Color Sphere Unity: Why is political homogeneity so good?

[Kzoppistan]

My reasons for pursuing color sphere cooperation are very much in line with with post Steelrat made

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...amp;pid=1746993

More important than a futile quest for color sphere dominance, is simply having all of our needs as an alliance met. All trade slots filled with good sets, and foreign tech/money available to ensure that all nations have full aid slots in case of an imbalance between sellers and buyers. The reasons are rather uncomplicated; an efficient alliance grows faster than an inefficient one.

SNOW has a NAP policy of which I am neutral about.

The issue for me is that people have differing views on what constitutes "unity" on a trading sphere.

For some it is a team-wide treaty of levels ranging from a NAP through to MDoAP, which would constitute political unity. For others a simple economic agreement is more than enough to promote cooperation within a trading sphere and to promote the sphere as a viable home for alliances starting out or fleeing turmoil in their current team. The latter does not require political or military unity and I think is a more viable option to encourage both cooperation and political diversity on a team.

To me, a lot of people pushing team unity and the accompanying bloc military treaty are doing so to drag an entire team across to their side of the political spectrum. They can do this by targeting key alliances on their team with diplomatic efforts to promote the chances of a treaty, by politically isolating and attempting to drive an alliance from the sphere if they do not conform to the "unity" politics and by seeding the team with protectorates which further pushes any alliances with a differing point of view into the political minority.

To me, the true success of a team is the ability of a team to accept others on their team with a differing political viewpoint while maintaining the economic cooperation required to benefit all members of the team. For all the bickering on the white team over "unity" and the penchant to push military treaties embedded into economic blocs, the team has not resorted to sanction wars and dropping of trades even when members of the white team have found themselves on the opposite sides of a conflict. This suggests to me that political homogeneity is not a prerequisite for a team to carry out its primary role which is providing economic stability and cooperation.

If a team can create a homogeneous political environment then good for them. I just do not feel it is a necessity for a team to function properly economically.

Good points, Tygaland.

Also, I'd like to point out that any of your nations are more than welcome to apply for a merchant mask to peruse the tech and trade resources. If you feel that such a resource would be handy then feel free to send them by. The more the merrier.

http://cn-snow.net

Edited August 6, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Haflinger]

Non-aggression is a default position between any alliances unless an issue arises to change that.

Well, unless one of those alliances is Poison Clan

[Tygaland]

Well, unless one of those alliances is Poison Clan

OK, should be the default position...

[Bob Janova]

That said, to Mr. Bob Janova, I was thinking more of BLEU and PEACE type treaties, where there is a defensive clause- be it mandatory or highly encouraged.

Well that is a small subset of 'colour unity' – particularly now Blue no longer has such a treaty, you're really talking about Purple and Pink. Even optional defence means pretty much nothing (for example ICE has an optional defence clause, which has almost never been activated). Green, White, Black, Orange, Aqua and Maroon have unity treaties which are effectively NAPs or ODPs and which are shared between alliances with different political approaches. Yellow and Brown have also taken this approach in the past (YUT and UPS), and as I pointed out, even BLEU had a more inclusive treaty for those not suited to the military bloc.

[Haflinger]

Well that is a small subset of 'colour unity' – particularly now Blue no longer has such a treaty, you're really talking about Purple and Pink. Even optional defence means pretty much nothing (for example ICE has an optional defence clause, which has almost never been activated). Green, White, Black, Orange, Aqua and Maroon have unity treaties which are effectively NAPs or ODPs and which are shared between alliances with different political approaches. Yellow and Brown have also taken this approach in the past (YUT and UPS), and as I pointed out, even BLEU had a more inclusive treaty for those not suited to the military bloc.

Arguably, Chestnuts on Maroon and Terra Cotta on Brown are similar to BLEU and PEACE.

[heggo]

(1)Why do you assume that every bloc unity treaty is like BLEU? Your assumption is incorrect.

(2)It's not. What are you, new or something? I think it's a heck of a lot more important as to which team is more accommodating, friendly, most nations, most organised trade cooperation, etc. And at no stage is there any pressure on anyone to do anything. Those people and alliances who choose to work on sphere unity do so because they want to.

(3)Yes, let's all disregard all our friends, ideologies and current political connections, and let our politics be dictated by our sphere in such a way that we make an arrangement with another half of the sphere to join two separate sides of the war...

(4) This makes very little sense - just thought I'd point that out. [re: senate competition good]

(5) You are talking about this as though anything to do with sphere unity must be a universal truth which must apply to every single alliance, as opposed to each alliance choosing it's own path in it's respective sphere independently. In fact it is the latter.

(1) Yeah, for starters I never made that BLEU assumption. My position consistently has been (as was fleshed out later and changed some by steelrat's persuasive arguments) was that while some level is necessary (the -ooc- geneva conventions -ooc- type treaty) anything like BLEU, an ODP or up treaty, and even NAPs aren't necessary. So long as folks are civil in their conflict, there's no reason they can't live with eachother.

(2) Firstly, I don't see why treatied friendliness is important given a world where folks maintain a basic level of civility. Why must a sphere in which there is vibrant conflict lack civility with regard to trade embargoes and so forth? Also, I think it's fairly naive to suppose that there's no pressure. Your final statement there reminds me of a dictator saying that there is free speech in his nation- just that everyone happens to agree with the party line. Even if that's the case here, I see no reason for why it ought to continue being the case.

(3) You seem to feel as though I wish to have some system or other forced onto people. That isn't the case. Rather, I'm saying that there shouldn't be a bias against alliances and spheres who don't mind having conflict occur within it- I think sphere conflict and heated races for senate seats and so forth would add an interesting new dynamic to the game; a dynamic which I roughly sketched out some. I didn't say that folks ought to abandon their allies and create conflict for just the sake of it. You know, considering all the strawmen you've set up, I'm beginning to suspect that you might believe that this ought to be an attack thread of some sort. I didn't set it up as thus, and I suggest that you not make it into one.

(4) How is it nonsensical? It isn't outlandish to suppose that people act differently when the pressure of competition is placed on them, as opposed to when there is little or no competition. Indeed, if one projects out to how folks would deal with that competition, one can imagine a number of scenarios- treaties with smaller alliances that secure their votes for your party in the senate race, various activity boosting measures, etc.

(5) Different strokes for different folks really doesn't help your case, considering that that's pretty much what I'm saying. At the moment, the only ideal for a color sphere is unity. I'm trying to convince people that, perhaps, other ideals exist which aren't being much considered. Arguing that sphere unity is the only system that spheres ought to adopt, as you seem to be doing, isn't entirely compatible with lecturing me about how there is no universal truth for sphere unity and how everyone should choose their own path. And any attempt on your part to paint me as being totalizing surely must fail, considering my views on steelrat's learned statements.

As to Mr. Bob Janova, that's a rather interesting thing to note about color sphere ODPs, and I wasn't entirely aware of that. I suppose that raises more questions, including some of my original ones, than it answers though: why would an alliance sign into a color sphere unity treaty that features an ODP if they don't intend to use it? Perhaps it's because they wanted to maintain the appearance of a politically unified sphere, a sphere "unified" beyond that of just maintaining a basic level of civility? But I suppose that brings us back to one of the original questions: why is the general idea of a politically unified sphere prized enough that folks want to, at the least it seems, feign the appearance of having it? It does seem to be rather unnecessary, presuming that folks simply agree to be civil.

[Bob Janova]

'Agreeing to be civil' is really the primary motivation behind a lot of colour treaties – and the NAP part of them is to ensure that if you can't manage that, at least you won't attack each other. ODP clauses are added for the same reason that they are added to PIAT bilateral treaties: if you are good friends with a signatory, and you would like to be able to defend them from aggression, it makes sense to have it, and if you don't care, it costs you nothing.

I think we are pretty much on the same page, having read your later posts.

[scythegfx]

Without doing any real research, it seems clear that nations and alliances on Orange, Blue, Red, and Aqua (spheres with strong traditions of unity) do pretty well.

Maroon, Brown, Pink, Green, and Purple all have problems and nothing comparable to the extended unity of the previously mentioned spheres.

"Without doing any real research" Was where this post failed, Sorry Walker, Purple is very unified. But that's not the point here.

A long time ago...ok, 2007, Purple was a chaotic political Landscape, No new alliances wanted to be a part of Purple, and the alliances on purple did not get along (with the exception of UPN and Invicta) The no-Wedge era of Purple was one of strong animosity, where Legion was politically isolated due to its tumultuous history with NPO, and Valhalla used its political sway, and that of it's allies, to grab purple by the balls.

The senate situation had degraded to Valhallan and Legion Candidates duking it out and often led to the sanctioning of eachother's members. With the removal of no-Wedge and the rise of chefjoe<3, Purple opened up. alliance leaders worked together to form PEACE ( I leave out GRAPE because of how much of a failure it was) and to work out a stable, and fair senate rotation scheme. The senate rotation was one of the main goals.

As the purple alliances continued to work together, the friendships began to grow and led to the inclusion of the MDoAP clause of the Poseidon branch and the oDoAP in the Pegasus Branch.

So as you see, Purple unity is so strong because we actually do LIKE eachother, not because we just want it to seem that way. Do you really think Invicta would have committed to an MDoAP with Valhalla unless we really believed that they had changed and were worthy allies? This is the same with Legion/NPO relations, once two of the biggest alliances in the game who were at eachothers throats, now they are two of the staunchest allies. People change, alliances change.

TL;DR - The peace MDoAP was included because of our strong friendships built during the formation of PEACE and the senate rotation.

[Starcraftmazter]

(1) Yeah, for starters I never made that BLEU assumption. My position consistently has been (as was fleshed out later and changed some by steelrat's persuasive arguments) was that while some level is necessary (the -ooc- geneva conventions -ooc- type treaty) anything like BLEU, an ODP or up treaty, and even NAPs aren't necessary. So long as folks are civil in their conflict, there's no reason they can't live with eachother.

You implied that colour blocs were like BLEU, claiming they put pressure on others to join them and so forth. This is not true.

(2) Firstly, I don't see why treatied friendliness is important given a world where folks maintain a basic level of civility. Why must a sphere in which there is vibrant conflict lack civility with regard to trade embargoes and so forth? Also, I think it's fairly naive to suppose that there's no pressure. Your final statement there reminds me of a dictator saying that there is free speech in his nation- just that everyone happens to agree with the party line. Even if that's the case here, I see no reason for why it ought to continue being the case.

Again, you are making universal statements of truth - saying all folks maintain a basic level of civility. This has been false for several teams relatively recently in CN history, and nobody can guarantee anything for the future. Overall, team unity pacts are not about "we won't sanction you". They are a place where leaders, economists and nations from all alliances of a particular team and get together and cooperate on a wide range of issues. This is necessary, for without it, such logistics and cooperation is difficult.

As someone involved in NOIR let me tell you there is no pressure put on anyone to join, not join, roll over or fetch a stick. I can't fathom why you live in such a grim excluded reality where that still goes on. And perhaps it does on some other team to a small extent - I suppose I can not know for sure, but once again, if so, this is not at all universal.

(3) You seem to feel as though I wish to have some system or other forced onto people. That isn't the case. Rather, I'm saying that there shouldn't be a bias against alliances and spheres who don't mind having conflict occur within it- I think sphere conflict and heated races for senate seats and so forth would add an interesting new dynamic to the game; a dynamic which I roughly sketched out some. I didn't say that folks ought to abandon their allies and create conflict for just the sake of it. You know, considering all the strawmen you've set up, I'm beginning to suspect that you might believe that this ought to be an attack thread of some sort. I didn't set it up as thus, and I suggest that you not make it into one.

This is counter-productive. As others have mentioned, a unified sphere is a strong sphere. Everyone helps each other and works with each other, means there will be lots of inter-alliance trade and tech organisation, means that anyone can get rogues sanctioned, means that smaller alliances can get help from larger ones. Overall, this leads to greater military strength and stability of all involved. It also means that a sphere will be made up of friendly alliances who are willing to stand up for one another, and not let their colour-comrades be bullied or intimidated by anyone else, meaning more and stronger nations on that team for the long-term. They can also coordinate on joint protection and aid projects, etc - there are no limitations to the greatness that can be archived with team unity. This I would imagine is in everyone's best interests - it certainly is in mine.

(4) How is it nonsensical? It isn't outlandish to suppose that people act differently when the pressure of competition is placed on them, as opposed to when there is little or no competition. Indeed, if one projects out to how folks would deal with that competition, one can imagine a number of scenarios- treaties with smaller alliances that secure their votes for your party in the senate race, various activity boosting measures, etc.

I've been there, believe me. I've just grown tired of the same old story of getting senate seats, for an ultimately useless purpose. It does not serve to benefit anyone - that is my experience. After years of doing it, I'm happy to just relax and feel comfortable knowing that as our sphere stands united, any senator will sanction on request from any alliance - as has happened in the past for us.

If NSO is all about changing CN, then why do you insist on preaching to age-old, obsolete ways of doing things? In the past, team unity has largely been "you are either with us, or you are against us. Only we can own senators. You're allowed to join, you are not. How dare you do that on my team?". Now that we actually have real unity and real freedom in spheres, you want us to go back to the old way of doing things?

(5) Different strokes for different folks really doesn't help your case, considering that that's pretty much what I'm saying. At the moment, the only ideal for a color sphere is unity. I'm trying to convince people that, perhaps, other ideals exist which aren't being much considered. Arguing that sphere unity is the only system that spheres ought to adopt, as you seem to be doing, isn't entirely compatible with lecturing me about how there is no universal truth for sphere unity and how everyone should choose their own path. And any attempt on your part to paint me as being totalizing surely must fail, considering my views on steelrat's learned statements.

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am against you generalising about sphere unity - not spheres and what they can do.

One one final note, the black team is now the #1 in terms of nations, alliances, NS, nukes and score. Not coincidentally we are also the most unified team.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[heggo]

(1) No, no I didn't. I specifically stated that those were the types of sphere unity treaties that I thought were sketchy. Reading comprehension, etc.

(2) I said "given that" people maintain a basic level of civility. If one reads in context, one would note that I've been saying that things like ODP and up blocks aren't necessary if that is maintained.

As for NOIR, I can speak only from the stories I got from Mr. Corey Faith.

(3) These issues have already been previously addressed in the thread. Rehashing them is a waste of time.

(4) Well I guess you can stay being happy not doing anything. But for people interested in the scenario I outlined, it's available.

Oh, and you're second paragraph is a tad odd, no? If I'm not mistaken, the scenario I was previously discussing has yet to ever be fully realized. Beyond that, I don't speak for the NSO in an official capacity. And beyond beyond that, the NSO advocates change that is good- be it toward forgotten ideals or toward new ones.

(5) Teehee, you're funny.

Yes, I agree with ya' Bob Janova.

And scythegfx, what happens to new purple alliances that don't like you and Valhalla quite so much, but who still want in on the civility aspects of PEACE? Are they separately accommodated?

[Corinan]

I was waiting for him to bring the entire alliance into it. You're not allowed to have opinions of your own, Heggo!

[Starcraftmazter]

(1) No, no I didn't. I specifically stated that those were the types of sphere unity treaties that I thought were sketchy. Reading comprehension, etc.

If you admit that it is not always the case (or even the majority of the time), then why even bring it up?

(2) I said "given that" people maintain a basic level of civility. If one reads in context, one would note that I've been saying that things like ODP and up blocks aren't necessary if that is maintained.

I'm not entirely sure what your point there is. It's like of like saying, if nobody goes to war nukes are unnecessary. Well woopty doo Captain Obvious? But furthermore, unity pacts are about more than just civility, they are also about cooperation.

(4) Well I guess you can stay being happy not doing anything. But for people interested in the scenario I outlined, it's available.

Oh, and you're second paragraph is a tad odd, no? If I'm not mistaken, the scenario I was previously discussing has yet to ever be fully realized. Beyond that, I don't speak for the NSO in an official capacity. And beyond beyond that, the NSO advocates change that is good- be it toward forgotten ideals or toward new ones.

Doesn't seem odd to me.

It seems odd to me that NSO advocates change be it towards forgotten ideals or new ones. Does that mean if you change situation X into situation Y, you'll then be campaigning to change Y back into X and so forth continuously?

[Tron Paul]

Wait, you're saying that Aqua is more unified than Purple?

If you believe that, I have some real estate you might be interested in.

My god, I'm in agreement with Invicta.

Aqua sphere historically tears apart it's unity after every war, with the Karma War being the exception. We usually see MHA, NATO, and pals going in one direction while Mushroom Kingdom and C&G go in another direction. The only thing that kept Aqua from shedding completely was MHA ridiculously dropping all of it's hegemony ties at the very last minute.

I'd even make the argument that "Aqua Unity" did not promote growth in the sphere. For this, we have to thank Gramlins. If Gramlins had not sold so much tech to MHA, they would have never gotten sanctioned. Until the MHA sanction, aqua was still considered a "minor sphere"

[scythegfx]

And scythegfx, what happens to new purple alliances that don't like you and Valhalla quite so much, but who still want in on the civility aspects of PEACE? Are they separately accommodated?

See : Avalon. (though we do like eachother <3, they just aren't in PEACE

Also, There's the PEACE Economic bloc, which is an ODP.

[heggo]

I'm sorry for having opinions Doppel. I'll try to refrain from that in the future.

(1)If you admit that it is not always the case (or even the majority of the time), then why even bring it up?

(2)I'm not entirely sure what your point there is. It's like of like saying, if nobody goes to war nukes are unnecessary. Well woopty doo Captain Obvious? But furthermore, unity pacts are about more than just civility, they are also about cooperation.

(4)It seems odd to me that NSO advocates change be it towards forgotten ideals or new ones. Does that mean if you change situation X into situation Y, you'll then be campaigning to change Y back into X and so forth continuously?

(1) There actually seem to be a fair number of ODP ones. But you're right, an opinion isn't worth having about a type of treaty if it doesn't extend to all vaguely similar treaties. Anyway, at least that means you've figured out that all that blabber about me being totalizing was crock. Too bad it took so long.

(2) The point is that if one signs a treaty that guarantees that level of civility (no embargoes, etc.), higher level treaties aren't necessary. Specifically, because alliances that want in on the civility will only be guaranteed it if they conform their foreign policies to the ODPs and up that those higher level treaties contain. Which means they either have to sign an ODP or MDP (and so forth) that they don't really want to honor, or they won't be afforded security against embargoes, etc.

(4) I'll break it down for ya'. Change is a transitive verb. It means "To make different in some particular; to alter." Good is an adjective. We'll say it means "Of a favorable character or tendency." The term change, when coupled with the term good, implies a positive shift from the status quo. It does not imply whether or not the change will be toward an old system, a new one, or a cross between the new and the old. It only implies a positive shift. However, that is enough to rule out the childish situation you invented to amuse yourself. Specifically, because (by the definitions given) we would only shift from situation X to situation Y if situation Y were better than situation X. Once achieving the superior Y, we would not go back to X. I do hope that didn't go over your head.

See : Avalon. (though we do like eachother <3, they just aren't in PEACE

Also, There's the PEACE Economic bloc, which is an ODP.

So if they want in on sphere unity (and the protection from embargoes that implies, etc.), they have no choice but to reconfigure their foreign policies to include at the least an ODP with the other signatories. Which means that if they aren't interested in reconfiguring their foreign policies as such, they either have to sign a treaty they intend to never honor or use, or they won't be guaranteed those protections. That seems like it could be troublesome.

Edited August 7, 2009 by heggo

[Delta1212]

Maroon has an Economic treaty, an ODOAP and an MDP.

Why do people not know this?

Edited August 7, 2009 by Delta1212

[scythegfx]

What Embargoes are you referring to?

And Avalon isn't in PEACE econ ODP, Theyre just our friends.

And Avalon would never sign something they don't intend to honor. notice how they were one of the last ones out of a war they entered due to an ODP.

[Heft]

It seems odd to me that NSO advocates change be it towards forgotten ideals or new ones. Does that mean if you change situation X into situation Y, you'll then be campaigning to change Y back into X and so forth continuously?

You're not really this stupid.

1) NSO advocates change for the better. If the previous situation was better, than we can go for that; if a future progression would be better, than we can go for that. It's not a hard concept to understand.

2) This topic doesn't have anything to do with the NSO. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of the things we've done or tried to do are things Heggo may not agree with entirely, based on what I've read here. I agree with him on some points, but not all, and I'm sure the rest of Darth Council also varying viewpoints on the issue. You are welcome to debate Heggo on his actual arguments, but dismissing him because you don't like his alliance is rather self-defeating, I would think.

[Haflinger]

Maroon has an Economic treaty, an ODOAP and an MDP.

Why do people not know this?

Because Maroon unity ended when the Maroon Church collapsed! It's so obvious Delta.

(Or people are really stupid. You pick.)

[Corinan]

You're not really this stupid.

That's a bold assumption you've made, Lord Hippo.

[Starcraftmazter]

(1) There actually seem to be a fair number of ODP ones. But you're right, an opinion isn't worth having about a type of treaty if it doesn't extend to all vaguely similar treaties. Anyway, at least that means you've figured out that all that blabber about me being totalizing was crock. Too bad it took so long.

So what, are you admitting fault here or being sarcastic?

(2) The point is that if one signs a treaty that guarantees that level of civility (no embargoes, etc.), higher level treaties aren't necessary. Specifically, because alliances that want in on the civility will only be guaranteed it if they conform their foreign policies to the ODPs and up that those higher level treaties contain. Which means they either have to sign an ODP or MDP (and so forth) that they don't really want to honor, or they won't be afforded security against embargoes, etc.

I really do not understand what you are saying. Are you trying to claim that alliances in team unity pacts don't really want to be in them and won't honour them? I really fail to see your logic here.

(4) I'll break it down for ya'. Change is a transitive verb. It means "To make different in some particular; to alter." Good is an adjective. We'll say it means "Of a favorable character or tendency." The term change, when coupled with the term good, implies a positive shift from the status quo. It does not imply whether or not the change will be toward an old system, a new one, or a cross between the new and the old. It only implies a positive shift. However, that is enough to rule out the childish situation you invented to amuse yourself. Specifically, because (by the definitions given) we would only shift from situation X to situation Y if situation Y were better than situation X. Once achieving the superior Y, we would not go back to X. I do hope that didn't go over your head.

And who exactly decides what good means? Moldovi? A vote of NSO membership? Do you poll the Cyberverse at large?

but dismissing him because you don't like his alliance is rather self-defeating, I would think.

Oh of course, it has nothing to do with the arguments I've presented against his claim, it's all to do with his alliance.

[heggo]

Starcraftmazter, I believe we've reached the point where no reasonable person could plausibly think that you're responding in good faith anymore. Being that your motives have become as obvious as your methods are devious, you might as well just leave these forums and go home - I am, and the rest of the world ought to be, done with you.

[Starcraftmazter]

Starcraftmazter, I believe we've reached the point where no reasonable person could plausibly think that you're responding in good faith anymore. Being that your motives have become as obvious as your methods are devious, you might as well just leave these forums and go home - I am, and the rest of the world ought to be, done with you.

I see what you did there

All I have to say in response is

Maybe you should stop perpetuating ignorance.

[TehChron]

I see what you did there

All I have to say in response is

Maybe you should stop perpetuating ignorance.

He argued your points honestly, and intelligently. The second you tried to misrepresent Heggo's own posts and played the victim clearly indicates that not only are you a fake debater, but also that Lord Hippo was right to note that you really arent that stupid.

Moreover, history has shown Moldavi to be a better judge of what constitutes "good" for Planet Bob than all but a fraction of a fraction of it's populace. The day you can insult him as if he were some Vladimir-like character with any credibility, is the day you do of anything of consequence aside from trying to make yourself look good by attacking us in each thread.

Sorry to say, bud, but you may pick off a few Sith who dont know any better, but that !@#$ won't fly with us.

[Starcraftmazter]

He argued your points honestly, and intelligently. The second you tried to misrepresent Heggo's own posts and played the victim clearly indicates that not only are you a fake debater, but also that Lord Hippo was right to note that you really arent that stupid.

I love it how you guys are such experts at smears.

Moreover, history has shown Moldavi to be a better judge of what constitutes "good" for Planet Bob than all but a fraction of a fraction of it's populace.

That's a pretty delusional viewpoint. Also arrogant.