Sans

No, its doesn't matter who was added because the significance of the addition and what it says about your state of mind remains the same. Which is one of a bipolar mindset.You say you'd knew you'd get flak for it, because you know what the implications of adding to your sphere means when the other side is breaking up. But that does not seem to matter because the intention does not seem to be one to reciprocate. Being tied to a central hub does not equate to the willingness of an alliance to participate to the fullest in coalition warfare. As seen last war, many alliances choose to defend their direct allies instead of committing to a coalition entirely. Many on your side dropped out early when their ally managed to get peace. The chance of that happening once again is diminished greatly when everyone on your side is directly allied to everyone else. It reinforces the commitment you have to each other and makes it much more likely you'd all remain committed in a coalition war. This only you have brought up is a lot more than anyone has seen from a core IQ alliance since the end of the war. Until we see something of that magnitude matched, you really don't get to use "only" to qualify it. Bad Company is a bloc made by predominantly ex Spectrum members. It is a spiritual successor. It in no way mirrors the redundant treaties signed in IQsphere. You have in the past criticized Syndisphere for consolidating in the wake of Silent, and you have very recently downplayed the losses EMC have suffered after ToT, which means you'd only consider more losses as a sign of actual change which implies you essentially want EMC to act unilaterally. Not exactly a call, but your rhetoric with concern to EMC losses does not hint you consider them legitimate, even though they are. To act anymore would be EMC acting unilaterally. Yet, UPN retains its only obligation to defend an alliance with one closely allied to your sphere. TTO entered in the war to defend its ally and they made it clear that was their intention, any association with your sphere doesn't hold any water. They didn't value the coalition and thus shouldn't be attributed to it. CF exist along with TC constitute a greater percentage loss for EMC when taking into context our other upper tier losses and the progress IQ has made in the mid tier. Relatively, we worse off that IQ in comparison to last war. I don't see why that is such an off the wall thing to consider. I don't think it is seems like most of the skepticism for that possibility lies over on your end. There is no pattern of extra treaty cooperation between us because we've been together since TKR was a twinkle in IC's eye. Controversy, there had been a history of collusion between Paragon and TC leading up to 168 and the trend continued until they split. There was more reason to suspect that continued collision than it is to suspect the relationship between tS and TKR looking at the history of extra treaty cooperation. Yet, NPO did hit us directly after we hit SK. I don't recall any paper between you two. Taking the context of the greater coalition war or not, it was an aggressive hit on TKR in the context of an aggressive war on our sphere and that still wasn't enough to trigger the treaty. So, your assumption of the relationship of some folks over here is misplaced. Yet, that association is something that is not matched on this side. That gesture whatever it was does imply a level of cooperation that we haven't seen and that does mean something for us as it does to you whether you have a paperless relationship or not. However, judging by the very large loan you acquired from them, a pseudo relationship between you two does not seem too far fetched. Paperless alliances have joined a variety of actors of a number of sides in conflicts across history. Their decision to entry is more closely tied to their individual interests rather than any association with any past associates. That trend shows no sign of changing. I believe CoS stated during last war that they would assist you in your aggressive action if you could provide proof of your claims that made up your CB. You either elected not to recruit them or you were unable to. You have stated the differences, and I have stated why they do not matter. The reality of the matter is both actors cut ties to former allies and both separations were genuine and both separations were met with more consolidation from their counterparts. You're just trying to defend your present consolidation when in the past your criticized the very thing you are doing. It is a gesture that IQ has not met in kind, you've only met that action by walking in the opposite direction. How does the time-frame hold any bearing? The periods of multipolarity lasted from World War Alpha to 168, that is close to 2 years and constitute almost 2/3 of the history of the game. That is not a short amount of time. That is most of this world's history and it worked for most of this world's history. During that duration those spheres fought 5 major wars and a number of smaller scale conflicts. The amount of surface area was greater because the sides were less connected so the amount of interaction between them was a heck of a lot greater than that seen presently. With that in mind, the relationships that were built and tore down during that time weren't squeaky clean, they fought 5 major wars. Yet, those leaders made it work and created an environment that was more dynamic than anything we've seen since. Yeah, the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) examples I used were minispheres that took part in greater bipolar conflicts. I used their example of the short of dynamic shuffling in and around each other smaller groups of alliances are able to achieve. I would prefer if my idea was adopted unconnected spheres so the tendency of bipolarism is discouraged as much as possible. Just because a treaty break is negotiated does not mean it is any less real than if it fell apart due to deterioration. The decision to cut a tie in place of another is its own kind of deterioration. Shows you value some ties above others. That is a kind of discourse on its own. You seemed to be stating you needed numbers for submarine to work and even though your ceiling was raised your floor was also raised. I'm saying, even with that floor raised you still are well within the range of nations within relevant alliances and so still have capacity to make a pit. Only this time even more $ is within your range. So, are you telling me AIM has no intention of ever supporting IQ in any conflict? No, I'm saying I prefer unconnected spheres of alliances. But, realistically there is a chance of those connected spheres to enter into each other's conflicts in order to protect their interests and that, if over time one particular one grew too strong, naturally the others would move to destroy that. That just because in this reality, that counter balanced failed because a few dominoes fell one way or another does not make it inevitable that it will happen again if we try. This emphasis on organic is misplaced for some reason. Negotiated separation is still separation and unconnected spheres will find themselves ill pressed to legitimize their entry into other conflicts if they truly are not there. The self regulation alliances will enact to prevent one sphere from gaining too much power will naturally kick in as we've seen it happen countless times. And no, if any negotiated split is even semi competent, there will be no easy pickings for one sphere or another. In order for this negotiation to work, it would have to have the concept of the vast majority of the parties. No one party will put themselves at such a disadvantage so any one sphere could stomp them "easily" There were understandable bitter reactions. The move was sudden and made largely in secret No one likes to have surprises, especially surprises that involve getting into bed with the historical opposition. The lack of prior discussion on the idea was a source of a lot of the disapproval with the move. That is something everyone can relate to. The alternative is something I am prepared to define in detail if you want to talk with me about it. You're underplaying the potential for people to move forward. There isn't some special characteristic that is only found in members of IQ for moving past old relations. These alliances have done so many times over in the past both before during and after the bipolar system. The reason those alliances did it when they did was because no one spoke up about an alternative other than their unilateral departure. I am speaking up now. For clarification, minisphers/multipolar are unconnected, so it checks the box without precedent. We have a chance to set it :). This suspicion is reasonable considering some of the history, but I can tell you the gesture is genuine. Folks want something like this to happen. The thought of an (unconnected) multipolar world is pretty attractive. As I have argued, yes the gap has shrunk between IQ and EM, but that is not the cause for this discussion. The desire for multipolar existed since before IQ was a concept. The trigger was not pulled by those leaders for reasons I do not know but it has cost our world the worse for it. The bitterness that surrounded the last war was built on distrust of IQ's intentions and its desires that was the core of the contention. The way IQ came about, in the darkness and at the speed of light were two characteristics off the bat that help set the stage of distrust. That distrust built upon itself until we ended up fighting a war against each other. Multipolar is being pushed by me now exactly because I see, as the NAP ends. Nothing has been done since the war to alleviate some of that distrust and if this trend continues we could repeat the past. I consider this to be pretty dull and so I want to head that off before we start down that road again. Which is why a negotiated split, rather than an organic one is preferred. So there is no distrust in each other's intentions. We can all be on the same page from start to finish and so we can come as close to a reset button as we're going to get. Its not unique because you have two other members of that bloc who used to be your enemies, now your closest allies. Its not unique because alliances have crossed the boundary from enemy to ally before. Its not unique because both sides have alliances they used to bitterly fight against. It is not unique and its not far fetched. Are you yourself unwilling to move forward past old grudges because thats the vibe I am starting to get here.

If you don't see it I can spell it out for you if you still cannot see if (or refuse to). Adding to your bloc tells people what kind of mindset you are in. The individual alliance doesn't matter. That isn't my point. You could have added Roz Wei and the significance of it would be the same. That you're looking to strengthen you bloc first and foremost and that leads me to believe you're less likely to accept any idea of change, hence slamming the door. Yes, each alliance does have the possibility to change, but the current system precludes them to retain a lot of relationships that would have otherwise gone out of favor if there wasn't paper there. A lot of leaders are lazy in that they often look to take an easy out whether the is defaulting to follow other allies into conflicts or citing treaty obligations to justify entering or not entering a conflict. The current system of treaty web is a cancer.that is sucking the politics out from game and that is why changing that system should be the goal of any leader that actually like the politics and war of this world. Of course no one else in Easy Mode has done anything since tS left. Look at the response they have seen afterwards. More IQ treaties. Are you telling me it is unreasonable for the alliances that decide not to follow tS are out of their mind because they believe unilateral change is unreasonable? I'm going to answer that question, its not. In fact it is worse than asking us to change unilaterally because IQ is moving in the negative direction in comparison to Easy Mode alliances. You're not only retaining your treaties after EM has dropped theirs, you're signing more. How can you gripe about people having faults with IQ not acting unilaterally and then in the next post, call on EM to unilaterally act? These two posts within a very short span of time do not reconcile with each other. So, you can complain about folks wanting IQ to act but then turn around and point out that EMC has not acted unilaterally enough for you? Come on. Folks are point out this disconnect in ideals because they don't make sense and that is why folks are pointing out the fact you're signing more treaties and pointing to your past rhetoric and they're seeing the two do not match. Ok so you're saying you lost TTO and UPN, but UPN still retains a what, MD level treaty to an alliance closely tied to IQ? and TTO fought in the war for a fraction of the time, I can't really say they were decidedly IQ for that war. More like an independent actor that wanted to help out an ally. Their role in the war played little in the grand scheme of things and to consider their dropping as a loss is more than a stretch, its more like a sprain. Tell you what, if tS only dropped a couple of their treaties and still had a MD level to our side or TC wasn't considered a core EM alliance before they went paperless, you'd have a point. But there weren't and you don't. Ya still have paper between them one and another wasn't even considered in your sphere. As far as UPN/CKD goes, i can't say whether they're likely or not to fight with you, but you don't know for sure if tS will with us either. At least I am honest enough to admit that. For some reason you seem pretty confident in your projection despite being told otherwise. Better yet, if you do consider EM still a huge threat that you need to defend against, why not look into alternative methods like multipolar. Seems like a deal made in heaven for a besieged sphere looking for a compromise. Yet, from your comments on the idea, you don't seem keen to consider it for some reason. Ok, so your point of distinction between preSillent and now is that you believe the break was legitimate and now you don't. Another point seems to be that you believe the consolidated side preSilent was the stronger side and the fracturing one the weaker one.That is the gist I am getting. Who holds the advantage now is a point of contention so I cannot agree that the two situations are dissimilar because I don't agree we are as dominant as Syndisphere was preSilent. As for your other point no, we don't outright hate tS, and we weren't angry when they left. They'll do them. But that doesn't take away from the fact they left, and their departure is just as legitimate as the one you criticized us for not believing during Silent. But for some reason you believe it whether it is to continue an agenda or otherwise. If you want to know under what circumstances they'd fight with us, ask em that is up to them, I really have no clue. What I'm telling you is there is no obligation in either direction for them to and to continue to assume so and base your policies on that will only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. You're assuming the entirety of nuke bloc has a mdnap with TKR. What leaves you to believe this? We were attacked last war and that NS you're attributing to our coalition didn't move to defend us. Your assumptions have no basis. As far as exclusivity goes. I have said my piece regarding there being exclusive relationships. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you. Cold hard paper that lies between HW and an alliance on your side tips the balance against any paperless agreements any day. Whether they exist or not. Judging from your response. It seems there is at least one additional agreement between NPO and HW in the form of a paperless agreement. Attributing HW to our coalition without any public agreements is just speculation and its bad speculation. tS going paperless along with their exclusive allies, is a sign that our core has suffered losses. To assume otherwise would be diving into conspiracy theory territory and that does not make a convincing argument. Again, I call back to your at this point seemingly contradictory stance regarding the departure of Paragon preSilent. IQ is the spiritual successor of the ParaCov coalition that stood as revisionist powers against Syndisphere. Yes immediately prior to its formation, the world was unipolar but that pales in comparison to the extent the world existed in a bipolar system. You're continuing to selectively ignore the history of this world. It arguably lasted from Proxy to after Silent. And before then the world was multipolar. Guardiansphere, Paragon, the Covenant. Paragon 2.0,Syndisphere, and Paperlesssphere It doesn't even stop with this world, another world say its most iconic moments happen in a multipolar world too, The Unjust Path, SuperFriends, BLEU, OV, CDT, CnG, Citadel, OuT and even far into that game like, XX, DH, AZTEC, DR. All of these smaller spheres drove the politics of this world in an era that lasted many times longer than it did as a unipolar one. And that is completely removing the context with which Syndi claimed its dominance. It occurred over several hard fought wars. Most of these conflicts they weren't even the favored party. Just because Syndi did become the dominant sphere and went on to become a unipolar one, does not mean it was inevitable. It was a perfect storm that had to have several dominoes fall into place for it to happen assuming another multipolar world would end up as such stipulates those dominoes will fall into place again despite the privilege of history. And even if it does bounce back to a similar situation the journey along the way provided some of the most interesting interactions and relationships this world has ever seen. The journey itself to a hypothetical eventuality would be worth it and if we set the precedent to break the wheel to begin with we can do it all over again x years down the line it takes us to get there. Years of multipolarity is vastly more attractive to years of bipolarity. That seems to be a consensus. Yeah, I get that seems to be a real fear for folks on that side of the web. Which is why I'm trying to address it. Signing more intrapshere treaties is a reactive stance, not a proactive one. Folks want a multipolar world, they're just skeptical that it can work. Once you get over that skepticism and accept the possibility that someone could eventually become as strong as Syndi and it will be up to those leaders to deal with it, then the sooner we get to enjoy the pros that a multipolar world gives us and enjoy the ride and like I said if it does happen. Folks have already proven themselves capable of self regulating. Ya, you need folks under your up-declare in order to pin down the folks you hit. You also had that problem towards the end of last war when the coalition started eating its way up but you delt with the the same way you will deal with it in the future, by selling down and keeping them pinned. Its happened before and you still retain the capacity to do it again. Zodiac lost members to splinters that decided to sign onto your sign as protectorates. Still well within your sphere of influence and reinforcement range if it come down to it. I don't see how that counts as a loss. We didn't sign the Mensa splinters as protectorates and we didn't sign tS's exclusive allies to them either. That is real loss. You choose the believe whatever you want when it concerns to tS, any amount of information regarding the state of the relationship seems to be dismissed. That is the thing it is a cycle of change and it is going to over time manifest itself into various forms. We have already seen what happens in this world and the next when a side in a multipolar world gains a relative edge over the others. Everyone tries to destroy them. The same thing will happen if we try again but assuming the same outcome will happen just because we exist in a reality where it did (by the falling of a number of dominoes) isn't logical. And yes the interests of smaller alliances would become more influential in a multipolar world thanks for agreeing with me. Though, I cannot respond in kind to your assertion that multipolar would lead to one sided curbstomps. In fact history has shown us the conflicts in multipolar are some of the closest and fiercest fighting of any system. There were a number of reasons why people were unhappy with the initial change so I won't speak for all of them. I know I was upset with it because I knew it would mean war on allies we've been close to for a while and there was another possible alternative that wouldn't divide the world into two. Alas that was never acted upon and so we experienced the inevitable conclusion that unilateral change brought about. People are unhappy now because it seems the change that was the supposed justification for the move has only given us more of the same bipolarism that existed before the unipolarity. People are unhappy, because they know there is an alternative to bipolarism and that alternative is seemingly being rejected by your sphere. Whether that is the case or not idk, talks of this alternative are extremely young, but the underlining desire is old. What do you mean there is no reset? You're in a bloc with an alliance you've fought against twice! You're in a bloc with a bunch of alliances that used to be allied to the other side. And we're in close association to alliances that we've been bitter enemies with since our inception. There IS a reset of relations YOU just choose not to embrace it selectively because it would not suit YOUR agenda. Disputes are often not elected to be acted upon because of cost-benefit analysis, but that absolutely would change in multipolar. The difference of dragging in an entire machine to fight vs the cost of dragging in a vastly smaller scale into a conflict cannot be overstated. The various agendas and considerations you have to keep in mind when bonded by paper severely limits your potential actions. Because it only takes an alliance here and there in your coalition to decide not to back you and all of a sudden you're at an immense disadvantage in comparison to your enemies. Deciding enter conflicts only when the absolute greatest threat is at hand is DULL politics. There is a point about pr hits as you put it, but those non chaining treaties only lessen the blow for folks who do not honor their word. Alliances still retain that pr hit. That is not even mentioning the cookie cutter road map treaties present for alliance leaders who refuse to consider dynamic action even when it would be in their interests because of paper with alliances they no longer have the same relationship with. And yes, while we have seen some changes here and there with regards to alliances dropping or signing treaties, these moves are the exception, not the rule and that is important to remember. The alliances in IQ that fought together since the last war are almost entirely still with IQ. We can go back and forth. And if you believe we have an advantage over you, how would weakening ourselves suit our agenda? You can't reconcile the two. I want to bring about multipolar because I think that sort of system is the most fun. And why play a game if you don't think its fun. The bipolar dynamic isn't recent. Its been in place since 168 with a brief intermission after Silent. Yeah, multipolar isn't brand spanking out of the box new, but its been a lot longer since we've seen multipolar in-comparison to the other systems. Multipolar is also better, which is another reason to go with it. You could say me bringing it up is because of an agenda. Ok, but it really wouldn't further an agenda aimed to put TKR in the best possible position because we'd be kneecapping our support, cutting ties to allies we've known for a while, all while being the #1 alliance in the game and so the most likely target of any ambitious pole who would want to take us on. If I really wanted to give TKR the best chance of becoming the next uni-pole, I'd work to break alliances away from your sphere. But thats not what I'm doing. I'm calling for mutual destruction of BOTH spheres so we can make a multipolar world and create a more enjoyable environment. The idea that you hold onto about past grudges only reinforces the fact. If you refuse to take an actual change, in light of the relationship you and BK now have as proof of concept you're only contradicting yourself. No one is saying you are a hegemoney. Only that the gap between the two spheres before the war and now is a lot closer and in light of the moves one side has made your side has only consolidated despite being the face of dynamicism. And that, if there is a desire to retain that narrative you should seriously consider alternate policies.

I'd agree if the historical rhetoric from some of the folks weren't railing against the bipolar system and calling for some sort of fundamental change. I want to see exactly how much of that was genuine and how much of that was just convenient rhetoric in order to garner political favor. I actually want to act on that desire of fundamentally changing the system and if anyone wants that too, you should support it.

There is no way to measure how much more certainty they add. But I'm glad your recognize it does add to your advantages. The VE entry and the redundant treaties..No, an appearance of potential change doesn't make it realistic, but letting everyone know you're slamming the door on the idea of change says a lot about what your future plans are. Yeah ofc a paperless alliance is more likely to enter on a side they liike, no argument there. That's they thing they can enter, its not a definite thing and just because they'd most likely side with us in most situations does not mean they will. That is another part of that certainty advantage we were talking about earlier, and how IQ has relative to Easy Mode, has a lot more of it. You know what their exit does that acts as the complete opposite from the policy most IQ members have embraced recently? An actual potential for change. You to make them like you so they're more likely to enter on your side or sit out, talk to them. EMC alliances have actually put their money where your mouth should be and are actually taking steps to bring about change. Just because you feel as if they don't like you doesn't take away from what they have done and what it means to us. They have the potential for change being paperless and that is a lot more than anyone can say for IQ since the end of the war. These several significant alliances, you're going to have to put a name to that. I can off the bat say you may mean HBE, You guys lost them because you had a falling out over ally obligations. That's not even a bid for trying to change the dynamic of anything. Yeah, looking at it without the cause for their exit it is still a loss for you, but even so, it pales in comparison that was the tS, TC, CF exit. So why even bring it up? Its a hard stretch to even compare the two. So, because the relations between ParaCov were not as close as our relationship with tS means you cannot comprehend a world where they are actually telling the truth and are separate? That is not skepticism that is borderline paranoia. And it has to call into question whether is denial of the legitimacy of their move has an ulterior motive. You really have not brought up a legitimate reason why you suspect the move other than a feeling that because we've known each other for a long time, we can't be separate. That is a complete paper thin reason. Drawing the differences between our relationship and the one that existed between ParaCov is valid but its not as valid as the arguments you made yourself in the wake of Silent about one side's continued consolidation in the face of another's change. You're completely contradicting your past stance in almost the same circumstances. You're just on the other side of it and it only makes your present arguments, in light of your previous ones, appear fake.Fact is Easy Mode is actually the face of dynamism now and you're arguing for continued consolidation and the status quo. No, the level of cohesion is no where the level a direct MD level treaty provides. There is daylight between plenty of the folks over here in certain areas and that is really not seen with the web of treaties you have signed together as a sphere. If you believe the relationship between Rose and NK is the same as SK and Zodiac, you're out of your mind. There is no comparison history be damned, for public paper. Hell, Rose this alliance that you seem to attribute to us as some sort of long term historical ally, has only aligned with us for a bit longer than IQ itself has been a thing. How can you argue that we are historical allies (when we're actually not, we've fought directly plenty of times) and still call IQ a new phenomena. You say HW's relationship with Lordaeron is exclusively with them, well I'm telling you a number of relationships over here are exclusively with each other. You deny my assertion of bilateral instead of multilateral relationships but continue to defend your own, how? Your consolidation gives you a distinct advantage. While on the topic of HW, so they can't hit you easily and you say their relationship lies with Lordaeron exclusively. That doesn't take away from my point. Their relationship with Lordaeron is a lot more than what they have with anyone of us and while they cannot hit your nations easily they can hit ours, there is another side to that story you forgot again. Being more closely associated with a close ally of yours I'd say puts them more likely to support you in the event of a conflict and thus takes away from your no swing alliance point completely. You say you have a lot off holds but not a lot of pickups. Well, we have a lot of losses and very few pickups. Put it on a scale and I'd say IQ still comes out ahead. A tight core has undoubtedly been a deciding factor in conflicts. Whether alliances are willing to go offensive or defensive, whether they will hit alliance a or alliance b, whether they decide to stay in longer because they have a lot of allies in a conflict vs bowing out early when their ally leaves. These are factors that have decided wars in the past and all of the trends your sphere has undergone recently points to those factors being in your favor. And its why consolidating as you have been is a good thing if you want to go to war.. No, IQ is not change. The idea of alliances switching allegiances after a war is not new. Alliances deciding to join a losing side is not new. It has happened before in this world and in many others. Bipolarism is not new and its not change, its something contrary to your assertion of uni-polarity, ,has existed for the vast majority of the history of this world and IQ establishing yourselves they way you have are only perpetuating it. Actual change is not continuing bipolarirty, it is getting rid of it. While those theoretical proposals existed since before Papers Please, they didn't have anyone actively pushing for them to happen. That isn't the case now. There are plenty of ideas on how to go about getting rid of bipolarism and they are active in their desire. The practicality argument I've heard and addressed. Multipolar has existed, it is practical it only needs leaders who actually want to back up their rhetoric and buy into it. You seem to be afraid this change I am mentioning will revert to uni-polarity, you're unique with that fear, most folks seem to think it will revert to bipolarity, which I agree with. In any case even if it does, there is precedent both for alliances to leave a unipolar system and establish something else and (if multipolar is embraced) there would be precedent for folks to sit down at a table and self regulate. Yeah, ya still has access to the vast majority of nations in your range last war. Now you do + the extra range you can hit with an average of 13 cities. Amount of upper tier that can sit on top of you has diminished greatly, and while you most likely do not have an overwhelming advantage coming pretty close does the job doesn't it. Submarine does not require a large advantage, it requires activity and coordination. It is something NPO has demonstrated it excels at individually and your assistance to the rest of your sphere will prove invaluable. No actually it does have a value in the damage you will do to the previous untouched upper tiers of those alliances you mentioned :P. Ya folks lost people to deletions cities are lost. That happens to everyone. What matters is the scale of loss and gain and you can't reason away the gains you have made with the almost negligible losses. They don't reconcile. The two spheres stand at a point where anyone starting anything will result in untold destruction for either side. It is a unique situation that offers a unique opportunity to put aside the finger pointing and come together to bring about actual change that, will not result in unipolarity, but an active and dynamic multipolar world. GoB didn't need to fight no, but they are a loss. And we must not lose sight of the differences during which they did not need to fight. Last war HW came in and wrecked the upper tier of one of your stronger alliances in Zodiac, and now they arguably lie far closer to your side than ours. That huge pressure on the upper tier those wizards brought is no longer there and while we still retain upper tier dominance, it is not upper tier supremacy. Combined with the additional gains you have made in the mid tier, it is a tier that is much more contested since the end of the last war, and that is accentuated by GoB going paperless. A treaty with NK and WTF siding with nuke bloc are things that were already present. What you fail to take into account is how invested tS was to Easy Mode and when you casually write off their loss by suggesting Nuke bloc takes their place, says a lot about your knowledge of the dynamics in our sphere. I'm not saying I don't believe NK at their word when they say they'd defend us, but anticipating the entire's bloc's investment is the same level as tS's would be incorrect. That is why your level of consolidation is alarming, and directly contradicts your supposed rhetoric. Because there is that certainty you can read in the treaties, whereas you assume we're the same way, but we're not. You right off that unless like it has no chance of happening. There is piles and piles of history of that exact thing happening across many, many worlds. The alternative to uni polarity is not only bipolarity. Multipolar has proven to be the most dynamic and interesting form of political environment worlds like these have ever seen. Bipolarity just makes politics lazy and it robs smaller alliances of relative power. They become only one of a greater hole and their individual interests are sidetracked for the interests of the greater sphere. That still exists in multipolarity, but in that case, the relative power of smaller alliances is greater as they make up a larger percentage of their sphere and their non compliance means a greater percentage loss of their sphere. I believe if an alliance has a problem with another one in particular or group in particular, there should be an environment which they can act on that. Conflicts that are more personal to each alliance's interests is something we all should be looking for. When an alliance forgoes to use politics in the form of diplomacy or war simply because it would be too much of an inconvenience for them to trigger a colossal machine of treaties every single one of us should shed a tear. As far as the suspicion goes, you would have a point if a large portion of your sphere was not made up of alliances that previously worked with folks over here. We have a unique situation where folks on both sides have fought with each other and against each other. The type of bias you are referencing is much less so if a multipolar world were enacted because there are those previous relationships behind just the recent history and while, things may still default to the more recent ones for some of those folks, breaking the wheel allows for an untold amount of combinations and interactions.Will multiple poles truely be exclusive? Probably not, but by breaking the paper, we make an environment with much more uncertainty. Folks may have people they like more than others even across poles but those ties are not put in paper. Paper gives a kind of funny interaction between alliances that are two folded. The first is certainty. When an alliance makes a joint announcement in paper they are telling their partner they have achieved a certain level of trust and commitment to the point where they are willing to announce it publicly. This sort of gesture makes people confident in their planning that certain things are to be expected in relation to others. That is to say, if I am hit by someone alliance b said to everyone that he'd defend me. That sort of certainty doesn't exist without the paper. Alliances can tell you up to the day you are attacked they have your back, but they can go back at the last second. The second point treaties bring is a kind of leverage against your partner. If they say publicly they'd do something and don't, the norm is for them to be ridiculed and lose PR, reducing their soft power. With no paper, you can't know for sure your agreement with alliance b is there or not and if its not alliance b is going to suffer a lot less from it (from other people). This creates a dynamic that is a lot more flexible in its interactions between people and while the interactions between alliances. That means the members of a particular conflict are bonded a lot looser to each other and it opens up a lot more surface area of new interactions to take place, thus make new relationships and new politics. The disputes that cause separation you mentioned is a lot more likely to occur in a world where the gravitational pull of treaties are no longer there and the surface area of interaction has increased, making new politics. Relative to Syndi IQ ya, but relative to the sides that exist now. You guys are older than us. Easy Mode is not the same with tS, Mensa, TC, CF leaving, you can disagree but its not. And what IQ seems to be a champion of, which is bipolarism, is not recent at all. Its old and its worn out. Your perspective starts with the end of Silent, but there history beyond that and ignoring that only seems to be a choice made to suit your agenda, which is perpetuating the bipolar system. Your assertion that people are not willing to press a reset button also seems to be an assumption made to suit an agenda. I am willing to press a reset button, I am advocating for it. Only suspicion and ulterior motives are what stands against it from happening and that involves you and your view that fundamental change cannot happen. Which I may add, only adds to the problem. You can only look to your present allies and you lose your case right there. BK and NPO were at odds for how long and now you're in a bloc with a supremacy clause. Now much more proof do you need that the idea of change is possible when you're sitting right next to it? Try reading it. And if you're interested in what I have to say, hit me up. I am not advocating you unilaterally break up, if you've heard my talks with your fellow IQ leaders it is in fact the opposite of that. A mutual agreement to break the wheel. If you don't then yeah, you kinda are showing your cards that you aren't really interested in change, but the status quo.

Why do you have to be rude? We're having a legitimate conversation. Your trolling is not appreciated.

Yes, VE by default of some of the context surrounding the last war was on your side and yes you still lost even with that NS on your side. That wasn't my point, my point was by consolidating the way that you did you removed an avenue of politics, that is the potential for VE to be dynamic in their sphere placement by adding them to your bloc. As your side has done for a fair few number of alliances that constitute your sphere. The decidedly polarization signing such a huge number of redundant treaties eliminates any sort of room for dynamism to play out. It creates more certainty and if we look at that level of certainty your side has a heck of a lot more than ours. That advantage translates to the planning of potential hostile encounters and is an advantage your side definitively has. I do not know how you can comment on the the likelyhood of a paperless alliance involving themselves in a war without explaining how came to that conclusion. I'd argue and I'm sure some folks would agree with me that at the bear minimum, tS leaving eliminates some situations they'd chose to enter, where otherwise they would have. That is something of a magnitude no one on IQ has had to deal with since the end of the war and its something we have. We don;t have cart blanche support from tS, and neither they from us. They are paperless. I'm sure some folks over on your side can comprehend the idea of former allies breaking their ties and genuinely becoming separated. I'm looking at the folks who were involved with Paragon's separation specifically. Is it really so much of a leap of faith the believe someone at their word when they tell you they are paperless, when in fact a handful of months ago ParaCov was preaching about the very same thing? I recall the discourse during Silent War criticizing Syndisphere for not taking Paracov at their word of separation. I'm pretty sure you were one of them too. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe I am placing an undue emphasis or anything. Yeah some folk over hear like to chat with each other and a fair few of us have mutual ties. But many of the relationships you see spelled out in paper are just that, relationships between alliance x and y. The amount of cohesion that is shown in IQ sphere is nowhere near the level we experience over here. Nukebloc and KT don't sit at the same coffee table and have afternoon tea. In comparison, alliances on your side are so closely tied you pretty much breath each other's air. And that level of certainty gives you an advantage. As far as swing alliances go, yeah there hasn't been too much addition to IQ from that was there prewar, but that is only one side of the equation. Your counterparts have arguably lost a crap ton in comparison to where they were during the war. tS gone, CF, gone TC, gone. Mensa, ,parts of it gone. Lets not forget Hogwarts, that alliance that helped us out last war? They have an agreement with a close ally of yours in Lordaeron? I think your statement of swing alliances goes right out the door with that one alone. Ya, YOUR side hasn't gone through much change in terms of names (on the surface), but your side does not exist in a vacuum. OUR side has lost a lot and speaking in relative terms that means IQ HAS gained in comparison to last far from our losses alone. We're not even talking about the growth said alliances have done. As far as an argument about wanting to be on the winning side and putting each coalition in the perspective of history. Listen, you and I both know this idea doesn't hold any water at all. I stand in agreement with most of Orbis that SOME sort of change is very much wanted by the vast majority of players. It was a trend that existed ever since and arguably before Papers Please and it has only gathered steam ever since. The desire in the psyche of the players isn't one of conformity to the status quo, its revisionism. A desire to seek something new, to make something new and IQ has proclaimed itself as the champion of this desire for change, for dynamism. THAT is the true trend that players are experiencing now and it plays into your hands not ours as the public's face of revisionism. However, I would like to point out that in contrast to this supposed message of dynamism all that has actually happened is traditional bipolar sphere politics. Nothing has changed. But I am willing to talk about a possible change with anyone who will listen. The vast majority of active and able players now lie within IQ's range of nations, which IQ has more of. You have higher tier cohesion and enough active players to make those stats useful. Will we know whether the growth IQ has done since the end of the war is enough to give you a decisive victory, I concede no one knows for sure. But what I can do is speculate and my reasonable interpretation is (i know the word reasonable is kinda subjective here) you stand at a much better chance than you did previously. Taking into context as everyone should do the changes both sides have made and laying out the respective advantages and disadvantages. Arguments like isn't completely uncontested seem really weak to me, ya, we're not a speed bump in the road and we would still have a fair few nations that remain out of IQ's reach but you're downplaying your strengths hard. Last war NPO was an average what 9-10 city alliance. Now you're an average 13 city alliance. The reach you have easily covers the vast majority of the nations in this game and the water level of the pit puts most alliances well within reaching range of IQ. This is a change of circumstance that no one nor their mother has not taken notice of. You can't really downplay the strategic difference between city 9-10 dominance and city 13. It speaks for itself. I wouldn't make this conversation about TKR specifically, but I will address your point nevertheless. I believe what TKR has done has to be taken into the greater context of its sphere. Most conflicts recently have been coalition based so that is the most relevant perspective for this discussion. So, TKR has upgraded an already established long term ally in NK to a MD treaty and we signed RnR along with upgrading longstanding protectorates. We have also lost long term ally tS, powerhouse Mensa, and our upper tier protectorate in GoB. Put that on a NS scale and I'd say, relative to the changes IQ has made, we'd come out in the red. What I'd like to point out is what TKR hasn't done. We haven't signed consolidating treaties within our sphere. We haven't signed Rose to a binding MD treaty, we haven't signed TC, we haven't signed CF. We haven't tried to sign any of the relevant third parties that exist that could tip the balance nor have we tried to coerce any of your allies into defecting from you. We don't feel the need to sign a web of treaties, because that WOULD give the impression that we're trying to double down on this idea of bipolarism and guess what, we're not. I cannot say the same for IQ who have signed a Charlotte's Web of treaties among yourselves since the war ended, which if I may point out to my earlier argument, both gives your an advantage and gives an insight to your state of mind, which is us vs them centric. Bipolarity may be an eventuality, but it is not because people automatically pick one side or another. It comes with when one pole gains disproportionate strength so much so that multi-polarity cannot exist. I do not buy that most non bipolar conflicts have been stomps there have been numerous occasions in may similar environments such as this one where multi-polarity has in fact been the most even and hard fought system that was established. No, unipolarity is not an eventuality in the absence of bipolarity, multipolarity can and has existed. These inorganic proposals you say do have a mechanic. It is a self regulating mechanic. An us vs them mentality inherently present in exclusive groups could, would and has served as an able self regulator. The only inorganic part of such proposals would be the initial agreement afterwards politics will take over as usual the only difference being the environment in which it was played. Which I would argue would be a much more enjoyable one to take part in. There seems to be some sort of paranoia regarding the relationship of long term allies and whether alliances would be genuine. Maybe I am too naive, but I believe too much suspicion marks one as untrustworthy themselves. Maybe I can cite some sort of psychologist, but I can tell you this unreasonable suspicion is going to end up as a self fulfilling prophecy if you don't learn to trust every once and a while. Eh, I can't buy into the idea of IQ being a recent development. In the context of this game you are already an established sphere. You've been together for the better part of the year at this point. Just because you've only fought one war together does not mean you're a new phenomena. By this point, you're actually old news. And as a concept, I wouldn't put the foundation of my argument against multi-polarity on the idea that IQ, a bloc that has perpetuated the bipolar system established by Syndisphere and ParaCov, still needs time to show us something revolutionary. Something truly revolutionary would be enacting multipolarity and it is something that can be achieved. It only needs the support of folks who already want it to happen and for those who doubt it to seriously consider it.

With some perspective, the entry is very much still a matter of consolidation. VE/GoG wasn't considered solidly IQ before the last war and it wasn't until post war that they chose and decided to consolidate their ties in IQ. Yes, that exactly consolidation. Deciding to sign treaties among yourselves while your counterparts disband and go paperless in comparison IS consolidation. I mean, you can say the Mensa disbandment was only partial and a fair chunk of NS went to Guardian, but it doesn't take away from the fact that nations were lost. The work put in by those Mensa nations makes up for their lack of numbers x times over, number that I have to point out are not in the favor of the side they left. Yes, tS is paperless and who is to say they aren't neutral? And even if they have a predisposition, would that be out of the ordinary for anyone? They have their interests they want to protect, doesn't exclude the fact they are under no obligation to assist anyone. Their leaving is of a magnitude that has yet to be matched by an IQ alliance. And that is something you really can't argue away. That isn't even going into the number of consolidating treaties your side have made. I can't even give you the idea that these signings do not mean anything statistically. There were a crap ton of cross ties during the last war, ties that could have gone one way or the other. It made it so making projections and thus ideas of how a war will play out and the basis for which leaders will make their decisions, a bloody mess. Now there is pretty much certainty for a lot more alliances. Leaders can be more confident in their statistical protections. That is a factor that must not be overlooked and its something IQ benefits from disproportionately from with its actual WEB of treaties. These treaties while in your opinion does not make a statistical difference,If you take the alliances from both sides during the last war,it does paint a picture into the IQ mindset. That your side is set in your ways and you are not interested in any sort of actual change and you are content with perpetuating the system. And lets not forget tier cohesion. IQ benefits disproportionately form that too. You are uncontested in the tiers you occupy. And yes, while there is still an advantage we have my the nature of being more upper tier dominant, that is more than made up with the sheer number of nations you can bring to the table, all range of each other. You cannot argue away that advantage when folks on both sides experienced the "pit". Since the conclusion of the war you've worked diligently to raise the range of the pit, overlapping with a lot of the tiers of strengths your previous opponents enjoyed last war that they will not in a hypothetical future one. Relative to the place both sides were in previous to the last war IQ is pretty much an entirely different animal. No, it does not completely tip the scales, but to admit so would make IQ the dominant spheres which you absolutely will not admit to. Now, in my dealings with folks from around the web, Easy Mode folks, Paperless folks, and even IQ folks including yourself, I have heard a cry criticizing the Bipolar system and a dream that something else could be established to take its place. Yet, for all of the rhetoric I have heard about the formation of IQ and what I was meant to achieve, all I have seen is the moves of a traditional revisionist looking to establish their own dominant sphere. These consolidating ties as many would call them only point to the fact that you are only interested internally and hold no interests for truly redefining the game. That is why the to add another IQ member is criticized. Even more so given the rhetoric from IQ and doubly even more so in the face of the decentralization Easy Mode has gone these past months after the war, no matter how small you believe that has been. Now, if there was a real idea to break Orbis bipolarism, even for a little while, how would you take it?

My fav Apeman quote <3

There are a number of factors involved in who and how many alliances we enter into paper with at any one time. I'm confident in my alliance's ability as any member who loves their alliance, but that confidence does not mean we will ignore those factors that take part in our fa decisions. Nice mix of perspectives we're getting from this venture, looking forward to the next one.

Thanks for sharing your criteria. Can't say that would be the most accurate way to go about things but I can respect the follow-through. Have to agree with one of Roq's arguments concerning these number speculation threads though, you can never quantify exactly how effective that NS is going to be even if you were 100% accurate in predicting where they stand. In that way this speculation is even less reliable map. More of a guideline. Interesting you consider some of these folks as Syndi though. Is that an opinion shared by a lot of other non Syndi folks?

Basically what Sketchy said. I'd hear out your reasoning for putting some of the more questionable alliances where they are but at the moment it sounds less like an honest attempt to record the spheres and more like propaganda. Could you list the alliances you consider in IQ and other as well?

Can I have a clear outline of Syndi, IQ and other Kastor. For clerical purposes.

Survivor is the superior reality show but this is nice.

Thank you Fed for being there with us in the trenches. Fed is way more than legal in my books

I'll save my log dumps for when you get back. A man stays loyal to one hippo at a time. Congratz Buor.

Glad to have this worked out. Good peace to you UPN.

GG Lordaeron, good luck on the rebuild.

Take note alliances of Orbis, this is what a real protector looks like.

You went full ayy lmao. Never go full ayy lmao.

Ya man I gotcha. I just think there is some sort of nuance between keeping some cards close to your chest and actually planning to roll alliances you are treatied to while telling them you want to maintain your relationships. Its a way to play for sure but it isn't necessary to keep the game interesting and I think that's something the folks who are trying to defend themselves keep holding onto in order to legitimize it. I can't agree with their reasoning. There are decent ways to go about things.

Cool for you to disagree, not the words I would use to describe it. More like, nefarious or malevolent. Not my cup of tea.

If BK is Homura,who is Madoka? Dynamic change?

>make the game interesting again No, it was a power play to take control of the game. I don't know about you, but I sure don't find having multiple allies planning to roll me, "interesting". I don't see the tangled mess that is the treatyweb, "interesting". I just see a group that wanted to get out from the shadow of another, but went about it in a really crappy and shady way. Its fine if that was the goal, but try to cover it up now that you're failing with euphemisms. Own up to your malicious goals, people would respect you more for it.

This one seemed especially appropriate considering the recent stats update.

Neat stats, thanks man. Ya, a lot of that has been the result of updeclares on us and a few members who zealously charged into the breach only to 3 man countered. But we have been dropping lately to continue the rout so I do not doubt a large percentage of that score change is the result intentional military loss. But don't let that stop you tr8torsphere folks who are looking for a ray of sunshine to cling to.