Ramblings from the Imperial Rocking Chair

[Confocal]

This is one of the more annoying posts I've read I think. But the grammar and syntax was pretty appealing and I like the use of language in it too.

[Joshua Issac]

Far from it. You have fourteen massive nations that will win pretty much any battle you fight. You also can only hit about the same amount in Pacifica and after one round probably only three.
After two rounds you can hit none of them. Look at this logically and after two weeks you're twiddling your thumbs while they have over 380 healthy nations.

I stand by what I said "collectively are far too small to be a danger." It's a pretty mute point anyway because neither of you have a reason to. You live in fundamentally different ranges and share allies.

How does this imply that NPO can control DBDC's foreign policy?

[Dajobo]

How does this imply that NPO can control DBDC's foreign policy?

When DBDC started they had no treaties and were in range of the upper tier for most alliances. That made them free and deadly. Trust me I know just how deadly!
Now DBDC are a regular alliance with big nations entrenched firmly into the web. Ten treaties and PECS is a solid commitment.
Seven out of ten of DBDC's treaty partners also hold a treaty with NPO.
There's a reason people don't fear DBDC anymore and it isn't because they went soft. It's because they totally muzzled themselves and to do anything not NPO approved means putting the majority of their treaty partners in a bind.

Many people said the only danger to DBDC was DBDC, they were right.

[Rush Sykes]

Retired Dajobo is someone I would enjoy a great deal having a personal conversation about the backroom politicking that went on in our era.

[Dajobo]

Indeed Rush, we need catch up one day! I never understood how you could be retired and yet involved and interested at the same time. Now I get it and see what you've been enjoying for ages :D

[Sigrun Vapneir]

If there are interesting moves to be made, they will happen because people want to do something different rather than huddle together in one large mass, defaming and deriding anything that suits their agenda or lack thereof. 

 

 

You're absolutely right. That's why I have been doing just that for the last 5 years, instead of occupying a government position in a big alliance where inertia and group-think would forever prevent me from making any sort of a fundamental difference.

 

 

That's a fair point. Every alliance makes compromises in order to win - including which alliances they align themselves with. There are no saints here, and very few AA's that are actively malicious and not just playing the political game. But I really have to disagree that you can't differentiate based on the choices people when they're in power. Steamrolling neutrals, repeatedly raiding (the same) established alliances, and spitting in the face of those who expect a justification/CB beyond "because it benefits us"  is about as far into the evil zone of this murky continuum as you'll find.

 

This much we agree on.

 

 

The above isn't actually "good" though, in reality it is simply "common practice." 

 

There is nothing inherently good about anything you list.  Likewise, there is nothing inherently evil about doing the opposite. 

 

Even attacking neutrals isn't really attacking a "good" group - at least not how I would define truly good.  A truly good alliance would pick what conflicts to get involved with based on some sort of good code of conduct.  In the case of neutrals, some poor small alliance gets raided  unfairly and is forced to consider disbanding as a result and does any neutral do anything about it?  No.  Recent example - SNX was recently raided.  Did one of the neutrals decide to pick them up as a treaty partner and put a stop to that?  No.  Who did?  Doom Kingdom. 

 

The good vs. evil discussions people have on Planet Bob are not really that.  They are between established "e-law" vs actions outside what the powers that be have established as such.  What is "common practice" is open to both interpretation and change.  NpO can tell itself that the position it and/or it's membership holds on any particular issue is the one on the side of "good" and whatever those other alliances that NpO happens not to like (be it Doom Kingdom, NPO or DBDC) does is "evil" or otherwise done for selfish/bad reasons, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Now this is a very interesting bit of text. There's really two ways one can read it - either you're extraordinarily innocent of morality itself or you're very clever in simply arguing against it. I would like to think the best of you ethically and assume the former, but also we have interacted a few times in the past and you strike me as quite clever enough for the latter as well. :)

 

You equate moral behavior with simply following common practice - that is what is called conventional morality - morality by convention, morality by herd instinct, the morality of the Ox. It is all much of the planet knows and your contempt for it is something I can sympathize with to a degree.

 

But that does not make it the only possible alternative to the ultimately self-defeating attitude of the 5 year old terror, the way of the tyrant and the bully.

 

For the record I still don't think DBDC, or you personally, are evil. I actually think you deserve kudos for amassing as much power as you have without becoming actively evil on the scale typical of your predecessors. But it has to be a constant danger for someone so powerful, particularly if you really have such a muddled view of morality as seems to be expressed here. I wouldn't impose on you but if you ever feel like discussing the subject privately I would love to hear from you.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[White Chocolate]

There's a reason people don't fear DBDC anymore and it isn't because they went soft. It's because they totally muzzled themselves and to do anything not NPO approved means putting the majority of their treaty partners in a bind.

Many people said the only danger to DBDC was DBDC, they were right.

oh, beautiful...beautiful, Dajobo.  One of the better attempts at baiting I've seen actually.  I salute you.  :salute:

 

 

I actually think you deserve kudos for amassing as much power as you have without becoming actively evil on the scale typical of your predecessors. But it has to be a constant danger for someone so powerful

More than I would of guessed. When you're done with your war(S) we can chat on IRC.

[Joshua Issac]

When DBDC started they had no treaties and were in range of the upper tier for most alliances. That made them free and deadly. Trust me I know just how deadly!
Now DBDC are a regular alliance with big nations entrenched firmly into the web. Ten treaties and PECS is a solid commitment.
Seven out of ten of DBDC's treaty partners also hold a treaty with NPO.
There's a reason people don't fear DBDC anymore and it isn't because they went soft. It's because they totally muzzled themselves and to do anything not NPO approved means putting the majority of their treaty partners in a bind.

Many people said the only danger to DBDC was DBDC, they were right.

DBDC, by their own choice, signed treaties (from which they can withdraw) with other alliances. So they stopped being a group of rogue neutrals raiding upper tiers and waging a holy war against other neutrals, and turned into an aligned alliance. If they choose to, I see no reason why they could not go back to that situation. An alliance generally takes into account the implications its actions will have on its treaty partners (if any). This does not mean that NPO is somehow dictating DBDC's foreign policy, any more than DBDC controls NPO's foreign policy.

 

EDIT: Missing words.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Joshua Issac

[Neo Uruk]

That would be right, except the implied give/take isn't 100% equal. DBDC is still free to do exactly what they want to do, but to avoid pissing on their own treaty partners they have to alter their style moreso than NPO does.

[White Chocolate]

An alliance generally takes into account the implications its actions will have on its treaty partners (if any). This does not mean that NPO is somehow dictating DBDC's foreign policy, any more than DBDC controls NPO's foreign policy.

Excellent point.

 

That would be right, except the implied give/take isn't 100% equal. DBDC is still free to do exactly what they want to do, but to avoid pissing on their own treaty partners they have to alter their style more so than NPO does.

This may be correct in practice, but it implies nothing in regards to any sort of political give or take between the two or make NPO somehow the dictator of what direction DBDC takes.

 

NPO is already a very traditional alliance.  In fact, NPO literally "wrote the book" on the matter as seen by history and various old essays (no, Junka...don't post them :P ).  That being the case, not much movement on NPO's part is required. 

 

DBDC on the other hand, is not "traditional".  DBDC decided to make changes for their own reasons, which includes but is not limited to, for the benefit of their allies. 

[Neo Uruk]

I know; I didn't perhaps make my point in a clear way, but essentially I was stating that DBDC, while moving on its own free will, is making a lot more concessions. Not necessarily anything that DBDC is uncomfortable giving up, else I imagine they wouldn't do it.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Neo Uruk

[The Zigur]

NPO is already a very traditional alliance.  In fact, NPO literally "wrote the book" on the matter as seen by history and various old essays (no, Junka...don't post them :P ).

 

:(

 

Next time then.

[murtibing]

No one in the hegemony can do anything without Pacifica signing off on it.

 

Then it's a good thing that SPATR isn't in the hegemony.

[Neo Uruk]

Doesn't have a seat at the big kids table*

[tayloj7]

The future is now

 

[Dajobo]

Love the graphic but it needs GOONS in it ;)

[Pingu]

 

I don't think ODN is evil per se

 

I'm quite upset by this. What does an evil alliance have to do to get recognition?

[Frawley]

The future is now
 

You have a bigger version of this? That's awesome.

[Steve Buscemi]

This is what you get from the game that brought you the bandwagon.  More and more folks got on it until it collapsed and now you have a dead game.

 

Well done.  Well done.

[Master Hakai]

Is it true there are coalitions forming to fight against each other? That's what I heard

[Unknown Smurf]

 No.  Recent example - SNX was recently raided.  Did one of the neutrals decide to pick them up as a treaty partner and put a stop to that?  No.  Who did?  Doom Kingdom. 

 

SNX was left with a core of battle hardened nations; a fact that you realized because they were being raided by you guys shortly after being curbstomped. Once you realized this you saw they were more of a benefit to you as an ally (due to the fact that they were small enough and fighting back enough to make the raiding not worth it). Them being led by a completely moron that was desperate enough to actually agree to sign with you was just icing on the cake.

 

Nothing altruistic on your part.

[The Zigur]

 

Them being led by a completely moron that was desperate enough to actually agree to sign with you was just icing on the cake.

 

The correct insult is "Imamoron Junka" btw. Using that will give you brownie points from Grub.

[Stonewall14]

 

SNX was left with a core of battle hardened nations; a fact that you realized because they were being raided by you guys shortly after being curbstomped. Once you realized this you saw they were more of a benefit to you as an ally (due to the fact that they were small enough and fighting back enough to make the raiding not worth it). Them being led by a completely moron that was desperate enough to actually agree to sign with you was just icing on the cake.

 

Nothing altruistic on your part.

You hate us cuz u ain't us...Glad to see you are recovering after getting Zi'd and almost zeroed out by Doomreich for you errors...sounds to me like you are still butthurt and lashing out at the Doomlords... :v: Actually It was I, the Guerrilla Warlord of Doomreich and Harbinger of Doom, who first brought up treaty with SnX months ago before the raid...o/ SnX o/ Dommreich

Edited September 7, 2015 by Stonewall14

[Unknown Smurf]

You aren't interesting enough to hate.

[White Chocolate]

 

SNX was left with a core of battle hardened nations; a fact that you realized because they were being raided by you guys shortly after being curbstomped. Once you realized this you saw they were more of a benefit to you as an ally (due to the fact that they were small enough and fighting back enough to make the raiding not worth it). Them being led by a completely moron that was desperate enough to actually agree to sign with you was just icing on the cake.

 

 

Actually, the person you are calling a "moron" contacted me over a month before the raids began to see if a relationship of some sort could be worked out between us and SNX.   We talked on at least three different occasions before the raids even started and, frankly, I was highly skeptical at first.  My skepticism had nothing to do with SNX as an alliance, (although many of them seemed inactive) but with whether or not I wanted to work so closely with Junka in particular.  

 

To my surprise I found that, although I could come up with a list of less than flattering words to describe Junka even now, an insult aimed at his intelligence would not be one of them.  Even after the raids began he represented himself and especially SNX very well.  

 

As far as SNX as an alliance is concerned, yes Doom Kingdom took part in the raids and yes, we are impressed with those members who both fought back and stayed in SNX for the duration and yes, as a result I decided that SNX would be beneficial as an ally.  Thus far I'm pleased with the outcome.  It was a good move.    

Edited September 8, 2015 by White Chocolate