Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This afternoon, I noticed that a month ago I was asked what I thought about the Polaris-NG treaty.  Yes, a month, I love you all, but I just don't care too much, anymore.
 
I read my answer at Polaris' forum, and decided that it is sufficiently interesting to me that I know everyone else will be thrilled to read it.  You're quite welcome.
 
In all seriousness, even though the treaty itself is old news, the question became a platform to discuss philosophy, and I love talking foreign policy. 

 

2LSAmVY.jpg

 

How does this treaty make you feel?  :smug:


I understand you're reducing your big FA moment down to a gotcha on me, but here's the serious answer.  We will examine my opinion on Polaris' FA decision through the philosophy I have always used in regards to FA, illuminated by personal example.  My opinion springs from my ideology, and ideology guides my actions, it all fits.

My thoughts/philosophy on treaties in general should be well known enough, by now, (1, 2, 3) but I am keenly aware that my personality has overshadowed my message for a long time.  So to recap, in short:
First: A treaty is an endorsement, and a partnership, and it ties responsibility for one AA's actions to the other.  
For example, New Polar Order in 2007 can't PZI 20 people a year without being shored up by 3 or 4 different blocs, or NPO in 2008 can't keep GATO at war indefinitely for using peace mode without having 16 top flight AAs backing them up.  Lip service does not change culpability.  For example, if OsRavan says "I'm totally against reps" 500 times a day, then sits down in peace talks and says to Cult of Justitia "you will have no peace with ODN until you agree to pay GOONS $200,000,000" and to Legion "you will not have peace until you pay our allies $1 Billion" then what matters?  The principles ODN says they hold, or the actions ODN takes?  

There can be no denying that a treaty is an endorsement and a partnership.  Any such denial is intellectual dishonesty at best and in reality is simply a lie politicians tell each other, themselves, and the people in their AAs.

Second: Alliances are organic entities.  They are not static, they change.  Recognition of that fact in foreign affairs and public discourse has always been central to my political stances.  
For example, Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" (I never really liked that word, but that's the parlance)—not because a hegemony existed, but because of how it acted: Viceroys, people banned from being gov, ZI transforming from a harsh punishment to PZI lists as eternal black lists that removed people from the game and then to EZI (parlance again, EZI is just PZI), forced disbandment, OOC attacks by the hegemony against their enemies, and so on.  New Pacific Order and New Polar Order were central to that.  It was a feedback loop: they did harsh crap by the endorsement of their allies, but their allies often did worse things while NPO/NpO pretended to be more civilized villains—they were all responsible for the results of their power politics, the results of their power politics were the point of their treaties.

In 2007-08 New Polar Order wrecked my AA GOONS (which was a vile AA and I was too new to the game to really know it), then spent a year chasing all of us around, PZIing us, threatening alliances we joined, setting up proxy blocs on Black to dominate the Senate, and everything else in the history books.  Post-Vox, as the leader of CoJ I penned blistering attacks on New Polar Order.  
Yet here I am, member of New Polar Order.  Because I'm a hypocrite?  No, because between the time Polaris PZIed me to the end of Karma, Polaris changed wildly.  And then from the time I founded CoJ and wrote that essay to the time I allied CoJ to Polaris and then dissolved CoJ and joined Polaris, Polaris had undergone even more transformations.

Therefore: Treaties and military cooperation are endorsement and culpability; therefore, alliances should choose allies whose actions align with their character and ideals, or accept the hypocrisy that their actions are at odds with their identity and move on.  (Realpolitik is just that, the allegiance to a distasteful ally to get a hard job done.)  
But the prospective allies out their, alliances, are not beholden to the past.  There is no inherent hypocrisy in allying an alliance that wasn't in line with one's ideals 5 years ago or even 5 weeks ago for that matter if they have changed.  There is no hypocrisy in recognizing change. 

People make lazy ad hominem arguments, obsess about my over-the-top persona and ego, and simply label any shifting allegiance I make as "hypocrisy" or selling out.  These processes are a complicated ideological discernment and judgement.  Politics from ideology is complicated, people don't like it, they don't like to wade through it.

What do I think about this treaty in particular?  I haven't paid any attention at all to Planet Bob in at least a year.  I've been quiet because I hate retractions; I don't post unless I know.  It's fun to stick my head out and rip on OsRavan once a year, but it's also simply the case that the past is just about the only topic I'm informed to speak on intelligently.  
I don't know if this treaty is realpolitik, or if Non Grata has become significantly different to a degree that you're a perfect fit for Polaris.  Or maybe Polaris has changed sufficiently that we're a perfect fit for an unchanged Non Grata (in which case I'll start AA shopping :P )  A dear old friend left Polaris because of this treaty, I respect his discernment and principled stance for his own nation.
If there is a meeting of minds between NG and Polaris, I'm glad we're working together.  If Polaris and NG are engaged in realpolitik, that's a reality an idealist like me has to swallow sometimes to get things done (I always was a chaos agent with a conscience, myself)—my problem would be if Polaris lent its NS to seriously bad behavior, or if Polaris shifted what should be a short-term cooperation (realpolitik) into a long term FA position (hypocrisy).

I said "in short" so there you have it, Schattenmann is a liar.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are validating your treaty based on the past. I think the biggest validation for this type of move will be in the future. Specifically, I don't think there will ever be an anti-oculus block, and I feel this move was ultimately made to snub DK.

Why? Because when all of the alliances who jumped ship from polar and ran to doom sphere, I do not see any sempathetic feelings towards the pixels huggers who will end up being rolled as a result.

And to the point- I bet there's an NpO-NPO relation brewing. And it will happen and cost DK pixels long before NPO is ever challenged.

And what about Non Grata? Because they understand the 'everyone gets rolled concept' and DK is next on that list (well, after NSO).

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are validating your treaty based on the past. I think the biggest validation for this type of move will be in the future. Specifically, I don't think there will ever be an anti-oculus block, and I feel this move was ultimately made to snub DK.

I neither validate nor rebuke this treaty.  I was asked a cheeky question because of the past, —my pre-Polaris-days antagonism with Non Grata and its forerunner Poison Clan, and Polaris' war with NG—and explained how I evaluate treaties based upon present circumstances rather than grudge lists. 

If this treaty passes the smell test, fine, if not, EaTeMuP is a dastardly devil :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I neither validate nor rebuke this treaty.  I was asked a cheeky question because of the past, —my pre-Polaris-days antagonism with Non Grata and its forerunner Poison Clan, and Polaris' war with NG—and explained how I evaluate treaties based upon present circumstances rather than grudge lists. 
If this treaty passes the smell test, fine, if not, EaTeMuP is a dastardly devil :P


If I recall, Polaris was paired with the original goons... I don't think eatemup can do anything 'more evil' than that
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, Polaris was paired with the original goons... I don't think eatemup can do anything 'more evil' than that


Different emperor at the time. I think sponge but I could be wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, Polaris was paired with the original goons... I don't think eatemup can do anything 'more evil' than that

It was also Polar that took care of the original GOONS, despite being undermined on several occasions Pacific's attempts to keep GOONS around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, Polaris was paired with the original goons... I don't think eatemup can do anything 'more evil' than that

If I recall, Polaris was paired with the original goons... I don't think eatemup can do anything 'more evil' than that

Dude.. you've been here like two years.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about Non Grata? Because they understand the 'everyone gets rolled concept' and DK is next on that list (well, after NSO).

In another thread I mentioned that your obsession is endearing.  Maybe I was wrong and you're actually looking at us like a creepy old man does little children at the playground. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude.. you've been here like two years.

 

Cybernations wiki

 

In another thread I mentioned that your obsession is endearing.  Maybe I was wrong and you're actually looking at us like a creepy old man does little children at the playground. 

 

word on the street

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cybernations wiki

So you're taking other people -- and depending upon how often the wiki pages are edited, probably people who weren't even there firsthand at this point -- for their word?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Caustic hope your body is ready I'm coming for you boi

 

Bro, you weren't there to talk me out of this. IT'S NOT MY FAULT D:

 

Now come spot my 1RM squats

 

Thx schatt for giving a srs well thought out answer to an obvious troll post. You're still a tool  :smug:

 

 
You are validating your treaty based on the past. I think the biggest validation for this type of move will be in the future. Specifically, I don't think there will ever be an anti-oculus block, and I feel this move was ultimately made to snub DK.

Why? Because when all of the alliances who jumped ship from polar and ran to doom sphere, I do not see any sempathetic feelings towards the pixels huggers who will end up being rolled as a result.

And to the point- I bet there's an NpO-NPO relation brewing. And it will happen and cost DK pixels long before NPO is ever challenged.

And what about Non Grata? Because they understand the 'everyone gets rolled concept' and DK is next on that list (well, after NSO).

 

 

 

Yes, I'm in the business of snubbing and plotting to kill my allies and plotting the rolling of people I'm not allied to but still consider great friends. You have way too much time on your hands man, go play outside.

Edited by Caustic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm in the business of snubbing and plotting to kill my allies and plotting the rolling of people I'm not allied to but still consider great friends. You have way too much time on your hands man, go play outside.

If you want to do any $9m/100t tech deals, I could send Tywin some nukes with your name on them. I think you're well positioned you don't need to feel threatened by DK & can do what you want at least. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to do any $9m/100t tech deals, I could send Tywin some nukes with your name on them. I think you're well positioned you don't need to feel threatened by DK & can do what you want at least. ;)

Damn begging for cash and tech, yet you keep bragging you are winning?, why do you need to beg if you are winning ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn begging for cash and tech, yet you keep bragging you are winning?, why do you need to beg if you are winning ?


Hey now! Don't be calling your allies and friends of allies "beggars" Junka alone has had over 72 million and Stonewall has had 63 million in "begged" aid.

Whether the "begging" happens in public or behind closed doors, its still "begging".

Now run along instead of inadvertently taking the piss out of your allies SNX.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to do any $9m/100t tech deals, I could send Tywin some nukes with your name on them. I think you're well positioned you don't need to feel threatened by DK & can do what you want at least. ;)

Damn begging for cash and tech, yet you keep bragging you are winning?, why do you need to beg if you are winning ?

Hey now! Don't be calling your allies and friends of allies "beggars" Junka alone has had over 72 million and Stonewall has had 63 million in "begged" aid.

Whether the "begging" happens in public or behind closed doors, its still "begging".

Now run along instead of inadvertently taking the piss out of your allies SNX.

 

Look, damnit, you can take your every-thread-on-the-OWF pissing match somewhere else, this is a high-class affair right here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was ES who signed the treaty with the original GOONS and ES who worked hard to start UjW.


The best thing ES ever did was knocking out GOONS and the whole UJW affair. Tears flow to this day and they fill my heart with joy even today. Edited by shahenshah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written as usual, Schatt, you old spy.

 


 

First: A treaty is an endorsement, and a partnership, and it ties responsibility for one AA's actions to the other.  

There can be no denying that a treaty is an endorsement and a partnership.  Any such denial is intellectual dishonesty at best and in reality is simply a lie politicians tell each other, themselves, and the people in their AAs.

Second: Alliances are organic entities.  They are not static, they change.  Recognition of that fact in foreign affairs and public discourse has always been central to my political stances.  


Therefore: Treaties and military cooperation are endorsement and culpability; therefore, alliances should choose allies whose actions align with their character and ideals, or accept the hypocrisy that their actions are at odds with their identity and move on.  (Realpolitik is just that, the allegiance to a distasteful ally to get a hard job done.)  


What do I think about this treaty in particular?  I haven't paid any attention at all to Planet Bob in at least a year.  I've been quiet because I hate retractions; I don't post unless I know.  It's fun to stick my head out and rip on OsRavan once a year, but it's also simply the case that the past is just about the only topic I'm informed to speak on intelligently.  

If there is a meeting of minds between NG and Polaris, I'm glad we're working together.  If Polaris and NG are engaged in realpolitik, that's a reality an idealist like me has to swallow sometimes to get things done (I always was a chaos agent with a conscience, myself)—my problem would be if Polaris lent its NS to seriously bad behavior, or if Polaris shifted what should be a short-term cooperation (realpolitik) into a long term FA position (hypocrisy).
 

First point: I agree a treaty is a partnership.  You are correct.

 

However as far as the "endorsement" goes, in my opinion you are too harsh.  Surviving well (and note, I said surviving "well" as opposed to just being here with a small nation, little respect, etc.) in this world requires one of two things or both.  Either that the alliance be large enough to defend itself AND stay out of people's business (such as GPA and WTF  - your friend made a good choice of where to go to keep his ideals and still remain relatively safe)  or an alliance needs to be well connected with other alliances that the combination is large enough to deter others from harming either of them.   In order to keep the relationships - or "partnership" as you said - going, compromises have to be made.  This requires not always getting everything you want.  In other words, alliances can and often do support each others positions while at the same time not necessarily endorsing them. 

 

I agree with your second point, that alliances (and their leadership in particular) change and that this can contribute to which alliance has a treaty (or not) with another one as much as the other considerations.   In fact, from what I've seen it makes a huge difference because it is very difficult to maintain a partnership as an alliance leader with another alliance leader when there are basic issues of being able to work effectively with each other.

 

I neither validate nor rebuke this treaty.  I was asked a cheeky question because of the past, —my pre-Polaris-days antagonism with Non Grata and its forerunner Poison Clan, and Polaris' war with NG—and explained how I evaluate treaties based upon present circumstances rather than grudge lists. 

If this treaty passes the smell test, fine, if not, EaTeMuP is a dastardly devil :P

 

It will be interesting to see what you finally decide regarding the "smell test."  Personally, I love the small of NG's napalm on MY ENEMY's nation in the morning :P

 

 

Bro, you weren't there to talk me out of this. IT'S NOT MY FAULT D:

 


 

In his defense, Caustic does have a point. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You really are obsessed.  Even topics that have nothing to do with me, there I am.

 

::amused::. I wasnt aware that we are now blaming alliances that happened to fight in the same war for reps demanded by third party alliances.

 

What on earth GOONS.. an alliance never allied to me... demanding reps of you has to do with me I have no idea.  Unless you mean that no, I wouldnt peace out separately in a coalition war.  That, like not demanding reps, is something I dont believe in.

 

I'm consistent like that.

 

What you're really saying, is my stances have hurt you personally so you've an axe to grind.

 

 

When you find *ME* demanding reps you can come make your point.

 

 

In ant event, point, on balance i'm a fan of this treaty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...