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

[Tromp]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='21 July 2010 - 06:52 PM' 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]
It was way more complicated than that, and certainly not limited to Gre.

[quote name='Fallen Fool' date='21 July 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1279734036' post='2382802']
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]
Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant the strategic moves of NSO in the running up to both the TPF war and the Second UJW like the treaty with IRON, cuddling up with TOP, the three Emperor pact idea etc.
(Note for Bob, I thought this name was commonly accepted, hence why I used it.)

I will instantly believe you when you say Grub was the most responsible for bringing that coalition together, but the foundation of it was formed long before it came together.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Aurion' date='21 July 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1279733619' post='2382786']
Are you sure the joke wasn't the other way around?
[/quote]


It was said both ways. Obviously I selected the form of the joke most applicable to what actually happened...

But all of this is beside the point and is taking us way off topic. The point I was making is that scenarios of future political moves which treat SF and CnG as one entity are ignoring the fact that any relationship can break down. As example take Gremlins/TOP which was once considered one of the closest in the game. So much so that people thought we would eventually merge.

Somebody made the point that all it take is the turn over of leadership and the dymanic changes completely. All you need to do is look at Ram for proof of that.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1279730921' post='2382705']
You realize TOP chose IRON over Gre, correct?
[/quote]
You have a very strange version of our history.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='21 July 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1279731114' post='2382714']
You do realize that Ram chose MK over TOP long before TOP chose IRON?
[/quote]

Whatever helps them sleep at night.

[NLights]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1279746903' post='2383260']
Whatever helps them sleep at night.
[/quote]

Well never having to talk to Ram again is what helped the most.

Edited July 21, 2010 by NorthernLights

[SiCkO]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1279746903' post='2383260']
Whatever helps them sleep at night.
[/quote]

glad your so concerned about us, I will confess some Paradoxians don't sleep well, but that's due to my snoring.

LF, one thing I think would be worth investigating would be the relationship between an alliance's government and it's GM

[Banksy]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='22 July 2010 - 05:39 AM' timestamp='1279730357' post='2382686']
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.
[/quote]
Only by your own definition, you have no evidence to back this up other than "SG are, like, really strong." You can face 10 to 1 odds and there can still be two sides. There is always a two power pole in CN. When the former hegemony was in power, they had to manufacture enemies to stay united. The current SG hasn't done this, they are united because they genuinely see another power sphere. If they stop believing in that power sphere the world will be a unipolar one, and SG will fall apart.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Cortath' date='21 July 2010 - 04:58 AM' timestamp='1279713488' post='2382405']
No, I spoke to you the same night the negotiations failed, and a day before you pulled out of the war.
[/quote]

Just becuase this is now being bandied back and forth like a ping pong ball I have to add my .02

@Cortath, you may have gone to Bigwoody or not(I wasnt there so cannot say with any real conviction what happened), BUT I CAN say that none of you came to US or to a whole gangload of allied alliances to explain wth was going on, and in the interval time all we and others had to go on was the information coming from Bigwoody(be it true or not). I would say that was a pretty bad case of dropping the ball in communications that resulted in the actions at the beginning of Karma....

Edited July 21, 2010 by chefjoe

[Xiphosis]

[quote]I would say that was a pretty bad case of dropping the ball in communications that resulted in the actions of the beginning of Karma....[/quote]

Dunno that you can really justify the mass cowardice we saw, legitimately.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1279750536' post='2383379']
Dunno that you can really justify the mass cowardice we saw, legitimately.
[/quote]

Right becuase Val totaly didnt eat 100's of nukes defending in that war afterwards.

Anytime you think we are cowards Xiph, Hit the DoW button.

Us vikings are here and have no problem with war(though mebbe you will get lucky and we shall run away like you intimate we did last time)...

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1279750536' post='2383379']
Dunno that you can really justify the mass cowardice we saw, legitimately.
[/quote]

Come on Xiph you know better than that. I cant speak for anybody else but Valhalla in this but there was never a question of if we were comming in. The cancellation has been explained 1000 times do you really need it again. This point has been beaten to death and really serves no purpose and really is nothing more than an attempt to raise hackles.

[shilo]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353']
Only by your own definition, you have no evidence to back this up other than "SG are, like, really strong." You can face 10 to 1 odds and there can still be two sides. There is always a two power pole in CN. When the former hegemony was in power, they had to manufacture enemies to stay united. The current SG hasn't done this, they are united because they genuinely see another power sphere. If they stop believing in that power sphere the world will be a unipolar one, and SG will fall apart.
[/quote]
This explains why all you guys from Super Complaints try so hard to make a loosely and now often not connected collection of alliances out to be your enemy waiting to stab you in back. Ironically, the only thing that let this lose collection unite for the last time during the last war was the idea (in my opinion completely true) that since the TPF scheme, you guys were out to get us because you weren't happy that Karma didn't completely destroy every of your enemies.


Basically, it means those two groups only had some sort of cohesion because they were afraid of the other. If it helps you guys sleep better at night (to speak i Xiphosis words), "ex-hegemony" is dead, and since we got rolled as we feared it would happen anyways, we're passed caring about that as well

Edited July 21, 2010 by shilo

[Banksy]

[quote name='shilo' date='22 July 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1279750991' post='2383395']
This explains why all you guys from Super Complaints try so hard to make a loosely and now often not connected collection of alliances out to be your enemy waiting to stab you in back. Ironically, the only thing that let this lose collection unite for the last time during the last war was the idea (in my opinion completely true) that since the TPF scheme, you guys were out to get us because you weren't happy that Karma didn't completely destroy every of your enemies.


Basically, it means those two groups only had some sort of cohesion because they were afraid of the other. If it helps you guys sleep better at night (to speak i Xiphosis words), "ex-hegemony" is dead, and since we got rolled as we feared it would happen anyways, we're passed caring about that as well
[/quote]
Hmm, you're not really looking at it properly. It's a relatively objective way of looking at the world regardless of who is in 'power,' you're just adding your brand of bias. Read into it how you will, it's just saying that there is no unipolar world.

This is hardly ground breaking analysis.

[shilo]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1279751400' post='2383401']
Hmm, you're not really looking at it properly. It's a relatively objective way of looking at the world regardless of who is in 'power,' you're just adding your brand of bias. Read into it how you will, it's just saying that there is no unipolar world.

This is hardly ground breaking analysis.
[/quote]
I never did claim I would make a breathtaking statement explaining the world to you. I simply gave my 2 cents on a topic I find interesting with my points of view obviously not being accepted universally. I can live with that, because like with CBs, there will never be one that is clear cut or universally accepted, rather always interpreted with personal bias and standpoints. Which is also fine imho.

Maybe I should add that I was half-jesting anyways

Edited July 21, 2010 by shilo

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1279750536' post='2383379']
Dunno that you can really justify the mass cowardice we saw, legitimately.
[/quote]

Please explain what all their "cowardly" DoWs were about. Oh, and how about the "cowardly" loss of sanction (IRON), or the "cowardly" act of shedding NS for an ally who wasn't forthright. Its easy to take potshots and make pithy comments Xiph, less easy to back them up.

[Xiphosis]

So sensitive. I was never denying you guys did come in, but the cancelations spoke for themselves.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1279752664' post='2383443']
So sensitive. I was never denying you guys did come in, but the cancelations spoke for themselves.
[/quote]

No Xiphosis, the cancelations obviously spoke to what you 'interpreted' them to have spoken about, not what they really were it seems.



As for being sensitive? Is that a suprise? Just like when your joke of war cuased us to plan for a war of overwhelming numbers, a jab at our pride makes us bristle. Go figure.....I guess you learned something else here like you did during your recent 'experiment'.

Edited July 21, 2010 by chefjoe

[Derantol]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353']
Only by your own definition, you have no evidence to back this up other than "SG are, like, really strong." You can face 10 to 1 odds and there can still be two sides. There is always a two power pole in CN. When the former hegemony was in power, they had to manufacture enemies to stay united. The current SG hasn't done this, they are united because they genuinely see another power sphere. If they stop believing in that power sphere the world will be a unipolar one, and SG will fall apart.
[/quote]

This post reads exactly like a post that might have been made while Q was still in power. "We aren't making up enemies, they are TRULY THERE!" What Fingolfin is asserting is that that enemy we so commonly refer to as the "ex-hegemony" is no longer one legitimate power sphere. It certainly was, all the way up until the ESA. At that point, there was enough damage done to the ex-heg side, and since then, enough ties have been cut within that sphere that there isn't enough strength or connection for it to be considered a real power sphere.

So, you tell me: is it at all conceivable that SG might be seeing a power sphere that isn't really there?

[Xiphosis]

[quote]As for being sensitive? Is that a suprise? Just like when your joke of war cuased us to plan for a war of overwhelming numbers, a jab at our pride makes us bristle.[/quote]

It wasn't a jab, chill. I took issue with you trying to justify it, nothing more and nothing less.

[Banksy]

[quote name='shilo' date='22 July 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1279751744' post='2383413']
I never did claim I would make a breathtaking statement explaining the world to you. I simply gave my 2 cents on a topic I find interesting with my points of view obviously not being accepted universally. I can live with that, because like with CBs, there will never be one that is clear cut or universally accepted, rather always interpreted with personal bias and standpoints. Which is also fine imho.

Maybe I should add that I was half-jesting anyways
[/quote]
Oh, the one liner at the end was actually refering to my own post not being 'ground breaking.' Wasn't having a dig at you with that line. Sorry for the confusion.
[quote name='Derantol' date='22 July 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1279753052' post='2383454']
This post reads exactly like a post that might have been made while Q was still in power. "We aren't making up enemies, they are TRULY THERE!" What Fingolfin is asserting is that that enemy we so commonly refer to as the "ex-hegemony" is no longer one legitimate power sphere. It certainly was, all the way up until the ESA. At that point, there was enough damage done to the ex-heg side, and since then, enough ties have been cut within that sphere that there isn't enough strength or connection for it to be considered a real power sphere.

So, you tell me: is it at all conceivable that SG might be seeing a power sphere that isn't really there?[/quote]
This is all going to come down to definition again. Of course SG could be looking at a power sphere that isn't there. That would be a constructed enemy. Just as equally valid though, there power sphere could be there. As I mentioned earlier, it all comes down to your particular bias.

My point is really that if there isn't a power sphere, then SG as an entity will cease to exist because it is not opposing anything. As long as people claim that SG does exist, there is a group who are 'not SG' and therefore a power sphere.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]You can face 10 to 1 odds and there can still be two sides.[/quote]
Well ... no, not really. Bipolar implies that the two poles are of at least comparable size. If you want to go down that road then the world was never monopolar under the Continuum/One Vision hegemony either, there were always opponents (C&G, arguably Polar), even if they were 10% the size of the main power cluster.

While Supergrievances retains cohesion the world right now is monopolar in any meaningful analysis. The opposition (particularly without IRON and TOP who are under terms) is not large enough to be a genuine second pole.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 July 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1279756674' post='2383554']
Well ... no, not really. Bipolar implies that the two poles are of at least comparable size. If you want to go down that road then the world was never monopolar under the Continuum/One Vision hegemony either, there were always opponents (C&G, arguably Polar), even if they were 10% the size of the main power cluster.

While Supergrievances retains cohesion the world right now is monopolar in any meaningful analysis. The opposition (particularly without IRON and TOP who are under terms) is not large enough to be a genuine second pole.
[/quote]
No, Bipolar says there are two opposite sides. If you feel that they must be equal it is your own addition. Monopolar (i don't think i've heard that term before) or Uni-Polar says there is no opposition.

If you use the term 'Supergrievances,' all of those who you don't consider to be 'supergrievences' or aligned to them are the other 'pole.' If no such opposition exists, then supergrievances, your own construction, ceases to exist. Every time you say supergrievances you imply there is another side (or pole) opposing them.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1279753412' post='2383462']
My point is really that if there isn't a power sphere, then SG as an entity will cease to exist because it is not opposing anything. As long as people claim that SG does exist, there is a group who are 'not SG' and therefore a power sphere.
[/quote]

However, the idea that although that "power sphere" exist doesn't mean they can oppose the current domination of SG. I don't know the particular numbers of "SG" combined but I know that "ex-heg" (or whatever they are called now) don't stand a chance in a War---less now without IRON/TOP support.

What will probably happen is what many have predicted---the eventual SG split with ex-Heg having to honor treaties that pull them to the SF or C&G side. It'll happen sooner or later...whether we like it or not...otherwise there wont be a point to collecting taxes for 6 months if there isn't going to be a war and people are going to quit playing / go rogue.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353']
When the former hegemony was in power, they had to manufacture enemies to stay united.
[/quote]
Well, I wouldn't say they manufactured so much as they suffered from paranoia, and were consequently willing to make deals with petty strongmen in the misguided belief that doing so would give them security.

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353']
The current SG hasn't done this, they are united because they genuinely see another power sphere.
[/quote]
Ah yes, they do genuinely suffer from paranoia; see my first statement.

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1279749661' post='2383353']
If they stop believing in that power sphere the world will be a unipolar one, and SG will fall apart.
[/quote]
Yes, this is probably true.

[Banksy]

[quote name='KingEd' date='22 July 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1279759707' post='2383671']
However, the idea that although that "power sphere" exist doesn't mean they can oppose the current domination of SG. I don't know the particular numbers of "SG" combined but I know that "ex-heg" (or whatever they are called now) don't stand a chance in a War---less now without IRON/TOP support. [/quote]
Yeah, but just because they suck doesn't mean they don't exist. In their current form they can't counter SG successfully, but it doesn't mean they wont choose to try to, or that they might try to change the status quo to put them in a position to do so.

[quote name='KingEd' date='22 July 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1279759707' post='2383671']
What will probably happen is what many have predicted---the eventual SG split with ex-Heg having to honor treaties that pull them to the SF or C&G side. It'll happen sooner or later...whether we like it or not...otherwise there wont be a point to collecting taxes for 6 months if there isn't going to be a war and people are going to quit playing / go rogue.[/quote]
meh, possibly. It's a bit unambitious of them.