Jump to content

Edward I

Members
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Edward I last won the day on January 28

Edward I had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

389 Excellent

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
    Seleucia
  • Nation ID
    15788
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

725 profile views
  1. Edward I

    Really NPO

    There's a difference between jokes or propaganda and attacking a community. I don't pretend to have a perfect definition of the distinction, but I say the conduct of many of the critics here counts as the latter. NPO understands it's a collectivist group. We've had a running joke for years in both CN and PW that the government is a hivemind. Jokes or propaganda about Roqbots and communism are fine; I think most of them are pretty funny. However, comments like this one aren't jokes about NPO's tax rates; they're full-on attacks on the model and culture of NPO's community. The consistent, obvious implication of such comments is that NPO isn't a legitimate group - that we prevent members from playing PW and brainwash them into keeping their nations alive, thereby allowing a small group of leaders to have undue amounts of power. That same bogus line of reasoning has been reapplied here almost verbatim. NPO didn't set up and doesn't own the Discord server in question. NPO lent its bank alliance only because the new players signed up before deciding on a group identity, leadership structure, or purpose in PW. The decision to use NPO's bank AA, to keep the Discord server private, and to characterize other PW Discord servers the way they were was made by the group's leadership; not NPO's. The newbies here aren't brain-dead and aren't being controlled by NPO any more than NPO's own members are. Forgive us if we're tired of having the very format of our community assaulted and if we're impatient when the same rhetorical BS is directed at others. You didn't do anything obnoxious as far as I've seen, and I think your various community engagement projects have been (and are) laudable. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and I wish many others shared it. They apparently don't, though. Instead, much of the commentary is that these players are "being kept from the community". That's a load of horse crap being used as a rhetorical cudgel, mostly by people who don't like NPO, and mostly as yet another way to say the things I pointed out above. In response to the first point, there's a reason that Discord server is private, and it's more than a little irksome that people think they're entitled to access it. Their failure to accept and tolerate a different approach to community-building is a problem. In response to the second point, I'll again refer you to the first part of my response here. I think it pretty much covers my thoughts on the matter. In response to the third point, dumb and toxic aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not calling this behavior out because it's dumb (although it is); I'm calling it out because it's the latest installment in a long, corrosive pattern.
  2. Edward I

    Really NPO

    1) The insinuation that NPO is manipulating these folks. It's the same old "NPO members are mindless fools, NPO's gov are duplicitous manipulators sitting on a throne of lies and deceit" narrative, but applied to a new group. Like Charles said, not only are we not manipulating this community, we wouldn't be capable of doing so if we wanted to. They're exercising their own best judgment here. 2) The notion that "the community" (meaning the game at large and active posters in particular) gets to decide what's best for them. First of all, "the community" very much included them the second they made non-multi nations, so acting as though they need to do something to gain admission to it is pretty scummy. Second of all, acting as though they owe "the community" anything - interaction, access, etc. - by dint of having more than a dozen new nations on a single AA is also pretty dumb. Older players are entitled to exactly nothing as far as new players and new alliances go. The line between drama and toxicity is, generally, the line between IC and OOC. It's the line between knowing what "no thank you" means and hunting down invites to Discord servers that you've been explicitly told you're not wanted in; it's the line between voicing displeasure at your lack of access here and insinuating that other people are mindless drones; it's the line between expressing concern for your alliance's future strategic position and claiming that 300 new members on a single alliance will kill the game.
  3. Edward I

    Really NPO

    Please read the posts we make in reply to yours. They chose not to interact much with the wider PW community. They have a right to make that choice. Nowhere did I or anyone else say they didn't.
  4. Edward I

    Really NPO

    It's not NPO that invited them, the community chose to come here. They're also just as much members of "the community" as you are, and you have no right to tell them how to be a part of it; that's their decision.
  5. Edward I

    Really NPO

    It's that community's decision how to conduct itself, not yours and not "the game's". Furthermore, they made that decision themselves, as Keshav already said. They don't owe anything to you or anyone else outside their community and if you really had their best interest in mind, you'd stop trying to spin this into anti-NPO propaganda.
  6. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    I'm flattered. 🙂 Isn't that what we have now, though, even after some fragmentation? BK-sphere is named after BK; N$O is named after NPO and t$; Chaos would almost certainly be called TKR-sphere if it wasn't a bloc with its own name. The only major grouping that isn't named after 1-2 focal alliances is KETOG. More generally, why are semi-hierarchical relationships among allies a bad thing? Can they really be avoided? Even if you think the status quo represents multipolarity in name only, or else is insufficiently fragmented, why would "weaker" alliances necessarily choose foreign policies independent of "stronger" alliances? It seems to me that if they wanted dissociation from the BKs, NPOs, and TKRs of the world they'd have opted for it already. Similarly to what I said above, why would fragmentation mean small alliance leaders would have this opportunity? What's to stop bigger, more powerful groups from effectively determining a small alliance's path by the consequences of their actions? Perhaps more controversially, do small alliance leaders deserve this chance? There's a perennial argument against the existence of protectorates in the first place, for example, because many people think they add no value to the game as a whole. Small alliances that didn't need protection or grew out of it are different only by degrees. They still typically lack the resources and activity that larger, more established alliances have, and the exceptions here are mostly elite alliances made up experienced players that prove the rule. In many cases, these groups are vestiges or splinters of previously top tier alliances, meaning they had a head start creating group cohesion as well. I'm not saying there shouldn't be new alliances that are given the chance to succeed. But what can we reasonably expect success to look like? If we want to socialize newer alliances or younger leaders into the main metagame, do they need to be somewhat subordinate to established alliances? If new alliances are to survive at all, do they need protectors? And if so, should established alliances expect a reliable future ally that shares FA goals in return for their protection? A strategic position isn't solely about protecting infrastructure, though, and multipolarity is the perfect example of this. Lots of people have an almost ideological investment in multipolarity. Wars should be evenly balanced; short; small rather than global; and fought between constantly-shifting coalitions in their minds. They claim to be - and to an extent, have been - willing to fight for this, even at the expense of some infrastructure. The more moralistic arguments made against NPO in particular say that our involvement in the war is wrong because it weakens the strategic position of the people who are in the right.
  7. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    You seem to assume that bipolarity implies the two sides are static, even though that's not necessarily true, and isn't in this case. I'm not trying to trivialize the problems with it, just point out that the proposed cure is likely worse than the disease here.
  8. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    Where have we said we'd do that? We've been willing to deal and cooperate where trust exists, and I don't think we've indicated that we'd go to war with anyone who doesn't follow our "wishes". Just because NPO doesn't trust TKR or most of Chaos and KETOG doesn't mean that we're warmongers incapable of productive discourse. Why is bipolarity so bad? I'm not saying it leaves nothing to be desired, but I strongly disagree that it's the greatest evil as far as gameplay goes. NPO's government is after the same things you are. We too want to build a better world. But the world you seem to envision is not a better one. Wars for their own sake are senseless. Wars justified solely by the inherent entertainment of blowing up infrastructure are senseless. Politics and diplomacy conducted with the primary aim of orchestrating such wars, though, are worse than senseless; they are corrosive. We understand your frustrations because we understand that much - although far from all - of the work that went into bringing about political fragmentation was motivated by a desire to make the game better. There is value in novelty and in change. However, novelty cannot come at the expense of actual politicking. As you said, good alliance governments try to do right by their memberships. Part of that mandate is looking after the security of your alliance members. That doesn't mean shielding every last bit of their infra from harm, but it does mean keeping your alliance in a viable strategic position. Another part of that mandate is building a world in which your alliance and its members can thrive. NPO is unlikely to embrace a contrived politics that substitutes "fun" for real competition and which dismisses genuine disputes when they're incompatible with its embedded notion of "fun". We're especially unlikely to embrace that vision if it also includes the potential to degrade our strategic position so far that we can't work to build and maintain the world we believe our members deserve.
  9. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    Fair enough. I'll leave you with one parting thought then: We knew we'd be dragged through the coals for this, and we did it anyway. For better or worse, power gives us the luxury of being both intransient and intransigent (not sure if that was a typo or not ). For better or worse, power gives us some say in what the rules of the metagame should be. We haven't fully made up our minds, honestly. Like I said, NPO always had misgivings about multipolarity, but they were primarily - if not exclusively - about the details, not the principle. If the details are properly worked out and the credible assurances against bad actors I mentioned earlier are incorporated, I imagine we'd be fine with it. This will likely be a high bar for many people, though. An incomplete list would (probably) include, in no particular order: No expectation of a cage match between NPO and BK. We're not against fighting them at some point in the future, but we're not going to hate them overnight, and blowing up all the infra in the mid-tier while the whales sit and watch is going to be a hard sell in itself. A better definition of what a sphere is, and what kinds or sizes of spheres aren't allowed. For instance, if BK-sphere was too big for the system to handle, that's as much a fault of the system as it is of BK because, as far as I can tell, no one bothered to work that out before early April when this all came together. This will also need to be a discussion about the nature of the Paracovenant-IQ model of large numbers of less active, less experienced players, not just an exercise in plopping scores and city counts into spreadsheets. A better definition of acceptable ties and cooperation between spheres. If there's a sense, even a misplaced one, that some people are dealing under the table it will kill the whole endeavor. This needs to take into account IC and OOC friendships, what ad hoc cooperation between spheres can and should look like, and how many traditional treaties define a sphere. (I'm waiting for someone else to tell me an ODP between NPO and one BK-sphere alliance means we're a hegemony.) A model for change. Unless we're going to delineate permanent alliances later this year and keep them until the servers get shut off, there needs to a way to change treaties or FA goals without breaking the system. A contingency plan. What happens if (probably when) this all goes south? As we've said before, it's not just a matter of stylized, multipolar separation between groups; it's also a matter of incorporating and accommodating other agendas. We don't want to be stabbed in the back, we don't want to see upper tier consolidation or runaway upper tier growth, and it would be nice if we could hit people over a grudge every once in awhile. And that's just NPO; I don't know what every other alliance wants, but I can't imagine their only goals are a pretty treaty web and smaller wars. Those conditions alone may very well be unattainable. Personally, I'm skeptical that it's even possible for minispheres to be truly self-sustaining. But, regardless of what happens, I think it would be nice if most of us could figure out and agree on what went wrong and why. If there isn't an existential disagreement, maybe future wars will feel less existential.
  10. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    Serious question: what are you trying to accomplish here? Are you only trying to articulate a sense of despair and disappointment? If that's the case, then what you're doing makes complete sense and I won't try to keep having circular discussions about it. I never expected us to see each other in a positive moral light; instead I've been trying to indicate a path forward to save or resurrect multipolarity without the pitfalls of this first attempt.
  11. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    We've explained this repeatedly. It wasn't a secret tie to BK. If this is so unsatisfactory for you that you'd ask whether we "want to go back to the drawing board", perhaps you should reconsider the soundness of what was on the drawing board in the first place. Of course it's ironic. But the fact that the thing we feared - a multisphere coalition, not to mention the prospect of that coalition opportunistically hitting NPO - happened should tell you something about the immense fallacies of the entire concept and the necessity of some contingency plan. You are, of course, free to draw separate circles around BK, Citadel, and Covenant, but that doesn't mean that other people have to. And if their not doing so makes them bad actors or disingenuous in your eyes, perhaps that's a good indicator that this was half-baked all along. We expressed our misgivings publicly for months. Pretty much every time I saw Keshav or Roquentin say something about multipolarity in the abstract, it was skeptical. If you want someone to talk specifically about what was and wasn't said when this whole thing was being put together, you'll have to talk to someone who was there. The public record, though, is detailed enough to figure out pretty much what we thought about the inherent flaws.
  12. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    Nominally at least, this bit is the core of what the war is supposed to be about. There are plenty of people whose motivations for fighting or propagandizing are more cynical than their stated aspirations here, but I think it's worth making at least one post about it that isn't a wall of text. "Bad actors" are probably the best way of framing the stated issue. You say Roq, and by extension NPO, only want bipolarity, making us a bad actor in your eyes and the eyes of everyone who highly values the reality or the appearance of multipolarity. We, on the other hand, saw ostensible multipolarity as an unsustainable construct waiting to be messed up by a bad actor who refused to play by the rules of the system, which are largely unenforced. When I said earlier that a doctrine of intervention against inter-sphere coalitions was the best way NPO knew how to maintain the system, I meant it. It was the only way NPO's leadership could think of to counteract the potential for abuse inherent in multipolarity. Even if you disagree with me here - if you think I or Roq or NPO are lying, if you think we're the real bad actor who messed everything up for all the well-intentioned people - my point still stands. If you or NPO or anyone else want to build a better world, the bad actor problem will have to be addressed. Any new construct for diplomacy needs to include some credible assurance that it can't be corrupted by someone who isn't playing by its rules. This could be done by broad consensus, the threat of overwhelming force, or something else. But it needs to happen or, sooner or later, someone will decide their interests are best served by breaking things.
  13. Edward I

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    You spelled "preferred" incorrectly.
  14. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    I thought we'd been over this. An agreement between t$ and NPO - allies with a public treaty - is not a paperless tie with BK. If you're saying that, in this instance, it had a similar effect to a paperless tie, then you're kind of agreeing with the central point of my argument, which is that there is an undue focus on appearances at the expense of substance. Does cooperation between Chaos and KETOG via a coalition mean they have paperless ties? I don't think so, but it's had the same substantive effect as an alternate scenario in which they do. Does an ODoAP between NPO and Polaris do or promise anything that couldn't have been without it? Not really, but that hasn't stopped people from claiming otherwise. Does the notion that everyone really separated because they deleted lines on a treaty web amount to anything more than an unverifiable promise - an appearance, in other words? Not really. Just because others chose to define minispheres in almost purely aesthetic terms doesn't mean we had to.
  15. Edward I

    How long will this war go on for?

    See my wall of text that came after the post this was in response to. The details are there, but the short version is that we reject the notion that we had - or needed to be given - the "benefit of the doubt." The minisphere construct which we were all but commanded to support wasn't one we thought was fully sound. Its advocates accused us of undermining it from the start, seemingly without listening to our concerns and certainly without addressing them. If trust in NPO is predicated on its deference to your preferences regarding the metagame, then you have every reason to distrust us. We will never value the preferences or concerns of others over our own. That doesn't mean we aren't willing to compromise or listen, though. If you want NPO to be a full partner in building whatever world it is you want, perhaps consider doing the same.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.