Hegemony Era Stagnancy and the Modern Age: Startling Continuities

[Doitzel]

Some of us do not like our alliances to centre on personality cults but rather on a genuine community of like-minded individuals who work with each other rather than fighting amongst themselves. Is it elitism? Sure, why not. What you call it makes little difference. The fact remains that in terms of what helps and what hinders an alliance, some people are better than others. They're the ones that actively contribute ideas, time, and kindness to the alliance's community.

Besides, you presume much. The original concept for The Jedi Order involved a 'Jedi Service Corps' of affiliates that essentially comprised the nations that would fight wars for and be protected by the Order but not participate significantly in other ways. It was deemed imprudent at the earliest stages; it's a concept that has been applied with mixed results in the past and was an unnecessary burden on the developing community and core of the Order. Unlike you Sith, we do not take the quick and easy path.

Now, I'm really not in much condition so forgive me if I misinterpreted, but you've essentially put forth that in order to ward off a monster we should become monsters ourselves. Well guess what. We don't have to. We can do things our way. We can run our alliance how we like. The beauty is that there will always be other alliances that have different strengths to bring to the table which adds an extra dynamic as opposed to a world where every alliance has the same goals, same base structure, same motivation.

Your fundamental mistake is equating dominance with victory. Not everyone is of the same mind, thankfully, and some of us have other, more developed ideas of what constitutes success.

(OOC: why do threads I'd love to participate in never exist when I have the time/ability, but the moment I step away from the computer I get a million communications of people telling me I should see this or that?)

[Corinan]

This whole topic is ridicolous funny, you guys projecting your ideas and ideals to another entity and don´t understand why your projection doesn´t fit but in your view that can´t be, it must fit and so you drive your own in fact wrong conclusions about said entity.

Try to keep in mind that Heggo wrote this essay and not the entire New Sith Order. This may come as a shock, but we allow our members to have opinions and even express them once in a while!

Some of us do not like our alliances to centre on personality cults but rather on a genuine community of like-minded individuals who work with each other rather than fighting amongst themselves.

What makes the New Sith Order a personality cult? The fact that Moldavi is the leader? I'd really like an answer to this since there's people out there that like to tag us as such. It's a quick and easy insult to whip out with no basis in reality.

[Ivan Moldavi]

What makes the New Sith Order a personality cult? The fact that Moldavi is the leader? I'd really like an answer to this since there's people out there that like to tag us as such. It's a quick and easy insult to whip out with no basis in reality.

I wouldn't worry about it, especially considering the person that brought it up. He is just jealous that his personality cult didn't translate into tangible nations. Sour grapes and all that.

[Ivan Moldavi]

But if your system of governing is so much better, shouldn't you attract their players? I mean clearly, they want to be in one of the best alliances in CN, and I would guess you'd claim that NSO fits that bill.

There is no accounting for the ignorance of the masses.

[Essenia]

What makes the New Sith Order a personality cult? The fact that Moldavi is the leader? I'd really like an answer to this since there's people out there that like to tag us as such. It's a quick and easy insult to whip out with no basis in reality.

When you consider that the great majority of people who joined the alliance (initially, anyway) joined because Ivan was the leader, I think it's easyto label the alliance as being more centered around a single person than most. People tend to join alliances because they think that alliance has a culture that fits them well or because that alliance seems to align with their political views. It is rarer for people to join an alliance because one specific person is the emperor- the reason most people joined NSO.

[Ivan Moldavi]

When you consider that the great majority of people who joined the alliance (initially, anyway) joined because Ivan was the leader, I think it's easyto label the alliance as being more centered around a single person than most. People tend to join alliances because they think that alliance has a culture that fits them well or because that alliance seems to align with their political views. It is rarer for people to join an alliance because one specific person is the emperor- the reason most people joined NSO.

I believe that is correct for probably the first 40-60 nations that joined, most of whom have already moved on.

[Steelrat]

Try to keep in mind that Heggo wrote this essay and not the entire New Sith Order. This may come as a shock, but we allow our members to have opinions and even express them once in a while!

Come on, the Sith would like to stirr up things here and there, poking and testing (if i weren´t so lazy i could post some OWF links) I have no problem with that, in fact i enjoy it .... and wait. Citadel is in unique position, we are comfortable with who and where we are, we don´t need to prove ourselves or boost our egos.

I really think many can´t cope with leniency they confuse it with lazyness or being uninterested, well more lessons to learn.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Steelrat

[Essenia]

I believe that is correct for probably the first 40-60 nations that joined, most of whom have already moved on.

Most of us have moved on, yes, but there are still a few from that group that are highly influential in NSO from what I can see. I am not saying NSO is a personality cult (it's more of an oligarchy type system in reality), merely explaining why people who have not experienced the alliance view it as such.

[sodom gomorrah]

Now, let's get things straight. First, there is the queetion if isolationism. TOP is a great community, it is the sole reason for many of the members why they play this game, as the pixels themselves are completely uninteresting. The focus on community result in the situation where most members enjoy just sitting on our butts - because of our community. That does not mean that we turn away from planet bobs politics, but it gives us the patience to let unavoidable trouble come seek us out, instead of running over the nearest cliff every now and then like lemmings by recuiting from neutral alliances for example. This patiance also gives bonuses to stability, TOP has survived and growed for a long time, perhaps you in NSO should - for the sake of your survival - cool down and take a pause from "stirring the pot" (making enemies)?

Secondly, you talk a lot about your great achivements, but i still fail to see any. The list that you on request presented more looked like a list of diplomatic blunders, resulting in you making more enemies, and providing them with exellent CB's. ((ooc) excuse me if i forget something, but cellphone internet is slow, so it was some time ago now. (/ooc)). Please, tell me what makes you so special, because right now, you only look like a spirital sucsessor to vox - saying, bragging a lot, but goes silent when called out on it, just living on being revolutionary and rebellic.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Now, let's get things straight. First, there is the queetion if isolationism. TOP is a great community, it is the sole reason for many of the members why they play this game, as the pixels themselves are completely uninteresting. The focus on community result in the situation where most members enjoy just sitting on our butts - because of our community. That does not mean that we turn away from planet bobs politics, but it gives us the patience to let unavoidable trouble come seek us out, instead of running over the nearest cliff every now and then like lemmings by recuiting from neutral alliances for example. This patiance also gives bonuses to stability, TOP has survived and growed for a long time, perhaps you in NSO should - for the sake of your survival - cool down and take a pause from "stirring the pot" (making enemies)?

Secondly, you talk a lot about your great achivements, but i still fail to see any. The list that you on request presented more looked like a list of diplomatic blunders, resulting in you making more enemies, and providing them with exellent CB's. ((ooc) excuse me if i forget something, but cellphone internet is slow, so it was some time ago now. (/ooc)). Please, tell me what makes you so special, because right now, you only look like a spirital sucsessor to vox - saying, bragging a lot, but goes silent when called out on it, just living on being revolutionary and rebellic.

First, if you don't see my name at the bottom of a declaration then it is not an official NSO statement.

Second, I am not certain I understand the point of your post at all, are you speaking "officially" for TOP in this post? Because it reads almost like a threat. Is it a threat? Should I consider it as such for future reference?

[Tromp]

Interesting thoughts, but then that's all this is.

It is clear you don't share the same values with members of Cit, how to behave/play this game etc.

Nothing wrong about that, it's fun to see people publicly taking a stand against something, even if it only exists in their own mind because of your frame of reference.

[Saber]

While normally I'm very skeptical of the TOP story in which a long and highly improbably chain of coincidences allow them to pull out of Q just in time, this actually is an interesting new one. I'd like to hear from some others on the Karma side and so on who could perhaps confirm that the Karma War happened *because* TOP pulled out, not in spite of it.

Well it is relatively simple. TOP's decision to move away from Continuum took away lot of support for Continuum or better to say, allowed significant high end NS concentration to deploy against Q and it's allies. This in turn tipped the balance in Karma's favor and when NPO pushed OV, Karma stood up knowing they have good chance of actually winning.

Situation was messy enough that Karma could have easily dropped OV if they saw Hegemony as vastly more powerful. But when TOP decided to pull out all of Citadel, along with even MHA and FOK had open hands if Hegemony came knocking. This is extreme change in balance of power as Citadel alone is 20M+ high end NS. Imagine if we had not decided to leave well in advance, who would have been able to handle IRON/TOP high ranks? Especially since Gremlins and rest of Citadel would likely be neutral.

I'm not claiming we started the war, or caused it. No way that is true. However our strategic repositioning freed up enough firepower to tilt the balance in Karma's favor. It was not our intention nor our plan. But it happened none the less. I believe objective analysis finds this true enough.

I'm skeptical too, but that's what the TOP fellow seemed to have said happened. Perhaps he can give us some more backstory on how he thinks that played out.

It's not backstory. We as Council of TOP approved new FA direction of TOP which included leaving Continuum (weeks before Karma war). Our key allies were informed and slowly we started process of changing from Q central FA to independant FA. During this process Q started to make defensive moves because they felt war was coming which in turn aggravated the situation more and helped bring the war. In a way Q made a self fulfilling prophecy by acting in a way they did.

Several major alliances were involved in talks with us regarding that new independent FA. All of them could collaborate my story that TOP had decided to leave Q well in advance of Karma war. However I must admit that way Karma war went down it really left a bad taste in my mouth (for me personally) and I was not really happy with things that happened following our decision.

First, if you don't see my name at the bottom of a declaration then it is not an official NSO statement.

Second, I am not certain I understand the point of your post at all, are you speaking "officially" for TOP in this post? Because it reads almost like a threat. Is it a threat? Should I consider it as such for future reference?

Ivan I see little point in chest thumping here. Sodom just gave you bit of advice which in his opinion is good for you. I can see merit in it myself. Calming down and avoiding high risk low reward endeavors is always a prudent practice.

@Heggo[OOC]

I feel that people wish to think this game is extremely interesting and exciting when it is not. This was suffers from one huge problem and that is the fact that war is not profitable. Therefore natural equilibrium will tend toward global peace not global conflict. So any kind of stagnation is not inherently wrong, it is in fact way the game was designed. It would be totally against logic if world tended to go toward mass conflict as war is a really bad for profit.

Now, if admin made war profitable you'd see massive amount of warring compared to this. Then if people were passive and non aggressive you could write this kind of "paper". But as long as it is like this your kind of "thesis" papers are extremely amateurish and your attempts at forcing your view of the world foolish.

Do not accuse CN of timidity or passivity. Accuse the admin of making a flawed game (in war sense).[/OOC]

Edited July 25, 2009 by Saber

[threefingeredguy]

SG: Hey NSO, picking on neutrals makes people not like you, just thought you should know.

IM: IS THAT A THREAT

Carry on guys, carry on. This is quite amusing.

Edited July 25, 2009 by threefingeredguy

[Ivan Moldavi]

Ivan I see little point in chest thumping here. Sodom just gave you bit of advice which in his opinion is good for you. I can see merit in it myself. Calming down and avoiding high risk low reward endeavors is always a prudent practice.

No chest thumping has taken place.

From what I can see in this thread a member of my alliance voiced his independent opinion and the ignorant masses, as they seem to do a lot lately, decided to jump on him about how horrible the NSO is. When others came to his aid it escalated.

Now I have a member of TOP posting what is more or less a direct threat to my alliance without actual cause or reason.

That, without going into anything else, seems to actually support the OP a great deal considering that those in the positions of power now seem to think they have the mandate to dictate how others should think.

And you are claiming it as "advice"? If I say I think TOP should stop goading my people "for the sake of your own survival" do you think you and others would take that as a "bit of advice" or something more?

[Corinan]

SG: Hey NSO, picking on neutrals makes people not like you, just thought you should know.

IM: IS THAT A THREAT

Carry on guys, carry on. This is quite amusing.

There's been several remarks made by TOP members that could be construed as a threat.

[Steelrat]

@Heggo

I feel that people wish to think this game is extremely interesting and exciting when it is not. This was suffers from one huge problem and that is the fact that war is not profitable. Therefore natural equilibrium will tend toward global peace not global conflict. So any kind of stagnation is not inherently wrong, it is in fact way the game was designed. It would be totally against logic if world tended to go toward mass conflict as war is a really bad for profit.

Now, if admin made war profitable you'd see massive amount of warring compared to this. Then if people were passive and non aggressive you could write this kind of "paper". But as long as it is like this your kind of "thesis" papers are extremely amateurish and your attempts at forcing your view of the world foolish.

Do not accuse CN of timidity or passivity. Accuse the admin of making a flawed game (in war sense).

A very precise description.

There's been several remarks made by TOP members that could be construed as a threat.

I thought the Sith like the challenge, you guys shozuld make up your mind either you strive for power and adore it or you aren´t. And if you really strive for power you shouldn´t bail out at the first sign of verbal resistance.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Steelrat

[Ivan Moldavi]

SG: Hey NSO, picking on neutrals makes people not like you, just thought you should know.

IM: IS THAT A THREAT

Carry on guys, carry on. This is quite amusing.

When I wake up in the morning concerned about how many people in the Cyberverse "like" me I will be sure to send you a memorandum on it just so you know.

[Saber]

No chest thumping has taken place.

From what I can see in this thread a member of my alliance voiced his independent opinion and the ignorant masses, as they seem to do a lot lately, decided to jump on him about how horrible the NSO is. When others came to his aid it escalated.

Now I have a member of TOP posting what is more or less a direct threat to my alliance without actual cause or reason.

That, without going into anything else, seems to actually support the OP a great deal considering that those in the positions of power now seem to think they have the mandate to dictate how others should think.

And you are claiming it as "advice"? If I say I think TOP should stop goading my people "for the sake of your own survival" do you think you and others would take that as a "bit of advice" or something more?

I'd take that as a bit of advice. Sure. Just like you should take his advice of not entering into high risk/low reward endeavors.

Goading your members is very low reward endeavor, and risk, well, depends to be seen but in any case too high to justify goading your members. I'm sure government will advice them against goading your members, just like I would if I was gov .

[Ivan Moldavi]

I'd take that as a bit of advice. Sure. Just like you should take his advice of not entering into high risk/low reward endeavors.

Goading your members is very low reward endeavor, and risk, well, depends to be seen but in any case too high to justify goading your members. I'm sure government will advice them against goading your members, just like I would if I was gov .

There are some schools of thought that consider any reward worth any risk and there are those that think the exact opposite. If everyone in the Cyberverse only considered taking action when it was low risk and high reward it would be a dull realm indeed.

In my opinion.

That being said, I have never personally had any conflict with TOP. I do not necessarily agree with some of its diplomatic decisions but I don't expect people to agree with mine either. I simply fail to see how so many people are so ignorant as to take one diplomatic choice that they personally disagreed with and form that into their whole policy in regards to my alliance.

Perhaps once I have the time to be active daily once again in the Cyberverse I will be able to figure that relationship out properly.

[TehChron]

There's been several remarks made by TOP members that could be construed as a threat.

Or are obviously one, and have to be clarified to not be.

The point is, many of the responders to Heggo's OP have done nothing more than serve as sublime evidence of his main argument. The folks on top act like they have the authority to do as they please, thus contributing to the feeling of restricted freedom, while also doing nothing to actually contribute to the interest of [ooc]the game[/ooc]. Say what you will about the NPO, but at least they played the mustouchaioed villain.

What has TOP done to contribute to keeping things interesting? Nothing. What has Citadel done to encourage the folks beneath them in NS and influence to do in order to act out on their newfound "freedom"? Nothing.

Instead, we have TOP members none-too-subtly threatening an alliance over a post by a non-government member.

How does that *not* contribute to continued stagnation?

[Saber]

There are some schools of thought that consider any reward worth any risk and there are those that think the exact opposite. If everyone in the Cyberverse only considered taking action when it was low risk and high reward it would be a dull realm indeed.

In my opinion.

That being said, I have never personally had any conflict with TOP. I do not necessarily agree with some of its diplomatic decisions but I don't expect people to agree with mine either. I simply fail to see how so many people are so ignorant as to take one diplomatic choice that they personally disagreed with and form that into their whole policy in regards to my alliance.

Perhaps once I have the time to be active daily once again in the Cyberverse I will be able to figure that relationship out properly.

It's nothing really against NSO. I feel some people directed flak at your alliance and first problem they knew about it once Heggo started to shoot arrows at TOP and Citadel (even going so far as saying we'd abandon our allies and so on). Obviously some people reacted defensively to such accusations so some negativity toward your alliance was expected. Bit of an affect reaction. Nothing more.

[shahenshah]

TOP's upper ranks were smaller than NPO's and IRON's pre-war and look what happened there.

We simply got outnumbered

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1718002

In the end, it comes down to raw NS and how its spread around. We had solid top-tier nations, but once they started taking hits and fell into lower-spectrum of upper-tier nations, then you get outnumbered very fast.

Edited July 25, 2009 by shahenshah

[Saber]

Or are obviously one, and have to be clarified to not be.

The point is, many of the responders to Heggo's OP have done nothing more than serve as sublime evidence of his main argument. The folks on top act like they have the authority to do as they please, thus contributing to the feeling of restricted freedom, while also doing nothing to actually contribute to the interest of [ooc]the game[/ooc]. Say what you will about the NPO, but at least they played the mustouchaioed villain.

What has TOP done to contribute to keeping things interesting? Nothing. What has Citadel done to encourage the folks beneath them in NS and influence to do in order to act out on their newfound "freedom"? Nothing.

Instead, we have TOP members none-too-subtly threatening an alliance over a post by a non-government member.

How does that *not* contribute to continued stagnation?

I've answered this already.

[OOC]

The game is designed in a way to make war not profitable. Or to be more accurate profitable only in specific circumstances which are not easy to achieve (massive beatdowns for example). Most benefit from war is relative change in power toward your enemy as you will not gain any kind of stats. Now. this is great if you really have only one enemy but if you have multiple enemies you cannot take down one only to be eclipsed by another. So it is natural that even parties which have issues with each other will not go all out as this could open them up to a third party attack.

This is nothing TOP is doing wrong. It's the nature of the game.

Since game tends to go toward global peace (as it is it's natural equilibrium), stagnation is normal result of such a design.

Instead of blaming TOP for stagnation (something we had nothing to do with as we do not push down our opinion on others), blame admin for making a game in which war is almost exclusively bad for profit and statistics.

Now compare this to some other games where you can grow faster if you are raiding. In such games alliances are constantly at war and political structure is much more fragmented. Answer to the stagnation would be to find a system which will allow at least breaking even in a war to enable decently stable political structure (as you don't need to war to keep up) but would at same time allow alliances to enter wars for much smaller reasons and more often.

Imagine if after a 3 months of war you lost 10% of your stats or lost more stats but gained some other valuable statistic.

I suggest that Heggo and others that share same opinion (and many of you posted here from NSO) to pool their ideas and knowledge and offer them up as suggestions to admin. Making the game more healthy for warring while at same time keeping this unique political system would be immense gain for the game and much better use of your time than writing these kind of empty papers.

I tried to offer these suggestions before but with little effect. Maybe we can do something better this time.

[/OOC]

[threefingeredguy]

When I wake up in the morning concerned about how many people in the Cyberverse "like" me I will be sure to send you a memorandum on it just so you know.

Wait, you or NSO? I can believe both, which I'm sure is what you want me to believe.

(this is a serious question because I was referring to NSO but you responded as if I was referring to you)

[ooc]But really I was just very amused by your reaction to sg's post. I hadn't read the pages prior to this so if that post was part of a pattern of TOP abuse against you then I'm sorry for my ignorant statement, but all I saw was a TOP member offering genuinely helpful advice, and you taking offense. This is really an interesting persona you've got; the members of NSO must be masochists.[/ooc]

Edited July 25, 2009 by threefingeredguy

[sodom gomorrah]

No chest thumping has taken place.

From what I can see in this thread a member of my alliance voiced his independent opinion and the ignorant masses, as they seem to do a lot lately, decided to jump on him about how horrible the NSO is. When others came to his aid it escalated.

Now I have a member of TOP posting what is more or less a direct threat to my alliance without actual cause or reason.

That, without going into anything else, seems to actually support the OP a great deal considering that those in the positions of power now seem to think they have the mandate to dictate how others should think.

And you are claiming it as "advice"? If I say I think TOP should stop goading my people "for the sake of your own survival" do you think you and others would take that as a "bit of advice" or something more?

It was very badly chozen words, please accept my apologies - i did not mean it as a threat.

My point is, that you in fact has caused a lot of ill blood and made a lot of enemies in a short time. Don't get me wrong, making enemies is the ultimate proof of a consequent ideology, but your high-speed-Foreign policies makes them in the same time, and in these turbulent times, anything Can happen. And no, i'm not threatening you, but i'd very much prefer a few months before the next global conflict.