Jump to content

Peace is a lie...


Ivan Moldavi

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If that is the degree of drama that you are using to justify the philosophy, then I believe almost all of major alliances have much more claim to this philosophy than NSO, point being, while this philosophy looks interesting on first read and frankly, it really is, but I feel it has been posted before time, before the achievements you still need to back it up, I do not mean to say that this will not be the case in future. I feel however that such is not the case at this point of time.

Ivan:

The force sense internal struggle with the feelings between the master and the student :D

Regarding the first two lines, I totally agree with your point, but that is how alot of major and non-major alliances are rolling for a long time. I do not see this as a new philosophy...your own ally STA can be the most relevant example of this for you.

During this long peace, there has been emergence of new alliances that have become part of the treaty web and also complicated it, as a way of natural evolution, more the numbers of active alliances, more the web connections. We do not know how these alliances will play out in future, but as a Sith lord, it may be natural for you to assume that they may not honour the treaties. Again, we do not know for a fact how these alliances will play out.

Also during wars, unreal connections are the first ones to break down, this has happened before and it will happen again, again I see nothing new in this philosophy.

I personally always feel that a treaty should be signed not for the sake of signing it but basing it on genuine relations

Right now you beleive peace is a facade to prevent the prevailing order, yes it is, but then again, conflict can and has also been a tool in the past to maintain the hegemony.

Hegemony is bound to be criticised for peace and or conflict, for good and for bad.

I believe you misread Lord Doppelganger's comment. He stated that we are not avoiding conflict and I stated that we are not actively seeking to wage war but that we will not back down from conflict. Just because you chose to underline one part and leave the rest of my comment out doesn't make those parts any less relevant to the whole.

As far as the rest of your comments go, what "achievements" would an alliance need to accomplish before declaring that it will not take part in the webs and believes the facade of same only support the lie? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

It isn't an assumption on my part that alliances will not honor their treaties, it is a documented historic fact. When three alliances are intermingled via cross referencing and cascading treaties if two of those parties go to war the third will either be emasculated or will have to forfeit some measure of their integrity. Either way perpetuates the lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the overall direct of this argument. A tangled treaty web is stifling.

But rather than the existence of the web being having an effect of stagnation upon the realm of CN I see the problem in terms of sovereignty.

The Mutual Defence and Aggression type treaties bind the undersigned to actions of war that they may not agree with. As is often the case one treaty partner is often the dominant through size and/or ability/influence/other treaties. The lesser signatory is then reduced to nothing more than a auxiliary military wing of the pre-eminent alliance bound to defend the actions of the dominant when they perhaps deservedly become a target. Or even worse bound to prosecute the wars of the dominant when they wish to target an alliance the lesser partner has no issue with or feels is unfairly warred against.

As treaties multiply and ties become more complicated between alliances I believe a situation arises where only a few individuals in the more powerful alliances have any real say over the direction of affairs in CN. A lack of self determination for the majority occurs. I say that this is a bad thing.

For me PIATS and NAPS should for the majority of treaties with a few Mutual type treaties for the very close. And even then I would argue that alliances looking at MDAPs should really be merging if they are that closely aligned.

Why then so many Mutual treaties?

Maybe the majority of alliances on Bob are really very friendly and similar in belief and outlook. I tend to imagine fear is a great motivational factor though. If I have hard mates I will be safe!.

If fear is the problem what is the solution?

Perhaps the emergence of a viable alternative?

Anyway, I wish the NSO luck with this as I see it as a positive move.

M6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTE: This was presented to the Brotherhood of Darkness within the New Sith Order as an elaboration and comment on our creed. It has only been provided here at the expressed request of several members of the alliance.

This is the first expressive statement from me regarding our creed and the first essay, if it can be called such, in a series outlining in more detail why I believe the Sith Code to be the only relevant philosophy in the Cyberverse today.

This is not an exhaustive commentary and I do not present it as anything more than the ramblings of one member of the Order. Over time I may elaborate on specific points contained herein and with the added segments later this may evolve into something greater than initially expected, but not today.

The two sentences I have highlighted offer a conflicting view of this essay. Although expressive its based on your "creed" which makes it more important than "one mans ramblings". If the essay is based on the New Sith Code then it is a window to how the Order thinks as a whole even though its only the expression of a single member.

Today I speak specifically on the first line of the Sith Code and how it relates to the New Sith Order and its desired path in the Cyberverse. Peace is a lie. In a world mired in treated webs that present the allure of peaceful coexistence some may see that as a simple falsehood or an outrageous oversimplification. Both are incorrect.

First, I daresay that at least half, perhaps more, of the existing treaties in the Cyberverse are not worth the ink they were pinned with. Dishonorable intentions coupled with dishonorable acts. The stacking of treaties and jumbling of priorities almost, by default, dictates that when a major war erupts some parties will have to abandon their “allies” and fail to uphold the terms of their pacts and covenants.

Indeed, it is wholly recognizable by even the common nation that in order for any major conflict to transpire beyond the wanton bandwagon types of offences each major alliance will have to sacrifice some aspect of their integrity in order to facilitate aggressive action.

And yet, this has all transpired under the auspices of a lie. It is a lie that has propagated to the point of complete derision for the very concepts upon which the forward mobility of the Cyberverse must progress. The Cyberverse, when viewed as an inclusive and whole entity, survives on conflict. Conflict produces competitiveness. It accelerates innovation. It lends seed to growth and diversity. Without conflict the Cyberverse stagnates and becomes a morass, a pit of bleak despair and dissatisfaction.

Even many of the treaties themselves provide fodder for this flagrant mistruth through their very nature. A mutual aggression or mutual offensive pact implies the underlying principle of shared conflict but does nothing to provide for it directly. Most of the treated webs are little more than collective deterrents meant to stopgap the concept of open conflict and warfare and make the waging of same obsolete. The world is afraid of war because war, at least on the largest scales, challenges the status quo.

The world needs conflict to survive. To claim that a world of peace is the best alternative for the growth of the Cyberverse is to give in to the lie. Those that give in to the lie should regulate themselves to the neutral alliances that espouse no warfare under any circumstances instead of taking part in meaningless libraries full of treaties and pacts that only remain valid so long as the lie is support abroad. Once the veil of the lie falls, the webs as a whole will fail.

Peace is a lie…

The strong will survive.

I agree with much of what you say here. I do believe your comment regarding the fear of war is a generalisation that doesn't accurately portray the feelings of every alliance on Bob. Alliances that sign treaties do not necessarily have to agree on every issue that may arise on the planet and sometimes an alliance does something so wrong that they deserve to have their remaining treaties dropped. In the case of an alliance that works against an ally or deceives an ally they rightly should be cast aside and an ally should not be obliged to honour a treaty under these circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first point isn't accurate and is just a matter of your opinion so I fail to see the need for you to include it at all and your second can be readily dismissed by historic evidence in which numerous alliances that have held conflicting treaties in times of war have chosen not to honor all characteristics of those agreements regardless of whether actual "wrong" was committed towards them directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, what the lie basically amounts to is that every day in channels and conversations powerful individual who absolutely despise each other smile, shake hands, laugh, and have a jolly old time, all in the name of peace or diplomacy. It's not simply that treaties don't mean anything, because they certainly do. They mean that alliances and leaders feel obligated to play nice with those that they should have no obligation to. Whether it's fear or simply years of ingrained habit, it is suffocating and stifling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first point isn't accurate and is just a matter of your opinion so I fail to see the need for you to include it at all

Probably the same thing that made you include the initial comment I think.

your second can be readily dismissed by historic evidence in which numerous alliances that have held conflicting treaties in times of war have chosen not to honor all characteristics of those agreements regardless of whether actual "wrong" was committed towards them directly.

I agree there have been numerous cases. It is neither the exception nor is it the rule and your post makes it sound like its the rule. Numerous treaties have been retained in recent months that disprove this blanket assessment and although a war didn't precede the retentions, war would have resulted if the treaties in question were dropped. There have also been numerous cases of alliances retaining treaties that led to their comprehensive defeat because they did indeed decide to honour their treaties regardless of the cost in NS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very interesting to see someone fully endorse this philosophy. Hopefully our next great conflict will do away with the ridiculous treaty web.

The ridiculous treaty web is a side effect of the ridiculous amount of micro-alliances like Avalanche. Until such time as everyone can stop trying to be a general leading their little clique of misfits the web will be a mess.

Hell its even hard to use the term mico-alliance anymore. Everything has been so diluted an alliance that boasted only enough nations to be considered minor 2 years ago today would be considered a major player.

Edited by GTTofAK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ridiculous treaty web is a side effect of the ridiculous amount of micro-alliances like Avalanche. Until such time as everyone can stop trying to be a general leading their little clique of misfits the web will be a mess.

Hell its even hard to use the term mico-alliance anymore. Everything has been so diluted an alliance that boasted only enough players to be considered minor 2 years ago today would be considered a major player.

I believe the correct response to this would be that I'm not playing this game in order to help somebody else have a good time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the correct response to this would be that I'm not playing this game in order to help somebody else have a good time.

Hey when the alliances were 3 times as large and their governments were 3 times as small it was a great time for just about everybody.

Today there are many generals, not enough soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, what the lie basically amounts to is that every day in channels and conversations powerful individual who absolutely despise each other smile, shake hands, laugh, and have a jolly old time, all in the name of peace or diplomacy. It's not simply that treaties don't mean anything, because they certainly do. They mean that alliances and leaders feel obligated to play nice with those that they should have no obligation to. Whether it's fear or simply years of ingrained habit, it is suffocating and stifling.

I certainly do not miss dealing on a daily basis with people like that. It's much more fun to occasionally singe their short and curlies with searing blasts of truth and watch them squirm.

Under the current system if you don't lie you end up in a foxhole next to me eventually. Fortunately for me, most of you couldn't be honest if your lives depended on it so my foxhole stays uncluttered. When you tell the truth you'll win a lot of admirers and win a lot of wars, but eventually someone will come along telling just the right lie to just the right people and down you'll go. Whether or not you hang around waiting to stick a shiv into the neckbones of the perpetrators like I have is purely a matter of what sort of character you have, really. I'd expect most of the people who don't want to deal with the low, trashy people who lie all the time end up just walking away. I'll keep working to put an end to them.

"A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey when the alliances were 3 times as large and their governments were 3 times as small it was a great time for just about everybody.

Today there are many generals, not enough soldiers.

The question is whether the increase in the number of generals stemmed from the boredom of being a soldier or whether the boredom of the soldiers increased because of the increase in the number of generals. I'd argue a lot of alliances have policies that make being a member of them incredibly pointless and boring. If a soldier doesn't know what's going on, he gets bored and decides he wants to have a hand in shaping his own future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ridiculous treaty web is a side effect of the ridiculous amount of micro-alliances like Avalanche. Until such time as everyone can stop trying to be a general leading their little clique of misfits the web will be a mess.

Hell its even hard to use the term mico-alliance anymore. Everything has been so diluted an alliance that boasted only enough nations to be considered minor 2 years ago today would be considered a major player.

My alliance isn't the one who puppets others. My alliance isn't the one that rolls every hint of opposition.

Got a problem? Do something about it, you moronic thug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly do not miss dealing on a daily basis with people like that. It's much more fun to occasionally singe their short and curlies with searing blasts of truth and watch them squirm.

Under the current system if you don't lie you end up in a foxhole next to me eventually. Fortunately for me, most of you couldn't be honest if your lives depended on it so my foxhole stays uncluttered. When you tell the truth you'll win a lot of admirers and win a lot of wars, but eventually someone will come along telling just the right lie to just the right people and down you'll go. Whether or not you hang around waiting to stick a shiv into the neckbones of the perpetrators like I have is purely a matter of what sort of character you have, really. I'd expect most of the people who don't want to deal with the low, trashy people who lie all the time end up just walking away. I'll keep working to put an end to them.

"A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup."

Ironic coming from the man that led the huge expansion of the treaty web prior to UJP...something you have yet to take responsibility for. You're only honest when it's convenient for you. You made allies with alliances you privately hated just to save your own $@!. More hypocrisy from you...not exactly a shock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ridiculous treaty web is a side effect of the ridiculous amount of micro-alliances like Avalanche. Until such time as everyone can stop trying to be a general leading their little clique of misfits the web will be a mess.

Hell its even hard to use the term mico-alliance anymore. Everything has been so diluted an alliance that boasted only enough nations to be considered minor 2 years ago today would be considered a major player.

The misfits over at Avalanche are going to get a huge ego boost knowing they are the reason alliances the size of NPO have to keep dozens of MDP and above-level treaties to feel safe.

Also do your small membership allies (TORN and OG, for example) know what you think of alliances that don't fall into the Super Wal-Mart philosophy of alliance organization?

Edited by Pazuzu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My alliance isn't the one who puppets others. My alliance isn't the one that rolls every hint of opposition.

Roll? Your alliance has never been in a single major war. You are toadies who to use an economics expression lives under someone elss damn.

Edited by GTTofAK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My alliance isn't the one who puppets others. My alliance isn't the one that rolls every hint of opposition.

Got a problem? Do something about it, you moronic thug.

I just saw your nation. Calling someone a thug while you gloat about being a thug is a new one for me <_<

Note to self, read post correctly.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly do not miss dealing on a daily basis with people like that. It's much more fun to occasionally singe their short and curlies with searing blasts of truth and watch them squirm.

Under the current system if you don't lie you end up in a foxhole next to me eventually. Fortunately for me, most of you couldn't be honest if your lives depended on it so my foxhole stays uncluttered. When you tell the truth you'll win a lot of admirers and win a lot of wars, but eventually someone will come along telling just the right lie to just the right people and down you'll go. Whether or not you hang around waiting to stick a shiv into the neckbones of the perpetrators like I have is purely a matter of what sort of character you have, really. I'd expect most of the people who don't want to deal with the low, trashy people who lie all the time end up just walking away. I'll keep working to put an end to them.

"A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup."

Arguing with a Sponge was always fun, because I always knew it was at least an honest argument.

Not that I was always honest, of course. I got pretty good at keeping up the facade as long as necessary. Most of those people aren't bad people, most have simply bought into a system that teaches them to behave in this way, and very few ever realize it.

Conflict is always lurking under the surface, and our current system seeks only to keep it there. Working with people you don't like is not wrong or bad, but seeking to avoid conflict with them for the sole purpose of avoiding conflict with them is useless and self-defeating. It harms the integrity of the self and forces one to either accept an irrational way of life or to deliberately act out a broken script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey when the alliances were 3 times as large and their governments were 3 times as small it was a great time for just about everybody.

Today there are many generals, not enough soldiers.

Here is a question for you: If the micro alliances and small alliances (unaligned red nations for that matter) bother you so much, why do you enable their existence by directly providing for their diplomatic and military defense?

It seems to me that the treaty web and the laundry list of protectorates held by each member alliance (including your own) enables these micro/small/mini napoleans to not only exist, but to actively force you to act on their behalf. Your nation's strength is the weapon these little napoleans weild to make their existance known in the face of those who normally would hunt and destroy them for being too small and too unhealthy to exist.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...