attn world

[Stealthkill]

The treaty web is simple. There's the people R&R is allied to, then there's the people Non Grata is allied to. That covers just about everyone.

[Ardus]

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.

If it placates your fears I could mock them mercilessly, thereby demonstrating confidence that they are indeed no threat.

 

It's a complex world.  A lot of people are potential threats to a lot of other people.

[kerschbs]

The treaty web is simple. There's the people R&R is allied to, then there's the people Non Grata is allied to. That covers just about everyone.

 

I chuckled, this was pretty good. 

[Bob Ilyani]

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.

I feel like his comments reflect more on the divided nature of the "north" rather than the organization of the "south". I mean, its easy to see where the connections between NpO and SF like, or SF and XX, but try doing that with, say, DR and DH and things become a little more difficult.

[Schattenmann]

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.

 

This post adapted with permission from the author Schattenmann (c)2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.  I'm flattered :wub: 

 

The point--my point, your point--is that there are no more than a handful of alliances/politicians which.who can execute "solution" 2 or act as the strongman in your paragraph 2.  So much to the degree that it's not worth discussing in a discussion on the problems with the treaty web, the only people with "diverse" treaties (what a dull word choice, speaking of, more like "schizophrenic," or, "weak-willed") 90% of the time are precisely the people who cannot and will not and, in fact, aren't even seeking to manipulate them, only to rest upon them.

 

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.

 

You get voi, we just have "you."

Edited May 30, 2013 by Schattenmann

[jerdge]

You get voi, we just have "you."

I don't understand.

[Garion]

I don't understand.

 

I think it is some sort of pun related to the Italian language ("you" in English refers to both the 2nd person singular and plural pronoun, while in Italian you have two different pronouns, "tu" and "voi")... But I don't get the pun either.

[jerdge]

Yeah, thanks Garion, I understood that he was talking of the Italian for "you", but I don't understand the pun either... Funny situation. :)

[Max Power]

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.

This is a really good point.

 

As for TIO, they said their goal pre-EQ War was to put DH in its place, and it seemed to work well enough with NPO and NATO on that goal. What its goal is now, I don't know.

 

I feel like his comments reflect more on the divided nature of the "north" rather than the organization of the "south". I mean, its easy to see where the connections between NpO and SF like, or SF and XX, but try doing that with, say, DR and DH and things become a little more difficult.

Things weren't so difficult for DR and DH several months ago. It was self-inflicted! :P

 

This post adapted with permission from the author Schattenmann (c)2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.  I'm flattered :wub:

 

The point--my point, your point--is that there are no more than a handful of alliances/politicians which.who can execute "solution" 2 or act as the strongman in your paragraph 2.  So much to the degree that it's not worth discussing in a discussion on the problems with the treaty web, the only people with "diverse" treaties (what a dull word choice, speaking of, more like "schizophrenic," or, "weak-willed") 90% of the time are precisely the people who cannot and will not and, in fact, aren't even seeking to manipulate them, only to rest upon them.

 

 

You get voi, we just have "you."

I think you've both made a lot of great points but come on, here, it isn't a total citation.

[LegendoftheSkies]

Let us know when you're done so that we can cancel all our current treaties and sign a bunch of new ones and completely ruin everything.

 

EDIT: Oh wait you started this before we left Doomhouse lol.

Edited June 12, 2013 by LegendoftheSkies

[Ardus]

[Ardus]

Mostly MDPs or better; some ODPs included if they, at present, appear to be of particular weight.

 

A number of MDPs omitted simply because they're too much a PITA to put in and/or I forgot them until it was too late and/or I missed them entirely but actually kind of wish I'd put them in, like the DB4D-TORN treaty and NEW entirely.  It's not meant to be exhaustive, but to give the gist of things.

 

Final note, posted the first treaty web in [i]forever[/i] and I get a verbal warn for it.  I swear...

Edited June 12, 2013 by Ardus

[Neo Uruk]

oh geez, we're on that. Pleasant surprise that Ardus either finds us relevant or just remembered us as a recent event.

[IYIyTh]

maybe it was a mistake.

[Prodigal Moon]

That is a great looking chart you've got there. I mean in terms of presentation of course - the information itself is a complete mess and everyone involved in it should be ashamed.

 

But no room to draw a line off to the side of NpO and add CoJ in there? Just a tiny little line, wouldn't get in the way of anything... :ehm:

[Vukland]

What about the TORN-NPL MDoAP

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113720

[jerdge]

Mostly MDPs or better; some ODPs included if they, at present, appear to be of particular weight.
 
A number of MDPs omitted simply because they're too much a PITA to put in and/or I forgot them until it was too late and/or I missed them entirely but actually kind of wish I'd put them in, like the DB4D-TORN treaty and NEW entirely.  It's not meant to be exhaustive, but to give the gist of things.
 
Final note, posted the first treaty web in forever and I get a verbal warn for it.  I swear...

You did a great job, thank you.

The verbal sounds strange... Maybe for "image spam"? (lol)
At any rate you should be able to tell the reason by clicking on your warn level below your avatar.

[Max Power]

Thought NATO was treatied to TIO but not TPF.

 

Wow, the TSI disbandment really severed the last north/south tie.

[Ardus]

Thought NATO was treatied to TIO but not TPF.

 

Wow, the TSI disbandment really severed the last north/south tie.

I hadn't noticed TSI disbanded.  In fact, I only added that treaty today after looking at the CN Wiki pages for [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NADC#Treaties]NADC[/url] and [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sasori_Initiative]TSI[/url].

 

I've been exceedingly busy, so it may be a bit, but next time I look at the .xcf I'll remove TSI and add the other mentioned north/south bridges.  Given the dearth of them, each one is notable enough to get in here.

[Neo Uruk]

I hadn't noticed TSI disbanded.  In fact, I only added that treaty today after looking at the CN Wiki pages for NADC and TSI.
 
I've been exceedingly busy, so it may be a bit, but next time I look at the .xcf I'll remove TSI and add the other mentioned north/south bridges.  Given the dearth of them, each one is notable enough to get in here.

They disbanded today, so it's ok that you didn't notice :v

[Ardus]

What about the TORN-NPL MDoAP

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=113720

 

 

Mostly MDPs or better; some ODPs included if they, at present, appear to be of particular weight.

 

A number of MDPs omitted simply because they're too much a PITA to put in and/or I forgot them until it was too late and/or [b]I missed them entirely but actually kind of wish I'd put them in, like[/b] the DB4D-TORN treaty and NEW entirely.  It's not meant to be exhaustive, but to give the gist of things.

 

Final note, posted the first treaty web in forever and I get a verbal warn for it.  I swear...

 

Also that one is staggeringly awful to draw.  Please cancel it.  You can even have somebody else in that horrifying morass down there pick it up in your stead.  Somebody conveniently located, like MHA or the Apparatus.

[Ardus]

Thought NATO was treatied to TIO but not TPF.

 

Wow, the TSI disbandment really severed the last north/south tie.

TORN has two treaties that also serve that I didn't catch before because you can only sift through the wiki for so long while piddling in GIMP before you go wall-eyed.

[Garion]

NATO-R&R MDoAP is missing. It played an important role in the last two wars, so I thought I'd point it out. Also, R&R-TIO oDoAP. How are we going to fall under NPO's benevolent eye othwerwise?

TPF-Fark, AI-Fark... It seems you're forgetting a whole lot of treaties. Seems almost a pattern, eh?

[Alex987]

Come on Ardus, TPF-TSI but no R&R-NATO or R&R-TIO? :popcorn:

[Neo Uruk]

NATO-R&R MDoAP is missing. It played an important role in the last two wars, so I thought I'd point it out. Also, R&R-TIO oDoAP. How are we going to fall under NPO's benevolent eye othwerwise?

TPF-Fark, AI-Fark... It seems you're forgetting a whole lot of treaties. Seems almost a pattern, eh?

TORN has no treaties on here. He pretty much scribbled what he knew about until it got hilariously tedious.