Global Feudalism: An analysis of the decay of global politics from a Francoist perspective

[Dexomega]

There is no denying that NPO's rule was helped along by the singular vision of several individuals. This rule was also helped along by policies and ideologies that these individuals manufactured.

The need to rebel against this antagonistic vision brought together a number of political leaders and alliance to fight the hegemony. Once the hegemony was gone, no ideology or vision existed. So instead of a new ideology or power rising, the alliances established a policy of independence, where Alliances weren't constrained by a greater power. This, in turn, led to multiple power spheres.

Whether this was the result of the ideology or the individuals, I don't know.

[Cortath]

 
 Explain to me why "Roll neutrals" isn't going to work because it holds no "basis in reality"

That's not really an answer to my question. I'm not presently advocating any particular policy. I'm merely stating that Francoism, as an ideology, is a materialist one -- we base our analyses of the world off of reality, or what is really happening. You seem to be implying that Francoism isn't based in "reality" and that the "reality" you choose to look at is somehow different than that which Francoism examines. If you'd care to address those issues, I'd be most obliged.

[Neo Uruk]

That's not really an answer to my question. I'm not presently advocating any particular policy. I'm merely stating that Francoism, as an ideology, is a materialist one -- we base our analyses of the world off of reality, or what is really happening. You seem to be implying that Francoism isn't based in "reality" and that the "reality" you choose to look at is somehow different than that which Francoism examines. If you'd care to address those issues, I'd be most obliged.

No, I was asking what he thought the "reality" of CN was given that he said Mushlim ideology (which is chaotic) has no basis in "reality". He gave a retort that really didn't answer my question, and you posed the question.

My perception of "reality," in this setting, is that which can be manipulated to your advantage. ie, the stats and treaties. MQ has no treaties, but they certainly have stats. Their ideology is based on using those stats to purge those who do not follow their religion.

[Groucho Marx]

My alliance takes its Francoism seriously. It's not a philosophy that recognizes or needs any sort of OOC/IC dividing line.

 

lol

[New Frontier]

Francoism is probably the most depressing thing I've ever seen. It's an ideology (in the most generous sense of the word) that led to bitter and twisted people literally thinking they got to decide who was "allowed" to play this game. You people literally paid actual real dollars from your personal bank accounts in order to purchase real life versions of your alliance's flag to legitimately hang in your physical, 100% RL homes.

[New Frontier]

Also, it's hilarious that your thesis appears to be "MK didn't rule as long as NPO did because they didn't have an ideology" considering MK's time in the driver's seat of this game was longer than NPO's.

[Helium]

Francoism was obviously a failed ideology since Pacificans fell behind in economic development and never recovered in the upper tiers, allowing MK and friends to reign supreme. Sure, NPO has outlasted MK, but it's a ghost of it former self, clinging to its past. Its ideology has grown increasingly irrelevant in the past few years.

[Branimir]

Francoism was obviously a failed ideology since Pacificans fell behind in economic development and never recovered in the upper tiers, allowing MK and friends to reign supreme. Sure, NPO has outlasted MK, but it's a ghost of it former self, clinging to its past. Its ideology has grown increasingly irrelevant in the past few years.

 

NPO lost the upper tier due to wars and reps after "karma". It was a deliberate move by its IC enemies to not allow NPO an upper tier to have. It was smart. Prior to that, NPO was a blob of over 20plus million strength size which nobody will ever match again, and it took the collective effort of majority of the planet to grind it down. 

 

NPO indeed outlasted mk. NPO indeed outlasted lue. NPO will outlast any other installment of the similar thing. Community strength required for such a feat, in part, must be given to guiding ideology of such a group of people. They obviously showed superior stability, continuity, in short strength. NPO lived thru the sunny days, and the rainy. Never fled to the moon, nor turn dolphin. Despite being hated with passion.

 

Is today's NPO a ghost of former self, is obviously debatable. Certainly as always in its history if not under the biggest reps, NPO is among the strongest of alliance in game by NS. It is a mass recruiting alliance, so its stats may not be "elitist enough", but for a mass recruiting alliance NPO always delivered. It is not a political juggernaut, but it certainly isn't irrelevant either. In conclusion, maybe not on par with its most glorious days, NPO aint no joke by any means.

 

Its ideology indeed, isn't as outspoken as previous years. Certainly, that can be directly related to the fact that certain players went inactive. It though, doesn't mean that principles arent still there and present. NPO is still going strong as all these years.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Branimir

[NoMercy]

In my opinion NPO rises and falls with its enemies not its philohophy. 

 

In the Q time NPO was weakened by the lack of enemies. They tried to compensate that by "searching" enemies (like GPA for that matter). People are active in communities because of emotions. Fraconomism (I agree with New Frontier) can't do that. After all it's a game. It's about fun. And fun is plotting against the enemy and not worshipping some pseudo-smart theory. 

[Cortath]

In my opinion NPO rises and falls with its enemies not its philohophy. 

 

In the Q time NPO was weakened by the lack of enemies. They tried to compensate that by "searching" enemies (like GPA for that matter). People are active in communities because of emotions. Fraconomism (I agree with New Frontier) can't do that. After all it's a game. It's about fun. And fun is plotting against the enemy and not worshipping some pseudo-smart theory. 

You misunderstand the purpose of Francoism.

 

We don't "worship" it. We practice it. It guides us in building our institutions and our policies. In building effective institutions an devising wise policies, we have been able to maintain the longest-running community in this land, and the longest-running community in the land from whence we came.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Cortath

[Omniscient1]

You're getting too deep in your thoughts without tethering yourself down. Strength lies in NS and the ability to use it in war. The undisputed best way to get there without any distractions is by not fighting wars (ergo being a neutral), not by being a Francoist or NPO or MK. The alliances that play politics don't play for strength maximization, they play for fun, whose chief form is based in roleplay.

That is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen here. How many people believe GPA or even TDO is powerful? Who cowers at the thought of fighting MHA or Sparta for that matter? NS don't count for shit. Power in the game relies on perception. I remember several cases where NS was fairly balanced or even tipped towards the losing party, but the perception of the events causes people to make decisions opposite of what the NS says. Anyone with a good grasp of CN history can confirm this.

[Alex987]

That's why the caveat of the ability to use the NS was included. It's crazy to think that "NS doesn't count for shit" in determining power. And I'm not saying that the best way to become powerful is to be GPA or TDO, the best way is to fight as little as possible, ergo neutral. Currently neutral alliances are largely neutral due to inactive membership, not due to strength maximization. That is the best way to grow if you are devoted enough to the cause, which nobody is because it is boring. Hence, every alliance that plays politics is running a balance between engaging in the roleplay for fun and trying to increase their alliance's strength.

But I think the problem is that we've gotten so far from the original point that we're talking about two different things right now.

[New Frontier]

In which reality has NPO spent more time in CN than GATO has? Did they disband also?

[HM Solomon I]

In which reality has NPO spent more time in CN than GATO has? Did they disband also?

 

GATO has been in CN for two weeks longer than NPO (two weeks and one day to be exact); considering the age of this game, I don't think two weeks matters that much.

Edited September 20, 2013 by HM Solomon I

[Neo Uruk]

considering the fact that you didn't contest what was asked, I don't think your reply matters that much.

[Luckao]

What a load of tosh.

[New Frontier]

of course it doesn't - if anything people should be clamouring to be noted for our briefly they've played this game, not how long - but if you're going to puff out your chest and brag about being the oldest alliance you should probably do a quick google first

[IYIyTh]

I only skimmed through the last posts (no time for Francoism, I don't take it seriously). But the idea that neutrality would be a "weak position" is silly. Being weak is weak. Neutrality with stats is not that bad, considering that the only two cases in which neutrals have been hit happened when the attackers had little to lose - either because they were firmly in power or because they don't care anymore.

 

This is not bout neutrality, though. Carry on.

 

 

None of you are neutral though, you are pacifists. Pacifism is pointless.

[HM Solomon I]

of course it doesn't - if anything people should be clamouring to be noted for our briefly they've played this game, not how long - but if you're going to puff out your chest and brag about being the oldest alliance you should probably do a quick google first

 

I can't seem to find where in this thread someone bragged about NPO being the oldest alliance.  Could you point it out please?  (Not trying to be rude/sarcastic/disingenuous, I honestly can't find it)

[New Frontier]

I can't seem to find where in this thread someone bragged about NPO being the oldest alliance.  Could you point it out please?  (Not trying to be rude/sarcastic/disingenuous, I honestly can't find it)

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/118509-global-feudalism-an-analysis-of-the-decay-of-global-politics-from-a-francoist-perspective/?p=3170921

[HM Solomon I]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/118509-global-feudalism-an-analysis-of-the-decay-of-global-politics-from-a-francoist-perspective/?p=3170921

 

Thx

[Cortath]

As usual, style over substance. Engage the arguments, not the minutiae. Try it once or twice; you might even like it.

[jerdge]

None of you are neutral though, you are pacifists. Pacifism is pointless.

See, words and definitions don't matter much. The point is, would neutrals defend themselves if attacked? For what concerns the GPA of today each of us has their answer, and we can argue all day to no avail, as the truth will only be know if and when the GPA is tested.

In other words, discussing your statements is pointless.

[IYIyTh]

See, words and definitions don't matter much. The point is, would neutrals defend themselves if attacked? For what concerns the GPA of today each of us has their answer, and we can argue all day to no avail, as the truth will only be know if and when the GPA is tested.

In other words, discussing your statements is pointless.

 

No, they do kind of matter.

 

The pacifist alliances have shown and proven to be no match for even a modicum of a threat. A disorganized pacifistic alliance that crumbles and can mount no significant obstacle or challenge has no right to claim itself neutral. Neutrality in and of itself also implies that the entity has the capability of entering or becoming hostile, and on such grounds allows itself a permanent valid casus belli in being an inherent threat to the worlds surroundings. Much more in line with Cybernation's Pacifistic alliances (a la GPA, TDO,) is the moral defense that they are simply existing and not harming anyone, and as such should be not subject to attack. A neutral alliance does not have such a defense -- as their only defense is sheer military manpower -- which neither TDO, nor GPA possess in any modicum of worthwhile quality to deter any and every practical threat -- and are only unharmed at greater machinations and desires of the other players rather than an imposing "statistical," advantage -- which actually is just a farce and more apt to the paper tiger analogy.

 

In other words, stop calling yourselves neutral for your own sake or better yet for the good of the greater community learn how to actually play CN and encourage your members to participate and become more than a listless narrative.

[Steve Buscemi]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/118509-global-feudalism-an-analysis-of-the-decay-of-global-politics-from-a-francoist-perspective/?p=3170921

Dude, did you even read what he said?

 

He didn't say longest running alliance in this game, he said longest running community....they pre-date our world bro.