The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1269866763' post='2239941']
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.
[/quote]

well you also have to realize that since TOP kept electing Crymson despite his anti-Polar sentiments, it would appear to others (especially Polaris) that TOP may not like Polaris as much as they are mouthing. electing as your leader someone who unequivocally despises someone, is not gonna make that someone think that you like them.

had Polaris betrayed MK and GR, you have to realize that many of Polaris's allies are allied to CnG. Ya know STA, NV, IAA, and so on. so, if Polaris did not attack TOP, they could have lost not just 2 allies, but several and all for what? to gain TOP as an ally... sorry, i do not see how TOP counterweights all those other allies of Polaris.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1269877761' post='2240020']
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'. [b]That line never worked when the Hegemony used it to justify rolling alliances based on what a leader had done,[/b] 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.
[/quote]

Bob- it is all well and good to state that TOP does not operate in such a manner. but you also have to realize how others view it. to state that everyone else is wrong in how they view it is absurd. and i find it funny that you bring up the bolded section, considering when i left TOP felt fully justified for rolling Polaris based almost solely on ES. and even despite the fact that ES was no longer a leader (having been couped) and was no longer even in Polaris.

all this because we had a couple of other [b]government[/b] members who did not like TOP still. Gremlins rolled right on in, with something bout Polaris wanting to destroy Citadel, again based on some gov members.

you need to stay consistent. you cannot state for Polaris that your leaders represent the alliance but then state for TOP that their leaders do not.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Arcturus Jefferson]

nvm

Edited March 29, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='29 March 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1269881247' post='2240053']
had Polaris betrayed MK and GR, you have to realize that many of Polaris's allies are allied to CnG. Ya know STA, NV, IAA, and so on. so, if Polaris did not attack TOP, they could have lost not just 2 allies, but several and all for what? to gain TOP as an ally... sorry, i do not see how TOP counterweights all those other allies of Polaris.
[/quote]

Of course, those aforementioned alliances you named such as Polar, STA, NV, etc. WERE all heavily tied into C&G yet no help came from that direction. I remember an STAer's [ooc]blog post[/ooc] lamenting about it when they became outnumbered primarily by the CSN blitz. It really did suggest to me at the time that these treaties and relationships were mostly a one-way street, and that bloc obligations were always more important than anyone outside of it - perhaps the cancelling on GR by Polar epitomized this sentiment.

Too bad the unfolding series of events - TOP/IRON pre-emption followed by the \m/ peace basically negated the strain and repaired most of those cleavages between the 'Blunity' and C&G web.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='29 March 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1269879662' post='2240041']
Holy christ it's like there's a difference between government and regular membership!
[/quote]

Hmmm, I smell a coming policy corner post

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='29 March 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1269883577' post='2240091']
Of course, those aforementioned alliances you named such as Polar, STA, NV, etc. WERE all heavily tied into C&G yet no help came from that direction. I remember an STAer's [ooc]blog post[/ooc] lamenting about it when they became outnumbered primarily by the CSN blitz. It really did suggest to me at the time that these treaties and relationships were mostly a one-way street, and that bloc obligations were always more important than anyone outside of it - perhaps the cancelling on GR by Polar epitomized this sentiment.

Too bad the unfolding series of events - TOP/IRON pre-emption followed by the \m/ peace basically negated the strain and repaired most of those cleavages between the 'Blunity' and C&G web.
[/quote]


I'll be curious to see if any of these treaties change, and how.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='29 March 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1269883577' post='2240091']
Of course, those aforementioned alliances you named such as Polar, STA, NV, etc. WERE all heavily tied into C&G yet no help came from that direction. I remember an STAer's [ooc]blog post[/ooc] lamenting about it when they became outnumbered primarily by the CSN blitz. It really did suggest to me at the time that these treaties and relationships were mostly a one-way street, and that bloc obligations were always more important than anyone outside of it - perhaps the cancelling on GR by Polar epitomized this sentiment.

Too bad the unfolding series of events - TOP/IRON pre-emption followed by the \m/ peace basically negated the strain and repaired most of those cleavages between the 'Blunity' and C&G web.
[/quote]

oh i agree with this wholeheartedly.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1269866763' post='2239941']
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.
[/quote]

I don't think it was incompetence, it was placing revenge as the #1 priority. Grub knew exactly what he was doing.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='29 March 2010 - 10:19 AM' 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]

You're looking at the issue backwards. Nobody was trying to bait IRON into war; they were preparing for the incredibly likely possibility of it.


[quote name='KainIIIC' date='29 March 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1269883577' post='2240091']
I remember an STAer's [ooc]blog post[/ooc] lamenting about it when they became outnumbered primarily by the CSN blitz.[/quote]

Kind of ironic, we were probably just as worried about it as them. CSN vs STA 1v1 would have been a pretty close fight.

[Monster]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='29 March 2010 - 09:47 AM' timestamp='1269881247' post='2240053']
well you also have to realize that since TOP kept electing Crymson despite his anti-Polar sentiments, it would appear to others (especially Polaris) that TOP may not like Polaris as much as they are mouthing. electing as your leader someone who unequivocally despises someone, is not gonna make that someone think that you like them.
[/quote]

The issue with this assessment is assuming Crymson's views on Polar didn't change and I'm pretty sure Crymson was at the forefront of TOP's efforts to get closer to Polaris and was quite fond of them in the months before the NpO-\m/ war. That doesn't mean it made much sense to pre-empt two of Polar's allies regardless.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='29 March 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1269888026' post='2240151']
The issue with this assessment is assuming Crymson's views on Polar didn't change and I'm pretty sure Crymson was at the forefront of TOP's efforts to get closer to Polaris and was quite fond of them in the months before the NpO-\m/ war. That doesn't mean it made much sense to pre-empt two of Polar's allies regardless.
[/quote]

Exactly. All of TOP had an anti Polar sentiment for a long time. It was not just Crymson that felt this way. We still approached Polaris with extreme caution after our war with them and remained skeptical of them for the longest time. It was only in the last couple months before this war that the sentiment started to change and many members were warming up to them. Do you honestly think we would have trusted Polaris like this if we did not view them in a positive light? If you told me 6 months ago that we would join Polaris in a war I would have called you crazy. Relationships change over time.

[Venizelos]

in case someone hasnt mentioned this earlier, purple is full of fail and should be rolled after this tbqh

Edited March 29, 2010 by Venizelos

[Lonely]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='30 March 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1269884045' post='2240101']
Hmmm, I smell a coming policy corner post
[/quote]

Please no.

[supercoolyellow]

Hey everyone, why don't we talk about the [b]future[/b] of the old hegemony alliances? [ooc] Or we could let this 20 day old thread die [/ooc]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='29 March 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1269888026' post='2240151']
The issue with this assessment is assuming Crymson's views on Polar didn't change and I'm pretty sure Crymson was at the forefront of TOP's efforts to get closer to Polaris and was quite fond of them in the months before the NpO-\m/ war. That doesn't mean it made much sense to pre-empt two of Polar's allies regardless.
[/quote]

well if like Vladimir Stukov said and the last 2 months saw a change in TOP, then that is fine. my assessment is slightly wrong. i will modify by stating that just because TOP had a change of heart around the time of the BBW/WWE or just before, does not mean that Polaris was warming up to TOP. after the SPW, TOP remained incredibly hostile to Polaris. i would say that given the circumstances of the BBW/WWE, Polaris would have to wonder why TOP had this huge change of heart all of a sudden.

Then comes the grand finale of TOP wanting Polaris to betray 2 of her allies, one of which was a very long-standing ally from back when TOP rolled Polaris.

TOP can dress it up all they want, but fact is, from what Vladimir Stukov said, TOP did not have this change of heart until around the time of the BBW, when Athens/Co hit TPF. Polaris was already a swing alliance from many assessments. so from the sounds of it, this change of heart came at a time when TOP was vulnerable and quite possibly looking for a huge meatshield with allies (and lookin at Polar's allies, most are allied to CnG/SF). This of course is just giving a perspective on the possible thoughts of Polaris. this may or may not be true at all.

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='29 March 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1269894130' post='2240232']
in case someone hasnt mentioned this earlier, purple is full of fail and should be rolled after this tbqh
[/quote]

your supposed to put a proxy alliance on purple with a irrational leader who wants to see a major Purple alliance die, quit changing the formula

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='29 March 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1269879662' post='2240041']
Holy christ it's like there's a difference between government and regular membership!
[/quote]
Way to completely ignore the content of my post.

Of course there is a difference. Your opinions matter more than those of a random MKer. But if you say one thing, and everybody else in MK says the opposite, then your opinions are not MK's. This is particularly true when an alliance has a lower council that has to approve decisions – then the word of a government member can't even be considered policy, never mind 'what the alliance thinks'.

Since MK and Fark, at least, had allies in Citadel and know how Citadel alliances work (and for example didn't drop Grämlins the moment Ramirus came to talk to them as government), you clearly [i]know[/i] that one person's views aren't the views of the alliance, even if they are government. So it's clear that you're only pushing that line with TOP now because you're trying to paint them as worse than they are so you can justify your hegemonic treatment of them.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='29 March 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1269886129' post='2240130']
Kind of ironic, we were probably just as worried about it as them. CSN vs STA 1v1 would have been a pretty close fight.
[/quote]

It wasn't so much that they were getting destroyed - to the contrary - STA is excellent in battle. It was that they had basically all of their allies in the war already and no one to draw help on - Silence to their credit was allied to CSN and three other SF allies, whereas the two treaties that STA held with C&G, not to mention all the other treaties MK held to the Polar side, all stayed out at the time. This was actually the reason why NSO declared on CSN, because we were the only ones willing to.

(little did we know that it would carry on another three weeks , that's also why I don't personally view separation between the two supposed wars - only fronts. It was the same front for me.)

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='29 March 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1269881247' post='2240053']
had Polaris betrayed MK and GR, you have to realize that many of Polaris's allies are allied to CnG. Ya know STA, NV, IAA, and so on. so, if Polaris did not attack TOP, they could have lost not just 2 allies, but several and all for what? to gain TOP as an ally... sorry, i do not see how TOP counterweights all those other allies of Polaris.
[/quote]
It makes sense that their attack on us was a political move so they could keep X number of relationships. Fair enough. Hope they can deal with the consequences though in the long term.

[quote]TOP can dress it up all they want, but fact is, from what Vladimir Stukov said, TOP did not have this change of heart until around the time of the BBW, when Athens/Co hit TPF. Polaris was already a swing alliance from many assessments. so from the sounds of it, this change of heart came at a time when TOP was vulnerable and quite possibly looking for a huge meatshield with allies (and lookin at Polar's allies, most are allied to CnG/SF). This of course is just giving a perspective on the possible thoughts of Polaris. this may or may not be true at all.[/quote]
I would actually place alot of the change on what occurred with the Kni incident. Even before then many of us felt like we were philosophically similar to them but that we were simply on different sides of the treaty web. If there was any hatred for Polar in TOP it was a very small minority. I realize that people have latched onto this idea that we entered solely because Polar "switched" sides but no one wants to see that we held extremely similar views in regards to the political world.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='29 March 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1269907918' post='2240516']
It makes sense that their attack on us was a political move so they could keep X number of relationships. Fair enough. Hope they can deal with the consequences though in the long term.


I would actually place alot of the change on what occurred with the Kni incident. Even before then many of us felt like we were philosophically similar to them but that we were simply on different sides of the treaty web. If there was any hatred for Polar in TOP it was a very small minority. I realize that people have latched onto this idea that we entered solely because Polar "switched" sides but no one wants to see that we held extremely similar views in regards to the political world.
[/quote]

i figured you entered for two reasons. 1- cuz you were gonna be entering anyways on that side and CnG were most likely gonna hit you and 2- you disliked CnG and that was a bonus. your (as in TOP's) wording in the DoW was poorly chosen and far to emotionally bent which CnG have latched onto as a way to ensure they can get huge reps from ya'll or just keep you in war for a lengthy period.

as for similar views, that is all fine and dandy, but ya'll should have realized that hitting Polar's direct allies not to mention the allies of Polar's allies, would not have been smart regardless of what Grub said. even if Grub had not switched sides but just peaced out, you would still be facing all of Polaris's allies which left your side sufficiently devoid of alliances to cover CnG/SF and their other allies.

i also doubt that Polaris did it simply to keep X number of relations but mostly cuz many of those X number of relations have a long history with Polaris. i mean STA, NV, Genesis, GR... all 4 of those alliances went through hell with Polaris during the SPW/WoTC and stayed by Polar's side. regardless of Polaris's relationship with MK, those 4 would have dominated the mindset within Polaris and would never have allowed those 4 to suffer so long as Polaris could do anything about it.

[Haunter]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='29 March 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1269896648' post='2240293']
Hey everyone, why don't we talk about the [b]future[/b] of the old hegemony alliances? [ooc] Or we could let this 20 day old thread die [/ooc]
[/quote]

Good idea. Maybe TOP-NpO could be discussed in a separate thread?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1269899014' post='2240337']
Way to completely ignore the content of my post.

Of course there is a difference. Your opinions matter more than those of a random MKer. But if you say one thing, and everybody else in MK says the opposite, then your opinions are not MK's. This is particularly true when an alliance has a lower council that has to approve decisions – then the word of a government member can't even be considered policy, never mind 'what the alliance thinks'.

Since MK and Fark, at least, had allies in Citadel and know how Citadel alliances work (and for example didn't drop Grämlins the moment Ramirus came to talk to them as government), you clearly [i]know[/i] that one person's views aren't the views of the alliance, even if they are government. So it's clear that you're only pushing that line with TOP now because you're trying to paint them as worse than they are so you can justify your hegemonic treatment of them.
[/quote]
Edit: Oh for crying out loud, I just typed up a gigantic reply and then had it all erased. Hold on while I retype what I remember.

Ok, first, I should point out, that in MK's charter, Archon's word is literally law. If Archon says one thing and everyone else in MK says something different, Archon's words are the ones that shape policy. Now, while it would be a bad idea to continuously do as such, or possibly a great thing to do if you're looking to cut down on the size of the alliance, it is still true that MK cannot actually do anything without Archon's permission, and they can't just replace him with someone who will do things differently. In terms of this specific alliance, it really does only matter what Archon thnks and does. Considering that you are arguing from the perspective that people are misunderstanding how TOP works, intentionally or otherwise, to make a political point, I would think you would pay attention to these details. No, every alliance doesn't work exactly the same way, but that is a fact which cuts in both directions.

Now, as for TOP itself, I have no idea what the membership believes or how that correlates with how the government acts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go around and poll the membership of every alliance to see whether their government is actually representing their interests every time I have a conversation. Frankly, I don't think most alliances would appreciate it if I did. I genuinely liked TOP right up until I had to directly deal with Crymson, at which point my opinion plummeted. His default position when he doesn't want something from you is generally abrasive, and he's garnered something of a reputation for flying off the handle over minor incidents to the point where getting a query from Crymson became a running joke in a number of government circles. When DrDan was elected it was a welcome change. The SF-TOP gov Q&A that ran for a good chunk of his term did an amazing job of rehabilitating that opinion of TOP. I don't think we ended his term as close friends, but there was a lot more success at airing out issues and ironing out differences than I had anticipated going in. Then he lost re-election to Crymson and all of the progress up to that point was trashed in about a week. You have [i]no[/i] idea how frustrating that was. He then went on to alienate a number of TOP's own long-standing allies.

Of course, we could assume that TOP doesn't support most of the actions that were taken which lead to those problems arising, but at some point "We think this person will be a good representative of our alliance, but we disagree with everthing he says, does and thinks" rings a bit hollow. However, even if we grant that it is the case that the less... reputable actions taken wouldn't have been supported by the general membership, knowing the membership thinks it is stupid is not going to provide a huge amount of comfort [i]after[/i] he's managed to pull off a pre-emptive strike against your alliance. Whatever TOP wants, we all have to deal with the people they elect, and when that includes people like Crymson, all the good intentions in the world don't make it more pleasant or change what [i]is[/i] done.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Delta1212

[Penkala]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='24 March 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1269431197' post='2235156']
Since always. If you ever took a moment to ask NPO, no one wanted the stupid war to be over more than they did, but they weren't willing to give plain old vanilla white peace. They wanted 2 weeks of war before they would give white peace. Two weeks. Compared to a year in peace mode.

If MK wanted to be *as bad* as NPO and offer us two more weeks of fighting and white peace after, I daresay we'd take it in a heart beat.
[/quote]

Deal. We'll give you peace, blindside you while demilitarized, run you into the ground and down to 25 members, then give you an ultimatum: 2 weeks of open warfare, and white peace, or peace mode forever.

Done deal.

[quote]Of course there is a difference. Your opinions matter more than those of a random MKer. But if you say one thing, and everybody else in MK says the opposite, then your opinions are not MK's. This is particularly true when an alliance has a lower council that has to approve decisions – then the word of a government member can't even be considered policy, never mind 'what the alliance thinks'.[/quote]

How do wars work in TOP? Does GM just declare it over the screams of the council/heptagon/whatever? Or did they vote for it too? Were they not elected just as Crymson was?

When all the elected officials of an alliance decide on a course of action, that means the alliance supports it. Or TOP members are 100% completely incompetent and inept and don't know who they're voting for. One or the other. It's literally that simple.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Penkala

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Penkala' date='29 March 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1269914139' post='2240653']
How do wars work in TOP? Does GM just declare it over the screams of the council/heptagon/whatever? Or did they vote for it too? Were they not elected just as Crymson was?

When all the elected officials of an alliance decide on a course of action, that means the alliance supports it. Or TOP members are 100% completely incompetent and inept and don't know who they're voting for. One or the other. It's literally that simple.
[/quote]

Well in the case of the pre-emptive strike on C&G, 75% of TOP's membership actually signed the declaration of war.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441

[Penkala]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='29 March 2010 - 10:35 PM' timestamp='1269916513' post='2240713']
Well in the case of the pre-emptive strike on C&G, 75% of TOP's membership actually signed the declaration of war.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441
[/quote]

I think Bob said this was just a copy-paste of signatures from somewhere. Still, if your entire [i]elected[/i] government does something, it's a fair assumption that the membership supported the actions. You really can't claim otherwise.

[Banksy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='30 March 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1269896648' post='2240293']
Hey everyone, why don't we talk about the [b]future[/b] of the old hegemony alliances? [ooc] Or we could let this 20 day old thread die [/ooc]
[/quote]
They have no future.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Nobody in the alliance knew we were going to pre emptively strike CnG except for Council and milcom. The Heptagon actually just voted to enter the war on IRON's side and gave the Council the license to declare war however they saw fit.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Vladimir Stukov II

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Penkala' date='30 March 2010 - 02:55 AM' timestamp='1269914139' post='2240653']
Deal. We'll give you peace, blindside you while demilitarized, run you into the ground and down to 25 members, then give you an ultimatum: 2 weeks of open warfare, and white peace, or peace mode forever.

Done deal.[/quote]

FAN had 25 members when the ultimatum was given?. Seriously do you even think before posting or post the first rage infused gibberish that comes to mind?

Aleast familarise yourself with the historical facts before wasting everyone else's time with such useless drivel.

Edited March 30, 2010 by silentkiller