Northrend Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I'm not going to debate who won or lost that war, I don't know enough to judge all the circumstances. This is about the smartest thing I've seen you post yet silva. Please, continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yubyubsan Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 This is about the smartest thing I've seen you post yet silva. Please, continue. It was a fluke, don't encourage him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I'm not going to debate who won or lost that war, I don't know enough to judge all the circumstances. But it is reasonable to conclude that NPO may have planned to lose that war, since it was inevitable, and strategized to use the time afterward to rebuild and consolidate themselves while the allies farted around. iirc, NPO didn't seek that war in any case. Why would the NPO plan to lose a war? Do you think they wanted The Legion to have more power than them? Do you think they wanted to be in heavily damaged alliance? I'm pretty sure most nations who fought with NPO at that time would say no to those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Did they lose? By what measure? They took on a massive enemy in an inevitable clash and survived, I'm not sure that could be called losing. FFS go home. You have no idea how much the world loathes you. You apply one metric to Pacifica in hopes that if you suck up enough you'll go right through their anal region and into the alliance. Vlad is better at debating this than you are. Please leave it to him. Oh well. At least Ephie's role has been filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northrend Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 FFS go home. You have no idea how much the world loathes you.You apply one metric to Pacifica in hopes that if you suck up enough you'll go right through their anal region and into the alliance. Vlad is better at debating this than you are. Please leave it to him. Oh well. At least Ephie's role has been filled. For this comment, you are forgiven in my eyes. Epic win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 It doesn't take the force to realize that NPO, while losing that tactical conflict, managed to survive and rebuild. OK, so they lost and but weren't destroyed and came back better than ever. They deserve the credit they are due. See what I did there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamavore Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 1. This is a game, and a game that simulates international politics. It does not to any substantial degree simulate endonational politics. In reality, international and national politics are connected. On planet Bob, the citizens of your nation do not care what you say in the forums on their behalf. They do not hold elections or impeach you out of office. You are not ideologically accountable to them. So if you're going to treat it scientifically, your duty is to amuse yourself, and if this leads you to simulate good endonational leadership, it is your duty to avoid whatever you pretend that your citizens disapprove of, which would in reality be varied, nuanced, and not as simple as 'infra tech wonder land military.' In reality, half a national leader's job is to progress, protect, and serve his/her nation's culture. The simulated citizens in this game have no simulated cultural demands. It is left up to the player to invent them, or to simply represent the player's own personality. Either interpretation is unique to each player and thus a truly authentic 'leader' cannot advance his nation by simply conforming to the criteria in the OP. 2. Even if you are extremely recreationally invested in pretending to serve the advancement of your national peoples as you stated it, this does not have any bearing on whether you avoid conflict itself, only on whether you avoid loss from conflict, or risky conflicts. 3. In reality, life without international war has plenty of stimulation, drama, and expression, because we are always at war with the environment, trying to survive a full spectrum of conflicts both more personal and more universal than large-scale physical combat. However, in the game, there is no substantial PvE, thus there is no room to simulate the main reasons communities develop. In reality, we work together and grow our communities in an effort to aid the poor, make room for coming generations, combat illness and natural calamity, and to explore our world and our relationships with eachother. In reality we have all those venues through which to express our desire for and support of our communities, in addition to mutual defense against predators and other communities. In the game, the main development is centered on international combat with other players; interaction with other players, each with a legitimately unique sense of their role in the CN community, is the driving force. We cooperate to protect ourselves from eachother. This game inherently directs our attention to the threat of other players, and thus keeps international conflict alive. Without it the game would be boring, because does not have much co-op PvE elements. And how could it? programming is not advanced enough to provide a deep, entropic, challenging world that could match the entertainment capacity of a community of real people. Thus this game is PvP and foments violence, and cooperation for the sake of violence and protection from violence. If violence were eliminated, whatever force eliminating it would make the game less stimulating, and all communities within the game would suffer, as it stands now. So peace is not inherently in everyone's best interests. Rather, meaningful peace for as long as the meanings motivate that peace, and after that a continuation of meaningfulness into conflict. 4. Players' ideals, which might as well be part of the culture of their nations from a simulationalist perspective, have to do with how they project their identity into the game (in reality we project our sense of self everywhere, it's how we consider consequences and make important decisions). This psychological aspect factors into what makes a decision good or bad; not just the numbers but the player's personal values and perceptions of the circumstance, their sympathies and reservations and relationships, and ultimately how a decision effects their state of mind. State of mind, you might say mental or spiritual health, takes precedence over physical health in real life; this is why people commit suicide or put themselves in danger to protect something; there are higher values, and lower deficits, than one's physical life. That doesn't stop being the case in the game. And if we treated this more deeply like a simulation, the citizens of every nation would also have transcendent fears and values beyond simple statistical preservation. 5. Due to the diversity of values as represented by every individual player and possibly their perception of the values of their citizens, part of a maximally peaceful coexistence is the greatest degree of flexibility and dissociation possible. Without this freedom, the divergence of opinion and sheer individuality would tear any community apart. If people are not allowed to make their own decisions based on their own values, or if they perceive that their desire for this is not respected, they will rebel, as a function of asserting their autonomy, valuing their personal culture. So while in an optimal setting people would be free to create something on the scale of the Order, it would not be required, or central to an actual optimal state. 6. if the Order was that great, no one would be outside of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 If your subjective desire to fight "what you believe in" leads you into conflict with the interests of your nation, then you fail in your duties to your nation to one degree or another. Meanwhile, you decrease in power and influence (unless it is a calculated move to enhance it in the future and that plays out), and others who have a proper understanding of their role fill your old boots.The world is almost a meritocracy that way: Streets been watchin And they don't blink Sidewalk got ears The pavement don't sleep The fittest will survive The weak just don't eat Not every nation is after power, that is your flaw. If I were ever destroyed because I fought for what I believe in, it doesn't make their alliance "correct", it just means they are stronger. You are flawed merely because if someone falls, it doesn't mean they are inherently wrong. You do not need to be wrong to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rune Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Did they (NPO) lose? By what measure? They took on a massive enemy in an inevitable clash and survived, I'm not sure that could be called losing. By that logic, the only losers in any conflict are those alliances that disband. GATO has never lost. GPA didn't lose. Legion didn't lose. MK didn't lose. NpO didn't lose. Apart from disbanded alliances, has any alliance ever lost a conflict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Thank you for pointing that out, let me clarify. Yes, Count is speaking as a member of NATO and thus we are responsible for his actions. As such, if he made disparaging comments about those that we are friends with or if his statements were presented as official policy, I would have a very different approach to it. As it has been so far, Count has been voicing his opinion, a right that everyone here has. Since it has generally conformed to our foreign affairs outlook (overly simplified as NPO good, Vox bad), we have no objections. Just because its not the way I would go about things (this bickering is pointless in the end) does not mean it is not entertaining. Its good sometimes to see someone posting in support of those things that the rest of the opinionated community tends to rail against. Okay, thank you for the clarification Anu. <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkyrie9002 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 For someone to have such a shallow understanding of politics and such a shallow motivation in how he runs his nation is amazing. I will no longer bother to comment on your threads as you have no substance behind the walls of words you like to put up to divert people away from your vacuousness. I love you Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This thread has been highly productive, beyond my initial hopes. I would like to thank everyone for their participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 and will instead skip to the steak of the plate. I chuckled at that. 'Sup, Moo? Anyway, I suppose that this entire rant is somewhat caused by my comment which you alluded to in the start of your 'essay', if I may call it that. The flaw with your argument is that it requires one to follow the belief that the best possible way to build up one's nation is under a world dominated by the New Pacific Order, and therefore actions taken that put yourself at odds with the Order are 'wrong'. While the concept of your argument is accurate, I cannot accept for a moment that the best way for the Cyberverse to exist is under the thumb of the New Pacific Order. There is a reason why, time and again, blocs have arisen in opposition to the Order. It is because that some believe there is a better way to do things, that the current system is corrupt, immoral, and simply wrong. Alliances believe they can do better, and have and will continue to stand in opposition to the NPO. The 'my way or the highway' mindset that the Order has will come back around. Have fun when it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Bingo. Before I begin to explain why the last sentence in that paragraph did not prove your point, I have to say that in this thread the majority of the posts against your wall of text were character attacks rather than actual responses disproving what you were saying. A summary: 1) You're an NPO lackey and a fanboy 2) You stating that other peoples objectives should be to grow their nations is wrong as they as rulers get to decide that. Now to my explanation: When I said a more global war proved more difficult, it has always been the case. I didn't mean harder due to the entanglement, but rather harder in the military execution of it. The only difference was with the unipolar system it became more attractive to perpetrate massacres on a smaller scale (2-5% of digiterra). Whereas under a multipolar system the fact that any war could develop into a global war acts as a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I chuckled at that. 'Sup, Moo? OK, I admit I lol'd. The flaw with your argument is that it requires one to follow the belief that the best possible way to build up one's nation is under a world dominated by the New Pacific Order, Not what I said. I said under the current conditions to be in conflict with the Order is to be wrong. I do think that NPO is a fairly benign, if not benevolent, flagship alliance of civilization (one might shudder imagining a world dominated by GOONS, FAN, \m/ and similar alliances) and therefore actions taken that put yourself at odds with the Order are 'wrong'. If to be right is to protect and advance your nation's interests (a proposition a thorough material analysis of the world endorses), then to be wrong is to endanger it. While the concept of your argument is accurate, I cannot accept for a moment that the best way for the Cyberverse to exist is under the thumb of the New Pacific Order. There is a reason why, time and again, blocs have arisen in opposition to the Order. It is because that some believe there is a better way to do things, that the current system is corrupt, immoral, and simply wrong. Alliances believe they can do better, and have and will continue to stand in opposition to the NPO. You are thinking, which is good, but you have not thought deeply enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Once again you presume the alliance to be the component structure of civilization. As every nation is cultural and social community, civilization should be determined on a national (not international) level. What makes alliance affiliation an indication of civilization? Isn’t a nation intrinsically a state of civilization? Edited February 17, 2009 by Generalissimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Hallelujah Count, you have made me finally see the light. Ok maybe not )): Edited February 17, 2009 by uaciaut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finner Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Blimey, Count da Silva, why don't you and Vox just get a room and do it. The amount of trends you have made on them and posts you've made in their trends, just says to me "I love you Vox, please marry me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incitatus Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is priceless. I've never once seen an individual flip-flop so much. Ah that's alright there big guy, it's just a phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I knew this was going to be a stinker after I read the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 You are thinking, which is good, but you have not thought deeply enough. Just because he hasn't come around to your way of thinking doesn't mean he hasn't put in the amount of thought you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mongol-Swedes Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The NPO culture doesn't interest me. I like being able to directly participate in all alliance-wide decisions. I can't imagine being in an alliance that tells people they no longer get to play the game. Far as I'm concerned, that's just blasphemy against Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northrend Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 The NPO culture doesn't interest me. I like being able to directly participate in all alliance-wide decisions. I can't imagine being in an alliance that tells people they no longer get to play the game. Far as I'm concerned, that's just blasphemy against Admin. Why you not join Vox?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mongol-Swedes Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Why you not join Vox?! Many of your outspoken members ZI'd my comrades and their leftist alliances for the lulz, or stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the ZI'ers in the past. We're two different worlds, baby. Edited February 17, 2009 by The Mongol-Swedes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northrend Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) Many of your outspoken members ZI'd my comrades and their leftist alliances for the lulz, or stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the ZI'ers in the past. We're two different worlds, baby. First and foremost do not accuse me of the sins of my former "compatriots". Much of their actions I do not condone nor agree with. While I might be a nationalist in every sense of the word I am neither an anti-communist nor a communist. I am a realist. I think that communism is responsible for the deaths of millions, but so was capitalism. If you want to choose either, that's your choice. Far be it from me to tell you that you're not permitted to have a leftist alliance/nation. See, I can be most reasonable, despite my AA. edit: my grammar is gooder Edited February 18, 2009 by Northrend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts