The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[Delta1212]

It was more than just STA. The first fifteen minutes to half hour after the attack was very surreal. A large number of alliances who'd been fence-sitting or telling us they'd be joining the other side were suddenly coming over saying they were with us.

I had a couple hours notice that something like that might happen and I [I]honestly[/I] didn't believe they'd go through with it until it actually happened. It seemed like one of those rumors that goes around during wars that you either really hope is true or really hope is false but is almost never accurate. It was just such a weird move, though I can see how it happened now.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Delta1212

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='28 March 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1269797996' post='2239276']
You have to be more specific, I have no idea who you are referring to.



I have seen this "C&G coming over the top" logic several times and I still don't understand it.

Attacking C&G led to MHA and Gramlins dogpiling IRON, leaving Fark and Sparta uncovered to "come over the top". How is that any better than the reverse? The pre-emptive strike had no real effect on who you had to fight, all it did was drive several of the less involved parties onto our side (such as STA and OBR, for example).
[/quote]

Originally I was organizing CDT/PEACE to cover FARK/SF, as seen by the UPN/Hydra/other declarations upon R&R. I don't recall who was set for Sparta, I wasn't involved on that front until post-premptive strike when OMFG/Legion/TOOL engaged Sparta. The general idea was to engage the bulk of the opposing forces on our terms and be able to score some quick anarchies and hopefully shock and awe as many alliances into submission ASAP which would allow for redeclarations on those who remained, and hopefully a speedy resolution to a conflict that many were not particularly thrilled to be a part of/thought was moronic

[neneko]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='28 March 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1269788034' post='2239162']
Did you actually expect them not to attack? Or are you crying because they didn't do what you wanted them to?

Either way its a silly argument. Although I will agree on the lack of considering future implications when making their decision, it is hard to argue that MK and friends were uninvolved. I find it very hard to believe you guys were not sitting in coalition channels, or were not planning to attack IRON and TOP. At which point does it become aggression? I do not know, but it is not nearly as black and white as you'd like us to believe.
[/quote]
I'm not crying/complaining about anything at all. Honestly the brilliant TOP move is a definite highpoint here on bob for me. Many good laughs have been had over that.

I was simply countering janovas suggestion that TOP/IRON was in any way trapped or forced into their situation by showing that everyone else in the conflict was just as much 'forced' in.

Global wars in general follow treaty chains. That doesn't mean everyone is set up by everyone else.

Just to make it reeeeeeally clear since you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting almost anything you read. I'm not saying that fark was set up or that cng was set up. I'm saying that nobody was set up. There were no trap from either side. The fact that attacks on an alliance will activate their treaties does not mean that everyone connected is set up by the other side.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='neneko' date='28 March 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1269800284' post='2239312']
I'm not crying/complaining about anything at all. Honestly the brilliant TOP move is a definite highpoint here on bob for me. Many good laughs have been had over that.

I was simply countering janovas suggestion that TOP/IRON was in any way trapped or forced into their situation by showing that everyone else in the conflict was just as much 'forced' in.

Global wars in general follow treaty chains. That doesn't mean everyone is set up by everyone else.

Just to make it reeeeeeally clear since you seem to have a habit of misinterpreting almost anything you read. I'm not saying that fark was set up or that cng was set up. I'm saying that nobody was set up. There were no trap from either side. The fact that attacks on an alliance will activate their treaties does not mean that everyone connected is set up by the other side.
[/quote]

Fair enough

[Bob Janova]

Well, I'm not a fan of the trap metaphor myself, but one side [i]can[/i] strongly influence the other side's deployment so as to make direct treaty activation an unappealing prospect. We did some of that in Karma, choosing people for fronts so that the Hegemony would do badly if they just looked at their treaties, and IRON was put into a lose-lose spot by the raiders' coalition's planning in this war. I don't mean to put a negative connotation on that (as I acknowledge 'trap' does – it wasn't my metaphor ) because it's good strategic planning to give your side an advantage.

[quote]I had a couple hours notice that something like that might happen and I honestly didn't believe they'd go through with it until it actually happened.[/quote]
Yeah I think nobody really did. I have friends in TOP whose reaction was '... we did [i]what[/i]?' when I was talking to them about it the next day. It was a very poor move, for sure.

[Jack Diorno]

It wasn't a trap.
If TOP/IRON had entered the war using conventional means like following treaties with NSO or whoever they were helping out and said "we are entering war to help out NSO", they would likely have peace right now and we would all be sitting back smoking cigars and playing the who is the new hegemony guessing game.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 March 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1269809300' post='2239424']
Yeah I think nobody really did. I have friends in TOP whose reaction was '... we did [i]what[/i]?' when I was talking to them about it the next day. It was a very poor move, for sure.
[/quote]
Someone in our IRC said something about it when the wars started coming in. Half the alliance called !@#$%^&*.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='28 March 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1269798750' post='2239286']
I had a couple hours notice that something like that might happen and I [I]honestly[/I] didn't believe they'd go through with it until it actually happened.
[/quote]

The more surprising thing to me still was that Grub knew we were coming in to help him, achieved peace an hour or so before we deployed... and told us [i]nothing.[/i]

IMO, that silent hour is the only trap in this entire situation. No one from Polar has yet dared to give an answer to explain it, but I daresay that there will be a day when they are made to answer [i]for[/i] it.

EDIT: I don't think I'll ever understand why Grub allowed MK to be rent by TOP after peace with \m/ had been achieved, or why he allowed TOP to make such a horrible mistake when the gesture was no longer needed.

Edited March 29, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='28 March 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1269828653' post='2239691']
The more surprising thing to me still was that Grub knew we were coming in to help him, achieved peace an hour or so before we deployed... and told us [i]nothing.[/i]

IMO, that silent hour is the only trap in this entire situation. No one from Polar has yet dared to give an answer to explain it, but I daresay that there will be a day when they are made to answer [i]for[/i] it.
[/quote]


*cues the hordes of SuperComplaints to come and debate that TOP was in the war purely for selfish interests and simply wanted to destroy MK/C&G*

But yes, if there was one "trap" in this whole mess, that would have been it. Quite frankly I'm still not sure what he was thinking, and I think that it caused a lot of people (myself included) who held NpO and Grub in very high esteem to now view NpO in a much more negative light. Hopefully under Emperor Penguin we can see a new dawn for NpO. One thing that still has been shocked though is that C&G has basically just accepted the fact that NpO was more than willing to approve a pre-emptive strike and watch them get rolled and pounded. If one of Gondors allies had been similarly complicit to a plan for us getting hit, you can be sure that that treaty would be swiftly cancelled and a rather notable grudge formed. But I suppose such conversations have probably already taken place in the shady backrooms of the cyberverse between C&G leaders and NpO.

[Lord Brendan]

Grub: I promise not to honor my treaties with C&G.
TOP: You seem like a trustworthy guy. We will make an incredibly risky gamble based on your promise.

I still don't get it.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='28 March 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1269829886' post='2239712']
Grub: I promise not to honor my treaties with C&G.
TOP: You seem like a trustworthy guy. We will make an incredibly risky gamble based on your promise.

I still don't get it.
[/quote]

It still has me scratching my head.

TOP based their entire sneak attack on CnG off of the premise that NpO would betray their allies.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='28 March 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1269830129' post='2239717']
It still has me scratching my head.

TOP based their entire sneak attack on CnG off of the premise that NpO would betray their allies.
[/quote]

An alliance that knew full well that TOP was out for them as well. You don't think they figured out that they were viewed as a threat to you too, TOP? I think it's fairly clear who NpO saw as their biggest threat -- TOP. And TOP, who had previously schemed to roll NpO, then expects NpO to cooperate when they could instead screw TOP over? Mind boggling.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Penkala' date='29 March 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1269833726' post='2239750']
An alliance that knew full well that TOP was out for them as well. You don't think they figured out that they were viewed as a threat to you too, TOP? I think it's fairly clear who NpO saw as their biggest threat -- TOP. And TOP, who had previously schemed to roll NpO, then expects NpO to cooperate when they could instead screw TOP over? Mind boggling.
[/quote]

Actually we had pretty good relations with NpO and most believed they had changed for the better. There was even a pretty large movement in TOP to try to get a treaty with NpO. To say the least we respected them and thought of them as one of the better alliances in CN.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='28 March 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1269834410' post='2239761']
Actually we had pretty good relations with NpO and most believed they had changed for the better. There was even a pretty large movement in TOP to try to get a treaty with NpO. To say the least we respected them and thought of them as one of the better alliances in CN.
[/quote]

well i guess a lot changed in TOP since i left Gremlins. last i knew TOP still pretty much hated and did not trust Polaris. some members sure, but the majority did not. i remember the debates well on the Paradoxian forums.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Ha, as do I.

Giving Polar any degree of support or trust was an enormous error of judgement. I think I can safely say that I consistently cautioned against any such thing during the course of my membership in TOP.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Penkala]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='28 March 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1269834410' post='2239761']
Actually we had pretty good relations with NpO and most believed they had changed for the better. There was even a pretty large movement in TOP to try to get a treaty with NpO. To say the least we respected them and thought of them as one of the better alliances in CN.
[/quote]

Sorry to break the secret to you, but no you didn't. Well, your alliance may have, but Crymson didn't. And you, you know, elected him. Repeatedly.

[quote]Giving Polar any degree of support or trust was an enormous error of judgement in my opinion and something I consistently cautioned against during the course of my membership in TOP. [/quote]

Pretty much. You two were enemies as well. It's just that you got a shot at CnG first. But when that shot requires your other enemy's assistance... well, you can't count on it.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Penkala

[Bob Janova]

Well I'm sure TOP have learnt their lesson about trusting Polar. I hope everyone else has too. It was perhaps an error in judgement, but a primary principle of coalition warfare is that you can trust the other alliances within your coalition, at least in the context of the war. In Karma we were working with a whole variety of alliances that I don't like and in normal times would like to see doing badly, but when you're working together you should, well, work together. That's where TOP and NpO were in the first phase of this war.

I know that TOP were seeing an improvement of relations with Polar before the war and wouldn't have expected such a backstab. (Penkala, just because Crymson thinks something doesn't mean that TOP do; if that were the case then Citadel would have self-destructed back in 2007. More people need to understand that it's what the general membership thinks that really counts.)

In addition, it would have been a far bigger strategic win for Polar not to have two allies (MK and GR), and one alliance which had the potential to be a future ally (TOP), destroy each other and come out feeling like they have both been betrayed by Polar. I don't think it was a tactical move, I think it was just pure idiocy and/or incompetence.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='28 March 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1269799113' post='2239289']
Originally I was organizing CDT/PEACE to cover FARK/SF, as seen by the UPN/Hydra/other declarations upon R&R. I don't recall who was set for Sparta, I wasn't involved on that front until post-premptive strike when OMFG/Legion/TOOL engaged Sparta. The general idea was to engage the bulk of the opposing forces on our terms and be able to score some quick anarchies and hopefully shock and awe as many alliances into submission ASAP which would allow for redeclarations on those who remained, and hopefully a speedy resolution to a conflict that many were not particularly thrilled to be a part of/thought was moronic
[/quote]

Was accounted for and would have ended up substantially the same, albeit worse damage wise for the CDT/PEACE alliances. All roads lead to Rome, as they say. Whoever queried you asking where RON was were just joking around, RON had one realistic place to deploy, and a few non efficient ones that would have ended up the same exact way.



/me whistles and walks away

Edited March 29, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Denial' date='09 March 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1268170495' post='2219632']
He certainly does not understand Complaints & Grievances or Super Friends, though. And it appears by your agreement with him that you do not, either. Neither bloc constitutes alliances that operate in the same manner as high-ranking Hegemony alliances, such as Pacifica, IRON, Valhalla and so on. We do not need to manufacture a new opponent every few months in order to maintain alliance activity and promote bloc unity by using conflicts to temporarily distract from a litany of substantial intra-bloc issues. This ties in with why claims of a Super Friends vs Complaints & Grievances war is so ludicrous; neither bloc is hostile, and are more than happy to extract fun from the Cyberverse through the unique aspects of their own communities, rather than periodically initiating new wars.
[/quote]

Denial, your name suits this post perfectly.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='29 March 2010 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1269870256' post='2239959']
Was accounted for and would have ended up substantially the same, albeit worse damage wise for the CDT/PEACE alliances. All roads lead to Rome, as they say. Whoever queried you asking where RON was were just joking around, RON had one realistic place to deploy, and a few non efficient ones that would have ended up the same exact way.



/me whistles and walks away
[/quote]

My argument: If you're attempting to pull IRON into warfare so you can hop on its back, you can't claim non-involvement. It's naive. Of course you're involved. It's not a black and white issue, and everyone wants to paint it as such for political gain.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='29 March 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1269872327' post='2239967']
My argument: If you're attempting to pull IRON into warfare so you can hop on its back, you can't claim non-involvement. It's naive. Of course you're involved. It's not a black and white issue, and everyone wants to paint it as such for political gain.
[/quote]

Ah ha, but CnG were not the ones formulating the concept. If it was their "plan" you would have a solid point, but as it stands whether or not they would have followed through is a matter of conjecture, as they were preempted. Sure, many could say "of course they could have!", but technically that can never be known and at the time they were hit they were uninvolved.

[Drai]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='29 March 2010 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1269871344' post='2239964']
Denial, your name suits this post perfectly.
[/quote]
That would be clever if it held any degree of truth.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1269866763' post='2239941']
(Penkala, just because Crymson thinks something doesn't mean that TOP do; if that were the case then Citadel would have self-destructed back in 2007. More people need to understand that it's what the general membership thinks that really counts.)
[/quote]

Wrong. It really, really does mean that's what TOP thinks. TOP elected him to the highest job in the land repeatedly, knowing where he stood. That means they endorsed his ideals and positions. If TOP didn't want Crymson's opinions to be seen as theirs, they shouldn't have elected him again and again and again. You can't just throw up your hands and go "I NOT AGREE WITH THIS WAR."

[quote]Originally I was organizing CDT/PEACE to cover FARK/SF, as seen by the UPN/Hydra/other declarations upon R&R.[/quote]

I mean let's be realistic here, CDT *couldn't have* covered SF. It would have just resulted in massive damages to CDT...

[quote]Denial, your name suits this post perfectly. [/quote]

This is pretty much the level of 'debate' quality I have come to expect from IRON. Bravo, old chap.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Penkala

[Bob Janova]

As a bloc mate of TOP for two years I can tell you, what one government member of TOP says is not what TOP as a whole says. I think this is simply a propaganda line, to be honest, because you have one thing (Crymson) that you can point at and shout 'OMG TOP IS EVIL'. That line never worked when the Hegemony used it to justify rolling alliances based on what a leader had done, and it doesn't work for the new hegemony either. It's the other side of the same coin as MK's 'Oh, 90% of our membership is hostile to you? That doesn't matter, it's only members! ... as long as we, government people, moderate our comments in public, we can claim you're just paranoid' which is just as ridiculous.

[Archon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1269877761' post='2240020']
As a bloc mate of TOP for two years I can tell you, what one [b]government member of TOP[/b] says is not what TOP as a whole says. I think this is simply a propaganda line, to be honest, because you have one thing (Crymson) that you can point at and shout 'OMG TOP IS EVIL'. That line never worked when the Hegemony used it to justify rolling alliances based on what a leader had done, and it doesn't work for the new hegemony either. It's the other side of the same coin as MK's 'Oh, [b]90% of our membership is hostile to you? That doesn't matter, it's only members[/b]! ... as long as we, government people, moderate our comments in public, we can claim you're just paranoid' which is just as ridiculous.
[/quote]

Holy christ it's like there's a difference between government and regular membership!