The search for my pants continues...

[Augustus Autumn]

Fellow National Rulers,

For months now there has been this ongoing circular debate about things like morality, raiding and everyone getting utterly bent about the activities of others. We've seen at least two wars which have centered on the issue of raiding and/or aiding "rogue nations" which has extended into an argument about the fundamental "rights" of nations and alliances within the 'verse. Rather than spin into another pointless debate about such ephemeral concepts as right and wrong, maybe it's worth taking a look at why this is even an issue in the first place as well as why it's the current hot button issue around here.

Again, this isn't a debate about raiding - there are other places to yell about that so take it there.

An important first step: who are the entities that reside in the 'verse? I'll break it down into three (likely oversimplified) categories.

[b]The Unalligned:[/b] Nations which do not fly an alliance affiliation or are part of a "One-man alliance".
[b]Unrecognized Alliances:[/b] Groups of nations which either form less than the recognized number to qualify as an alliance by the community's standards (usually nine or less) or, in some cases, are simply viewed as being rogue states by one alliance or another (example: Vox Populi).
[b]Recognized Alliances:[/b] Groups of nations (or, in one case, a one-man alliance) which are taken seriously by dint of either size or long-standing existence within the 'verse.

The issue today, as always, centers around how the third category acts in regards to the first and the second, specifically in regards to the "rights" of recognized alliances to make war freely on the first two categories and what social responsibilities the recognized alliances should have in regards to the rest of the 'verse. There are those who claim the self-granted right to act as they please in their own interests and to hell with everyone else (the GOONS and \m/ come to mind, but there are many many others). On the other side, you have alliances who appear to want to take a wider view of 'verse safety and uphold some sort of "community standard" (the New Polar Order and the Siberian Tiger Alliance, as two recent examples). Both sides have come into conflict officially over this issue, but we also see a major proliferation of the same argument time and again as adherents to both sides sally forth into the world political forum to attempt to convince others that they are correct. Thus, the circular nonsense which we see recurring. But why is this so recurrent of late and, more importantly, why all the agitation to change it?

Having looked at the progression of 'verse politics both prior to and occuring since the Coalition War / Karma War Period (or NoCB/Karma Period if you please), I would advocate that there has been an extremely important change in what is acceptable as a norm and what is not. Prior to the beginning and escalation of the Karma War, conflicts between recognized alliances were preceeded by political jockeying, cautious regard to the much-maligned treaty web and a great deal of actual thought being put into the coming wars. The tension over the weeks and months prior to the war erupting would be palpable, allies of allies would be warned to watch their words and war drills would become more regular. There was a sort of pagentry to it all as the buildup continued until it would explode in an offensive, a counter-offensive, and escalation to a general melee as nations from all across the 'verse unleashed their militaries while the propaganda and diplomatic machines went to work to attempt to secure victory. The objectives of the war would be determined, the terms for ending it agreed on by whatever wartime coalitions existed at the time and the conflict would proceed until one side or the other gave ground. Following the war a settlement would occur and the various sides would rebuild and rearm while capitalizing on their victory and/or defeat. For better or worse, pre-Karma warfare followed a certain set of generally accepted rules because the recognized alliances just happened to work that way. As an outgrowth, you knew what to expect when the war began, how it would be conducted and what the endgame would probably be like. Not to say that people were kind or polite what with prior institutions such as viceroys, eternal zero-infrastructure sentences and the like but unless there were extenuating circumstances you could probably guess how things would go.

Following the destruction of The Continuum, One-Vision and the toppling of [i]Pax Pacifica[/i] in the middle of 2009 we've seen a shift in how the recognized alliances have behaved. Fearful of being perceived as being "as bad as the Hegemony", recognized alliances are less inclined to attempt to put into place a similarly accepted set of rules concerning how politics and warfare are conducted. The one notable instances post-Karma where an alliance attempted to do this ended extremely badly for the initiating side and reinforced the current trend. Without a central set of rules being [i]defacto[/i] enforced by the recognized alliances, we've seen a number of the very same essentially wage open war on the unalligned and unrecognized. When asked to curb their behavior, the consistent response has been the much-loved "Do something about it" which, in turn, prompts a lot of singing and dancing and nothing actually being done. Should any alliance attempt to step up and dictate a set of rules to the rest of the community they are labelled as being "the new Hegemony" and instantly ridiculed. Quietly, behind the scenes, national rules arm up at the barest hint of a return to a time when someone else would demand that you do other than as they please.

And so here we are today. The right of the recognized alliances to essentially damn the torpedoes and fly in the face of what others ask, no matter what that might be, is paramount. Defiance has become more important than the actual reason to be defiant. The freedom to act has become more important than actually considering what those actions are. Social responsibility has become oppression, and social irresponsibility has become the norm. Of course, the problem is that in this environment a new conflict is inevitable (as the RoK-NSO War recently showed) and, with the threat of such wars repeating, we'll likely see a return to a new social contract as the recognized alliances choose to behave in an agreed-upon manner again. Until the recognized alliances actually come to some sort of understanding about what really is acceptable behavior and what isn't, the unalligned and the unrecognized will continue to bear the brunt of the 'verse's new-found freedoms as nobody has to be scared that they'll be pounded down for acting against the community's acceptable standards.





Oh, you're still here. Maybe you're wondering if I have a solution for this? I don't. The 'verse will always be torn between the search for freedom and the search for safety. To have the freedom to do as you please means that you have to accept that someone might also be pleased to do unto you. To have safety means granting safety from your desires to someone else. Ultimately, the base want to act with impunity will continue to consume everyone. For now, that search has moved to the battlefields of the 'verse. Tomorrow, it might migrate back to the diplomatic channels as we seek refuge within the treaty web again. In whatever form it takes, the cycle will continue until, moderation willing, Admin returns to sweep us all away.

[b]Edit:[/b] As always, [i]constructive[/i] commentary is welcome. Cheers to Voytek for reminding me to add this in.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Ferrozoica Hive

[Voytek]

Stop saying 'verse. Thanks.

[snibbmaster]

A very well thought out piece. I think the problem with all the "recognized alliances" creating rules for social conduct is that they are often on different sides of issues, so coming to consensus is difficult.

[Ryuzaki]

Frankly, I don't care about the unaligned and care very little about micro alliances. If they are suffering, why should I care?

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1285207884' post='2461674']
A very well thought out piece. I think the problem with all the "recognized alliances" creating rules for social conduct is that they are often on different sides of issues, so coming to consensus is difficult.
[/quote]

Thank you.

And yes, that had consistently been a problem in the past which has led to several major wars. Ultimately the formation of organizations such as the World Unity Treaty and The Continuum was needed to ensure that such rules were at least prevalent, and even then it was a fleeting thing. The problem was that such organizations essentially needed to enforce such rules at gunpoint which led to resentment. This, in turn, ultimately led to the attacking of and reduction of the very recognized alliances who sought to impose it. These days very few are willing to take a stand together to make the attempt again since they've seen what happens and how little it gains in the end.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1285208169' post='2461683']
Frankly, I don't care about the unaligned and care very little about micro alliances. If they are suffering, why should I care?
[/quote]

That's very much the root issue. Why should we care about the unalligned and unrecognized? On one hand, having an environment where nations can build up without fear of being assaulted en-masse can lead to more stable trade sources, better educated rulers and ultimately better recruitment candidates. On the other hand, it can lead to the formation of alliances hostile to yours as well as boredom which leads to internal discord within already-existent alliances. There really is no convincing argument either way, hence the current back-and-forth we're seeing within the open world forum.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1285205851' post='2461637']
The 'verse will always be torn between the search for freedom and the search for safety. To have the freedom to do as you please means that you have to accept that someone might also be pleased to do unto you. To have safety means granting safety from your desires to someone else.
[/quote]

Argh. This is a lot of pseudo-Francoist nonsense. It's been said before and said better by Vladimir. Sure, perhaps in the interests of safety, one must give up a little freedom, but one must do this to varying extents. Those who are prepared to give up their liberty in the name of safety deserve neither.

[Ellis]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285231970' post='2462007']
Argh. This is a lot of pseudo-Francoist nonsense. It's been said before and said better by Vladimir. Sure, perhaps in the interests of safety, one must give up a little freedom, but one must do this to varying extents. Those who are prepared to give up their liberty in the name of safety deserve neither.
[/quote]
I think the important point is in the varying extents part. The more freedom you give up the safer you are, but neither should you give up all of your freedom, and the balance is really up to personal preference?

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ellis' timestamp='1285235810' post='2462033']
I think the important point is in the varying extents part. The more freedom you give up the safer you are, but neither should you give up all of your freedom, and the balance is really up to personal preference?
[/quote]

My point is that I'm perfectly safe in a non-Francoist alliance.

If the OP didn't intend to reference Francoism, then I apologise, but there were echoes of it in this essay thing.

[Ellis]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285235910' post='2462035']
My point is that I'm perfectly safe in a non-Francoist alliance.

If the OP didn't intend to reference Francoism, then I apologise, but there were echoes of it in this essay thing.
[/quote]

I noticed that, and while I've never really had any time for CN political theory, just because it's Francoist, doesn't mean he's wrong. On the other hand, do whatever's fun, and you're probably safer in a non-francoist alliance, they do all seem to attract more than their fair share of trouble.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ellis' timestamp='1285236335' post='2462036']
I noticed that, and while I've never really had any time for CN political theory, just because it's Francoist, doesn't mean he's wrong. On the other hand, do whatever's fun, and you're probably safer in a non-francoist alliance, they do all seem to attract more than their fair share of trouble.
[/quote]

If you're *too* safe, life gets boring. I quite enjoy the occasional war.

[Ellis]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285236395' post='2462037']
If you're *too* safe, life gets boring. I quite enjoy the occasional war.
[/quote]
Don't we all? Except for maybe GPA?
Personally, I miss the old days when the result of each war decided who ruled round here for the next while.
I don't think Bi-Polar had that potential, but since I ended up watching from the sidelines, I could be wrong.

Edit: [quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1285205851' post='2461637']
And so here we are today. The right of the recognized alliances to essentially damn the torpedoes and fly in the face of what others ask, no matter what that might be, is paramount. Defiance has become more important than the actual reason to be defiant. The freedom to act has become more important than actually considering what those actions are.
[/quote]
Anyways, in an attempt to keep myself the slightest bit to the point, I'd like to say I disagree with this. The 'recognized alliances' know what they want and how to get it, but that's not really any different from how things used to be, really.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Ellis

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ellis' timestamp='1285237041' post='2462040']
Don't we all? Except for maybe GPA?
Personally, I miss the old days when the result of each war decided who ruled round here for the next while.
I don't think Bi-Polar had that potential, but since I ended up watching from the sidelines, I could be wrong.
[/quote]

Each to her own. I enjoy the multipolarity myself.

[Ellis]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285237166' post='2462041']
Each to her own. I enjoy the multipolarity myself.
[/quote]
I liked the tension, knowing that if you screw this one up, it's not going to be easy getting back up, or the flip side of the coin, a high risk, high reward situation, if you lose, the other side certainly won't just let you off, but if you win, you can make the rules.

It's all good though, and multipolarity certainly has it's upside. Like you said though, each to their own. I'm just talking so much because I'm bored

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285231970' post='2462007']
Argh. This is a lot of pseudo-Francoist nonsense. It's been said before and said better by Vladimir. Sure, perhaps in the interests of safety, one must give up a little freedom, but one must do this to varying extents. Those who are prepared to give up their liberty in the name of safety deserve neither.
[/quote]

For what it's worth, I'm not a "Francoist" (whatever that has come to mean), more of a realist. By simply joining an alliance national rulers are, in essence, sacrificing some of their liberties in exchange for safety from attacks - in essence, they move from the first category into the second or third in the hopes of joining a stronger organization that will ultimately (they hope) provide strength in numbers should they come under assault. Very few alliances exist along truly libertarian lines where members will defend one another but can truly do as they please when it comes to their liberties.

[quote name='Ellis' timestamp='1285237041' post='2462040']
Anyways, in an attempt to keep myself the slightest bit to the point, I'd like to say I disagree with this. The 'recognized alliances' know what they want and how to get it, but that's not really any different from how things used to be, really.
[/quote]

I'm not sure that they do. Again, the previous trend was some sort of widespread peace needed to exist and that safety for a core group of alliances was paramount. To that end, an environment of fear was created and, via the treaty web, more and more nations were co-opted into a defensive agreement with The Continuum / One-Vision at the helm. The web served to both defend them and allow them to essentially dictate policy until such a time as resentment boiled over and the very web they relied on was destroyed. Now, with the web being viewed derisively, friends > infra being the laudable goal and the oh so ephemeral freedom being paramount it's difficult for any recognized alliance, much less a group of them, to establish a means by which they can ensure their peaceful growth and control potential emerging threats without being "just as bad" as the last group who actually succeeded for a time. In a sense, we find ourselves in uncharted waters since the old (and effective) methods are so loaded and prone to getting those who use them destroyed.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285237166' post='2462041']
Each to her own. I enjoy the multipolarity myself.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what the "poles" are at this point. Certainly, you have the Superfriends and the Complaints and Grievances Union but outside of those realms I don't really see too much heavy politicking within the open world forum. Perhaps I'm not privy to the secret back channels, but I don't think any argument that a third and/or fourth set of recognized alliances exists which could begin to challenge, much less call itself, equal to the two aforementioned.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Ferrozoica Hive

[veracity]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1285207884' post='2461674']
A very well thought out piece. I think the problem with all the "recognized alliances" creating rules for social conduct is that they are often on different sides of issues, so coming to consensus is difficult.
[/quote]



Thats what I was going to say

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1285237166' post='2462041']
Each to her own. I enjoy the multipolarity myself.
[/quote]


What ARE the poles at this point? Some of them got shut down in the last war.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='snibbmaster' timestamp='1285447434' post='2464538']
What ARE the poles at this point? Some of them got shut down in the last war.
[/quote]

We won't be multipolar for much longer..........

*cough* Pandora's Box *cough*

[Solaris]

there is no pants.

edit: grammar, hangover, and lucid sleep

Edited September 26, 2010 by Solaris

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1285205851' post='2461637']
And so here we are today. The right of the recognized alliances to essentially damn the torpedoes and fly in the face of what others ask, no matter what that might be, is paramount. Defiance has become more important than the actual reason to be defiant. The freedom to act has become more important than actually considering what those actions are. Social responsibility has become oppression, and social irresponsibility has become the norm. Of course, the problem is that in this environment a new conflict is inevitable (as the RoK-NSO War recently showed) and, with the threat of such wars repeating, we'll likely see a return to a new social contract as the recognized alliances choose to behave in an agreed-upon manner again. Until the recognized alliances actually come to some sort of understanding about what really is acceptable behavior and what isn't, the unalligned and the unrecognized will continue to bear the brunt of the 'verse's new-found freedoms as nobody has to be scared that they'll be pounded down for acting against the community's acceptable standards.
[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned, IF it's a choice between the old and new (and I've lived through late NPO period to where we are today), it's a choice between bad who was really bad previous (NPO and company) and not as bad but still annoying (post-Karma). I'm waiting for a 3rd choice to see if it's any better.

As far the non-aligned and "unrecognized" - we're all guilty of that. Either you take part in it or you have a treaty with someone who does and as long as I've been around, that's always been the case. We could stop that if we wanted easy enough. The people who don't could NOT sign treaties with those who do (and NPO singed treaties and indirectly supported harming the non-aligned as much as anyone now). But why bother? They should be joining "US" or "THEM" anyway instead - right?! That's what it's about. We (I'm talking in the large - "community standard" sense) don't like people who will not play by our (community standard) rules.

Edited September 26, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Chief Savage Man]

Not the worst analysis I've ever read, makes a few good points anyway.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Chief Savage Man

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1285538482' post='2465514']
As far as I'm concerned, IF it's a choice between the old and new (and I've lived through late NPO period to where we are today), it's a choice between bad who was really bad previous (NPO and company) and not as bad but still annoying (post-Karma). I'm waiting for a 3rd choice to see if it's any better. [/quote]

The third choice, unfortunately, may very well be a rejection of the current course in favor of nations breaking down into hundreds, if not thousands, of very small alliances or engaging in individual rogue actions. We're already seeing this happen, to some degree, as veteran rulers decide to leave their alliances and strike out on their own to fulfill some sort of agenda. While the definition of "rogue" remains extremely loose (basically, someone attacking a third-category group with little to no material support or clout) on a massive scale this could rattle the current trend. Of course, this is dependent on enough rulers doing exactly the same thing and, unfortunately, would probably trend back into large alliances appearing again with the cycle resuming once more.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1285538482' post='2465514']
As far the non-aligned and "unrecognized" - we're all guilty of that. Either you take part in it or you have a treaty with someone who does and as long as I've been around, that's always been the case. We could stop that if we wanted easy enough. The people who don't could NOT sign treaties with those who do (and NPO singed treaties and indirectly supported harming the non-aligned as much as anyone now). But why bother? They should be joining "US" or "THEM" anyway instead - right?! That's what it's about. We (I'm talking in the large - "community standard" sense) don't like people who will not play by our (community standard) rules.
[/quote]

Pretty much. As a former government member two alliances, one on each side of the Karma War, I was just as guilty of enforcing this trend in thinking. I don't think anyone can really assume the moral high ground here without admitting they have been part of the problematic system.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1285642940' post='2466538']
Not the worst analysis I've ever read, makes a few good points anyway.
[/quote]

Thank you.

[Horatio Longworth]

A good read, and well-written.

In the meantime, I have determined that you are not worthy of my pant-finding skills: I cannot help you at this time because I am currently searching for Dilber's. I think he has priority over you, and I will let you know when I find them.

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Horatio Longworth' timestamp='1285692824' post='2466932']
In the meantime, I have determined that you are not worthy of my pant-finding skills: I cannot help you at this time because I am currently searching for Dilber's. I think he has priority over you, and I will let you know when I find them.
[/quote]

Were that to actually come to fruition, Dilber would lose one of his greatest claims to fame. Do we truly want that?

[Ragashingo]

I've never been the best with CN history. I seem to forget all but the biggest points after a few months / years. But haven't we always had smaller disruptive alliances backed and sheltered by larger alliance / groups of alliances? And did we ever have groups looking out for the unaligned or unrecognized back during the pre-Karma era? Certainly the phrase "do something about it" isn't at all recent. Neither is tech raiding, the main plight of those first two groups you spoke of.

I guess my real question is: What social rules do you think were enforced "back then" that are currently going unenforced now?

[eyriq]

FAN, OBR, and the Rämlins have it right to an extent; mandatory treaties and the bastardization of self-identification are to be avoided. Imo this is also the "3rd way", a way that avoids the suction of individuality into a collective consciousness. Pax Pacifica saw might makes right play out amongst the recognized; post-Karma sees it play out against the unrecognized or un-aligned. The only difference is in the amount of unified might available to the actors, as current post-Karma actors lack the hegemonic control that Pax Pacifica could boast of (in other words the exploitation of the unrecognized and unaligned is a sign of weakness).

Mandatory treaties inherently increase predictability, and for a coalition predictability is essential and a virtue. Predictability also leads irrevocably to stagnation and boredom; that is simply its logical outcome. Removing mandatory relationships to the greatest extent possible naturally increases the freedom of movement of respective actors, increasing randomness. Randomness leads to new scenarios, more drama, and more intrigue. More action.