest any alliance worth their salt should. This is without asking if a system with all alliances acting akin to NPO is even possible or good for the OOC: game /OOC thing . ( Multi Polar worlds eventually shifting to Bi Polar, ultimately Unipolar worlds before the cycle repeats.) I also suggest most alliances actually do follow your philosophy -- but for their own reason with differentiating degrees of aggressiveness depending on leadership quality as well as alliance norms, values, talent, goals, what have you.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']

You seem almost honest in your ignorance on what exactly I'm advocating despite my 3-year loop, so I'll go over it one more time very quickly:

What is the obvious result of a global system wherein alliances with distinct, reflective identities who are unencumbered by the entanglements of a granny-knot treaty web? To borrow the Eggenberger economist Friedman's term (but not theory, I can't bear economics): A flat world. What does a flat Digiterra look like? No one is unassailable; therefore, everyone is more accountable. No one is tied down; therefore, everyone is more free.

Let's take an alliance [b]with the understanding that the argument is not the alliance itself[/b], (as you've done with NPO, and poorly) but [b]simply [/b]an example: The International. Rather than trying to sign treaties with other commies, be in C&G, and unify a color, an alliance like The International can go from identity diffusion to identity achievement, focusing on goals united by a coherence. They are now free to act when they want to, or when they must, or not to act when they need not. They need not (but could bc it's fun) scheme to get the spice of war, because somewhere, another alliance has its own goals and one day they will come into conflict. [i]BUT[/i], The International need not fear that war and sell short their values or allies to avoid it, because the world is flatter, and they're not going to be faced with 50% of the world's NS. They're just having a bout, and it will end, and someone will have lost and won, and they'll all fight again one day, and they'll do it a lot sooner because the ability to completely decimate The International isn't there in a flat world--neither in terms of NS nor political ability.
Why does anyone want this? Your small horizon view of this is that it is not in the interest of any alliance to propagate a system in which in might face danger. But why is Digiterra dying? Life is not worth living in a bubble; "utopia" only recently came to mean "paradise" its first meaning was a place devoid of pain, yes, but also of pleasure. A nothingness. While we still have the big wars, we do not have the spice that we could have. Fighting for no reason is not fun, siting in peace mode for 4 months is not fun. I've done both, you've done both; you know that's true.

This is a global system, not a matter of alliance charts. Your economic critique, again, belies your failure to come to grips with what I am advocating. Your focus on semantics belies your disinterest in the true intellectual discussion, that is why I'm giving you the brush-off by-and-large. [/quote]

Well, it is honest. I wasn't arguing what you've been posting years and years etc, I was/am referring to your philosophy as it exists in the current system. I debated that it was not in any alliances best interest to act more like an "NPO," or "Justitia," in contrast that more should join your ranks.

While I apologize as this is rather trite for the lengthy explanation you've provided, but we're simply not comparing apples and oranges.

You're not advocating for a philosophy but a system change at this juncture, which while definitely interesting -- but not what I am interested in debating or what I originally responded to.
Mostly because I don't think a system change is coming anytime soon -- and thus my focus with attacking your philosophy as it exists -- in this system.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1346216603' post='3026282']
A flat world is a more just world. It is a more free world. It is a more dynamic world despite the connotations of the word "flat." It is a more engaged world.

It is what everyone says they want. And if you all will have it, you will put aside your lust for stats.
[/quote]



There are two assumptions this statement makes and you already know them.

It would require all alliances to simultaneously drop any mechanism they have of defense against more aggressive alliances.

It assumes that it actually would make the world more dynamic and that the system itself is sustaining.

While I could go the route of contrarian and create hypothetical situations where this system either fails to produce more dynamic discussion, intrigue, war or it inevitably reverts back into the old order -- It would be a hypothetical academic exercise.

If you wish to contest that converting to this philosophy is in one's best interest in a system that shuns it (and exists to defend individual alliances against the more aggressive idealogue,) I will be more than happy to -- and freely agree that The International is certainly more free to honor its lessened ties -- but it did so by changing its identity/values/identity for statistical ends and temporary treaty conflict relief (They still have some ways to go,) in a gamble that its new identity/internal values will prove more successful.

Edited August 30, 2012 by IYIyTh