On Order

[Coursca]

This war is not war in the catastrophic sense, then, because what was undone can be easily fixed by large sums of alliance funds.

What war? I don't see a war. I see a lot of speculation of a war, but no war.

[Byron Orpheus]

What war? I don't see a war. I see a lot of speculation of a war, but no war.

"This war" meaning the conceptual war to which I was referring. The type of war, if you will.

[Groucho Marx]

Ideology is just the name given to the morality upon which the alliance operates. On our dear planet the terms are inseparable, at least in the sense in which I am using them. Since one is capable of being based upon the other they form a side of the same coin and can, for the purposes of our argument, considered to be one.

Competing contradictory views are only allowed to survive so long as they are not a threat to the world as a whole-- speaking of Planet Bob of course, I don't know what other planets there are.

They are negligible until it becomes in the best interest of the survival of the majority to side with an "extreme" ideology, which by its nature of extremity has difficulty gaining followers.

Basically free thought is barred in a Unipolar Environment because the security of the status quo depends upon those who promote it. Should one denounce the way things are in a Unipolar environment, they receive a beat down because they threatened the security of the world at large, and justly so. How dare someone be able to think and act for themselves and not for the "common good"? Of course the world at large isn't really threatened by this independent thought, it would be the ones who hold the world together, this "rock" or foundation, in this unipolar environment that would be threatened and would have to act accordingly to prevent the ideals of real sovereignty taking hold in the political machine of cogs and wheels that it created and thus avoiding any chance of there being significant opposition to the world order that this foundation spawned. The "foundation" knows that if their machine breaks down, they break down. They would lose a significant measure of security when this happens, so they will do everything in their power to prevent it from doing so.

But their power is only an illusion that is based off the false sense of security and unity that this unipolar environment supposedly provides for its member alliances. Threaten the security of all is to threaten the security that everyone provides for you. That illusion is what will do them in as well, and cause a great schism amongst the world order that will force it to implode as previous Unipolar hegemonies have in the past.

An "extreme ideology" isn't really that extreme when it is perceived to be for something that benefits everyone. This is why the Communist Alliances have a devoted following of Leftist individuals. This is why the Continuum has a (devoted) following of alliances who wish to insure their own self-security from any threat by promising to defend one another from these threats. Extreme ideologies aren't difficult to get people to follow after a major incident like a Great War or proverbial beat down. If you can't beat them, join them. And to join them is to never lose again. It's a promise of falsified glory based on might makes right.

Edit: Wow. Spelling is a good friend.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Emperor Marx

[Byron Orpheus]

Basically free thought is barred in a Unipolar Environment because the security of the status quo depends upon those who promote it.

Free thought is not barred so long as the free thinkers do not threaten the safety and security of the alliances they differ from.

Should one denounce the way things are in a Unipolar environment, they receive a beat down because they threatened the security of the world at large, and justly so.

A misrepresentation-- denouncement does not warrant aggression, action upon that denouncement (threatening the safety of the alliance one differs in thought from) is what seals the fate of extremists.

How dare someone be able to think and act for themselves and not for the "common good"? Of course the world at large isn't really threatened by this independent thought, it would be the ones who hold the world together, this "rock" or foundation, in this unipolar environment that would be threatened and would have to act accordingly to prevent the ideals of real sovereignty taking hold in the political machine of cogs and wheels that it created and thus avoiding any chance of there being significant opposition to the world order that this foundation spawned. The "foundation" knows that if their machine breaks down, they break down. They would lose a significant measure of security when this happens, so they will do everything in their power to prevent it from doing so.

Real sovereignty meaning the peace and prosperity provided by Pacifica et al that has allowed so many to reach new heights in their respective alliances? No sovereignty has ever been removed from those who have not acted irresponsibly.

An "extreme ideology" isn't really that extreme when it is perceived to be for something that benefits everyone. This is why the Communist Alliances have a devoted following of Leftist individuals. This is why the Continuum has a (devoted) following of alliances who wish to insure their own self-security from anything threat by promising to defend one another from these threats. Extreme ideologies aren't difficult to get people to follow after a major incident like a Great War or proverbial beat down. If you can't beat them, join them. And to join them is to never lose again. It's a promise of falsified glory based on might makes right.

Might does make right and any illusions to the contrary point to the naivete that allows Pacifica to defeat her enemies time and time again.

[James Wilson]

Good read Delta.

Would read again.

Didn't bother to read some of the longer responses though, I did read the ones from the Village dude...

[Coursca]

How ironic on multiple levels that your name is "Emperor Marx." I giggled inside, I must admit.

Note: I'm not responding because I agree with Dr. Orpheus over there. I disagree with him, too.

Basically free thought is barred in a Unipolar Environment because the security of the status quo depends upon those who promote it. Should one denounce the way things are in a Unipolar environment, they receive a beat down because they threatened the security of the world at large, and justly so. How dare someone be able to think and act for themselves and not for the "common good"?

I can remember a few occasions off the top of my head when certain members of a certain bloc had disagreements with NPO and have yet to be rolled. Big disagreements, too. The kind that requires one or several parties to engage in free thought. Of course, my Confidentiality agreements bar me from elaborating, but rest assured that the evidence is there to disprove this thesis.

Of course the world at large isn't really threatened by this independent thought, it would be the ones who hold the world together, this "rock" or foundation, in this unipolar environment that would be threatened and would have to act accordingly to prevent the ideals of real sovereignty taking hold in the political machine of cogs and wheels that it created and thus avoiding any chance of there being significant opposition to the world order that this foundation spawned.

Alliances lose part of their sovereignty in one aspect (freedom to be disengaged from conflict) and gain it in another aspect (increased latitude of action derived from increased security) when they engage in any security-seeking behavior (e.g. entering the treaty web). Even NPO is subject to this.

You've correctly identified that alliances cede some sovereignty in a political environment such as this one, but you've incorrectly identified the source of that cession. Its a systemic attribute of any "interdependent" or "interconnected" system.

But their power is only an illusion that is based off the false sense of security and unity that this unipolar environment supposedly provides for its member alliances. Threaten the security of all is to threaten the security that everyone provides for you. That illusion is what will do them in as well, and cause a great schism amongst the world order that will force it to implode as previous Unipolar hegemonies have in the past.

Unless that "power" is hard power. One declares credible hard power threats illusory at one's own peril. (see: Saddam Hussein in 2003)

Soft power does exert some of the characteristics you have pointed out, but "power" generally does not.

[WarriorConcept]

No, people want assurances of survival.

People are entertained by war, but only if that war is a war that they can easily recover from, a possibility only if on the winning side.

This war is not war in the catastrophic sense, then, because what was undone can be easily fixed by large sums of alliance funds.

This is why people don't want NPO in power anymore. Wars will be a lot more entertaining and not a death sentence.

[HeinousOne]

So I guess this is you dropping the MDP with the centralized power or what?

This is pretty much the thought that was going through my mind the entire time I was reading this.

[Ferrous]

But I will offer only one quick point, since I'm a retired old fart (OOC: a graduate student who is ear-deep in books) and all and I don't really want to drop a text wall in this thread if I can help it:

I wouldn't say that the current system is fracturing so much as it is attempting to return to a state of equilibrium. I think the last year of CN saw an unprecedented uni-polarity during which NPO et al basically ran the show while everyone else engaged in free-riding behavior a la Olson (not to be confused with "survivalist" behavior), letting the NPO be the guarantor of stability in the system.

Unless the alliances engaging in so-called equilibrium-seeking behaviors are doing so for a discernible purpose (e.g. to attempt a gang-bang on NPO -- hence "fracturing", which implies its being done purposely), I'd say this is just a natural progression of politics on an interstate level (e.g. Waltz's/Rousseau's "third image").

Also, do not be so quick to deride Pax Pacifica or Pacifica herself for doing what many of you and your alliances did for the better part of a year: tacitly consenting to NPO's management of the interstate system. Most of you were free-riders and a large majority of you benefited in some way materially from NPO's management of the system (see: extreme NS inflation over the last year as evidence in support of this claim).

Finally, if the forces-that-be are going to engage in the restoration of equilibrium to the system, I offer one recommendation: be very careful that you are doing so for the right reasons -- history has a way of catching up with the ingenuous.

OOC: Grad student in economics? All this talk of equilibrium reminds me of my econ classes and game theory.

IC:

I agree with both Delta's central idea and I think it is good to listen to what Coursca has said. To ignore the growing hegemony as it happened and plead ignorance would be folly - every alliance should be aware of its actions. Not that there is total blame, but there is not total excuse either.

In regards to the OP, as stated before, I agree with the central thought. I would like to add a few reinforcing ideas before trying to poke a few holes in it myself. First of all, it is impossible to truly kill anyone in CN. Even if someone is forced to accept EZI, it is still possible for them to come back as a different character, assuming they can keep their cover. The second point is that it is impossible to truly enforce one will over another. Threats work, and coercion and other methods can work, but only for a period of time. After a while, their effects will wear off. The end result? If one alliance's actions breed discontent, war does not necessarily get rid of that discontent. At best, it discourages actions, and at worse, it breeds more discontent. Basically, if two groups don't get along, there is no way to get rid of the other permanently. So a large hegemony simply covers up the underlying tensions that exist.

Additionally, I'd like to add that in this universe, war is inevitable. People get bored and want to find drama. If they do not create it themselves, they will find someone else who will. Eternal peace is not what this universe is about, but rather succeeding in nearly every other way.

Now, to poke a hole:

Delta, your claim is that a global, unipolar universe is impossible. Additionally, for the last year or so, we've seen a multitude of new bonds being formed, entangling the MDP web to be the MDP ball of twine (which I think was your term). There are a number of possible reasons for this increase in entanglement, but I propose that one reason is the increase in communication. Forums can only go so far towards a conversation - compared to IRC, forums are time consuming, and are harder to keep up with. With IRC, questions can be asked, details can be given, and negotiations can take place in less time than it would take to get a diplomat masked. The result with an increase in communication is that problems can be fixed faster, people can get to know each other better, etc. The impetus for war has decreased, and the ability to make new friends has increased, dramatically.

Granted, IRC started to become popular around two years ago. However, it didn't become widespread until later, and there were still underlying tensions going on. Yet, as the ability to communicate increased, so did the unipolarity of the Cyberverse. Isn't it reasonable to say that as we progress in looking at new ways to communicate effectively with others, there may come a time when problems and tensions can be solved before they manifest themselves?

[Coursca]

OOC: Grad student in economics? All this talk of equilibrium reminds me of my econ classes and game theory.

OOC: Political science. Our discipline has been pieced together from many other disciplines.

IC:

I agree with both Delta's central idea and I think it is good to listen to what Coursca has said. To ignore the growing hegemony as it happened and plead ignorance would be folly - every alliance should be aware of its actions. Not that there is total blame, but there is not total excuse either.

In regards to the OP, as stated before, I agree with the central thought. I would like to add a few reinforcing ideas before trying to poke a few holes in it myself. First of all, it is impossible to truly kill anyone in CN. Even if someone is forced to accept EZI, it is still possible for them to come back as a different character, assuming they can keep their cover. The second point is that it is impossible to truly enforce one will over another. Threats work, and coercion and other methods can work, but only for a period of time. After a while, their effects will wear off. The end result? If one alliance's actions breed discontent, war does not necessarily get rid of that discontent. At best, it discourages actions, and at worse, it breeds more discontent. Basically, if two groups don't get along, there is no way to get rid of the other permanently. So a large hegemony simply covers up the underlying tensions that exist.

Additionally, I'd like to add that in this universe, war is inevitable. People get bored and want to find drama. If they do not create it themselves, they will find someone else who will. Eternal peace is not what this universe is about, but rather succeeding in nearly every other way.

Now, to poke a hole:

Delta, your claim is that a global, unipolar universe is impossible. Additionally, for the last year or so, we've seen a multitude of new bonds being formed, entangling the MDP web to be the MDP ball of twine (which I think was your term). There are a number of possible reasons for this increase in entanglement, but I propose that one reason is the increase in communication. Forums can only go so far towards a conversation - compared to IRC, forums are time consuming, and are harder to keep up with. With IRC, questions can be asked, details can be given, and negotiations can take place in less time than it would take to get a diplomat masked. The result with an increase in communication is that problems can be fixed faster, people can get to know each other better, etc. The impetus for war has decreased, and the ability to make new friends has increased, dramatically.

Granted, IRC started to become popular around two years ago. However, it didn't become widespread until later, and there were still underlying tensions going on. Yet, as the ability to communicate increased, so did the unipolarity of the Cyberverse. Isn't it reasonable to say that as we progress in looking at new ways to communicate effectively with others, there may come a time when problems and tensions can be solved before they manifest themselves?

Compelling take on the OP all around -- thoughtful, as always. Interesting point on IRC in particular...I never thought of the information technology/globalization thesis. The evidence I can think of seems to support that.

[WarriorConcept]

Granted, IRC started to become popular around two years ago. However, it didn't become widespread until later, and there were still underlying tensions going on. Yet, as the ability to communicate increased, so did the unipolarity of the Cyberverse. Isn't it reasonable to say that as we progress in looking at new ways to communicate effectively with others, there may come a time when problems and tensions can be solved before they manifest themselves?

IRC has been popular ever since I've been around, summer 06? Also I truly hope not, because then that means no fun on CN.

[Lord Caspian]

I liked your OP Delta, a good read and well put.

Free thought is not barred so long as the free thinkers do not threaten the safety and security of the alliances they differ from.

Surely when you start barring free thought it stops being free? ...just a thought.

[Ferrous]

IRC has been popular ever since I've been around, summer 06? Also I truly hope not, because then that means no fun on CN.

Not to the same extent as it is now. Maybe it was used by major alliances, but not as much by more "fringe" alliances. TTK hardly had a channel, nevermind an active one by Spring 2007. As of this posting, there is a good handful, and I've been there enough to know that it's active.

[Ogaden]

A multipolar world inevitably gives rise to a unipolar world for two reasons:

1) The previous unipolar power will attempt to reclaim their previous position and

2) To prevent them from doing so, the factions driving for a multi-polar world are forced by necessity to form an unipolar power in order to permanently defeat the previous unipolar power and by doing so become unipolar hegemonies themselves.

Read your history, NPO did not set out to rule Planet Bob, but ended up in that position basically by default upon the final defeat of LUE.

[WarriorConcept]

Not to the same extent as it is now. Maybe it was used by major alliances, but not as much by more "fringe" alliances. TTK hardly had a channel, nevermind an active one by Spring 2007. As of this posting, there is a good handful, and I've been there enough to know that it's active.

Even when /b/ started out is used IRC. Every alliance I knew of back then actually had an IRC channel afaik

[Nintenderek]

Freedom of thought? What ally of the NPO isn't allowed freedom of thought?

I would like your opinions on this considering your AA.

Dear Planet Bob,

I come to speak with an opinion on this here thread. Although many a bright mind have posted their own strong opinions about shaneprice's leaving of the Grand Global Alliance, and then the open trolling and dissing of said alliance, there are reasons that such a member left. Do not think that he was "kicked out" under "stupid reasons". He was let go for he committed a vile act. Shaneprice was convicted of speaking out against the New Pacific Order as well as IRON and also suggesting that the Grand Global Alliance "leave" OneVision. Now one may think that these reasons are "pathetic", but put your alliance in the shoes of the Grand Global Alliance. How would you take it if a member of leadership were to speak out against an ally who has stuck by your alliance since it's birth, or in this case "rebirth"? With that said, shaneprice was given the option to either leave with a partial good note, or be kicked. I, as Chancellor of the Grand Global Alliance, stand by the decisions of our leadership. Shaneprice nearly brought war to the Grand Global Alliance with his little "outburst". Think about it.

~Dephire, Chancellor of the Grand Global Alliance.

Your an ally of NPO. Where is the freedom of thought in that post?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the OP is an interesting read. Much better than a lot of the literature on these forums any more.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Nintenderek

[Tulak Hord]

Very good read, Delta. Post more essays pls

[Corinan]

Read your history, NPO did not set out to rule Planet Bob

That is incorrect. Pacifica has never played to be second best.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Read your history, NPO did not set out to rule Planet Bob, but ended up in that position basically by default upon the final defeat of LUE.

Hmm.

Could you link me to that particular view of history? I seem to recall the first CN Emperor of the NPO being a bit of a megalomaniac that was always, from the very earliest stages, bent on world conquest. Nearly every plan he put into place and every statement he made in public was worded to portray the strength of the Order. His hubris knew no limits and his alliance at the time was damned proud of it.

Arrogance at its finest in my opinion.

He did not, technically, set out to rule "Planet Bob" because he thought that was a stupid name and always referred to this place as the Cyberverse.

[Doitzel]

Read your history, NPO did not set out to rule Planet Bob, but ended up in that position basically by default upon the final defeat of LUE.

When I was first elected to AC in 2006 I got an inductional grilling from Sir Paul, whose first question was "what is the aim of the New Pacific Order?" Being the brilliant lad that I am, I got the answer on the first try: "Dominance". So was it true in my time, before my time, and after my time.

Listen to Corinan and Moldavi. They know a thing or two.

Arrogance at its finest in my opinion.

Definitely.

[Byron Orpheus]

I would like your opinions on this considering your AA.

Your an ally of NPO. Where is the freedom of thought in that post?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the OP is an interesting read. Much better than a lot of the literature on these forums any more.

What an easy answer. It is obvious that shaneprice's actions at the time were deemed as threatening to the allied relationship between the GGA and the NPO. It was not a condemnation of the viewpoint but rather the actions that were suggested as a result of that viewpoint, an exercise in irresponsibility. Clearly the relationship between GGA and NPO itself was being threatened rather than just a member speaking his mind on policy.

[Ragashingo]

A multipolar world inevitably gives rise to a unipolar world for two reasons:

1) The previous unipolar power will attempt to reclaim their previous position and

2) To prevent them from doing so, the factions driving for a multi-polar world are forced by necessity to form an unipolar power in order to permanently defeat the previous unipolar power and by doing so become unipolar hegemonies themselves.

Exactly correct. Unless something different were to happen...

Read your history, NPO did not set out to rule Planet Bob, but ended up in that position basically by default upon the final defeat of LUE.

My various friends have already covered this but: What kind of screwed up history were you reading?!?

Edited April 14, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Byron Orpheus]

When I was first elected to AC in 2006 I got an inductional grilling from Sir Paul, whose first question was "what is the aim of the New Pacific Order?" Being the brilliant lad that I am, I got the answer on the first try: "Dominance". So was it true in my time, before my time, and after my time.

As a corollary then other alliances do not strive to be the best? NPO is unique in wanting to be as strong as possible?

Clearly then NPO and allies are left as the only viable choice because they are apparently the only alliances with the goal of being successful. Thank you for helping erase any doubt in our minds, Doitzel, that unipolarity is in fact beneficial to the whole of our planet, as it seems that it is the only option that strives for perfection.

edited for spelling

Edited April 14, 2009 by Byron Orpheus

[Byron Orpheus]

I liked your OP Delta, a good read and well put.

Surely when you start barring free thought it stops being free? ...just a thought.

It is not barring free thought, it is barring irresponsible and destructive action.

I have, in my alliance, the ability to criticize my leadership. If I try to overthrow my leadership, I do not have that right and will be dealt with quickly.

[Ragashingo]

As a corrollary then other alliances do not strive to be the best? NPO is unique in wanting to be as strong as possible?

Clearly then NPO and allies are left as the only viable choice because they are apparently the only alliances with the goal of being successful. Thank you for helping erase any doubt in our minds, Doitzel, that unipolarity is in fact beneficial to the whole of our planet, as it seems that it is the only option that strives for perfection.

You were horrible at those connect the dot pictures as a kid weren't you? How else did you manage to get from what Doitzel said to this?