Declaration from Vox Populi

[Brehon]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1346217377' post='3026284']
Is this supposed to be Schematics or Semantics?

Or is it a portmanteau of them both?
[/quote]

I was tired, shaddap

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346310254' post='3026579']
I was tired, shaddap
[/quote]

Schattenmantics*

[Brehon]

[quote]...lots of previous words.....

[b]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."[/b] [i]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."[/i][b] 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.[/b] [i]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.[/i] [b]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. [/b]

[i]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.[/i] [b]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.)[/b]

[i]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..[/i]

.... more words without substance followed by the actual issue:

[b]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.
... drivel ....
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. [/b][/quote]

[b]Bold Section 1:[/b] Schattenman at no point stated or even hypothesize philosophy on its own creates greatness. Rather he has directly stated, insinuated, postulated and essayed alliances whom have a meaning beyond existing (read philosophy or similar) creates a heavy binding foundation to build existence on so there is deeper meaning. You have repeatedly attempted to sidestep his actual comments so you could make a straw man argument about Francoism (or any baseline philosophy) in his eyes is somehow negating talent, activity, intelligence, charisma, common sense and the ability to work in conjunction with others.

[i]Italicized Section 1:[/i] This comment has no actually meaning or bearing in your argument, its a statement on its own and isn't an answer, counter or meat for the argument you are having.

[b]Bold Section 2:[/b] This is an out and out lie (intentional or not). Schattenman has stated directly our abuse of power was the reason for our fall. What he did add to it however is the NPO was not alone in committing those acts an. Puppet or puppeteer not withstanding, Schatt has called out all responsible parties for their actions and in fact continues to do so for all of the participants in this world to see.

[i]Italicized Section 2:[/i] No, at that time the NPO foreign policy worked because many benefitted from it. Through power of ns and political clout coupled with the tenacity and charisma every alliance involved believed they could keep it going (they being all those involved). Where does Francoism play into this? Better yet where and when did Schattenman state people followed the NPO foreign policy because of NPO's internal philosophy. The ONLY possible claim here is having a unified internal belief caused for NPO leaders to exude confidence and confidence is something people will follow.

[b]Bolded Section 3:[/b] Without repeating how your implied meaning from Schattenman is false, Francoism isn't even required to be bought into by our own people. In fact many/most see it more as a mystical thing from the past. By similar comparison MK's "creative annihilation" doesn't require belief by anyone either.

[i]Italicized Section 3:[/i] Complete fallacy as he stated our rise was because we were focused and had talent which was bound together in a unified philosophy which allows those involved to move more cohesively together. Like I stated early Francoism acted as a binding element.

[b]Bolded Section 4:[/b] Pure poppycock on two levels. First it was never said. Second NPO and MK have not even remotely had the same FA approaches. In addition a philosophy does indeed advance and/or detracts from ones position. Yet again this argument was not made in the way you are presenting it.

[i]Italicized Section 4:[/i] What he has said and written about time and time again, spoke about it on his show and even as I recall has a blog dedicated to it is basically the following: [u]"Alliances must have an identity, a philosophy or anything unique which sets it apart so its members have a reason to feel ownership of it. This thing must be tangible but not necessarily physical".[/u]

[b]Bolded Section 5:[/b] Finally we get to the real issue: You have not remotely comprehended what Schattenman has said. Read the underlined above as that is the actual summary of his writings as I believe any reasonable person would be able to understand.

The blatant misrepresentation of Francoism, lack of understanding how any philosophy enhances any alliance and the amount of filler using my alliance as reference has brought me back to this thread. For clarity let me break this down:

If alliance A and alliance B have the same number of members, same NS, same NS spread, same slots, same activity, same leadership style and attitude - what makes them difference, unique or special?

If you want a class in Francoism, I am today's professor and I am always ready to lecture.

Stop arguing to argue. Stop throwing in random crap to make it look like you have substance.

I will add the media clip in once I finish filtering through the 24 hours of recordings as I don't remember the hour I said it.

I am not taking sides here, wrong is just wrong.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Brehon

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[b]Bold Section 1:[/b] Schattenman at no point stated or even hypothesize philosophy on its own creates greatness.[/quote]

[size="2"][color="#1c2837"]This is part of the larger of Schat's post that I quoted and became the basis of our exchange:[/color][/size]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]"The [b][i]vast majority of treaties signed[/i][/b] 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. [b][i]But most often[/i][/b], 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 [b][i]manipulate dupes[/i][/b] into doing their dirty work. [b][i]Yes, dupes[/i][/b]."[/size][/color]

This insinuates there is a large disdain with what Schat perceives to be the vast majority of alliances, and that these alliances are blind in how they operate. I challenged him here that they are openly cognizant of themselves and their greater policy, just to greater or lesser degrees that are usually dynamic.

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]"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." [/size][/color][b]BUT[/b][color="#1C2837"][size="2"], that is not the same as [/size][/color][i]maintaining [/i][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]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."[/size][/color]

He also claims the model that a select view is superior to the greater whole.[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112699&view=findpost&p=3024535"]I claim[/url] that what the NPO (and I offer multiple examples,) has done, is doing, what have you -- is no different from what anyone else does. Just more aggressive. Further -- that those typifying this mindset, or philosophy, have an arguably greater risk to their existence for following through with it. I also argue that they could not do it with help -- help from people who allow the NPO to achieve its goals because it benefits them -- not because they are dupes, as Schat claims.


[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
Rather he has directly stated, insinuated, postulated and essayed alliances whom have a meaning beyond existing (read philosophy or similar) creates a heavy binding foundation to build existence on so there is deeper meaning. You have repeatedly attempted to sidestep his actual comments so you could make a straw man argument about Francoism (or any baseline philosophy) in his eyes is somehow negating talent, activity, intelligence, charisma, common sense and the ability to work in conjunction with others. [/quote]

Show me where I have side-stepped any of Schatt's comments? For someone who isn't taking a side that's an awfully captious line. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img] Schatt himself will likely defend me, as I'm not exactly side-stepping or avoiding anything...If anything I'm challenging him -- we just have a different idea of what we were discussing on at least one issue. I quoted his last post and he probably thought I was interested in the fourteen page thread. I've just made the observation that a "lack of philosophy," is not what ails the game -- as [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112699&view=findpost&p=3024535"]I also make the point[/url] and contest that all alliances do have a binding foundation, existence, values, and direction.



[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[i]Italicized Section 1:[/i] This comment has no actually meaning or bearing in your argument, its a statement on its own and isn't an answer, counter or meat for the argument you are having.

[b]Bold Section 2:[/b] This is an out and out lie (intentional or not). Schattenman has stated directly our abuse of power was the reason for our fall. What he did add to it however is the NPO was not alone in committing those acts an. Puppet or puppeteer not withstanding, Schatt has called out all responsible parties for their actions and in fact continues to do so for all of the participants in this world to see. [/quote]

If you see the above you will see how my original post (see the first one replying to schattenman and where the discussion begins,) I believe Schat has made a very subjective venture in who he has chosen as an idealogue and that the NPO achieves all with cognizant help, and not lowly peons. Be it within the alliance -- or allies.

Now now, you wouldn't like it if someone called you a liar. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]

I disagree. He has called them dupes. They have no values, no principles, no guiding internal sense of being according to Schattenman. By doing such he appreciates these alliances as willing dupes who fall in line with your foreign policy, (If there are actually dupes then they could not be responsible, or if everyone was a puppetmaster there could be no puppeteering. Academic and really a boring tangental discussion imo so we'll roll on.) and I have contested that they were cognizant and willing individual alliances who had more to gain by taking the ride, allowing you the light, and scurrying when it faded as quickly as possible. A policy that is historically more successful than of the examples I provided earlier (arguably, but this again is not what Schat was getting at -- as we've arrived in his last post -- he's talking system change. I'm saying the philosophy being something all alliances save an elite few are in need of and that it's going to save the world is ...something I and conventional wisdom rails against.)

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[i]Italicized Section 2:[/i] No, at that time the NPO foreign policy worked because many benefitted from it. Through power of ns and political clout coupled with the tenacity and charisma every alliance involved believed they could keep it going (they being all those involved). Where does Francoism play into this? Better yet where and when did Schattenman state people followed the NPO foreign policy because of NPO's internal philosophy. The ONLY possible claim here is having a unified internal belief caused for NPO leaders to exude confidence and confidence is something people will follow. [/quote]

You're right. But that is my argument. NPO's allies were happy and prospered under the system and thus the NPO was allowed to dominate (and therefore went along with/was happy to step in linen with yourselves.) I disagree with Schat (and I'm pretty sure I've intimated in conversation with you at least more than once,) that I don't believe the NPO actually did anything abusive/wrong -- merely that hegemonic decline set in and NPO being the face of it felt the inevitable wrath. It may have sped it up due to some actions, but it was unavoidable. I'm willing to agree that the [i]philosophy[/i] may very well have played a [i]part[/i], but not the[i] only part and certainly not the most significant part[/i]. I'm more partial to arguing that the talent NPO had was more the cause than Francoism. (Undeniably some of the greatest players of our time were in any level of government positions during NPO's reign, and Francoism was not enough to keep those that left before the end,) You might be the hostile to the idea, but I'm indifferent because that is the basis of one of my claims. Francoism therefore played far less a role in NPO's success/crimes/failures what have you than its allies (dupes,) and individual talent (which you contest to some degree?) Thus to my original point in what you exploded, "[b]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." [/b] Schat quite explicitly states that NPO used its internal philosophy to explain its FA actions. I countered that it had very little to do with Francoism and very much to do with what you agree with me on. My difference with Schat and perhaps yourself is that every alliance doesn't already have an identity and that they are in need of change.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1345870183' post='3025130']
[b]NPO'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.[/b] 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. [/quote]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[b]Bolded Section 3:[/b] Without repeating how your implied meaning from Schattenman is false, Francoism isn't even required to be bought into by our own people. In fact many/most see it more as a mystical thing from the past. By similar comparison MK's "creative annihilation" doesn't require belief by anyone either. [/quote]

You're agreeing with me again. Again, I'm not implying -- I'm taking Schat's words literally. I agree with you -- in fact I would wager a good deal of Pacificans don't buy into it. Creative Annihilation is a made up FA strategy that is guided by MK's internal philosophy, whereas Francoism is NPO's internal philosophy that Schattenman states plays a considerable role in NPO's FA policy.
I'm saying that GOD, Old GOONS all exhibited this aggressive form of FA (and I do not credit internal philosophy for that but individual talent/willpower/strength,) and faced a comparable history due to it give or take. This plays into my overarching argument that it is not in the best interest of new alliance to take Schat's advice and begin to adopt a philosophy in the current system. Our argument forks as Schat is advocating for a new System where everyone meets this aggressive style of play whereas I'm more concerned with debunking that it's necessarily a better option in the current system.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[i]Italicized Section 3:[/i] Complete fallacy as he stated our rise was because we were focused and had talent which was bound together in a unified philosophy which allows those involved to move more cohesively together. Like I stated early Francoism acted as a binding element. [/quote]

I don't remember him saying it and if he has it probably was not in line with the discussion we were having. My problem is not so much with Francosim being a binding element so much as the dismissal that every other alliance who Schat states should adopt this philosophy does not have something similar already in place with a different name and less pageantry.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[b]Bolded Section 4:[/b] Pure poppycock on two levels. First it was never said. Second NPO and MK have not even remotely had the same FA approaches. In addition a philosophy does indeed advance and/or detracts from ones position. Yet again this argument was not made in the way you are presenting it.[/quote]

What wasn't said? When you take snippets "it," isn't a good starting point. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112699&view=findpost&p=3025165"]Schat openly said that GOD, old GOONS, MK et al[/url] exhibited some parts of the overarching philosophy. Before this I took his literal definition of what was on the right track of his philosophy and applied it to past and current alliances.

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]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).[/size][/color]

My comment is correct in that you two did have the same FA approaches -- in that you both followed your own internal values/philosophy. (Which if you read my previous posts will make sense to you.) Just as GOONS and GOD do, to their own internal philosophy. They might not have it published or have long essay son the subject -- but it exists -- and is no more or less fitting of his criterion than the NPO. I expounded the argument and suggested that other alliances were achieving relatively better victories -- but Schat insisted success hitherto was subjective and we hit a dead end.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[i]Italicized Section 4:[/i] What he has said and written about time and time again, spoke about it on his show and even as I recall has a blog dedicated to it is basically the following: [u]"Alliances must have an identity, a philosophy or anything unique which sets it apart so its members have a reason to feel ownership of it. This thing must be tangible but not necessarily physical".[/u] [/quote]

I've countered that all alliances have such just to varying degrees and have offered (and he even offered a few,) examples. I disagree in principle that every alliance is not unique unto itself and think that it's hubris to suggest otherwise. I agree it's necessary -- I just think the suggestion alliances adopt it redundant. (They already have it.)

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346313523' post='3026592']
[b]Bolded Section 5:[/b] Finally we get to the real issue: You have not remotely comprehended what Schattenman has said. Read the underlined above as that is the actual summary of his writings as I believe any reasonable person would be able to understand.
[/quote]

I have comprehended Schat and have responded in an undeterred manner. We were discussing a couple of concepts and at least one of them I've identified as a major cause in disparate conclusions between the two of us. I agree that there is certainly a lot of good in what Schattenman writes -- but he underestimates and is far too condescending towards the rest of the game who do not fit his philosophy -- one that I suggest most do and to better avail.

I'm more than willing to continue but for my sanity please don't do the "bold/italic," thing again. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif[/img]

Edited August 30, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Brehon]

/desk /desk /desk /desk

[IYIyTh]

[font=sans-serif][size=2]Sorry, did I say something wrong?[/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"]
[/size][/font]
[font="sans-serif"][size="2"][img]http://icons.iconseeker.com/png/fullsize/quickpix-2005/marvin-paranoid-android.png[/img]
[/size][/font]

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1346310254' post='3026579']
I was tired, shaddap
[/quote]

I was just hoping you had created a new word on purpose

Also this thread has really went downhill.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1346380793' post='3026813']
I was just hoping you had created a new word on purpose

Also this thread has really went downhill.
[/quote]
I'd say its inevitable demise is a step in the right direction. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img]

Edited August 31, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Sephiroth]

MK (GOONS as well) don't seem to be as vocal on the forums as they used to be, maybe they've realized a stomping is likely coming there way and are hoping everyone will forget about rolling them for all they've done if they stay quiet for a while?

At times MK posters will be out in force bragging about being the new hegemony and their ability to get away with starting or manipulating wars to their favor, but whenever their position becomes less stable they seem to shy away from wanting the hegemony spotlight on them and claim to be just one of many poles in a multipolar war. Then of course when their percieved enemies let down their guard and aren't ready for it, then MK will be ready to try destroying their opposition when the odds are in their favor with things like a CB being of no concern to them.

Will those alliances MK sees as a threat focus their attention away from dealing with MK and buy their act of just being just another alliance who needs no special attention paid to them or will the opposition to MK continue trying to strengthen their position over MK until they finally decide to war MK when odds aren't in MK's favor?

I look forward to see how things will eventually kick off.

[Groucho Marx]

Strangely enough, all that "bragging" happens not long after individuals such as yourself post about how we're the "new hegemony". I know you're incredibly dense but even you should know when people are making fun of you. Honestly you should be familiar with it by now.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1346455376' post='3026970']
Strangely enough, all that "bragging" happens not long after individuals such as yourself post about how we're the "new hegemony". I know you're incredibly dense but even you should know when people are making fun of you. Honestly you should be familiar with it by now.
[/quote]
You guys are so cool.

[bkphysics]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1346457523' post='3026976']
You guys are so cool.
[/quote]

Yep, that's why they are the Hipsters.

[Starfox101]

I wish I was cool on the internet.

[JoshuaR]

[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]
It's just as intertwined except some of the usual power structures have had years since that time to continue to sign treaties. Yet I think you are wrong. I see a bipolar world.

[IYIyTh]

Nevermind :|

Edited September 3, 2012 by IYIyTh