The Opening of Pandora's Box

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286945459' post='2483269']
Thank you, Ivan, for confirming what was already known of your views on democracy and cake. You have the virtue of consistency, at least.
[/quote]
I am a constant.

[Bergerland]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286944356' post='2483249']
I was responding to someone claiming that it wasn't a mark of a good treaty, or something like that.
[/quote]

Whoops. My bad then.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1286931763' post='2483038']
I like how you made it so easy to backstab each other:



Have fun kids.
[/quote]
Try as I might I can't figure out a reasonable alternative to the part you quoted. You're against allowing alliances to withdraw whenever and whyever they want? What would be the alternative? People have to vote or they can't leave? Nobody can leave at all? You have to have a note from your doctor to leave?

This bloc is founded on friendship anyway. Nobody's going to be doing any backstabbing. And why would we anyway?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286945459' post='2483269']
We must be careful here to differentiate between Structural Realism and Offensive Realism. While the latter predicts power-maximizing behaviour, the former predicts [i]security[/i]-maximizing behaviour. Structural Realism, then, can account for periods of relative stability - or apathy, if you will - in which the world's significant powers are (broadly speaking) content with the status quo and will only respond defensively to the rise of a new revisionist power. Offensive Realism, which is closer to the classical Realist tradition, posits power-maximization as a constant interest of all states and therefore would indeed find it hard to account for a period without significant attempts to change the balance of power, as major powers should seek constantly to outdo one another through alliance decisions and internal growth. The punctuated violence of Bobian history seems to support Structural Realism better between these two approaches, but there is plenty of scope for argument about the appropriate time-scale for measuring stability etc. And, of course, there is the possibility that a non-Realist analysis would fit the evidence still better.

Thank you, Ivan, for confirming what was already known of your views on democracy and cake. You have the virtue of consistency, at least.
[/quote]
I was certainly basing my argument off offensive realism, as you clearly picked up. However, I honestly dont see either concepts on display here and as I was stating earlier realism, as defined by offensive realism, certainly contradicts what I actually see going on in Bob. Though, one can argue that it has not always been this way (see: LUE v. NPO balancing politics).

Edited October 13, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Pingu]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286945525' post='2483272']
I am a constant.
[/quote]

Indeed. But a constant [i]what[/i] history has yet to determine.

On the bandwagoning point, all varieties of Realism argue that balancing is far more common than bandwagoning, which should (and does) only occur under certain limited circumstances. It might be worth undertaking a systematic survey of Bobian history to see whether bandwagoning has been more common here than on other worlds. If it is, I think it plausible to hypothesize that the stakes might be different, or that the number of effective actors is a contributing factor.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286945473' post='2483270']
The problem with that position, as I see it, is that the current power structure has demonstrated that it will not act against a major oppositional alliance for fear of losing statistical ground without clear and concise boundaries or expectations in place, therefore the opposition can rightly act in extremely limited response to this new alignment because there is no immediate threat stemming from this bloc. Further, limited response weakens the planning ability of the primary bloc sense the prevalent alignment that would result in such direct and swift response would be clearly defined.
[/quote]
I don't even see moves to pull away allies or even begin to form a future coalition, which I would have expected even in such a situation. Could it merely be that a strong figure with a stronger backbone is needed to start forging such a move? It could simply be a lack of fortitude instead of competence.

Pingu: Realism would also dictate that true cooperation is impossible. The closest thing I see to realism being seen on Bob is with Pacifica and WUT. Pacifica used cooperation to achieve an ends and then abandoned it when it felt that its security and relative power was being threatened (i.e. knocking of FAN, GOONS, VE, etc. after they were removed from WUT).

OOC: On that note I need to sleep. I've enjoyed this conversation, I look forward to the responses waiting in the morning.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286945077' post='2483264']
I do not disagree that thinkers like Mearsheimer address bandwagoning (if only to state how god awful of an idea it is) but they also say that if there is such a powerful hegemon that counter balancing WILL occur as a natural force in the Balance of Power Politics. If what we have now is truly a hegemon (mind you I stated I didn't believe so earlier in the thread) then the complete and utter lack of action by opponents does not go hand in hand with the theory. Also, if you think Karma was not a myriad of events culminating in that final conflict you are crazy. That was not just the cause of a temporary weakness but rather many exploited events over the two years previous to Karma.
[/quote]
You cannot simply dictate that counter-balancing WILL occur. There are massive coordination difficulties across multiple actors and they grow exponentially with the more people you throw into the situation. There are also pre-existing relationships in place and all sorts of concealed information/backstabbery that inhibits this kind of progress. The situation you described has occurred in the past, and it has become [i]remarkably[/i] slower with greater number of alliances and greater complexity in the treaty web. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to cut through that to try threatening a massively more powerful entity.

And it's become so complex that you really can't claim the process is anything other than path-dependent now. Sure, there were events that occurred before-hand that helped Karma take down NPO. What remarkable strategy of yours made NPO attack in the middle of peace negotiations without a DOW?


In short, you are a victim of the fundamental attribution error. You are assigning yourself with more finesse and knowledge than you actually posses and underestimating the value of basically random factors that helped you in your progress. And you mock others for not having the same luck.



EDIT: Heck, just look at the timeframe involved. How long did it take for Q to fall?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Lord GVChamp

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286945919' post='2483285']
I don't even see moves to pull away allies or even begin to form a future coalition, which I would have expected even in such a situation. Could it merely be that a strong figure with a stronger backbone is needed to start forging such a move? It could simply be a lack of fortitude instead of competence.

Pingu: Realism would also dictate that true cooperation is impossible. The closest thing I see to realism being seen on Bob is with Pacifica and WUT. Pacifica used cooperation to achieve an ends and then abandoned it when it felt that its security and relative power was being threatened (i.e. knocking of FAN, GOONS, VE, etc. after they were removed from WUT).
[/quote]
That implies the need for a "Great Man" theory of history and discounts the idea of cultural politics in regards to the overall schematic of the Cyberverse. It would equate the masses to nothing more than Pavlovian respondents to an external stimuli offered up by a select cadre of well spoken individuals.

While my personal style of interaction might support such a position, by and large the communities surrounding the alliance constructs of this realm do not support that endeavor.

In which case, one would have to concede that perhaps it isn't so much that the inferior (statistically speaking) position does not see the necessity of immediate action but that said side has the inability to act because of its own political self-grindings in regards to activism against a perceived threat.

However, it seems to me that regardless of the immediacy of such action, the position remains that those in the new power structure are not wholly separate from the old power structure and therefore maintain the current status quo, which could easily result in a lack of response from the opposing forces. Why work when no gain or loss is readily apparent?

[Pingu]

Realism doesn't predict that cooperation is impossible. It does predict that it should be unsustainable, since it is driven by the (transitory) interests of the most powerful actors. As with the balancing point, I think Bobian history can offer evidence to support a Realist view on this, but the picture is mixed. Certainly, Liberal Institutionalists, Constructivists and Marxists could all make plausible cases for why their approaches predict or explain well aspects, at least, of international politics on Bob.

And with that I, too, must retire for the night. I wish you all pleasant dreams, if you are similarly disposed.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286945868' post='2483284']
Indeed. But a constant [i]what[/i] history has yet to determine.
[/quote]
Yes.

Since I refer to myself as a constant in the context of a logical constant, where Ivan Moldavi holds the same value in relation to X under all circumstances then any interpretation of X can be made to fit the formula.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' timestamp='1286946350' post='2483290']
You cannot simply dictate that counter-balancing WILL occur. There are massive coordination difficulties across multiple actors and they grow exponentially with the more people you throw into the situation. There are also pre-existing relationships in place and all sorts of concealed information/backstabbery that inhibits this kind of progress. The situation you described has occurred in the past, and it has become [i]remarkably[/i] slower with greater number of alliances and greater complexity in the treaty web. It takes a hell of a lot of effort to cut through that to try threatening a massively more powerful entity.

And it's become so complex that you really can't claim the process is anything other than path-dependent now. Sure, there were events that occurred before-hand that helped Karma take down NPO. What remarkable strategy of yours made NPO attack in the middle of peace negotiations without a DOW?


In short, you are a victim of the fundamental attribution error. You are assigning yourself with more finesse and knowledge than you actually posses and underestimating the value of basically random factors that helped you in your progress. And you mock others for not having the same luck.
[/quote]
First off, I was a piece in the cog that worked to bring about that end. My role in it? I was one of the founders of CnG. Maybe you've heard of it but it kind of played a big role in that whole situation. There were certainly those that worked more to achieving that end than I though (see: Archon). Also, please do not confuse the flaws of realist theory with my personal evaluation. Just because I was arguing for the sake of a theory that is heavily flawed for the exact reasons that you pointed out (i.e. it ignores the minute and only focuses on the state). More importantly, you essentially stating that the very core of realist doctrine doesn't fit the current climate was exactly my point when I started this discussion. I don't know why you decided to turn this into a jab at myself but you clearly confused me with the arguments that I was simply applying to the current situation.

EDIT: Ok seriously, Im done.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[OsRavan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1286906580' post='2482629']
[color="#0000FF"]NPO had a similar line, but they never wanted a real opposition, and neither do you and yours. No one wants to give up the kind of power you have. If you want an opposition, give people a reason to oppose you.[/color]
[/quote]

Haven't you been arguing that they *are* giving people a reason to oppose them? Comments like "NPO, the largest alliance out there, and the most powerful, was reduced to nothing." or "EoG lists, $90 mil in extortion money for $4.5 mil for aid sent to a rogue" and other similar ones i'm not bothering to dig up makes it seem like you feel certain members of this Bloc have been doing nothing *but* giving groups of people a reason to oppose them.

Or in other words you can't have it both ways. You can't both claim that a Bloc is afraid to give people a reason to oppose them due to fear of losing their power and on the other hand accuse the Bloc members of a long list of injustices and atrocities. Since committing those injustices and atrocities and rollings of alliances would, logically, give the people they acted against a reason to oppose them. Can't have both.


Mind you, my personal opinion would be that *neither* of your claims are accurate, and that we (we being the human race) have a tendency to demonize people we view as being "stronger" or "better" than us simply because they are *above* us. People view a group of alliances as being on top, and thus their every action is gone over with a fine tooth comb in order to pull out reasons to hate them (or reasons on how they are ruining the game.) This despite the fact that if a non "top" alliance acted in a similar fashion no one would notice or care. Thus the outrage and anger is all subjective. But that's a different subject all together.

Edited October 13, 2010 by OsRavan

[KenMorningstar]

I like being Gluttony... now where is some tech targets.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1286945702' post='2483280']
Try as I might I can't figure out a reasonable alternative to the part you quoted. You're against allowing alliances to withdraw whenever and whyever they want? What would be the alternative? People have to vote or they can't leave? Nobody can leave at all? You have to have a note from your doctor to leave?
[/quote]

It is customary to provide within a treaty for a set number of days to elapse between the time that official notice of cancellation is given and the actual date/time the treaty is no longer in effect. Instead, you opted to allow the member alliances to cancel the treaty "whenever" right up to minutes before a declaration of war by a third party.

[quote]This bloc is founded on friendship anyway. Nobody's going to be doing any backstabbing. And why would we anyway?[/quote]

I believe similar was said of the Initiative...no one goes to the trouble of getting married with divorce in mind up front.

Thanks for making this an interesting fall season.

[Goldie]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1286942039' post='2483198']
If I can make one thing clear regarding anyone's ties to Nueva Vida;

all our treaties (except AZTEC, of course) are non-chaining. This was done specifically so that we wouldn't have to pick and choose our friends' friends. Whatever our feelings are for VE, they do not necessarily extend to VE's allies. You gotta be out of your mind if you think we're going to let anyone use our treaty with them bring us and our AZTEC friends in to help some bozo in GOONS.
[/quote]

And we would be out of our mind to 'use' our treaty to put you in a position you didn't want to be. That's why we're allies. Apparently just because VE has allies not in PB, it means that AZTEC and SF are wedded to the hip with PB and the new hegemony coalesces together. Don't worry Hizzy, just because the fluffernutter thinks it, doesn't mean it's true.

[thedestro]

It would've been more clever for you guys to title this thread something like "Gift from Hermes"

and then a DoW from the bloc would be "Opening of Pandora's box"

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286946606' post='2483296']
First off, I was a piece in the cog that worked to bring about that end. My role in it? I was one of the founders of CnG. Maybe you've heard of it but it kind of played a big role in that whole situation. There were certainly those that worked more to achieving that end than I though (see: Archon). Also, please do not confuse the flaws of realist theory with my personal evaluation. Just because I was arguing for the sake of a theory that is heavily flawed for the exact reasons that you pointed out (i.e. it ignores the minute and only focuses on the state). More importantly, you essentially stating that the very core of realist doctrine doesn't fit the current climate was exactly my point when I started this discussion. I don't know why you decided to turn this into a jab at myself but you clearly confused me with the arguments that I was simply applying to the current situation.

EDIT: Ok seriously, Im done.
[/quote]
I just realized that I am confusing some of your posts with Denial's...that would explain the personal bit there. My apologies

Anyways, yes, it appears I was confused by the basis of your discussion. Simple realist thinking confuses very important dynamics in the system. Something other people in the thread should keep in mind, I dare say.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1286947806' post='2483312']
And we would be out of our mind to 'use' our treaty to put you in a position you didn't want to be. That's why we're allies.
[/quote]

I can't say I'm a fan of VE, but that is respectable.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286939987' post='2483154']
Again, as I said to Alterego, if you want more conflict, get your !@#$ together and bring it.
[/quote]
Its people like you and Stumpy who are saying bring it on. It takes real guts to say thay when most of the world who have twice devastated any potential opposition in the last 18 months simply by weight of numbers. Your excessive beatdowns and extortive reps demands from key alliances have guaranteed your dream of another beatdown will not happen unless you just decide to roll another alliance trying to get their allies sucked into the war. Why dont you tell all the dozens of fringe alliances around your 3 blocs to get lost and when the numbers are no longer 3 to 1 in your favour you might have the potential of an opposition forming.

I didnt you notive you complaining about the opposition when you were being torn up in the last war.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Alterego

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286949654' post='2483332']
Its people like you and Stumpy who are saying bring it on. It takes real guts to say thay when most of the world who have twice devastated any potential opposition in the last 18 months simply by weight of numbers. Your excessive beatdowns and extortive reps demands from key alliances have guaranteed your dream of another beatdown will not happen unless you just decide to roll another alliance trying to get their allies sucked into the war. Why dont you tell all the dozens of fringe alliances around your 3 blocs to get lost and when the numbers are no longer 3 to 1 in your favour you might have the potential of an opposition forming.
[/quote]

How about this: learn to be diplomatic so you have fringe alliances willing to fight for you instead of crying about being beat down because you have no one who wants to defend you.

Edited October 13, 2010 by AAAAAAAAAAGGGG

[Bergerland]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286949654' post='2483332']
Why dont you tell all the dozens of fringe alliances around your 3 blocs to get lost and when the numbers are no longer 3 to 1 in your favour you might have the potential of an opposition forming.[/quote]

Why don't [b]you[/b] try and sway those alliances towards yourself or "side" rather than saying, "Nah, I want you to help bring yourself down without any work done on my part"?

[Ejayrazz]

I love when people try making themselves sound all intelligent and !@#$ with the unnecessary complexed verbiage. Seriously, "no" (On purpose for those who can't keep up) the words you're preaching. Complexity isn't intelligence, children.

Also, I tend to agree with Moldavi and his stance on the power holders fearing the loss of notability.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286939523' post='2483150']
Firstly, do you see any of the alliances present in the #stratego discussions being crushed?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]It's only a matter of time really. You're not able to use #stratego itself as a CB. Not if you're hitting alliances on at a time, but I'm quite sure all alliances there have found themselves on a list, if they weren't already. For some reason I doubt you fellows are going to sit back and ignore alliances you know to be enemies.[/color]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1286946655' post='2483297']
Haven't you been arguing that they *are* giving people a reason to oppose them? Comments like "NPO, the largest alliance out there, and the most powerful, was reduced to nothing." or "EoG lists, $90 mil in extortion money for $4.5 mil for aid sent to a rogue" and other similar ones i'm not bothering to dig up makes it seem like you feel certain members of this Bloc have been doing nothing *but* giving groups of people a reason to oppose them.

Or in other words you can't have it both ways. You can't both claim that a Bloc is afraid to give people a reason to oppose them due to fear of losing their power and on the other hand accuse the Bloc members of a long list of injustices and atrocities. Since committing those injustices and atrocities and rollings of alliances would, logically, give the people they acted against a reason to oppose them. Can't have both.


Mind you, my personal opinion would be that *neither* of your claims are accurate, and that we (we being the human race) have a tendency to demonize people we view as being "stronger" or "better" than us simply because they are *above* us. People view a group of alliances as being on top, and thus their every action is gone over with a fine tooth comb in order to pull out reasons to hate them (or reasons on how they are ruining the game.) This despite the fact that if a non "top" alliance acted in a similar fashion no one would notice or care. Thus the outrage and anger is all subjective. But that's a different subject all together.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You can claim I am trying to have it both ways, but that simply is just not the case. Their offenses are almost always done against weaker and less connected parties, who are often disliked by most. Those who are capable of making a difference simply won't, because they simply do not care what happens to others. Who do you see GOONS acting against? Methrage mostly, and then extorting a few people lacking enough in judgment to aid him. While they were wrong, clearly, decency tells one that even they do not receive the treatment that they have gotten. And you're going to see GOONS continue to acting against these types of individuals, and not against alliances such as NV, Polaris, or STA (not yet anyway), simply because doing so would cause people to care. They do not wish for that to happen.[/color]

Edited October 13, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[Panic King]

I object to the hijacking of my nation name....

[Penkala]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1286889725' post='2482322']
Well - you've gotten what you wanted, Viridia. A bloc you can control/be the primary influence of since SF would have made you the least relevant of the group. Now let's see how you handle it.
[/quote]

What a bright member you have here, NSO.

Congrats especially to 3 of my very favorite alliances: FOK, Umbrella and VE.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Penkala