The politics of contempt

[Bob Ilyani]

I knew I could count on you to be exhibit A Bob, many thanks

Meh, I'll bite. Do I approach some alliances in the treaty web with contempt? Absolutely. But, and this is something that I'm finding quite glaring amidst these walls of text, I've yet to find any reason why I should not. Does political inaction, rampant inactivity, Facebook diplomacy, poor military planning and a failure to properly co-ordinate not equate to incompetence? Please, let's call a duck a duck.

 

So, which it is, Bob?  It's a shame it's NPO, because they're going to take this personally, but really.  Really.  Tell us how much of a mess EQ was out of the left side of your mouth while telling us how masterful NPO is out of the right one more time.  25 times this week at least, and it's still funny.  Are you guys doing it on purpose, or do you really not see the irony? [hr]

The politics of contempt are at least 3 years old: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/93789-creative-annihilation

I'm not trying anything here, so there isn't really an agenda you can push forth with my statements. If it makes you happy, many of the alliances we fought against last war proved to be quite formidable opponents, competent militarily and quick on their feet. I can't comment much beyond then, but the implication that my statements are pushing forth some sort of agenda is quite false. If I'll be honest, I don't really have the time or energy anymore to be that covert.

[Rush Sykes]

Uh, we did better than a 1:1 damage ratio in the Dave War, I guess your coalition was a complete failure too!

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier.

 

No you didnt. But rather than link you to the appropriate statistics, I suggest you go reread the ASR from that war. This is the only war in CN history where the smaller side outdamaged the bigger side. I love when people keep trumpeting that line that the smaller side always does more damage.

[Ogaden]

No you didnt. But rather than link you to the appropriate statistics, I suggest you go reread the ASR from that war. This is the only war in CN history where the smaller side outdamaged the bigger side. I love when people keep trumpeting that line that the smaller side always does more damage.

Rush you were wrong before, you are wrong now, and I imagine you will continue to be wrong in the future as I predict your reply will also be wrong.

[Rush Sykes]

Rush you were wrong before, you are wrong now, and I imagine you will continue to be wrong in the future as I predict your reply will also be wrong.

 

You keep telling yourself that Sparky. Ive already proven I am right. Now you prove to me that your coalition did more damage than it took. I won't hold my breath, since you cannot prove to be true, something that is totally false.

[Ogaden]

You keep telling yourself that Sparky. Ive already proven I am right. Now you prove to me that your coalition did more damage than it took. I won't hold my breath, since you cannot prove to be true, something that is totally false.

Just as I predicted

[Rush Sykes]

Just as I predicted

In other words, you have no numbers to prove what you say. Unlike me, who had numbers to prove what I said.

[Avakael]

I think Gopherbashi has the relevant numbers in a blog, actually.

[Rush Sykes]

I think Gopherbashi has the relevant numbers in a blog, actually.

 

I dont know if he has a blog of stats from the Dave War (I didnt look)... I took the numbers straight from the daily ASR stats during the war. I did it for every global war since 2008. Not once, until this war... had the smaller side done more damage than the larger side. People like Ogaden (and to be fair, hundreds of others)... have trumpeted for years that the smaller side always does more damage, and rather than confront the actual numbers that show this not to be true, they choose to plug their ears and go "I cant hear you!"

[Azaghul]

Uh, we did better than a 1:1 damage ratio in the Dave War, I guess your coalition was a complete failure too!

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier.

I'd love to see some stats backing this up, but as you've already dodged Rush on that point, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

You're painting 42 alliances - half the NS in the world - with a very broad brush, using a condescending, black-or-white label. That is, you're not saying they're less competent, or flawed, or have certain strengths or weaknesses, or strong alliances and weak alliances, but are just "incompetent" - period.

 

The irony is that it was probably exactly this kind of insulting bs that turned such an enormous coalition against you in the first place. So if you want to keep spitting in our/their faces even after admitting defeat, by all means - please carry on.

 

Because regardless of what you think of EQ, the bottom line is that they won and you lost this time. So does ending up on the losing side mean you're less competent, or is there more to it than that?

The primary reason we lost is because we were outnumbered 2-1.

 

I'm not saying that every alliance in eQ was incompetent, and some were much better or worse than others.  On a personal level, most of the opponents I fought were in AI and weren't half bad.  But overall, there was a significant difference in the average quality of the alliances on each side.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Azaghul

[Zacharias]

You're painting 42 alliances - half the NS in the world - with a very broad brush, using a condescending, black-or-white label. That is, you're not saying they're less competent, or flawed, or have certain strengths or weaknesses, or strong alliances and weak alliances, but are just "incompetent" - period.

 

incompetent

 

 [ in kómpət'nt ]   

 

1. bad at doing something: lacking the skills, qualities, or ability to do something properly

 

 

Calling Equilibrium anything other than incompetent is almost as big of a lie as the "Attack on one is attack on all" mantra trumpeted throughout the war.

 

The indisputable fact is every alliance in Equilibrium had an agenda. Whether it was to kick another alliance in the groin or minimize the amount of damage received, it doesn't matter. These agendas consistently interfered with each other. This resulted in a disorganized, and now more evident after the war, a very divided coalition, hence "Incompetent"

Edited May 31, 2013 by Zacharias

[salsabeast1]

Equilibrium was different then other wars, simply because of the fact so many alliances were throwing themselves(Well, their upper tiers) to an alliance with mega-tech. Umbrella was simply getting raped, until majority of their nations hit ZI point and their NS remaining was tech. No other war was similar in that way. If you feel it was a stalemate, then why did you surrender?

[Alex987]

I find a lot of conflicting statements on why people think some alliances are incompetent though. Some say it is because the Equilibrium alliances are sheep and that they do not have the conviction to act on their own and with force. Others say that it is because Equilibrium was divided with multiple agendas and the lack of a uniting vision. And yet some manage to say both. How can these views coexist at all? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Prodigal Moon]

I'd love to see some stats backing this up, but as you've already dodged Rush on that point, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

The primary reason we lost is because we were outnumbered 2-1.

 

I'm not saying that every alliance in eQ was incompetent, and some were much better or worse than others.  On a personal level, most of the opponents I fought were in AI and weren't half bad.  But overall, there was a significant difference in the average quality of the alliances on each side.

Right, but I mean, politically speaking, is it a reflection of competence if a group ends outnumbered 2-1? That's all I'm (rhetorically) asking.

 

@Zacharias: It's odd to me that you would use differing agendas between members as evidence of (in)competence. If anything I think that would be more of an excuse for under-performance, not evidence of a lack of skill or quality.

 

Edit: In/efficiency probably would've been a better term. Or at least one better suited to describing organizations (if that's what you mean) rather than competence, which is more of a personal characteristic.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Prodigal Moon

[Neo Uruk]

Equilibrium was different then other wars, simply because of the fact so many alliances were throwing themselves(Well, their upper tiers) to an alliance with mega-tech. Umbrella was simply getting raped, until majority of their nations hit ZI point and their NS remaining was tech. No other war was similar in that way. If you feel it was a stalemate, then why did you surrender?

And here we are comparing wars to rape. Thank you, salsabeast, for being worse than the Spartans (I think? Sorry if I'm wrong Sparta) who were using homophobic slurs a while back.  Surely this will improve the general consensus among anyone worth anything that you're a complete moron.

I find a lot of conflicting statements on why people think some alliances are incompetent though. Some say it is because the Equilibrium alliances are sheep and that they do not have the conviction to act on their own and with force. Others say that it is because Equilibrium was divided with multiple agendas and the lack of a uniting vision. And yet some manage to say both. How can these views coexist at all? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What theyre saying is some alliances had an agenda, but were too weak-minded to even try to push it until NPO came along and gave them the NS they needed (lol) to carry out the war.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Sniper Joe]

Equilibrium was different then other wars, simply because of the fact so many alliances were throwing themselves(Well, their upper tiers) to an alliance with mega-tech. Umbrella was simply getting raped, until majority of their nations hit ZI point and their NS remaining was tech. No other war was similar in that way. If you feel it was a stalemate, then why did you surrender?

 

Just because Umbrella could have kept fighting doesn't mean it wouldn't have been an enormous disservice to our allies to keep the war going. We try not to be horrible allies.

 

[Proest]

This notion that Umbrella was being torn apart is only partially true. While our infrastructure was reduced to almost nothing across the alliance, we still had money to rebuy after the war, because infrastructure isn't as important as technology is. And we still have one of the highest amounts.

 

What I'm saying is that your argument is funny. And by 'your' I am saying anyone in this thread that said we were dying horribly (salsabeast maybe?). I cba reading anything past a few posts I skimmed through because frankly I don't give a shit.

 

Anyway, the whole 'competence' versus 'incompetence' thing is silly, admittedly, but what else is there to do other than laugh at the mistakes of your opponents?

 

And the word I've read from multiple alliances from Equilibrium post war paints a picture of a fucking god awful coalition to work within. And that's not just from allies or close friends.

 

Peace.

[D34th]

The primary reason we lost is because we were outnumbered 2-1.

 

Isn't it the primary reason to explain the defeat of one side of every global war in cyberverse? Never the small side won a global war or if ever happened I honestly can't remember. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by D34th

[salsabeast1]

Just because Umbrella could have kept fighting doesn't mean it wouldn't have been an enormous disservice to our allies to keep the war going. We try not to be horrible allies.

 

I didn't mean the surrender towards Umbrella, as you guys could easily fight for many months and kick ass. Your "surrender" was really for CnG/Dino/GOONS etc.

 

What I'm saying is that your argument is funny. And by 'your' I am saying anyone in this thread that said we were dying horribly (salsabeast maybe?).

Clearly you skimmed through and mis-interpreted. I said in the opening weeks when NS lost was mainly infra based, Umbrella was losing. After that, it was Umbrella's war completely and Umbrella dominated. Your point about tech > infrastructure is entirely my point.

 

And here we are comparing wars to rape. Thank you, salsabeast, for being worse than the Spartans (I think? Sorry if I'm wrong Sparta) who were using homophobic slurs a while back.  Surely this will improve the general consensus among anyone worth anything that you're a complete moron.

Yes, because rape was meant as a non-consensual sexual act when I said it, continue being an agenda driven faceless idiot.

[Alex987]

Also the statements from multiple people saying that Equilibrium was incompetent due to its inactivity and inability to maximize use of a 2-1 statistical advantage are silly and deliberately propagandistic.

 

A large portion of that is due to the nature of such alliances - that Equilibrium had a lot of low Average NS alliances that recruited. And when you're an alliance that actively recruits rather than maintains a small core of members, taking additional numbers with the understanding that some will naturally not be very active is part of the tradeoff. A sizable portion of the reason why Equilibrium had a 2-1 advantage is because that was the payoff of accepting the truth that the average activity would be less. It's a simple acceptance of more quantity that inevitably dilutes the quality.

 

So when people act befuddled that Equilibrium had a 2-1 advantage AND the members on average weren't as active as their opponents, well no shit. Who the hell wouldn't have predicted that? Maybe you can run a large recruiting alliance and pull off the same activity as a small core of high tier nations. It's not an indication of incompetence, it's accepting the natural tradeoff that happens when you run a different style alliance.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Alex987

[Neo Uruk]

I didn't mean the surrender towards Umbrella, as you guys could easily fight for many months and kick ass. Your "surrender" was really for CnG/Dino/GOONS etc.

 

Clearly you skimmed through and mis-interpreted. I said in the opening weeks when NS lost was mainly infra based, Umbrella was losing. After that, it was Umbrella's war completely and Umbrella dominated. Your point about tech > infrastructure is entirely my point.

 

Yes, because rape was meant as a non-consensual sexual act when I said it, continue being an agenda driven faceless idiot.

Find yourself a thesaurus then. You can't tell me someone who's led an alliance can't find a better word for "we won" than "we raped them."

 

Also, GOONS didn't need an out. We were actually winning our front for the most part.  Stop talking if you have no clue what you're doing it about.

Also the statements from multiple people saying that Equilibrium was incompetent due to its inactivity and inability to maximize use of a 2-1 statistical advantage are silly and deliberately propagandistic.

 

[b]A large portion of that is due to the nature of such alliances[/b] - that Equilibrium had a lot of low Average NS alliances that recruited. And when you're an alliance that actively recruits rather than maintains a small core of members, taking additional numbers with the understanding that some will naturally not be very active is part of the tradeoff. A sizable portion of the reason why Equilibrium had a 2-1 advantage is because that was the payoff of accepting the truth that the average activity would be less. It's a simple acceptance of more quantity that inevitably dilutes the quality.

 

So when people act befuddled that Equilibrium had a 2-1 advantage AND the members on average weren't as active as their opponents, well no shit. Who the hell wouldn't have predicted that? Maybe you can run a large recruiting alliance and pull off the same activity as a small core of high tier nations. It's not an indication of incompetence, it's accepting the natural tradeoff that happens when you run a different style alliance.

Yes, alliances in EQ are incompetent, I feel like we've covered that.

[Alex987]

There you go, don't let me dare take you off message. Keep touting the same line, you're really getting inside my head ;)

[Ogaden]

Find yourself a thesaurus then. You can't tell me someone who's led an alliance can't find a better word for "we won" than "we raped them."

 

Also, GOONS didn't need an out. We were actually winning our front for the most part.  Stop talking if you have no clue what you're doing it about.

Yes, alliances in EQ are incompetent, I feel like we've covered that.

 

Rey, GOONS was under 1k average NS by the war's end.

[smurthwaite]

GOONS was so beat up I couldn't find a target. 

 

As for an agenda, NPL had one.  Nuke Goons.  The opportunity came and we took it.

 

But, I guess Goons was winning. 

 

Smurthwaite looks around and is embarrassed to find himself in the fiction section, when he clearly thought he was in the political science section of the book store.

[Neo Uruk]

Rey, GOONS was under 1k average NS by the war's end.

Yet, we didn't need an out.

 

And let's not pretend NPL didn't need assistance.

[Starfox101]

GOONS was so beat up I couldn't find a target. 

 

As for an agenda, NPL had one.  Nuke Goons.  The opportunity came and we took it.

 

But, I guess Goons was winning. 

 

Smurthwaite looks around and is embarrassed to find himself in the fiction section, when he clearly thought he was in the political science section of the book store.

You fool. They wanted a sub-1k average NS, and you clearly played right into their plan. They won by setting incredibly low standards for victory.