Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Earogema]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1265053978' post='2150894']
I was not debating with Blue though, I was arguing against your claim that MK is 100 times more politically skilled than TOP.
[/quote]
Well, considering you violated not only a bloc treaty, but then your treaty with OBR AND worked your way into a war with 3:1 odds, yeah I think that claim might be plausible.

Not only that but MK violated NONE of their treaties as a result of this war.

At the very least, they're around 10X more competent diplomatically.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='02 February 2010 - 01:29 AM' timestamp='1265074151' post='2151644']
As I said in the post, we knew that our involvement would escalate the war significantly, even if we just declared on an involved party. We knew that people would be ready to back us up if countered and that they would then be countered as well. And we knew that at some point in this escalation of treaties, an ally of CnG would have had to have been attacked directly which would have brought CnG in, assuming they honoured their treaty.

At the time of the declaration, your participation may well have been in question. However, you didn't know what we did, namely that the war was going to escalate to that point. We probably will never know exactly how it would have gone, though. It is academic at this point and it doesn't make for much of a debate when it's just one opinion on a hypothetical against another.
[/quote]

So your mentality was "$%&@ it! We got our gats and we feel like rolling C&G"?

Edited February 2, 2010 by tamerlane

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1265071199' post='2151542']
Therefore, according to your post, Ronin's stance on the war was entirely dependant upon the way in which the conflict escalated. And you go on to suggest that we should have manipulated the declarations differently in order to change your stance on the war to a more favourable one for us. Hence why I said you allow yourselves to be manipulated based on the timing and sequence of the declarations.
[/quote]
Uh, TOP did that too. Considering that you believed C&G was going to enter, your own declaration was dependent upon the entry of a bloc that didn't actually enter yet.

Polaris started the war as a result of ideals. Ronin did the same. It's not that difficult to understand.

[Blue Lightning]

By gats, do you mean stats?

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='02 February 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1265074470' post='2151656']
By gats, do you mean stats?
[/quote]

I'll take that as a "yes"

Thanks for the clarification.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1265074470' post='2151656']
By gats, do you mean stats?
[/quote]
Gat is slang for guns.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1265055378' post='2150929']
The final part of this is why we end up with the just being beaten down by large coalitions (like the Continuum). Defending your friends is, of course, quite right. Backing up your friends when they go into a hole of their own making, that is a much greyer area, and if you say to your friends 'We will always be with you' then you give them carte blanche to do no end of aggressive, oppressive or mean things to other alliances and use you to bail them out of any consequences. We saw this for years with alliances like TPF and Valhalla and it is no prettier when it's LEO and SF backing up aggression than it was Continuum and One Vision.
[/quote]
No, just no.

The situation on hand was resolved (FoA), and still our allies were forced into a !@#$%* war. FOK evened the sides, and dare I say it, stood up against unwarranted agression. You are mixing facts with your personal beliefs.

The comparison with Q falls flat on its face given how this never was a curbstomp, no matter how you look at it.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tromp

[Bob Janova]

PC (and others) attacked an alliance far smaller than them because they knew they would face no serious consequences for doing so because of their allies. You, and SF, then escalated the (admittedly poorly judged) police action of NpO into a global war instead of allowing them to face the consequences, which would have been pretty minimal (as small as PC wanted them to be, in fact, as there was a standing peace offer).

Were Polar getting stomped? It's arguable, but probably not at the time that the main front was ended. Considering that the current war, which numerically at least [i]is[/i] a stomping, was the reserves lined up for the Polar/Raider fronts, it would probably have ended that way. However, the only reason it isn't a stomping is because the alliances who think the way you do do not currently have the requisite supermajority of NS.

Please don't think I'm picking on FOK, by the way; I'm responding to you because you brought the point up, but there are a lot of alliances that will roll tanks for an ally without considering whether it's the right thing to do first. If you get enough of those together, you get a hegemony. This war is not a war with a hegemony on one side, but considering the almost inevitable result is a massive decrease in the power of TOP (one of the only large alliances that has some value judgements in its decision) and NpO (a wildcard in the web), we have to be very careful if we don't want the SF+C&G axis to become one.

[Bob]

[quote name='Budlight' date='01 February 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1265071140' post='2151538']
I for one, am glad to have people like BE standing up for TOP. OTS, TSO, IRON and the like voluntarily walked into Armageddon with us. God knows any one of them could have found a way to preserve themselves, but they didn't. That's what's nice about true friends - we burn together even when the odds are completely against us.
[/quote]
Not his point. He was commenting on the guy asking AirMe to back off when he is doing exactly the same thing for TOP. I don't have any problems with him defending you as there are friendships there, nor does CZ to my knowledge.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Earogema' date='02 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1265074414' post='2151653']
Uh, TOP did that too. Considering that you believed C&G was going to enter, your own declaration was dependent upon the entry of a bloc that didn't actually enter yet.

Polaris started the war as a result of ideals. Ronin did the same. It's not that difficult to understand.
[/quote]
No, our involvement was in no way dependant upon CnG entering the conflict. We were going in and decided that CnG was the best target for the benefit of our side.

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 February 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1265074733' post='2151669']
Gat is slang for guns.
[/quote]
Never heard it before. Thanks.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 03:10 AM' timestamp='1265076625' post='2151734']
PC (and others) attacked an alliance far smaller than them because they knew they would face no serious consequences for doing so because of their allies. You, and SF, then escalated the (admittedly poorly judged) police action of NpO into a global war instead of allowing them to face the consequences, which would have been pretty minimal (as small as PC wanted them to be, in fact, as there was a standing peace offer).
[/quote]
We never escalated anything. We simply reacted to the war of agression against an ally of us after the initial situation people got all worked up over was resolved. (You keep ignoring this, that's why I say it again.)
FOK would've been happy with just evening the sides too. Granted, we never expected that too happen, but you can't expect us to leave our allies to hang out to dry for literally nothing.

[quote]
Were Polar getting stomped? It's arguable, but probably not at the time that the main front was ended. Considering that the current war, which numerically at least [i]is[/i] a stomping, was the reserves lined up for the Polar/Raider fronts, it would probably have ended that way. However, the only reason it isn't a stomping is because the alliances who think the way you do do not currently have the requisite supermajority of NS.
[/quote]
At least you can agree with me that there was no curbstomp going on after FOK went in. I'm glad you can see yourself how your comparison falls flat on its face.
[quote]
Please don't think I'm picking on FOK, by the way; I'm responding to you because you brought the point up, but there are a lot of alliances that will roll tanks for an ally without considering whether it's the right thing to do first. If you get enough of those together, you get a hegemony. This war is not a war with a hegemony on one side, but considering the almost inevitable result is a massive decrease in the power of TOP (one of the only large alliances that has some value judgements in its decision) and NpO (a wildcard in the web), we have to be very careful if we don't want the SF+C&G axis to become one.
[/quote]
Well, it was Tim who brought it up.

In any case, I do not believe that, with as you say 'a massive decrease in power of TOP', this world suddenly becomes all evil and hegemonic under SF+CnG rule. As of TOP is the holy prophet guiding our way, preventing such a thing from happening, give me a break.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Tromp' date='01 February 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1265077594' post='2151771']
FOK would've been happy with just evening the sides too.
[/quote]
You guys could still help even the sides if you wanted to, this will probably be a long war.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Budlight' date='01 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1265071140' post='2151538']
I for one, am glad to have people like BE standing up for TOP. OTS, TSO, IRON and the like voluntarily walked into Armageddon with us. God knows any one of them could have found a way to preserve themselves, but they didn't. That's what's nice about true friends - we burn together even when the odds are completely against us.
[/quote]
I meant verbally, the same way he said it to Airme. I understand your mistake though. Its ok.

[Letum]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 February 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1265077594' post='2151771']
In any case, I do not believe that, with as you say 'a massive decrease in power of TOP', this world suddenly becomes all evil and hegemonic under SF+CnG rule. As of TOP is the holy prophet guiding our way, preventing such a thing from happening, give me a break.
[/quote]

A hegemony merely means that one group is highly dominant over all others. Evil does not come into the equation, at least if you do not follow the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mentality. Given how the word has been used so extensively in conjunction with description of dictatorial behaviour, I can understand how the use of the word can elicit an abrasive reaction, but I believe you are missing the point.

Bob Janova made no claim of FOK, or anyone on their side being evil, nor of TOP being the opposing beacon of light. Nor does he claim that one side becoming dominant will cause a sudden moral shift in the world towards darkness.

Rather, it is more important to recognise that the behavioural inclinations of people do not shift that much in response to a conflict (save for people feeling maligned to the point of revenge, but since that is usually the loser, not a relevant point in this context). Instead, what shifts is the restraints that occur when there is a rival power structure present. With no such credible opposing power, the more jingoist members of the "dominant bloc" would have the "carte blanche" to do what they want, which was what Bob expressed concern about.

Now of course, it is important to recognise a counter-point to that: should such prerogative be exploited, it will inevitably create a backlash as public perception in certain quarters of that bloc turns sour towards the more jingoist actors, and that would eventually act as a restraining mechanism in itself. However, it would take quite some time for such a thing to come into effect, and whilst it does the "average" behaviour (and thus the "standard") would be shifted towards jingoism (though, being an average, still more pacifist and liberal than the "extremes" present). Both of these are eventualities that some present would rather wish to avoid.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1265077261' post='2151760']
No, our involvement was in no way dependant upon CnG entering the conflict. We were going in and decided that CnG was the best target for the benefit of our side.
[/quote]
Wait, really? So what, you were just going to attack them for no reason then?

Logic helps a bit.

EDIT:
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1265076625' post='2151734']
PC (and others) attacked an alliance far smaller than them because they knew they would face no serious consequences for doing so because of their allies. You, and SF, then escalated the (admittedly poorly judged) police action of NpO into a global war instead of allowing them to face the consequences, which would have been pretty minimal (as small as PC wanted them to be, in fact, as there was a standing peace offer).
[/quote]
FOK, PC, and \m/ were around the same size as all of Polar.

Escalation happened after FOK's entry. You can't blame FOK for all of it.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Earogema

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Earogema' date='02 February 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1265079623' post='2151839']
Wait, really? So what, you were just going to attack them for no reason then?

Logic helps a bit.
[/quote]
Are you reading my posts?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Letum' date='01 February 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1265079256' post='2151830']
A hegemony merely means that one group is highly dominant over all others. Evil does not come into the equation, at least if you do not follow the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mentality. Given how the word has been used so extensively in conjunction with description of dictatorial behaviour, I can understand how the use of the word can elicit an abrasive reaction, but I believe you are missing the point.

Bob Janova made no claim of FOK, or anyone on their side being evil, nor of TOP being the opposing beacon of light. Nor does he claim that one side becoming dominant will cause a sudden moral shift in the world towards darkness.

Rather, it is more important to recognise that the behavioural inclinations of people do not shift that much in response to a conflict (save for people feeling maligned to the point of revenge, but since that is usually the loser, not a relevant point in this context). Instead, what shifts is the restraints that occur when there is a rival power structure present. With no such credible opposing power, the more jingoist members of the "dominant bloc" would have the "carte blanche" to do what they want, which was what Bob expressed concern about.

Now of course, it is important to recognise a counter-point to that: should such prerogative be exploited, it will inevitably create a backlash as public perception in certain quarters of that bloc turns sour towards the more jingoist actors, and that would eventually act as a restraining mechanism in itself. However, it would take quite some time for such a thing to come into effect, and whilst it does the "average" behaviour (and thus the "standard") would be shifted towards jingoism (though, being an average, still more pacifist and liberal than the "extremes" present). Both of these are eventualities that some present would rather wish to avoid.
[/quote]
As silly as it is, the term Hegemony has picked up very negative connotations on Bob, so while I agree with what you are saying, you are not viewing the argument through the proper lense or meaning of the term in this situation.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Tromp]

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1265078490' post='2151807']
You guys could still help even the sides if you wanted to, this will probably be a long war.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what exactly you are implying here, Methrage.
[quote name='Letum' date='02 February 2010 - 03:54 AM' timestamp='1265079256' post='2151830']
A hegemony merely means that one group is highly dominant over all others. Evil does not come into the equation, at least if you do not follow the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mentality. Given how the word has been used so extensively in conjunction with description of dictatorial behaviour, I can understand how the use of the word can elicit an abrasive reaction, but I believe you are missing the point.

Bob Janova made no claim of FOK, or anyone on their side being evil, nor of TOP being the opposing beacon of light. Nor does he claim that one side becoming dominant will cause a sudden moral shift in the world towards darkness.
[/quote]
While I agree with you that a 'hegemony' isn't inherently evil, the argument was made that by supporting the 'raiders' side, and the 'massive loss of power of TOP' there would be a 'SF+CnG hegemony. Considering Bob rejects techraiding, I was reacting to this context in which he made his argument.
[quote]
Rather, it is more important to recognise that the behavioural inclinations of people do not shift that much in response to a conflict (save for people feeling maligned to the point of revenge, but since that is usually the loser, not a relevant point in this context). Instead, what shifts is the restraints that occur when there is a rival power structure present. With no such credible opposing power, the more jingoist members of the "dominant bloc" would have the "carte blanche" to do what they want, which was what Bob expressed concern about.

Now of course, it is important to recognise a counter-point to that: should such prerogative be exploited, it will inevitably create a backlash as public perception in certain quarters of that bloc turns sour towards the more jingoist actors, and that would eventually act as a restraining mechanism in itself. However, it would take quite some time for such a thing to come into effect, and whilst it does the "average" behaviour (and thus the "standard") would be shifted towards jingoism (though, being an average, still more pacifist and liberal than the "extremes" present). Both of these are eventualities that some present would rather wish to avoid.
[/quote]
I can understand the argument that is being made, however I simply do not see it happening.

(Also, I'm a bit tired since it is late in the night here, so forgive me my short reply.)

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tromp

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Tromp' date='02 February 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1265077594' post='2151771']
In any case, I do not believe that, with as you say 'a massive decrease in power of TOP', this world suddenly becomes all evil and hegemonic under SF+CnG rule. As of TOP is the holy prophet guiding our way, preventing such a thing from happening, give me a break.
[/quote]
No, not evil and hegemonic sure, but surely there will have to be some sort of further unravelling of the web to provide for the possibility of an even-sided global war? Or have those been relegated to the past?

For a minute, I had thought we had a fairly evenly balanced war on our hands but instead, we have yet another curb-stomping. I must admit, I've been on the wrong side of a curb-stomp in the past (the UjW) and the right side (Fark v GOONS, the FAN wars, GPA, WotC, Karma) and from either point of view, they just don't seem to be as fun and as satisfying as the more iffy global battles (eg GW2, GW3) where you're on the edge of your seat over what the outcome of the war might be.

Ah well, [i]c'est la guerre[/i], I suppose.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='02 February 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1265089222' post='2152301']
No, not evil and hegemonic sure, but surely there will have to be some sort of further unravelling of the web to provide for the possibility of an even-sided global war? Or have those been relegated to the past?

For a minute, I had thought we had a fairly evenly balanced war on our hands but instead, we have yet another curb-stomping. I must admit, I've been on the wrong side of a curb-stomp in the past (the UjW) and the right side ([b]Fark v GOONS,[/b] the FAN wars, GPA, WotC, Karma) and from either point of view, they just don't seem to be as fun and as satisfying as the more iffy global battles (eg GW2, GW3) where you're on the edge of your seat over what the outcome of the war might be.

Ah well, [i]c'est la guerre[/i], I suppose.
[/quote]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm what?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1265080168' post='2151860']
Are you reading my posts?
[/quote]
[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1265077261' post='2151760']
No, our involvement was in no way dependant upon CnG entering the conflict. We were going in and decided that CnG was the best target for the benefit of our side.
[/quote]

So if your involvement was not dependent on C&G entering [i]why did you hit them?[/i] The point is this was a VERY big fact of your entrance. If it was - in your words - "no way dependent" then hitting C&G would have had no point.

It was VERY much dependent because if they weren't going to enter, you weren't going to hit them.

Now I realize what you're trying to say: That TOP would have just involved itself in another front. But to say it was "no way dependent" is an absolute lie.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Earogema

[Epik High]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='02 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1265091868' post='2152493']
Mmmmmmmmmmmm what?
[/quote]

The "right" side being the side that wins, not necessarily the side that is morally right.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='02 February 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1265091868' post='2152493']
Mmmmmmmmmmmm what?
[/quote]
It was a long time ago. Were you around in early 2007 when GOONS was curbstomping Fark? I'll see if I can find the link on the old forums for you and edit it in.

[quote name='Epik High' date='02 February 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1265092134' post='2152511']
The "right" side being the side that wins, not necessarily the side that is morally right.
[/quote]
Exactly.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Bob Janova]

[quote]While I agree with you that a 'hegemony' isn't inherently evil, the argument was made that by supporting the 'raiders' side, and the 'massive loss of power of TOP' there [b]could[/b] be a 'SF+CnG hegemony'[/quote]
Changed that to reflect my actual argument . I don't think it is a certainty, but some alliances within Supergrievances and their associated fringe alliances (notably Athens and PC) have shown strong signs of wanting to go that way. Everyone, and especially people in fringe alliances like you (FOK) and me (VE), need to be on the watch for that and apply the requisite pressure so that it doesn't happen.

[o-dog]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1265115029' post='2153021']
Changed that to reflect my actual argument . I don't think it is a certainty, but some alliances within Supergrievances and their associated fringe alliances (notably Athens and PC) have shown strong signs of wanting to go that way. Everyone, and especially people in fringe alliances like you (FOK) and me (VE), need to be on the watch for that and apply the requisite pressure so that it doesn't happen.
[/quote]

I think this has been happening for some time. In the last couple of months, there's certainly been an increase in vituperative posting from the SupeComplaints side and a generally dismissive attitude toward anyone not within their sphere of influence.

Edited February 2, 2010 by O-Dog