The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Francesca]

Overall in the Q/OV enviroment treaty expansion was encouraged since it kept a readymade bandwagon tied to the big boys. This lead to a lot of MDPs between alliances that really didn't like each other, but were encouraged to make nice by the power brokers because the NPO thought it could keep all its allies from squabbling despite fundamental differences in alliance character. This led to a lot of treaties getting signed that had no value and were pretty much treated as political liabilities and dropped the first moment possible.

So discovering that people a half dozen treaties isn't news, its an expected structural result of the web that evolved during Q/OV era. If you want meaningful stats, look at the treaty drops as a function of percentage and long standing treaties that were dropped when they suddenly become political liabilities.

Oh, so its ok to break treaties on the eve of a war because you were puppets that signed and kept treaties because NPO told you too, but then one day you woke up and had an epiphany that they were all monsters and should be put down because they didn't measure up to your newfound lofty ideals?

[Heft]

This thread was clearly stupid and meaningless, the incredible reaction to it is almost breathtaking in its absurdity. Seriously, guys?

Anyway, I was trying to stay away, but I couldn't resist noting how hilarious it is to see TOP complaining about NPO agitating for war. That's brilliant.

[Lord Brendan]

Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute.

Ok, what? The only CSNer who posted in this thread before you was wicked, and he was just pointing out that Fark wasn't in Continuum. As the CSN member with the most posts I'm left rather confused by the latter half of your statement; I've probably posted a "o/" twice in my life (three times now ).

[Khyber]

The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future. This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of. For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset. TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it.

So true. In the UJW, TOP made the terrible mistake allying to both sides before GWII. TOP should have known then that both sides were going to go at it, and clearly not done what they did.

In the Karma war, TOP made the mistake of allying to both sides before the UJW. Clearly again a classic case of predicting 2 years into the future, and seeing exactly how the chips would fall and picking both sides.

Funny that as an MK member you judging us. I remember all too well how MK dumped CMEA in a heartbeat when they found out Echelon was going to role them because CMEA goverment told Echelon goverment to effectively $%&@ off. But lets forget that since MK is clearly a bastion of honor and goodness, and clearly that cancelation was warrented, however TOP not aggressively helping their allies in a war via MDPs is not.

[Goose]

All this hate for TOP, but if they and MHA had sided with the NPO, that war would have gone much differently. Although, I don't see too many people baawing about that...

Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute.

I do not believe that The Commonwealth has a habit of mindless hailing. As to our lack of forum presence talking !@#$ about people, we advise our members that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Some members do so, others do not. We have our own forums for !@#$%*ing about people we don't like with no need to bring it out here in public.

There is also the matter of not really wanting to get involved in the general idiocy of these forums. When a clear bait topic turns into this, I'm rather glad that CSN does not have a huge forum presence.

I'm also slightly confused what brought on this feeling about CSN suddenly changing its forum posting nature. WickedJ (the only one I could see posting) has made only a single post that could remotely be read as needing balls to make, which is his comment about this touching a nerve. And, not very large ones at that. Considering the reaction from TOP to fly in and justify and explain how their position was unavoidable and so hard to be in, I'd say that it is quite likely correct as well.

EDIT: I forget words...

Edited October 13, 2009 by Goose

[LiquidMercury]

I really doubt that. The war may have been a little closer, but it got pretty one sided shortly after the war broke out. This was due to several of the Hegemony alliances not taking the threat of war seriously and thus being ill equipped to fight it, like GGA. Two relatively large alliances certainly would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, but may have been able to make it a bit more interesting. I was really disappointed on how little resistance the other side put up.

I can tell you right now should MHA and TOP decided to fight against Karma then this would have most definitely gone a different way.

a. That would of meant TOP either hits Gremlins/FCC/Fark/RoK for hitting IRON or Gremlins/FCC would of just not hit IRON knowing it would cause war with their closest buds.

b. That would of meant IRON would of been free to decimate many alliances in the top tiers where most wars are won

c. MHA could of hit anyone on NPO thus giving NPO a much needed respite and been able to effectively counter-attack thus drawing out the war much much longer, possibly forcing a white peace due to in-fighting against forces against them.

Lastly it was one sided shortly after the war broke out due to a multitude of e-lawyering archon and I did to bring multiple spheres of influence into a scenario with many overlaps on both sides of the war. Should Gremlins/TOP have stayed out I would of most likely had zero choice as to stay out, RamirusMaximus stay out (helped Azaghul organize banking for Karma) and thus giving a lot less structure and organization to Karma. Not to toot my own horn but I'd say that would make some difference and that the war most definitely would of not been as clear cut thus having a lot less people jump on that were on the fringe about things. It also would of resulted in 30+ alliances going after NPO, and many OTP's of theirs and their allies to roam freely not being able to be picked up due to a lessened amount of workable NS, and an inability to go in on certain parties due to conflicting treaties/no legal way to hit them other then using Moldavi 2.0 which many would not do for fear of reprisal and backlash about being called "bandwagoners."

So yes I contend that should TOP/MHA done as what you are calling for both to do here, Karma War would of had a much different outcome, one leaving a much more powerful Citadel and FB as they would of been two blocs relatively unscathed (I'd be unsure if Argent/Umbrella would of still gone in, I believe so though so they would of taken some damage) leaving both SF, CnG in pretty bad form as your damages would of been significantly greater and everyone be upset that citadel as a whole did nothing for them.

[Benjamin Arouet]

All this hate for TOP, but if they and MHA had sided with the NPO, that war would have gone much differently. Although, I don't see too many people baawing about that...

Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute.

Obviously the assistance of an additional large force is appreciated in wartime as a strategic advantage, and I don't want to really take anything away from the TOP members who fought in that war. That being said, from my relatively unenlightened, fly-on-the-wall position, the assistance of TOP may have come with more strings attached than it was worth. Just my personal opinion.

It also doesn't change what Jack is trying to point out here, which I believe you guys are taking a bit too seriously. Everyone understands that sometimes people are put in a bad position by treaties, take the criticism for what it is and learn from it if you want, or ignore it, you can hardly deny the essential thrust of events.

PS: Seriously, "the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/?" We don't exactly go out of our way to please anyone on here, usually; it's not our fault the worthless drivel that is 90% of the OWF isn't worth posting on.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Benjamin Arouet

[LiquidMercury]

Obviously the assistance of an additional large force is appreciated in wartime as a strategic advantage, and I don't want to really take anything away from the TOP members who fought in that war. That being said, from my relatively unenlightened, fly-on-the-wall position, the assistance of TOP may have come with more strings attached than it was worth. Just my personal opinion.

It also doesn't change what Jack is trying to point out here, which I believe you guys are taking a bit too seriously. Everyone understands that sometimes people are put in a bad position by treaties, take the criticism for what it is and learn from it if you want, or ignore it, you can hardly deny the essential thrust of events.

PS: Seriously, "the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/?" We don't exactly go out of our way to please anyone on here, usually; it's not our fault the worthless drivel that is 90% of the OWF isn't worth posting on.

I do not believe any strings have come attached with TOP's involvement in Karma. That being said although people understand that sometimes people are put into bad position by treaties, how that is presented is of relevance and whether or not it is pointed out as constructive criticism or used to smear our name. Sadly in this game, words are just as much of weapons as those in-game nooks.

And yes, not sure what people are getting at by taking a swipe at CSN as CSN has always been quality people, with quality posts that I have seen.

[Khyber]

I do not believe any strings have come attached with TOP's involvement in Karma. That being said although people understand that sometimes people are put into bad position by treaties, how that is presented is of relevance and whether or not it is pointed out as constructive criticism or used to smear our name. Sadly in this game, words are just as much of weapons as those in-game nooks.

And yes, not sure what people are getting at by taking a swipe at CSN as CSN has always been quality people, with quality posts that I have seen.

LM this is rewriting of history, and preparing for future conflict is my belief on the issue, so in that regard I look forward to it. ES and the NPO were great at this, for ES while the GOONS where there fighting for him, they were a great ally, then they became lulz alliances that needed to be wiped off the face of the world. Now ofcourse it's down to MHA, and TOP could have been on the other side and we still would have won, ignoring the political pull these alliances would have had on some like Citadel and others, and the fire power up top that TOP and TSO would have brought to the battle, along with MHA's mid and lower range they would have brought to the war. People say how much of a beating Fark took but imagine the extra damage if MHA and Gremlins were not there to help them out, and who would take thier place.

As for the mudslinging, assault with a lot of mud slinging and you have what you want, if the guy comes in and defends himself, then "lol for defending yourself against such stupid accusations" or "why are you so defensive if it's not true". If no defense is made "it must be true since they aren't even defending themselves to these things".

CSN, so true, these guys are generally very stand up guys, not sure why some TOPpers took a swing at them for one persons post. These guys are classy.

[WalkerNinja]

Now ofcourse it's down to MHA, and TOP could have been on the other side and we still would have won, ignoring the political pull these alliances would have had on some like Citadel and others, and the fire power up top that TOP and TSO would have brought to the battle, along with MHA's mid and lower range they would have brought to the war.

Amid public calls for our destruction, I am inclined to encourage this delusion. It can only work in our favor.

*WalkerNinja passes the Jim Jones Kool-Aid to the next thirsty soul.

Drink up.

[supercoolyellow]

I love the idea behind this thread, but I really don't see how you can call MCXA a survivalist alliance when they came to NPO's aid when they knew they'd lose.

[mattski133]

I do not believe any strings have come attached with TOP's involvement in Karma. That being said although people understand that sometimes people are put into bad position by treaties, how that is presented is of relevance and whether or not it is pointed out as constructive criticism or used to smear our name. Sadly in this game, words are just as much of weapons as those in-game nooks.

And yes, not sure what people are getting at by taking a swipe at CSN as CSN has always been quality people, with quality posts that I have seen.

Maybe I'm speaking ignorantly but I seem to recall conversations regarding a rather large, vengeful alliance sitting on the sidelines that TOP might have had to deal with had they entered the war early on in a significant fashion. I'm not trying to start a fire here, I'm just saying...it was very likely to me that TOP was not going to risk any real damage to themselves while that alliance was taking zero damage also.

I'm pretty sure (though it was five months ago or w/e) Karma was aware of that and planned around TOP, at the worst, not entering. Similar with ODN's situation and while they played an active, but limited role on Karma's side.

Overall, this thread glaringly brings to light the faults in signing treaties with anyone who you "like" as opposed to anyone who you will "defend". I'd be a hypocrite if I criticized it, since MOON cancelled on TORN and MCXA in the week(s?) before the war while being allied also to the LEO alliances, something I was a part of. Survival indeed. Not a proud moment for a lot of people.

[HeinousOne]

I'll mirror Boris's post here

This thread is rich.

Why guys that were in TORN at the time of the war in question now feel they can judge anyone listed in this thread is beyond me. This thread wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for TORN getting the war going.

How about Jack makes another thread about alliances that start wars and then peace out at the beginning to save themselves while everyone else goes ahead and blows up the world? That would make for an awesome thread!

Right?

[anenu]

Aside from the hair splitting that is going on i think the best part of this thread is that TOP thinks its all about them. Now i know this is a list they are on TOP of (fun puns) but it doesn't only include them yet despite this i don't see ODN'ers or NpO members comming on here and trying to elawyer Jack Diorno into believing their side of the argument.

[tamerlane]

Funny that as an MK member you judging us. I remember all too well how MK dumped CMEA in a heartbeat when they found out Echelon was going to role them because CMEA goverment told Echelon goverment to effectively $%&@ off. But lets forget that since MK is clearly a bastion of honor and goodness, and clearly that cancelation was warrented, however TOP not aggressively helping their allies in a war via MDPs is not.

Because we can all tell what da Vinci was thinking when he made La Gioconda.

When you are trying to figure out what I just said, I want you to be thinking of the meaning of irrelevance.

[ponken]

Aside from the hair splitting that is going on i think the best part of this thread is that TOP thinks its all about them. Now i know this is a list they are on TOP of (fun puns) but it doesn't only include them yet despite this i don't see ODN'ers or NpO members comming on here and trying to elawyer Jack Diorno into believing their side of the argument.

It's a long thread...

Polaris' treaty with the NPO and Valhalla did not activate due to the non-chaining clauses in both treaties.

[thaone]

I really doubt that. The war may have been a little closer, but it got pretty one sided shortly after the war broke out. This was due to several of the Hegemony alliances not taking the threat of war seriously and thus being ill equipped to fight it, like GGA. Two relatively large alliances certainly would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, but may have been able to make it a bit more interesting. I was really disappointed on how little resistance the other side put up.

I wanted to lecture you on your version of history, but LM did that way better.

TOP and MHA drifting away from Q were instrumental for the fact that karma won.

[pigsticker]

you know, if you really believe that TOP and MHA are the most survivalist alliances out there, feel free to cancel on them.

After all, they would probably bail on you at the first sign of trouble.

And if you believe that TOP and MHA are the most survivalist alliances out there, and you still persist in allying with them, what does this say about your alliance's survivalist instincts?

Go figure...

[Crymson]

I really don't care when you started thinking about withdrawing from the continuum, my stats are recording when you actually did leave. I never said you left continuum out of fear of war or anything like that, I said you left continuum within 5 days of continuum being involved in a war, and it's exactly what happened, have fun trying to dispute that, when we have a public record right here:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54723

You indeed said we left Q within five days of that bloc being involved in a war, a statistic you used to label us as a 'survivalist' alliance, to support a claim that we left the bloc during that timespan in order to avoid war, and to support a claim that we thus 'refused defensive assistance' to all seven alliances then in the Continuum. Given that the latter two have been effectively refuted and given that the meaningless statistic in question thus does not at all support your label of us, how on earth does listing us as having left Q within five days of war have any relevance whatsoever?

Also, you're effectively contradicting yourself; first you have said, on the basis of your own assumptions, that the time of departure has meaning and supports your claims, and then, when confronted, you transitioned into saying that you were merely listing the time period in question---a transition which you undertook without removing the claims and negative implications you were using that time period to support.

I was going to sort the chaining, from the non chaining before, and you said it didn't matter.

All in all, I think you should stop taking this so seriously.

Where on earth did I say that sorting out the chaining treaties from the no-chaining treaties didn't matter? I expressly said the opposite to you on IRC, just as I have on several occasions in this thread.

Accusing me of taking this too seriously sounds like a real cop-out, a way to avoid admission of your own errors (it also simply doesn't fit, based on your level of participation in this thread). Yours was a slanderous thread based on basely incorrect information, and I wanted the true information to be presented so that the record could be set straight.

[willirica]

I wanted to lecture you on your version of history, but LM did that way better.

TOP and MHA drifting away from Q were instrumental for the fact that karma won.

Ya thank god they had a survivalist mentality, we almost had an EVEN war for a second there! Good thing they saved the day and allowed us to reach our curbstomp quota for 2009, idk what in the world we would have done if we missed it.

[anenu]

It's a long thread...

Your right i only checked like 6 pages its just that when i saw TOP defending themselves on page 1 and page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 while Polar is (and this is done via a quick run through of several pages) simply defending them dropping 1 treaty and only in small paragraphs and normally not engaging in long pointless debates it easy to get confused and assume TOP thought that this thread was all for themselves.

[Kiss Goodbye]

Because we can all tell what da Vinci was thinking when he made La Gioconda.

When you are trying to figure out what I just said, I want you to be thinking of the meaning of irrelevance.

This should be said of most treaty cancellations. Rarely if ever is there a single motive.

[scutterbug]

I have to say jack im disappointed you really skew the stats to make MHA look like awful people, when infact all our decisions leading upto and during the karma war was because of how our supposed allies treated us.

[Baden-Württemberg]

"

4. Polaris has no quarrel with any alliance right now, we are not looking for a fight, spoiling for war or seeking any action against anyone for any reason, real or imagined. Polaris however will take exception to any alliance that attacks an ally without a treaty obligation to do so OR and otherwise valid CB. We will not hesitate to respond in defense of any conflict that occurs outside of the boundaries of this war. Bandwagoners, vultures and opportunists are not welcome to feed in comfort while others do the heavy lifting.

"

I can has read?

I think what you are trying to say is that TOP should have chosen neutrality instead. Well, I think they declared neutrality during the Unjust War, and got called out for it by the alliance you are quoting several times. Something is not right here.

[willirica]

I have to say jack im disappointed you really skew the stats to make MHA look like awful people, when infact all our decisions leading upto and during the karma war was because of how our supposed allies treated us.

How does he 'skew' them? Also, maybe you should shorten up your cancellation clauses in the future lol. ETERNAL MDP's FTW.