Endgame?

[Edward I]

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Imma be honest with ya, you make some very solid points there. And I do admit that my fears are based on speculation, and while my prior experiences do tell me that the situation is deeply bad, I may well be wrong. I sincerely hope that I am, at least.

It's an interesting disagreement.  In my opinion, the most interesting wars are the ones that are fought over the terms of the metagame.  This one fits that description, but it's a little unusual because all involved parties feel it has ramifications for the metagame, but also feel their motivation for fighting isn't to change or reinforce the present state of the metagame.

Quote

I still do have to dispute you on one point though, and that is this bit: 

The issue here is that unlike what Tiberius said, there are always at least 3 sides to any conflict: The winners, the losers, and the uninvolved bystanders. If BK/N$O were indeed strangers to each other, as both claim, then the current conflict could have ended up as BKsphere vs KETOGG/Chaos, winner to be determined, with N$O on the sidelines, reaping the benefits of both proving their political point AND preserving economic growth and resources for free. But you didn't, so why? What's your advantage to be gained by forming a coalition with BKsphere?

I'd hesitate to say "coalition", but only because we're not planning on expanding our front beyond GOB and Guardian, counters notwithstanding.  Or, to put it another way: it makes sense to put N$O in the BK-sphere column on the wiki page, but it doesn't make sense to characterize the alignment as one of broad coordination.  The advantage of aligning with them, such as we have, is what's already been said: opportunistically striking a rival upper tier when it is vulnerable.

Quote

I cannot see a single rational reason for it other than to maintain longer-term alliance with BKsphere. N$O and BKsphere weren't literally fighting each other just prior to allying. N$O has published no hard evidence that KETOGG/Chaos were ever planning on teaming up against them, only the mere specter of its possibility. So, yes, we indeed cannot say that one time of cooperation proves a permanent sphere, but that in no way makes the circumstances of our respective coalitions remotely similar. 

That's fair.  I mostly brought this up to point out the lack of self-consistency in the sphere vs. coalition claims.

I'm no stranger to saying other people are lying about their FA positions and I don't begrudge you the same right, so all I have to say is "wait and see", as frustrating as that may be.  If you assume we're not lying and take our word at face value, then everything we've done has been basically self-consistent and basically rational.  The worst I'd say of our actions, setting aside the inevitably controversial optics of them, is that we highlighted a glaring flaw in the minisphere concept: each sphere has a strong incentive to hit the others when they're weak or least able to fight back.

 

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Hello! You are better at multiquoting than I am so prepare to endure my thoughts in no particular order.

No foul on quoting me. My issue is more with completely substanceless parroting than an actually political argument with some semblance of a crack at objectivity to it. So I'm grateful rather than annoyed, at least in your particular case.

We're not going to agree about t$/Citadel/Covenant. All made chirps about breaking off but wouldn't; citadel and covenant agreed to a plan that involved reforming IQ to roll everyone who isn't IQ in an environment where the other spheres were actually literally fighting. Syndicate I know had gov turnover issues that caused their apparent schizophrenia, but as an institution, they have demonstrated that they do not care enough to force their vision onto the people who were supposedly a part of it. Hence dishonest, and it's about that simple. Putting them on the same page as Rose/Chaos/Ketog in terms of attempting to break off is just nonsense, considering the leaks. I'd actually give Rose more credit than my own bloc here, because their smaller sphere, despite hanging off the treaty web, was smallest, and I know they elected to walk away from NPO/t$ after the details of your "break" ended up being so muddled.

So those of you who are older, take a breath and appreciate: I am Thrax, and I just paid Rose a massive compliment. Maybe there's some hope for dynamism after all. Hahaha.

Rose will have its own politically-relevant sphere eventually. Someday. Maybe.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

In your alliance's case, I don't draw as much of a conclusion from your squiggly line as I do from my assumption that you were told about the IQ reform plan: t$ and HS have claimed to be ignorant of it, so I assume you were hedging your bets, against t$'s supposed wishes of multipolarity. Perhaps I'm wrong. But if you can tell me with a straight face NPO was not aware BK wanted to declare the war in the leak, or that NPO told BK they were not at all interested, I will eat my shoe. And I've had this shoe a while, so it'll be a good show.

I'd be willing to bet at least one person in NPO government had heard at least a rumor that BK wanted to hit the people named in the leak.  I'd also be willing to bet that either a) someone from NPO told BK-sphere we weren't interested, or b) no one important enough from BK-sphere ever presented NPO with a serious invitation, hypothetical or otherwise.

But please, don't eat your shoe.  I'm not sadistic enough to find it entertaining for more than maybe a minute, and I abhor waste.  What, after all, would you do with your other shoe once you've eaten its twin?

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Those who want trust need to show they are trustworthy, and NPO's most consistent party line in the time they have played has been "Well, you guys first". And then people went first, and still nothing.

The apparent contradiction with the "you first" critique and our present position is, like I said, that we don't define minispheres or FA collaboration in the same terms as some of the more vocal elements of the community do.  We don't apologize for it, but we also don't ask anyone else to apologize for their beliefs. All we ask for is self-consistency.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

It is not sharing a coalition that makes me assume the BK-NPO break false. There's a lot more going into that decision. History, comments by your alliance mates, knowing BK to be cowardly and assuming they continue to fear ever fighting your alliance, the total lack of gov turnover in either alliance since the time you were allied (amusingly, I think Roq has cited a lack of gov turnover as a reason politics may turn stagnant, in other contexts, but feel free to assume I'm lying here because I don't care enough to find it) my assumption your alliance hedged their bets and committed an error of omission with your current allies as part of that, the difficulty IQ has had in the past considering other people's splits as genuine. It's a false equivalence, sorry to say. I may be wrong about one or two of these, but taken together, I'm nowhere near optimistic and I'm sure you can understand that.

There are so many layers of irony to that Roquentin comment (assuming you've remembered correctly).  He's possibly the longest serving government member of any alliance in the game, especially if you count his stint in Vanguard leadership before they merged into NPO.  He's also probably the most active player in the game, though, and he's demonstrated ample ability to change course.  Personally, I don't think older leadership is a problem as long they're still the best people for the job in the long run.  In Roq's case, he's definitely up to the task and he's made significant efforts to involve newer or less-experienced players in NPO government, so I don't think it's a problem.

As for the speculation about the once and future IQ, all I can say is what's already been said: we didn't lie about the split.  We've also called enough people liars over the years for me to understand, at least somewhat, when others do the same, though.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

In terms of this war: the timing is everything. The idea that t$ suddenly decided upper tier consolidation was a problem at a point where it would impact this overall war effort and aid BK is just silly. They could have done something about it at any other time, and decided not to.

Or they decided that the impact they could have on the upper tier balance was sufficiently large enough at this moment to act, but wasn't a few weeks ago?  I don't pretend to know every detail of t$'s strategic calculus, but choice to hit now and not during the KETOG-Chaos war isn't quite the smoking gun it's been made out to be.

 

19 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You might not "state" your support of BK but that doesn't change its existence. And you can go ahead and continue to believe that making enemies of everyone not enslaved to you makes you enemies, since guess what: It's true. Wanting total domination makes enemies! Go figure!

Where is the evidence?  Setting aside that "enslaving" people and "wanting total domination" are hyperbolic ways of characterizing NPO and its goals, it is, as always, strange that you single NPO out and that you don't cite any specific, concrete examples to back up your claims.

Quote

As for protecting your community, I've said this ten thousand times and I'll say it ten thousand more: Your short-sighted and desperate attempts to win a game that should not be won can only ever result in your community being destroyed. Not by any hostile force somehow mind-controlling you into pushing the deletion button, but by yourselves precluding any reason for you to exist. You are biologically speaking a virus, which so desperately propagates throughout its host that it ultimately annihilates its own existence. If you'd just calm the hell down about how desperately important it is that no threat, be it real, potential or imagined can ever come to your precious precious community, then you'd be able to secure that community permanently as opposed to depleting its hosts and dooming it to starvation.

I'd refer you to my comments on hyperbole and evidence, but....

[Sketchy]

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean if we wanted to move against all of you to defend BK, we would have. We haven't, that is my point. The existence of a combination of spheres at any given time could be construed as a valid threat, and we've shown restraint, rather than taking the cynical approach there. We didn't. We narrowed the scope and showed restraint so w/e. 

12 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Yet. 

They also said they had no input in the plan and then proceeded to carry it out so I don't think anyone believes your assurances.

But good job avoiding the multiple points I made across like 3 posts and focusing in on one. That really inspires confidence in your word lmfao.

Seems I was right to suspect your limited engagement given NPO nations have now begun hitting Guardian/Grumpy.

Your response aged pretty badly in 12 hours.

[Insert Name Here]

The surprise for me is the effort they're putting into trying to salvage any possible PR they can, as if people are simply that stupid to start believing their BS just because they keep repeating it.

[Redarmy]

1 hour ago, Insert Name Here said:

The surprise for me is the effort they're putting into trying to salvage any possible PR they can, as if people are simply that stupid to start believing their BS just because they keep repeating it.

I mean who are they PRing to? They are literally tied to the majority of the game 

[Insert Name Here]

15 minutes ago, Redarmy said:

I mean who are they PRing to? They are literally tied to the majority of the game 

 

Hence my confusion. The ones on their side don't need to be persuaded, the others can't possibly be stupid enough to buy what they're selling.

[Memph]

The amount of projection from some NPO members can be a little astounding. 

Just because your main goal is to not lose wars, that doesn't mean it's everyone else's main goal.

There's a lot of alliances whose main goal is to win the most challenging fight possible, which actually has significant implications for how we'd play the game differently. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Memph

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

What really surprises me about this move is that historically what made tS great was its ability to make moves and put itself in a great position, and afterwards, everyone seemed to be like... hey those tS guys I like them.

Now you are sticking your neck out for really no reason, openly making enemies with 3 different spheres, with a move that as of right now (granted things can change) is not going very well for you.

[Shadowthrone]

4 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Seems I was right to suspect your limited engagement given NPO nations have now begun hitting Guardian/Grumpy.

Your response aged pretty badly in 12 hours.

I mean my response hasn’t aged at all? NPO has been in since the beginning. The point is we haven’t expanded outside of GoB/Guardian and that is the restraint we’ve shown. It’s a consistent line lol. I have no idea why people thought we were neutral xD

[Sisyphus]

Oh frick. Nobody told me I wasn't supposed to kill the game when I took this job a week ago. 

Am I going to get fired... or? 

[Sketchy]

18 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean my response hasn’t aged at all? NPO has been in since the beginning. The point is we haven’t expanded outside of GoB/Guardian and that is the restraint we’ve shown. It’s a consistent line lol. I have no idea why people thought we were neutral xD

If that is the case, then calling that restraint is hilarious. 

[Sisyphus]

Just now, Sketchy said:

If that is the case, then calling that restraint is hilarious. 

I mean we could show y'all no restraint but I'm not inclined to break rule #2.

[Buorhann]

4 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

I mean we could show y'all no restraint but I'm not inclined to break rule #2.

Why?  So you can lose billions more?

[Dio Brando]

Just now, Buorhann said:

Why?  So you can lose billions more?

Such braggadocio. How amusing.

[Sketchy]

3 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

I mean we could show y'all no restraint but I'm not inclined to break rule #2.

I'm sorry, I am gonna need you to get yourself a signed permission slip from NPO before I can respond to that.

[Buorhann]

28 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean my response hasn’t aged at all? NPO has been in since the beginning. The point is we haven’t expanded outside of GoB/Guardian and that is the restraint we’ve shown. It’s a consistent line lol. I have no idea why people thought we were neutral xD

No one expected NPO to be neutral.  Whoever thought that is an idiot.

People expected Syndicate to be neutral due to their consistent “We don’t like BK” spiel.

[Sisyphus]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Why?  So you can lose billions more?

No. Because I don't want to interrupt your war more than I have to in order to achieve what I want to. 

[Buorhann]

3 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

No. Because I don't want to interrupt your war more than I have to in order to achieve what I want to. 

Hope it’s worth it in the long run.

6 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Such braggadocio. How amusing.

Back on the NPO fanboi train again?

I figured your messages of wanting to find another home was just your attempt of flirting.

[Sisyphus]

Just now, Buorhann said:

Hope it’s worth it in the long run.

Play by the rules and I will too. 

[Dio Brando]

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Back on the NPO fanboi train again?

I figured your messages of wanting to find another home was just your attempt of flirting.

Ah yes, the old "you must be a fanboy if you disagree with me" statement. Good going champ, you showed me!  

[Sisyphus]

18 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I'm sorry, I am gonna need you to get yourself a signed permission slip from NPO before I can respond to that.

Roquentin actually types for me. 

It's an honor to be used so thoroughly.

[Buorhann]

16 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Ah yes, the old "you must be a fanboy if you disagree with me" statement. Good going champ, you showed me!  

There was a disagreement?

[Dio Brando]

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

There was a disagreement?

Presumably. I'm not sure. Was there? 

[Majima Goro]

44 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

No. Because I don't want to interrupt your war more than I have to in order to achieve what I want to. 

[Sisyphus]

1 minute ago, ShadyAssassin said:

Am I going to get fired... or?

[Lordship]

22 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Lol, so if the NPO takes actions to secure ourselves, we kill the game, got it. Again, what a load of bollocks. We should just wait around for TKR to roll us instead, for dynamism. Never change Orbis, never change.  

I'm old enough to remember saying something similar when I was in leadership; about taking steps to secure one's alliance and how no one should expect you as a leader to intentionally put yourself in harm's way. I also remember NPO and friends !@#$ing for months on end about how this was the reason for static and boring gameplay. Nice to see you coming around full circle; of course, I never bought your victimhood card but unfortunately many did and now here we are, where you are in a position to choke hold the game after eating the minds of those who were naive enough to believe you had honest intentions.