The Opening of Pandora's Box

[Aurion]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1286993666' post='2483715']
The basis and criteria was simple. Those who talked !@#$ about UPN. While talking !@#$ about UPN is nothing new to CN, in THAT particular instance, it showed a clear intent to lead UPN into something, on the sole intent of forcing CnG down a particular corridor of action (albeit based totally on failed logic). That makes THOSE particular alliances (who began the !@#$ talk on UPN during this fiasco, and within this fiasco) guilty of plotting to manipulate a bloc that I am in. Seems solid to me, and if it doesnt seem solid to you, or at any other casual observer, it reallt does not matter to me.
[/quote]

Ours would be better- it was pretty blatant plotting to start a war with an ally.

Not to mention simpler. Obviously though GOONS would have had the most justifiable reason.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Aurion

[Beefspari]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1286988215' post='2483665']
On what basis were only "few" alliances selected and not "all"?
[/quote]
Some of the people were trying to talk others out of it. Some were expressing that they'd actually need a good reason first. Then others were discussing how to falsify CBs and go through with it no matter what. Primarily that third group is the one to worry about.

[Nobody Expects]

Congrats to all parties, an impressive lineup.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1286978120' post='2483563']
... I fail to understand why the formation of this bloc is such a big deal. Alright, so some alliances got together and formed a non-chaining defensive pact with a nifty theme, rules of internal conduct and the like. Woohoo. It's another bloc. Unless they go out and start swinging their weight ...
[/quote]

Well according to the massive log dump, thats pretty much exactly what everybody is shaking in their booties over. GOONS in a bloc is apparently so terrifying they need to get together to try and kill it preemptively.

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1286989739' post='2483681']
I don’t want to suck up to people I despise to win a war, I'll leave that to the new hegemony. Personally the outcomes of wars don't interest me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to mind my own business.
[/quote]

Funny thing about that, when you drop the OWF bluster, and actually just go talk to people, you find that most have a lot more in common than you might expect, people are people after all. You despise them because you let your self be limited to your own preconceptions about how they are based on propaganda. I actually despise very few people and consider some alliances to be 'the enemy' simply because I expect treaty chaining to work out that way.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1286995741' post='2483742']
Well according to the massive log dump, thats pretty much exactly what everybody is shaking in their booties over. GOONS in a bloc is apparently so terrifying they need to get together to try and kill it preemptively.



Funny thing about that, when you drop the OWF bluster, and actually just go talk to people, you find that most have a lot more in common than you might expect, people are people after all. You despise them because you let your self be limited to your own preconceptions about how they are based on propaganda. I actually despise very few people and consider some alliances to be 'the enemy' simply because I expect treaty chaining to work out that way.
[/quote]
Yeah. A lot of the time I find I have no problem with people I consider my enemy.

[nippy]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1286996146' post='2483745']
Yeah. A lot of the time I find I have no problem with people I consider my enemy.
[/quote]


Me neither. My friends are absolute jerks, however.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1286995741' post='2483742']
Funny thing about that, when you drop the OWF bluster, and actually just go talk to people, you find that most have a lot more in common than you might expect, people are people after all. You despise them because you let your self be limited to your own preconceptions about how they are based on propaganda. I actually despise very few people and consider some alliances to be 'the enemy' simply because I expect treaty chaining to work out that way.
[/quote]


[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1286996146' post='2483745']
Yeah. A lot of the time I find I have no problem with people I consider my enemy.
[/quote]
So who on the other side are you two willing to treaty? It really doesn't matter how much you dislike/like someone if the current political relationships are uber-entrenched.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286992953' post='2483707']
I take it you don't enjoy discussions of international relations theory, EJ? Or is there something else you're objecting to?
[/quote]
I guess not. If that is what hes upset over Im kind of surprised cause it was really just a discussion.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286997086' post='2483758']
I guess not. If that is what hes upset over Im kind of surprised cause it was really just a discussion.
[/quote]

One of the more enjoyable and productive discussions I've been party to in this venue, actually.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286997284' post='2483762']
One of the more enjoyable and productive discussions I've been party to in this venue, actually.
[/quote]
I agree. For the first time I can honestly say I "enjoyed" a discussion in which both myself and Ivan were involved.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1286993666' post='2483715']
The basis and criteria was simple. Those who talked !@#$ about UPN. While talking !@#$ about UPN is nothing new to CN, in THAT particular instance, it showed a clear intent to lead UPN into something, on the sole intent of forcing CnG down a particular corridor of action (albeit based totally on failed logic). That makes THOSE particular alliances (who began the !@#$ talk on UPN during this fiasco, and within this fiasco) guilty of plotting to manipulate a bloc that I am in. Seems solid to me, and if it doesnt seem solid to you, or at any other casual observer, it reallt does not matter to me.
[/quote]
That's even worse than our CB.

Let me get this straight. You were going to roll a group of alliances for [i]maybe[/i] (you know, since we didn't) attacking an alliance that you aren't even treatied to, because we hypothetically discussed using UPN to bring in C&G even though such hypothetical discussions happen in all war planning rooms AND even during peace time?

And considering that UPN were the ones that were talking to ODN at the time, AND that UPN were the main ones to want to use ODN to use C&G, well you'd have to attack UPN first and foremost really.

Although I won't complain if you act. Watching C&G move without MK would be [i]interesting.[/i]

[Gaulamos]

Congrats to all!

o/ PB

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1286997749' post='2483766']
That's even worse than our CB.
[/quote]

CB #1: GOONS are evil tech-raiders and are going to form a bloc from which they'll take over CN. We can't have that. They must be rolled.

CB #2: WCE alliances actively plotted to roll an alliance (CB optional since they can be manufactured) and, in doing so, manipulate others. They didn't follow through, but their intentions are clear. They must be rolled.

The former is looking far, far weaker.

Edited October 13, 2010 by SirWilliam

[Earogema]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1287000298' post='2483795']
CB #1: GOONS are evil tech-raiders and are going to form a bloc from which they'll take over CN. We can't have that. They must be rolled.

CB #2: WCE alliances actively plotted to roll an alliance (CB optional since they can be manufactured) and, in doing so, manipulate others. They didn't follow through, but their intentions are clear. They must be rolled.

The former is looking far, far weaker.
[/quote]
Actually, I'd say using your political leverage to attempt to destroy the biggest bloc being formed before it gets formed because of it being a perceived threat would be the exact same thing as CB #2. That is, an attempt at destroying your threats/perceived enemies/known enemies.

I mean, if you know alliance A dislikes you, and wants war with you, and then alliance A plots war against you and you have proof of that plotting, what the hell is the difference? Oh now you have proof that they dislike you? I mean information such as that gets across all the time in this world and never before was it an acceptable CB.

Also his CB was more along the lines of: "Hey, they tried to pull us in with ODN via UPN, let's roll them for talking about a hypothetical action that only we can take."

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286997284' post='2483762']
One of the more enjoyable and productive discussions I've been party to in this venue, actually.
[/quote]
No. Not you either. Next time I'll be more specific, but this happened many pages ago. Just going to let it die, hopefully I catch it quicker next time.

[Monster]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1287002385' post='2483814']
Actually, I'd say using your political leverage to attempt to destroy the biggest bloc being formed before it gets formed because of it being a perceived threat would be the exact same thing as CB #2. That is, an attempt at destroying your threats/perceived enemies/known enemies.

I mean, if you know alliance A dislikes you, and wants war with you, and then alliance A plots war against you and you have proof of that plotting, what the hell is the difference? Oh now you have proof that they dislike you? I mean information such as that gets across all the time in this world and never before was it an acceptable CB.

Also his CB was more along the lines of: "Hey, they tried to pull us in with ODN via UPN, let's roll them for talking about a hypothetical action that only we can take."
[/quote]

Who wants war with who? Who did the PB alliances threaten that made the bloc's formation such a threat? Was there an indication of particular alliances being in the bloc's sights? Not at all. You actually tried to kill us, which is something to go on rather than just perceiving a group of alliances as a threat with nothing to prove it.

Plotting makes a difference since it means someone is really trying to achieve the end of killing you.

Fact of the matter is, you just don't like us. As a result, you(and this applies very specifically to CoJ and the people who were coming up with ploys) tried to kill us and that raises suspicion. Self-fullfilling prophecy, anyone?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[potato]

[quote name='Eternal Enigma' timestamp='1286990875' post='2483688']
actually i have screenshots that it happened goldie, although im not sure wether posting it would be against forum rules or not
[/quote]

Watch out, boys and gals, he has [i]screenshots[/i]!

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1286997749' post='2483766']
That's even worse than our CB.

Let me get this straight. You were going to roll a group of alliances for [i]maybe[/i] (you know, since we didn't) attacking an alliance that you aren't even treatied to, because we hypothetically discussed using UPN to bring in C&G even though such hypothetical discussions happen in all war planning rooms AND even during peace time?

And considering that UPN were the ones that were talking to ODN at the time, AND that UPN were the main ones to want to use ODN to use C&G, well you'd have to attack UPN first and foremost really.

Although I won't complain if you act. Watching C&G move without MK would be [i]interesting.[/i]
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure people are going to trip over themselves coming to your defense with your "it was hypothetical" argument.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1286983831' post='2483624']
You will be glad to know RV, that I tried to push for us to actually USE the Stratego logs as a CB on a few of the alliances present. My reasoning was, there was a group of alliances who coddled UPN and wanted to spin their incident into a war, as if they were doing it to help UPN stand up for itself. Then, when UPN was gone from the room, they immediately broke down into !@#$ talk about UPN. To me, that spelled a clear intent at manipulation of a fring CnG ally, and an effort to ensure that CnG fell in line with them. I believe it to be a valid CB, and will , till the day the world ends, believe we should have rolled those alliances who immediately began trolling UPN when they left the channel.
[/quote]

You're such a bad ass.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Omniscient1

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1286983831' post='2483624']
You will be glad to know RV, that I tried to push for us to actually USE the Stratego logs as a CB on a few of the alliances present. My reasoning was, there was a group of alliances who coddled UPN and wanted to spin their incident into a war, as if they were doing it to help UPN stand up for itself. Then, when UPN was gone from the room, they immediately broke down into !@#$ talk about UPN. To me, that spelled a clear intent at manipulation of a fring CnG ally, and an effort to ensure that CnG fell in line with them. I believe it to be a valid CB, and will , till the day the world ends, believe we should have rolled those alliances who immediately began trolling UPN when they left the channel.
[/quote]
I think you lost me somewhere. You think that people wanting to use an alliance because of bloc ties is a CB?

[KingEd]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1286924703' post='2482947']
Who will be our jelly?
[/quote]

There's probably another Bloc in the making to make this group of Blocs all the more [i]Hegemonic.[/i]


[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1286932551' post='2483049']
It's already been pretty well established that at least C&G is firmly in the PB camp. ODN planned on ignoring a direct treaty partner to side with an ally of a C&G ally if the whole UPN incident had gotten off the ground.

You also have Sparta and MHA tied directly into everyone on that side of the web too.

There are several small, seperate spheres around Top/Iron, NPO and Polaris etc. Then the huge cluster around SuperComplainingPeanutButterSammichFriends.
[/quote]

So your argument is as follows: "With PB (C&G/SF) is now even a bigger mega-structure." I'll say this to all the posters speaking from the opposite side of the WEB. GET OVER IT. With or without PB all of these alliances would still (most probably) end up on the same side as C&G/SF. So this BLOC changes NOTHING. It merely strengthens their own personal ties and nothing more. If you don't like it, that's your problem. You don't have to do anything about it but that doesn't help your argument along anyways.

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1286940401' post='2483163']
The fact is there still is a "that side of the web" it's monsterous. All 3 blocs are tied to each other and MHA, FARK and Sparta, the three big non-bloc alliances are tied right in as well. Throw in treatyless MK, who pretty clearly are BFF with PB/C&G and you have a massive amount of the non-neutral strength that will most likely fight under one banner when the next global curb stomp comes down the pike.

Unless one of the blocs breaks away from it's previous FA stance, it's one monsterous side of the web and several small factions sitting together wondering which will be the next one rolled. That isn't in any way surprising, or even wrong. It worked great for NPO and the balance of those currently in power were great friends of Pax Pacifica.

At least a few people in this thread finally admitted they were all for doing it the NPO way. It's the denial of others who've always did it that way that gets to me.
[/quote]

Again. You are posting as if PB has somehow made "swing" alliances (SF/C&G) sphere alliances. The fact remains that with out without PB most if not all of the alliances mentioned would be fighting alongside (SF/C&G) in a future conflict. PB merely makes those connections stronger. To say it's some evil GLUE that renders any opposition futile is naive. Trust me, I've heard it before back when I was in Q, and guess what, Q fell along with NPO. However, it did take planning and a lot of FA work. Get to it (NATO, NADC, NPO, IRON, etc)


[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1286941315' post='2483179']
you guys do have major interconnected treaties with SF, CnG, and Aztec blocs. VE has treaties with SF alliances (did you forget your MADP with GOD- Not to mention due to the MADP plus the MDoAP with RIA: you could bring in Chestnut Accords bloc), or the MDoAP with RoK, plus your MDoAP with NV who is in a MADP Bloc). FOK is in LEO with RnR/Int, Athens has an MDoAP with PC, GOONS holds MDoAPs with LOST and GOD,

Then there is MHA, Fark, Argent, WF, NEW, and Guru Order as direct treaties. then you have several indirect treaties with alliances like Sparta along with others, like IAA, LoSS, GATO, NpO, STA, and others.

so you have heavy and direct connections to SF, CnG, Aztec, Chestnut Accords, and LEO. along with the fact that LEO is overlapping due to FOK being in both LEO and PB. Chestnut Accords overlap with SF. so if you description of being hegemonic is the world of Q or WUT in which Q or WUT was the center of other major blocs, well that is pretty much what PB is considering it can call on many blocs to surround it just like Q or WUT did.
[/quote]

All the Blocs you mentioned would fall on the C&G/SF side even if PB never formed. With PB, it just makes it all the more likely. It changes nothing! It doesn't make us stronger, it merely strengths our already strong ties. Stop looking for a SF/PB/C&G Hegemony, it's not there. But if you try looking hard enough, you might just notice that PB forming changes nothing.

I'd like to someone to correct me if I'm wrong but last time I checked all of the blocs mentioned above (Chesnut, LEO, C&G, SF, Aztec were all on the same side during the last war. So to say PB somehow makes us this evil indestructible hegemony is inaccurate.


Shaking My Head...

Edited October 13, 2010 by KingEd

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1287005323' post='2483860']
I think you lost me somewhere. You think that people wanting to use an alliance because of bloc ties is a CB?
[/quote]

It's better than many others I've heard. Kind of like "You made a your moma joke on me" or "They tried to make my fanfic writings look bad".

[KingEd]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1287005897' post='2483867']
It's better than many others I've heard. Kind of like "You made a your moma joke on me" or "They tried to make my fanfic writings look bad".
[/quote]

I definitely agree. Moreover, I think this discussion has been had so many times it hurts me to reiterate: a CB is "legit" if the aggressor believes it to be "legit". Whether the Public domain acknowledges the CB to be "legit" enough, or in other words: justified, is another thing entirely. For those of you who tried to manipulate UPN---a very good try indeed. If only you had succeeded in getting UPN to attack GOONS....

Edited October 13, 2010 by KingEd

[kevin32891]

And Bob just got much more boring.

Edited October 13, 2010 by kevin32891

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Elrich von Richt' timestamp='1286889848' post='2482324']
Congrats to Viridian Entente, Umbrella and FOK.

I hope for a swift disbandment notice from the rest of you.
[/quote]
Absolutely unnecessary and without any grounds. Congratulations for a useless post.