Hegemony Era Stagnancy and the Modern Age: Startling Continuities

[Bob Janova]

With reference to the OP (I don't want to get into all the derails): just because an alliance has a goal which is not naked power accumulation and projection doesn't mean it has no ambition or is a negative contributor to the world scene. And it's not Citadel's job to make your politics for you – generally we let everyone else do whatever they like, you can't blame us if you can't think of any politics without us!

And CN is not stagnating. There is a much more interesting political scene now than for some time – even if a lot of people seem to be too scared of their freedom to actually exercise it.

[Dujek Onearm]

Go slumming by sending out mass-messages and enfranchising every person that you drag out of the gutter, and you'll get exactly what you deserve.

Now, this is ironic, isn't it?

[Essenia]

With reference to the OP (I don't want to get into all the derails): just because an alliance has a goal which is not naked power accumulation and projection doesn't mean it has no ambition or is a negative contributor to the world scene. And it's not Citadel's job to make your politics for you – generally we let everyone else do whatever they like, you can't blame us if you can't think of any politics without us!

The problem is that Citadel does encourage in a strange way- people want to kill us enough that they are less likely to engage in conflicts they might otherwise start or be part of, lest their preparations go awry.

note: this does not reflect the official opinion of anyone.

[WalkerNinja]

-snip-

Now, this is ironic, isn't it?

This is a separate debate for another time. Don't think that because I have doubts about the reliability of your system that I also doubt your virtue. I don't. Simultaneously, I believe that the system to which you adhere clouds your virtues from the perceptions of others. Concomitantly, my great mistake was to believe that the ODN could ever be anything different than what it always has been. There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Edited July 28, 2009 by WalkerNinja

[Delta1212]

The problem is that Citadel does encourage in a strange way- people want to kill us enough that they are less likely to engage in conflicts they might otherwise start or be part of, lest their preparations go awry.

note: this does not reflect the official opinion of anyone.

I, for one, would have attacked C&G, Frostbite and SF by now if I wasn't grounded by my raging hate for Citadel. Way to stagnate my politics.

[Barnaby von Farter]

Concomitantly, my great mistake was to believe that the ODN could ever be anything different than what it always has been.

Walker Ninja,

My nation's people have unanimously voted to regard your comment as a compliment toward the alliance they voted to join. Thank you sir.

[Ubermeir]

Whatever the ODN is, or is not, it is what has been decided on, with the voice and access of its members.

[WalkerNinja]

Walker Ninja,

My nation's people have unanimously voted to regard your comment as a compliment toward the alliance they voted to join. Thank you sir.

I thank your people for appropriately interpreting the nature of my comment. I felt that the intent was quite clear since I noted that the mistake was mine, and not that of the alliance which your people have voted to join. That they would thus have to take the time (and expense) to hold a vote on this matter is confusing.

Whatever the ODN is, or is not, it is what has been decided on, with the voice and access of its members.

Which is exactly what I just said, in a round about way. This has always been the case. Attempts to change it have proven both destructive and futile. It's the whole reason that I left (which I thoroughly explained 6 weeks prior to my resignation, and then reiterated in my resignation thread).

Can we please get back to incriminating the Citadel now? At least that was intellectually stimulating (if mostly on a comedic level).

[muffasamini]

This new era is not a return to "lofty goals" or peace. Q was the result of lofty goals of peace. Everyone apparently hated it. This is a return to "fun" lots of drama, fewer unbreakable ties, and lots more war.

[Essenia]

This new era is not a return to "lofty goals" or peace. Q was the result of lofty goals of peace. Everyone apparently hated it. This is a return to "fun" lots of drama, fewer unbreakable ties, and lots more war.

Q was the result of a number of alliances wanting to outdo/isolate Polar. Peace was not a key goal.

[Bob Janova]

Q was the result of lofty goals of peace

Was it? I don't remember that being mentioned in the discussion about signing. The combined Continuum-One Vision power structure ensured a controllable 'peace' (i.e. no forces large enough to be a threat) to the shared members and a strong incentive for everyone to attach themselves to the shared members or stay in the blocs. However, I don't think that was the result of a 'lofty goal of peace' but a more pragmatic goal for security on the part of those alliances.

[OverCaffeinated]

Really, they're incredibly important to your security? Beyond that your very own alliance mates have already conceded that they aren't (see: Kaiser's posts) I dare you to quantify what impact they make. And really, you've only given proof for my claim that there's just luxuries for y'all. After all, what good did Citadel do for IRON, or TOP as part of the Continuum, come the Karma War? In any case, that you don't play any serious power politics with them still stands: they are non essential toys that you can keep around to do your bidding at lower levels; by being non essential, they are made disposable.

Good job at refuting your own theory that Citadel lacks the means to project their strength to low and mid tier nations. Through MHA and IRON they can project power anywhere they want (if they chose to do so).

[watchman]

...just because an alliance has a goal which is not naked power accumulation and projection doesn't mean it has no ambition or is a negative contributor to the world scene ...

And CN is not stagnating. There is a much more interesting political scene now than for some time ...

Wow. I actually agree with BJ on this one. Well said.

[Salmia]

Really, I love how it is being claimed that Citadel is the cause of stagnation. You can't blame several alliances for other alliances. No one way is the correct way. That is what I always see in these threads, one person thinks their way is the correct way and gets angry when other people don't agree with that. It is fine to have your view on how you think things should go but in truth, there are many different people who are in this world and many different styles because of that.

In truth, no one way is the correct way for all. There will be those who wish to war, there are others who will wish to be the top, there are others who will wish for community and so forth. Each person has a different preference and those come about by different alliances. The new era has just allowed for that to develop more. It is up to the alliances to decide their path but no one path is necessarily correct. In the end, it is up to us as individuals as what we really want to do. You may want to see Citadel and other alliances fighting more and be more aligned to your ideology but that isn't going to happen.

TOOL had been on the cusp of sanction for a long time before we finally reached it about right before the Karma War. The attitude of TOOL has not changed since then. We still play for community and could care less if we lost sanction. Sanction doesn't make us who we are and neither does fighting for the top position. We prefer our community and our allies and that is what I see Citadel. That is our right and their right to choose that way. It may not agree with yours but it is still our right. It doesn't contribute to stagnation, it is just simply another way of doing things. We're not oppressing anyone else's right, simply offering another way and path.

That is what I see Citadel doing. Simply doing their own thing just like other alliances are. It is not wrong or right, it simply is a choice because of the draw for people who want to make that choice. If there was only one choice, only one way, you'd see a lot more stagnation because people would leave not being able to match the style. But no, because we're diverse, we have more people involved. No one path is right.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Salmia

[RustyNail]

While this is an interesting article and worth the read, I feel I must point out the hypocrisy of it all. If this is a "call to arms" so to speak, for someone to stand up and be the 'villain' as it were, you would be better served doing it withing the confines of your own alliance who (by the posts in this thread) appear to share the same philosophy. Instead you post it here and proceed to tell anyone that does not agree with your beliefs that they are wrong and they should feel as you should. This appears more of a dictation than a statement based upon your responses to the rebuttals.

If you want a 'villain' in this new world, I would propose you step up and live by your own philosophy rather than try to subjugate others to believe as you do...which....seems kinda like a form of villainy to me. It is not the responsibility of any sovereign nation or alliance to act as YOU believe they should. They have the free agency to believe and act as they wish and play the game according to their rules.

In short....you want a villain, you be the villain instead of griping that no one else has those desires.

Edited July 29, 2009 by RustyNail

[Bodvar Jarl]

Fashionably late, am I?

To be completely honest, I've lost track of the debate, so I'll just go back to the part of the OP I feel is relevant to my interests and selectively quote the parts of it that I can use to construct my argument:

Skipping the interlude on Citadel to this point:

Now, the Citadel remains and has expanded to control, with its affiliates*, roughly 20% of the top 5% of nations. While that may not sound large, consider that that's twice as much as Complaints and Grievances, Super Friends, and the Common Defense Treaty combined. In other words, the only wars they'll fight will be rollings of the top 5% of the targeted alliances.

I plead guilty, that's where our strategical focus is, this is our edge, where others have had massive membership, more NS (for much of the history of the bloc, there have been several alliances with more than twice as much NS as the various Citadel alliances had), we are left with the power of individual nations, indeed Citadel alliances have traditionally matched the upper tiers of the stronger alliances such as IRON and NPO, but without the hundreds of smaller nations, up until the recent war, it was also a fact that the large mass membership alliances would eventually bring us down in a war because they could swarm us, soak up damage and so on, historically, TOP's greater military achievements (GW2 and GW3, anything after that have pretty much been massacres more than actual wars) came as a result of us having our flanks secured by houndreds of nations from NPO, MHA, FAN and what-not with lower NS, we secured their flanks by establishing numerical advantage from above, an alliance with the military setup that Citadel members have can choose to stay out of politics and conflict if it wants to, you always need some level of participation, but since fighting something like Citadel will bring major hurt to anyone, we can choose to sit in our ivory towers and stop caring about what the rest of you do. In which case, thie claim that "The problem with this is that it too leads to stagnancy and inaction." would be totally accurate.

But this is where we begin to disagree, because if the answer to what we want to do is something else than to sit in our ivory towers and do whatever we want to do there because you can't climb all those stairs, but rather to take as much part in the geopolitical playground as most others, then "It creates an incentive structure that dictates that the Citadel needn't seriously play politics with non elite alliances, as any non elite alliance they ally with is fairly unimportant to their security, and has little role beyond being a luxury toy for them." would not be a great way to go on about it, and "The net result of this is that they've become a diluted version of the Continuum, to whom allies are trifles that they can abandon without consequences and to whom stagnancy is extremely profitable." would be the textbook example of how not to do it.

As you accurately point out: "Meanwhile, there is no real incentive to challenge them due to the large amount of effort required to do so, coupled with minimal gain- unlike the Continuum, their inability to threaten most nations in other alliances reduces their political impact." which very much fits with my experience of TOP's most glorious moments, so picking up on that point, and we ask the question of: "What must Citadel do should they wish to take part in this world as a significant geopolitical factor?"

My answer: Ally ourselves with others, others that will have significantly more members than we have, with a much more "average" distribution of nations across the NS-cathegories, others that *will* be vulnerable to most alliances on digiterra.

Would you dispute that answer? Assuming that you at least can agree to that it lies along those lines so we can go further, I would like to revisit the last part of your little essay: "The net result of this is that they've become a diluted version of the Continuum, to whom allies are trifles that they can abandon without consequences and to whom stagnancy is extremely profitable."

Out of here, I'll draw out these two things:

1. to whom allies are trifles that they can abandon without consequences

2. to whom stagnancy is extremely profitable

For #1, abandoning allies comes with consequenses, while I can accept your argument that Citadel can abandon any ally as we like without any direct consequenses for the military threat to us, it will ultimately make us loose allies, directly those we abandon, indirectly our other allies may abandon us, while potential allies are lost to us. If we are up there in our ivory towers, then that may not be of much concern, but since we need allies if we are not, doing so would just hurt us in the long run.

For #2, stagnancy would be profitable in the ivory tower version of our story, it would simply mean that there'd be less disturbance and noise, less for us to worry about. It may have been profitable either way for us when Q maintained hegemony, though I could for the sake of wanting a good discussion play devil's advocate about stagnancy during the Q ear, might be fun, some other thread perhaps. Now? Stagnancy would not suit Citadel if we wanted to compete for power, the status quo is not one where Citadel is dominant, nobody else can be said to be dominant either, but the competition for power and the competition for dominance is more or less the same thing, if you are dominant, strengthening and maintaining that position is what you do, if you are not, then working to get there is what you do. Otherwise, you are not playing that game, or you are not playing it well.

So I guess the actual question here is what Citadel, behind our walls, wants to do. Personally, I find it far more rewarding to compete for power and risk some strength rather than sit on my hands, not risking that strength, yet not using it either.

[Electron Sponge]

Sorry to correct your analysis, but the "July 4th Coup That Wasn't a Coup It was an Orderly Transition of Power Because We Said So" was one of the most enjoyed moments I've had on Planet Bob. Sponge may in retrospect want people to think he planned it (and if so I sort of don't blame him), but don't ever believe that he voluntarily stepped down from anything. Back then he was all about power and power projection. Now...ah shucks, he's just a simple tailor, working to lead his small alliance through a shop located on the DS9 Promenade*....

<snip>

* - the reference came up because of the Worf avatar...for those who wouldn't know DS9 from an anvil, people aren't what they seem--what they project publicly may in no way reflect what their actual thoughts are or what they are doing behind the scenes, such is the case with Electron Sponge

I've never attempted to portray my overthrow as Emperor as anything but that. It was an illegal act under the charter. It was for the best, but it was not voluntary. It also matters very little as I have been reconciled with Polaris and hold the title of Imperator Emeritus. I'm not sure where the idea that I've portrayed my overthrow as some noble voluntary act comes from but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Hal you've got no clue what my thoughts are on anything or whether my public persona is representative of those thoughts or not. Stop acting like you do (and stop making stuff up).

I'm not sure why people are wasting so much time discussing TOP (or Citadel in general) making things boring. If you're looking to the stat hugging crowd for your action you're looking in the wrong place. They're a swing group, not a source of conflict. They do serve as a pretty good bellwether of which side is about to get curb stomped - all you need to do is check and see which of their treaties aren't getting honored. See also: Initiative, Continuum