attn world

[Ardus]

LMAO This is great. I lol'd so hard

 

Ardus, I still have your 'world according to ardus' treaty web drawing. That was a really good map >_>, and honestly, the web hasn't deviated a whole lot from it today.

 

 

Heck, I still use it when I need to see who's allied to who. Just kidding, but it was well done and I commend you for it.

That thing is woefully inaccurate and inadequate in the present day.  Please stop using it. :(

 

As to the why one north, why one south question--no reason.  That's just how the new doodle panned out.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Ardus

[Letterkenny]

I want to see where Kashmir fits into this thing. Probably as an ill informed line connecting us to NSO but whatever. NSO are such qts.

Sup sexy?

[Caladin]

And then, dotted around, and ever loved by Ardus for the lack of lines, where the neutrals.

[Max Power]

I actually don't include treaties that "don't count" and alliances that "don't matter".  You'd be surprised at how many treaties count.

 

And there is a very clear "north" and "south" right now.  But each of those regions is its own compartmentalized mess.  Down south you have SF/XX/Chestnut/Aftermath/Sentinel/NpO; no alliance in that mass has initiated a major war in recent memory, only followed the lead of some other provocateur or defended.  Also, four blocs overlap one another.  Up north you have DH/C&G/Aztec/DR/NPO/TOP/MI6, wherein most component parts of that mess hate most of the other component parts, such that nothing in it can readily project power at present.  There are some ODPs connecting those two groups that played a role in the last war but are diminished in the present atmosphere.

 

Amusingly enough, TIO might be one of the better connected alliances right now, with treaties leading to C&G (GATO), DR (IRON, Argent), NPO (sphere unto itself), and Aztec (-->LOSS-->DT).  No one alliance down south carries connections vital to the rest of the group--there are a zillion redundant treaties, possibly because nobody up north wants a thing to do with them.

How did MI6 get its own entry in the north side that quickly?

 

Also, these sides seem basically the same as before EQ. Wow.

[Neo Uruk]

How did MI6 get its own entry in the north side that quickly?

 

Also, these sides seem basically the same as before EQ. Wow.

MI6 has a position because they aren't deemed "toxic" by a good majority of those at the north side

[chefjoe]

 "if" you try? :v:

Yep. I havent even really made huge efforts yet to severely entangle the web. Not saying I havent put efforts into Valhalla's FA(because I have, and am still doing so) but not with the express intent of creating a knotted clusterfuck. If I truly 'tried' to create a politically entangled web cluster, I have no doubt I could pull it off much to the hair pulling exacerbation of any/all involved(including myself), but that isnt one of my 'goals' for Valhalla's FA, nor Planet Bobs web(which is already enough of a Gordian knot). So yep my statement above stands with the statement/caveat of "IF" I tried with that express intent in mind as a goal(which although sounding fun, isnt worth the headaches it would entail and politically untenable positions it would put my alliance in) ;)

 

CJ

Edited May 26, 2013 by chefjoe

[Ardus]

How did MI6 get its own entry in the north side that quickly?

Because they're my ally and I am, against all good reason, a diplomat.

[Avakael]

Yep. I havent even really made huge efforts yet to severely entangle the web. Not saying I havent put efforts into Valhalla's FA(because I have, and am still doing so) but not with the express intent of creating a knotted clusterfuck. If I truly 'tried' to create a politically entangled web cluster, I have no doubt I could pull it off much to the hair pulling exacerbation of any/all involved(including myself), but that isnt one of my 'goals' for Valhalla's FA, nor Planet Bobs web(which is already enough of a Gordian knot). So yep my statement above stands with the statement/caveat of "IF" I tried with that express intent in mind as a goal(which although sounding fun, isnt worth the headaches it would entail and politically untenable positions it would put my alliance in) ;)

 

CJ

 

Yeah so does everyone else bud and then everyone has their 3 or 4 (on average) connections designed with the intention of not fucking everything up, but with 80 alliances that's 180-240 treaties not including blocs, and then the treaty web already looks like someone's sprayed silly string everywhere and then you actually have to go to war and all you have around you is this goddamn silly string and so most of the war just winds up being everyone throwing all the silly string in each others faces on the OWF because how dare you be tied to x because x is objectively awful in every conceivable way that I can think of let me just jackboot this blue silly string I found over here into your face and by the way you're responsible for all the horrible things because you've got ties to a b c and are fucking it up with your goddamn ties to nowhere and we're just sitting back here with ties to x y z just doing our thing and only defending x y z and we couldn't possibly be contributing to the mess with just x y z because they're real friends and our homosexual agenda silly string is clearly more wholesome than your homosexual agenda silly string.

 

God damn it fuck everyone ever :psyduck:

Edited May 26, 2013 by Avakael

[brucemania]

lol .. could be worse you could have to make a map of ... well maybe not lol ...

[Ardus]

Yeah so does everyone else bud and then everyone has their 3 or 4 (on average) connections designed with the intention of not fucking everything up, but with 80 alliances that's 180-240 treaties not including blocs, and then the treaty web already looks like someone's sprayed silly string everywhere and then you actually have to go to war and all you have around you is this goddamn silly string and so most of the war just winds up being everyone throwing all the silly string in each others faces on the OWF because how dare you be tied to x because x is objectively awful in every conceivable way that I can think of let me just jackboot this blue silly string I found over here into your face and by the way you're responsible for all the horrible things because you've got ties to a b c and are fucking it up with your goddamn ties to nowhere and we're just sitting back here with ties to x y z just doing our thing and only defending x y z and we couldn't possibly be contributing to the mess with just x y z because they're real friends and our homosexual agenda silly string is clearly more wholesome than your homosexual agenda silly string.
 
God damn it fuck everyone ever :psyduck:

I've seen traffic collisions that looked better than this post.

[Avakael]

I've seen traffic collisions that looked better than this post.

I structured it like our treaty web.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I am in the process of constructing a suitable diagram for the extrapolation of bilateral relations between the top 12 non-neutral Alliances. This chart, which is colloquially referred to as a 'shipping wall' will provide a clear and straightforward means of expressing your individual perception of inter-Alliance relations, and (potentially) provide an indication of how you wish these to change in the near future.

 

All that is missing are suitable images for the population of each table.

[Roadie]

I just want you to know that I'm trying to doodle a treaty map for my personal use and, after some time at it, I've determined that I hate you all so very, very much.  This thing is an irredeemable mess and I will have my revenge on all (myself excluded) who had a hand in making it this way.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Ardus

 

Only way to fix it is to politically isolate MK, NPO, NG and CnG. 

 

I commend you sir on taking such a task upon yourself.

[Master Hakai]

I agree with you ardus but there's a lot of tardbaskets who like it the way it is. tardbaskets

[Prodigal Moon]

Can't hate on us for this one :smug:

[Ardus]

Can't hate on us for this one :smug:

can't argue

[Mompson]

Yeah I tried drawing one a while back that didn't turn out well at all.

 

And for some reason, I imagine all of the spheres in a specific position in my head, and these positions shift when treaties are signed or cancelled.

[Schattenmann]

I actually don't include treaties that "don't count" and alliances that "don't matter".  You'd be surprised at how many treaties count.

 

And there is a very clear "north" and "south" right now.  But each of those regions is its own compartmentalized mess.  Down south you have SF/XX/Chestnut/Aftermath/Sentinel/NpO; no alliance in that mass has initiated a major war in recent memory, only followed the lead of some other provocateur or defended.  Also, four blocs overlap one another.  Up north you have DH/C&G/Aztec/DR/NPO/TOP/MI6, wherein most component parts of that mess hate most of the other component parts, such that nothing in it can readily project power at present.  There are some ODPs connecting those two groups that played a role in the last war but are diminished in the present atmosphere.

 

Amusingly enough, TIO might be one of the better connected alliances right now, with treaties leading to C&G (GATO), DR (IRON, Argent), NPO (sphere unto itself), and Aztec (-->LOSS-->DT).  No one alliance down south carries connections vital to the rest of the group--there are a zillion redundant treaties, possibly because nobody up north wants a thing to do with them.

See, here's the entire problem wrapped up tidy: You kvetch about how tangled everything is, then call TIO "one the better connected" alliances because their treaties go all over. 

Everyone connecting to everything results in tectonic-scale stagnation with extreme "earthquake" action every few decades while people like you whine about the mess and stagnation out of one side of your mouth and dictate more treaties out of the other.

[Ardus]

See, here's the entire problem wrapped up tidy: You kvetch about how tangled everything is, then call TIO "one the better connected" alliances because their treaties go all over. 

Everyone connecting to everything results in tectonic-scale stagnation with extreme "earthquake" action every few decades while people like you whine about the mess and stagnation out of one side of your mouth and dictate more treaties out of the other.

You'd get more traction if you didn't seek fights based on word choice in an OOC forum.  No doubt one can just as easily lambaste TIO for being a divergent mess, especially given their historical inability/unwillingness/etc to project using those treaties, rather than merely attempt to react to the irreconcilable demands they create when one does indeed fail to assert.  Given this is the "if you're a dick here you're actually a dick" part of the forum, I was trying to be nice.

 

Being diversely connected is a two-edged sword.  Either an alliance can pull the groups together to a single cause and, by doing so, project its will onto others or it can't, those groups rip it apart in different directions, and the alliance suffers, becoming a laughing stock and the object of your considerable scorn.  The problem then isn't so much that there are people with diverse treaties, it's that there are too many centers that can't keep all their spokes rolling in the same direction.

 

The answer to the problem is two-fold.  One is to work towards slashing treaties so that the whole web is less cluttered with agreements that are in reality mutually exclusive.  However, as I've learned through personal experience, people tend to be attached to treaties, which isn't a bad thing, as the alternative would be treaties even more meaningless than the ones we have today.  But that leaves us with the TIO's of the world, who don't have any particular desires of which I'm aware (probably because I have little meaningful interaction with them, tbh) that can bring all their connected interests together; we get alliances that couldn't possibly fulfill all their commitments save through incredible luck and/or the hard work of others.  I mean, prove me wrong TIO--get your boys and roll somebody.  And don't tell me you don't want to, that answer only reaffirms the above analysis.

 

The other part to the answer, paradoxically enough, might be more treaties, such that a functional core is formed that can organize the masses.  Right now there isn't one, nor do I see any party both interested and capable of stepping up to the plate in North Web.  South Web could be readily enough organized by cooperation between Polaris, RIA, and FARK.  This could be a single alliance, but is more often a small group, such as DH or NPO/AI/GOD, to use examples from recent history--a group of people who, once they themselves can reach agreement on goals, can readily enough convince their distinct networks to jump on board.

 

In any event the goal is the simple:  that people group up such that their interests align.  Too often people sign a treaty with the caveat that, though A will defend B if B is hit, A won't defend B's friend C if C is hit.  While non-chaining is a nice insurance against abject stupidity, wholesale indifference by A to his proximate ally in C achieves a limited disregard for the interests of B, who must share some interest with C or else they wouldn't have the damn treaty.  A, B, and C must, on some level, have a common interest and be open to practical alignment together, if only under the common banner of B, or else be flogged for creating problems that none of them can elegantly resolve.  North Web is a torrid mess of "A & B, and B & C, but not A & C", and that's where you (and I, as evidenced by this thread) get crotchety.

 

None of this is resolved unless people are willing to change and set aside emotions past, both hatreds and friendships.  An alliance that clings to everything past is a static alliance, and it will be crushed, without exception, by those willing to move.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ardus

[Ogaden]

The north/south situation might have been clear cut about a year ago in the aftermath of Grudge, but it's more murky now and getting murkier.

[Ogaden]

double post

Edited May 29, 2013 by Ogaden

[Ardus]

The north/south situation might have been clear cut about a year ago in the aftermath of Grudge, but it's more murky now and getting murkier.

No doubt; I'm over-simplifying things for the sake of easier conversation.

[Ogaden]

Letting go of the past and grudges is great, but it's a two way street, someone powerful having a grudge against you and embargoing your diplomatic efforts can be as immobilizing as having a grudge against someone else or refusing to change your circumstances.

[jerdge]

I already had the temptation to say that, to my knowledge, at no point in time Ardus has been seen whining because of the political situation (or in general, for that matter).
But after that brilliant post I feel compelled to both praise him for it, and to complain that he posted it two pages into a funneth kind of thread, instead of giving it the spotlight (its own thread) it deserved.
It should be edited into the OP.

[D34th]

You'd get more traction if you didn't seek fights based on word choice in an OOC forum.  No doubt one can just as easily lambaste TIO for being a divergent mess, especially given their historical inability/unwillingness/etc to project using those treaties, rather than merely attempt to react to the irreconcilable demands they create when one does indeed fail to assert.  Given this is the "if you're a dick here you're actually a dick" part of the forum, I was trying to be nice.

 

Being diversely connected is a two-edged sword.  Either an alliance can pull the groups together to a single cause and, by doing so, project its will onto others or it can't, those groups rip it apart in different directions, and the alliance suffers, becoming a laughing stock and the object of your considerable scorn.  The problem then isn't so much that there are people with diverse treaties, it's that there are too many centers that can't keep all their spokes rolling in the same direction.

 

The answer to the problem is two-fold.  One is to work towards slashing treaties so that the whole web is less cluttered with agreements that are in reality mutually exclusive.  However, as I've learned through personal experience, people tend to be attached to treaties, which isn't a bad thing, as the alternative would be treaties even more meaningless than the ones we have today.  But that leaves us with the TIO's of the world, who don't have any particular desires of which I'm aware (probably because I have little meaningful interaction with them, tbh) that can bring all their connected interests together; we get alliances that couldn't possibly fulfill all their commitments save through incredible luck and/or the hard work of others.  I mean, prove me wrong TIO--get your boys and roll somebody.  And don't tell me you don't want to, that answer only reaffirms the above analysis.

 

The other part to the answer, paradoxically enough, might be more treaties, such that a functional core is formed that can organize the masses.  Right now there isn't one, nor do I see any party both interested and capable of stepping up to the plate in North Web.  South Web could be readily enough organized by cooperation between Polaris, RIA, and FARK.  This could be a single alliance, but is more often a small group, such as DH or NPO/AI/GOD, to use examples from recent history--a group of people who, once they themselves can reach agreement on goals, can readily enough convince their distinct networks to jump on board.

 

In any event the goal is the simple:  that people group up such that their interests align.  Too often people sign a treaty with the caveat that, though A will defend B if B is hit, A won't defend B's friend C if C is hit.  While non-chaining is a nice insurance against abject stupidity, wholesale indifference by A to his proximate ally in C achieves a limited disregard for the interests of B, who must share some interest with C or else they wouldn't have the damn treaty.  A, B, and C must, on some level, have a common interest and be open to practical alignment together, if only under the common banner of B, or else be flogged for creating problems that none of them can elegantly resolve.  North Web is a torrid mess of "A & B, and B & C, but not A & C", and that's where you (and I, as evidenced by this thread) get crotchety.

 

None of this is resolved unless people are willing to change and set aside emotions past, both hatreds and friendships.  An alliance that clings to everything past is a static alliance, and it will be crushed, without exception, by those willing to move.

 

If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd say that you are trying to make people believe that the south part of the web, a division that yourself created, is much more organized than the north pole and it should be considered a threat to north pole, therefore north pole alliances should put aside old grudges and pursue a common objective: Roll XX/SF/NpO.