The Boki Chronicles Part 1

[Seeker]

Just now, Darth Revan said:

Could you consolidate any more?!

[William Bonney]

23 minutes ago, Seeker said:

Could you consolidate any more?!

I could consolidate even more but it seems your unwillingness to consolidate is unconsolidating my consolidation.  Therefore I shall consolidate my consolidation and consolidate it..... 

Lost my train of thought.  Anyway, consolidate.    Ya.   

 

[durmij]

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I mean this is  a delayed overdue upgrade. There isn't even a new intra-sphere tie being introduced here.. I don't really think anyone claimed upgrading was a dynamic move. I'm sure if some major alliances were interested in genuinely doing something cross-sphere, then it could happen. Instead, we've just seen more upper tier consolidation take place with a new treaty, so complaining about people on our side just signing each other is kind of tired at this point.

Fine, back date my glib remark to when BK signed them. One of the primary factors of a treaty that leads to charges of consolidation is the redundancy of the treaty. Rose signing an exploratory MDP out of sphere is not nearly as undynamic as an alliance signing it's second treaty with a 5 member bloc that has a supremacy clause.

Let me ask you an unrelated question. Why do you think there hasn't been a Rose-TKR, despite the fact that we've worked so closely together, been pushed together by outside forces, and both use the one true messaging service, Slack?

4 hours ago, Seeker said:

Screaming consolidation here is similar to people screaming "You're a Nazi!" at anyone who disagrees with them IRL.  It does not have to actually be true but you might as well do it anyways.

This is consolidation, or rather it was when BK signed them. It fits the definition to a T. Trying to whine it away is a poor tactic. The double reverse Godwin is weak game.

Edited November 2, 2017 by durmij

[Sketchy]

6 minutes ago, durmij said:

 and both use the one true messaging service, Slack?

Preach brother durmij

[Seeker]

Just now, durmij said:

This is consolidation, or rather it was when BK signed them. It fits the definition to a T. Trying to whine it away is a poor tactic. The double reverse Godwin is weak game.

Consolidation is not the act of signing inter-sphere treaties that have zero effect (this one).  It would be the act of signing in outside NS/AS whom would add to the currently dominated area.   Cerebrus wasn't some outside alliance that was being introduced to our sphere randomly, they were already well in it.  Nobody is whining because you're choosing to be ignorant, we just want to ensure we remind you of it.

[durmij]

Just now, Seeker said:

Consolidation is not the act of signing inter-sphere treaties that have zero effect (this one).  It would be the act of signing in outside NS/AS whom would add to the currently dominated area.   Cerebrus wasn't some outside alliance that was being introduced to our sphere randomly, they were already well in it.  Nobody is whining because you're choosing to be ignorant, we just want to ensure we remind you of it.

You keep acting like EMC is homogenous. It's not like we've made a bloc with a clause specifically designed to keep others either at arms distance or wholly indebted to us.

And you were the one dismissing the concerns of others by calling it whining. I flipped it on you because I'm such a smart cookie.

[Seeker]

1 minute ago, durmij said:

You keep acting like EMC is homogenous. It's not like we've made a bloc with a clause specifically designed to keep others either at arms distance or wholly indebted to us.

And you were the one dismissing the concerns of others by calling it whining. I flipped it on you because I'm such a smart cookie.

You don't need to make a bloc with a clause because that is how it has always operated.  There is nothing new about it and you can reference wars to prove it.

I never called it whining.  I stated they keep saying it but it doesn't actually apply to the current situation which it doesn't apply to this situation.  

[durmij]

Just now, Seeker said:

You don't need to make a bloc with a clause because that is how it has always operated.  There is nothing new about it and you can reference wars to prove it.

I never called it whining.  I stated they keep saying it but it doesn't actually apply to the current situation which it doesn't apply to this situation.  

But it does apply. A second treaty with a bloc firmly solidifies Cerb in your sphere and dries up it's options to look elsewhere, because of the sphere politics both sides are guilty of.

Blocs are worse than no blocs. A no bloc hegemoney is bad, but this specific clause and the general concept of a bloc are worse than the alternative.

[Lordship]

4 minutes ago, Seeker said:

You don't need to make a bloc with a clause because that is how it has always operated. 

 

Gonna have to disagree with you there. TKR values all of its allies equally, even while in OO, which was a contributing factor to it's decline. We're not in the same boat

[Seeker]

2 minutes ago, durmij said:

But it does apply. A second treaty with a bloc firmly solidifies Cerb in your sphere and dries up it's options to look elsewhere, because of the sphere politics both sides are guilty of.

Blocs are worse than no blocs. A no bloc hegemoney is bad, but this specific clause and the general concept of a bloc are worse than the alternative.

It was an upgrade of an existing tie and they were already tied to our sphere.  There is no additional NS/AS being added that nobody had not already expected from Cerberus.  It doesn't apply.
 

Just now, Lordship said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there. TKR values all of its allies equally, even while in OO, which was a contributing factor to it's decline. We're not in the same boat

You can disagree with me all you want.  The proof is in the pudding man.

[durmij]

1 minute ago, Seeker said:

It was an upgrade of an existing tie and they were already tied to our sphere.  There is no additional NS/AS being added that nobody had not already expected from Cerberus.  It doesn't apply.

I already said you can backdate it to the BK treaty. It's consolidation even if it's old news.

[Lordship]

2 minutes ago, Seeker said:

You can disagree with me all you want.  The proof is in the pudding man.

 

To be clear, we'd never sign a treaty that implied or consented that some of our allies would be valued over others, since that goes against our ideals. We'd also fight for our youngest ally as hard as we'd fight for our oldest. This is what I mean by what I said earlier heh, we're very much different in that sense. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lordship

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, durmij said:

Fine, back date my glib remark to when BK signed them. One of the primary factors of a treaty that leads to charges of consolidation is the redundancy of the treaty. Rose signing an exploratory MDP out of sphere is not nearly as undynamic as an alliance signing it's second treaty with a 5 member bloc that has a supremacy clause.

Let me ask you an unrelated question. Why do you think there hasn't been a Rose-TKR, despite the fact that we've worked so closely together, been pushed together by outside forces, and both use the one true messaging service, Slack?

This is consolidation, or rather it was when BK signed them. It fits the definition to a T. Trying to whine it away is a poor tactic. The double reverse Godwin is weak game.

It is undynamic in the sense that it locks up the upper+ range even further: Rose-Durmstrang, Pantheon-Rose, Rose-Guardian, Guardian-GOB, Pantheon-TKR, GOB-TKR, NK-TKR, Rose-WTF. Cerberus signing BK  has  zero impact overall aside from formalizing relations.  One has a qualitative and quantitative impact and the other doesn't. There doesn't need to be a TKR-Rose treaty. The explanation given is it'd be redundant. If you feel it being unnecessary is enough of a reason to forgo it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you're not tethered.  In IQ's case we don't see redundancy as a reason not to sign since it doesn't change anything/have a negative impact.

 

42 minutes ago, Lordship said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there. TKR values all of its allies equally, even while in OO, which was a contributing factor to it's decline. We're not in the same boat

lol.

You have one treaty that's a higher level one than the others: a chaining one. Maybe that's a  one way thing and doesn't represent a higher priority for you, but it represents a very permanent/solid tie and one that is a staple in any calculations. 

[Sketchy]

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It is undynamic in the sense that it locks up the upper+ range even further: Rose-Durmstrang, Pantheon-Rose, Rose-Guardian, Guardian-GOB, Pantheon-TKR, GOB-TKR, NK-TKR, Rose-WTF. Cerberus signing BK  has  zero impact overall aside from formalizing relations.  One has a qualitative and quantitative impact and the other doesn't. There doesn't need to be a TKR-Rose treaty. The explanation given is it'd be redundant. If you feel it being unnecessary is enough of a reason to forgo it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you're not tethered.  In IQ's case we don't see redundancy as a reason not to sign since it doesn't change anything/have a negative impact.

Both sides have consolidated control over the upper and mid/lower tiers respectively, you have a much stronger grip on the mid/lower tier than we do of the upper tier. So what is your point exactly?

 

[Roquentin]

Just now, Sketchy said:

Both sides have consolidated control over the upper and mid/lower tiers respectively, you have a much stronger grip on the mid/lower tier than we do of the upper tier. So what is your point exactly?

 

The point was that it wasn't any less undynamic and there's an excessive emphasis on the paper ties of one side when the paperless connections carry a great deal of weight on one side. There's a difference between having a grip on one and the other, and people are far more concerned about the bigger nations than the smaller ones due to greater expense.

[Sketchy]

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The point was that it wasn't any less undynamic and there's an excessive emphasis on the paper ties of one side when the paperless connections carry a great deal of weight on one side. There's a difference between having a grip on one and the other, and people are far more concerned about the bigger nations than the smaller ones due to greater expense.

You are forgetting you formed IQ and created that dynamic in the first place by pooling together large lower tier heavy alliances. And then proceeded to sign other alliances in the same ballpark.

You are trying to gloss over all the consolidation you did first in order to generate this teiring divide lol.

Like I said in the other thread, all you will do is point fingers at others when everyone is doing the same shit. Maybe if you stopped all the moral grandstanding it wouldn't be an issue.

Also besides Durmstrang, all of the alliances Rose has signed have not been upper tier heavy. Unless we are going back as far as Pantheon/Guardian. Those would be by your definition not consolidation as they were in the same sphere and a "redundant" tie.

Every other treaty has been lower/mid tier alliances. So your point isn't even accurate.

So while we may have consolidated (its expansion not consolidation btw lol) we haven't done so with upper tier alliances like you claimed and that doesn't make any sense.

[Roquentin]

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

You are forgetting you formed IQ and created that dynamic in the first place by pooling together large lower tier heavy alliances. And then proceeded to sign other alliances in the same ballpark.

You are trying to gloss over all the consolidation you did first in order to generate this teiring divide lol.

Like I said in the other thread, all you will do is point fingers at others when everyone is doing the same shit. Maybe if you stopped all the moral grandstanding it wouldn't be an issue.

Also besides Durmstrang, all of the alliances Rose has signed have not been upper tier heavy. Unless we are going back as far as Pantheon/Guardian. Those would be by your definition not consolidation as they were in the same sphere and a "redundant" tie.

Every other treaty has been lower/mid tier alliances. So your point isn't even accurate.

So while we may have consolidated (its expansion not consolidation btw lol) we haven't done so with upper tier alliances like you claimed and that doesn't make any sense.

The fact that those were the ones willing to break off isn't really their/our fault. If there had been any interest from the alliances with other compositions, then it'd have been swell. CS had a decent portion in the upper tier.

The tier divide was generated by who was willing to move where before. There wasn't as much of a willingness to split in the upper tier alliances. I'm not really sure about the moral grandstanding being there. It mostly comes about as a response to all the criticism of

It's mostly in response to the complaining here, which took place with people who knew they'd be signing Durmstrang. Why wouldn't I point fingers then?

I also wasn't speaking exclusively about Rose. There's been a consistent pattern post-Silent of that side bringing in more upper tier with the exception of TEst who got hit which predates IQ. It's a collective thing, just like IQ's "consolidation" is addressed as collective thing. The variety of ties mentioned should show it wasn't exclusively about Rose.

 

[durmij]

31 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It is undynamic in the sense that it locks up the upper+ range even further: Rose-Durmstrang, Pantheon-Rose, Rose-Guardian, Guardian-GOB, Pantheon-TKR, GOB-TKR, NK-TKR, Rose-WTF. Cerberus signing BK  has  zero impact overall aside from formalizing relations.  One has a qualitative and quantitative impact and the other doesn't. There doesn't need to be a TKR-Rose treaty. The explanation given is it'd be redundant. If you feel it being unnecessary is enough of a reason to forgo it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you're not tethered.  In IQ's case we don't see redundancy as a reason not to sign since it doesn't change anything/have a negative impact.

You're ignoring the degree of redundancy intentionally so you can paint our treaties as the same when they clearly aren't. BK-Cerberus is consolidation because it solidifies them in your sphere and makes them less able to move without you. It's irrelevant that it came about from relations. You're talking about tier consolidation as if you literally didn't build your alliance around it, and I'm talking about treaty consolidation because that's what's actually killing the dynamism in the game.

And since you avoided even answering the question and denied me the chance to smugly correct you, I'll just spell it out. TKR has been trying to distance themselves from Rose since we got in this sphere. Why? Because Smith has been on about making smaller more dynamic spheres since after Papers Please. OWLS may have giving him a forum, but Smith and others has been actively trying to keep our sphere from getting too dense since it before it shifted to revolve around a Rose-TKR axis. They like us, and are constantly forced to work with us by outside forces, but they won't sign us because it means it'll be harder for them to do anything when this god forsaken meta finally changes.

19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The point was that it wasn't any less undynamic and there's an excessive emphasis on the paper ties of one side when the paperless connections carry a great deal of weight on one side. There's a difference between having a grip on one and the other, and people are far more concerned about the bigger nations than the smaller ones due to greater expense.

Hmm, I wonder who made consolidation the focus of everyone's PR team and thus the central topic of discussion? Could it be the man who literally cited an instance of it (Mensa-BK) in part of his giant walls of text to justify the stupidest war this game has seen since pfieffer and pub broke up? Or the leader of the bloc that literally claims to have formed to fight those who did it while being guilty of it themselves? You built this culture, you pushed this narrative. Don't cry to me because it's biting you in the ass.

[Kiddterra -Boki]

And this started all because idiots think Cerberus is Consolidating. The title is "The Boki Chronicles Part 1" for a reason, and it's not because of my massive ego. 

[Roquentin]

 

1 hour ago, durmij said:

You're ignoring the degree of redundancy intentionally so you can paint our treaties as the same when they clearly aren't. BK-Cerberus is consolidation because it solidifies them in your sphere and makes them less able to move without you. It's irrelevant that it came about from relations. You're talking about tier consolidation as if you literally didn't build your alliance around it, and I'm talking about treaty consolidation because that's what's actually killing the dynamism in the game.

And since you avoided even answering the question and denied me the chance to smugly correct you, I'll just spell it out. TKR has been trying to distance themselves from Rose since we got in this sphere. Why? Because Smith has been on about making smaller more dynamic spheres since after Papers Please. OWLS may have giving him a forum, but Smith and others has been actively trying to keep our sphere from getting too dense since it before it shifted to revolve around a Rose-TKR axis. They like us, and are constantly forced to work with us by outside forces, but they won't sign us because it means it'll be harder for them to do anything when this god forsaken meta finally changes.

Hmm, I wonder who made consolidation the focus of everyone's PR team and thus the central topic of discussion? Could it be the man who literally cited an instance of it (Mensa-BK) in part of his giant walls of text to justify the stupidest war this game has seen since pfieffer and pub broke up? Or the leader of the bloc that literally claims to have formed to fight those who did it while being guilty of it themselves? You built this culture, you pushed this narrative. Don't cry to me because it's biting you in the ass.

It doesn't really solidify them even further. They were tied to Zodiac/Polar before that. I don't really see how intra-alliance tiering has to do with it since people have been doing it since early on. It's not killing dynamism, because treaties usually go away when they no longer fit the political landscape. Plenty of alliances could do resets if there was a reason to do so. Treaty consolidation is a reflection of the relations involved. The relations and parameters for a different political landscape haven't come  about. In the previous instance, it was a few alliances being willing to pull the trigger on separating first due to the fact that they didn't see things eye to eye with their sphere anymore.

I mean that's a good touchy-feely story, but not signing a treaty isn't going to make a minisphere happen. They're free to drop whomever whenever they want rather than taking on additional treaties themselves.

Actually, pretty sure it originated from the sphere you've had stockholm syndrome with. It was merely turned around on them and I have held them to the rhetoric they trumpeted at the time and have always trumpeted of the game in their image being more dynamic and their opponents stifling it, which has mostly been propaganda. If they as a sphere felt entitled to start an aggressive war on Paracov for crossing a red line in consolidation, then it was justified. When Paragon split from Covenant and the other side doubled down in treaties that instance and seemed outwardly aggressive, it was perfectly justified to take the opportunity to first strike using the same rationale and try to do better damage than in the war preceding it.  The premise of the IQ has always been to restore a semblance of a balance of power, so there isn't really any inconsistency here. The only way it bites me in the ass is if people fall for it being an IQ issue and that's the only reason it's worth arguing.  

Edited November 2, 2017 by Roquentin

[Verin]

11 hours ago, Seeker said:

Screaming consolidation here is similar to people screaming "You're a Nazi!" at anyone who disagrees with them IRL.  It does not have to actually be true but you might as well do it anyways.

Consolidation!

[durmij]

8 hours ago, Roquentin said:

 

It doesn't really solidify them even further. They were tied to Zodiac/Polar before that. I don't really see how intra-alliance tiering has to do with it since people have been doing it since early on. It's not killing dynamism, because treaties usually go away when they no longer fit the political landscape. Plenty of alliances could do resets if there was a reason to do so. Treaty consolidation is a reflection of the relations involved. The relations and parameters for a different political landscape haven't come  about. In the previous instance, it was a few alliances being willing to pull the trigger on separating first due to the fact that they didn't see things eye to eye with their sphere anymore.

I mean that's a good touchy-feely story, but not signing a treaty isn't going to make a minisphere happen. They're free to drop whomever whenever they want rather than taking on additional treaties themselves.

Actually, pretty sure it originated from the sphere you've had stockholm syndrome with. It was merely turned around on them and I have held them to the rhetoric they trumpeted at the time and have always trumpeted of the game in their image being more dynamic and their opponents stifling it, which has mostly been propaganda. If they as a sphere felt entitled to start an aggressive war on Paracov for crossing a red line in consolidation, then it was justified. When Paragon split from Covenant and the other side doubled down in treaties that instance and seemed outwardly aggressive, it was perfectly justified to take the opportunity to first strike using the same rationale and try to do better damage than in the war preceding it.  The premise of the IQ has always been to restore a semblance of a balance of power, so there isn't really any inconsistency here. The only way it bites me in the ass is if people fall for it being an IQ issue and that's the only reason it's worth arguing.  

So they were already consolidated and the BK treaty just intensified things. Sick argument A-bro-ham. And the point, of literally this entire argument, is that all sides are guilty of a little of everything and the major issue is your whinging, moral grandstanding and victim theatre. And don't play try and play the relations card on me. I ran pure relations FA for 6 months and all it did was get my alliance no CBeD and make certain alliance leaders talk reckless about my motivates (see your stockholm syndrome comment above) despite the fact that we've never had an in-depth conversation and I've never given any evidence that I was real politik.

Not signing the treaty isn't going to be enough to break open the dynamism, but it's a clear signal of intent, and I can't find anything equivalent on your side. You're deliberately ignoring my point from the other thread about ease of action. Our two power alliances are avoiding overlapping paper and outright treaties, you're still signing overlapping papers whenever you can get your hands on them.

My argument was never that you started consolidation talk, just that you put in the energy and time needed to make it the near sole focus of the FA scene. It's literally all anyone talks about. You can argue that it was an unintended consequence of your "dynamic" bloc formation, but the fact is that you've continued down the path well after it was established where it would lead. Dynamism may have been your premise (I doubt it), but your practice is pure static politics.

[Sans]

Smith is keeping us from signing a treaty? Time for a replacement.

 

Slack bros should stick together. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Kayser

[Starbuck]

>In DS-Rose thread, a Rose member claims consolidation is an IQ narrative.

>In here, Consolidation is brought up by a Rose member who actually believes this treaty upgrade is consolidation.

*sigh*

[durmij]

4 hours ago, Leoben said:

>In DS-Rose thread, a Rose member claims consolidation is an IQ narrative.

>In here, Consolidation is brought up by a Rose member who actually believes this treaty upgrade is consolidation.

*sigh*

It is consolidation because it adds redundancy to the web, stiffening it up and removing possible outcomes while adding power to the big players. Yes it is minor, yes the real redundancy was many treaties ago, but it is still consolidation.