War. War Never Changes.

[Eumirbago]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

[Darth Revan]

Lol thats awesome, I didn't realize (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had a filter. 

[Felkey]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

 

Does it work?

[Felkey]

Side note: when was the last time this community was able to stay on topic for more than a couple pages?

[Bollocks]

CNCNCN

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bollocks

[Kastor]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

 

Cybernations

[Insert Name Here]

Side note: when was the last time this community was able to stay on topic for more than a couple pages?

 

 

I mean, staying on topic is boring. >.>

 

Also: (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

[RyanK]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

Cncncncncn

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Cyber Nations

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

 

gg

Edited June 14, 2017 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Leo]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

[Senry]

You are all !@#$ing autists, you know that?

[Felkey]

I mean, staying on topic is boring. >.>

 

Also: (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

I never said it was fun, just wondering if it has ever happened

[Theodosius]

checks the thread, expecting more lengthy discussions on the previous war(s), cats, NPO and stuff

 

People checking out how the CybN censorship works

 

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

[hope]

You are all !@#$ autists, you know that?

You aren't wrong

[Dubayoo]

СN?

 

You guys are weird.

[Roquentin]

Why would Paragon care if SK got hit, considering SK was directly saying their intent was to be hostile? if they weren't hostile to Syndisphere, they wouldn't care. It was only a concern for Paragon because they made it one.

 

If other alliances wanted to war you for no reason other than they could, I'd have said "go ahead", and advised them to treat it like a 1 on 1. Screw getting involved in making that a stomp, just for chuckles. That's not what happened though. I had intel on many of the alliances involved, and they hit us aggressively anyway. Should it really be a surprise that resulted in a galvanized Syndisphere...?

 

Because a constituent signed with SK and SK's move was premised on having treaties outside ready. 

 

They hit you anyway since there usually weren't any one on ones and you usually went out of your way to support initial aggressor alliances in the past under the premise of honoring treaties if they were countered. No one will accept an uneven one on one unless they have no alternative. 

 

So to restate, constituents parts were getting aggressive in posturing and consolidation was taking place, leaving war as the alternative to waiting for an anticipated curbstomp. Had there been no history of prior aggression by Syndisphere alliances, you could claim that it was unwarranted, however that wasn't the case especially when an aggressive war by Syndisphere directly preceded it.

 

 

The irony of Roquentin expecting the 'hegemoney' to break itself apart for his convenience is so sweet.

 

I don't think I ever said that nor had that expectation. Despite the past rhetoric of supporting dynamism and using that as a contrast between them and others, it's clear they do not feel a reason to split. I've always made it clear the stance that there is no realistic possibility of a break up without significant tension between the constituent parts and have always acted accordingly.

[Prefonteen]

Because a constituent signed with SK and SK's move was premised on having treaties outside ready. 

 

They hit you anyway since there usually weren't any one on ones and you usually went out of your way to support initial aggressor alliances in the past under the premise of honoring treaties if they were countered. No one will accept an uneven one on one unless they have no alternative. 

 

So to restate, constituents parts were getting aggressive in posturing and consolidation was taking place, leaving war as the alternative to waiting for an anticipated curbstomp. Had there been no history of prior aggression by Syndisphere alliances, you could claim that it was unwarranted, however that wasn't the case especially when an aggressive war by Syndisphere directly preceded it.

 

 

 

I don't think I ever said that nor had that expectation. Despite the past rhetoric of supporting dynamism and using that as a contrast between them and others, it's clear they do not feel a reason to split. I've always made it clear the stance that there is no realistic possibility of a break up without significant tension between the constituent parts and have always acted accordingly.

 

The problem here is perception. See, we've been over this quite a few times. To syndicate, our first "aggressive" war against paragon/covenant/paracov was our declaration on NPO and UPN during NPO's first time. 

 

All the ones before that were reactionary in nature on syndi's part, and featured a heavy willingness from paracov to actively engage syndisphere due to a belief that they had the upper hand (as evident by the rhetoric shown in the early phases of each and every one of them).

 

Going over them extremely briefly as I feel like i'm talking up a brick wall anyways:

 

- Proxy war: Yes, Mensa was the aggressor. No, syndicate was not. No, syndisphere as is did not exist yet at the time due to the fragile position in which the syndicate found itself following the bloc split. This war saw both syndicate and UPN provide passive treaty guarantee to Mensa (Meaning: If mensa was countered, we'd counter). VE/Rose at the time opted to pre-empt the Syndicate and Guardian while leaving UPN out entirely. There is no spin to be made here: Syndicate was targeted, simple as that. We did not have the luxury of choice.

 

- Oktoberfest: Goes without saying. Full covenant pre-empt on syndisphere coming out of a destructive war. Resource and size advantages gained due to the proxywar sitout were leveraged against us.

 

- Proxyfest: Mensa-Vanguard raid --> No Rose response --> TLF situation (and buildup on both sides) --> Handled/deal made to demilitarize between Rose and tS ---> Rose brings Vanguard issue back up and refuses to demilitarize. ---> I try to mediate ---> Rose essentially lets us know its get out the way because they're killing mensa --> We defend. In this particular instance it should also be noted that Rose held no treaty and thus no obligation to defend vanguard. That they did so is their prerogative, but we can not be faulted for defending our ally from what looked like a pure power play.

 

- NPO's first time: This one was aggressive on our part. Motivations aside.

 

- Silent war: Aggression on your part.

 

- This war: Aggression on IQ's part.

 

On the unwillingness of syndisphere to make dynamic moves: That is something I have been disappointed with myself, so no argument. That said, they don't owe it to you or anyone though. It simply... would be nice .

Edited June 15, 2017 by Partisan

[Roquentin]

The problem here is perception. See, we've been over this quite a few times. To syndicate, our first "aggressive" war against paragon/covenant/paracov was our declaration on NPO and UPN during NPO's first time. 

 

All the ones before that were reactionary in nature on syndi's part, and featured a heavy willingness from paracov to actively engage syndisphere due to a belief that they had the upper hand (as evident by the rhetoric shown in the early phases of each and every one of them).

 

Going over them extremely briefly as I feel like i'm talking up a brick wall anyways:

 

- Proxy war: Yes, Mensa was the aggressor. No, syndicate was not. No, syndisphere as is did not exist yet at the time due to the fragile position in which the syndicate found itself following the bloc split. This war saw both syndicate and UPN provide passive treaty guarantee to Mensa (Meaning: If mensa was countered, we'd counter). VE/Rose at the time opted to pre-empt the Syndicate and Guardian while leaving UPN out entirely. There is no spin to be made here: Syndicate was targeted, simple as that. We did not have the luxury of choice.

 

- Oktoberfest: Goes without saying. Full covenant pre-empt on syndisphere coming out of a destructive war. Resource and size advantages gained due to the proxywar sitout were leveraged against us.

 

- Proxyfest: Mensa-Vanguard raid --> No Rose response --> TLF situation (and buildup on both sides) --> Handled/deal made to demilitarize between Rose and tS ---> Rose brings Vanguard issue back up and refuses to demilitarize. ---> I try to mediate ---> Rose essentially lets us know its get out the way because they're killing mensa --> We defend. In this particular instance it should also be noted that Rose held no treaty and thus no obligation to defend vanguard. That they did so is their prerogative, but we can not be faulted for defending our ally from what looked like a pure power play.

 

- NPO's first time: This one was aggressive on our part. Motivations aside.

 

- Silent war: Aggression on your part.

 

- This war: Aggression on IQ's part.

 

On the unwillingness of syndisphere to make dynamic moves: That is something I have been disappointed with myself, so no argument. That said, they don't owe it to you or anyone though. It simply... would be nice .

 

The point in the post you replied to was less that Syndisphere as a whole was directly aggressing each time, but rather that alliances tied to Syndicate and other Syndisphere(or proto-Syndisphere) alliances aggressed and received backing. So when Manthrax said if someone in Syndisphere had decided to decided to do something aggressive against a relatively weaker alliance in an uneven one on one he wouldn't pile on,  it doesn't really help much because most alliances wouldn't just wait around for a standalone curbstomp if they could affect a better outcome. It also doesn't matter if Syndicate would be the one starting it. If their allies started it and Syndicate backed it via the pretense of honoring treaties and got others to oA like in Proxy and 168 Day, it ends up in the same place. Syndisphere as a whole aggressing in the war preceding Silent bolstered the case for preempting, however as there was no reason to believe something similar wouldn't happen again.

 

I haven't said they owe it to anyone, though. At this point, it honestly feels  too many are caught up in the winning streak and the possibility of losing would at this point cause an identity crisis. The only reason there could be dynamic moves is if their ambitions clashed, which was what caused the previous war: differing visions on how the game should proceed. As long as they're unified in a common vision, there is a slim chance anything changes on that side. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Roquentin

[Buorhann]

I like how both of you want Syndicate or Syndisphere to make dynamic moves, when it literally started off a dynamic move.  If an alliance keeps making these "dynamic moves" - no one will trust them, and they'll simply be a bunch of flip floppers.

 

Perhaps you should be asking yourselves, why aren't they?

 

I could go on a whole spiel about this.  Roq's pretty close to it though.

 

 

I just find it amusing that both of you have either:

 

1) Started a completely new, paperless, alliance

 

or

 

2) Started aggressive wars against the sphere

 

 

And yet still want Syndisphere to split (Let's cut the bullshit, that's the "dynamic move").

Edited June 15, 2017 by Buorhann

[Prefonteen]

I like how both of you want Syndicate or Syndisphere to make dynamic moves, when it literally started off a dynamic move.  If an alliance keeps making these "dynamic moves" - no one will trust them, and they'll simply be a bunch of flip floppers.

 

Perhaps you should be asking yourselves, why aren't they?

 

I could go on a whole spiel about this.  Roq's pretty close to it though.

 

 

I just find it amusing that both of you have either:

 

1) Started a completely new, paperless, alliance

 

or

 

2) Started aggressive wars against the sphere

 

 

And yet still want Syndisphere to split (Let's cut the bullshit, that's the "dynamic move").

 

I've made my thoughts clear to you on multiple occasions. My preferences should be no surprise to you. That said, I have also (from scratch) been entirely understanding of the incentives you have to stay together and of the fact that you are indeed obligated to no one. I do not however see any fault in respectfully voicing my opinion.

 

Moreover, I do not see how my formation of a paperless alliance is in any way relevant to this conversation. Straw-man much, Buo?

 

 

With respect to your first paragraph: I don't think you need to educate me on that history. You know- I *made* that dynamic move. The idea that making another move (or split) after a couple year would lead to mistrust is silly. As you lads told BK yourself: It's about the manner in which you go about it.

 

As for the question of "why aren't they?"... I've asked myself that a few times and the answers I could think up aren't exactly flattering (depending on the specific alliance), broadly speaking. I'll keep that off the OWF for now. Feel free to hit me up in private if you want to talk and/or enlighten me.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Partisan

[Buorhann]

Well, no duh, I'm well aware you were a big proponent behind the move, that's why I find you being "disappointed" behind it and "creating a paperless alliance" pretty amusing considering you literally helped create this situation.  No, it's not a straw-man, I'm just not fleshing out the purpose of me calling it out in public.  I'll tell you why in private.

 

Yet, even after understanding the reasonings/incentives behind why we're still together, you continue to voice your disappointment.

 

---------

 

Let's put it this way, Partisan, if Syndisphere were to split up some time, that's going to cause a couple of issues.  If players understood why we work out well together and actually paid attention to how we conduct ourselves, maybe things would be better instead of wishing for our split to 'fix the game'?

 

I mean hell, the government behind BK literally showed at least 2 major things I could point out why it would cause issues and even showed "making another move after a couple year would lead to mistrust is silly" can very clearly happen.

[Boony]

I bothered Partisan for months to make us paperless.

[Sisyphus]

What's funny is none of us have a real problem mixing things up. We just like to actually think our actions through before committing to things (a foreign concept to most, I know), add on to that a very real sense of loyalty and dedication to our allies and I don't think it should be any surprise things take a while to gain any momentum.

 

I can think of a few times I thought the dynamic would shift pretty dramatically, only to be attacked out of nowhere for no good reason, again, which tends to reset the whole "let's shake things up" clock.

 

And I can't begrudge those that have split off to form paperless or more independent alliances either, on that note. Everyone gets enjoyment out of the game one way or another. And a lot of thought and energy has gone into those projects, just like the endeavors of t$ and our allies.

[Roquentin]

I like how both of you want Syndicate or Syndisphere to make dynamic moves, when it literally started off a dynamic move.  If an alliance keeps making these "dynamic moves" - no one will trust them, and they'll simply be a bunch of flip floppers.

 

Perhaps you should be asking yourselves, why aren't they?

 

I could go on a whole spiel about this.  Roq's pretty close to it though.

 

 

I just find it amusing that both of you have either:

 

1) Started a completely new, paperless, alliance

 

or

 

2) Started aggressive wars against the sphere

 

 

And yet still want Syndisphere to split (Let's cut the bullshit, that's the "dynamic move").

 

It started off as a dynamic move, but it's pretty clear that's not where it ended up. I can believe Partisan's interest in dynamism as he's tried to walk the walk. The rest of you it's more shaky to nonexistent. Partisan didn't want to do a dynamic move to simply end up in what he hoped to avoid(dominance by a powerbloc). 

 

It's less I want Syndisphere to split, but rather that it is one of the only strong possibilities for dynamism in the game. The demoralization from past losses(loss fatigue especially with Paracov) and atmosphere has made enough people outside of Syndisphere reluctant to put themselves at odds against it all at once. The perennial trend has been Syndisphere being able to fight potential opposition groups separately as a result, which allows it to maintain dominance. There'll likely never be the level of unification/motivation in all of non-Syndisphere needed for a crushing victory over it.

 

As for started aggressive wars against it, given you've started aggressive wars to eliminate threats, the  motive should be clear. Paperless, Paracov, etc. The alternative would have been to wait for it to come us, and that has had a much worse result, and there was no advantage to being on the defensive when the PR was dominated by Syndisphere either way.

 

 

What's funny is none of us have a real problem mixing things up. We just like to actually think our actions through before committing to things (a foreign concept to most, I know), add on to that a very real sense of loyalty and dedication to our allies and I don't think it should be any surprise things take a while to gain any momentum.

 

I can think of a few times I thought the dynamic would shift pretty dramatically, only to be attacked out of nowhere for no good reason, again, which tends to reset the whole "let's shake things up" clock.

 

And I can't begrudge those that have split off to form paperless or more independent alliances either, on that note. Everyone gets enjoyment out of the game one way or another. And a lot of thought and energy has gone into those projects, just like the endeavors of t$ and our allies.

 

 

The problem is these potential shifts are usually in a germinal at best stage. It's far more likely to people outside for things to proceed as they have, rather than expecting a shift to materialize, especially when it is nowhere near real implementation.   It's not "for no good reason" when the risk is real of you hitting first going off the track record.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Roquentin

[Buorhann]

It started off as a dynamic move, but it's pretty clear that's not where it ended up. I can believe Partisan's interest in dynamism as he's tried to walk the walk. The rest of you it's more shaky to nonexistent. Partisan didn't want to do a dynamic move to simply end up in what he hoped to avoid(dominance by a powerbloc). 

 

It's less I want Syndisphere to split, but rather that it is one of the only strong possibilities for dynamism in the game. The demoralization from past losses(loss fatigue especially with Paracov) and atmosphere has made enough people outside of Syndisphere reluctant to put themselves at odds against it all at once. The perennial trend has been Syndisphere being able to fight potential opposition groups separately as a result, which allows it to maintain dominance. There'll likely never be the level of unification/motivation in all of non-Syndisphere needed for a crushing victory over it.

 

As for started aggressive wars against it, given you've started aggressive wars to eliminate threats, the  motive should be clear. Paperless, Paracov, etc. The alternative would have been to wait for it to come us, and that has had a much worse result, and there was no advantage to being on the defensive when the PR was dominated by Syndisphere either way.

 

>attempted to make dynamic moves in the past

>"shakey to nonexistant"

 

>"less I want Syndisphere to split"

>It's literally the only thing brought up when talking about dynamic moves

 

>"As for started aggressive wars against it, given you've started aggressive wars to eliminate threat"

>completely forgets that once our 4 alliance group started that we were attacked 3 times

 

 

Yeah...