This new Hegemony thing

[James I]

This has probably already been said, but the fact you mention all those names in the OP is evidence that there is no hegemony.

[Dr. Dan]

If you make anymore posts like this, I will have you PZI'd for doubting our authority.

[HisK Owns You]

If you make anymore posts like this, I will have you PZI'd for doubting our authority.

I know this is a joke but I would love to see anyone try PZI Hyperion.

[Starcraftmazter]

Some ex-Hegemony people are butthurt, and thus they decided to try and be cool by labeling anyone on the Karma side as "new hegemony".

[HeinousOne]

If I am being honest, there will never be another hegemony. The practices used to keep NPO and tC on top worked because they crippled competition before it became an issue. It wasn't until the unification of the known world, even alliances who hate each other, that they fell. But the fact remains the same. The hegemony used tactics that ensured their reign on top, making it a crime to pose a threat. Is there anything inherently wrong with wanting to destroy what is percieved to be a threat? No, and according to Athens, hegemony isn't the only one thinking that way. Which is great.

The reason then why we will never see another hegemony in the way we did, is because these tactic are now looked down upon. There is no end all be all. An alliane will fight another, get normal terms and rise up to do the same again in a few months. There is nothing to set yourself apart. We will see the multi polar sides fight amongst themselves and never gain any ground whatsoever. Whether you like the way it was or not, Hegemony used what was needed to stay in power. They made people weary of even posting. That may be bad, but they did rule for years that way. And no one will top that.

That will never happen again because it wasn't actually taken down by outside forces it was taken down from within. When powerful members began to leave, that was the deathstroke to the hegemony. Karma just did the dirty work, but that would not have been possible without the crumbling of the Hegemony from within.

That is why it will not happen again because most leaders with even a slight modicum of intelligence realize that rebuilding such a large conglomerate will only lead to similiar situations as power like that definately corrupts and eventually there will be major disagreements that cannot be solved.

That, and no one wants to be labeled NPO 2.0.

[GoldenAura]

By that standard, we can assume that Moo and the rest of NPO were competent, ballsy, and handsome people in your opinion? I never expected such a comment from you to be honest.

There will be another hegemony, but at the moment it is a multi-polar world. Wait a few Global Wars and someone will emerge victorious.

Multi-polar...

[Haflinger]

It is quite clear that OBR is the new hegemony.

[Lycurgus Rex]

Its the biggest insult to throw, yet at the same time, everyone wishes their own alliance was the top dog.

[HeinousOne]

Its the biggest insult to throw, yet at the same time, everyone wishes their own alliance was the top dog.

No they don't. Please do not direct your own desires and those a few others may have upon the rest of us. Thank you.

[Regent of Omerta]

That will never happen again because it wasn't actually taken down by outside forces it was taken down from within. When powerful members began to leave, that was the deathstroke to the hegemony. Karma just did the dirty work, but that would not have been possible without the crumbling of the Hegemony from within.

That is why it will not happen again because most leaders with even a slight modicum of intelligence realize that rebuilding such a large conglomerate will only lead to similiar situations as power like that definately corrupts and eventually there will be major disagreements that cannot be solved.

That, and no one wants to be labeled NPO 2.0.

I'm gonna have to agree with this statement completely. Most people do not want to be led like sheep in this game with the direct result being KARMA. Good, bad or indifferent, that's just how it worked out.

Its the biggest insult to throw, yet at the same time, everyone wishes their own alliance was the top dog.

Actually no, I agree with Heinous again on his reply to you a few posts up. Not everyone in this game cares about being top dog or there would be quite a few more alliance wars and curb stomps.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Regent of Omerta

[Hyperion321]

I am glad you aren't trying to put words into my mouth, because I am not trying to justify it. Simply put, in a OOC: game/OCC where one of the goals is domination, using such tactics were what put them in that place to begin with. Those tactics, however wrong you or I or anyone sees them, worked. To say they didn't is a lie, fo ris they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. What I was trying to convey was that without using those kind of tactics, to cripple anyone who would oppose you, is the only way to gain a hegemony. Without it, you will see multiple powers all angling for position, which is a good thing. Today we see Sparta, Athens, TOP etc, all having some sort of power within the world. But none of those alliances will use the tactics you have railed against, the same tactics that set the hegemony up. In my opinion, thta is a good thing for the whole of the community.

You and I don't have very differing views really, I hope that this cleared it up a little. Hegemony ruled over everyone, no question. I don't think we will see that again.

Ah, I guess I misunderstood you then. Thanks.

[Heft]

To all the "it will never happen again" posts: It can happen again. Not anytime soon, and there certainly isn't any guarantee it will or any reason it has to, but there is also nothing preventing it over the long haul. Again, the mindset that created all those oppressive practices and the mindset that led to the centralization and build up of power into a at loosely unified hegemonic bloc still exists. It's dangerous to simply dismiss the last two years as some aberration, or the practices that are so reviled today as the works of purely malevolent forces. They were enacted by people more or less like the people still around and in some form of power today, and they were rationalized and justified well enough that those people bought into them and that enough of the community endorsed or at least tolerated them to allow their practice to continue. It happened once, so it can happen again, and ignoring why and how it happened does no one any favors.

[Il Principe]

MHA seem to have been quite quiet over the last while.... I believe that they may just be planning something...

We are planning/plotting to destroy the two alliances above us to become the new #1

We all do seem to agree there is no new dominant alliance/bloc yet. Now lets evolve this discussion and try to predict who could be the next big dog.

NpO is growing very fast and seems very disciplined but does not have the diplomatical ties (yet).

MHA and IRON are the alliances with the most diplomatic ties (and both are mostly respected in the cyberverse). I do not know about IRON but I do not think we (MHA) have the right attitude to lead an bloc of allies.

Citadel has the discipline and strength and SF has a lot of friends.

So I do not dare to make a prediction myself.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Il Principe

[Deadshot]

To all the "it will never happen again" posts: It can happen again. Not anytime soon, and there certainly isn't any guarantee it will or any reason it has to, but there is also nothing preventing it over the long haul. Again, the mindset that created all those oppressive practices and the mindset that led to the centralization and build up of power into a at loosely unified hegemonic bloc still exists. It's dangerous to simply dismiss the last two years as some aberration, or the practices that are so reviled today as the works of purely malevolent forces. They were enacted by people more or less like the people still around and in some form of power today, and they were rationalized and justified well enough that those people bought into them and that enough of the community endorsed or at least tolerated them to allow their practice to continue. It happened once, so it can happen again, and ignoring why and how it happened does no one any favors.

I can see the merit in that Heft, so maybe never was a strong word. I still believe if it did happen again, it would be much harder to accomplish. People here don't have short memories as we can see with all the discussion on UJW and all of that mess. Perhaps people will notice the lead up to it and act accordingly this time around.

[Drostan]

I think that the will to security will always threaten to create a "new hegemony" which is why whatever relovutionary force you may see the Karma war to represent can never sleep. The fact is that the orchestration of a "hegemony" is often greatly over-stated when in fact it is often mostly generated and sustained by the will to avoid conflict and destruction. People start signing treaties with anyone and everyone who is large enough to do any damage to them. The result is a massive web of treaties that means that any conflict is almost certain to become a global conflict because of the in-game globalization of politics. This leads to the curbstomp dynamic. When a particularly well-connected party of such a web decides to 'throw its weight around', most of the other parties of that web do not want to risk losing their privileged position by speaking too aggressively against it.

Although I dream of a world wherein there are multiple poles of power, I certainly fear that the preservation instinct will take hold again soon and we shall see a proliferation of treaties that heralds the coming of such a 'new hegemony'.

tl;dr - My best method of predicting who will be a part of any potential 'new hegemony': look who starts signing a lot of treaties with bigger alliances. The treaties are always signed in the name of peace and yet...

[Heft]

I can see the merit in that Heft, so maybe never was a strong word. I still believe if it did happen again, it would be much harder to accomplish. People here don't have short memories as we can see with all the discussion on UJW and all of that mess. Perhaps people will notice the lead up to it and act accordingly this time around.

I would argue that the discussion of UJW bolsters my argument, since the public perception of it seems to change every time the political situation changes in order to justify the current political views (i.e, UJP was bad and needed to be taken down changes to Polar orchestrating the removal of Pacific allies changes to Pacific orchestrating the destruction of UJP). That the hegemonic powers, and especially specific alliances, are currently viewed negatively does not mean they will always be, especially as they begin to resurge and the current competing factions begin looking to find some advantage over their rivals and start inviting these remnant alliances into their fold.

I think that the will to security will always threaten to create a "new hegemony" which is why whatever relovutionary force you may see the Karma war to represent can never sleep. The fact is that the orchestration of a "hegemony" is often greatly over-stated when in fact it is often mostly generated and sustained by the will to avoid conflict and destruction. People start signing treaties with anyone and everyone who is large enough to do any damage to them. The result is a massive web of treaties that means that any conflict is almost certain to become a global conflict because of the in-game globalization of politics. This leads to the curbstomp dynamic. When a particularly well-connected party of such a web decides to 'throw its weight around', most of the other parties of that web do not want to risk losing their privileged position by speaking too aggressively against it.

Although I dream of a world wherein there are multiple poles of power, I certainly fear that the preservation instinct will take hold again soon and we shall see a proliferation of treaties that heralds the coming of such a 'new hegemony'.

tl;dr - My best method of predicting who will be a part of any potential 'new hegemony': look who starts signing a lot of treaties with bigger alliances. The treaties are always signed in the name of peace and yet...

Largely this. The hegemony was not created out of malice or a will to evil or any such thing. It was a slow conglomeration of powers seeking to support their stability, security, and sovereignty. The bounds of what was acceptable in that pursuit gradually went further and further out over time.

[Deadshot]

Both of those posts have enlightened me to certain things I hadn't seen before. I was not around for UJW so most of the arguments for and against UJP go right over my head having not experienced. I came into play after the hegemony had already ascended. Thank you both for the critique.

[Paint Your Target]

Hefts points about the Unjust War are excellent here. History may be written by the victors, but it is also a tool for their usurpers. The General Opinions of the UJW have swung many times since it occurred. For me it remains one of the most significant wars in CN History.

PYT.

[HeinousOne]

To all the "it will never happen again" posts: It can happen again. Not anytime soon, and there certainly isn't any guarantee it will or any reason it has to, but there is also nothing preventing it over the long haul. Again, the mindset that created all those oppressive practices and the mindset that led to the centralization and build up of power into a at loosely unified hegemonic bloc still exists. It's dangerous to simply dismiss the last two years as some aberration, or the practices that are so reviled today as the works of purely malevolent forces. They were enacted by people more or less like the people still around and in some form of power today, and they were rationalized and justified well enough that those people bought into them and that enough of the community endorsed or at least tolerated them to allow their practice to continue. It happened once, so it can happen again, and ignoring why and how it happened does no one any favors.

Yes, it is true that one should never say never but for now there are quite a few loud voices in the world that will be quick to point out any such excessive gatherings of power. Mix that with the fact that we have just seen how such conglomerations fail within and I just dont see how anyone would want to be the first ones to try and build up a complex similiar to that of the recently fallen Hegemony. More then a year down the road? Who knows really, trying to predict that far ahead is pointless.

I think that the will to security will always threaten to create a "new hegemony" which is why whatever relovutionary force you may see the Karma war to represent can never sleep. The fact is that the orchestration of a "hegemony" is often greatly over-stated when in fact it is often mostly generated and sustained by the will to avoid conflict and destruction. People start signing treaties with anyone and everyone who is large enough to do any damage to them. The result is a massive web of treaties that means that any conflict is almost certain to become a global conflict because of the in-game globalization of politics. This leads to the curbstomp dynamic. When a particularly well-connected party of such a web decides to 'throw its weight around', most of the other parties of that web do not want to risk losing their privileged position by speaking too aggressively against it.

Although I dream of a world wherein there are multiple poles of power, I certainly fear that the preservation instinct will take hold again soon and we shall see a proliferation of treaties that heralds the coming of such a 'new hegemony'.

tl;dr - My best method of predicting who will be a part of any potential 'new hegemony': look who starts signing a lot of treaties with bigger alliances. The treaties are always signed in the name of peace and yet...

Actually multiple poles of power is the most balanced method of keeping these massive wars from happening. Its a natural law of human interactions between cultures to maintain a balance of power. When that balance is upset, bad things happen. Multiple poles of power means alliances have to look in too many directions to strike out in any one direction.

[Heft]

Yes, it is true that one should never say never but for now there are quite a few loud voices in the world that will be quick to point out any such excessive gatherings of power. Mix that with the fact that we have just seen how such conglomerations fail within and I just dont see how anyone would want to be the first ones to try and build up a complex similiar to that of the recently fallen Hegemony. More then a year down the road? Who knows really, trying to predict that far ahead is pointless.

In retrospect, it's not hard to see how Continuum could have kept going, with a few relatively minor changes. Even with its mistakes it succeeded for over a year. Hardly a bad showing for something so inherently fragile. More importantly, it's not whether someone will deliberately set out to recreate it, but if politics will push people into similar arrangements culminating in some new age neo-Continuum.

Actually multiple poles of power is the most balanced method of keeping these massive wars from happening. Its a natural law of human interactions between cultures to maintain a balance of power. When that balance is upset, bad things happen. Multiple poles of power means alliances have to look in too many directions to strike out in any one direction.

The will to security, as he put it, pushes for a centralization and conglometerization of power and authority.

[HeinousOne]

In retrospect, it's not hard to see how Continuum could have kept going, with a few relatively minor changes. Even with its mistakes it succeeded for over a year. Hardly a bad showing for something so inherently fragile. More importantly, it's not whether someone will deliberately set out to recreate it, but if politics will push people into similar arrangements culminating in some new age neo-Continuum.

The will to security, as he put it, pushes for a centralization and conglometerization of power and authority.

Oh yes, the Continuum could still be thriving today but that would require a very large gathering of very powerful alliances to all be in agreement in a very high number of situations that pop up. Once disagreements begin then the downhill process begins because each of these powerful alliances has a very healthy ego.

The reason why the Continuum lasted so long and was able to outlast the odds is inherently due to the NPO's ability to hold this conglomerate together with its massive diplomatic ability and power. It was never about the NPO rolling people it was about the fear of NPO AND company coming after you. When company members began to leave that fear dissipated.

So in order to have a Continuum 2.0 you would in essence need a power that could hold everyone together in times of disagreement. I honestly do not see a power growing today that could possibly match the NPO in that ability. I of course could be wrong and will be surprised if proven wrong.

[Vladimir]

Actually multiple poles of power is the most balanced method of keeping these massive wars from happening. Its a natural law of human interactions between cultures to maintain a balance of power. When that balance is upset, bad things happen. Multiple poles of power means alliances have to look in too many directions to strike out in any one direction.

Your conception of multi-polarity requires that these groups all stay independent from one another, not daring to engage in relations of friendship or convenience. This is an unrealistic hope. And I would point out that when "the balance is upset" bad things happen only for he who insufficiently advanced his interests and ended up on the sharp end of the sword. To the victor, the spoils.

Multiple poles see the same pressures that alliances see when they first come into the international sphere. They immediately recognise that in order to push their agenda (usually security orientated at its base) they will have to gather with other like-minded groups. Thus various poles become friendlier or more hostile, gradually either breaking down into two great camps or gravitating towards one great camp and disenfranchising a lesser one. The laws of politics make true multi-polarity unsustainable.

[Drostan]

Actually multiple poles of power is the most balanced method of keeping these massive wars from happening. Its a natural law of human interactions between cultures to maintain a balance of power. When that balance is upset, bad things happen. Multiple poles of power means alliances have to look in too many directions to strike out in any one direction.

Yeah, I was saying that we want to keep the poles. The difficulty is that there will always be people (alliances) that want to push for greater centralization in order to protect themselves. And while at this moment people are very weary on this, the concern is that in a few months when the echoes of this war begin to fade, will people keep that in mind when they start getting approached by every other alliance for a treaty? I hope so. But experience suggests otherwise.

Multiple poles makes it far more interesting because as you said, there is no single body of power from which to seek approval. Thus you can alienate one or two poles while gaining the support of others. I hope this will lead to smaller scale conflicts where not every nation has to weigh-in on issues indirectly related to them. And even if that is not the result, hopefully it will mean that the strength of opposing sides will not be as disparate as it has tended to be for a very long time. The fact is that after months of relative peace, many people are itching to fight, and so it may never be possible to let small disputes remain small. But at the very least, going to war will have serious repercussions to both sides in the future and victory will really mean something.

EDIT: I hate to admit it, but Vladimir is correct in this regard. I am confident that there are already many who are trying to consolidate certain so-called poles. The best we can really hope for is binary poles of power that somewhat balance one another. Though I still hold out hope that some alliances will make this task more difficult by striking out on their own more.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Drostan

[HeinousOne]

Your conception of multi-polarity requires that these groups all stay independent from one another, not daring to engage in relations of friendship or convenience. This is an unrealistic hope. And I would point out that when "the balance is upset" bad things happen only for he who insufficiently advanced his interests and ended up on the sharp end of the sword. To the victor, the spoils.

Multiple poles see the same pressures that alliances see when they first come into the international sphere. They immediately recognise that in order to push their agenda (usually security orientated at its base) they will have to gather with other like-minded groups. Thus various poles become friendlier or more hostile, gradually either breaking down into two great camps or gravitating towards one great camp and disenfranchising a lesser one. The laws of politics make true multi-polarity unsustainable.

The world does not have to be as it was before. Citadel is becoming very isolationistic in its approach and that is generally the way of Frostbite too. Don't see either one of us really needing to reach out to any others to form massive ties.

CnG is connected pretty much to everyone so I could foresee them being a neutral pole that kind of keeps everything going smoothly. If there is to be a group that is claimed to be a Hegemonic power then I suppose it will be them but I dont really see them desiring or being able to pull together massive numbers from the other blocs to back any major campaigns.

Finally you have SF which seems to really be trying to set themselves apart from everyone else too. So when you have three poles of isolation with one pole of neutral intermingling I dont see how a scenario as you present is inevitable. Is it possible? Of course it is, I cannot begin to predict what situations are going to pop up after this war is over. In fact, I am looking forward to the unpredictability of it. I am quite tired of the predictability that has been inherent in a hegemony dominated world.

The world does not have to form to your preconceived rules, it simply is not the case. Now, its true that most people have no idea how to form up a world any differently because they have been surrounded in that sort of atmosphere for quite some time. Simply put, it requires visionaries that are willing to step out of the circular path of repeating history. That requires more effort but in the end I think it would be the more rewarding path. Maybe I am wrong though and the leaders of the world would rather relive history rather then chart a future of their own making.

Edited July 19, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Heft]

The Continuum was not held together by the NPO, it was held together by a mutual desire for security, stability, power, or any other such things, all of which were provided to all of those who participated in and perpetuated it. Alliances and blocs can not stay in isolation in perpetuity, they will inevitably come into contact one way or another. Multipolarity, in the sense of multiple independent and balancing blocs, is not what political realities push people towards.