The More You Know!: The Myth of the Ex-Hegemony

[Branimir]

Nice analysis. I missed this type of political debates, good that we have them again.

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='20 July 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1279662960' post='2381326']Fixed the quote tag to more correctly indicate who was speaking. [/quote]
Wouldn't he be channeling Moo, instead of Cortath? I suppose Moo is passé now. xD

But real truth is I control Haflinger via a remote. Which reminds me, gotta buy some new batteries

[mythicknight]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='20 July 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1279663037' post='2381327']
So UJP 2.0 is obviously more evil than SG
[/quote]

[i]Much[/i] more evil.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Branimir' date='20 July 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1279663616' post='2381343']
Nice analysis. I missed this type of political debates, good that we have them again.


Wouldn't he be channeling Moo, instead of Cortath? I suppose Moo is passé now. xD

But real truth is I control Haflinger via a remote. Which reminds me, gotta buy some new batteries
[/quote]

well, Moo isn't at the helm atm supposedly, so i figured it would be insulting to use him over Cortath. I was going to change it to the "Pacifica Diplomatic Corps" but it didn't have the same smarmy feel to it.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='21 July 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1279666576' post='2381418']well, Moo isn't at the helm atm supposedly, so i figured it would be insulting to use him over Cortath. I was going to change it to the "Pacifica Diplomatic Corps" but it didn't have the same smarmy feel to it. [/quote]
Ah, don't you believe that. Moo runs everything, nothing supposedly about that. He has my remote . I see nothing gets by you. xD

Anyway, once again to say, missed this political analysis around here. Hopefully they are a prelude to more politically dynamic surroundings and therefore more interesting times.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Branimir

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 July 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1279628620' post='2380445']
If "starting the war and then betraying NPO on the first day" counts as being a core ally, yeah, you've got a point about TORN.

[/quote]

There is a reason why almost everybody loves Invicta, and its because of you.

I'll be intellectually honest with myself, there was a serious communication problem that was ongoing during the peak of the drama. Firsts there was communication problem between Moo and Bob, then there was communication problem amongst allies too. You can hardly pin the entire blame on TORN or NPO.

Edited July 21, 2010 by shahenshah

[Cortath]

[quote name='mythicknight' date='20 July 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1279659259' post='2381242']
It seems you're still obsessed over your fictional story of events. I guess their strings are still snug on you after all. Lucky for us, our friends know better.



Came in here to say this. Eventually it came back at them (both).
[/quote]


[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='20 July 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1279662960' post='2381326']
Fixed the quote tag to more correctly indicate who was speaking.
[/quote]

He could channel me if he wishes.

I spoke to Bigwoody that night. Bigwoody knew every single bit of the plan. It was rather simple. We would all have a ceasefire because of the dropped internet connection of Moo during the negotiation session of the night prior.

But Bigwoody, either because he's an idiot or a coward, let himself get played by Archon into withdrawing. Whether it was out of some noble fear to keep TORN from being attacked or simply abject stupidity, I could not say. However, he's persisted in perpetuating this lie, perhaps because he feared the damage to his own reputation or perhaps to his alliance's as a whole, for more than a year since that went down.

If you want to engage me on this issue, hit me up on query.

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"]Well this is a certainly intresting hypothesis. It is definatly correct, that once formed the core of "Hegemony" alliances, no longer act as a cohesive bloc and has not for some time since the end of the BiPolar War.

The hypothesis that the world will eventually break down between SF-CnG will not immediatly pan out. There are a host of circumstances that may prevent that from happening, depending on which power blocs become closer, as well as those that drift apart.

I also think that in the future, we will see an increasing portion of Bob becomming aligned with the new NPO, which may eventually lead to NPO becomming a prominent and dominate member of either an existing power bloc or lead them to form another intertwined sphere of influence.[/color]

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Cortath' date='20 July 2010 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1279680713' post='2381863']
He could channel me if he wishes.

I spoke to Bigwoody that night. Bigwoody knew every single bit of the plan. It was rather simple. We would all have a ceasefire because of the dropped internet connection of Moo during the negotiation session of the night prior.

But Bigwoody, either because he's an idiot or a coward, let himself get played by Archon into withdrawing. Whether it was out of some noble fear to keep TORN from being attacked or simply abject stupidity, I could not say. However, he's persisted in perpetuating this lie, perhaps because he feared the damage to his own reputation or perhaps to his alliance's as a whole, for more than a year since that went down.

If you want to engage me on this issue, hit me up on query.
[/quote]


Spoke to me after the fact. Although I've long since said the best move would have been to cancel the NPO treaty then stay in alongside our friends who were to be stuck in the war anyways.

In any case, the whole smear campaign is played out beyond played out, and it is doing nothing but making you guys look more and more petty, so have at it hoss.

[Haflinger]

I think my point about TORN not being a core NPO ally has been adequately made by several people now.

[James IV]

I see the NPO being a "free agent" like Terrel Owens in the NFL. Right now they are the black sheep of the political scene. At some point though, some alliance is going to be looking over their treaties and will come to the conclusion that for them, the risk of signing with NPO is less than the reward. NPO is still a very talented alliance with quite a bit of NS of their own to throw around. If signing with NPO looks like it will help overthrow the SG bloc in place, someone(s) will pick them up.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='21 July 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1279689335' post='2382113']
[color="#FF0000"]
I also think that in the future, we will see an increasing portion of Bob becomming aligned with the new NPO, which may eventually lead to NPO becomming a prominent and dominate member of either an existing power bloc or lead them to form another intertwined sphere of influence.[/color]
[/quote]

Not going to happen, the anti-NPO prejudice is too big. Unless some big profile alliance who has many solid connections starts the precendent, none of the lower profile ones will dare out of fear of becoming isolated.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='21 July 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1279693741' post='2382199']
Not going to happen, the anti-NPO prejudice is too big. Unless some big profile alliance who has many solid connections starts the precendent, none of the lower profile ones will dare out of fear of becoming isolated.
[/quote]

Actually SG and or associates are going to fuel alliances flocking to NPO if few of them hinder any new relations forming between scattered ex-heg etc. Similarly, actions like Red Safari etc will over the long term transform NPO's image from evil ex-heg to a present victim by new evil Heg. These actions while fun and pun in short and medium term might actually be the ones that create cracks over the long term.

[Confusion]

Even though there are a few things a disagree with, nice Analysis overall.

Confusion.

[Cortath]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='21 July 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1279691351' post='2382156']


Spoke to me after the fact. Although I've long since said the best move would have been to cancel the NPO treaty then stay in alongside our friends who were to be stuck in the war anyways.

In any case, the whole smear campaign is played out beyond played out, and it is doing nothing but making you guys look more and more petty, so have at it hoss.
[/quote]

No, I spoke to you the same night the negotiations failed, and a day before you pulled out of the war.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='21 July 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1279693741' post='2382199']
Not going to happen, the anti-NPO prejudice is too big. Unless some big profile alliance who has many solid connections starts the precendent, none of the lower profile ones will dare out of fear of becoming isolated.
[/quote]
Right now? Yes. But there's a constant turnover of new people making the decisions. Already, how many people do you think there are around who never lived through NPO control of the world? Give it another 6 months or a year and that will be even more the case, there will have been another 6-12 months of incidents from SG alliances fresher in the mind, and people will begin to think 'Well, it can't have been [i]that[/i] bad, and we need to get rid of these people ...' and will at least work together with NPO and friends, if not become one of them. Rather like Karma brought together a whole range of alliances who don't really like each other to get rid of the old hegemony, the cycle will come again (if we don't get the Unjust War II* part of the cycle, i.e. a SG civil war, first).

*: Yes, I know some people call Bipolar the 'Second Unjust War'. Those people are fools; there is basically nothing common between the UjW and Bipolar except the identities of the first two alliances at war.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 July 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1279717397' post='2382454']
Right now? Yes. But there's a constant turnover of new people making the decisions. Already, how many people do you think there are around who never lived through NPO control of the world? Give it another 6 months or a year and that will be even more the case, there will have been another 6-12 months of incidents from SG alliances fresher in the mind, and people will begin to think 'Well, it can't have been [i]that[/i] bad, and we need to get rid of these people ...' and will at least work together with NPO and friends, if not become one of them. Rather like Karma brought together a whole range of alliances who don't really like each other to get rid of the old hegemony, the cycle will come again (if we don't get the Unjust War II* part of the cycle, i.e. a SG civil war, first).

*: Yes, I know some people call Bipolar the 'Second Unjust War'. Those people are fools; there is basically nothing common between the UjW and Bipolar except the identities of the first two alliances at war.
[/quote]

Well, you say 12 months as if it wasn't almost 25% of the current age of Planet Bob

I don't think that new people who never lived under NPO rule are THAT much relevant, as often the dislike for groups or alliances becomes a "cultural thing" within alliances. Take Polaris for example, I often wonder how many of the nowadays Polaris fought on the NoCB War against MCXA and I am pretty sure most of them still nurture a strong hate towards TSO.

Generally, dislikes and prejudices are overcome more due to social convulsions than anything else. Alliances will stop disliking Pacifica when their leaders tell them so. Their leaders will tell them to stop right before, during or shortly after any next great crisis that threatens to change the status quo. New members may play a factor, but taking in consideration that most alliances in power these days (MK, NpO, RoK, RIA, GOD, Athens, etc) don't really have a rotational leadership, I am more inclined on betting on the strategic element.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Banksy' date='19 July 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1279608544' post='2380205']
The very fact that we have a 'SuperGrievances' term shows that such a group must exist. There would be no need to define this group if there was no counter. I agree that the proposed counter is weak and diverse, but there is a degree of group identity.
[/quote]

As others have pointed out we are playing in a unipolar world. Identifying that unipolar power does not identify an opposition to that power. By definition it illustrates that there is no other power.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='James IV' date='20 July 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1279693704' post='2382197']
I see the NPO being a "free agent" like Terrel Owens in the NFL. Right now they are the black sheep of the political scene. At some point though, some alliance is going to be looking over their treaties and will come to the conclusion that for them, the risk of signing with NPO is less than the reward. NPO is still a very talented alliance with quite a bit of NS of their own to throw around. If signing with NPO looks like it will help overthrow the SG bloc in place, someone(s) will pick them up.
[/quote]


This analysis assumes that SF/CnG are a singular unit and will always remain that way. I know from bitter experience that aint necessarily so. I still have the old joke "Gramlins dont betray TOP" ringing in my ears....

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='21 July 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1279730659' post='2382694']
This analysis assumes that SF/CnG are a singular unit and will always remain that way. I know from bitter experience that aint necessarily so. I still have the old joke "Gramlins dont betray TOP" ringing in my ears....
[/quote]

You realize TOP chose IRON over Gre, correct?

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1279730921' post='2382705']
You realize TOP chose IRON over Gre, correct?
[/quote]

Could you blame them? Take notice of the decision's Ramirus has made, and the people he has alienated lately. I'm guessing you don't like IRON, but heck, I could probably make you pick NPO if the alternative was a Ramirus led Gramlins.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1279730921' post='2382705']You realize TOP chose IRON over Gre, correct?[/quote]
You do realize that Ram chose MK over TOP long before TOP chose IRON?

[Skap Q]

Awesome post LF.

[Aurion]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='21 July 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1279730659' post='2382694']
This analysis assumes that SF/CnG are a singular unit and will always remain that way. I know from bitter experience that aint necessarily so. I still have the old joke "Gramlins dont betray TOP" ringing in my ears....
[/quote]

Are you sure the joke wasn't the other way around?

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 July 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1279566932' post='2379154']A major factor back then in the time leading up to that last war were the cunning moves of NSO (Ivan Moldavi), who was able to unite all of ex-Heg and former FB to form a side which was stronger than SF and CnG combined.[/quote]Ivan was pretty passive throughout the beginning and middle of the war, with his only major contributions, at least as I recall, being ideas aimed at trying to bring in FAN and NPO onto "our" side.

The one individual most responsible for bringing our coalition together was Grub who, in taking a stand against \m/, providing the standard which most of ex-Heg was happy to rally around and which most of Polars direct allies rallied around only fairly reluctantly. Still, that was pretty much all Grub did coalition-wise; he wasn't involved in the grunt work of building the coalition (e.g. running around IRC directly recruiting people and building communication infrastructure) and he wasn't involved whatsoever in actually running the coalition (such as planning strategy and ensuring proper communication). Honestly pretty much Grub all did, again at least so far as I can recall, is talk to Archon, soothe our direct allies, and deal with \m/, a fact which caused me, and those of all stripes who tried to make our coalition functional, a lot of frustration as Grub, as the presumed head of the coalition, probably could have really helped streamline coalition management.

[quote name='Heft' date='19 July 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1279586892' post='2379587']One thing that people tend to forget about the hegemony is that it wasn't some oppressive minority ruling by fiat. It was a passive majority enjoying the benefits of peace and stability for most.
It was a web so deeply tangled that no one could really work it out or work their way out of it. Even those at the top were often limited and constrained by behemoth system that had been created. Continuum and One Vision may have been the clear leaders of that period, but almost every alliance of any size participated and was part of the "hegemony" at some point or another, including most of SF. The only important exception is CnG. Or else it wouldn't have ever worked. The "hegemony" didn't rule by fear, it ruled by peace. Ex-hegemony is nonsense not just because it doesn't reflect any modern identity, but because "hegemony" itself never reflected any identity. It was a pejorative term created during war. No one ever decided to be a member of the hegemony. It became a convenient label for the group of alliances centered around the remnants of Continuum and One Vision that didn't move to the other side, and it worked fairly well up through the BiPolar war (or whatever it's called). It worked precisely because there was no clear identity for most of those alliances after the old structures were all destroyed (Q, One Vision, and Citadel was defunct long before it officially disbanded). It seems to be a fairly common charge that after Karma the ex-hegemony "chose" to stay together and organize in opposition to the Karma victors. This of course ignores all the ex-hegemony alliances that participated in that Karma victory or did in fact move over or at least make attempts at getting closer, and more importantly ignores why those that remained distant did so. In some cases, they simply didn't like or get along with the "other side" and thus had no motivation to cooperate. There was also a constant sense of defensiveness, an awareness that all these alliances that used to be leaders of the world were now suddenly very vulnerable and that CnG or SF or both might very easily come back to "finish the job" as it were - a feeling that the actions and rhetoric of the time only encouraged and accentuated. Is it really any wonder that so many alliances were willing to come back together one month after the completely nonsense attack on TPF? The actions may have been offensive, but they were born out of (severely misguided) feelings of survival.If that war accomplished anything, it was finally relieving that tension (or, less charitably, paranoia). The realignment of the old "hegemony" core started years ago, pretty much when the Ordinance of the Orders was dropped, and was effectively stalled by the Karma war all the way through the BiPolar war, as many of those alliances suddenly felt compelled to huddle together awhile longer.This all makes more sense when you realize that many of the leaders of the "hegemony" didn't actually like each other or trust each other even when they had treaties and were joined in leviathan blocs.[/quote]The political status quo from the end of the Unjust War to the beginning of the Karma War was maintained by a passive majority, but it was led by an active ruling class made up of large, politically astute alliances with strong powerbases who, while not having a free reign, had the ability to play god as long as they were united under a common purpose and the passive majority remained either loyal to the status quo or silent in its opposition.

Now, what the term "Hegemony" has come to represent the remaining members of the ruling class and their collective powerbases who were still huddled together mid-way through Karma because they weren't expelled before the war began (like Polar) or they didn't leave before Karma (like VE) or they didn't leave after the sides of Karma became clear (like TOP). Is that representation logical or particularly fair? Probably not, but it has entered the common vernacular and it is probably here to stay.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 July 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1279717397' post='2382454']Yes, I know some people call Bipolar the 'Second Unjust War'. Those people are fools; there is basically nothing common between the UjW and Bipolar except the identities of the first two alliances at war.[/quote]It doesn't even have that going for it as the first two alliances at war in the UJW were Gen[m]ay and BotS. >_>

But yeah I agree with you.

[quote name='Lusitan' date='21 July 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1279720823' post='2382496']Take Polaris for example, I often wonder how many of the nowadays Polaris fought on the NoCB War against MCXA and I am pretty sure most of them still nurture a strong hate towards TSO. Generally, dislikes and prejudices are overcome more due to social convulsions than anything else. Alliances will stop disliking Pacifica when their leaders tell them so. Their leaders will tell them to stop right before, during or shortly after any next great crisis that threatens to change the status quo. New members may play a factor, but taking in consideration that most alliances in power these days (MK, NpO, RoK, RIA, GOD, Athens, etc) don't really have a rotational leadership, I am more inclined on betting on the strategic element.[/quote]I think holding a grudge against TSO is pretty irrational and irrelevant at this point, but I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority as I can't remember the last time we talked about them.

Still, I think you're wrong to a certain extent. Hatred can be passed from generation to generation during discussions and such, but the leaderships role in inciting it, and ending it, is in my experience fairly limited. Or at least it was when NPO's leadership tried to make its membership like Gremlins and when Polar's leadership tried to make its membership like TPF and when Grub tried to make pretty much everyone else in Polar tolerate Valhalla.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Fallen Fool

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 July 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1279731102' post='2382712']
Could you blame them? Take notice of the decision's Ramirus has made, and the people he has alienated lately. I'm guessing you don't like IRON, but heck, I could probably make you pick NPO if the alternative was a Ramirus led Gramlins.
[/quote]


He is also wrong saying that there was a choice of one over the other. We were close to both. Gramlins violated our treaty, came to our forums and apologized over and over about it. Most of us believed their apologies were sincere and I do think that most of the Gramlins who did come to our forums were sincere. This was prior to the reign of Ram formally starting (or it was right on the cusp) but as I look back on it now his fingerprints were all over this.

You are also quite right that after that they continued moves under Ram's unfluence that have led them to be the sad remnant of a once great alliance that we see today.