Jump to content

The nature of the Hegemony


savethecheerleader
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since the previous thread, created by a person who, as it turns out, doesn't actually exist, was in violation of forum rules, I would like to continue discussion here. I assure you all that I do, indeed, actually exist, and hope that this kind of thread is not in violation of the rules.

Some people (and un-people) state that the Continuum, unlike other types of blocs and coalitions, is one that is impossible to truly escape without becoming a target for annihilation. Further, it has been claimed that through its very existence, a bloc of such power removes the sovereignty alliances in CN, particularly the sovereignty of member alliances who may wish to leave.

It is easy to see where these ideas come from. However, I think that recent events have shown that leaving the Hegemony, or at least taking formal steps away from it, is not as treacherous as some may claim.

The Continuum, obviously, very large. So large that it seems for the member nations and alliances to maintain the common culture, goals, and values that are necessary for most alliances hold as requisites in an ally. What we are seeing, and I assert we will continue to see, is the formation of distinct subcultures within Q. Clearly, these subcultures already exist. They are what have allowed Fok! and Gremlins to leave Q without the overt conflict that so many have predicted. This is because, instead of leaving in a reckless manner, they have chosen to maintain close relationships with alliances still in Q, alliances with who they share a common culture and set of values.

Some may argue that, since they are still withing the Q sphere of influence, that leaving had little real effect on the hegemony. I agree to some extent, but I view these as preliminary actions. As more Q alliances realize that they would be better off leaving Q and focusing on relations with alliances more similar culture and values, and that they can do so and not become a target by retaining close relations to remaining Q members, I think we will see the Continuum end not in a bloody civil war, but just slowly dissolve. In the next few months, I expect more alliances to leave the Continuum and pursue stronger ties around Citadel, SF, CDT, 1V, and other such lines.

The the mystery, to me at least, is what effect this dissolution will have on international relations? Will these smaller groups retain close ties to one another, allowing the Hegemony to live on in de facto fashion? Or will rivalries form and grow, leading to polarization and the overt conflict everyone seems to predict and/or crave?

tl;dr- Q will break up, not through civil war, but a gradual and peaceful separation into smaller groups based on the sub-cultures that exist in the bloc.

I don't have a lot of experience in the realm of foreign relations, so I want to know what everyone here thinks about these predictions. Am I missing something? Is this scenario likely? Is it what is expected by most, and I just missed that fact?

Edited by savethecheerleader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not impossible to leave Q, two alliances have proved that. Whether Q stays or fades away depends on how similar the alliances are and how many differences they are willing to put up with. I think the main difference between Q and a lot of other blocs is that Q put attention into bringing together a bunch of strong alliances, but didn't put much attention into how compatible these alliances were. If those who are less compatible with Q leave that would leave the more similar ones remaining, so Q could end up more unified in the future as everyone left is sure that is where they want to be.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a hegemony dissolving away without at least a token war. While it has happened that 2 alliances have left Q these alliances haven't gone off to forge their own bloc and they still remain tied by various treaties to many Q members so in effect they are not a threat in themselves to the powers that control Q.

However if more people leave Q and the former members become more and more isolated from Q then those who control Q will begin to feel threatened and as such we will start to see conflicts arising between those in Q and those who have left with either siding with Q forces through treaties or aligning with those who oppose Q.

Also I can't help but remember a thread i stumbled apoun once when looking through old topics about the Cycle of Hegemony. It struck me then to see people talking about WUT never falling and seeing a Goon and a NPO member swearing that they would forever be friends. This was 14 days before the Unjust War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people (and un-people) state that the Continuum, unlike other types of blocs and coalitions, is one that is impossible to truly escape without becoming a target for annihilation. Further, it has been claimed that through its very existence, a bloc of such power removes the sovereignty alliances in CN, particularly the sovereignty of member alliances who may wish to leave.

Gremlins and Fok both left Q. I dare someone to try and target them and not end up nuked to oblivion :)

Edited by Trouble Terrible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gremlins and Fok both left Q. I dare someone to try and target them and not end up nuked to oblivion :)

That's what I'm saying. Alliances won't be afraid of leaving Q because they all have like-minded, closer allies outside of the bloc. Because of that, predictions that it will never fall because of the dangers associated with leaving seem baseless.

And this is a surprise because... ???

The same thing was true with the Initiative but, oh look, a bunch of sheep aligned themselves again with the same self-proclaimed wolf.

I wasn't around for the end of WUT, but I know that there are some key differences between it and the Continuum. WUT was made for war; it was created and built to finish what had been started in the first two Great Wars. And it ended in war. A big war. And big wars are scary. In the wake of that big, scary war, the alliances of Q felt it wise to align themselves in such a way that another big, scary war was next to impossible. While WUT was built for war, Q was built for peace. Now that peace has been established, the failings of Q, which are somewhat similar to the failings of WUT, are becoming apparent. But because the circumstances in which each treaty was formed are different, so too are the circumstances by which they are coming apart.

Edited by savethecheerleader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Gramlins and Fok even have anyone who doesnt like them that aren't in Q? :lol:

Who would want to take down one of the good alliances?

There are no "good" alliances. There are just alliances who are either popular at the time in question, or not.

e; in regards to OP, Q will eventually end, everything does. That doesn't mean that the relationships formed will be abolished though. We'll just see the next huge bloc that may start off being loved by the people but then in time will also end up as what Paradigm would consider "bad" alliances :)

Edited by Richard Rahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no "good" alliances. There are just alliances who are either popular at the time in question, or not.

e; in regards to OP, Q will eventually end, everything does. That doesn't mean that the relationships formed will be abolished though. We'll just see the next huge bloc that may start off being loved by the people but then in time will also end up as what Paradigm would consider "bad" alliances :)

And some that are never poplar :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree with you to an extent. I just don't see many (if any) more alliances getting into SF. That is a bloc which values friendship (surprise surprise) rather than power and dominance, such as tC.

Well, when I mention lines along which things might be divided, I didn't mean strictly membership the stated blocs- just entrance into their sphere of influence.

But this is a good example of what I mean. Alliances who find themselves geared more towards leisure will naturally find themselves gravitating away from Q and towards the SF SoI. In the same way, those who share values with, say, NPO, will likely find themselves closer to 1V. Eventually, it will become apparent that these ties are more valuable than those held within Q, leading to a sort of gradual, mutual dissolution of the bloc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm saying. Alliances won't be afraid of leaving Q because they all have like-minded, closer allies outside of the bloc. Because of that, predictions that it will never fall because of the dangers associated with leaving seem baseless.

I wasn't around for the end of WUT, but I know that there are some key differences between it and the Continuum. WUT was made for war; it was created and built to finish what had been started in the first two Great Wars. And it ended in war. A big war. And big wars are scary. In the wake of that big, scary war, the alliances of Q felt it wise to align themselves in such a way that another big, scary war was next to impossible. While WUT was built for war, Q was built for peace. Now that peace has been established, the failings of Q, which are somewhat similar to the failings of WUT, are becoming apparent. But because the circumstances in which each treaty was formed are different, so too are the circumstances by which they are coming apart.

Excellent post; you're right that there are differences between it and the Continuum in that regard. From mine, however, it just seems that there are very similar themes that are echoing in Q and WUT; that is, both have ensured that NPO remains at the top of the game and both have carried (or one did initially carry) IRON, NpO, et al. From an outsiders perspective, it appears as though the primary power structure has remained the same whilst those who have been alienated from it have taken refuge in Vox, etc. To me, its the same beverage but in diet-form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no "good" alliances. There are just alliances who are either popular at the time in question, or not.

e; in regards to OP, Q will eventually end, everything does. That doesn't mean that the relationships formed will be abolished though. We'll just see the next huge bloc that may start off being loved by the people but then in time will also end up as what Paradigm would consider "bad" alliances :)

Actually - I dont mean to be rude but I think what you said is kind of baloney really. What I was considering good alliances has ZERO to do with popularity. It has to do with actions.

But - I will admit....I would have to subscribe to your paradigm of thought as well if I was on that side of the game to justify our existance. :P

Edited by Paradigm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually - I dont mean to be rude but I think what you said is kind of baloney really. What I was considering good alliances has ZERO to do with popularity. It has to do with actions.

But - I will admit....I would have to subscribe to your paradigm of thought as well if I was on that side of the game to justify our existance. :P

You speak as though popularity is completely divorced from actions. I don't think that this is the case, at least not most of the time.

Take, for example, STA. From what I have seen, STA has enjoyed enormous popularity here on the Big Boards. How did they gain it? By taking what the community deems to be honorable and courageous action.

On the other hand, other alliances, including the alliance of the poster you quoted (Valhalla), have become (at least to me) noticeably unpopular. I would argue that this is a product of the actions they have take within the past year.

That's not to say, of course, that this correlation is always the case. But I think that is a discussion for a different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually - I dont mean to be rude but I think what you said is kind of baloney really. What I was considering good alliances has ZERO to do with popularity. It has to do with actions.

But - I will admit....I would have to subscribe to your paradigm of thought as well if I was on that side of the game to justify our existance. :P

Actually, I don't have to do anything to justify my existence. The fact that I exist does that for me.

I was Legion and Aegis for a year and a half, before and after GWIII. I know what it is to trampled upon. I'm in Valhalla now, because it is not the Valhalla it was then, plain and simple. But people who consider Valhalla to be this "bad" alliance, base their thoughts on past actions.

That's funny actually, seeing as how most of the ones you claim to be "good" are pushing for change in which someones past actions should not reflect how they are always treated on Bob. Just another hypocrisy of the "good" ones out there.

And you didn't actually negate my point. Popularity has everything to do with how an alliance is viewed by the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was Legion and Aegis for a year and a half, before and after GWIII. I know what it is to trampled upon. I'm in Valhalla now, because it is not the Valhalla it was then, plain and simple. But people who consider Valhalla to be this "bad" alliance, base their thoughts on past actions.

Just saying you've changed doesn't make it so. Actions speak far louder than words and your last noticable action was to start the last major war with virtually no CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may yet live to see interesting times. We've seen Grämlins and FOK leave the core bloc, and I wouldn't be surprised to see others doing the same at some point. We've recently seen VE leave the NPO sphere of influence entirely and join the SF one – alliances may not join the core SF bloc but they can certainly move to be close to it. The NpO and other former BLEU alliances and allies are regaining strength, and won't make the same mistakes as Sponge's Polaris did.

We've seen various incidents since the Polar war that might point the way to future tensions – TPF's pressure on the TGE-FOK relationship, the comments in the VE-International thread, the positive comments in Vox threads. There is a lot more open disagreement in public and I believe that that is due to the increased strength of the 'opposition'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying you've changed doesn't make it so. Actions speak far louder than words and your last noticable action was to start the last major war with virtually no CB.

The same war that many of the so called "good" alliances were in?

Don't play games. It doesn't matter what the "bad" alliances, do. We're always going to be viewed by the "good" guys negatively. That can only change after the next big war. And that's fine, that's the point of things. But don't get all high and mighty about your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same war that many of the so called "good" alliances were in?

Don't play games. It doesn't matter what the "bad" alliances, do. We're always going to be viewed by the "good" guys negatively. That can only change after the next big war. And that's fine, that's the point of things. But don't get all high and mighty about your position.

My bad, that fact that you guys dragged in some decent alliances along with you (some of whome publically stated they didn't support the reason) clearly makes your actions ok :mellow:

I don't know about the whole "good" or "bad" thing you've got going on, all I know is you can't moan about people viewing you as the same old Valhalla when your actions support that very same theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same war that many of the so called "good" alliances were in?

Don't play games. It doesn't matter what the "bad" alliances, do. We're always going to be viewed by the "good" guys negatively. That can only change after the next big war. And that's fine, that's the point of things. But don't get all high and mighty about your position.

GGA/Valhalla vs. Hyperion =/= TOP/GRE/FARK/UMB/FOK/etc vs. NpO

Say it as many times as you want, but it wasn't the same war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Polar, i don't even see the two wars as the same. GGA/Valhalla simply wanted to drag as many opposing alliances as possible against Q, giving Q a reason to strike. NPO wanted to destroy MK hence GGA/Valhalla attempting to force Hyperion to give them a CB against MK first. When that didn't happen, they simply attacked Hyperion drawing in GR who then drew in MK/Polaris.

in the end, Valhalla has not shown much in the way of change since noWedge except at least noWedge was amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I wasn't sure which inane argument to expect to derail this thread...

I suspected is/isn't the UjW and Great War initially, but in hindsight I perhaps should have seen this one coming.

Anyway, are there any Q folks who want to comment on the unity/disunity of the bloc? Anything to show that a peaceful or bloody end for the Continuum is more likely? Do you think it will end at all?

Edited by savethecheerleader
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...