Jump to content

State of Orbis


Ogaden
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's exactly the problem and why it's going to be over in terms of a political game. There has to be drama. 

 

Frankly, even if there was drama, based on your collective's sphere's tendency to rebuff nearly all of our outreach (at least, as far as tS is concerned), we'd be more likely to grit it out and fix the problems within the sphere than to go begging for a treaty or three with alliances who tend to default to "B-b-b-but tS is so EBIL!"

 

That, more than anything, is the reason I brought up the UPN ODP offer. When stuff like that happens, it's hard to see your sphere as a viable alternative, and since few alliances are going to jump ship without *some* kind of contingency plan, it really is up to you to be able to offer one. This is basically the foundation of the amazing tS-Mensa relationship, after all.

 

Also, @Saru: I appreciate the writeup but it's largely irrelevant to this discussion (or at least, my little branch thereof), because it's on your gov to do shit by your own book, not on us to magically know what the membership wants. Though we did try our ass off to reconcile with your membership too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, even if there was drama, based on your collective's sphere's tendency to rebuff nearly all of our outreach (at least, as far as tS is concerned), we'd be more likely to grit it out and fix the problems within the sphere than to go begging for a treaty or three with alliances who tend to default to "B-b-b-but tS is so EBIL!"

 

That, more than anything, is the reason I brought up the UPN ODP offer. When stuff like that happens, it's hard to see your sphere as a viable alternative, and since few alliances are going to jump ship without *some* kind of contingency plan, it really is up to you to be able to offer one. This is basically the foundation of the amazing tS-Mensa relationship, after all.

 

Also, @Saru: I appreciate the writeup but it's largely irrelevant to this discussion (or at least, my little branch thereof), because it's on your gov to do shit by your own book, not on us to magically know what the membership wants. Though we did try our ass off to reconcile with your membership too.

 

That's entirely your decision. If there was genuine tension, someone would say, "hey I think I can work with Paracov alliances and become more influential over there than I am here" like you did with leaving Paragon and signing alliances who lost the VE war. In blocs in various games, usually someone does that. I'll admit the opening was there more for your allies than you yourself, though.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phiney, @Partisan

 

In the Great VE War, TEst initially joined the Guardian/SK/Mensa side until the whole Tenages plot was revealed and TEst wasn't kept in the loop of that, then they swapped sides.

 

By the way, was Ragnar really the one who leaked Tenages' plot?  Was that ever confirmed?

 

Yeah I remember now, I was the one leading at the time it was a right old mess. 

  • Upvote 1
T7Vrilp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there really doesn't.

 

For there to be a political game when one side is absolutely dominant, there has to be drama for it  to break up or else the game stagnates. It comes to down to hegemoney or survival of the political game. This was common complaint with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and I am fully self-aware and see  that it comes off as hypocritical due to who I am, but the difference is the rhetoric has always been that PW is more dynamic, and I have accepted (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) being at an endgame stage and don't act differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's basically saying that drama needs to happen in order for our sphere to shatter, but that's nearly impossible at the moment.  I think it'll have to take us to willingly separate ( Like what SK did ) to break us up.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's basically saying that drama needs to happen in order for our sphere to shatter, but that's nearly impossible at the moment.  I think it'll have to take us to willingly separate ( Like what SK did ) to break us up.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to stress. I don't think anyone will do it for shits and giggles, tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, you shouldn't do anything of the sort. Tie in as many people as you can and make sure there's no opposition that can withstand you. That will be vastly different than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should split up and give NPO a chance to do here what you did to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? No thanks.

 

I tried to explain this before in another topic, but we will never have that ability and we are aware of that fact. An alliance like TEst with its current size can wield far more power than we will ever be able to here. We never set out to be a hegemon here and it's not even feasible due to our late start. Granted, a lot of people including present allies/coalition partners used to have the worry we would just use them to shield ourselves, get big and then take over, but we've always been upfront that we don't have those kind of ambitions and wouldn't even be able to act on them if we did. War is too frequent for us to just simply get bigger than everyone else and the 6 months we had was an anomaly.

 

What you're doing won't end up any differently, btw.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's entirely your decision. If there was genuine tension, someone would say, "hey I think I can work with Paracov alliances and become more influential over there than I am here" like you did with leaving Paragon and signing alliances who lost the VE war. In blocs in various games, usually someone does that. I'll admit the opening was there more for your allies than you yourself, though.

 

But it's not entirely our decision though, and I think that's the crux of our difference here.

 

We can want to work with ParaCov alliances all we want, but if we can't find a partner willing to work with us, we can't work with ParaCov. It takes two parties, after all. 

 

If you want to say the opening was there more for our allies than for us, that's fine, but you can't then sit there and accuse us of being hypocritical (since tS is one of the biggest proponents of keeping the game fresh, and have put our money where our mouth is more than once). t$ is willing to shake up the game, but you don't want to play ball with us. So that makes it our fault that the game is stagnant? What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, even if there was drama, based on your collective's sphere's tendency to rebuff nearly all of our outreach (at least, as far as tS is concerned), we'd be more likely to grit it out and fix the problems within the sphere than to go begging for a treaty or three with alliances who tend to default to "B-b-b-but tS is so EBIL!"

 

That, more than anything, is the reason I brought up the UPN ODP offer. When stuff like that happens, it's hard to see your sphere as a viable alternative, and since few alliances are going to jump ship without *some* kind of contingency plan, it really is up to you to be able to offer one. This is basically the foundation of the amazing tS-Mensa relationship, after all.

 

Also, @Saru: I appreciate the writeup but it's largely irrelevant to this discussion (or at least, my little branch thereof), because it's on your gov to do shit by your own book, not on us to magically know what the membership wants. Though we did try our ass off to reconcile with your membership too.

It wasn't 'the government', it was several individuals in the government who tried to pass it through without following the due process. There is a distinction... Unexpectedly they are now aligned with you. And it is completely relevant because you are the one who raised the issue without sharing all of the facts (which I am pretty sure were shared openly in the embassy).

 

And like we have told you time and time again in that thread, actions > words. But let's leave it to rest, we don't want to rekindle the same topic over and over.

  • Upvote 1

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not entirely our decision though, and I think that's the crux of our difference here.

 

We can want to work with ParaCov alliances all we want, but if we can't find a partner willing to work with us, we can't work with ParaCov. It takes two parties, after all. 

 

If you want to say the opening was there more for our allies than for us, that's fine, but you can't then sit there and accuse us of being hypocritical (since tS is one of the biggest proponents of keeping the game fresh, and have put our money where our mouth is more than once). t$ is willing to shake up the game, but you don't want to play ball with us. So that makes it our fault that the game is stagnant? What?

 

The thing is, like we went over, the ODP is very hard to trust on face value. Maybe  if it was on the caveat of the NAP clause not applying if there's a hit on an MDP partner, it would be less distrusted. It is your decision not to split off independently of other treaties or do something radically different. There were rumors about tS going paperless before and that would have shook things up a bit.

 

I'm not accusing just tS of being hypocritical though I haven't seen a lot of push for change. Like I said, the way everyone perceived your ODP offers to VE/UPN as treaty chess and weakening our side. You knew they weren't 100% on participating coalition-wise and tried to dodge UPN in the war before. That makes it a lot more complicated for their allies not to get up in arms about an ODP.  I am also saying it about your sphere as a whole, not just tS. It's a collective decision by your sphere. 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing the ODP was a formal way of showing evidence on mending issues.  You're right, actions > words.  Syndicate put into action of signing an ODP, but UPN relied on just words to say "Hey guys, can we be friendly now?"

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing the ODP was a formal way of showing evidence on mending issues.  You're right, actions > words.  Syndicate put into action of signing an ODP, but UPN relied on just words to say "Hey guys, can we be friendly now?"

 

I mean, this is more the issue: The ODP offer is complicated because if an alliance has a negative history with tS, they won't trust tS. tS would have to work on it beyond the people who are partial to them and convince them. It would be very difficult for a lot of people to like an alliance that they perceive  has a history working against them or trying to dominate. That's why I also say it's bizarre for tS to be doing it while heading a sphere. When you head a sphere, you will get the flak for its actions.  For instance, tS backed Mensa in 168 day War and organized a full coalition to beat up Rose and Mensa was pretty much enabled without consequences. How do you think people would feel about that?

 

edit: Actually, I'll spell it out. It had been the second time tS had basically enabled Mensa in something and pushed it to victory and at that point, it very much became clear Mensa itself wasn't the issue, but it was tS since they were only successes because of tS.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this is more the issue: The ODP offer is complicated because if an alliance has a negative history with tS, they won't trust tS. tS would have to work on it beyond the people who are partial to them and convince them.

 

I have over 40 pages of embassy threads on UPN's forums. A few key members of UPN's old guard returned from inactivity to rally the membership against the ODP on the basis of old grudges from Oktoberfest, ignoring all the events that had happened since. It worked, by a slim margin. Forgive me for the brief foray into another alliance's internal functioning... it's something that's become very much my problem. Since then, UPN has been very consistent.

 

I don't think any of their other treaties (including M level ones) involved anywhere near the same level of scrutiny. But that's me being a bit cynical, I suppose. :P

Edited by Manthrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this is more the issue: The ODP offer is complicated because if an alliance has a negative history with tS, they won't trust tS. tS would have to work on it beyond the people who are partial to them and convince them. It would be very difficult for a lot of people to like an alliance that they perceive has a history working against them or trying to dominate. That's why I also say it's bizarre for tS to be doing it while heading a sphere. When you head a sphere, you will get the flak for its actions. For instance, tS backed Mensa in 168 day War and organized a full coalition to beat up Rose and Mensa was pretty much enabled without consequences. How do you think people would feel about that?

 

edit: Actually, I'll spell it out. It had been the second time tS had basically enabled Mensa in something and pushed it to victory and at that point, it very much became clear Mensa itself wasn't the issue, but it was tS since they were only successes because of tS.

Actually tS and MENSA are successful together. Crazy thought I know.

  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually tS and MENSA are successful together. Crazy thought I know.

 

No. Screw you. Your successes are only because of me and I only realized it when Roq said it. Time to split.

  • Upvote 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If every alliance went paperless, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

Seriously.

No.

 

Seriously.

 

Paperless is not some be-all-end-all solution to the problems in these types of games. Firstly because you're playing a game with other people and you can't simply force people to behave in a certain way when it comes to relationships. If they want to stay friends, they will do it regardless of some artificial restriction you've put on them. Secondly, even if you were to somehow force everyone to comply, suddenly the game isn't Politics & War, it's just War, and no offense to Sheepy but the War part of this game is not good enough to keep a large player base engaged for more than a few months without something else (ie the Politics part).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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