The nature of the Hegemony

[Electron Sponge]

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?

You aren't going to get much of a response other than 'There are no problems and we love each other very much. You're a bad person for bringing this up and you should be ashamed.'

[Richard Rahl]

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

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.

I use the good and bad theme, simply to debate with Paradigm in a good natured way, about good/bad concepts of alliance.

And you're right of course. The two wars were distinct and in my haste I included the two. Apologies. I'm not trying to rehash old arguments, just trying to honestly debate.

That still does not dispel the hypocrisy present in the "good side" (I'll continue with the theme), who can do no wrong. How could they allow themselves to have been drawn into the situation and still remain "good". They participated. Whether they were dragged in or not doesn't change that.

I guess I just see things differently. If "side" was so good, they would never let themselves be put into a situation they thought was bad. Not even mentioning, that the entire concept of good and evil is so arbitrary as to mean almost nothing. I believe my point still stands, it's all about popularity.

Q: So it's my understanding that until something big happens that provides opportunities to take sides again, "bad" alliances can do nothing to improve their PR? (honest question).

disclaimer (because someone pmed me about it): you saying bad things about Valhalla is okay. We're big boys and girls. The debate is what I'm after.

[Anu Drake]

Gremlins and FOK are both thriving. They are the only alliances to ever leave tC. Neither are in danger of annihilation or revenge. tC will exist for as long as we can agree on each others individual actions and the actions of the whole. The amount of give and take, debate and generally open conversations (especially as of late) occurring in tC makes it highly unlikely we'll see a change in membership anytime soon. Of course anything is possible and there are no such thing as an absolute in CN.

[savethecheerleader]

You aren't going to get much of a response other than 'There are no problems and we love each other very much. You're a bad person for bringing this up and you should be ashamed.'

I'm aware that it is likely we will be fed that line. I've been fed it before. But, since I'm not in Q, nor do I have any ties with anyone in Q, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now and hope they'll discuss the issue honestly, and that no line feeding will take place.

[KingSuck]

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.

Actually no. We joined that war due to our MDoAP with GGA, that 'CB' you speak of wasn't ours.

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.

In my opinion there were two different wars, but they were strongly connected (not the CBs, just the wars themselves). I think it's worth noting that Valhalla would have hit polar with citadel+the rest if we hadn't already been called in via GGA.

[Doitzel]

Actually no. We joined that war due to our MDoAP with GGA, that 'CB' you speak of wasn't ours.

You realise that the 'o' in MDoAP stands for 'optional', right? Because when you invoke that option by engaging in the war you sort of give credence and support by adopting the rationale as valid.

Come now. You'll make yourself dizzy.

[KingSuck]

You realise that the 'o' in MDoAP stands for 'optional', right? Because when you invoke that option by engaging in the war you sort of give credence and support by adopting the rationale as valid.

Come now. You'll make yourself dizzy.

I do, and if a friend asks for help we'll give it.

Oh and don't fret over me, I can take care of myself

[Kindom of Goon]

That still does not dispel the hypocrisy present in the "good side" (I'll continue with the theme), who can do no wrong. How could they allow themselves to have been drawn into the situation and still remain "good". They participated. Whether they were dragged in or not doesn't change that.

I guess I just see things differently. If "side" was so good, they would never let themselves be put into a situation they thought was bad. Not even mentioning, that the entire concept of good and evil is so arbitrary as to mean almost nothing. I believe my point still stands, it's all about popularity.

You're being too black and white about it all. For a start, who said they can do no wrong? Those who are viewed positively are not looked upon that way because they "do no wrong" but because their policies, principles and attitude towards other alliances and players are on the whole honorable and respectable. I agree with you that those who support these action indirectly cannot claim to be entirely innocent, but its their own actions not those they associate with that people make their judgement on.

Q: So it's my understanding that until something big happens that provides opportunities to take sides again, "bad" alliances can do nothing to improve their PR? (honest question).

You're assumption that PR points are only won and lost on choosing a sides is incorrect, there are plenty of other ways to improve PR. Most alliances with a negative image either get off on it, don't care enough to do anything about it, or are more worried about safety and security to do anything about it.

[Dochartaigh]

Actually no. We joined that war due to our MDoAP with GGA, that 'CB' you speak of wasn't ours.

Then why not just sign a MDAP since that seems to be what you are implying the "optional" means.

In my opinion there were two different wars, but they were strongly connected (not the CBs, just the wars themselves). I think it's worth noting that Valhalla would have hit polar with citadel+the rest if we hadn't already been called in via GGA.

yes, i know that Valhalla was foaming at the mouth to hit Polaris.

[Bob Janova]

According to the MDP web it is an MADP. However, having that taste in allies and supporting their aggression isn't much less 'evil' than doing it yourself, in my opinion.

[KingSuck]

Then why not just sign a MDAP since that seems to be what you are implying the "optional" means.

For your viewing pleasure.

yes, i know that Valhalla was foaming at the mouth to hit Polaris.

We were. Thankfully that war got rid of a lot of the bad blood and now Polaris is one of my favourite alliances in CN.

[KingSuck]

According to the MDP web it is an MADP. However, having that taste in allies and supporting their aggression isn't much less 'evil' than doing it yourself, in my opinion.

I'm not here to argue over the morality of a war that happened over 6 months ago. I'm just clarifying that our CB for that war was our treaty with GGA.

[Dochartaigh]

For your viewing pleasure.

i was going off the post where it was stated to be an MDoAP and you did not correct the individual.

[Kryievla]

There are distinct subcultures, certainly. Some of us prefer war to peace, some vice-versa. Some of us raid, some of us don't & won't. Some of us put a lot of work into our color spheres; some of us not so much, and some are even multi-colored. There are all kinds of ways to play/do/view things, and we all bring a different perspective. I consider that healthy, and one of our greatest strengths.

I found the original post to be insightful, and I by and large agree. The only bit I disagreed with, is this:

As more Q alliances realize that they would be better off leaving Q and focusing on relations with alliances more similar culture and values,

Only because I am not sure why they are necessarily 'better off'.

You aren't going to get much of a response other than 'There are no problems and we love each other very much. You're a bad person for bringing this up and you should be ashamed.'

No, it's not always puppies & skittles. There are times where we disagree. What matters is not that we disagree, but rather, how we choose to resolve our disagreements. At the end of the day, we choose to stand together, to do our best to resolve our differences respectfully and courteously.

The amount of give and take, debate and generally open conversations (especially as of late) occurring in tC makes it highly unlikely we'll see a change in membership anytime soon.

I suspect Anu is spot on. There have been many friendships formed between alliances and members. Bonds of trust have been established as well. I don't see it imploding any time soon.

[Caliph]

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.

Somewhat true.

The WUT was created by the NPO because Dilber realized the NPO had to get more allies. The WUT was formed for one purpose, revenge on whom the NPO declared as their enemies. The WUT broke up when its members decided to partake in non Order approved wars.

The Continuum was formed to prove to the world that the NPO could put together a bigger, stronger bloc than the NpO could, and to help the NPO remain in the center of politics here on Planet Bob.

One huge change from the WUT to Continuum is that redundant treaties were seen in the WUT as a "lines being drawn", whereas redundant treaties in Continuum are welcomed as a stabilizing factor.

Well that and two alliances that were formally in the Continuum are not actively working to destroy it.

The Continuum is indeed the WUT, version 2. This is very noticable in the wars fought in the Continuum's name, all beatdowns, all tech raids, some for bs reasons, some for no CB. All of these things are what Continuum and One Vision alliances stated would be the affairs of things if the Unjust Path was not destroyed. Funny how the only difference to those threats of old and the current situation is who is in charge of the beatdowns, the NPO, or GOONS.

[Mogar]

Somewhat true.

The WUT was created by the NPO because Dilber realized the NPO had to get more allies. The WUT was formed for one purpose, revenge on whom the NPO declared as their enemies. The WUT broke up when its members decided to partake in non Order approved wars.

WUT killed 90% of all CoaLUEition alliances, 3 of whom are basically NPO puppets, there was no one left to kill .

[Caliph]

WUT killed 90% of all CoaLUEition alliances, 3 of whom are basically NPO puppets, there was no one left to kill .

I disagree, there were plenty of alliances to kill, the problem was that for various reasons they were allied to someone or another in the WUT via the treaty web.

Additionally, the Modgate bannings and the refusal of the GOONS to kick banned member out of gov really sparked tensions between the Orders, who valued certain ideals, and GOONS, who valued the lulz. Additionally, Bilrow and the GGA trying to spark war with GOONS with many actions, one of which being the defense of a Brown none against a tech raid by a protectorate of GOONS, who turned out not to actually be a GGA member after all, sparked even more tensions until war finally broke out, and, most importantly here, half the WUT betrayed the WUT on the outbreak of hostilities.

Instead of sticking with the WUT, half the alliances bailed, and most joined the side attacking the WUT. The WUT hegemony was broken and we were thrust into a brief era of uncertertainty as to who the new hegemony would be, the Unjust Path, or ~?

The Unjust path, it was said, would lead us into a world of beatdowns with little or no use of CB's, where the powerful and allies of the powerful could attack whomever they wanted with impunity, where tech raids would continue to happen.

The world the ~ would lead us to would be of peace, prosperity, and respect, where the lulz alliances would never be allowed a position of power, and where all wars would have proper CB's.

Examine the world today, and you will see not much if different from the world described as the Unjust would have ruled. The ideals are the same, and that is might makes what is. The only difference is in order for the current hegemony to maintain its seat of power, it must stick together and maintain a credible threat of military beat down on any enemy.

To this end any up and coming alliance is either treatied to the Continuum in some way or another, or beat down by someone in the Continuum.

The problem is that there are not really many who are against the NPO anymore. At least, no because they are the "ebul NPO". The only anti NPO, or critical of the NPO, are so because of the NPO's actions, such as betraying one set allies for another, for esssentially vassaling IRON and GGA, and for their treatment of their former allies, who for their service were for all intense purposes left to die with their service to the Order forgotten, and kept from returning through the direct military threats from the NPO and its vassal states.

[Bilrow]

Additionally, the Modgate bannings and the refusal of the GOONS to kick banned member out of gov really sparked tensions between the Orders, who valued certain ideals, and GOONS, who valued the lulz. Additionally, Bilrow and the GGA trying to spark war with GOONS with many actions, one of which being the defense of a Brown none against a tech raid by a protectorate of GOONS, who turned out not to actually be a GGA member after all, sparked even more tensions until war finally broke out, and, most importantly here, half the WUT betrayed the WUT on the outbreak of hostilities.

Keep repeating falsehoods that the nation wasn't a member of GGA at the time, and subsequently kicked out due to not responding to private messages from GGA leadership, doesn't make it less true.

But go ahead and keep lying to yourself if makes your story sound good. It makes me sounds evil and I like that.

Rechecking the admin cp of the old GGA Forums:

phenomenon applied on Jun 6 2007, 12:07 AM and was subsequently kicked and banned on Sep 6 2007, 11:10 PM.

Screenshot from the thread during the whole situation when Ironchef messaged the member:

So the only other alternative (to fit your story), is this was an evil plan by DerekJones hatched on June 6, 2007 to take down the GOONS months and months in advance and to place all the members under my care in great harm by being attacked by GOONS by creating a nation that we purposefully put RAID ME bait on for people ins BAPS to attack months and months in the future, but this is not Opposite Day and that's still doesn't it make your "story" any more true.

Course, I'll just stick with the I'm evil angle, it makes my ego even bigger than it should be. Plus, I know no matter if I was to pull eyewitness testimony and proof your opinion wouldn't change regardless. But, it is my job to ensure the truth gets out there so people who have no clue or were not around then fall for your fairy tale.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Bilrow

[savethecheerleader]

WUT killed 90% of all CoaLUEition alliances, 3 of whom are basically NPO puppets, there was no one left to kill .

This is why I don't think Q will end how WUT did. WUT was born to kill. When the original targets were no longer available, the bloc still needed to kill. First targets: the ones that decided to leave. After those were gone, it became apparent that, due to the differences in culture within the bloc, the only logical targets left were ones in or surrounding it.

Since Q was not created with such a mandate of military action, and does not draw its identity from a common enemy the way WUT did. So, the events surrounding its eventual breakup are less likely to be military in nature

I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself. I'm posting as much to solidify my ideas in my own mind as I am for the sake of discussion.

[Caliph]

Keep repeating falsehoods that the nation wasn't a member of GGA at the time, and subsequently kicked out due to not responding to private messages from GGA leadership, doesn't make it less true.

But go ahead and keep lying to yourself if makes your story sound good. It makes me sounds evil and I like that.

Rechecking the admin cp of the old GGA Forums:

phenomenon applied on Jun 6 2007, 12:07 AM and was subsequently kicked and banned on Sep 6 2007, 11:10 PM.

Screenshot from the thread during the whole situation when Ironchef messaged the member:

So the only other alternative (to fit your story), is this was an evil plan by DerekJones hatched on June 6, 2007 to take down the GOONS months and months in advance and to place all the members under my care in great harm by being attacked by GOONS by creating a nation that we purposefully put RAID ME bait on for people ins BAPS to attack months and months in the future, but this is not Opposite Day and that's still doesn't it make your "story" any more true.

Course, I'll just stick with the I'm evil angle, it makes my ego even bigger than it should be. Plus, I know no matter if I was to pull eyewitness testimony and proof your opinion wouldn't change regardless. But, it is my job to ensure the truth gets out there so people who have no clue or were not around then fall for your fairy tale.

I admit I do not know the inner workings of the GGA at that time, I can only go by what went on the forums.

And given that GOONS/BAPS/GGA drama, and the evidence that was presented on the forums at the time, it appeared to everyone that GGA was willing to go to war with GOONS over a BAPS tech raid of a brown team nation who was on the "none" Alliance. That person was technically on your member list, however there were no signs by looking at that nation that they were a GGA nation. Nothing was stated as so in their nation bio, they were not flying the GGA AA, they were not flying the GGA flag, and they were not on Green.

Now, I don't know if it was you specifically who decided to push GOONS for war over this, but I do know that this was used by the GGA to "recognize" a state of war with GOONS to spark off the Unjust War. So I will admit that perhaps it wasn't specifically a "Bilrow plot", but it was a GGA plot, and at the time Bilrow was synonamous with GGA.

So forgive me if you truly did not have much involvement in that event, however you were operating as the spokesman for the GGA at the time.