How long will this war go on for?

[Shadowthrone]

Just now, alyster said:

I don't hate realpolitik. A day ago I told Roq to man up and admit NPO's BSing on OWF about their involvement and say the real reasons. For example I like how KETOG didn't bullshit anyone about a faked things in Surf's Up. They just said it's war time now. But realpolitik was just shortest way to describe what's seems to be happening

"Yeah lets do minispehere."

"Yeah!"

..... 6 1/2 hours later ......

"Yeah we didn't feel like it. IQ's back on."

I mean that's a highly simplistic and flawed view of looking at our actions. The reasons for it, have been described above. But is it realpolitik? Of course, does that mean it doesn't have context to why we did it? It is important to explain the context within which those decisions were taken and the bandwith of options that we had. We've gone into detail how our options all seemed less appealing than this course of action and we took it accordingly. 

I have no recollection of explaining these actions as anything other than in the best interests of the NPO, and have pretty much stated it, through 2,500 word essays on this boards multiple times. So I do not understand why you require us wasting time stating something that's already been explained countless of times.

[Prefonteen]

8 hours ago, alyster said:

I don't hate realpolitik. A day ago I told Roq to man up and admit NPO's BSing on OWF about their involvement and say the real reasons. For example I like how KETOG didn't bullshit anyone in Surf's Up. They just said it's war time now. But realpolitik was just shortest way to describe what's seems to be happening

"Yeah lets do minispehere."

"Yeah!"

..... 6 1/2 hours later ......

"Yeah we didn't feel like it. IQ's back on."

See. I actually don't like that approach either! What fun is war for war's sake, without any political machination or component? Put some effort into flavor!

[Goldie]

21 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

What the hell does that mean?

You don't?

[Leftbehind]

On 8/14/2019 at 11:42 PM, Edward I said:

I'm flattered. ?

You should be. I find you to be one of the more reasonable posters and even though we may not agree on things I can understand where you are coming from. 

Quote

 Isn't that what we have now, though, even after some fragmentation? BK-sphere is named after BK; N$O is named after NPO and t$; Chaos would almost certainly be called TKR-sphere if it wasn't a bloc with its own name. The only major grouping that isn't named after 1-2 focal alliances is KETOG.

I can argue that it isn't at all what we have now and that this war has proven such. Yes, TKR and KETOGG have went down their own path but the Blob is alive and well. Maybe this war is what was needed to finally push alliances into doing their own thing, who knows. 

Quote

Perhaps more controversially, do small alliance leaders deserve this chance? There's a perennial argument against the existence of protectorates in the first place, for example, because many people think they add no value to the game as a whole. Small alliances that didn't need protection or grew out of it are different only by degrees. They still typically lack the resources and activity that larger, more established alliances have, and the exceptions here are mostly elite alliances made up experienced players that prove the rule. In many cases, these groups are vestiges or splinters of previously top tier alliances, meaning they had a head start creating group cohesion as well.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be new alliances that are given the chance to succeed. But what can we reasonably expect success to look like? If we want to socialize newer alliances or younger leaders into the main metagame, do they need to be somewhat subordinate to established alliances? If new alliances are to survive at all, do they need protectors? And if so, should established alliances expect a reliable future ally that shares FA goals in return for their protection?

I am not referring to mirco leaders but more of alliances like Carthage, Soup, FARK and so on, that are not big enough to dictate the game in the current meta we play. Let's be honest here. Soup would have zero voice in this game without being apart of CHAOS. Since Chaos is a small sphere it allows us to have the ability to impact the game and help make decisions. Whereas, an alliance like Carthage which is in orbit of BK's massive sphere doesn't have the same voice that we do. I am sure there are exemptions to the norms but if years of playing these online sandboxes have taught me anything it's that big fish decide the rules. 

I also think that in order for this game to truly survive the test of time is that we need to allow "new players" into the grand game. They aren't as jaded as us old men and are much more willing to try something "new". I spent some time in the mirco world and it is in some ways the more interesting part of the game due to the willingness to take risk. The players like Sketchy that troll these new alliances forgets that the reason many of them exist is due to the meta of the game being locked into the elite few. It's basically an old boys club where if you don't cuddle up and play nice to them than you are trash. 

Alliances that protect these mircos shouldn't be doing it solely for the reason of building subordinate future allies but to teach young alliances how to be effective so they can become useful members to the community as a whole. Not just to the parent alliance. If your former protectorate chooses to do it's own thing and challenge you than you should take satisfaction in knowing that you actually done your job.

Quote

A strategic position isn't solely about protecting infrastructure, though, and multipolarity is the perfect example of this. Lots of people have an almost ideological investment in multipolarity. Wars should be evenly balanced; short; small rather than global; and fought between constantly-shifting coalitions in their minds. They claim to be - and to an extent, have been - willing to fight for this, even at the expense of some infrastructure. The more moralistic arguments made against NPO in particular say that our involvement in the war is wrong because it weakens the strategic position of the people who are in the right.

What makes NPO's entrance into the war so wrong is that it actually hurt your strategic position. It doesn't make sense to enter a war you had no business being in that would have weakened 3 of the 4 major blocs. You guys would have had at least 3 months to strengthen your position plus would have effectively sold Chaos along with KETOGG on your willingness to play a different type of game which most likely have ensured your safety both long and short term. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Leftbehind
Wow, remember no more phone lefty

[Roquentin]

22 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

What the hell does that mean?

Oh, I was told you had been pissed off for a long time, so I didn't really have a reason to want to avoid conflict with GOB  like Ripper described besides the short-term aspect of people being in range by bulking or it drawing in tC or someone wanting to keep you out. I just didn't remember specifically saying I didn't want GOB in the war. That's it. It wasn't meant to be "oh SRD has *issues*". Mostly missed this post before until Goldie quoted it and I hadn't logged back in because you don't have an avatar.

[Cooper_]

22 hours ago, Edward I said:

Why is bipolarity so bad? I'm not saying it leaves nothing to be desired, but I strongly disagree that it's the greatest evil as far as gameplay goes. NPO's government is after the same things you are. We too want to build a better world. But the world you seem to envision is not a better one.

Wars for their own sake are senseless. Wars justified solely by the inherent entertainment of blowing up infrastructure are senseless. Politics and diplomacy conducted with the primary aim of orchestrating such wars, though, are worse than senseless; they are corrosive. We understand your frustrations because we understand that much - although far from all - of the work that went into bringing about political fragmentation was motivated by a desire to make the game better. There is value in novelty and in change. However, novelty cannot come at the expense of actual politicking.

As you said, good alliance governments try to do right by their memberships. Part of that mandate is looking after the security of your alliance members. That doesn't mean shielding every last bit of their infra from harm, but it does mean keeping your alliance in a viable strategic position. Another part of that mandate is building a world in which your alliance and its members can thrive. NPO is unlikely to embrace a contrived politics that substitutes "fun" for real competition and which dismisses genuine disputes when they're incompatible with its embedded notion of "fun". We're especially unlikely to embrace that vision if it also includes the potential to degrade our strategic position so far that we can't work to build and maintain the world we believe our members deserve.

I see you arguing in good faith.  Thank you.  I do appreciate this

And I believe the points you make here are fair although it is also important to note that we have history of bipolar politics leading to stagnation.  First, paracov vs syndi then EMC vs. IQ.  I can continue, but the next little bit is more important.

If you want to have a conversation though about which vision is the best for the future of Orbis, I'll gladly entertain that anytime (feel free to hit me or whoever on our side about how you guys would want to go about this).  Personally, I believe there is a balance to be struck with wars (spontaneity/surprise vs. motivation/political intrigue), our responsibilities (our members vs the community at large), and our values ("fun" vs. strategy and politics).  Honestly, I don't know for sure the best way to ensure a better Orbis, but please do have these discussions and maybe just maybe we can get past this muck of stagnation.

20 hours ago, Epi said:

~snip~

I appreciate this too.  Keep the ideas coming.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

3 hours ago, Goldie said:

You don't?

how dare you sir.

[JackRackham429]

Switch to dial-up internet then attempt to download gta5, then copy the entire game to 5 1/4 floppy (you will need 208,334 of them). That's how long it will last.

[Cooper_]

15 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

They have an ideological investment because minispheres are a way of isolating those without long term connections and staying on top. For example Rose would only dare go alone if they knew they were safe, which turned out to be the case. Just another tool to try and perpetuate the current ruling class. 

I'm sorry, but I really don't like this thread of argumentation.  Interpreted a different way, you're basically saying alliances shouldn't be forced to put real effort into FA if they don't want to do it.  Yes, minispheres put you at greater risk, but you counter that my maintain good ties.  If the whole game hates you, then you done goofed (because there are actually repercussions to having bad PR).  I mean NPO and BK are hot commodities, forming the two largest alliances of the games, that alone should get you into most doors where you want to go (even if your not part of this "good old boys club").  You haven't even given minispheres a chance before saying no. Who knows, you might be surprised (as an example who expected you guys to end up with TcW who was prime EMC).

 Also, this whole ruling class was hellbent on fighting each other for a month during Surf's UP.  No one told TcW to make war plans and get it leaked, but it happened and the result was self-fulfilling prophecy.  Listen, Chaos and KETOG aren't fighting together for shits and giggles, ya'll gave them a solid-ass reason to defend themselves.  

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Realpolitik as I've described above is the sole operating idea in this game, otherwise you would not be in this war, working with KETOGG. You realpolitik as much as anyone else in this game, so it is ideal to not try to import IRL FA theories into this simple enough game. Realpolitik also requires certain levels of trust, unless you're attempting to use Brezenziski or the like as the definition of realpolitik actors.

If you're trying to claim NPO's effectively trying to police the world, I'd say that would be false. We've never tried to the police word or lay standards for other alliances to follow or get hit. To try and tie specific narratives down with this term is quite hard to buy, given a complete lack of understanding of the basis of the terms itself. 

I was utilizing the Rochau definition, as it was originally termed, but I don't want to stray into nerdy philosophy (kindly avoid assuming my knowledge or going ad hominem).  I am using realpolitik to refer to a utterly pragmatic approach to gameplay.  With NPO, my problem is too much of this ideology as to put whatever puts them in the best position as opposed to what's best for the health of the game.  Listen, TKR has been guilty of this same myopia in the past.  I'd like to think that recently we have reformed especially with the help and new viewpoints of our allies in chaos.  There is a duty to protect one's members and we all care about our strategic positions, but we cannot neglect our simultaneous responsibilities to the game environment.  NPO's recent actions seem to stray heavily towards the former with little regard for the latter.  I won't blame ya'll for this but we only have to look at the literal graveyard of sims before PnW (CN, NS etc.) to know how fragile these things are.  If you continue as you are, you may eventually have no more enemies left to fight.  

And no I'm not here for the narrative, or for TKR, or for anyone in specific.  Call me an idealist, but I genuinely care about the future of the game.  I'm not here to sit in minutiae  as you'll notice most of my points are on an ideological basis.

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

The arrogance and temerity and patronizing tone to believe that is how everyone else should play is the problem here. No one have given you the right to decide what makes the game fun for everyone else, that's everyone else's job to do so. To find fun through their own goals and agency. By trying to claim that you have the sole manifest destiny to describe the meta/fun for the entire community, you have essentially argued for a TKR/Chaos based ideological hegemony, and that by your own definition is inherently problematic. 

Yes, I'm passionate about helping the game, but if my tone offended you then I apologize but I still strongly support the intent and message.  And I don't believe that this action is for TKR  nor Chaos, but for everyone involved to have  some more fun and enjoy the game.

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

So yes, go on lecture me on how I have to play the game you have decided is the best way to play, and I will continue telling you, I have no interest in jumping of the cliffedge, for your fun. Your position is inherently that of believing you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that to me is something far more insidious: giving you the right to decide how I or the NPO community at large should play this game. You don't own this game, and you sure as hell don't own the ideas that allow this game to function. So it'd be better if you'd come down from that fanciful ivory tower, and work with folks, and building consensus' regarding the community. Or else, feel free to continue perpetuating a hegemony of ideas, that I'll continue to disagree with  

Ok as I've said to @Edward I there is a definite chance that  what I'm saying needs to be changed in  order to forge the  best path  forward or I could just be  dead  wrong.   I'm totally willing to have these discussions with you as well please hmu.  

 I don't  have any authority over NPO or any alliances sovereign decisions, but I do have the  right to call you out and challenge your actions when I believe you're going astray.  My ideas aren't a hegemony rather they are shared by a large part of orbis who has similar goals of creating more competition and ideally multipolarity.  So I challenge you then (as you are me) to then help me work towards a consensus of whatever it is that we can all agree on be it rules of engagement, new blocs or whatever to make these ideals a reality.

 

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

NPO wasn't interested to help roll BK straight out of the block no. That does not mean we have an agreement signed with BK. An agreement requires the consent and acceptance of two parties. BK was not involved here, and we never stated the same to BK. If we did, you'd have an agreement, and a fair point. As there was none, there was nothing de-facto. 

What did exist, was a firm belief that two or more spheres combining is bad for us, and we reserve the right to take action against that. That was an agreement between tS and NPO. That is the only agreement in operation over here, and painting anything else as an agreement is false. 

Because of the nature of this post, I don't want to get too much into the meat here, but Roquentin said quite publicly he wasn't interested in fighting BK and that maintaining good relations with BK was something important too (too lazy to find it).  I'm not alleging you of ties, but I'm saying that your own constraints on your relationship with BK essentially forces you to something that is like a de facto treaty arrangement  (i.e. you won't attack BK and you might help them out).  As for the two-bloc policy, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that is catered to defend BK.

 

12 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Actually I've just bolded the problematic idea underpinning the length of your post. I've explained why its problematic above and why I do not subscribe to the TKR school of standards and world FA outlook. Now secondly, our actions have been explained in detail. Your good faith engagement here, requires a good faith response and I've given one here, so that you see where the difference lies. We did not say one thing and do another.  T

I'm not asking you to subscribe to TKR standards.  If I was in BK, KT, T$ or whichever alliance I'd be saying and believing the same thing that a multipolar world, minisphere-filled world with even blocs is ideal.  Ask some of your coalition allies, they'd even say the same thing.

As for your actions, you can explain them all you want but it still won't wipe the clean the watermark of impropriety (however real or fake it is).  I don't think that point is getting through.  We wanted to believe IQ was split, and I'm really trying to believe you now.  The evidence staring mysterious self in the face is saying differently.  But we both know that we can circle back-and-forth on this subject for hours with neither side giving up any edge.  I'd really prefer if you  take  the previous part of this post to heart, and start working with us to find some fixes for these endemic problems in Orbis.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Cooper_
Grammar

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I'm sorry, but I really don't like this thread of argumentation.  Interpreted a different way, you're basically saying alliances shouldn't be forced to put real effort into FA if they don't want to do it.  Yes, minispheres put you at greater risk, but you counter that my maintain good ties.  If the whole game hates you, then you done goofed (because there are actually repercussions to having bad PR).  I mean NPO and BK are hot commodities, forming the two largest alliances of the games, that alone should get you into most doors where you want to go (even if your not part of this "good old boys club").  You haven't even given minispheres a chance before saying no. Who knows, you might be surprised (as an example who expected you guys to end up with TcW who was prime EMC).

Years long connections are an advantage that usually is not overcome. I can give an example: person x has known y through various sims they've played together. They originate from the same alliance and that alliance has had people cycle through it. They usually work together when they are both active and they work against people they have common interests against. Swaying them against each other is next to impossible short of dramatic upheavals. 

A great example of interests determining PR is KT. KT was once derided as being indecisive and not fighting wars. Keegoz was in the political wilderness for losing multiple wars as Rose's leader and opposing the Syndisphere. That was his big crime.  KT became popular when they began to oppose IQ and Keegoz who had joined KT and became its FA had and the leader  was politically rehabilitated on the basis of opposing IQ instead and able to link up with his old connections like Sketchy and abbas once more. Nothing about the person changed much. If Keegoz instead had committed additional actions that upset influencers such as Buorhann, he would have been in the doghouse forever.

The whole game with statistical might is not always representative of the population. Alliances that were on the outs in the prior hegemonic period could not be dismissed as merely having goofed. The people who achieved high status simply had the means to beat them due to their advantages and lack of willingness to break up until a renegade element did it and they had to react.

PR is determined by the interests of alliances involved. It is political. What is good for the in-group is good PR. Ditching an unpopular alliance while a war is ongoing is good PR.  Ditching a popular alliance while a war is going on is bad PR. There is no objectively wrong or right action.  It is consensus reality in that regard. 

 

 

Quote

 Also, this whole ruling class was hellbent on fighting each other for a month during Surf's UP.  No one told TcW to make war plans and get it leaked, but it happened and the result was self-fulfilling prophecy.  Listen, Chaos and KETOG aren't fighting together for shits and giggles, ya'll gave them a solid-ass reason to defend themselves.  

It had no political basis and it was not the primary choice of target. The opprobrium and anger was absent. It's been stated time and time again that it wasn't the overarching goal of the two to fight each other.

If they believed in the ethical principles of foregoing pragmatic considerations to maintain a minisphere dynamic they would not consolidate even if it meant getting rolled. This is one of the main things being used against us, that we should have simply taken the risk of sitting out and letting the BK side lose.

Quote

I was utilizing the Rochau definition, as it was originally termed, but I don't want to stray into nerdy philosophy (kindly avoid assuming my knowledge or going ad hominem).  I am using realpolitik to refer to a utterly pragmatic approach to gameplay.  With NPO, my problem is too much of this ideology as to put whatever puts them in the best position as opposed to what's best for the health of the game.  Listen, TKR has been guilty of this same myopia in the past.  I'd like to think that recently we have reformed especially with the help and new viewpoints of our allies in chaos.  There is a duty to protect one's members and we all care about our strategic positions, but we cannot neglect our simultaneous responsibilities to the game environment.  NPO's recent actions seem to stray heavily towards the former with little regard for the latter.  I won't blame ya'll for this but we only have to look at the literal graveyard of sims before PnW (CN, NS etc.) to know how fragile these things are.  If you continue as you are, you may eventually have no more enemies left to fight.  

I'm not sure how we've exactly killed anyone off.  We helped the losing side in a war and the damages are still really bad for everyone who got attacked initially.  Normally the hegemonic move is to coopt traditionally op-positional and neutral alliances until almost no opposition/outside forces are  left, which was previously done by many of the leaders in your coalition. I can't say it would have been good for the game for the alliances involved to get a lop-sided beat down. It would have contributed to the historical pattern of displaying the weaknesses larger unpopular alliances to make their allies leave them and perpetuating the culture of it being acceptable to treat a war as a lost cause and ditch your allies. 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Roquentin

[Shadowthrone]

55 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I'm sorry, but I really don't like this thread of argumentation.  Interpreted a different way, you're basically saying alliances shouldn't be forced to put real effort into FA if they don't want to do it.  Yes, minispheres put you at greater risk, but you counter that my maintain good ties.  If the whole game hates you, then you done goofed (because there are actually repercussions to having bad PR).  I mean NPO and BK are hot commodities, forming the two largest alliances of the games, that alone should get you into most doors where you want to go (even if your not part of this "good old boys club").  You haven't even given minispheres a chance before saying no. Who knows, you might be surprised (as an example who expected you guys to end up with TcW who was prime EMC).

I mean alliances don't have to put effort into FA if they don't want to. Again, I doubt anyone appointed you as the sole arbitrator of how alliances should play the game. I mean NPO did give minispheres however half-baked an idea a shot, and it's got you and KETOGG busy consolidating into "single-war-time" coalitions that we do not buy. There is no "shot" to give it, if it is inherently a threat to our community and our players. Like I pointed out earlier, we do not have to jump off the cliff edge to make this game fun for you. 

59 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I was utilizing the Rochau definition, as it was originally termed, but I don't want to stray into nerdy philosophy (kindly avoid assuming my knowledge or going ad hominem).  I am using realpolitik to refer to a utterly pragmatic approach to gameplay.  With NPO, my problem is too much of this ideology as to put whatever puts them in the best position as opposed to what's best for the health of the game.  Listen, TKR has been guilty of this same myopia in the past.  I'd like to think that recently we have reformed especially with the help and new viewpoints of our allies in chaos.  There is a duty to protect one's members and we all care about our strategic positions, but we cannot neglect our simultaneous responsibilities to the game environment.  NPO's recent actions seem to stray heavily towards the former with little regard for the latter.  I won't blame ya'll for this but we only have to look at the literal graveyard of sims before PnW (CN, NS etc.) to know how fragile these things are.  If you continue as you are, you may eventually have no more enemies left to fight.  

 

There was no assumption or ad hom anywhere through my post. It was an explanation why trying to fit RL theories and its complexities to a straight out war-only mechanics game as a misapplication of the said theory. So one cannot use nerdy IR terms, then try to deflect by stating they do not want to get into the term. I've seen the term thrown around in a sense to showcase NPO as some sort of evil/Machiavellian actor, with value judgement terms being used to describe our FA, realpolitik being one of them. 

TKR is still guilty of this myopia. To lay the blame at NPO's feet, is discounting the responsibility of your alliance to keep the very idea you so espouse going. You haven't "reformed", you literally combined with another sphere because it bests suits your interest, and your security. The former being pragmatic in the sense and realpolitik, while the latter being pretty much the definition of modern realpolitik under most post WWII IR scholars. You have neglected your role in the game by taking that very action, since that upsets the balance of power and leaves too much of power in your favour. NPO's response is in kind, and to state that we somehow have to be nicer and give you the advantage so that it suits you and therefore the health of the game, is again antithetical to your professed principle. Upsetting the balance of power and skewing to any one side, is the definition of an unhealthy game for everyone else.  Giving you all the channels of communication, consolidation and capital of working together to plan hits, and not responding in kind, is allowing you to believe you can keep doing it. I, for one, do not believe you have the game's best interests at heart starting this war the way you did, but did so solely out of self-preservation. So this reverse ideological purity narrative is really hard to even accept, given your literal reason for entering as stated by your Queen, is self-preservation and security. 

Again, you'd be wrong on the death of nationsims. It has nothing to do with "realpolitik" and to reduce the death of CN down to solely this idea,a is an easy cudgel. Having been there during peak CN, and working with the folks who were in variety of high gov, I urge you to look at the context of the game and its downfall, before trying to pin the blame on pragmatism. In fact, I'd say pragmatism was the reason why some of the greatest politicking/coalitions were built that kept things exciting. 

I have no issues having no enemies left to fight. You seem to think I have some responsibility in ensuring people play this game to fight? I do not. If they wish to quit and go, let them. I'm not here to tell people how to play this game or exist solely for my sake. If they don't find this game fun or entertaining and quit, I for one do not begrudge them for it, and definitely not at fault for their individual choice in doing so. Once again, laying blame where it is not due, is an unfair burden of responsibility you seem to be placing on the NPO. 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

Yes, I'm passionate about helping the game, but if my tone offended you then I apologize but I still strongly support the intent and message.  And I don't believe that this action is for TKR  nor Chaos, but for everyone involved to have  some more fun and enjoy the game.

Then I'd argue that it's best to leave the agency to the players themselves. You find minispheres, knock yourself out. You can't do it because other people don't? Well I mean that's the politics component of the game. Do you want to use punitive measures to ensure your idea of fun, is in place, be my guest. But do not complain if people choose to fight back against a homogenization of ideas. I for one, do not buy into Chaos' vision for minispheres, since the sole agency in terms of power and security lies with those alliances. Therefore, I choose to do my best to oppose it. If that's killing your game, I'm sorry, but do you see how enforcing your ideas on me, is essentially doing the same? 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

 I don't  have any authority over NPO or any alliances sovereign decisions, but I do have the  right to call you out and challenge your actions when I believe you're going astray.  My ideas aren't a hegemony rather they are shared by a large part of orbis who has similar goals of creating more competition and ideally multipolarity.  So I challenge you then (as you are me) to then help me work towards a consensus of whatever it is that we can all agree on be it rules of engagement, new blocs or whatever to make these ideals a reality.

Your ideas are inherently hegemonic if as you say are shared by a large part of Orbis no? I disagree with your premise that a large part of Orbis agrees with the idea though. I for one know an entire sphere of alliance who rejected that idea, and last I checked your side claimed they were much larger in size. So which is it? Are you in the majority, or are BKsphere larger and therefore a quantifiable majority that disagrees with your political thought? (Caveat: Political thought, not military competence or question of skill). 

Creating more competition again sounds great in theory. Sort of like this belief that unfettered capitalism will trickle down wealth to everyone else. I mean factually you have not given us the specific tools to ensure how your vision will work out equally for everyone else. I accept your challenge, insofar as giving me the agency to counter your premise. Rules of engagement/ enforced treaty splits and the like, will not create "fun" or balance. It creates a situation where all the rules, artificially imposes limits to actions and therefore the available political choices in this game. Again, I do not believe minispheres can engender different engagements, and if Chaos/KETOGG/Rose combining to hit BKsphere is a sign of things to come, there really is no trust that I have that you're interested in anything other than self-preservation. 

Again I do not say that as an insult, but a recognition of your choices and therefore, requires me to make specific choices to protect my own. There is no middle path to artifical "fun" here as that suits you best. If you want an honest opinion of how I view this game should be played? I'd suggest stop policing people on their FA choices, and give alliances individual agency to exist. Not "fun" wars as your describe, but specific reasoning to war, to politics. Give specific ideological meaning to your action. If you started this war on BK on the basis of enforcing minispheres, it'd have been interesting and different. Actions in this game that happen for "fun" is in essence fun for someone, and not fun for someone else. Therefore, robbing them of the agency to play politics is further to me harmful to the overall gaming experience. The only answer out, requires not one homogenized solution, but a myriad of actions taken by different people to keep things interesting; and definitely way more political actors than that presently exists. The small number of alliances and even smaller "elite" functioning of folks, reduces the number of options available on the table. So I mean there are a bunch of smaller/minor political changes/options available if folks want to take them, but do not expect that others would do the same at the cost of their own security because it maybe theoretically "more fun." 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

Because of the nature of this post, I don't want to get too much into the meat here, but Roquentin said quite publicly he wasn't interested in fighting BK and that maintaining good relations with BK was something important too (too lazy to find it).  I'm not alleging you of ties, but I'm saying that your own constraints on your relationship with BK essentially forces you to something that is like a de facto treaty arrangement  (i.e. you won't attack BK and you might help them out).  As for the two-bloc policy, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that is catered to defend BK.

Roquentin isn't the only one who's said that btw. I've said it countless times because I think NPO-BK solves nothing, and is an economic cost to ourselves that helps everyone else but ourselves. That aside, straight out of IQ, I sure as hell would not burn BK, or look to rock that boat, given the minimal trust with any of the other spheres with regards to combining. That's the cost of a minisphere. Chaos/KETOGG gave us no reasons to trust that their intentions with minispheres was indeed "pure", especially the former. Given that we believed that inherent connections and "old government" would be the first to use their navigability of choices to slowly build an unbeatable a coalition, we were weary of giving them an easy route to that. 

The two bloc policy did not have to be catered to BK. If KETOGG/BK decided to roll Chaos for whatever reason, we'd be there to defend you and that was the implication. If the belief is BKsphere was too large/ and therefore always required a combination of spheres to successfully bring it down, that is a failure of your FA to not reduce it in size without necessitating cooperation. If you have the right to cooperate with another sphere, so do we and all we have is used that right. So to claim using that right has led us to going astray, I'd say its your failure of diplomacy and politics, where you required a hard approach when you did not take actions to suitably build trust with all the other actors you did not want to involve themselves in this war. Your government failed in approaching the NPO in building those bridges before the war, and that's led to us to take the very actions your Queen has outlaid for your reasons of starting this war. 

Can't blame us for doing the same thing you're doing!

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I'm not asking you to subscribe to TKR standards.  If I was in BK, KT, T$ or whichever alliance I'd be saying and believing the same thing that a multipolar world, minisphere-filled world with even blocs is ideal.  Ask some of your coalition allies, they'd even say the same thing.

Again presumptions does not make it factual. In fact @Elijah Mikaelson has pointed out how while he may like the idea, he's forced to seek a security umbrella given the inherent power dynamics and lack of trust he has in KETOGG/Chaos when it comes to splitting from BK. 

 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

As for your actions, you can explain them all you want but it still won't wipe the clean the watermark of impropriety (however real or fake it is).  I don't think that point is getting through.  We wanted to believe IQ was split, and I'm really trying to believe you now.  The evidence staring mysterious self in the face is saying differently.  But we both know that we can circle back-and-forth on this subject for hours with neither side giving up any edge.  I'd really prefer if you  take  the previous part of this post to heart, and start working with us to find some fixes for these endemic problems in Orbis.

The endemic problems of Orbis are for Alex to fix. It's not really my job. I do have a job protecting my community and my allies and I'll continue working with them on those fronts. If you want to work with us, you're always welcome to approach us with ideas and if there's buy in, sure. I doubt you'll approach us, given how your government seemingly has no interest in working with Roquentin. The fact is he is Emperor, so if you want to work with us, find a means to. If you don't want to, fine with us. .At the end of the day I can't force you to do anything tbh. 

PS: I dislike how much of a libertarian I've become. Thanks PnW!  

[Roquentin]

Oh I can also give an example to show the dynamic of connections helped me and show the potence of the system of personal connections between old players and its interconnection with PR. I'm not trying to say it's entirely bad but just when less treaty ties exist in general, informal bonds will have more power so we are cautiously skeptical of the preaching of less treaty ties.

Adrienne's first act as TKR leader was to hit Nuke Bloc. Nuke Bloc and its leaders were close with abbas, so he was very upset about her taking advantage of the war. He would use the same connections he used for Ayyslamic Crusade to help in Knightfall later on. A lot of people in the KT/Rose coalition didn't like NB so it wasn't possible to stir up as much anger as it was mainly abbas' ties to James/Steve/Apeman and the other influencers had issues with those people. abbas before the AC war had essentially criticized BK for remaining tied to NPO and said we were responsible for them losing members and organized AC, so it was a major focus shift when he came back. All this without having the title of leader at any point.

Adrienne bad

Adrienne and Felkey then went after TGH/KT. This upset a lot of established players a lot further. Prefontaine came back and saw blood in the water and he had close personal ties with Keegoz and Buorhann. Sometimes they clashed but he was invested in their well-being.  Later on he asked me and Partisan about warring TKR. I let go of the TJ thing and put aside AC because in the grand scheme it was lesser than whaling.

Adrienne BAD TKR PR bad

During the war there was that situation with BC and I was confronted on it directly to not even contemplate hitting KT/TGH even though I personally had no inclination to do so at the time. 

Felkey vanishes and Adrienne/Radoje repair relations with KT/TGH and their trajectory switches to fighting BK/NPO. 

Adrienne GOOD TKR PR GOOD               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        This essentially means there are a number of gatekeepers and if your interests line up with enough of theirs, it'll work out. If not then it probably won't. They aren't all friends or necessarily friendly with each other, but it is easier for them to come together based on familiarity and most other leaders will struggle to match it.  I'm not trying to say they're bad or anything and obviously I'm against stigmatizing/blacklisting individuals given my own experiences with it but they do benefit from murkier unregulated waters more than most.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Roquentin

[Big Brother]

10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

See. I actually don't like that approach either! What fun is war for war's sake, without any political machination or component? Put some effort into flavor!

War is not a means, it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of power is power. And the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.

[True King]

5 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

PS: I dislike how much of a libertarian I've become. Thanks PnW!  

Best to embrace the spread of libertarian thought & the inherit truths it’s based on. Although if a nation simulator game can make more people libertarian, maybe they’re not just a pointless time sink. 

[Shadowthrone]

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Best to embrace the spread of libertarian thought & the inherit truths it’s based on. Although if a nation simulator game can make more people libertarian, maybe they’re not just a pointless time sink. 

Time to reconsider my time wasted here arguing for more individual agency in terms of the meta verse

[AkAk]

So no minispheres.  Got it.

We are stuck in the same dynamic that has killed off other games with no possibility of trying something new.

Got it. 

[True King]

8 minutes ago, AkAk said:

So no minispheres.  Got it.

We are stuck in the same dynamic that has killed off other games with no possibility of trying something new.

Got it. 

I think lack of interest from the creators killed the others, there is nothing worth fighting over when it’s a broken game with corrupt Mods & no oversight on them from Admin anymore.

What the players did eventually didn’t matter anymore & they games were/are just slowly dying off regardless.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Big Brother]

39 minutes ago, AkAk said:

So no minispheres.  Got it.

We are stuck in the same dynamic that has killed off other games with no possibility of trying something new.

Got it. 

The only limitations you have are those you place upon yourself, friend. You gotta apply yourself to supply your wealth.

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, AkAk said:

So no minispheres.  Got it.

We are stuck in the same dynamic that has killed off other games with no possibility of trying something new.

Got it. 

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm having plenty of dynamic fun.

[Buorhann]

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

-snip-

>KT/TGH/TKR trajectory switches to fighting BK/NPO

Source needed please.

Better yet, you're completely missing out on how KT/TGH fought TKR again and the only conflict NPO/BK got involved in was their dogpile in Knightfall (Which you folks were the aggressors, not TKR).

 

Oh wait, that's not convenient for your story to the audience.  Purposely missing links to give the audience a false narrative.

Chalk another one up for the Roq bullshit list.

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm against stigmatizing/blacklisting individuals given my own experiences

This is quite possibly the BIGGEST load of shit you ever posted.  Just look through your post history and look at you dredging up years long past moments.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Buorhann

[Adrienne]

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Oh I can also give an example to show the dynamic of connections helped me and show the potence of the system of personal connections between old players and its interconnection with PR. I'm not trying to say it's entirely bad but just when less treaty ties exist in general, informal bonds will have more power so we are cautiously skeptical of the preaching of less treaty ties.

Adrienne's first act as TKR leader was to hit Nuke Bloc. Nuke Bloc and its leaders were close with abbas, so he was very upset about her taking advantage of the war. He would use the same connections he used for Ayyslamic Crusade to help in Knightfall later on. A lot of people in the KT/Rose coalition didn't like NB so it wasn't possible to stir up as much anger as it was mainly abbas' ties to James/Steve/Apeman and the other influencers had issues with those people. abbas before the AC war had essentially criticized BK for remaining tied to NPO and said we were responsible for them losing members and organized AC, so it was a major focus shift when he came back. All this without having the title of leader at any point.

Adrienne bad

Adrienne and Felkey then went after TGH/KT. This upset a lot of established players a lot further. Prefontaine came back and saw blood in the water and he had close personal ties with Keegoz and Buorhann. Sometimes they clashed but he was invested in their well-being.  Later on he asked me and Partisan about warring TKR. I let go of the TJ thing and put aside AC because in the grand scheme it was lesser than whaling.

Adrienne BAD TKR PR bad

During the war there was that situation with BC and I was confronted on it directly to not even contemplate hitting KT/TGH even though I personally had no inclination to do so at the time. 

Felkey vanishes and Adrienne/Radoje repair relations with KT/TGH and their trajectory switches to fighting BK/NPO. 

Adrienne GOOD TKR PR GOOD               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        This essentially means there are a number of gatekeepers and if your interests line up with enough of theirs, it'll work out. If not then it probably won't. They aren't all friends or necessarily friendly with each other, but it is easier for them to come together based on familiarity and most other leaders will struggle to match it.  I'm not trying to say they're bad or anything and obviously I'm against stigmatizing/blacklisting individuals given my own experiences with it but they do benefit from murkier unregulated waters more than most.

Get your timeline straight. I was not leader for the Nuke Bloc hit, for one. My first war as leader was TGH/KT and that was a clusterf*ck for a lot of reasons but when that war started, there was not a lot of negative PR, if you'll remember. That came later, when the admin drama started and the reason for us wanting the war got distorted and others rode that train and continued it for the lead-up to Knightfall. And yeah, as Buor points out, you completely ignored KETOGG's hit on us just before this current war, after we supposedly repaired relations with TGH/KT.

It's funny though that you're focusing specifically on "Adrienne bad" when a number of people, including people who are on your side and upvoted your post, tried to make it clear to me that Knightfall wasn't the result of anything I had done. After all, the initial planning for it predated me doing anything as leader and my hit on TGH/KT.

What I don't appreciate throughout your posts though is your habit of trying to make yourself out to be a victim. NPO is better than that. You guys aren't a victim and to pretend you are does you a disservice. You're pretty damn capable. You could have made some of these same relations, you had opportunities you could have taken with people, and you didn't, whatever the reason.

[Buorhann]

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

What I don't appreciate throughout your posts though is your habit of trying to make yourself out to be a victim. NPO is better than that. You guys aren't a victim and to pretend you are does you a disservice. You're pretty damn capable. You could have made some of these same relations, you had opportunities you could have taken with people, and you didn't, whatever the reason.

They drank the BK kool-aid.

[Roquentin]

9 hours ago, AkAk said:

So no minispheres.  Got it.

We are stuck in the same dynamic that has killed off other games with no possibility of trying something new.

Got it. 

I mean you could have done something new by fighting someone your size.

4 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Get your timeline straight. I was not leader for the Nuke Bloc hit, for one. My first war as leader was TGH/KT and that was a clusterf*ck for a lot of reasons but when that war started, there was not a lot of negative PR, if you'll remember. That came later, when the admin drama started and the reason for us wanting the war got distorted and others rode that train and continued it for the lead-up to Knightfall. And yeah, as Buor points out, you completely ignored KETOGG's hit on us just before this current war, after we supposedly repaired relations with TGH/KT.

It's funny though that you're focusing specifically on "Adrienne bad" when a number of people, including people who are on your side and upvoted your post, tried to make it clear to me that Knightfall wasn't the result of anything I had done. After all, the initial planning for it predated me doing anything as leader and my hit on TGH/KT.

What I don't appreciate throughout your posts though is your habit of trying to make yourself out to be a victim. NPO is better than that. You guys aren't a victim and to pretend you are does you a disservice. You're pretty damn capable. You could have made some of these same relations, you had opportunities you could have taken with people, and you didn't, whatever the reason.

The Prince/Princess was the de facto leader and Kayser already had gotten replaced by you. TCL was pretty inactive at the declaration time.

I like that you're such good friends now, but again it was a boredom war because they couldn't do what they really wanted to do. The DoW even states there is little animosity involved and there was little forum sniping going. Compare it to the level of salt. If Keegoz had said, "we're hitting TKR in retaliation for last summer", then you'd have a point. You have no argument here, though.

Then it would have had to have been in planning in May. It didn't develop seriously until after. I would have to go back to check actual dates.

The motivations for some individuals/alliances participating in Knightfall had to do with your actions. It wasn't my motivation, though nor anyone who was tied at the time.   Hope this helps. Our group's motivations were our own. Tbh KT/TGH getting hit when they had rebuilt a month before was karma more or less.

It's not about being a victim. You're the ones that like to pretend that here.  I'm mostly saying these connections can be used either way.

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

>KT/TGH/TKR trajectory switches to fighting BK/NPO

Source needed please.

It has been admitted that earlier in the year you had agreed to plot with each other. Simple.

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Better yet, you're completely missing out on how KT/TGH fought TKR again and the only conflict NPO/BK got involved in was their dogpile in Knightfall (Which you folks were the aggressors, not TKR).

Oh wait, that's not convenient for your story to the audience.  Purposely missing links to give the audience a false narrative.

Again. Has been addressed. Using Surf's Up when it was just a 2nd best and not motivated by any real political rivalry doesn't work, I'm afraid.

There's no one to fool. People were either there or weren't.

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

 

Chalk another one up for the Roq bullshit list.

This is quite possibly the BIGGEST load of shit you ever posted.  Just look through your post history and look at you dredging up years long past moments.

How exactly does it blacklist or stigmatize them? I just haven't seen anything to indicate they changed except for things they were fine with being inconvenient now.  This is kind of the issue. People can hold things against me/us for years but I'm expected to have a memory of goldfish and for even 1.5 years stuff being irrelevant despite no real changes in mentality.

 

[Spaceman Thrax]

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

more lies

Wow you're getting bolder with these hahahaha.

 

Can we see your totally not fictitious CB on TKR yet or are we still ignoring that question?

[Roquentin]

2 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Wow you're getting bolder with these hahahaha.

 

Can we see your totally not fictitious CB on TKR yet or are we still ignoring that question?

It's not fictitious.

Just as in the previous war where this was an issue, I'm not going to dump on the person when it will have virtually zero benefit and at least this time it's a lot more unlikely they'd turn around and hit us the war after.