A Discussion of Blocs

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Tolkien' date='02 February 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1265098728' post='2152833']
[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 February 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1265098644' post='2152831']
The debate seems to linger around whether you believe blocs should be unified in everything. Vanguard certainly believes Stickmen should be unified in everything (why would they have treatied the bloc instead of the alliances individually, then) and this does affect opinion about this theory on CnG.

We're drifting away and away on a tangent, so I'll just retire for the evening.
[/quote]
Agreed. We can move this off into a separate debate thread somewhere else. It's refreshing to have intelligent discourse, for a change. Something you don't see everyday in the OWF. Not by a long shot.
[/quote]
I think I'm starting to understand what you are saying; however, I disagree. Generally speaking, they have, in essence, signed an MDoAP with all members of Stickmen. Were Vanguard to be attacked, for example, Stickmen would be guaranteed to come to her aid, and vice versa. However, were Vanguard, or Stickmen members, to engage in an offensive wars, all parties still have the option to declare war (which still would have happened as a result of Stickmen, which is, I believe, an MDoAP bloc. Correct me if I'm wrong). The only thing I see here is that it ties Stickmen member alliances closer to Vanguard, and does not entail that Stickmen ought to be united in everything. In the defense of Vanguard, certainly, but beyond that, nothing at all. However, as with all blocs, there is some implication of unity on issues. Were an alliance to attack a member of your bloc, you would certainly back up your bloc member due to your MD- clause (if it's an MD-P treaty). Where an ally of your bloc member to fight an ally of yours, you wouldn't wantonly attack them: that would be disrespectful and inconsiderate of your other allies. You would work with your bloc members to settle the dispute as best you can, and achieve a compromise.

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1265099551' post='2152842']
When I said maybe CnG shouldn't be MDAP bloc if you're not unified I was referring to the mandatory aggression clause in it, as it really doesn't matter the differences in your views if your going to choose those allies over others regardless of circumstances. Would those who only hold a MDoAP with you ever really be able to expect you to side with them over Athens or any other CnG alliance? I think as long as you are in CnG you will always pick your allies there over others, so whether your views differ from them doesn't matter much.
[/quote]
I don't understand your meaning. Where an alliance to attack Athens, then, yes, we would be obligated to defend Athens. Were they an ally, I would hope that they would have the foresight to realize that attacking a member of CnG is equivalent to attacking all members of CnG. This is something that would never happen, of course, as people aren't stupid enough to do so. If an ally with an MDoAP treaty were to declare war on our MADP bloc partner, then yes, we would likely support the CnG member (although most certainly not directly). However, that is the case with most things, although certainly it will completely depend on who's attacking. If one of your allies is attacking another of your allies, I would at the very least expect that your ally would be considerate enough to inform you of it in the first place, have worked all possible diplomatic options, and have a good reason for putting you in such a position.

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. It seems you are arguing against MADPs in general, or against treaty gradation. Were an MADP partner of mine attacked by the MDoAP partner of mine, I would certainly not activate the oA clause: it would be ludicrous to expect me to do so. Similarly, were an MDoAP signatory of mine to attack a PIAT partner of mine, I would certainly not activate the (implied OD) clause [i]against[/i] my MDoAP ally. MADPs generally trump MDoAPs in importance, simply because they are a more important, and binding, treaty. Similarly, a bloc tends to have more importance then a single treaty, were they they the same level, as being a bloc member implies more responsibilities and is generally more binding then a similar level treaty. Were a member of CnG to be attacked, or to attack, the remaining members of CnG will defend them, whether we agree with them or not. If they are in the wrong, we will work as best we can to correct their mistake, and if they are in the right, we will do our absolute best to back them up. That's the implication of being in a bloc: that all signatories are tightly knit family, regardless of our views. We can argue and disagree like so many dysfunctional family members, but in the end, we are family. That we shouldn't be an MADP bloc because we can [i]disagree[/i] on issues is an inane idea. Again, alliances are in essence MADP blocs of nations. Does that mean that alliances ought not be implied MADP because individual members hold different opinions (and, trust me, some member in every alliance will differ on SOMETHING)?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Joe Izuzu]

I would think that it depends on how fundamental the issues about which you disagree and how vehement the disagreement is. If alliances within a bloc cannot maintain consensus on fundamental issues, then maintaining the existence of the bloc becomes counterproductive.

[Lord Brendan]

Blocs give structure to the world. With so many alliances, if every single one was acting individually, it would be chaos.

Also there's something nice in knowing that no matter how bad you screw up, there are 6 alliances who have your back.

[Fantastico]

Hi. There is a lot here, but I just want to address one part of your presentation, as a friend of a friend.

[quote]If they are in the wrong, we will work as best we can to correct their mistake, and if they are in the right, we will do our absolute best to back them up. That's the implication of being in a bloc: that all signatories are tightly knit family, regardless of our views. We can argue and disagree like so many dysfunctional family members, but in the end, we are family. That we shouldn't be an MADP bloc because we can disagree on issues is an inane idea. Again, alliances are in essence MADP blocs of nations. Does that mean that alliances ought not be implied MADP because individual members hold different opinions (and, trust me, some member in every alliance will differ on SOMETHING)?[/quote]

If you want to treat a bloc as a family, where dissenting opinions are kept in private, merge into one alliance or forbid every alliance member from using its own judgment in its independent treaty making. Some infamous blocs on Planet Bob addressed C&G's current problem by having all treaties vetted through the bloc, thus robbing its member alliances of their identities.

Without such controls in a bloc of alliances, you will have Aunt Sally out treatying with Neighbor Joe while Uncle Bob is treatying with Sister Susie. That does not work in an alliance anymore than it can in a family-based bloc.

Further, this underlying sense of family and its expectations for a bloc to act like an alliance is exactly why all blocs hold so much potential for self-destruction and disaster for those around them.

You also point to treaty gradations or preferred status allies as a justification for blocs. This is where more trouble starts.

Desiring a higher level treaty with a group of alliances, as opposed to just one alliance you know intimately, requires some very unnatural things. History on Bob has shown us that if that all members of a bloc are not of one mind, the bloc is destined to crumble, slowly and painfully for all of its members. What's worse is the harder they try to act as one, the more arrogant and abusive of non-member alliances and outsiders in general they will become.

If you see 3 or 4 alliances you want to have "higher" level treaties with, that is fine, but realize how the position will always represent a diplomatic insult to any existing or potential treaty partners who do not aspire to be in a bloc. Also, if you must do it, do it individually, alliance to alliance. Otherwise, all of your eggs are in one basket.

Finally, be prepared for more great disappointments, for there is no one in this world you will agree with all of the time on every issue. Trying to make a political machine out of friends and family denies that basic reality. It demeans the sovereignty and good judgment of each of its member alliances.

I respect where you are here and wish you the best.

[TheEraser]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='02 February 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1265150132' post='2153949']
Blocs give structure to the world. With so many alliances, if every single one was acting individually, it would be chaos.

Also there's something nice in knowing that no matter how bad you screw up, there are 6 alliances who have your back.
[/quote]
I'll take a well thought out foreign policy and tight sphere of influence over a bloc any day of the week. Blocs have their place, but i think they're a dying breed. CnG is probably the only decent bloc still around.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='elborrador' date='02 February 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1265153235' post='2154058']
I'll take a well thought out foreign policy and tight sphere of influence over a bloc any day of the week. Blocs have their place, but i think they're a dying breed. CnG is probably the only decent bloc still around.
[/quote]

Those things are not mutually exclusive. In fact they go hand in hand.

Also, that hurts.

[TheEraser]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='02 February 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1265153340' post='2154062']
Those things are not mutually exclusive. In fact they go hand in hand.

Also, that hurts.
[/quote]
they can go hand in hand, but i think more often than not its easier to maintain your own sphere of treaties and power anyways. Hell nowadays many members of blocs have overlapping treaties anyways so it makes the officiality of the bloc less important. you don't need a stupid piece of paper to coordinate militarily on joint forums/irc channels. proof:Karma

Polaris has been acting bloc free since BLEU fell apart and only recently have we really gotten into a tight situation, that we admittedly put ourselves in.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='elborrador' date='02 February 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1265153607' post='2154070']
they can go hand in hand, but i think more often than not its easier to maintain your own sphere of treaties and power anyways. Hell nowadays many members of blocs have overlapping treaties anyways so it makes the officiality of the bloc less important. you don't need a stupid piece of paper to coordinate militarily on joint forums/irc channels. proof:Karma

Polaris has been acting bloc free since BLEU fell apart and only recently have we really gotten into a tight situation, that we admittedly put ourselves in.
[/quote]

I'm not sure why you guys continue to deny that Frostbite was a bloc, but let's not get into that.

A bloc implies an additional level of commitment to the other signatories. Sometimes with bilateral treaties you can mutually agree to fight on opposite sides and still be friends. A bloc fights as one. Also, joint coordination without an official structure ends poorly. Proof: Karma.

[AnCapistan]

Large power blocs (your CnGs, SFs, and Citadels) are pretty much the worst thing to happen to this world ever.

Who would declare on someone that has six people who are bound to defend them?

[cookavich]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='02 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1265154497' post='2154114']
Large power blocs (your CnGs, SFs, and Citadels) are pretty much the worst thing to happen to this world ever.

Who would declare on someone that has six people who are bound to defend them?
[/quote]People with resolve.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='02 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1265154497' post='2154114']
Large power blocs (your CnGs, SFs, and Citadels) are pretty much the worst thing to happen to this world ever.

Who would declare on someone that has six people who are bound to defend them?
[/quote]

TOP, IRON, TORN, DAWN and NpO?

Or was that a joke.

And really, I wouldn't consider C&G or SF to be real "large power blocs". The only reason we're the biggest now is because all the real large power blocs have died and not been replaced.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='cookavich' date='02 February 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1265154608' post='2154119']
People with resolve.
[/quote]

Not many people have that.

[Owned-You]

This should be a fun discussion, and intelligent provided nobody begins to throw out bait. That said, there are different types of blocs in this game; not in the sense of obligations but in the sense that some are formally tied (Ie, CnG/AZTEC) and others informally (Ie, Karma). Generally speaking, formal blocs tend to operate in cohesive manners without any member actively taking risks that may endanger the bloc as a whole...atleast in healthy blocs. However, this isn't to say that if there is any disagreement on matters that the bloc is inefficient or useless; as it is simply the natural evolution of any bloc to eventually have member alliances disagreeing for various reasons or purposes. In some cases, it can prove highly detrimental and lead to factions rising within the bloc to undermine the opposition faction; ultimately harming or outright destroying the bloc in it's entirety (MCXA & Echelon - BLEU). In other cases, it simply results in mutual concessions and agreements to come to a reasonable conclusion to the liking of all bloc members. From my own block experience, I've dealt with both instances...being a government member of BLEU I watched detrimental actions lead to the downfall of BLEU. Vice versa, as a government member of AZTEC I've watched healthy discourse result in favorable conclusions to any problems we've had in the past. Generally these two types of blocs are the most prominent in a formal bloc setting.

Informal blocs however, are far more varied and depend entirely upon the alliances comprising of the membership. Ultimately it's a beauty and a curse, beauty due to being able to distance oneself should the informal entity begin to make moves your not supportive of for whatever reason. A Curse, due to it having no real defined structure or leadership, member alliances usually have the leader speak as a representative which becomes cumbersome when bloc membership swells upwards to 15-20 alliances. However, these two types of classification aren't truly indicators of the majority of informal bloc structures, simply because the number of informal blocs is quite prevalent albeit not entirely recognized either.

Generally speaking the downfall of most blocs is over-extending there effective combative means. Meaning, individual members sign treaties with various other alliances/blocs; increasing the probability that the bloc will be called into any conflicts that escalate globally. Hence, members of one bloc will be directly tied to opposing parties; leading to distrust, and disdain from other members. As many blocs are centered upon common goals but lack the friendship or civility needed to work on these goals beyond a short-sited gain favorable to a party within the bloc entity.

I could go on a bit more, but I've got some other stuff to do. So I hope this contributes to your topic somewhat Tolkien.