What's Going on Here...

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1289621615' post='2511611']
this little speech is 50/50 with me. the moralist argument you use is only partly correct. just because you and a handful used it as a tool (cue MK), does not mean everyone is. not to mention talk to Polaris and Grub what happened the last time someone took a moral stand on an issue.

if you want wars, then you should have fought against the heavy ass reps that were conducted by during the last war.
[/quote]
That's the thing Doch, there is no such thing as moralism in this world. A person is merely outraged based off personal biases, and calls it moralism. To assume that there are moral actions in a world where there is no death unless self-imposed, is wrong.

Also, in the last war I got my ass kicked in the initial assault, my bad.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1289622776' post='2511638']
That's the thing Doch, there is no such thing as moralism in this world. A person is merely outraged based off personal biases, and calls it moralism. To assume that there are moral actions in a world where there is no death unless self-imposed, is wrong.

Also, in the last war I got my ass kicked in the initial assault, my bad.
[/quote]

actually morals are more than just life or death things as you imply. morals are being able to act like a decent person even if no one is looking. sure it makes for a less exciting world for the most part, but morals could also be standing up for an alliance who can't stand up for themselves.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289622597' post='2511632']
snip
[/quote]
This was in the time where it was a miracle to get any terms AT ALL. (hurf durf karma is the same as old hegemony) NPO made it clear that these were the only terms we would get, and various people had to work hard to even get us those. Still, we could have kept fighting and done a solid amount more damage since we had at least 500 nukes remaining. It would have been stupid to do that because we wouldn't get any other shot at peace. (the other problem that I will admit is a lot of people in MK had inadequate warchests in that war) "White peace" was practically non-existent in major wars before Karma, it would be stupid to have any kind of hope in getting it. Go look at the terms in GWIII, everyone involved got crushing terms. I'll wait while you do that.

It was an entirely different time, one you really know nothing about. There was no opportunity to change anything, NPO was far too dominant. All that could be accomplished was spitting in the giant's face and hoping for another shot later, which is what we did.

I have no idea why FAN is an unacceptable example, but TOP is good too. The very fact that we had to negotiate with them instead of merely dictating terms says volumes about the massive damage they caused. As the war went on, our ability to force reps shrank.

[quote name='C Mos' timestamp='1289622729' post='2511635']
I haven't read much of the logs of WCE but from the looks of it, it was poorly organized... Look at the nickname given for that.. (Speaking for myself here) I honestly wouldn't mind try to help build an opposing bloc.. Though I think what stops some alliances from giving any effort or full effort into building one is the fear of paying high reps..
[/quote]
It's entirely their own fault they couldn't organize properly. As for reps, I've already talked about this. You only get reps forced upon you if you truly deserve it. In the last two wars every single periphery "we were just following orders!" alliance got white peace.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[C Mos]

Yeah, pretty much before Karma, white peace was pretty much laughable by NPO and co. Would have been a waste of time for MK to have try to achieve white peace.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289623237' post='2511647']
This was in the time where it was a miracle to get any terms AT ALL. (hurf durf karma is the same as old hegemony) NPO made it clear that these were the only terms we would get, and various people had to work hard to even get us those. Still, we could have kept fighting and done a solid amount more damage since we had at least 500 nukes remaining. It would have been stupid to do that because we wouldn't get any other shot at peace. (the other problem that I will admit is a lot of people in MK had inadequate warchests in that war) "White peace" was practically non-existent in major wars before Karma, it would be stupid to have any kind of hope in getting it. Go look at the terms in GWIII, everyone involved got crushing terms. I'll wait while you do that.

It was an entirely different time, one you really know nothing about. There was no opportunity to change anything, NPO was far too dominant. All that could be accomplished was spitting in the giant's face and hoping for another shot later, which is what we did.

I have no idea why FAN is an unacceptable example, but TOP is good too. The very fact that we had to negotiate with them instead of merely dictating terms says volumes about the massive damage they caused. As the war went on, our ability to force reps shrank.
[/quote]

I'll grant you the MK-NPO example for the sake of argument.

However, if TOP could have gotten white peace by fighting long enough, and that was a good option, why didn't they?

Also not every alliance can be elite. Planet Bob wouldn't function if we didn't have recruiting alliances who educated, and showed new nations how to grow and function in Planet Bob.

[Believland]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289621485' post='2511610']
Coming from an MK member, this is just moronic. MK fought harder and better in WOTC than any other alliance, and you managed to pay more reps the Polar, the center of the conflict because NpO held back and you went full force.

Edit: Can you give any exmaples of when an alliance got out of reps for fighting long and hard enough? I haven't been around long enough to know every war, so I'm curious.
[/quote]

People think when you lose wars it's about the reps. Only a few know that you gain much more out of war than what you lost in damages in reparations. I could name countless alliances that have gained a lot out of war than what they had going in. I believe MK would be included in that discussion.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289623524' post='2511652']
I'll grant you the MK-NPO example for the sake of argument.

However, if TOP could have gotten white peace by fighting long enough, and that was a good option, why didn't they?

Also not every alliance can be elite. Planet Bob wouldn't function if we didn't have recruiting alliances who educated, and showed new nations how to grow and function in Planet Bob.
[/quote]
As far as I know they pulled out because their allies were pressuring them to accept peace. That's basically it. They had substantial warchests remaining and could have kept fighting for a while to come.

Why can't they? An "elite" alliance doesn't need to be invite only or whatever. For a very long time MK actively recruited, too. You can show nubs how to grow properly and make them as good as any old nation. After all, we were all new once upon a time.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289623700' post='2511654']
People think when you lose wars it's about the reps. Only a few know that you gain much more out of war than what you lost in damages in reparations. I could name countless alliances that have gained a lot out of war than what they had going in. I believe MK would be included in that discussion.
[/quote]
Are you [i]insane?[/i] No reparations, no matter how huge, can cover the damages of modern war.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289623859' post='2511657']
Are you [i]insane?[/i] No reparations, no matter how huge, can cover the damages of modern war.
[/quote]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but he's not talking about material items.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289623859' post='2511657']
Are you [i]insane?[/i] No reparations, no matter how huge, can cover the damages of modern war.
[/quote]

i have to agree with this statement. though that does not mean that huge reps are still okay by me.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289623790' post='2511655']
As far as I know they pulled out because their allies were pressuring them to accept peace. That's basically it. They had substantial warchests remaining and could have kept fighting for a while to come.

Why can't they? An "elite" alliance doesn't need to be invite only or whatever. For a very long time MK actively recruited, too. You can show nubs how to grow properly and make them as good as any old nation. After all, we were all new once upon a time.
[/quote]

MK does recruit, but you have very strenuous admission policies from what I can tell. On top of this most of your alliance does not come from members you recruit, but from members who transferred to the alliance.

[Believland]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289623859' post='2511657']
Are you [i]insane?[/i] No reparations, no matter how huge, can cover the damages of modern war.
[/quote]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, because I'm out of my mind. But, the respect alliances can get for following their treaties and not attacking like 12 year old twats who need to be spanked goes along way. I know that's how Legio X got our treaty with TOP. I also know that TOP judged OMFG by that and now they still have that treaty. Reparations aren't the end of the world compared to what you can make them. If you're going to have a bad attitude about it than yeah, they'll blow chunks but, if you're like, "Hey we lost. We should just pay quickly so we can get back on our feet." reps will go along a lot better and you may find out a couple of new friends. I mean ****, Eldar and OTS were pretty tight after the war even if we were too lazy to sign a treaty or even discuss one.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289624121' post='2511664']
MK does recruit, but you have very strenuous admission policies from what I can tell. On top of this most of your alliance does not come from members you recruit, but from members who transferred to the alliance.
[/quote]
Recruit, meaning to me spamming new nations saying "JOIN OUR POWERFUL ALLIANCE GROW YOUR NATION WITH TECH DEALS AND HARBOUR LOANS". Basically we only get members by people coming to us of their own accord, and yes more people are rejected than accepted.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1289624066' post='2511661']
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but he's not talking about material items.
[/quote]
I wasn't really sure.

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1289624153' post='2511665']
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, because I'm out of my mind. But, the respect alliances can get for following their treaties and not attacking like 12 year old twats who need to be spanked goes along way. I know that's how Legio X got our treaty with TOP. I also know that TOP judged OMFG by that and now they still have that treaty. Reparations aren't the end of the world compared to what you can make them. If you're going to have a bad attitude about it than yeah, they'll blow chunks but, if you're like, "Hey we lost. We should just pay quickly so we can get back on our feet." reps will go along a lot better and you may find out a couple of new friends. I mean ****, Eldar and OTS were pretty tight after the war even if we were too lazy to sign a treaty or even discuss one.
[/quote]
This is true, wars between alliances are the foundations of many treaties.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289624226' post='2511669']
Recruit, meaning to me spamming new nations saying "JOIN OUR POWERFUL ALLIANCE GROW YOUR NATION WITH TECH DEALS AND HARBOUR LOANS". Basically we only get members by people coming to us of their own accord, and yes more people are rejected than accepted.
[/quote]

The second time I came to CN I was greeted by a PM with video like one of these two, and it was one of the first three PMs I received.

I doubt I'm awesome enough to receive special attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm5x_oTVLRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETnBo9WdgKE

However this all doesn't have to do with my point, that MK is en eliet alliance. You have a few small nations, but you have an elite ANS, and like you say most nations do come from transfers. MKs transfers is mostly due to your reputation as premier alliance in political influence, and activity. This model of growth is by defintion, unable to be imitated by any other alliance. the moment another alliance starts growing by being seen as the most active in CN, you will no longer be the most active.

Edited November 13, 2010 by supercoolyellow

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289624594' post='2511674']
The second time I came to CN I was greeted by a PM with video like one of these two, and it was one of the first three PMs I received.

I doubt I'm awesome enough to receive special attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm5x_oTVLRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETnBo9WdgKE

However this all doesn't have to do with my point, that MK is en eliet alliance. You have a few small nations, but you have an elite ANS, and like you say most nations do come from transfers.
[/quote]
It's beside the point, though. We could already be considered elite before we stopped recruiting. Any alliance can do this, you just have to make sure your nations are active and educated.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289624789' post='2511676']
It's beside the point, though. We could already be considered elite before we stopped recruiting. Any alliance can do this, you just have to make sure your nations are active and educated.
[/quote]

Sorry I noticed the same before you posted and ninja edited.

[Duke Nukem]

I would like to be a part of this by fighting in this new war or helping out in this new world. I'm going to bring my alliance to greatness and I'm going to stop the stangation of this game.

[bzelger]

I think the root of the problem you highlight is essentially one of age. The leaders of note of the past have played their hand and are tempted by other pursuits. They just don't have that much interest in moving the world any more.

The fresh faces are daunted by insurmountable difference in nation strength and mounds of history that they did not experience. It's a tough crowd to break into, and the attrition rate is accordingly much higher than the growth rate, and those who do make new nations and stick around tend to not be drivers.

I confess that I do not understand your issue with what you term moralism. You object to people taking stances over what ought to be acceptable in politics, yet in the same breath complain about the lack of fire and conflict. What do you think should drive action? Random acts of violence? I don't see why you object to people applying political pressure to shape the nature of discussion the way that they would prefer.

I will venture to presume from the flavor of the OP that you feel that raw self-interest in terms of increasing relative stats or political puissance should be the focus of alliance action. Ignoring the vapidity of trying to cast that as somehow intrinsically distinct from any other world view, I think your premise that divergence from this paradigm induces stagnation is unsupported and irrational. If stagnation is your only concern, why do you care if people's motivation for war is desire for the top spot versus dislike for an alliance's operating protocols?

The underlying problem is not that there is no driving force, but that it is currently insufficient to cause action. I would posit that this is the result of an amalgam of things, including the ennui of leaders mentioned above, penalties for losing a war (terms, increasingly large gaps in nation strength to recover, time value), and asymmetry in the power structure. Do you really expect people to launch a war that will result in their decimation? The people who have the power to cause conflict with relative impunity are, ironically, the people most adamantly critical of "moralism."

[Gibsonator21]

I love you. So much.

[Believland]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1289624594' post='2511674']
The second time I came to CN I was greeted by a PM with video like one of these two, and it was one of the first three PMs I received.

I doubt I'm awesome enough to receive special attention.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm5x_oTVLRc"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lm5x_oTVLRc[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETnBo9WdgKE"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ETnBo9WdgKE[/url]

However this all doesn't have to do with my point, that MK is en eliet alliance. You have a few small nations, but you have an elite ANS, and like you say most nations do come from transfers. MKs transfers is mostly due to your reputation as premier alliance in political influence, and activity. This model of growth is by defintion, unable to be imitated by any other alliance. the moment another alliance starts growing by being seen as the most active in CN, you will no longer be the most active.
[/quote]

A lot of it doesn't have to do much with recruitment, it's just putting in what you want to happen. TOP, Umb, MK, Gre, Argent, FCC and a lot of other alliances have done that really successfully.

[KingEd]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1289622299' post='2511625']
And there in lies the problem, a good CB for one party(aiding a rogue) will be called a terrible one and a terrible one (OMG MY TRADE CIRCLE) will be called a great one. it all depends on who is involved and whos more liked
[/quote]

Popularity contest...

[Horatio Longworth]

Things are worse. You should not have returned. Why have you?

[Alterego]

The SF/C&G/PB/MK stranglehold on bob has led to total stagnation and has resulted in people leaving at a faster rate than any time in history. NPO might have crushed alliances from time to time but they kept things interesting and let you rebuild in a couple of months, the SF/C&G/PB/MK just huddle together and have done nothing of note all year except tie up the bigger alliances in chronicly high reps which resulted in total stagnation. Hell you cant even drop a trade with MK these days without being hit up for stupid reps, what chance do we have for war if people will be stuck paying reps for a year as happened in the last 2 wars against that group.

Regarding moralism, you helped create an alliance for moral reasons to defeat NPO. YOU are one of the leading reasons the moral card is used to this day. If it was ok for vox and karma then its ok for the rest of us. Welcome to the post karma world in all its glory, thanks for everything.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Alterego

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1289640578' post='2511752']
The SF/C&G/PB/MK stranglehold on bob has led to total stagnation and has resulted in people leaving at a faster rate than any time in history. NPO might have crushed alliances from time to time but they kept things interesting and [b]let you rebuild in a couple of month[/b]s, the SF/C&G/PB/MK just huddle together and have done nothing of note all year except tie up the bigger alliances in chronicly high reps which resulted in total stagnation. Hell you cant even drop a trade with MK these days without being hit up for stupid reps, what chance do we have for war if people will be stuck paying reps for a year as happened in the last 2 wars against that group.

Regarding moralism, you helped create an alliance for moral reasons to defeat NPO. YOU are one of the leading reasons the moral card is used to this day. If it was ok for vox and karma then its ok for the rest of us. Welcome to the post karma world in all its glory, thanks for everything.
[/quote]

Man, you are not even trying anymore. Basically, people like you are part of the problem Alterego. Instead of actually building your coalition you drive them further away from you with your inane crap. Perhaps we should do Planet Bob a favour and eradicate you and your carbon copies.