Announcement

[Roadie]

I would say it is the other way around. Maybe us leaving did led NPO to act before they lost more support. It is the only reason I can think of why NPO made the decision to declare war at that (strange) time. And maybe 'karma' alliances saw their chance with tC weakened.

I think I can also speak for TOP and Sparta when I say: Never did we want to plunge a knife in the back of our allies or did we want to make a bid for power.

I'm sorry to see the Continuum dissolve. I hoped to see a Continuum2 consisting out of the remaining signatories.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about MHA going to war against IRON when he spoke of plunging the knife in your allies back. Not Sparta or TOP.

[Orkules]

And then proceed to punish your former allies for the crimes you've helped commit?

You mean assist your current allies fight the war they're now in?

Well the distinctions between them are ultimately irrelevant as regardless of them they all end with he same final conclusion, mastery and domination. For example Democracy and Autocracy are equally tyrannical; one simply uses ideological tactics to imprint the ideology of one particular section of the elite onto the populous, thus manipulating the public to serve the ends of that minority while the other dominates them through force. One could in fact argue that democracy is the worst of the two for autocracy grants its victims the awareness of their enslavement, while democracy places its victims in a false state of consciousness, and instead keeps from knowing the true state of their existence. Not that I personally have anything against mastery, the point is whether you repaint the building or not its the same structure. *shrug* If this war set out to retaliate against specific "crimes" it is merely treating symptoms rather than the root cause of the matter.

I can only really reply to this with a...What?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Orkules

[Starcraftmazter]

Brilliant political decision.

[Matthew Conrad]

Well the distinctions between them are ultimately irrelevant as regardless of them they all end with he same final conclusion, mastery and domination. For example Democracy and Autocracy are equally tyrannical; one simply uses ideological tactics to imprint the ideology of one particular section of the elite onto the populous, thus manipulating the public to serve the ends of that minority while the other dominates them through force. One could in fact argue that democracy is the worst of the two for autocracy grants its victims the awareness of their enslavement, while democracy places its victims in a false state of consciousness, and instead keeps from knowing the true state of their existence. Not that I personally have anything against mastery, the point is whether you repaint the building or not its the same structure. *shrug* If this war set out to retaliate against specific "crimes" it is merely treating symptoms rather than the root cause of the matter.

Would it not be solved in the case of a truly free, open democracy in which the only thing given to the public would be open knowledge of the situation? Would this not technically "free" them from manipulative ideologies and allow them to make the best choice?

Alas, such a system would most likely eventually break down and not be very efficient to boot

Of course, the problem then lies on how to reappoint an unbiased view upon those people so that their collective vision, or those of the leading few, don't repeat like you have noted (short of disbandment of course).

[iamthey]

I can only really reply to this with a...What?

Lol fair enough.

[General Specific]

This is not a sunset, but a dawn filled with opportunities.

Seeing some Continuum members leave over the past few months and now this willing disbandment (dear Admin I hope it was not forced through some secret terms I would have no way of knowing about ), we as nation leaders and alliance members really do have the world to make anew before us.

I know there will be mistakes by some on the "outside" who now rise to unfamiliar heights, and many on the "inside" who want to reorganize around some real friendships on the WUT/tC model, but I trust at least one lesson of WUT and tC has been grasped by all sides: such blocs are only good if they are based on shared principles of belief, purpose and action, not merely some reactionary survival of the fittest dogma.

Edited May 14, 2009 by General Specific

[Denial]

Well the distinctions between them are ultimately irrelevant as regardless of them they all end with he same final conclusion, mastery and domination. For example Democracy and Autocracy are equally tyrannical; one simply uses ideological tactics to imprint the ideology of one particular section of the elite onto the populous, thus manipulating the public to serve the ends of that minority while the other dominates them through force. One could in fact argue that democracy is the worst of the two for autocracy grants its victims the awareness of their enslavement, while democracy places its victims in a false state of consciousness, and instead keeps from knowing the true state of their existence. Not that I personally have anything against mastery, the point is whether you repaint the building or not its the same structure. *shrug* If this war set out to retaliate against specific "crimes" it is merely treating symptoms rather than the root cause of the matter.

You just used an entire paragraph to say absolutely nothing.

[Francesca]

This is a truly amazing announcement, that a few months ago none would have expected. It marks the end of an era, and the dawn of a new one. It proves that no alliance or bloc is invincible, and I am excited to see what will happen to the politics of Planet Bob in eras to come.

[iamthey]

You just used an entire paragraph to say absolutely nothing.

Eh no... but if you didn't get it all its saying is if some sort of new hegemony arises, regardless of the way it acts its the same hegemonic policy. Just because it acts nice doesn't mean it isn't any less dominating. I personally don't have anything against hegemonic policy but if people disliked Q then they shouldn't feel any different about whatever might arise in its place.

Edited May 14, 2009 by iamthey

[Rush Sykes]

The greatest lesson of this karmic war is not about the power gathered, but how you use it. Regrettably, I think that lesson still needs to be learned by a great many.

This man speaks wisely, over and over again, yet it so often falls on deaf ears.

[Denial]

Eh no... but if you didn't think it made sense all its saying is if some sort of new hegemony arises, regardless of the way it acts its the same hegemonic policy. Just because it acts nice doesn't mean it isn't any less dominating. I personally don't have anything against hegemonic policy but if people disliked Q then they shouldn't feel any different about whatever might arise in its place.

See, that still doesn't make any sense. Most people took issue with the Continuum not because of an inherent opposition to any form of dominant power, but the way in which the Continuum abused this power and the methods it employed in maintaining its position. If a new hegemon does eventually materialise and 'acts nice' - for example, it does not involve itself in wars of aggression supported by trumped-up casus belli, does not extort technology and money, does not participate in EZI and PZI, does not commit to eternal wars, does not wage war against 'OOC attacks' while simultaneously committing them, and so on - I believe there would be far, far less opposition and criticism. So, in essence, the foundation you are attempting to establish for another future "hypocrite" propaganda campaign along the lines of "you criticised Continuum, so you must automatically criticise this new dominant power!" is built on sand.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Ahhh you jump out of Q a few days before the war starts and now you want us all to learn from our mistakes?

I don't doubt that one bit.

Seems to me that there are several alliances and the former gov of a Q alliance that were a major part of all the things that NPO/Q had done that had Bob so outraged that just slipped on a different colored coat at the last second.

Of course Karma had to have the help of those alliances to make sure the power shift was complete and I'll be surprised if it doesn't come out some day that those alliances were actively plotting this war vs their blocmates long before they left the bloc.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread. Every bloc will eventually fall apart. May the enemy nukes blot out the sun for the alliances in those blocs as they have for those who honored their commitment to this bloc.

I understand how my comment may lead to revisions of the internal happenings of Q prior to the war, but I will not be getting into that here. Your claims of "slipping on a different colored coat" and "actively plotting a war vs (our) blocmates" could not be further from the truth and if you wish to learn just how incorrect you actually are, then please PM me.

A democratic planet? As in all alliances having a say in major matters? Yeah, that isn't going to happen. There will always be powerbrokers and by the looks of the post war set up that certainly isn't going to change.

We can but hope for the best. But I, as a dirty socialist bleeding heart, am rather fond of democracy on a global scale.

[Francesca]

See, that still doesn't make any sense. Most people took issue with the Continuum not because of an inherent opposition to any form of dominant power, but the way in which the Continuum abused this power and the methods it employed in maintaining its position. If a new hegemon does eventually materialise and 'acts nice' - for example, it does not involve itself in wars of aggression supported by trumped-up casus belli, does not extort technology and money, does not participate in EZI and PZI, does not commit to eternal wars, does not wage war against 'OOC attacks' while simultaneously committing them, and so on - I believe there would be far, far less opposition and criticism. So, in essence, the foundation you are attempting to establish for another future "hypocrite" propaganda campaign along the lines of "you criticised Continuum, so you must automatically criticise this new dominant power!" is built on sand.

Most people took issue with it for the reasons you stated, but not all. Regardless, any bloc that is the single dominant power for extended periods of time is going to make (OOC) the game (OOC) stagnate. That is the main problem that I and many others had with the Continuum. If there is a new dominant power that starts to make (OOC) the game (OOC) boring again, I will not hesitate to criticise it, and I believe I will have solid foundation for doing so.

[Infinite Narwhal]

The continuum always brought to mind what Cosby said about

"Thank you toilet bowl. Thank you so much for being cool on the side. Only you understand me, Toilet Bowl. You're the only friend I have! My wonderful toilet bowl!"

[iamthey]

See, that still doesn't make any sense. Most people took issue with the Continuum not because of an inherent opposition to any form of dominant power, but the way in which the Continuum abused this power and the methods it employed in maintaining its position. If a new hegemon does eventually materialise and 'acts nice' - for example, it does not involve itself in wars of aggression supported by trumped-up casus belli, does not extort technology and money, does not participate in EZI and PZI, does not commit to eternal wars, does not wage war against 'OOC attacks' while simultaneously committing them, and so on - I believe there would be far, far less opposition and criticism. So, in essence, the foundation you are attempting to establish for another future "hypocrite" propaganda campaign along the lines of "you criticised Continuum, so you must automatically criticise this new dominant power!" is built on sand.

Lol, no im not laying the groundwork for some propaganda campaign. I was just raising the point that regardless of its actions a new hegemon still means an entity controlling the game. I personally know many people who disliked the NPO and Q for that very reason as they saw it as stagnating and damaging to the community. If your own motivations were not reflected by this then it doesn't apply to you. The point just was if this war set out to correct a series of crimes that Q committed, then it isn't really solving the base problem of a stagnating game resulting from a dominant pole. Personally I am rather indifferent to it (I think a multi-polar world would be rather interesting), I was just bringing it up.

Edited May 14, 2009 by iamthey

[Deadshot]

o/ Continuum one last time.

[Denial]

Most people took issue with it for the reasons you stated, but not all. Regardless, any bloc that is the single dominant power for extended periods of time is going to make (OOC) the game (OOC) stagnate. That is the main problem that I and many others had with the Continuum. If there is a new dominant power that starts to make (OOC) the game (OOC) boring again, I will not hesitate to criticise it, and I believe I will have solid foundation for doing so.

Lol, no im not laying the groundwork for some propaganda campaign. I was just raising the point that regardless of its actions a new hegemon still means an entity controlling the game. I personally know many people who disliked the NPO and Q for that very reason as they saw it as stagnating and damaging to the community. If your own motivations were not reflected by this then it doesn't apply to you. The point just was if this war set out to correct a series of crimes that Q committed, then it isn't really solving the base problem of a stagnating game resulting from a dominant pole. Personally I am rather indifferent to it (I think a multi-polar world would be rather interesting), I was just bringing it up.

The only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date.

[Francesca]

The only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date.

Any bloc that is the single dominant power is going to make (OOC) the game (OOC) stagnate eventually. Especially if they crush all potential rivals.

[iamthey]

The only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date.

Fair point, I suppose we'll see how it plays out. If a new hegemon arises and does nothing to stop rivals then yes it will eventually no longer be the hegemon and a dynamic world will return.

Edited May 14, 2009 by iamthey

[Denial]

Any bloc that is the single dominant power is going to make (OOC) the game (OOC) stagnate eventually. Especially if they crush all potential rivals.

The manner in which alliances of the Continuum crushed their potential political and military rivals were the crimes that bloc committed. As I said, the only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date. If the Continuum had not used underhanded and despicable tactics to prop up its hegemony, the game would not have stagnated. Just as it will not stagnate if a new hegemon materialises and it acts in a responsible manner.

[Francesca]

The manner in which alliances of the Continuum crushed their potential political and military rivals were the crimes that bloc committed. As I said, the only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date. If the Continuum had not used underhanded and despicable tactics to prop up its hegemony, the game would not have stagnated. Just as it will not stagnate if a new hegemon materialises and it acts in a responsible manner.

Perhaps I wouldn't know, as I haven't seen a time when tC wasn't the dominant power. Still if a new bloc arises, we'll see, won't we?

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd say I'm sad to see this go, but I'm a terrible liar. Maybe next time you'll listen when we ask to be left alone.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Oh... I thought this was supposed to last forever and you were great friends and all that?

[Chief Savage Man]

Well this bloc had no meaning after the debacle at the beginning of this war anyway, so this is just cleaning up.

[Lusitan]

The manner in which alliances of the Continuum crushed their potential political and military rivals were the crimes that bloc committed. As I said, the only reason the game stagnated under the domination of the Continuum was due to said crimes and the methods they employed in artificially maintaining their hegemony past its expiry date. If the Continuum had not used underhanded and despicable tactics to prop up its hegemony, the game would not have stagnated. Just as it will not stagnate if a new hegemon materialises and it acts in a responsible manner.

I am not sure why are you giving it deeper meaning. The Continuum had political and military rivals, in order to secure their supremacy they eliminated them through whatever methods they found reasonable. Did they commit any crime doing so? That will depend on the perspective. Ultimatelly they were playing the game. Does it make the game boring to dominate the game? Definetly. Can that be called a crime? Not really. They made their choices which allowed them to stay ahead in the game, and that should be perfectly fine with anyone. As much as it's perfectly fine that a group of alliances, Karma, decided to finish the period of political domination. You found the game was boring as it was, and you changed it - you played the game. As the Continuum has done - that is, played the game - for one year and a half. I recall a Grämlins member saying some months ago that the Continuum fulfilled its purpose, which was to allow its alliances to grow in prosperity and influence - and that is the whole truth, independently of someone questioning their methods.

Alliances will always commit crimes, they have always had, even some of the alliances who currently are part of Hegemony. The motivation is the same: Power. The stagnation will also always happen, provided there is a group with significant dominance at military and political level, regardless of the methods used. It would probably take longer to take down any political or military opposition if the methods were right - and the fairness of methods depends on each alliance's mind, provided it abides by CN's Terms of Service - but it would still happen anyway.