Peace is a lie...

[Sileath]

Oh. I have no idea what the status of my alliance is. I just know that they recruited me back in January. Anyone bothered by my Alliance Affiliation should have had a better recruiting program.

Hahahhaa.. I had considered trying to recruit you in a flagrant violation of accepted international rules, but considering that the line after "Peace is a lie" is "there is only passion," and your absence of enthusiasm for the affairs of your alliance is indicative of paralysis from the neck down, I shall not bother.

[Jack Diorno]

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.

My Dark Lord echoes my sentiments exactly.

[Lycurgus Rex]

So more treaties = less wars = more peace

So if peace = lie and treaties = peace then treaties = lies?

Nearly there, peace=lies but treaties that are made for genuine security of an alliance's own members and interests as well as the allied party's interests arent lies but plain old just smart thinking. Hence our own ties to CD and STA which are worth more than the usual MDP web the majority of members of the cyberverse have become accustomed to.

[Orkules]

You know I remember a time when treaties meant something (well mostly). I remember signing NAPs with alliances as the UCLN and thinking of them as close friends whom I trusted, not just somebody I felt like keeping out of my face. Sad that such times have passed. Maybe they shall return but I fear not.

Well written Ivan, thank you. Peace is a lie. Conflict, strength, even war...these are truths that make the world turn.

[shahenshah]

You are correct. That is why the New Sith Order has only established one non-stacking mutual defense pact outside of the Brown trading sphere and is not actively seeking any others. We will follow up our "talk" with the expressed act of not taking part in the ever expanding treaty webs.

Avoiding conflict is the same end whether by not taking part in a treaty web or taking part in a treaty web. It also contradicts the first post. If NSO is not generating conflict or avoiding it by being part or not part of any strings then you are contradicting yourself are you not.

I cannot speak for the experiences and perceptions of others, but we do it how its meant to be done..keeping the letter and spirit genuine else Good luck with whatever and have fun.

Edited April 7, 2009 by shahenshah

[Corinan]

Avoiding conflict is the same end whether by not taking part in a treaty web or taking part in a treaty web. It also contradicts the first post. If NSO is not generating conflict or avoiding it by being part or not part of any strings then you are contradicting yourself are you not.

No, we're not. Do you honestly think we're trying to avoid conflict? If you think for a second that we are, then I suggest you read this. Granted, it wasn't armed conflict, but we've already provoked quite a response from the Cyberverse in our short amount of time on it.

[Vilien]

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

[ChairmanHal]

Nice words...will probably be backed up with a war at some point.

Too bad statistics over the course of the existence of Planet Bob demonstrate that Great Wars tend to reduce, sometimes radically, the number of nations in existence for an extended period (and as after GW III and IV, permanently). Therefore frequent warfare is not only *not* preferable, it slowly kills the world.

If the current situation seems boring, it is because the experiences of the post-GW IV era taught many of the larger alliances that the deeper you are buried in the treaty web, the less likely it is that you will find yourself isolated in a time of world boredom and get rolled. Being allied to NPO (or for a time NpO) directly or in a bloc further reduced one's risk. Indeed, it made it more likely that you would be one of those doing the rolling.

To convince the leaders of these larger alliances now that they don't need extensive treaties is like convincing them that they don't need to breathe. While we have seen some token cancellations of treaties as of late, these do nothing by themselves to create polarization in the world.

Off stage, in the IRC channels that only a few people know about and the IRC channels that have been declared "OOC" by their owners and nation leaders interact as "players", you see talk of the need to simplify treaty network, create more blocs in open opposition to other blocs, and a "busting up" of the overarching mega treaty web.

Talk however is cheap. If frequent warfare slowly kills the world, then a state of artificial peace makes the steady accumulation of military improvements and wonders meaningless. Warfare in the proper dosage serves to clear out those who would merely accumulate "stuff", be it NS, tech, nukes, etc. and then strut around and declare themselves the winner. Respect on this world is earned as much on the battlefield and how one gets there as it is by sanction. Ask any long time member of Valhalla and they will tell you that they would rather go down fighting in Valhalla than be in ODN (sanctioned, comfortable and...yeah comfortable) or even Gramlins (a notorious accumulator of "stuff"). This is not to totally downgrade either ODN or Gramlins--they do what they do and the statistics show they do it well--but they both lack *something* and when you talk to long time nation leaders they come to the same conclusion.

So then what is best? Balance. The best alliances on Planet Bob have clearly demonstrated they can balance peace and war and accumulate "stuff" when they want. They look for opportunities to improve their position in the world without becoming so bogged down by it that the CN forums runs their alliances and manages their internal affairs, not leadership. They also take all the talk in those secret IRC channels and private, OOC areas with a grain of salt. Ok, a block of salt. Talk is cheap. "We have to be patient" has a way of "we should have done that when we had the chance."

[Ivan Moldavi]

To clarify the positions put forth by some herein, the New Sith Order is not seeking to wage war. We are simply saying that if war presents itself we will oblige. We will stand honorably beside our selected few allies if war comes to them and we will never sacrifice our integrity in the face of conflict because of unclear or intermixed allegiances abroad. Our position is clear. We believe the facade of peace in the Cyberverse is nothing but a perversion of the natural order and that the overlapping conflicts of interest from many many corners is a detriment to growth and innovation which has already lead to significant stagnation and will lead to the eventual demise of the Cyberverse.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Nice words...will probably be backed up with a war at some point.

Too bad statistics over the course of the existence of Planet Bob demonstrate that Great Wars tend to reduce, sometimes radically, the number of nations in existence for an extended period (and as after GW III and IV, permanently). Therefore frequent warfare is not only *not* preferable, it slowly kills the world.

If the current situation seems boring, it is because the experiences of the post-GW IV era taught many of the larger alliances that the deeper you are buried in the treaty web, the less likely it is that you will find yourself isolated in a time of world boredom and get rolled. Being allied to NPO (or for a time NpO) directly or in a bloc further reduced one's risk. Indeed, it made it more likely that you would be one of those doing the rolling.

To convince the leaders of these larger alliances now that they don't need extensive treaties is like convincing them that they don't need to breathe. While we have seen some token cancellations of treaties as of late, these do nothing by themselves to create polarization in the world.

Off stage, in the IRC channels that only a few people know about and the IRC channels that have been declared "OOC" by their owners and nation leaders interact as "players", you see talk of the need to simplify treaty network, create more blocs in open opposition to other blocs, and a "busting up" of the overarching mega treaty web.

Talk however is cheap. If frequent warfare slowly kills the world, then a state of artificial peace makes the steady accumulation of military improvements and wonders meaningless. Warfare in the proper dosage serves to clear out those who would merely accumulate "stuff", be it NS, tech, nukes, etc. and then strut around and declare themselves the winner. Respect on this world is earned as much on the battlefield and how one gets there as it is by sanction. Ask any long time member of Valhalla and they will tell you that they would rather go down fighting in Valhalla than be in ODN (sanctioned, comfortable and...yeah comfortable) or even Gramlins (a notorious accumulator of "stuff"). This is not to totally downgrade either ODN or Gramlins--they do what they do and the statistics show they do it well--but they both lack *something* and when you talk to long time nation leaders they come to the same conclusion.

So then what is best? Balance. The best alliances on Planet Bob have clearly demonstrated they can balance peace and war and accumulate "stuff" when they want. They look for opportunities to improve their position in the world without becoming so bogged down by it that the CN forums runs their alliances and manages their internal affairs, not leadership. They also take all the talk in those secret IRC channels and private, OOC areas with a grain of salt. Ok, a block of salt. Talk is cheap. "We have to be patient" has a way of "we should have done that when we had the chance."

I disagree.

The wars you describe are nothing more than bandwagoning attempts to maintain the status quo, which has already been stated as the stagnating beast in the world. So in the sense that every current war is one "side" being abandoned by unmeritorious "allies" while being lynched by another "side" that has tag along alliances declaring war even though every target is completely filled is driving nations away from the Cyberverse, you are correct. But that is because those wars are based on the lie itself.

You also must take the current state of war terms into account, since they are also given to and supported by the lie. The lie dictates that any alliance losing a war must be made so weak that they may never wage war again. They must be driven to complete and utter ruin and then held there indefinitely. This perpetuates the issue.

[Lycurgus Rex]

it's the dark lord's hymn backwards, I think.

I fixed it for you B)

[Bernard]

Pretty childish philosophy, I guess that is why NSO are incapable of controlling their fear of UME.

[Electron Sponge]

Oh this is going to get funny.

[Kindom of Goon]

While we have seen some token cancellations of treaties as of late, these do nothing by themselves to create polarization in the world.

I disagree here. The 'token cancellations' help paint a clearer picture and this means alliances can no longer just go out and sign with anything that has a pulse. More thought is required, any treaty you sign, cancel, turn down or get turned down on becomes far more significant. Ultimately any actions you take will place you with a certain group whether you like it or not.

[Corinan]

Pretty childish philosophy, I guess that is why NSO are incapable of controlling their fear of UME.

I've never heard of you.

[Bernard]

The foetal position does not give itself to auditing.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Bernard

[Lycurgus Rex]

The foetal position does not give itself to auditing.

Seems even the mediocre achieve fame these days.

[Bernard]

Its an upgrade from laural wreaths crowning obese sith fanboys.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Its an upgrade from laural wreaths crowning obese sith fanboys.

Sounds like sour grapes and piss to me.

[Corinan]

I don't think he has anything better he could be doing with himself, Dark Lord.

[Lycurgus Rex]

Its an upgrade from laural wreaths crowning obese sith fanboys.

Which itself is an upgrade from a mediocre, self glorified..., who exactly are you anyway?

Edited April 7, 2009 by Lycurgus Rex

[Hell Scream]

very interesting.

I believe that it is impossible to read that entire passage in less than a minute, like you have. You posted before reading it. I call shenanigans!

Peace is a lie. The Strong will survive.

[ty345]

Interesting philosophy/observation about CN. As expected, of course...

[shahenshah]

No, we're not. Do you honestly think we're trying to avoid conflict? If you think for a second that we are, then I suggest you read this. Granted, it wasn't armed conflict, but we've already provoked quite a response from the Cyberverse in our short amount of time on it.

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:

To clarify the positions put forth by some herein, the New Sith Order is not seeking to wage war. We are simply saying that if war presents itself we will oblige. We will stand honorably beside our selected few allies if war comes to them and we will never sacrifice our integrity in the face of conflict because of unclear or intermixed allegiances abroad. Our position is clear. We believe the facade of peace in the Cyberverse is nothing but a perversion of the natural order and that the overlapping conflicts of interest from many many corners is a detriment to growth and innovation which has already lead to significant stagnation and will lead to the eventual demise of the Cyberverse.

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

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.

[mattski133]

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.

agreed.