Peace is a lie...

[Draztikus]

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that he's probably calling me a hypocrite, again. Am I right?

Yup, he's going on about you being the sole person responsible for the MDP web again

[Electron Sponge]

Yup, he's going on about you being the sole person responsible for the MDP web again

lol slayer99, I bet he has his responses saved to a text file and just pastes a random one in. I might unignore him just so I can mock him more easily.

Also Reachwind I think you're asking the string of letters guy questions above his paygrade.

[Reachwind]

lol slayer99, I bet he has his responses saved to a text file and just pastes a random one in. I might unignore him just so I can mock him more easily.

Also Reachwind I think you're asking the string of letters guy questions above his paygrade.

Oh I know that, after all what is wrong with being a mindless pawn?

[Comrade Josh]

You guys are funny.

Keep up the lulz!

[Prodigal Moon]

This is quickly becoming my new favorite thread :lol:

In response to the OP: It seems like the viewpoints boil down to "The strong will survive" vs. "The meek shall inherit the Earth." I can't claim to intirely embody the former attitude, but we (LEN) do at least share the sentiment on treaties. Unfortuantely, it seems like this move towards countless treaties ocurred as a group process, so having tons of MDP's became not just accepted but possibly even necessary to keep up. I'm not really sure why any alliance needs over 100 milion NS at its back though, or how it could how to actually come to the defense of 15+ allies.

[Vilien]

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

Toadies? To whom? Yeah, Avalanche is really living on your hard work, and your dollar. We're really grateful for your work, thanks for making things the way they are.

[avernite]

While the essay is certainly interesting, the question is not anymore if there is a facade; I believe most of us believe that the web binds together people you would prefer never to have anywhere within a mile from eachother.

The question is, why has the facade developed, and why would it not simply redevelop if it ever broke?

To be sure, in the way of the world, war is only usefull in so far as you can cause more damage to another than to the self. The War of the Coalition showed well enough that any alliance worth having a conflict with cannot be beaten profitably. Thus, in some sense it is caution that keeps the web. If in one war you kill an alliance and lose half your strength, while 20 others pick up a few stragglers and just keep growing, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Thus, now as in the past, it is actually beneficial for alliances to escalate to worldwide conflict. The more potential later rivals are fighting (preferably on the losing side, but on your winning side is second-best), the less the actual and relative cost of war.

What does it matter that you hate your ally's guts? If he's willing to take nukes from another guy you don't like, you're winning. If he is willing to do it and meanwhile you don't do much, you amass power. Is this method risky? Certainly, as you say, peace is a lie. A good one, for sure, but a long peace lulls the senses, and your power will start deteriorating faster than it could be regained simply by lack of practice. The curbstomp is a smart method to maintain this policy while forestalling the deterioration: all alliances suffer slightly, but at the same time the deterioration is slowed while its full depth is never shown to any would-be adversary.

In short, the facade is eminently usefull by ensuring curbstomps and the equal division of damage, thus while one does not easily gain power, a certain deftness at not being the target of a stomp can advance your position. Add in a little bit of subtle but not death-worthy covert weakening of rivals, and you are on your way to power. Not quickly, mind, but surely and safely. So long as risktakers are so evidently in the minority among the powerfull (and these have the least reason to take risks), this situation is fairly stable. It is only by the growth of the dissatisfied masses, of those without patience, that the facade can be overthrown.

And even then, the patient and cautious will prevail in a world of risktakers, as any risk entails a chance of death. Thus, caution makes one a not so big target (you're only aiming for nr 10, so why should anyone but that number 10 care? And that number 10 actually does want to be nr 1), while patience allows one to overtake others step by step. At a certain point, all high ranks but the first 1-2 places will be secured by the cautious, the nr 1 will take a calculated risk that backfires, and without risk a new number 1 is installed that can hang on so long as the masses do not again revolt.

The current state of the world shows clearly that this stratagem works, so the real question is, is this an actual cycle or do the tricks learned in one cycle of patience ensure the next cycle will be even longer, perhaps even infinite? Current events indicate a no for infinity, but maybe someday in a next cycle it will happen.

[Slayer99]

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that he's probably calling me a hypocrite, again. Am I right?

What's the matter Spongebob, afraid to man up to your critics?

Truth hurts.

[Branimir]

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that he's probably calling me a hypocrite, again. Am I right?

You know you are doing this ignore thing wrongly, actually after reading this, I wager you arent ignoring at all and never had a intention to.

You know, this is really childish. Just putting it out there.

Anyway, the piece presented in the OP shall be forwarded to academic circles in U.S. for analysis and studies.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Branimir

[Electron Sponge]

What's the matter Spongebob, afraid to man up to your critics?

Truth hurts.

I've got no fear of 'manning up'. I regularly answer my 'critics'. It's just boring to have to read the same thing every time you 'criticize' me. But then I realized, hey I am seeing the same post every time anyway when I see

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Slayer99.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Slayer99

So I figured this way I can go back to making you look like a complete moron while being bored by your repetitive, quixotic efforts to malign me. Every single time you say something stupid like what you said earlier it makes me look just that much better so I guess I should thank you. Even the greatest boxers need punching bags, I suppose you'll do. Keep doing what you're doing Slayer99, and I'll keep letting you taste the back of my hand.

Get some new material. The hypocrite stuff is old and tired, and it doesn't really jive with reality. Even your own allies facepalm when they read what you write. I know, they tell me.

aaaaanyway

The current state of the world shows clearly that this stratagem works, so the real question is, is this an actual cycle or do the tricks learned in one cycle of patience ensure the next cycle will be even longer, perhaps even infinite? Current events indicate a no for infinity, but maybe someday in a next cycle it will happen.

This stratagem will only work as long as the cautious alliance's less cautious friends don't get themselves demolished. A cautious alliance whose members' intemperate words combined with their friends' intemperate actions have drawn a large degree of ire may find themselves in a very precarious and untenable position, if those friends end up on the wrong side of a beat down.

[Byron Orpheus]

This is quickly becoming my new favorite thread :lol:

In response to the OP: It seems like the viewpoints boil down to "The strong will survive" vs. "The meek shall inherit the Earth." I can't claim to intirely embody the former attitude, but we (LEN) do at least share the sentiment on treaties. Unfortuantely, it seems like this move towards countless treaties ocurred as a group process, so having tons of MDP's became not just accepted but possibly even necessary to keep up. I'm not really sure why any alliance needs over 100 milion NS at its back though, or how it could how to actually come to the defense of 15+ allies.

Neither will.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Merrie Melodies]

Jumping back towards the OPs statement, as I read our Creed the ever powerful words "Death before Dishonor" ring through my mind.

While our true friends are few, I would rather die than dishonor them!

[Bob Janova]

Any philosophy which encourages a simpler MDP web has my backing .

And yes, much of the treaty web is a lie.

[heggo]

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.

It is unfortunate that this argument was allowed to sit for so long without someone pointing out how absolutely devoid of reason it is. Lets consider a couple issues:

1. Is it intrinsically good to have large numbers of people playing the game? Answer: No. No it is not. We need only be above a certain threshold, for the game to be interesting. Occasional declines in player base are fine if not good- having too many players lurking around just clutters the game, really. And I feel no obligation to bring other people into the game.

2. Does increasing the player base through times of peace increase the quality of the players playing the game? Answer: No. No it does not. Brilliant leaders and entertaining personalities come from times of conflict and revolution, not stagnation and quiet. The entire history of the known world stands behind me as my evidence. Besides, these times of stagnation and quiet are maintained through the use of P/E-ZI policies which are designed to remove from the game anyone who is remotely interesting. I want interesting players, not a horde of boring peaceful ones.

3. Has cybernations registration been open throughout the whole history of cybernations? No. Not it has not been. In fact, new registration often has been closed during wars of importance, so as to reduce server strain I presume. To see a decline in the number of extant nations during a period in which new registration cut off is to be expected by any rational individual: some attrition, after all, is just about guaranteed.

Oh, and avernite? Many of the things you highlight as selling points of the web system we (and many others) see as sources of game stagnation. Just sayin'.

I leave you with this OOC remark:

"You know what the fellow said—in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

[Heft]

There is nothing wrong with working with people that you do not particularly like, just as there is nothing wrong with using a lull in conflict to consolidate your interests and make yourself stronger for the next period of conflict. The problem is when so many people begin to believe that it is right, good, and necessary for them to tolerate people they do not like for the sole purpose of not having conflict with them, and this mindset then proceeds to take hold of the majority of influential leadership, so that we end up with a wide and entrenched network of conflicting personalities that refuse to conflict, even when they have every reason to do so.

[ChairmanHal]

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.

That might be what motivates some, but certainly not all those involved. Others have specific axes to grind--whether it is a perceived slight or past animosity. Some just like to fight in general, but are smart in picking their fights (else they themselves would have been rolled long before). You could of course argue that someone is merely taking advantage of said axes and proclivity to fight, but that also presupposes that there is always a wider conspiracy. The truth I believe is far more complex and getting more complex as time goes on. NPO in particular still has alliances it can count on when called, but their numbers are dwindling and they tend to ask a lot more questions than before.

Remember too that the current state of war terms takes into account that tech is cheap ($3 mill for 50) and that nations have far larger economies than they used to...beyond that, nuclear weapons are more damaging and the amount required to be made "whole" again is therefore greater.

Do you see war terms that are disproportionate? Of course, you always have. There is nothing unique to any one alliance about that.

Edited April 8, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Satsukage]

your calling UTF a lie

[Reachwind]

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.

Another thing to consider here.... Is it the GW that reduced the # of nations or policies of eternal war/PZI or simply the ruinination of someone's nation they were already bored of supporting or someother unrelated circumstance (such as an alliance not participating or its members going out in a blaze of glory before they quit anyway)?

I don't see how enabling the oldest nations to exponentially increase in power above the new/younger nations via peace will ever lead to a world with many new nations signing up and playing beyond the point they realize they will never catch up or move past the older nations.

[eyriq]

The Sith creed never rings truer than in this world. The social benchmarks that we are bombarded with daily, like Nation Strength rankings, Alliance Strength Rankings, and so on, continually drive home the fact that we are working towards an ultimate goal, that of being #1. With the fixed resources available and fixed means for acquiring them, it is only through war, not peace, that this goal can be realized. Allowing peace is simply an admittance of defeat and a forfeit of your basic nature, or a deceit. Either way, peace is a lie.

[Bob Janova]

I'm not sure it's even true, the number of nations on the planet peaked at over 40,000 just after GW3 if I remember right.

[WalkerNinja]

-snip-

I couldn't shake the feeling as I was reading your essay that your point actually validates Ivan's.

If we accept that peace, and the treaties that bring them, is a strategy. And we also accept these old axioms:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. All war is deception.

Then peace is a strategy, and thus by it's nature deceptive. The most base form of deception, of course, is a lie. If we wish to preserve this strategy, we should destroy Ivan and the NSO immediately (they're blowing our cover).

Edited April 7, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[Slayer99]

I've got no fear of 'manning up'. I regularly answer my 'critics'. It's just boring to have to read the same thing every time you 'criticize' me. But then I realized, hey I am seeing the same post every time anyway when I see

So I figured this way I can go back to making you look like a complete moron while being bored by your repetitive, quixotic efforts to malign me. Every single time you say something stupid like what you said earlier it makes me look just that much better so I guess I should thank you. Even the greatest boxers need punching bags, I suppose you'll do. Keep doing what you're doing Slayer99, and I'll keep letting you taste the back of my hand.

Get some new material. The hypocrite stuff is old and tired, and it doesn't really jive with reality. Even your own allies facepalm when they read what you write. I know, they tell me.

It's not old because you fail to respond with anything resembling logic. Frankly, I'm disappointed because I thought you were intelligent and capable of rational discourse. I guess I was wrong on that count.

I'm calling you out as a hypocrite for decrying the situation that you helped not only to create, but exacerbate. You've constantly failed to respond to these charges OR take responsibility for anything you've done. I suppose attempting to paint me as the guilty party is the only card you can play because you don't have a logical leg to stand on. Until you can respond with something other the old ad hominem or red herring arguments, I'm going to continue to call you out as the egomaniacal hypocrite you are.

Unlike others in Vox, you are guilty of just about everything Vox stands against. Your presence there is a only a matter of convenience as your only hope is to overthrow the "hegemony." If the status quo is ever overturned, you'll turn on your Vox "friends" like you've turned on everyone else you've called "friend." I know you Spongebob, you don't have any real friends on PB...just people that you can use to further your goals.

[WalkerNinja]

-snip-

Slayer, you're an alright guy. I think we've probably disagreed on some things in the past, but it's all good. That being said, I'm as tired as Sponge at seeing the same post over and over again. True, Sponge hasn't answered you. However, in order to fix this skipping record, I took a look at ES' diary and found the answer that I believe you're looking for.

Enjoy.

'Lo walked Sponge and his servants Penchuk and Mussolandia from the field of battle where an entire troop of girl scouts had fallen before their mighty wrath. Drunk with blood and plunder they walked forth with mirth in their hearts. They were on the road to Francograd when the Lord revealed himself. So brilliant was the image of the Lord Walford that Electron Sponge was immediately struck blind. Penchuk and Musso saw him not. From the light came a voice, "Sponge, Sponge! Why persecutest thou me?"

"OMG, wut?"

"You kick against the goads, o ye Sponge of Electrons! Ye must go thither to Francograd. There ye shall make ye the acquaintance of my chosen servants Doitzel and Schattenman. Anon they shalt teachest thou my ways. Forsooth!"

And Sponge was blind. He sawest nothing, neither did he see. Penchuk didst wave private parts before his face, but he saw them not. To Francograd he went, lead by the hands of his trusted servants. When he arrive'd in Francograd he was taken to the home of Schattenman and Doitzel. There did they teach the Sponge the truth of Walford for it had changed. In the first coming of Walford, it was NONE that was oppressed, but according to the Second Testimony of Walford it is ALL who are oppressed. Presented they him with two pills, one red, the other blue. Schattenman sayest unto him, "Thou that takest the blue pill shall forever be lost, but he that believest and takest him the red pill shall know the depth of the Rabbit's Hole."

When Sponge forsook the blue pill in favor of the red pill his eyes were opened and he walked a new path. Penchuk and Mussolandia were saddened, for the red pill they tookest not, neither did they see the truth of Walford.

I hope that clears things up.

Edited April 7, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[Slayer99]

Slayer, you're an alright guy. I think we've probably disagreed on some things in the past, but it's all good. That being said, I'm as tired as Sponge at seeing the same post over and over again. True, Sponge hasn't answered you. However, in order to fix this skipping record, I took a look at ES' diary and found the answer that I believe you're looking for.

I hope that clears things up.

I think Spongebob is a big boy that can respond on his own. Until he does respond, I'm not going to stop attacking his record.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Slayer99

[Heft]

I thing Spongebob is a big boy that can respond on his own. Until he does respond, I'm not going to stop attacking his record.

Could you at least try and keep it contained to threads where it's at least marginally relevant? No one other than you really cares about your attempts at hounding Sponge everywhere he goes, and the rest of us would much rather not have every thread he posts in immediately become about him, no matter what (well, most of us would rather, anyway).