The underlying meta-conflict, and it's parallels

[MTTezla]

I love the people in this thread trying to make themselves sounds smart with "deep" one-liners while Margrave keeps calling them out.

On topic, I think that the hypothesis of the OP is a little too black and white; while it may be true in theory that the freer alliances gain more recruits than the more orderly alliances, it's very hard to draw that distinction. Is the NpO free? Is the GGA free? Which is more free? Is the NPO the least free?

To confirm or deny the hypothesis, you have to get examples, but classifying the expamples seems nearly impossible to me.

Edited March 8, 2009 by MTTezla

[Ogaden]

You know very well where you should request aid. If you do not, feel free to PM me on the NPO boards and I'll help you through the process.

I never considered it necessary really, though I've urged others to ask for it. Tech dealing always gave me more than enough money to rebuild.

[Diogenes]

Both sides to this debate have their benefits and drawbacks. While those fighting for law and order such as my alliance the NPO tend to be much better organized than our opponents, and therefore have strong economic and military structures in which to grow and fight, those favoring freedom and liberty tend to be able to recruit new members more successfully, and have fewer problems with discipline, but cannot grow as quickly or fight as effectively due to the lack of structure.

I would not say that "free" alliances are necessarily unstructured. Their primary problem, really, is that their beliefs starkly contrast with those of the existing superstructure. Thus many older nations and rulers who wish to fight for their ideological values face not only the prospect of abandoning alliances with which they have associated themselves for the majority of their existence, but also the idea that by supporting "free" alliances, their nations could be placed in the way of harm.

As a result, power within the game, in the form of larger and more established nations, is concentrated mainly within established alliances. So long as the "ordered" alliances which provide for the status quo maintain such power, the newer "free" alliances will be unable to defeat them. As Caliph stated, it is all about the numbers.

[Sal Paradise]

I love the people in this thread trying to make themselves sounds smart with "deep" one-liners while Margrave keeps calling them out.

Oh that's me. I wasn't trying to be deep; I was trying to be condescending. Just as you are now.

And a mighty good time I'm sure we've both had.

[Mogar]

I have never been offered reconstruction aid, and I've only ever seen it given to NPO nations that were absolutely destroyed. I've been in brutal wars where it really would have helped as well. I'm sure that day will come eventually, when we fight a war that we lose. When that happens I'll know exactly how to fight a brutal guerrilla insurgency, thanks to FAN.

There isn't just this massive entity called "the NPO", it's made up of individual nations. Sometimes people lose sight of that.

As a former Pacifican myself Comrade, I do not lose sight of that, I simply understand that NPO as a whole simply cannot lose a war the way the game is set up currently, and if NPO was on the losing end of a gangbang, I think about half the membership would leave, since they've simply never experienced that type of conflict before, however NPO would be all the stronger for it, it's one of the main problems with alliances such as NPO and IRON, too many members join because the alliances cant lose wars, so the membership feels safe, should someone change that, then those who joined for those reasons will leave as quick as possible.

[Ogaden]

Exactly this. I remember when I got NPO aid through Initiative during/after GW3, I was kinda doubtful of someone in Pacifica insinuating they didn't have aid access.

I never said I couldn't have accessed aid, it was never offered to me, personally, but then again I wasn't destroyed. I probably could have gotten enough to rebuild, but I got enough to rebuild from tech dealing too, so I chose not to.

[Ogaden]

As a former Pacifican myself Comrade, I do not lose sight of that, I simply understand that NPO as a whole simply cannot lose a war the way the game is set up currently, and if NPO was on the losing end of a gangbang, I think about half the membership would leave, since they've simply never experienced that type of conflict before, however NPO would be all the stronger for it, it's one of the main problems with alliances such as NPO and IRON, too many members join because the alliances cant lose wars, so the membership feels safe, should someone change that, then those who joined for those reasons will leave as quick as possible.

Mogar,

I'm not sure what would happen if the NPO was really badly beaten up in a war, but I don't see it as an impossibility. I can think of a few unlikely scenarios that could destroy the NPO off the top of my head, which for obvious reasons I won't share with the world at large. I like to think that the community spirit would hold most of us together. What made you leave the NPO?

Edited March 8, 2009 by James Dahl

[Ogaden]

I would not say that "free" alliances are necessarily unstructured. Their primary problem, really, is that their beliefs starkly contrast with those of the existing superstructure. Thus many older nations and rulers who wish to fight for their ideological values face not only the prospect of abandoning alliances with which they have associated themselves for the majority of their existence, but also the idea that by supporting "free" alliances, their nations could be placed in the way of harm.

As a result, power within the game, in the form of larger and more established nations, is concentrated mainly within established alliances. So long as the "ordered" alliances which provide for the status quo maintain such power, the newer "free" alliances will be unable to defeat them. As Caliph stated, it is all about the numbers.

I think if all the anti-NPO nations in all of Cybernations banded together they could probably take us down, but the exact same reason why they hate us also means that they would never agree to such a centralized and hierarchical entity necessary to do so. I would disagree with the argument that it's all about numbers, but rather all about having those numbers together and organized.

Edited March 8, 2009 by James Dahl

[Heyman]

I think if all the anti-NPO nations in all of Cybernations banded together they could probably take us down, but the exact same reason why they hate us also means that they would never agree to such a centralized and hierarchical entity necessary to do so. I would disagree with the argument that it's all about numbers, but rather all about having those numbers together and organized.

Examples of Discredence: Every war after GWI/GPW.

[Chairman Cao]

I thought this thread would be interesting from the title, but the first paragraph is such a sweeping statement that sees the world in black and white when in truth there are many different aspects and it's nowhere near that clear cut.

On the second paragraph I actually think almost the complete opposite, though I'll give you the 'organized' bit. I beleive the strength of NPO and similar alliances comes largely from sheer numbers and clever politics, but man for man many medium or small (and a few large) alliances tend be more knowledgable, experienced and better war prepared.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Chairman Cao

[Woodrow]

I never said I couldn't have accessed aid, it was never offered to me, personally, but then again I wasn't destroyed. I probably could have gotten enough to rebuild, but I got enough to rebuild from tech dealing too, so I chose not to.

By the very existence of the aid programs that we do have, it is offered to you. Do the bank go through all 900 nations and personally message each one offering aid? No. No one does that as if would be a lot of work, for no reason. All we ask is that one posts in a certain forum. Thats it.

[Ogaden]

By the very existence of the aid programs that we do have, it is offered to you. Do the bank go through all 900 nations and personally message each one offering aid? No. No one does that as if would be a lot of work, for no reason. All we ask is that one posts in a certain forum. Thats it.

This isn't really the place to discuss the aid system of the NPO.

Edited March 8, 2009 by James Dahl

[shahenshah]

The topic choice of the thread is wrong. Order vs Freedom?

If you think your alliance's leaders are not free to make their own choice, replace them. Bring about your own internal reforms before you blame the world and orders for everything that is wrong.

[Timeline]

While those fighting for law and order such as my alliance the NPO tend to be much better organized than our opponents, and therefore have strong economic and military structures in which to grow and fight, those favouring freedom and liberty tend to be able to recruit new members more successfully, and have fewer problems with discipline, but cannot grow as quickly or fight as effectively due to the lack of structure.

It is my belief that the "free" alliances will always grow very quickly, but are inevitably doomed to fall before the "ordered" alliances.

Law and Order, people who fight for law and order are doing as they are told, most of the wars caused by this action people do not agree with how ever they just follow orders.

Freedom and liberty, people fighting on the side of Freedom and liberty will always win, they fight because they feel they have to or that they want to see change.

you are right in one thing, one day the NPO will fall, who knows when or why, maybe to much control or someone coming up within NPO make the same mistakes ES made, time will only tell.

OOC:

Bravehart: You can take our land our women and children but you will never take our freedom.

Being in the lower echelons of the NPO is not a safe place to be, due to FAN. I fought FAN nations for most of my first month in NPO. Them and also Vox Populi and lately Jarheads makes newbies to NPO get a heck of a lot of combat time.

There are no guarantees of victory. Ever.

NPO help each other, this is true, and we look out for each other, but you have no idea how many nations fight us on a daily basis.

please stop posting how hard done by the lower ranks of NPO are, NPO did not and have not ever taken on FAN, Vox or Jarheads on there own, you make it sound as only NPO does the fighting.

if you look back and check you will find that, NPO are not the only ones who has gone to war vs all of FAN, Vox and jarheads.

been in any level of NPO right now is safe.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Timeline

[Woodrow]

This isn't really the place to discuss the aid system of the NPO.

That we ask people to post? Oh the horror

:lol:

[New Frontier]

That we ask people to post? Oh the horror

:lol:

Who needs the Tattler when your own members let such vital tidbits of information slip here in the OWF?

:lol:

[Lord Rune]

That we ask people to post? Oh the horror

:lol:

/me makes notes.

[astronaut jones]

Do yourself a favor and skip the OP and read this because it sums it up.

The stronger willed always prevail.

I feel like some great dictator lived by that mentality.

Godwin'd already? 3 posts in? damn.

Anyway, no dictator remains in power forever. They allllll eventually fall apart

[Caliph]

By the very existence of the aid programs that we do have, it is offered to you. Do the bank go through all 900 nations and personally message each one offering aid? No. No one does that as if would be a lot of work, for no reason. All we ask is that one posts in a certain forum. Thats it.

When I was NPO you guys were so organized that you knew who was participating in any particular war. It was around the time of Skynet, so you hada list of nations and told the banks to send out 3-6 mill.

I remember participating in a few wars for the NPO and after each and every one of them I got aid without even having to ask for it.

I do agree that getting reconstruction aid in the NPO was really easy to do, and if someone didn't do it they were at fault for not pursuing it.

[Grand Emperor Brian]

I have never been offered reconstruction aid, and I've only ever seen it given to NPO nations that were absolutely destroyed. I've been in brutal wars where it really would have helped as well.

I never considered it necessary really, though I've urged others to ask for it. Tech dealing always gave me more than enough money to rebuild.

This isn't really the place to discuss the aid system of the NPO.

So, you complain about not being offered aid, but then you say that it wasn't necessary and you didn't need it, but even then, you say that this isn't the place to discuss the NPO's aid system.

Are you arguing with yourself...?

[Doitzel]

that's somewhat generic. Of course he's experiencing things differently from the relative safety of Pacifica, but then, who is to say that safety isn't ultimately illusory? He sees the same world, and I'm relatively convinced that most people, regardless of their alliance, can view a subject without a great deal of bias. There are always those few retards that ruin that argument, but his experiences and ideals are not made invalid by his diplomatic immunity/safety from outside dangers.

How wrong you are, Margrave. Having been from one corner to another to another to another, I can say from experience that the influence of community upon our perceptions is very real. The only way objective truth can be obtained is when one actively seeks it out and works hard for it; and no-one actively seeks it out when they haven't any reason or compulsion to do so, or when it suits their current agenda to ignore it.

People see what they want to see, and interpret those experiences in a way that aligns with the beliefs they already hold. The beliefs they already hold are often ones that they have been indoctrinated with. You know that story about the prisoners in the cave...

[Vilien]

I have seen too many threads and too many posters talking about the "invincible" Pacifican war machine. There are a thousand explanations given for the NPO's dominance. Their huge size, their military coordination, and their control of the treaty web are constantly spouted as reasons for their indomitable state. The power superstructure is non-existent, despite the perceptions of the vast majority of posters. Our current state is far more fragile than most people care to imagine. The most powerful leaders tread lightly in hopes that they will not be the ones to cause its destruction. Stop complaining about how Pacifica "owns" the game. It doesn't.

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

I have been analyzing the existing structure as well as the opposition to the existing structure and the conflicts between the existing structure and it's aforementioned opponents and it really comes down to the desire of many to say whatever they want and do whatever they want to whomever they want, and those opposed to this brand of anarchy in general or at least when it comes to their own alliance.

Both sides to this debate have their benefits and drawbacks. While those fighting for law and order such as my alliance the NPO tend to be much better organized than our opponents, and therefore have strong economic and military structures in which to grow and fight, those favoring freedom and liberty tend to be able to recruit new members more successfully, and have fewer problems with discipline, but cannot grow as quickly or fight as effectively due to the lack of structure.

It is my belief that the "free" alliances will always grow very quickly, but are inevitably doomed to fall before the "ordered" alliances.

As far as your analysis goes, joining these forums in January doesn't exactly give you an expert view of things.

[Starfox101]

The stronger willed always prevail.

Then it is only inevitable that Vox Populi will eventually prevail.

We will never give up.

[Opethian]

The major flaw with the OPs theory is their belief that one can only be "free" or "orderly" if they attach said principals to the larger superstructure of an alliance. One needn't be a member of an alliance to champion a particular style of play, nor is "victory" as simple as a concept as having won or lost a war (why else would people still argue about the outcome of GWI).

I don't blame the OP for having an alliance-centric view of these concepts, as it's a common bias of the majority of CN.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Opethian