What Happens Next

[Jason Salovsky]

I agree with Jamarcas. "Terms should match the punishment".

Screw how you're looked at, the next generation of CyberNation Rulers will look back in time, and say "OMG, holy crap. These guys took down the NPO"

EDIT: Clarification

Edited April 30, 2009 by Jason Salovsky

[Yggdrazil]

Planet Bob and the war ongoing will change the paradigm that has existed to date. Will whatever fills the vacuum left really be any different from what has gone before.

I'm sure they will begin with a new less oppressive regime. Yet, being the new power, forces not seen will begin to coalesce and marshal in opposition. It will begin with individual nations opposed and if you only response is ZI, then escalation by these nations will lead to what essentially is the re-birth of EZI or PZI.

You might not call it permanent or eternal, but if re-rolls continue behavior that got them ZIed and you continue to ZI you have in essence what NPO and others did.

Once a nation renounced their old behavior and demonstrated they were not following their former opposition NPO removed them from eternal ZI and allowed back into the community of nations.

If NPO continues the fight as Vox Populi did will the new power also be predisposed to finally offer "White" peace or do as NPO did; eternal war.

Edited April 30, 2009 by yggdrazil

[shahenshah]

If NPO continues the fight as Vox Populi did will the new power also be predisposed to finally offer "White" peace or do as NPO did; eternal war.

NPO accepted every term even before the war started, I do not think NPO seeks eternal war at all. They await terms to end hostilities. I do not think the terms will be offered until Karma feels NPO as threat has been reduced to acceptable levels. Either terms will be offered, or they will be reduced greatly and then offered 'white' peace or perhaps something in between.

Edited April 30, 2009 by shahenshah

[Pingu]

It seems unlikely that a new hegemonic power will arise. To the extent that NPO and its closest allies are weakened, Bob will be re-entering a period of multipolarity. Such a period is likely to be less stable, more conflict-prone, but the conflicts will most likely be smaller-scale.

[shahenshah]

It seems unlikely that a new hegemonic power will arise. To the extent that NPO and its closest allies are weakened, Bob will be re-entering a period of multipolarity. Such a period is likely to be less stable, more conflict-prone, but the conflicts will most likely be smaller-scale.

The period also has much more potential of drama and therefore fun.

[bkphysics]

What I would love to see, or my wish list:

1. Airme and Co. broadcast the peace negotiations between Karma and the NPO live for us all to listen to

2. NPO nations in peace mode are responsible for paying the reps as deemed appropriate

3. No more all encompassing blocs filled with all the sanctioned and strongest alliances

4. Red Team freed from tyranny

5. Ejay's rap going multi-platinum

[Pingu]

The period also has much more potential of drama and therefore fun.

Yes indeed. More work and fun for diplomats, soldiers, propagandists - pretty much all of us, in fact. Perhaps some of us retired folk will unretire ourselves more fully.

[Electron Sponge]

Yes indeed. More work and fun for diplomats, soldiers, propagandists - pretty much all of us, in fact. Perhaps some of us retired folk will unretire ourselves more fully.

...and perhaps some of us can get that vacation they've been waiting for.

[Pingu]

...and perhaps some of us can get that vacation they've been waiting for.

Hush you, and back to work.

I want the complete works of Tom Paine translated into Latin and on my desk by first thing tomorrow.

[Vladimir]

What happens next? Utopian dreams of a multi-polar world where alliances act against their own self-interests for the entertainment of passing OWF-dwellers proves unfounded. Vladimir is hailed as a great prophet for his ability to state the obvious in the face of overwhelming odds.

[Prodigal Moon]

I'm starting to suspect that the post-war period will be exactly like the pre-war period, except the new hegemony will be much more benevolent and diplomatic than the old one. Meanwhile, Karma and the remnants of the old hegemony will still hate each other, but we'll already know who won. Unfortunately, this might present us with an even worse kind of stagnation. :/

Edited April 30, 2009 by Prodigal Moon

[Pingu]

What happens next? Utopian dreams of a multi-polar world where alliances act against their own self-interests for the entertainment of passing OWF-dwellers proves unfounded. Vladimir is hailed as a great prophet for his ability to state the obvious in the face of overwhelming odds.

Surely a multi-polar world is one in which alliances are more likely to act in their own self-interests, rather than adapting to the wishes of a single hegemon (in unipolarity) or two balanced superpowers (in bipolarity)? Blocs, if they exist at all, are less static. Alignments are more dynamic, diplomacy more intense. It will be more fluid, more dangerous, hardly a utopia. Probably quite entertaining, given the higher levels of uncertainty and unpredictably.

But I'll hail you anyway, Vlad, for the silver-tongued orator that you are.

[Electron Sponge]

Hush you, and back to work.

I want the complete works of Tom Paine translated into Latin and on my desk by first thing tomorrow.

Illa es vicis ut tendo animus hominum?

What happens next? Utopian dreams of a multi-polar world where alliances act against their own self-interests for the entertainment of passing OWF-dwellers proves unfounded. Vladimir is hailed as a great prophet for his ability to state the obvious in the face of overwhelming odds.

I don't think anyone is dreaming that alliances will act against their own self-interest. I believe that what most people want is for alliances to start acting in their own self interest and not the interest of a small cabal of players in an IRC channel deciding who gets to do what.

Multipolarity implies that there will be more instances of alliances acting in that individual alliance's self-interest. The entertainment factor is an ancillary benefit.

edit: Pingu is very wise and a slightly faster typist. I blame the Latin assignment.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Electron Sponge

[Paradigm]

Post war will be a period where MOFA's matter, relationships will matter, everyone will have to do work to carve out a spot rather than just acepting some query's to join the block running the game. Sounds great to me.

[Qaianna]

All Hegemony alliances other than NPO should be given relatively light terms, but NPO itself is a special case. They cannot be allowed to rebuild, or planet bob risks a replay of the WUT/League days.

I see two options for NPO (assuming Karma is capable of them, but for the purposes here let's assume so):

1) Karma occupies NPO and maintains a never-ending war, a la FAN and the Holy War of Farkistan.

or

2) NPO is eventually freed from the war, but [OOC] like Japan and Germany after World War II [/OOC] is contained with terms of peace that permanently limit its ability to make war on the rest of the world. For example, upper limits on the alliance's total nation strength and number of treaty partners. Such upper limits would need to be set high enough that NPO could maintain itself as a legitimate alliance, but low enough so that if they ever crossed the threshold and latter-day Karma had to take them out, they wouldn't be capable of mustering a defense capable of overthrowing the Karma power structure.

In other words, I am suggesting no reps and no military disbandments, but instead permanent limits on strength and treaty ties. These terms might even be coupled with rebuilding aid to further distance from the old school rep-based peace terms. Such terms would not punish individual nations (in fact they might even rebuild faster), but would specifically target the alliance's ability to come back and repeat history.

Hmm. #1 is ... well, something that 'Karma' keeps saying is immoral, and worthy of fighting against. Karma Civil War?

#2 ... how do you enforce limits on national strength? Especially on a group as large as the Order. I'd say this is more wishful thinking than sound foreign policy, since you then run into the fun situation of 'Who do I order to stop growing?'. Notwithstanding that LAND grows automatically, and causes a slow creep up there ...

Come to think of it, #2 sounds like eternal peace terms or protectorate status. Sarcasm on: It's allright to impose these if you're one of the 'good guys', right? No-one's ever declared themselves 'good guys' and done things like this before, have they?

[Vladimir]

Surely a multi-polar world is one in which alliances are more likely to act in their own self-interests, rather than adapting to the wishes of a single hegemon (in unipolarity) or two balanced superpowers (in bipolarity)? Blocs, if they exist at all, are less static. Alignments are more dynamic, diplomacy more intense. It will be more fluid, more dangerous, hardly a utopia. Probably quite entertaining, given the higher levels of uncertainty and unpredictably.

But I'll hail you anyway, Vlad, for the silver-tongued orator that you are.

You have some bad misconceptions about the way blocs develop -- alliances create them for their own interests, and contrary to popular belief don't sit in the corner doing what one mega-evil alliance in the middle tells them to.

You also see self-interest in a very sectarian way -- self-interest doesn't mean doing exactly what you want all the time, it means taking the important aspects of it and uniting with as large a force as possible to advance it (rather than sitting in aforesaid corner alone pining that if only people would listen!). You also assume, in spite of history, that multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term, stemming from the assumptions that: all will be of the same size and remain that way indefinitely; all will act strictly independently regardless of their best strategic option (ie. uniting to take out a mutual enemy); after wars each will magically return to the default, rather than the shift in power and a tendency towards unipolarity (if 3 friendly blocs take our a 4th and then cooperate peacefully, is this not unipolarity? Is this not what we had for the past years?). And so forth.

You can see more in depth thoughts about multi-polarity in my responses in this thread.

[DocOctane]

I'm not an alliance leader and I've never been involved in CN politics but my guess is that the terms should include freeing "political" prisoners (FAN, Vox) and liberation of the red sphere to other alliances.

This. *ahem*

[Requia]

Free all political prisoners (including NPO deserters). NPO must publicly admit defeat. NPO must publicly admit it was wrong to attack OV. The rest is irrelevant.

[D34th]

I say Karma should keep pounding NPO/others the ground until they are unsanctioned.

Thus they cannot bounce back and take teh revenge!

That was a semi-serious idea.

But on a more serious note, I have no idea what's gonna happen next, or what should happen. Which is why it's an exciting time to be living on planet bob.

I look at this in two ways.

1) Look how NPO has treated others, just a recap, GOONs, \M/, GOLD, GPA, FAN and Vox, then look how they deal with who they called brothers NpO. (Before anyone ask, i know NPO was not at war with all these but if you truly think that NPO did not cause these to happen, you really need to wake up, no one at the time would have attacked said above alliances with out NPO backing.)

2) If Karma give NPO good terms, will this bite us in the back side.

I think if we give NPO soft terms it will not change anything, in a few months times NPO will still be lying, will still be dealing behind their allies back, NPO started this war, they should have to pay for the war.

I think no matter what Karma does a group of people will be pissed but NPO does deserve harsh terms by just looking at what they have done its pretty obvious they should.

Who cares if we let NPO die? I feel that destroying them utterly in no way makes KARMA as bad as NPO. This is justice, which is completely different than the half dozen or so times that NPO destroyed an alliance with little to no reason.

What I would love to see, or my wish list:

1. Airme and Co. broadcast the peace negotiations between Karma and the NPO live for us all to listen to

2. NPO nations in peace mode are responsible for paying the reps as deemed appropriate

3. No more all encompassing blocs filled with all the sanctioned and strongest alliances

4. Red Team freed from tyranny

5. Ejay's rap going multi-platinum

Bolded for emphasis

[HeinousOne]

Look, the Karmic reaction of this war upon NPO is that they now realize they no longer have the numbers to push forward their agenda upon the world. It is my believe that this lesson has already been learned by NPO. Even if they are the most evil alliance out there, they are a pretty damn smart group of individuals. This doesnt mean I think the war will end soon or that it should, its just that I dont believe you need to put heavy requirements on them afterwards. If anything that will only make it more likely that we have an NPO out for vengeance after this war.

I could definately see them give peace to those they have put on perpetual warfare status, I could see them having to drop their two empirically named Doctrines but making them make heavy tech and money payments afterwards will only ensure that we have an NPO seeking Vengeance later.

This is the first act of Karma. Show them what proper actions are at the end of a great war. If they continue their ways after such then the second act of Karma can take place and that one will be much worse as would be proper.

Putting forth heavy reparations is not an act of Karma at this point but is an act of Vengeance. Do not get that mixed up people.

[D34th]

This is the first act of Karma. Show them what proper actions are at the end of a great war. If they continue their ways after such then the second act of Karma can take place and that one will be much worse as would be proper.

Putting forth heavy reparations is not an act of Karma at this point but is an act of Vengeance. Do not get that mixed up people.

Exactly.

“How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.”

[Electron Sponge]

You have some bad misconceptions about the way blocs develop -- alliances create them for their own interests, and contrary to popular belief don't sit in the corner doing what one mega-evil alliance in the middle tells them to.

Wrong. Alliances subordinate their own interests to those of the bloc. Sure, they may go into it for their innate interest in self-defense but once they are in there any other interest they may have could very well get placed on the back burner due to the fear of offending their allies. Therefore, they are placing the bloc's interests ahead of their own. When that bloc happens to have a queen bee in it like NPO, you can bet that the bloc's politics are going to reflect that. Alliances will either toe the line or draw the wrath of the queen bee, especially when that queen makes a living out of being offended like NPO has done for over 3 years.

You also see self-interest in a very sectarian way -- self-interest doesn't mean doing exactly what you want all the time, it means taking the important aspects of it and uniting with as large a force as possible to advance it (rather than sitting in aforesaid corner alone pining that if only people would listen!).

Self interest is what you want, plus what you need, plus what you've agreed to do. There are no 'important' aspects to it. If something is in your self interest, it is in your self interest. It is not 'well gee kinda in your self interest on alternating Tuesdays during the solar maximum'. If you can't rectify your interests against each other - finding conflicts among them - you need to simplify. That would be in your self interest as well.

You also assume, in spite of history, that multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term, stemming from the assumptions that: all will be of the same size and remain that way indefinitely; all will act strictly independently regardless of their best strategic option (ie. uniting to take out a mutual enemy); after wars each will magically return to the default, rather than the shift in power and a tendency towards unipolarity (if 3 friendly blocs take our a 4th and then cooperate peacefully, is this not unipolarity? Is this not what we had for the past years?). And so forth.

I don't believe that Comrade Pingu has made any such assumption of a static state antagonism or equilibrium of conflict. In fact I specifically recall him using the words "dynamic", "fluid" and "dangerous".

[Cirrus]

Hmm. #1 is ... well, something that 'Karma' keeps saying is immoral, and worthy of fighting against. Karma Civil War? ... Come to think of it, #2 sounds like eternal peace terms or protectorate status. Sarcasm on: It's allright to impose these if you're one of the 'good guys', right? No-one's ever declared themselves 'good guys' and done things like this before, have they?

Fallacy of Accident. There's a big difference between imposing that sort of thing on everyone in order for the rich to get richer, and imposing it only on the one worst offender, against whom something harsh must be imposed out of self-preservation.

The karma for failing to actually defeat NPO in this situation would be to lose the next war. That mistake was made in Great War I. I would hope it is not made again.

#2 ... how do you enforce limits on national strength? Especially on a group as large as the Order. I'd say this is more wishful thinking than sound foreign policy, since you then run into the fun situation of 'Who do I order to stop growing?'. Notwithstanding that LAND grows automatically, and causes a slow creep up there

Good point. However, a cap on TNS need not be some random unmoving number; it could be a ranking cap (for example "NPO may not be larger than the XXth largest alliance by TNS") or a flat cap with a certain allowable percentage growth rate. As for enforcing it, that part is easy. It would be up to NPO to enforce itself; failing to do so would be an act of war. Edited April 30, 2009 by Cirrus

[Vhalen]

What happens next? Utopian dreams of a multi-polar world where alliances act against their own self-interests for the entertainment of passing OWF-dwellers proves unfounded. Vladimir is hailed as a great prophet for his ability to state the obvious in the face of overwhelming odds.

As opposed to a uni-polar world where one alliance acts against basically everyone else's self-interest? Sounds like an improvement, chaos or not. And if I know your doubletalk, you'll be hailing yourself as a prophet (though that's not at all the proper word for what you described) regardless of what happens, because actual facts have always seemed largely irrelevant to your arguments.

You have some bad misconceptions about the way blocs develop -- alliances create them for their own interests, and contrary to popular belief don't sit in the corner doing what one mega-evil alliance in the middle tells them to.

You also see self-interest in a very sectarian way -- self-interest doesn't mean doing exactly what you want all the time, it means taking the important aspects of it and uniting with as large a force as possible to advance it (rather than sitting in aforesaid corner alone pining that if only people would listen!). You also assume, in spite of history, that multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term, stemming from the assumptions that: all will be of the same size and remain that way indefinitely; all will act strictly independently regardless of their best strategic option (ie. uniting to take out a mutual enemy); after wars each will magically return to the default, rather than the shift in power and a tendency towards unipolarity (if 3 friendly blocs take our a 4th and then cooperate peacefully, is this not unipolarity? Is this not what we had for the past years?). And so forth.

You can see more in depth thoughts about multi-polarity in my responses in this thread.

I think blocs develop for multiple reasons. You want to group everything together and say "their own interests," but that's kind of obvious. I doubt there are many who join a bloc specifically to screw themselves over, after all. Friendship/good relations, common interests/goals, and so forth are good reasons, and while they bind the signatories more tightly, they don't necessarily do so with a hegemonic goal. "Because if we don't get in line, the bully will eventually target us" is not. "Because if we don't join this one too, it'll work against us," is paranoia. Obviously, people are more than willing to opt out once they want to work against you, so "bloc as security" is a fiction. A bloc has to have something more to it than cold, calculating self-interest, because the participants are people with emotions, and eventually pure logic isn't enough to hold them together. (Also, what Sponge said about the alliance and the bloc is quite valid. It's similar to the nation to alliance relationship, to a point. What you're getting has to be worth what you're giving up. How much security is worth being a foot soldier for someone whose policies you don't agree with?)

See, Vlad, you go around saying "we're in all these blocs for self-interest," but you don't actually look around you while you're writing. At some point, being decent people and recognizing that you're part of a larger community was more in NPO's self-interest than bullying others. In that regard, Pacifican leadership collectively failed even by their own standards. By pursuing a neverending chain of offensive wars, often for minor or trumped up issues, just because you could, you actively worked against your own interests. I feel bad for you that you can't seem to grasp this, but you brought it on yourselves. Consider it a lesson in Francoism, from Bob at large. NPO would do better with new leadership who are capable of learning this lesson.

As to the second paragraph, you automatically assume that multiple groups have to either be at each other's throats or in bed with each other. There ARE different levels between those, though I expect NPO political thinking says otherwise.

And thanks for the link, but I have better things to do than go back and reread your redefinings and doubletalk. Heck, I have better things to do than post this, but I've already written it.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Vhalen

[Pingu]

You have some bad misconceptions about the way blocs develop -- alliances create them for their own interests, and contrary to popular belief don't sit in the corner doing what one mega-evil alliance in the middle tells them to.

You also see self-interest in a very sectarian way -- self-interest doesn't mean doing exactly what you want all the time, it means taking the important aspects of it and uniting with as large a force as possible to advance it (rather than sitting in aforesaid corner alone pining that if only people would listen!). You also assume, in spite of history, that multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term, stemming from the assumptions that: all will be of the same size and remain that way indefinitely; all will act strictly independently regardless of their best strategic option (ie. uniting to take out a mutual enemy); after wars each will magically return to the default, rather than the shift in power and a tendency towards unipolarity (if 3 friendly blocs take our a 4th and then cooperate peacefully, is this not unipolarity? Is this not what we had for the past years?). And so forth.

You can see more in depth thoughts about multi-polarity in my responses in this thread.

If you keep deploying straw men, I may have to retract that 'silver-tongued' comment. You make assumptions about my assumptions that are not supported by what I have actually said, and that have very little connection to what I believe. Of course blocs can evolve in multipolarity, of course multipolarity is unstable, and of course other formations can emerge from it and are even likely to do so. Nowhere did I say that "multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term" - rather I stressed the dynamic nature of a multipolar world, suggesting that very little about such as world is likely to persist over the long term. Your assumption about my definition of self-interest is an artifact of your prejudices rather than a reading of my remarks. I see the primary interest of any alliance as meaningful survival as a sovereign entity, and secondary interests in advancing particular ideas or values that are core to that alliance's identity. I don't think you see things too differently. Such a view has no connection to handwringing, pining, or any other such activity.

But no, to answer your question, three friendly blocs is not unipolarity; it is, rather, a (temporarily) stable configuration within multipolarity. Polarity measures the distribution and configuration of power or capabilities. So long as it is possible to speak of three (or more) significant blocs, then the system is multipolar. Unipolarity is one hegemonic power or bloc with no significant rival. There is no universal tendency toward unipolarity as you imply - it is in fact a rather unstable configuration - but it is one possible outcome of a period of multipolarity.

Edit: Also, now he has finished his Latin homework, Viceroy Sponge has become the faster typist. Curse these aging flippers!

Edited April 30, 2009 by Pingu