zzzptm Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Huitzilopochtli love you, Alterego. Huitzilopochtli love you. Problem is, if you want people to abandon them and leave them vulnerable to the rise of the Invict-O-Sphere legions, you shouldn't say how strong they are. People gravitate towards strength. Now, if you want to have them cancel on each other so a rift develops that could then lead to a real crowd-pleasin' war, get Umbrella to sign an MADP with Legion without telling anyone about it. If you can get THAT to happen, you will be the King of Planeta Roberto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1294068938' post='2561965'] We did that. It's called PB. [/quote] 15 days later Doom House was signed. I wouldnt call that running their own power sphere which was the question that was posed by Schatt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 MK doesn't seem to meet the requirements for a core member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1294069877' post='2561973'] MK doesn't seem to meet the requirements for a core member. [/quote] Doom house is an extention of PB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 It is funny how you include some alliances then exclude others. TOP has 1 treaty to any person on that list, and that includes them somehow? You could add a dozen other alliances who only hold one treaty with one of the "core" alliances, but you only choose one because you don't want to offend people you hope rise up against this "hegemony" by including them on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Thank you Planet Bob for corrupting the meaning of yet another word- hegemony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenacres Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1294069812' post='2561970'] 15 days later Doom House was signed. I wouldnt call that running their own power sphere which was the question that was posed by Schatt. [/quote] I said mosey on out of here! Go on now, git! scoot, mister, before the law gets involved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1294068307' post='2561955'] [B]ut a claim that you are not [b][i]a[/i][/b] hegemony is simply false. [/quote] We are a hegemony of a different breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEverettKoop Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Doomhouse was so we could renew our vows with MK and Umbrella. No big ceremony because none of us can be trusted around an open bar. Also, we need to get iFOK some friends. If we're going to [s]double [/s][s]triple [/s][s]quadruple [/s][s]quintuple [/s]hyper combo finish down, we might as well really cement our grasp on power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294057314' post='2561853'] [center][img]http://www.cyberpresse.ca/images/bizphotos/435x290/200902/19/49403.jpg[/img][/center] Have a seat for a second. Look it, I have never seen a bunch of alliances look so !@#$@#$ down when something bad happens. What are you alliances? Like prima donna perfect that if you can't $%&@in' handle adversity? So !@#$'s not going right. It's not $%&@en' working the last two years. !@#$@#$ get your heads out of your ass and !@#$@#$ make it work by outworking this hegemony. You kill two !@#$@#$ blocs (Citadel/C&G), and then we stand around and watch while they !@#$@#$ form Pandora here. !@#$@#$ yous come to the OWF like $%&@in' this and when the power PR play it's not working so you're trying to stick handle, you're looking like this and not standing. Outwork the !@#$@#$ hegemony alliances! If you want it, don't just think you want it. Go out and !@#$@#$ want it. But you're not looking like you want it, you look like you're feeling sorry for yourself. And nobody !@#$@#$ wants anybody that's feeling sorry for themselves. You got time. You're down by one !@#$@#$ shot. Surely to $%&@ we can deal with this. [/quote] I don't like you, but props where props are due. This was awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 RIA is clearly the shadow puppetmaster, so we should be above Athens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1294068307' post='2561955'] Hegemony is a word with a definition. The C&G/PB/SF mess does constitute a hegemony. You're talking about connotations. "Hegemony" has certain connotations from the previous hegemony, and maybe you do or maybe you don't do things the same (I'm not having that argument and I've stayed away from the neo-Hegemony thingin general), but a claim that you are not [b][i]a[/i][/b] hegemony is simply false. [/quote] Riddle me this Schatt, why did nobody ever call The Initiative a "hegemony"? There was never any talk of Hegemony (on a meaningful level anyway) in those days or the days prior. The connotation is pretty much all the word has here, the original meaning is overshadowed completely by the new meaning it acquired in the karma age, a meaning which is still relevant today. There's a reason ex-heg alliances are named such. If the meaning was merely a group in power, the majority of important alliance would be ex-hegemony alliances because at one point or another they had power. No, the push to label SG, and now SBG (Super Box Of Grievances) a "hegemony" was and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to continue the "You're just as bad as we were" PR movement of the powers that were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebounder Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1294068307' post='2561955'] My biggest . . . thing (I can't find a good word) with these alliances is that among them are some real top shelf organizations. Alliances with serious stats, great staff, proven histories. There are alliances in the PB/SF/C&G mess that should be forming and running their own power spheres. I don't understand why some of these alliances prefer to weave themselves into the blanket of nothingness when they could be wielding the only real power: Power over themselves.. [/quote] I've been saying this for a long time, and it's finally good to see somebody recognizing the truth in my message. But seriously, I agree with Shantamantan on this one. Only a few alliances, such as I think Polaris, are catching on that the post-Karma era is a golden opportunity to turn from followers into leaders. MHA has top stats, TOP has an excellent elite member base, and so on with great attributes of "neo-Hegemony" alliances. For these alliances, all it takes to be a leader is the initiative to lead. I think this is the time to take a lesson from an old player, electron sponge. When he decided Polaris had the ability to lead in the CN politics, he was going up aginst [i]The Hegemony[/i], which, unlike this new mess of alliances, was actually coordinated. Of course, sponge lost out in the noCB War, but he made one hell of a good run and really did succeed in creating a separate power sphere in his tenure as Emperor. Surely, if one alliance with initiative could challenge the real Hegemony, any wimp with a half-dose of courage could thrive despite the weak-kneed "Neo-Hegemony?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeryon Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Honestly, I'd come up with another name for them. (Personally I liked "supergrievances". But something like "The coalition" or "the super-sphere" would work too). While I agree they are [b]a[/b] hegemony, the term has become so tied to the old NPO-based power sphere that even using the term in it's true sense where anyone else is concerned is going to bring objections. Honestly, I think many of these people are JUST objecting because it compares them to the old NPO-sphere. Another core difference I see is that this dominant power bloc uses thier power in very different ways. The Old NPO bloc had some broader goals, a sense of attempting to organize and control Bob. This sphere doesn't seem to be really concerning itself with control, other than in organizing strikes against any competing blocs. They are more anarchic at the core, and also don't have one core alliance in the same sense that NPO did. MK is close, but in the old bloc...there would be no bloc without NPO. I'm not sure that's the case in this bloc. I'd be hard pressed to point to 1 alliance in it and say "They are irreplaceable". They are subtle differences on the whole however. Edited January 3, 2011 by Daeryon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1294072565' post='2561997'] Riddle me this Schatt, why did nobody ever call The Initiative a "hegemony"? There was never any talk of Hegemony (on a meaningful level anyway) in those days or the days prior. The connotation is pretty much all the word has here, the original meaning is overshadowed completely by the new meaning it acquired in the karma age, a meaning which is still relevant today. There's a reason ex-heg alliances are named such. If the meaning was merely a group in power, the majority of important alliance would be ex-hegemony alliances because at one point or another they had power. No, the push to label SG, and now SBG (Super Box Of Grievances) a "hegemony" was and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to continue the "You're just as bad as we were" PR movement of the powers that were. [/quote] CN hadn't learned that word yet in 2007. Sort of like how it learned the word paradigm last year. Was anyone else sick of seeing that word in what seemed like every other post over the course of 2010? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1294070337' post='2561977'] It is funny how you include some alliances then exclude others. TOP has 1 treaty to any person on that list, and that includes them somehow? You could add a dozen other alliances who only hold one treaty with one of the "core" alliances, but you only choose one because you don't want to offend people you hope rise up against this "hegemony" by including them on the list. [/quote] New Polar Order is an associate (due to mdoap with rok). Welcome friends! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1294069977' post='2561975'] Doom house is an extention of PB [/quote] "ITT I classify alliances using arbitrary criteria" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 And how do you know that, for example, SF will fight with the Hegemony? Aside from GOD-VE and maybe CSN-Athens, how exactly does SF tie in so closely with PB? Heck, There are just as many ties to the ex-hegemony (R&R-IRON) than there are to PB. Anyhow.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1294072565' post='2561997'] Riddle me this Schatt, why did nobody ever call The Initiative a "hegemony"? There was never any talk of Hegemony (on a meaningful level anyway) in those days or the days prior. The connotation is pretty much all the word has here, the original meaning is overshadowed completely by the new meaning it acquired in the karma age, a meaning which is still relevant today. There's a reason ex-heg alliances are named such. If the meaning was merely a group in power, the majority of important alliance would be ex-hegemony alliances because at one point or another they had power. No, the push to label SG, and now SBG (Super Box Of Grievances) a "hegemony" was and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to continue the "You're just as bad as we were" PR movement of the powers that were. [/quote] The term "Hegemony" didn't get applied to the "Hegemony" until after it was already clearly dead and the Karma forces needed that last little PR push to convince themselves they were special, and not just fighting another political war or whatever. But that's not really important here. There are certainly people trying to build up a power base similar to what once was (though I'm sure some remain convinced that the "Hegemony" was something anomalous that they couldn't ever repeat because they're Not Evil), but, at least for now, there is no single grouping of power that is both large enough to be hegemonic and organized to be hegemonic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 It's a shame we weren't included, although I can understand why. Allow me to explain what I mean: *ahem* [b][center]VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE (PB) > RoK > NoR > Val > BAPS > TPF > FEAR > NEW > PC (PB) > VE ( PB)[/center][/b] Neat, huh? Or, if you prefer, I could set it to music: [center][i] This is the war that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Someone started fighting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue fighting it forever just because, (repeat) [/i][/center] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1294077247' post='2562064'] And how do you know that, for example, SF will fight with the Hegemony? Aside from GOD-VE and maybe CSN-Athens, how exactly does SF tie in so closely with PB? Heck, There are just as many ties to the ex-hegemony (R&R-IRON) than there are to PB. Anyhow.. [/quote] Yea I agree. I don't think SF really wants to fight with this new hegemony, but they still have closer ties to it for now than they do to the ex-Heg. RnR-FOK, ROK-VE, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1294077486' post='2562068'] Yea I agree. I don't think SF really wants to fight with this new hegemony, but they still have closer ties to it for now than they do to the ex-Heg. RnR-FOK, ROK-VE, etc... [/quote] They probably have more links to Polar & Co. however.. especially those 2 ARES/Genesis treaties that GOD has that everyone seems to forget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1294077247' post='2562064'] And how do you know that, for example, SF will fight with the Hegemony? Aside from GOD-VE and maybe CSN-Athens, how exactly does SF tie in so closely with PB? Heck, There are just as many ties to the ex-hegemony (R&R-IRON) than there are to PB. Anyhow.. [/quote] Rok and RIA also have treaties with VE, and R&R's treaty with FOK (the one that just got upgraded) is their oldest active one I think. IRON is R&R's second-oldest active one iirc. Edited January 3, 2011 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1294077733' post='2562073'] They probably have more links to Polar & Co. however.. especially those 2 ARES/Genesis treaties that GOD has that everyone seems to forget. [/quote] Very true, but once again Genesis has Checkmate which I believe two of the three members are allied to GOONS. The treaty web is a difficult thing to pin point. [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1294077762' post='2562074'] Rok and RIA also have treaties with VE, and R&R's treaty with FOK (the one that just got upgraded) is their oldest active one. IRON is R&R's second-oldest active one iirc. [/quote] I had already beat you Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1294077888' post='2562077'] I had already beat you Aurion [/quote] That you did, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.