A Bout of Honesty

[Bob]

keep up the fine work aut

always have been a fine specimen

[The MVP]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1291077436' post='2526111']
keep up the fine work aut

always have been a fine specimen
[/quote]

Pay me my money.

Good to see you again, btw.

Edited November 30, 2010 by The MVP

[Trouble Terrible]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1291049768' post='2525893']There is little real reason for conflict. Why do you think forcing conflict is the only way to make the game fun?[/quote]


So what makes this game fun for you? Clicking pay bills and collect taxes?

Edited November 30, 2010 by Trouble Terrible

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='koona' timestamp='1290887727' post='2524730']
I have to agree on this one, the end of GW3 was seen by many to be the end of the world, two alliances in particular disbanding too.

That was 3.5 years ago.
[/quote]
Exactly. Also, to point two, thats some !@#$%^&*. You lost two wars in a row because of bad leadership? Yeah, welcome to GW2 and GW3 for a lot of us who took down NPO. You can make that THREE in a row if you were part of UJW. Both times we had poor war planning and we got slammed. Yeah, it felt like !@#$. But we kept fighting, through reparations and all, and came back and did something. So many players on the opposing side have played this game with ease without the necessity to work towards forming coalitions and an opposition. We worked our way to where we are. Its about time you start doing the same.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1291009352' post='2525709']
[color="#0000FF"]I don't blame them for not trusting NPO, or for wanting revenge, but do you really think the "let's all hold hands and be friends" is the best route for the game? There is no conflict. There are alliances who do hate each other, but their mutual friends always resolve any difference. Because they refuse to drop and ally or, Heaven forbid, fight an ally's ally, they only have to look forward to beating down ex-Hegemony alliances which have failed to do anything about their image. Sooner or later most of the decent alliances that were in the ex-Heg side will have managed to have repaired their image enough to have gotten into a new side, while the incompetent ones will remain. I couldn't care less whether you like NPO, or NSO, or whatever, but after awhile you're going to get bored and want a new enemy. I know I would.[/color]
[/quote]

No, I actually quite agree with you RV. The problem is building a permanent coalition built around fear of NPO doesn’t do justice to the great number of “security threats” each pole has to contend with. The problem with the current system is that what was a coalition (Supergrievences) has been explicitly tied together into a permanent coalition. Whats silly is that the premise of coalition was to check a revanchist ex-hegemony which clearly splintered. Not only that, but if for some reason the fragments of ex-heg were put back together, a coalition of the current Supergrievebox grouping plus probably quite a few other groupings would be easily able to be cobbled together to defend.

Coalitions are coalitions, and groupings will temporarily fight with other blocs/poles they are either neutral with or hostile to in order to complete objectives. The unlikely union of TOP/Duckroll and Polar/BLEU existed to meet a perceived greater threat and is truly how coalitions should function in this world, minus the bull !@#$ we witness from polar, though in an OOC sense that itself was probably healthy for the game. The proliferation of explicit and long term alliances between massive blocs stifles political adventurism. People are more likely to try and fight when they don’t know exactly where the lines will fall. If it just comes down to making a spreadsheet and tallying stats to figure out what the result of pushing a negotiation will be, then no one will even bother.

So the problem is that inter-bloc competition between a massive percentage of the world strength has been checked in order to ensure that a phantom threat will be kept down. What is ridiculous is the tactic, instead of trying to bring more and more alliances into their respective spheres of influence SF/CnG spent much of their political capital latching onto each other and keeping their periphery alliances from destroying one another. This is both unnecessary, and unbelievably timid. Blocs aren't trying to power maximize, they’re only aim was to maintain a status quo. Perhaps Pandora’s box will break the mold, one can only hope.

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1291055810' post='2525935']
We never hit Polar either. He wanted to say, I gather, turning allies into enemies in sense of taking politically adversary attitudes towards them. Of course, its always a two way street, which wasn't mentioned. NPO eaten its allies just 'coz. I dont mind.

And indeed, that is a valid point he made. It is a difference, in a way--we didn't go out of our way to get along with people we didn't like or we stop liking, all the time. "Morally inferior" position or not, who cares! Unfortunately, too many lame people around here these days, less action, less drama. But boy, do they talk big heh
[/quote]


Quite right Branimir, glad you were able to find the point differentiating your rule from theirs. As you say, you gentlemen were not overly concerned with keeping a coalition around indefinitely. Whether that was your fault or theirs is a matter for a different discussion and certainly is beyond the purview of this thread.

With respect to TORN being afraid, I think you’re hugely misreading emotions. How you got that we were afraid of you from, “the list of allies turned enemies is a long one” and that these allies seek “avenues to get revenge” is beyond me. Perhaps you make the mistake that accepting the fact that relations between our alliances are poor and are likely to remain that way implies that we find this state to be of concern. You give yourself too much credit. I think the days of Pacifican machinations are long over, and to be frank, if we believed that you were wasting the tiny political capital you have on undermining our security, we’d be in heaven. Not only would it imply we were relevant enough to merit scheming, but it would also mean we might get the great pleasure of destroying Pacifican infrastructure.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1291083314' post='2526194']Not only would it imply we were relevant enough to merit scheming, but it would also mean we might get the great pleasure of destroying Pacifican infrastructure.[/quote]
It is a shame, then. As I would enjoy such a war greatly too. Don't take it personally, but ICly, Id take great joy in taking part in pulverization of your micro AA. The implosion of it after "karma",...just didn't satisfy my appetites. Shame indeed that such a war most probably will never occur, as you described decently enough.

Also, for the rest of your post, Ill take the correction with due note that I didn't said how TORN was scared (why is this generalization made?), I implied you were. Well, at least Buds is. xD

[SpiderJerusalem]

Hi AUT

Good to see you working

Also, hi Bob

[Cortath]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1291058831' post='2525968']
To invent something that is not there. NPO hates TORN and the feeling is mutual. Valhalla while hate may be a bit strong of a word, has no fondness of NPO. To say we live in fear or are scared of you is to attempt to give yourself much more credit than you deserve. Interestingly enough responding to you is giving you credit as well shame on me.
[/quote]

I really don't get it. The NPO cares about a lot of things. Your alliances are not among them. I admit, I have no love for bigwoody, whose lies to his alliance and actions in April 2009 are pretty well known on the OWF at this point. But to think us so petty as to hold it against the lot of you is to think rather poorly of an alliance you now claim is your enemy. That is usually a mistake.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1291088774' post='2526251']
I really don't get it. The NPO cares about a lot of things. Your alliances are not among them. I admit, I have no love for bigwoody, whose lies to his alliance and actions in April 2009 are pretty well known on the OWF at this point. But to think us so petty as to hold it against the lot of you is to think rather poorly of an alliance you now claim is your enemy. That is usually a mistake.
[/quote]
The NPO is in no place to start lecturing others on "lies".

And thats all Ill say on this topic.

[Lord Fingolfin]

This entire argument is predicted upon a faulty foundation. I already covered this is a huge essay so forgive me if I'm not in the mood to rehash this out. Ex-Hegemony is a misnomer, there are no two "sides" who are waiting to fight Karma War round 3. The next war will come from amongst those who formed the SuperGrievances coalition, or perhaps that inevitable splintering will be postponed by a NPO beatdown. NpO+Friends are clearly on a course in opposition to Pandora's Box, depending on the nature of the CB and how relations between alliances go between now and then you'll see some alliances go on the NpO/Moralists side, and others towards the PB/Sovereigns side. This whole argument and debate here is a worthless academic argument over a scenario which simply doesn't exist and isn't going to happen. The fact that the people who are on the losing end of the supposed scenario are the ones propagating the myth that is does exist is even more baffling.

For reference: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89326&st=0&p=2378967&fromsearch=1&#entry2378967"]The More You Know: The Myth of The Ex-Hegemony[/url]

The essay may be a bit dated, being that it was from almost 5 months ago, but its core tenets ring true.

[Cortath]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1291090502' post='2526281']
The NPO is in no place to start lecturing others on "lies".

And thats all Ill say on this topic.
[/quote]

*chuckles* Alrighty. Come back when you want to play again.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1291085921' post='2526229']
It is a shame, then. As I would enjoy such a war greatly too. [b]Don't take it personally, but ICly, Id take great joy in taking part in pulverization of your micro AA.[/b] The implosion of it after "karma",...just didn't satisfy my appetites. Shame indeed that such a war most probably will never occur, as you described decently enough.

Also, for the rest of your post, Ill take the correction with due note that I didn't said how TORN was scared (why is this generalization made?), I implied you were. Well, at least Buds is. xD
[/quote]
LOL thank you for proving my point. You would like a shot at them and that was all i was getting at.

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1291088774' post='2526251']
I really don't get it. The NPO cares about a lot of things. Your alliances are not among them. I admit, I have no love for bigwoody, whose lies to his alliance and actions in April 2009 are pretty well known on the OWF at this point. But to think us so petty as to hold it against the lot of you is to think rather poorly of an alliance you now claim is your enemy. That is usually a mistake.
[/quote]
oh of course you dont care cortath that is why you and Bilrow both have been here. Now i await Moo and the trifecta shall be complete.Never said NPO was our enemy either just that if you had the oppurtunity you wouldnt pass it up. Branimir confirmed it above and im pretty sure were in that area of influence.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1291092566' post='2526313']
LOL thank you for proving my point. You would like a shot at them and that was all i was getting at.


oh of course you dont care cortath that is why you and Bilrow both have been here. Now i await Moo and the trifecta shall be complete.Never said NPO was our enemy either just that if you had the oppurtunity you wouldnt pass it up. Branimir confirmed it above and im pretty sure were in that area of influence.
[/quote]

Nah, any good watcher of the OWF knows that I'm pretty easy to bait to post by having some of bigwoody's people spew some BS. *chuckles*

[Dilber]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1291083314' post='2526194']
I think the days of Pacifican machinations are long over, and to be frank, if we believed that you were wasting the tiny political capital you have on undermining our security, we’d be in heaven. Not only would it imply we were relevant enough to merit scheming, but it would also mean we might get the great pleasure of destroying Pacifican infrastructure.
[/quote]

You can't do too much damage in the one day before you give up.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1291092566' post='2526313']LOL thank you for proving my point. You would like a shot at them and that was all i was getting at.[/quote]
Hm? As far as I recall you said how you expect NPO to take a shot at TORN, not me.

I see where you may be making a mistake. While I am flattered, I actually am not NPO. heh
[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1291092566' post='2526313']Never said NPO was our enemy either just that if you had the oppurtunity you wouldnt pass it up. Branimir confirmed it above and im pretty sure were in that area of influence.[/quote]
I am sorry, but in your eagerness to prove a point, you didn't consider things. During my time in NPO, I never was anything else then a soldier. I am notoriously lazy to do actually, any meaningful work.

But, just on the safe side, you should be on the look out this update,...just sayin'

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1291092823' post='2526320']
Nah, any good watcher of the OWF knows that I'm pretty easy to bait to post by having some of bigwoody's people spew some BS. *chuckles*
[/quote]
It's flattering that you think I am holding the strings for so many. Especially nowadays.

If you really think that, I must be the most efficient player in history for hours played -> people owned.

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1291093063' post='2526324']
You can't do too much damage in the one day before you give up.
[/quote]
You'd be amazed the depths we fight to for allies that don't try and throw us under the bus. Ask people who fought us in the last war. Outnumbered for sure, but fighting like hell all the way until our allies were out.

You kids can guess which one is more representative, but it is a silly argument. So is the whole thing about NPO wanting a shot at us. It's kind of a known fact that you do, and you don't have to obsess about us every day for it to be true. However, if you want to talk about wedges between the various "ex-Hegemony" factions, anyone with any sense sees our little falling out and your alliance's actions since then is one of the biggest ones.

Back roughly onto the topic: To those who really think ex-Hegemony is a united, plotting entity, do you REALLY see TORN+Allies on the same side as NPO+Allies happening easily? I wouldn't say impossible, but you must have a special form of delusion if you take that as a given.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bigwoody

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1291048394' post='2525884']
On that note, the signatories of PB have been getting exactly what we want, so don't expect a rift now or ever.
[/quote]
What is it that you are getting?

The biggest problem with political stagnation is that those wielding the power are using it with exactly one end: the safety of their alliances. There's no other goal. Nobody actually wants to do anything.

The only political change the ruling coalition has made is ending the Revenge Doctrine. You guys have achieved absolutely nothing else.

[Cortath]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1291093626' post='2526335']
It's flattering that you think I am holding the strings for so many. Especially nowadays.

You'd be amazed the depths we fight to for allies that don't try and throw us under the bus. Ask people who fought us in the last war. Outnumbered for sure, but fighting like hell all the way until our allies were out.

You kids can guess which one is more representative, but it is a silly argument. So is the whole thing about NPO wanting a shot at us. It's kind of a known fact that you do, and you don't have to obsess about us every day for it to be true. However, if you want to talk about wedges between the various "ex-Hegemony" factions, anyone with any sense sees our little falling out and your alliance's actions since then is one of the biggest ones.
[/quote]


The only thing I've stated is that in April 2009 you lied to your people, because you got played.

I don't pretend to know if you hold the strings, because I don't care. I got nothing against TORN, bigwoody. Your alliance, when I knew them at all, was a good one and one I was proud to be allied with.

[Haflinger]

Oh nice bigwoody/TORN tangent there Bud.

Bud, I'm the one who hates TORN. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a mouthpiece for NPO. It's really just me.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1291081715' post='2526171']
Exactly. Also, to point two, thats some !@#$%^&*. You lost two wars in a row because of bad leadership? Yeah, welcome to GW2 and GW3 for a lot of us who took down NPO. You can make that THREE in a row if you were part of UJW. Both times we had poor war planning and we got slammed. Yeah, it felt like !@#$. But we kept fighting, through reparations and all, and came back and did something. So many players on the opposing side have played this game with ease without the necessity to work towards forming coalitions and an opposition. We worked our way to where we are. Its about time you start doing the same.
[/quote]
This made me smile.

[greatmagnus]

I think the biggest problem is simply the massive drop in activity in nearly all alliances. Without activity by your members there is no way to generate drama, and enough drama gets you a war. Sure we might get a thing or two, but to be honest nothing in a long while has had any potential for a war.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1291094315' post='2526346']
This made me smile.
[/quote]
Regardless of what you are smiling about I will say that Pacifica is one of the few alliances still sitting in opposition that I can say did work and saw success from doing so.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1291097071' post='2526377']
Regardless of what you are smiling about I will say that Pacifica is one of the few alliances still sitting in opposition that I can say did work and saw success from doing so.
[/quote]
Agreed.

I think the paradigm difference is that you, and most others, label Pacifica as a form of "opposition" while the NPO itself simply [i]is[/i]. It isn't defined by what it is opposed to, unlike many of the alliances today, which can only label and define themselves as either "not as bad as" Pacifica or "one of the tag-a-long alliances" that helped to beat Pacifica.

Most of the Cyberverse, the organized OWF active parts of it anyway, define themselves, indirectly or directly, on how they relate to the NPO, for good or ill. This, in and of itself, sets Pacifica apart from the rest.

[Emperor Whimsical]

I think if a lot of alliance got over their grudges the world would have more wars.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1291098741' post='2526395']
Agreed.

I think the paradigm difference is that you, and most others, label Pacifica as a form of "opposition" while the NPO itself simply [i]is[/i]. It isn't defined by what it is opposed to, unlike many of the alliances today, which can only label and define themselves as either "not as bad as" Pacifica or "one of the tag-a-long alliances" that helped to beat Pacifica.

Most of the Cyberverse, the organized OWF active parts of it anyway, define themselves, indirectly or directly, on how they relate to the NPO, for good or ill. This, in and of itself, sets Pacifica apart from the rest.
[/quote]
My labeling of Pacifica in the past as being in opposition is merely because you were. In the three scenarios that I listed it was very much an "us" vs. "them" mentality with sides clearly defined by polar forces (be that around LUE, GOONS, or Legion). I believe your response does hold true for Karma though, where it was very much defined as a conflict against Pacifica, which at the time was seen as far more than an alliance. Also, I find it humorous if your post was implying that MK was one of the "tag along alliances" that beat Pacifica.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il