Hegemony Era Stagnancy and the Modern Age: Startling Continuities

[Ivan Moldavi]

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)

But really I was just very amused by the reaction. 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.

From what I can see making ignorant comments from uninformed positions is par for the course around here so I don't see that an apology is actually necessary.

If you are talking about policy in regards to NSO then you are also talking about me specifically since I determine policy and take responsibility for same.

[TehChron]

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]

[ooc]Your response does nothing to actually answer the claim. Here you are talking about how the game itself absolves you of any contribution to the stagnation of the community OOC. Thats absurd and illogical !@#$%^&*.

You're saying that the diplomacy between alliances is part of the game as well? Vanilla PIATs being the only thing posted are a function of Cybernations.net?

!@#$%^&*.

Don't try to dodge this and say this wasnt the meaning of your post. This is the second time you've used that argument, and I think you've made it pretty clear what you mean by it. It is the height of idiocy to act like that's a legitimate argument.[/ooc]

I believe your answer is insufficient.

[Ivan Moldavi]

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.

Riding the gambit between hatred and respect, while keeping your head above water just enough to get a breath in every once and a while takes a certain amount of skill.

Any alliance leadership that would take regular members opinions as a reason for war deserve to be deposed anyway, which is why I asked if you spoke officially or as a regular member. So, no worries.

I walk the tightrope daily and I enjoy every minute of it. If the anxiety levels get too high for the uninterested parties then it would be best, in my opinion, for them to leave the rhetoric to the professionals.

[sodom gomorrah]

Just for clarification, i do only speak for myself, so say "sodom" instead of TOP if you want to discuss it. Again, i meant no threat, and i apologize for the clumpsy chosen words.

[Saber]

[ooc]Your response does nothing to actually answer the claim. Here you are talking about how the game itself absolves you of any contribution to the stagnation of the community OOC. Thats absurd and illogical !@#$%^&*.

You're saying that the diplomacy between alliances is part of the game as well? Vanilla PIATs being the only thing posted are a function of Cybernations.net?

!@#$%^&*.

Don't try to dodge this and say this wasnt the meaning of your post. This is the second time you've used that argument, and I think you've made it pretty clear what you mean by it. It is the height of idiocy to act like that's a legitimate argument.[/ooc]

I believe your answer is insufficient.

Your baits were noted and ignored. We were in no way trying to encourage stagnation. Nor are we trying to threaten your alliance. TOP members are just pointing out our ideology.

Now. Since you asked. TOP did contribute to stagnation for a while. Like almost any other alliance in the game. However we have also made steps to reduce stagnation. We were one of main factors behind war against NpO. We also have decided that we do not wish to support stagnation in such a massive way as Q did so we decided to leave and chart our own path. This last decision also in a way opened up field for Karma war. Both of these actions are relatively massive action on CN scale (if not biggest there are) and TOP was directly involved in both.

So I would say that TOP did a lot to reduce stagnation as well.

However as I said earlier. You cannot blame TOP as lone factor for stagnation. You can't blame us for even part of the stagnation as nature of the Planet Bob is not our fault. Great maker intelligently designed it in such a way and we are but figures in this world like anyone else. It's easy to channel the blame toward one alliance for problems of the world.

First it was NPO. NPO hegemony made Planet Bob boring. Now weeks after biggest war on Planet Bob it's not NPO. It must be that TOP is opressing people from enjoying Planet Bob way it should be enjoyed.

Open your eyes. Planet Bob was designed as a peaceful world. It will continue to be mainly peaceful for as long as physical laws controlling it don't change. When that happens we will see.

[threefingeredguy]

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?

What? I'm confused. Now that TOP is #1 you're saying it's their turn to be the evil villain? That it's their responsibility to make any alliance besides their own do anything? That sounds like you're trying to get them into a war. Can it at least wait until TOP betrays the Gremlins?

From what I can see making ignorant comments from uninformed positions is par for the course around here so I don't see that an apology is actually necessary.

Yes it's a shame right? Still, I laughed.

If you are talking about policy in regards to NSO then you are also talking about me specifically since I determine policy and take responsibility for same.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Open your eyes. Planet Bob was designed as a peaceful world. It will continue to be mainly peaceful for as long as physical laws controlling it don't change. When that happens we will see.

As one of those that initially helped create this realm I can state pretty definitively that the Cyberverse was not designed to be peaceful. It may very well have developed into a peaceful world but that is only because of the perpetuation of the Great Lie, not by design.

[TehChron]

Your baits were noted and ignored. We were in no way trying to encourage stagnation. Nor are we trying to threaten your alliance. TOP members are just pointing out our ideology.

Now. Since you asked. TOP did contribute to stagnation for a while. Like almost any other alliance in the game. However we have also made steps to reduce stagnation. We were one of main factors behind war against NpO. We also have decided that we do not wish to support stagnation in such a massive way as Q did so we decided to leave and chart our own path. This last decision also in a way opened up field for Karma war. Both of these actions are relatively massive action on CN scale (if not biggest there are) and TOP was directly involved in both.

So I would say that TOP did a lot to reduce stagnation as well.

However as I said earlier. You cannot blame TOP as lone factor for stagnation. You can't blame us for even part of the stagnation as nature of the Planet Bob is not our fault. Great maker intelligently designed it in such a way and we are but figures in this world like anyone else. It's easy to channel the blame toward one alliance for problems of the world.

First it was NPO. NPO hegemony made Planet Bob boring. Now weeks after biggest war on Planet Bob it's not NPO. It must be that TOP is opressing people from enjoying Planet Bob way it should be enjoyed.

Open your eyes. Planet Bob was designed as a peaceful world. It will continue to be mainly peaceful for as long as physical laws controlling it don't change. When that happens we will see.

[ooc]Had Bob been designed as a peaceful world, war would not be an option, nor would it be as fully developed as it has become.

And you call deposing Sponge an act of fighting fighting stagnation? The man lives to start drama. Actually, wait, you fought Polar just because. I guess that isn't so much fighting stagnation by trying to take out a dynamic community within the community, as it is oppression and contributing to it.

You say NPO hegemony made Bob boring. Before that you said TOP and friends contributed to making Bob boring. Then you say TOP did stuff to fight stagnation without any real follow up, except for the NoCB war, which was, by all logical accounts, a detriment to the community. Which further contributed to stagnancy by what that war was actually started over.

How are you not contributing to making Bob boring now? As a matter of fact, you do nothing to address the point Heggo's making in the OP. You are, in actuality, proving it with your posts and ill-thought responses.

And taking credit for allowing the Karma War to occur is a bit of an exercise in hubris, isnt it?[/ooc]

I still don't see how you are rebutting Heggo's claims.

[threefingeredguy]

I think part of the problem here is that people seem to have different ideas on what causes and fixes stagnation. One party believes that there needs to be a central power in order to stimulate activity while the other party believes that a central power limits the activity of alliances outside the central power.

I personally believe a central power hurts the Cyberverse and themselves with each passing day. I much prefer the excitement and freedom of a dynamic multi-polar world to what we had under the Hegemony.

Edited July 25, 2009 by threefingeredguy

[shilo]

It is interesting to note that one type of doing politics (and war) under one certain structure is supposedly the only way which can ensure a more vibrant daily life here, and not surprisingly the person in question is in an alliance that seems to be described as the alliance that does do best in that regard.

It is also interesting to see that other alliances are criticized for their unique style of politics, which is then directly linked to the supposed "stagnation".

Now obviously, the biggest problem here is that some alliances are more or less designed as warmachines, with a central authorian regime best suited to order around and organize and strive in warfare. Often the internal debates, the culture inside is not so well refined, as that would ultimately lead to problems with the structure.

On the other hand we have alliances that have a vivid internal culture, are open, democratic and strive on just being among themselves, with friends, also to protect their homes and engage in the daily politics, but it is maybe not central to the existance of the alliance itself, the politics of Bob are additional fun, not all there is to it.

The first kind of alliance needs conflict, war, discussions here to really live up to their potential, it would prefer to either be dominating or strive to dominate.

The latter likes to simply be, enjoy the time, the politics (the internal more so maybe than external) and the discussion, the members prefer an open and friendly discourse on the forum.

When the first kind blames the second kind that they are at fault for a supposed stagnation (just after the largest conflict we have ever seen ended, opening up freedom of possibility for everyone) simply because they are what they are, either the first one never really wanted this open ended world where they can follow their ideals, or they simply never figured out that there are other means to participate here on Planet Bob.

Then however, they would be at fault for not adapting, for sticking to something old, or waiting on others to create the dynamics they require to be complete.

Then the best would be to simply do it themselves, risk can be fun, eh?

[Nananana]

[ooc]Had Bob been designed as a peaceful world, war would not be an option, nor would it be as fully developed as it has become.

And you call deposing Sponge an act of fighting fighting stagnation? The man lives to start drama. Actually, wait, you fought Polar just because. I guess that isn't so much fighting stagnation by trying to take out a dynamic community within the community, as it is oppression and contributing to it.

You say NPO hegemony made Bob boring. Before that you said TOP and friends contributed to making Bob boring. Then you say TOP did stuff to fight stagnation without any real follow up, except for the NoCB war, which was, by all logical accounts, a detriment to the community. Which further contributed to stagnancy by what that war was actually started over.

How are you not contributing to making Bob boring now? As a matter of fact, you do nothing to address the point Heggo's making in the OP. You are, in actuality, proving it with your posts and ill-thought responses.

And taking credit for allowing the Karma War to occur is a bit of an exercise in hubris, isnt it?[/ooc]

I still don't see how you are rebutting Heggo's claims.

man was designed by the maker with fists that he could optionally use to beat his wife, it does not mean that it is right to do so. We have been bestowed upon us free will for we are not mere clockworks.

Wait, we declared on an alliance, and for that, we're causing stagnation? Is that what you're really saying? I would tend to think that if Citadel stayed above it all and didn't stoop down to the petty squabbles and conflicts of others that it would have been pretty stagnant... what do you think?

For one, Citadel has kept this wall of text(what kind of self respecting sith writes walls of text anyways) from becoming stagnant. Also exercises in hubris are not exercises in stagnation. Our nations run on props so let's hear it.

As I said from the beginning: this sort of attitude was born as a response to conditions in which that was the most you could hope to achieve. Conditions have changed and one needn't feed off of these justifications for mediocrity any more- one can now reach out and strive for more than that.

But don't you see.... we have broadened our horizons, we are aiming higher. All of us in Citadel have ambitions that we are pursuing. When I'm not kicking the joker's teeth in, for example, I've taken up cooking. I find it to be very therapeutic. I can now make dynaite california rolls, the most refreshing salsa you've ever tasted, and omelettes that always ensure a pleasant morning after. You may say that these are not true ambitions but allow me to convince you otherwise with my fratatas. They're guaranteed to make a jedi feel passion or your money back.

[TehChron]

man was designed by the maker with fists that he could optionally use to beat his wife, it does not mean that it is right to do so. We have been bestowed upon us free will for we are not mere clockworks.

Wait, we declared on an alliance, and for that, we're causing stagnation? Is that what you're really saying? I would tend to think that if Citadel stayed above it all and didn't stoop down to the petty squabbles and conflicts of others that it would have been pretty stagnant... what do you think?

For one, Citadel has kept this wall of text(what kind of self respecting sith writes walls of text anyways) from becoming stagnant. Also exercises in hubris are not exercises in stagnation. Our nations run on props so let's hear it.

Ok...Where to begin with the numerous fallacies here?

First paragraph...Thats a blatant mischaracterization. Considering my point was [ooc]This game was designed to allow for relatively free conflict, with an exception built in for those who did not want to have to deal with wars to begin with. When the point being responded to was the basely erroneous claim that this game was designed without having warfare in mind. Made by Sabre.[/ooc] The claim Sabre made has since been openly laughed at and dismissed as base folly.

Second paragraph...Attacking a dynamic force in the world for the simple reason that it is dynamic, and you don't like actually is contributing to stagnancy, by taking out those who would challenge the status quo *potentially* for the sake of protecting the status quo. It is also base pettiness to do so, considering there was no justifiable reason for it, or Causus Belli. There's a difference between being a mustache twirling villain while on the top and intentionally acting to squelch dissent using vague threats. One person does it to play a role. The other does it to be a jerk and preserve the status quo. The latter is what promotes stagnancy, the former promotes interest and activity.

Third paragraph...Im...Sorry? So TOP taking offense to this essay is somehow doing it a favor? And what do you even mean by the other two sentences?

[heggo]

Citadel is a small enough bloc (in terms of number of members) that they don't really have a core and fringe. You really only see that with megablocs such as WUT and Q.

-Bama

The concept of a core is still useful when analyzing but one alliance. If half the alliance's nations are concentrated in one band, while the other half are about evenly distributed, the heavily concentrated band is the core of teh alliance.

Yo heggo, you're just assuming yourself to be correct. What if peace and what we do actually is okay?

But it isn't okay. You see, the things about conflict and power and so forth that you call "assumptions" actually have been backed up through analysis. The analysis is this: if my assumptions are accepted as correct, you get a dynamic Planet Bob, in which there is struggle, progress, conflict, and all sorts of things. If your assumptions are accepted as correct, you get a stagnant Planet Bob. You get [ooc] the boring peaceful game that some among you declared cybernations to be. The sort of boring game that's bound to wane into nothing.[/ooc] Now, it is fact that neither set of "assumptions" are declared to be the truth on some stone tablet handed down from admin. Ultimately, I guess we could ascribe to your assumptions. But the thing is, your assumptions lead to negative outcomes- to stagnancy and ultimately to the death of [ooc] the game itself. (Bored people quit- which is what the problem with the hegemony era was.) [/ooc] My assumptions don't lead to those negative outcomes, thus they should be preferred, if for no other reason than that very utilitarian analysis.

In sum, I'm not projecting arbitrary beliefs and assumptions onto you. I'm projecting darn well reasoned ones onto you.

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.

First of all, do not mistake decisive and timely action with rash blundering. By acting quickly, we are not letting any opportunities go unseized. The same can't be said of you.

Second of all, you don't have to become the monster- you just have to risk becoming the monster. To continue your metaphor, actors like yourself slew the monster and continue to act as if its exists. The monster's greatest sin was the spread of stagnancy, and you continue that merely under a different guise. You can walk your own path, but with the monster dead you don't have to keep trembling in fear of it eating you.

snip- TOP caused the karma war

Don't some of your members mock us and say we claim to have invented white peace? All the ironies aside, it has much less to do with you jumping ship on them and far more to do with vox and the many alliances that formed karma besides you. Need I remind you that the vast majority of nations in the game are barely in range of your forces, if at all?

Now. Since you asked. TOP did contribute to stagnation for a while. Like almost any other alliance in the game. However we have also made steps to reduce stagnation. We were one of main factors behind war against NpO. We also have decided that we do not wish to support stagnation in such a massive way as Q did so we decided to leave and chart our own path. This last decision also in a way opened up field for Karma war. Both of these actions are relatively massive action on CN scale (if not biggest there are) and TOP was directly involved in both.

So I would say that TOP did a lot to reduce stagnation as well.

Oh yeah, that helped. Why, that didn't help perpetuate the climate of fear that so uniquely marked the hegemony era at all!

And does Polar know that TOP likes to brag about having helped to roll them?

I think part of the problem here is that people seem to have different ideas on what causes and fixes stagnation. One party believes that there needs to be a central power in order to stimulate activity while the other party believes that a central power limits the activity of alliances outside the central power.

I personally believe a central power hurts the Cyberverse and themselves with each passing day. I much prefer the excitement and freedom of a dynamic multi-polar world to what we had under the Hegemony.

Thing is, the centralized powers are dead and, because people didn't like the old centralized ones, nobody is striving to take on a centralized position. The net result is that a world of decentralized powers is just as stagnant as the centralized world.

(what kind of self respecting sith writes walls of text anyways)

This one.

But don't you see.... we have broadened our horizons, we are aiming higher. All of us in Citadel have ambitions that we are pursuing. When I'm not kicking the joker's teeth in, for example, I've taken up cooking. I find it to be very therapeutic. I can now make dynaite california rolls, the most refreshing salsa you've ever tasted, and omelettes that always ensure a pleasant morning after. You may say that these are not true ambitions but allow me to convince you otherwise with my fratatas. They're guaranteed to make a jedi feel passion or your money back.

Why are you leading a nation at all then? You should retire and head a historical society or something. Seems like your goals and activities wouldn't be radically different in that case.

[Nananana]

Ok...Where to begin with the numerous fallacies here?

First paragraph...Thats a blatant mischaracterization. Considering my point was [ooc]This game was designed to allow for relatively free conflict, with an exception built in for those who did not want to have to deal with wars to begin with. When the point being responded to was the basely erroneous claim that this game was designed without having warfare in mind. Made by Sabre.[/ooc] The claim Sabre made has since been openly laughed at and dismissed as base folly.

Second paragraph...Attacking a dynamic force in the world for the simple reason that it is dynamic, and you don't like actually is contributing to stagnancy, by taking out those who would challenge the status quo *potentially* for the sake of protecting the status quo. It is also base pettiness to do so, considering there was no justifiable reason for it, or Causus Belli. There's a difference between being a mustache twirling villain while on the top and intentionally acting to squelch dissent using vague threats. One person does it to play a role. The other does it to be a jerk and preserve the status quo. The latter is what promotes stagnancy, the former promotes interest and activity.

Third paragraph...Im...Sorry? So TOP taking offense to this essay is somehow doing it a favor? And what do you even mean by the other two sentences?

No one really knows what the maker intended. The accumulation of capital takes hard work and savings and due to the relative ease with which capital can be destroyed, it is not so outlandish to believe that the maker intended us to be cautious and analytical in our actions. Reckless an dangerous actions put not only the leader at risk but the entire citizenry of the leader's nation. Perhaps the citizens of your nations just naturally smell bad and thus do not mind a lack of access to certain comforts like decent shelter and hot showers however some of us strive for more. Some of us wish to build and lead utopias of free flowing information. Where scholars may debate the merits of iron and steel vs the more noble super alloys. Where our citizens enjoy the highest literacy rates and the highest happiness. Where our citizens can be as free as possible, does that sound like something that would interest you? The spoils of war, and the excitement war brings are tempting, but at times, a leader must sacrifice for his citizens to thrive. Great societies are not built in a day, and it takes a long time and hard work to create such a wonderful society. Whether exercising the option of war, or trying to build a utopian society... no one can truly know what the maker had intended.

The NpO was a dynamic force? A force that constantly challenged the status quo and never acted in their own interests of protecting the status quo? I believe you have the roles reversed there buddy.

You seem to want conflict, we try to oblige by creating conflict in this thread and you're still upset with us. There's just no pleasing you.

Why are you leading a nation at all then? You should retire and head a historical society or something. Seems like your goals and activities wouldn't be radically different in that case.

As leaders we all have certain ideals and goals for our nations, it's just that we have other interests as well. I could never retire as my nation's leader, for one, the sex tapes haven't been leaked yet, but also, there are exciting things going on within the nation of Batman. We've recently completed the funding of our movie industry and with that, we shall begin exporting entertainment to other nations. Due to the high literacy rate of my country, there is no shortage of talented writers to write scripts for movies as well as TV shows. I hear that Arctic Animal Planet(hosted by the Penguin) has been green lit and there will be another season of Robin's variety hour and a documentary on Global Warming directed by Mr. Freeze. These are exciting times for my nation and there's no way I could completely step away from it, bruschetta be damned

Edited July 26, 2009 by Nananana

[Facade]

This deserves praise.

[TehChron]

No one really knows what the maker intended. The accumulation of capital takes hard work and savings and due to the relative ease with which capital can be destroyed, it is not so outlandish to believe that the maker intended us to be cautious and analytical in our actions. Reckless an dangerous actions put not only the leader at risk but the entire citizenry of the leader's nation. Perhaps the citizens of your nations just naturally smell bad and thus do not mind a lack of access to certain comforts like decent shelter and hot showers however some of us strive for more. Some of us wish to build and lead utopias of free flowing information. Where scholars may debate the merits of iron and steel vs the more noble super alloys. Where our citizens enjoy the highest literacy rates and the highest happiness. Where our citizens can be as free as possible, does that sound like something that would interest you? The spoils of war, and the excitement war brings are tempting, but at times, a leader must sacrifice for his citizens to thrive. Great societies are not built in a day, and it takes a long time and hard work to create such a wonderful society. Whether exercising the option of war, or trying to build a utopian society... no one can truly know what the maker had intended.

The NpO was a dynamic force? A force that constantly challenged the status quo and never acted in their own interests of protecting the status quo? I believe you have the roles reversed there buddy.

You seem to want conflict, we try to oblige by creating conflict in this thread and you're still upset with us. There's just no pleasing you.

No, actually, unlike most creation theories, it's actually been proven and cited multiple times that the creator made this world in order to have conflict. A truly sadistic concept indeed, but for those who wished to live in peace, our Creator did place the natural "Hippie Shield" in order to save them from the horrors of war.

Obfuscation is not a very good argument. Verbage for the sake of rambling does not make a coherent argument, it is merely rambling.

As far as dynamic forces go...Sponge himself is a dynamic force. The NpO under him also worked in this regard. He has said it himself multiple times in the past, and revels in this fact. What Sponge always hated was the status quo, since Polaris was not the #1, premier alliance of the game. Pacifica was, and Sponge always worked to change that fact.

Now then, no one here is advocating conflict. Quit trying to put words in our mouth about what the only alternative to stagnancy is...Or is your imagination so small as to not fathom what else there is to this world besides stat collecting and curbstomps?

[Dr. Dan]

As far as dynamic forces go...Sponge himself is a dynamic force. The NpO under him also worked in this regard. He has said it himself multiple times in the past, and revels in this fact. What Sponge always hated was the status quo, since Polaris was not the #1, premier alliance of the game. Pacifica was, and Sponge always worked to change that fact.

The "status quo" challenging back is as important to the dynamics of the game as much as the challengers.  Would you not agree to that?

Isn't it inherent in this argument that the top players in the game do not remain docile with use of their power?  

So far as Sponge goes, he did much "good for change" by joining Vox, no?

Edit: Furthermore, the new Polar is very dynamic as well. The WoTC helped to set up the world for change.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Dr. Dan

[heggo]

So far as Sponge goes, he did much "good for change" by joining Vox, no?

Edit: Furthermore, the new Polar is very dynamic as well.

Aww, I didn't know TOP helped roll Polar because you loved them so much. That's so sweet.

Considering that you guys claimed to have caused the karma war single-handedly over the course of two days, I can only imagine how quickly you made the war with Polar happen.

Edited July 26, 2009 by heggo

[Baron deSandersted]

Dear Great Lord Heggo of Heggomonomy,

Please know I do not speak for my alliance, nor do I hold any

position of authority, within the beautiful and hallowed halls of

our beloved Paradoxia. The opinion that I have written here is

mine alone; but I believe it to be a good one.

You have written a very thought provoking thread. Many of

your points have run through my own head and I marvel, at

times, over the complexities of our Brave New World.

For a very long time, the citizens of Alisaunder lived in fear of the

NPO. Later, as a member of a Continuum alliance, we came to love,

respect and appreciate the NPO. They were our protectors and the

sharp teeth of the once very scary Continuum mask.

Now we have begun a new age. New blocs and alliances are rising

from the ashes of the recent war. Many great alliances of old have

been lessened and others have been raised on high. Many nations

are grateful for the NPO's fall from the forefront of the world stage,

but the humble citizens of Alisaunder were seen to shed a few bitter

tears.

Alisaunder is now a member of an alliance within the Citadel boc and

we are very grateful for this solid rock of formidable protection and

power.

Though I heartily respect your opinion and your fine grasp of world

politics, I beg to disagree regarding your opinion of Citadel. It is not

my intention to debate or argue. I will simply say that I disagree.

You seem like a fine and thoughtful ruler and your words have not

made me angry. It is also not my wish that you should become so.

The citizens of my humble nation seek only friends and hope that we

might count you in that number.

Regarding Citadel, please know that Alisaunder and the other members

of my alliance bask in the luxury of uncontested prosperity and greatness,

that is brought to us by Citadel. We are very happy and though we truly

appreciate your heartfelt concern, we see no evidence of stagnation.

In closing, I am very happy to correspond with you and wish only the

very best for both you and the fine people of the New Sith Order. We

know that many of the robust and fearsome NPO rulers of olden times,

now reside with you and we salute the NSO.

May The Same Joy And Success Of Citadel Be With You,

[TehChron]

The "status quo" challenging back is as important to the dynamics of the game as much as the challengers.  Would you not agree to that?

Isn't it inherent in this argument that the top players in the game do not remain docile with use of their power?  

So far as Sponge goes, he did much "good for change" by joining Vox, no?

Edit: Furthermore, the new Polar is very dynamic as well. The WoTC helped to set up the world for change.

I dont think anyone can take you seriously with a straight face.

Really. Killing a dynamic force stops stagnancy? You're saying the NoCB war is what allowed the Karma war to occur?

But I thought TOP ditching the NPO was what changed the world? Which revisionism is the accurate one. Someone needs to call in Vladimir, this kind of brazen nonsense is making my head hurt.

[Nananana]

No, actually, unlike most creation theories, it's actually been proven and cited multiple times that the creator made this world in order to have conflict. A truly sadistic concept indeed, but for those who wished to live in peace, our Creator did place the natural "Hippie Shield" in order to save them from the horrors of war.

Obfuscation is not a very good argument. Verbage for the sake of rambling does not make a coherent argument, it is merely rambling.

As far as dynamic forces go...Sponge himself is a dynamic force. The NpO under him also worked in this regard. He has said it himself multiple times in the past, and revels in this fact. What Sponge always hated was the status quo, since Polaris was not the #1, premier alliance of the game. Pacifica was, and Sponge always worked to change that fact.

Now then, no one here is advocating conflict. Quit trying to put words in our mouth about what the only alternative to stagnancy is...Or is your imagination so small as to not fathom what else there is to this world besides stat collecting and curbstomps?

A nobody like you couldn't possibly interpret the words of a god. And nowhere do I believe his vision calls for a world without conflict(what the ball and chain of peace mode is), only a world not centered around it.

until his quite illegal dethroning, Sponge was the emperor of NpO as long as I can remember. The thing is, for the longest time, I remember him and NpO being quite buddy buddy with Pacifica, so either he fought the "status quo" only when it became convenient for him or he was always working to undermine Pacifica in which case, he is quite the treacherous character, a trait you might find admirable as a sith, but not a trait suited for those of us with backbones.

not advocating conflict...... are you really a sith? Plus are you seriously kidding me, you're talking about how this world was meant for conflict but then you're not advocating it... what you believe to be the vision of the maker, what with your proven and multiple cited information and you're not advocating his will?

[Essenia]

Really. Killing a dynamic force stops stagnancy? You're saying the NoCB war is what allowed the Karma war to occur?

That is, in fact, 100% true.

[TehChron]

A nobody like you couldn't possibly interpret the words of a god. And nowhere do I believe his vision calls for a world without conflict(what the ball and chain of peace mode is), only a world not centered around it.

until his quite illegal dethroning, Sponge was the emperor of NpO as long as I can remember. The thing is, for the longest time, I remember him and NpO being quite buddy buddy with Pacifica, so either he fought the "status quo" only when it became convenient for him or he was always working to undermine Pacifica in which case, he is quite the treacherous character, a trait you might find admirable as a sith, but not a trait suited for those of us with backbones.

not advocating conflict...... are you really a sith? Plus are you seriously kidding me, you're talking about how this world was meant for conflict but then you're not advocating it... what you believe to be the vision of the maker, what with your proven and multiple cited information and you're not advocating his will?

You need to use blue text, that way at least the folks who don't get it will be able to understand that you're doing a terrible job of imitating RV.

Im really not going to bother giving you a history lesson you dont need, anyway.

That is, in fact, 100% true.

It made as much of a difference as my rejoining the world, tbh. I cant think of anyone who can blame the folks who lost the Karma war for what happened in the NoCB war. Edited July 26, 2009 by Chron

[Nananana]

You need to use blue text, that way at least the folks who don't get it will be able to understand that you're doing a terrible job of imitating RV.

Im really not going to bother giving you a history lesson you dont need, anyway.

you will find it is you who are mistaken about a great many things

[youwish959]

That is, in fact, 100% true.

If that's what allowed it, I'd be glad to live in a Hegemony ruled era forever.