Jump to content

A (Not So) Brief Note on the Narrative


Cooper_
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, KingGhost said:

I mean what do you want from them. To admit that their CB was bad and they were going to hit Quack eventually?

Maybe in a few years but no one is going to actually admit that they were weak and had to hold hands lmao either due to incompetence or failure to grow etc. people like to think they’re the best and are right.

good luck trying to get them to admit that they had faults, you’ll need it.

I just hope their collective memberships will see them as the pretenders that they are.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically you're asking people to not be hypocrites. An admirable goal, but unrealistic. I do agree though, lots of bs being pulled by the other side.

"Havgle is a piece of sh*t" -probably everyone in Orbis

 

Havglerepmeme.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the effort-post.

The multi-polar meta is already dead. In fact, it barely even started. Sad considering this is the second time we tried this as a community. At least the first go-around we could blame NPO.

Multi-polarity takes strong community norms to sustain, and the norms we’ve seen so far are dogpiles. Bipolarity here we come.

The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

It seems that everyone wants to prove their bona fides on how they want the meta be dynamic, or multipolar, or anti-hegemony, etc.  The rhetoric in these past few years has been sufficiently exhausted for nearly everyone who pays attention to the game.  At the same time, these notions have become shallower and shallower and used increasingly as political props instead of as an actual belief and/or argument.  It's really sad to think that most of the proponents care much more than using it as a byline in their narratives.

Minispheres or any sort of similar political construction is only functional insofar as there is good faith in dealings with others, be they foe or friend, and that we respect norms set out in the meta.  The whole premise is based on the fact that instead of seeking security, you should depend on ability and your FA teams to manage your position.  Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but the person who gets the short end of the stick is always evolving.  The problem is that people aren't content to potentially being at risk within their sphere, so they either consolidate or make arrangements behind the scenes that betray any consistency with the principles they project onto others.  It's effective because their enemies can be held to a double standard of "minispheres" while as we've seen time and again people maintain secret backroom deals.  

That's been entirely the case this war, and the hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.  

 

Exhibit A: Rose - Swamp "Secret Treaty"

This one has been confirmed to exist by these parties (this has been confirmed privately on more than one occasion), and in this case, we have a legitimate example of a secret treaty that was signed AND activated by both Swamp and Rose. There's a decent bit of negative precedent behind secret treaties: my alliance was rolled just over the supposition of having one with a paperless party (even if it was never activated).  I hope the same parties who were so vigorous before on this issue are as emphatic on this situation as well.  

Both Rose and Swamp continue to make claims about Quack's hegemony and how they wanted us to be smaller.  It's ridiculous to pass Quack off as a threat when you've got a larger sphere and another sphere  2/3 the size (and Rose has the same ethereal "competence" as Quack) not only working together against the spirit of a multipolar world but also tied together by a treaty.  The rhetoric and narratives coming out of these spheres can't be taken as anything more than a front.

Maintaining the meta is impossible if people are going to work behind-the-scenes to create these kinds of deals.  A large part of the initial crusade against NPO in NPOLT was because they also maintained a secret treaty with BK (SCX) and IQ never disbanded.  It was also a critical reason for why the only true minisphere, Chaos, wasn't viable.  After that war, we were supposed to move on and become better, but people are still pulling the same kind of bs as before.  These groups have walked away from that commitment.

Yet these same parties want to talk about how threatened they were by Quack and how destabilizing it was to everyone.  Their arrangement was bigger and had way more firepower than Quack could ever hope to achieve.  It's very hard to see any of these gestures having good faith at all.  

 

Exhibit B: HM 

For all of the talk about being against hegemonies, all HM has ever done is join in and plan dogpiles in coalitions much larger than any other single sphere even the one they label as a hegemony.  They first rolled TcW with Swamp, going in at least 3:1.  Now, we're in the same situation with Quack, HM riding in 3:1.  They also dogpiled Pantheon as well as bullying both Camelot and TcW (Odin) into coughing up billions.  

At the same time, HM is on record saying they also agreed upon a secret treaty with Swamp, ensuring that at least there'd be a coalition who outnumbered Quack 1.5:1 (in reality all three spheres given the other secret treaty).  It's hard to find any sort of consistency with HM, especially.  From day one, they made Quack out to be a hegemon and even named their bloc for us despite the fact that we were always being matched by another sphere and their continual participation in backroom deals that made them anything but an innocent party.

You can't externally push for smaller spheres and expect people to agree with you if your only action is to just roll people in unfair circlejerks.  It's a bit ironic that the sphere who claims to care most about the meta has done more damage to it than anyone else. 

----

 

This war was always a matter of if and not when.  There is already enough treaties in place and evidence provided by Sphinx's leaks or 3rd parties to make that point incontrovertible.  Quack's goal–as we saw it–was to try to create a more fair war by keeping Rose out and later Swamp (when it seemed that Rose's entry was inevitable).  We had spent the past 9 months since NPOLT working on relations with both spheres, and this wasn't subtle at all to either party.  We made our intentions clear.

We should stop trying to pretend that this war was planned as anything but an opportunistic strike by Rose, Swamp, and HM.  None of Quack's actions bear out the hegemony narrative nor does any of the opposing coalition actually make any good faith efforts for their claims of a dynamic Orbis.  Make no mistake: behind the scenes there was a concerted effort to make this play out as it did.  This came to bear in the blitz that was magically organized in minutes and the revelations coming out of peripheries after the war began.

The hypocrisy and the corruption of convictions are the problem with ever achieving a true multipolar world.  For the health of the meta, it's time to drop the act and come up with a new narrative, or at least own up to the serious and damning decisions that are why we struggle to see that vision come to fruition.  

 

Solution: destroy the treaty web and shred it entirely. Before we can create a new multi-polar world we must first destroy this one.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The art of engineering a decent casus belli is long lost and dead. 
 

Swamp, t$, hedge were lazy with their rethoric just like IQ before them. Though I must admit IQ put more effort into it. But this is a far cry from Karma war or anything of such. Just a random rolling.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HM riding in on that dogpile after you blitzed them...

 

Do you really think swamp would come and help hedge if you only attacked them? Or vice versa? 

If it wasnt for your foolishness in attacking us i could be raiding both of you gray horders right now.

Edited by Deborah Kobayashi
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

Do you really think swamp would come and help hedge if you only attacked them? Or vice versa? 

 

On 11/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Swamp and HM basically agreed that if one of us gets hit, we will help the other one

Now I understand why your side is gagging y'all.

M16sip.png

  • Haha 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it amazing that quack finds it difficult to recognize that your sphere was a threat to every other sphere in the game, and you say we didn't have a CB, ummm yeah we didn't, you attacked us... again.

Also for our war against TCW, that sphere antagonized Swamp so much that, I dont remember if they came to us, or we went to them, but it took zero effort to decide to join forces.  And it was pretty public how TCW's sphere and HM were going to fight considering how much they had been poking us, and even at one point UPN tried to go around the NAP to hit I think I was 404.

So I appreciate your spin, but not really correct, and honestly I dont know who you are trying to convince here.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I still find it amazing that quack finds it difficult to recognize that your sphere was a threat to every other sphere in the game, and you say we didn't have a CB, ummm yeah we didn't, you attacked us... again.

Also for our war against TCW, that sphere antagonized Swamp so much that, I dont remember if they came to us, or we went to them, but it took zero effort to decide to join forces.  And it was pretty public how TCW's sphere and HM were going to fight considering how much they had been poking us, and even at one point UPN tried to go around the NAP to hit I think I was 404.

So I appreciate your spin, but not really correct, and honestly I dont know who you are trying to convince here.

We attacked you because we had proof that you were planning to attack us, full stop. You've even admitted as such that there were plans in motion to attack Quack even as you denied your alliance's culpability in the matter. Sorry that we didn't just sit and wait for you to come visit us on your terms. 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

big_morph-sig.jpg.dc5493086dfd6fa978316880fe6a6c62.jpg

The Knights Radiant 
Ghostblood Babsk of Foreign Affairs

Journey before Destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kastor said:

Your concerns about Rose, and other spheres in general, are wrong. Alliances can decide to join in or not depending on whatever reasoning they want. This isn't new, it was established by Prefontaine with the "TEst Edict" and used by The Syndicate against Alpha, thus allowing non-treaty paperless ties within Orbis. While this wasn't the first time it has been used, it is the most major of the first times, and used by YOUR LEADER to AID him in a war where they would have suffered heavy losses without help. So again, tell me where anything you said isn't precedent your side has used to order dog piles on your political opponents. 

 

How about another example, when your entire sphere + Grumpy(who, was paperless) attacked Terminus Est. You used the "TEst Edict" then as well, where were the posts clamoring on the forums for aid and how unfair it was people who weren't tied were helping each other?

 

I know this is past stuff, but the point is, this has largely been done by your side, claiming the moral high ground here isn't good. Also, remember, you went OFFENSIVE. You are the aggressor. Remember that. 

 

 

Also, I know you're TKR, but when you ally Pre, he's your leader. :P

I'd just like to point out that these arguments are so old we don't even really have the people to respond to them anymore. If I were to ping IC to respond to some garbage on the OWF he would block me forever :v 

There comes a certain point where the "I know this is past stuff but..." starts becoming a bit ridiculous. There should surely be enough recent things to criticize us for?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smith said:

I'd just like to point out that these arguments are so old we don't even really have the people to respond to them anymore. If I were to ping IC to respond to some garbage on the OWF he would block me forever :v 

There comes a certain point where the "I know this is past stuff but..." starts becoming a bit ridiculous. There should surely be enough recent things to criticize us for?

I mean it seems pretty relevant to me. It really was not that long ago that all this happened. You were there, I was there, most people who are still the most vocal and powerful people in this game were there when the things happened that Kastor mentioned. The fact that these issues are constantly coming up and we're all finding ourselves circling back to them is par for the course for this game. There is clearly a reason why we keep needing to have this conversation.

On that note it seems pretty irresponsible to me to completely disregard the past as if it has no bearing on the present when it, in fact, is the entire underlying premise behind the OP. If we want to have an honest discussion about where we go in the future with the meta, we have to consider where we came from and not use toxic rhetoric like calling something "ridiculous" and "garbage". If you want this thread to have any significance whatsoever it's probably not a good idea to quickly disregard what people have to say, unless of course your aim is to simply spread propaganda.

Edited by Toph
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Toph said:

I mean it seems pretty relevant to me. It really was not that long ago that everybody and their mother was complaining about IQ consolidation and the secret ties after their "break-up". The fact that these issues are constantly coming up and we're all finding ourselves circling back to them is par for the course for this game. There is clearly a reason why we keep needing to have this conversation.

On that note it seems pretty irresponsible to me to completely disregard the past as if it has no bearing on the present when it, in fact, is the entire underlying premise behind the OP. If we want to have an honest discussion about where we go in the future with the meta, we have to consider where we came from and not use toxic rhetoric like calling something "ridiculous" and "garbage". If you want this thread to have any significance whatsoever it's probably not a good idea to quickly disregard what people have to say, unless of course your aim is to simply spread propaganda.

I've personally spent 4 years trying to appease people about something I've had no control over. We've been rolled with it either as an outright CB or used as an argument against us multiple times. If people aren't satisfied with that by now they are never going to be and I don't consider it our responsibility to continue trying to satisfy those people. It is Sisyphean.

Cooper has only been trying for two years so he's still got some spark in him but he's not going to be able to address it either since it happened years before he joined the game :P

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Toph said:

I mean it seems pretty relevant to me. It really was not that long ago that everybody and their mother was complaining about IQ consolidation and the secret ties after their "break-up". The fact that these issues are constantly coming up and we're all finding ourselves circling back to them is par for the course for this game. There is clearly a reason why we keep needing to have this conversation.

On that note it seems pretty irresponsible to me to completely disregard the past as if it has no bearing on the present when it, in fact, is the entire underlying premise behind the OP. If we want to have an honest discussion about where we go in the future with the meta, we have to consider where we came from and not use toxic rhetoric like calling something "ridiculous" and "garbage". If you want this thread to have any significance whatsoever it's probably not a good idea to quickly disregard what people have to say, unless of course your aim is to simply spread propaganda.

You are not wrong.

But you aren't on the money, either.

 

There is an importance to historical context and precedent for sure but to skip back nearly four years and point to something (individual paperless alliances making paperless agreements) and skip over last year when most of our opposition were lambasting NPO for making a paperless agreement with BK to effectively blend their "distinct" spheres against a "common threat", which is way more relevant and comparable to the current paperless coalition that formed up against Quack is careless at best and straight up disingenuous at worst. 

So is historical context important? Certainly.

Does bringing up something that happens in the past necessarily mean it's a relevant or the most relevant comparison? 

I'd say no. Not really. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

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