Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Mikey]

>contest claim to actively harm you

>literally puts the guy who leaked plans into a gov spot

>allies with the alliance that attacked an ally of Syndicate's

 

Clearly we are incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

 

It is super easy.  Nobody should have actually believed that there was a "3rd Sphere".  It is a fundamental basic concept to relations in this game.  The only logical reason to do so is to give an excuse to pry a few enemy alliances away from the other side.

 

For evidence of the no 3rd Sphere I give you this very war.

 

So you were either using the 3rd Sphere BS to cover up your move or you honestly do not understand the core IR system of the game.

 

I'll freely admit my knowledge of the history of this game prior to 7 months ago is limited. Prior to that I was here from the beginning of the game through maybe half (I am not entirely clear on where it falls on the timeline) of the beta, where things were obviously not fully developed and the lack of two solid spheres then doesn't necessarily prove anything. But aside from the fact that the tendency over the past year or year and a half has been to coalesce into two spheres, I see no reason it has to be that way. I have seen various setups function in other games, and certainly real history has seen various models of polarity throughout.

 

Its possible that in this game specifically things will necessarily move in that direction. Certainly I will agree that the fewer alliances (or at least viably powerful alliances) there are, the harder it is to sustain an increasing amount of spheres. Maybe you're right, and unless we suddenly get 30 new AAs with double digit member counts and good scores it won't be sustainable. I certainly hope not because I find the bipolar structure boring as hell regardless of who is on top. You are free to believe that, I don't and I dont find the evidence convincing that it has to be.

 

You can say nobody should have believed its a possibility, but we received a positive reception to the idea even from those in your camp, who all seemed to agree it was possible and a good thing, though in the end they decided it wasn't for them and I respect that. In any event we have alliances like Test and Roz Wei who seem to think its possible to exist outside that dynamic. That doesn't make it so and I am not saying it does. But there is no reason to think everbody we spoke to would necessarily refuse us, just as there was no reason to think they would accept either. If we really wanted this whole thing as just an illusion the best course would be to simply not ask them in the first place. There is no gain to approaching them if we didn't want them to come, while the risk (assuming our evil plan was real) of them accepting, however low the possibility may or may not be, obviously outweigh that.

 

 

I also freely admit that this war has effectively ended any hopes for this 3rd sphere. Intended or not (and I wont pretend to speak to the intentions of alliances other than my own), this has effectively lumped us in with them, and I don't think the sphere will escape that label. Otherwise, we're never going to agree. I'm not going to argue about the viability of more than 2 poles, because it could go either way and I am not going to claim that its existence in real life or other games means it would exist here too. Its an interesting conversation to have, I think, but one that would be poisoned by the rest of this dialogue at this point in time.

 

Choose to believe we've been plotting this for the past six months if you want. Keep congratulating yourselves on the brilliant deduction. It brings a smile to my face if nothing else.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[Roquentin]

So the CB is a joke from a second in command a month or so ago? NOW you tell me.

It wasn't a joke. I don't think you really get it. If an alliance's leadership says that and then their MoFA makes a call out topic, it's pretty clear the writing is on the wall. I get the timetable wasn't ideal for you, but expect people to take threats from aggressive alliances seriously.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I want there to be a multi-polar world.  But three poles will always be two versus one.  Any boardgamer knows five, seven or nine are the optimal number of players(diplomacy, supremacy, civilization).  

 

I applauded Rose and SK for trying to have a third sphere.  And I don't blame them for tying up with the other loser sphere to take down the top dog.  In a 3 sphere world, its always 1 vs 2 and 3.

 

But three isn't enough spheres.  I wish the paperless sphere would get a little larger.  Maybe SK could join that one with Guardian, it'd be a nice little sphere, plus a traditional grouping of SK-G-TeST.  Then we could try to roll VE and fail and TeST could switch sides.  Ok, maybe that didn't work out so well last time.

[Spaceman Thrax]

It wasn't a joke. I don't think you really get it. If an alliance's leadership says that and then their MoFA makes a call out topic, it's pretty clear the writing is on the wall. I get the timetable wasn't ideal for you, but expect people to take threats from aggressive alliances seriously.

 

Let's assume this guy was actually somehow able to control our entire sphere, just for sake of argument. Even though anyone can make any number of comments without making a single DoW.

 

Maybe he meant he was only going to roll your alliance, because he was concerned you would try to push a bipolar war, and shame on everyone else for thinking it might have mattered to them?  

 

Anyways before this gets too cyclical... I'll take the criticisms about what our sphere might have done from people who know it, and don't have a vested interest in having protection from an inevitable conflict they assume is coming for them. So cheers.

[Mikey]

I want there to be a multi-polar world.  But three poles will always be two versus one.  Any boardgamer knows five, seven or nine are the optimal number of players(diplomacy, supremacy, civilization).  

 

I applauded Rose and SK for trying to have a third sphere.  And I don't blame them for tying up with the other loser sphere to take down the top dog.  In a 3 sphere world, its always 1 vs 2 and 3.

 

But three isn't enough spheres.  I wish the paperless sphere would get a little larger.  Maybe SK could join that one with Guardian, it'd be a nice little sphere, plus a traditional grouping of SK-G-TeST.  Then we could try to roll VE and fail and TeST could switch sides.  Ok, maybe that didn't work out so well last time.

 

I agree that five would be better, and boy would I love to see the day. I think it really would take there being a lot more players and alliances for that to work though. Now everybody being paperless on the other hand.....that I can always get behind. I am nostalgic for our Guardian days.

 

(there was an option for me to resign, and it literally only got like five votes or something)

 

It was just me

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[LordRahl2]

I see no reason it has to be that way. I have seen various setups function in other games, and certainly real history has seen various models of polarity throughout.

 

This is not real life (your claim that there is frequently multi-polarity in RL is suspicious at best but this is not Social Hub).

 

The reason that Orbis clumped into two spheres is the same reason why 3 or more spheres will not work in the future.  Its a basic theory of IR that when security is the central concern of actors that they will seek to maximize their personal security.  The way to do this is to gather the maximum number of allies, preferably good ones - but barring that any will do.

And this is a war game - so it will happen.

 

You could increase the number of nations in Orbis by 1000% and it would still clump into two spheres.

[Prefontaine]

Three spheres can work. It's just not viable when one sphere is clearly superior at war. You can have two main spheres and a "swing sphere" or several of them even that fall on either side of major wars for various reasons. That slowly grinds to a halt though when those swing spheres latch onto a side from the previous war and stop swinging. 

[LordRahl2]

The swing sphere will eventually settle on one side.

[Prefonteen]

Don't start with me hippo. One person doesn't make an alliance. Take for example, TKR, I don't really like Sargun or Lordship so I talk to IC. In Mensa, I used to go to TUGT regardless of the issue, he's just the guy I went too. UPN I didn't care for Victor so I talked to Ole or Emmad etc..

 

People say they dislike me, Rozalia, Roz Wei etc.. We don't take it to heart, we work around them or with them. Gandalf being FA head isn't a huge issue- you could've talked to Brooklyn(the logs leaked had Partisan and Brooklym), Callum, or Valdoroth. I remember several alliance leaders not being able to deal with Pfeiffer so they went to other people.

 

The fact is you're trying very hard to paint yourself in a good light. You're not in one, not to say you're the bad guys, just that you're not on your high horse that you claim to be. This reeks of a bad breakup. You say they went after you by making Gandalf FA head, that this was the obvious route, I can honestly tell you it wasn't. SK didn't want to fight you. They were content being distant enemies. But you did harass them on the forums, some of your members went after SK- just like you did/do to Alpha. Just because someone doesn't want to ride or die with you anymore doesn't mean they're your enemy. You did it to Rose/VE, to Alpha, and now SK. This is a pattern, not an anomaly. What happens if Mensa leaves? BK? Same shit happens, you're not an angel.

The leaked logs featured Carmen and Brooklyn. Not me. If you're going to interject), at least know what you're talking about.

[Mikey]

I guess I disagree that security has to be the central factor here. This is stupidly obvious, but the main concern of course is to have fun and enjoy ourselves. It could be that what follows from that is a preference for something less secure and more variable, even over the more reliable 2 sphere situation. Personally I would take a more varied political dynamic, one which is perhaps less secure and in which I would see my nation burned more often, then a more stable one where I could guarantee my security. I've always favored more the political intrigue then mechanics themselves though, so its likely a minority opinion.

 

I agree that people will try and pull together as many as they can for a war coalition, at least for the semi-annual major wars (I think smaller local wars can happen and have happened). I would just prefer for the coalitions to not be so static, for there to be multiple spheres which, on the eve of conflict, are all frantically talking with each other, engaging in backdoor deals, etc, to get people to come in or stay out in their favor. It could well be a naive aspiration, but I would find it much more enjoyable and so I don't intend to stop working towards it, however hard or improbable it may be to achieve.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mikey

[LordRahl2]

I guess I disagree that security has to be the central factor here. This is stupidly obvious, but the main concern of course is to have fun and enjoy ourselves. It could be that what follows from that is a preference for something less secure and more variable, even over the more reliable 2 sphere situation. Personally I would take a more varied political dynamic, one which is perhaps less secure and in which I would see my nation burned more often, then a more stable one where I could guarantee my security. I've always favored more the political intrigue then mechanics themselves though, so its likely a minority opinion.

 

I agree that people will try and pull together as many as they can for a war coalition, at least for the semi-annual major wars (I think smaller local wars can happen and have happened). I would just prefer for the coalitions to not be so static, for there to be multiple spheres which, on the eve of conflict, are all frantically talking with each other, engaging in backdoor deals, etc, to get people to come in or stay out in their favor. It could well be a naive aspiration, but I would find it much more enjoyable and so I don't intend to stop working towards it, however hard or improbable it may be to achieve.

 

There is of course the option to be irrational.  If you would like to have your nation razed every time someone finds it convenient then you can do what GPA did though I suspect you will eventually join a sphere.

[Mikey]

There is of course the option to be irrational.  If you would like to have your nation razed every time someone finds it convenient then you can do what GPA did though I suspect you will eventually join a sphere.

 

Do you believe test and arrgh are irrational? Because those guys seem to be having a good time living outside the system.

[Buorhann]

Three spheres can work. It's just not viable when one sphere is clearly superior at war. You can have two main spheres and a "swing sphere" or several of them even that fall on either side of major wars for various reasons. That slowly grinds to a halt though when those swing spheres latch onto a side from the previous war and stop swinging. 

 

Eventually one sphere will get dogpiled by the other two, then it'll end - similar to what occurred after The Great VE War.

[LordRahl2]

Do you believe test and arrgh are irrational? Because those guys seem to be having a good time living outside the system.

 

Do they now?

[LostWorld]

Meanwhile over the sees

 

[Kastor]

The leaked logs featured Carmen and Brooklyn. Not me. If you're going to interject), at least know what you're talking about.

Of all the points addressed that was probably the least important.

[Prefonteen]

Of all the points addressed that was probably the least important.

 

I don't feel like replying to you on this matter is valuable to me, tS or SK whatsoever. You are a third-party observer without inside knowledge attempting to interject yourself in the discussion for god knows why.

[Buorhann]

Initially I didn't care about your post, Kastor, once you stated I was trying to paint us in a good light.  I'm not.  Could care less if we are good or bad, been that way since Mensa has joined the scene here.

 

You have good examples though, which if you think hard enough about it, you'd see the point I'm trying to get across.

 

Sure, I could go to Valdorath or Brooklyn.  No problem there.  However, if they're willing to keep a guy who leaks one of my most trusted allies logs to our enemies on the government list - I'm sure as hell no longer going to trust them.

[Brooklyn666]

See, now you're moving the goal posts.

 

I find it problematic that you rely on pointing out cognitive fallacies as a subtle appeal to authority (another cognitive fallacy) and then commit cognitive fallacies in the same post.

 

Get better at recognising cognitive fallacies, so you don't look like a hypocritical jackass when you fail to realize you're arguments are just as logically unsound. That's literally my constructive critism (as could've easily been inferred by my previous post).

 

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, especially when I'm really only responding to Partisan and he doesn't seem to have the same issues you do. Regardless, I'm not going to keep running in circles with you because neither of us are going to get anywhere. If it's important to you to feel like you won this, then call it a win for you I guess. I'm out.

 

 

 

Hey, if it's worth anything to you: I feel like we're actually making progress. Sometimes you got to fling some shit at one another before you can move on .

 

Anyways. I do agree that it's entirely possible that it has not been intentional on your part. In practice, it may still have ended up !@#$ us in a way, but naivity does not equate to duplicity and that would be a redeeming factor. If anything, i'm glad you are at leas acknowledging our grievance and trying to establish the dialogue.

 

Part of the frustration is that it's hard to get a read on where naivity ends and intention starts, if that makes sense.

 

I certainly agree on all 3 points, and I also agree that it doesn't make much sense if you explain it that way. Should definitely note that people do not always act rationally. We've seen this in this game over an over .

 

If we deduct that way:

- Maybe you thought that with SK moving, you could tip the scales and as such the move seemed beneficial enough (given the reward of being heralded as a savior of sorts within paracov, and the foundation for a or even the lead role in a now winning sphere)

- I can reasonably assume that you (read: SK as a whoe) approached others within our sphere to join you in moving away from tS as well (correct me if i'm wrong?). Maybe this is a worst case scenario.

- Maybe you started out wanting a third sphere, realized it wasn't viable and then decided you had no option but to come at us.

- Maybe you somehow felt slighted over something (anything) that occurred between tS-SK and that we are unaware of, and maybe that has driven you to move.

- Or maybe it was indeed all a plot.

 

Point being... there can be many rational, semi-rational and irrational motivations that influenced your decisions. There is a case to be made for every scenario, and every scenario can be refuted in a different way as well. 

 

Your line of reasoning does make sense on its own. There have been conflicting messages going out from SK though. A point of contention I want to bring up is that I recall a prominent SK figure stating that in order for your plans to succeed, tS had to be defeated, or something along those lines. If you wish I can dig for the quote. It's on the OWF here somewhere.

 

That quote on its own would invalidate the entire proposition brought forth in this particular discussion. Could you elaborate on how we need to interpret that?

 

EDIT: got it! (It was Mikey)

 

 

If your third sphere's viability is considered mutually exclusive with peaceful relations with tS, I can understand that... but that kind of invalidates any claims of your involvement in this war being no more than the direct result of Rose aggression.

 

I understand people don't act rationally, but you know us. You've known us for a long time. Does that kind of 180 seem like something we would do? Sure, we can go over every single possible line of decision making, have me refute it, and you question my refutation, but I don't have the stamina for this that you do I understand your suspicion, but I think you have to apply your knowledge and interactions with us to inform you of our intentions.

 

I personally, and SK gov in total, doesn't think that peaceful coexistence with tS and a 3rd sphere are mutually exclusive.

 

As to Mikey's comment, He partially answered it and I'll let him clarify if needed, but I interpreted it as a combination of bluster, him not being in gov, and the factual basis that this war happened sooner than we planned and had to scramble to get it together. I think you and I are having a pretty civil conversation right now while at the same time non-gov members on both sides are getting hostile and saying all kinds of stuff. I'm not mad at anyone, just saying that to my knowledge, that's all Mikey was doing.

 

And this is for everyone else: I had several long talks with Vanek, Partisan, Manthrax, and Roquentin about what were gonna do with Gandalf after the leak. I laid out our reasons for keeping him with suspension, and they understood even if they didn't agree. I'm not invalidating your feelings. You have a right to be angry, but don't base your anger off faulty assumptions.

[Prefonteen]

I guess I disagree that security has to be the central factor here. This is stupidly obvious, but the main concern of course is to have fun and enjoy ourselves. It could be that what follows from that is a preference for something less secure and more variable, even over the more reliable 2 sphere situation. Personally I would take a more varied political dynamic, one which is perhaps less secure and in which I would see my nation burned more often, then a more stable one where I could guarantee my security. I've always favored more the political intrigue then mechanics themselves though, so its likely a minority opinion.

 

I agree that people will try and pull together as many as they can for a war coalition, at least for the semi-annual major wars (I think smaller local wars can happen and have happened). I would just prefer for the coalitions to not be so static, for there to be multiple spheres which, on the eve of conflict, are all frantically talking with each other, engaging in backdoor deals, etc, to get people to come in or stay out in their favor. It could well be a naive aspiration, but I would find it much more enjoyable and so I don't intend to stop working towards it, however hard or improbable it may be to achieve.

 

This...has occurred in every single war i've had to lead. Not being privy to backroom deals does not mean they do not occur.

[Cody K]

Isn't it an automatic defeat when Kastor argues on your behalf?

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, especially when I'm really only responding to Partisan and he doesn't seem to have the same issues you do. Regardless, I'm not going to keep running in circles with you because neither of us are going to get anywhere. If it's important to you to feel like you won this, then call it a win for you I guess. I'm out.

It's your attitude. You're talking down to people like their arguments are flawed and then positing flawed counter-arguments like it's nothing.

 

I'm just trying to help you get your dialectics good, man. If you're going to act like rhetoric is important to you, you should at least be decent at it, is all I'm trying to say.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Bollocks]

This is not real life (your claim that there is frequently multi-polarity in RL is suspicious at best but this is not Social Hub).

 

The reason that Orbis clumped into two spheres is the same reason why 3 or more spheres will not work in the future.  Its a basic theory of IR that when security is the central concern of actors that they will seek to maximize their personal security.  The way to do this is to gather the maximum number of allies, preferably good ones - but barring that any will do.

And this is a war game - so it will happen.

 

You could increase the number of nations in Orbis by 1000% and it would still clump into two spheres.

 

3 poles is inherently unstable and never lasts for any lengthy period of time. Especially in a game where every soldier, tank and aircraft is equipped with a transporter device. 

[Kastor]

I don't feel like replying to you on this matter is valuable to me, tS or SK whatsoever. You are a third-party observer without inside knowledge attempting to interject yourself in the discussion for god knows why.

  

If you don't want the community to comment, take it to private. You always come to the forums to spin that "Oh, tS is amazing and tS did nothing wrong and it's all on the other guy." Then the second someone disagrees with you, you immediately say "you don't know what you're talking about" you do this countless times. I'd link for you, but I don't feel like looking over the countless threads vs Alpha when you did this.

 

So my point is: either take this pointless ass conversation elsewhere or don't get hurt when people call you out on your BS- because there's a lot of it.

 

 

Initially I didn't care about your post, Kastor, once you stated I was trying to paint us in a good light.  I'm not.  Could care less if we are good or bad, been that way since Mensa has joined the scene here.

 

You have good examples though, which if you think hard enough about it, you'd see the point I'm trying to get across.

 

Sure, I could go to Valdorath or Brooklyn.  No problem there.  However, if they're willing to keep a guy who leaks one of my most trusted allies logs to our enemies on the government list - I'm sure as hell no longer going to trust them.

I can see this point. It's reasonable, but your side was going above just "not trusting" SK. Several members actively trolled them up and down the forums. Eumir was saying several times that they were going to roll SK(first example came to mind, there was another). But the point is Gandalf being gov didn't matter then, and doesn't now. You both stayed allied because you "respected and liked SK" but if the issue didn't matter enough to drop them then, why does it matter so much now? You were content with having Gandalf when SK was on your side but not when SK is against you. Now they're "actively" out to get you.

[LordRahl2]

If they were content why were they "actively trolling"? That does not seem to make sense.