Jump to content

The Winter Rose Accords


QueenPhoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

IQ is a recent development compared to "EMC" which is about two years running in some form at this point as the established victor of the game.  6 months of IQ doesn't undo that kind of history.

If EMC is still considered the same sphere it was regardless of how many core alliances have switched sides or left, then IQ (the sphere not the bloc) should be judged by the same standard.

Under your line of reasoning, Its basically still Syndi-OO vs Paracov, but key pieces in each have left or switched sides. This might be true except by this point many of these alliances have undergone leadership changes, the power dynamics within the spheres are completely different, different sphere leaders likely results in different attitudes and FA positions.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

If you don't see it I can spell it out for you if you still cannot see if (or refuse to). Adding to your bloc tells people what kind of mindset you are in. The individual alliance doesn't matter. That isn't my point. You could have added Roz Wei and the significance of it would be the same. That you're looking to strengthen you bloc first and foremost and that leads me to believe you're less likely to accept any idea of change, hence slamming the door. 

Yes, each alliance does have the possibility to change, but the current system precludes them to retain a lot of relationships that would have otherwise gone out of favor if there wasn't paper there. A lot of leaders are lazy in that they often look to take an easy out whether the is defaulting to follow other allies into conflicts or citing treaty obligations to justify entering or not entering a conflict. The current system of treaty web is a cancer.that is sucking the politics out from game and that is why changing that system should be the goal of any leader that actually like the politics and war of this world. 

It does matter who it is, since it added nothing statistically. The reason it happened is they wanted to join and we weren't going to deny them for cynical PR reasons. We knew it would get us flak. There were plenty of redundant bilateral treaties that could have been signed, but people chose not to pursue them. You signed treaties right after the war to bolster your position and tied into an existing bloc at the time(Spectrum) so it's not really any diffeent.

The current system just necessitates having one or two ties to alliances that are hubs to be committed to a specific coalition. The additional treaties are just formalizations of friendship by alliances inside of it, not necessarily connected to the ambitions of the sphere as a whole e.g.  IQ had no influence on this decision as Sval pointed out. 

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Of course no one else in Easy Mode has done anything since tS left. Look at the response they have seen afterwards. More IQ treaties. Are you telling me it is unreasonable for the alliances that decide not to follow tS are out of their mind because they believe unilateral change is unreasonable? I'm going to answer that question, its not. In fact it is worse than asking us to change unilaterally because IQ is moving in the negative direction in comparison to Easy Mode alliances. You're not only retaining your treaties after EM has dropped theirs, you're signing more. 

How can you gripe about people having faults with IQ not acting unilaterally and then in the next post, call on EM to unilaterally act? These two posts within a very short span of time do not reconcile with each other. So, you can complain about folks wanting IQ to act but then turn around and point out that EMC has not acted unilaterally enough for you? Come on. Folks are point out this disconnect in ideals because they don't make sense and that is why folks are pointing out the fact you're signing more treaties and pointing to your past rhetoric and they're seeing the two do not match. 

IQ treaties would have happened independently of tS leaving or not. Only tS, CF, and tC "left" and the rest held steady and more treaties were signed preceding it. Rose-Guardian and Rose-TFP are good examples. The BC bloc is another thing since even though TKR and Rose didn't create it, it still is more consolidation. If IQ loses anyone, it gets into a real deficit. tS leaving doesn't leave you in a real deficit and it's a maybe thing at that.

I didn't call on EMC to do anything, just stating that aside from that "maybe" nothing in the direction was done before or after, which goes against the anti-consolidation narrative you're putting out. 

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Ok so you're saying you lost TTO and UPN, but UPN still retains a what, MD level treaty to an alliance closely tied to IQ? and TTO fought in the war for a fraction of the time, I can't really say they were decidedly IQ for that war. More like an independent actor that wanted to help out an ally. Their role in the war played little in the grand scheme of things and to consider their dropping as a loss is more than a stretch, its more like a sprain. Tell you what, if tS only dropped a couple of their treaties and still had a MD level to our side or TC wasn't considered a core EM alliance before they went paperless, you'd have a point. But there weren't and you don't. Ya still have paper between them one and another wasn't even considered in your sphere. As far as UPN/CKD goes, i can't say whether they're likely or not to fight with you, but you don't know for sure if tS will with us either. At least I am honest enough to admit that. For some reason you seem pretty confident in your projection despite being told otherwise. 

UPN's decision was motivated mostly by a desire not to get involved in wars for IQ/NPO in general because they felt the pattern of losing wars was having a deleterious impact on their sustainability as an alliance, so it makes it very unlikely they'd help through a different treaty.  tTO was previously in the column and you use CF exiting your sphere when their participation in wars didn't have much of an impact and they aren't a politically active alliance. The alliances cited have much closer to zero probability of helping IQ. I didn't say I was 100% confident. It's just far more likely tS helps TKR than any external actor helping our side as there was no fraying of relations/definitive break in viewpoints. 

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Better yet, if you do consider EM still a huge threat that you need to defend against, why not look into alternative methods like multipolar. Seems like a deal made in heaven for a besieged sphere looking for a compromise. Yet, from your comments on the idea, you don't seem keen to consider it for some reason. 

Ok, so your point of distinction between preSillent and now is that you believe the break was legitimate and now you don't. Another point seems to be that you believe the consolidated side preSilent was the stronger side and the fracturing one the weaker one.That is the gist I am getting. Who holds the advantage now is a point of contention so I cannot agree that the two situations are dissimilar because I don't agree we are as dominant as Syndisphere was preSilent. As for your other point no, we don't outright hate tS, and we weren't angry when they left. They'll do them. But that doesn't take away from the fact they left, and their departure is just as legitimate as the one you criticized us for not believing during Silent. But for some reason you believe it whether it is to continue an agenda or otherwise. If you want to know under what circumstances they'd fight with us, ask em that is up to them, I really have no clue. What I'm telling you is there is no obligation in either direction for them to and to continue to assume so and base your policies on that will only lead to a self fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not really sure how multipolar would help us in this context. It's assuming some sort of fragmented part of your sphere would be amenable to helping IQ depending on the situation, which isn't likely. For us, we'd either have to make it an empty gesture or if we did it genuinely, it would leave us at a distinct disadvantage.

It really depends on what a departure constitutes. I don't believe that communication/cooperation is totally gone. The little cohesion that existed in ParaCov was totally wiped out and we were sent into crisis mode when it happened.  There isn't an obligation, but there is a long-standing pattern of cooperation beyond treaty obligations and the ties were much more developed between tS and its former paper allies than Paracov. Paperless wasn't a reset and it wasn't marketed as one, unlike the Paragon one. 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

You're assuming the entirety of nuke bloc has a mdnap with TKR. What leaves you to believe this? We were attacked last war and that NS you're attributing to our coalition didn't move to defend us. Your assumptions have no basis. As far as exclusivity goes. I have said my piece regarding there being exclusive relationships. Whether you choose to believe them or not is up to you.

I didn't say it does. It would likely move with its direct partner. We specifically avoided a direct hit on TKR because of that factor since we were told a direct hit would trigger the ODP and bring all of nuke bloc in. I believe this was explained to you.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Cold hard paper that lies between HW and an alliance on your side tips the balance against any paperless agreements any day. Whether they exist or not. Judging from your response. It seems there is at least one additional agreement between NPO and HW in the form of a paperless agreement. Attributing HW to our coalition without any public agreements is just speculation and its bad speculation. tS going paperless along with their exclusive allies, is a sign that our core has suffered losses. To assume otherwise would be diving into conspiracy theory territory and that does not make a convincing argument. Again, I call back to your at this point seemingly contradictory stance regarding the departure of Paragon preSilent. 

It's not paper. HW is a paperless alliance. It was an ambiguous announcement with no stated clauses or obligations and it was specifically made clear to me that whatever it was wouldn't come into play if NPO was attacked. HW entered the last war on something that was never disclosed to anyone publicly. No, I said, I don't know who HW is tied to because I don't have any agreements with them and they don't tell me that stuff. We haven't had any formal or informal ties since they dropped their protectors to go paperless. I have no clue what's happening with the current situation people are attributing to HW.  I didn't attribute HW to your coalition. I said they may or may not have ties to your side and they can't fight your side without it being suicide for them, so them posting an image that says "The Sorting of Azaroth" with Lordaeron literally changes nothing for you on its own. Paperless alliances have joined in on your side or stated it was their intention as in  CoS's case. tS going paperless even if they're 100% neutral doesn't put IQ in the driver's seat and if they're not neutral, then IQ isn't in a great spot with it either. I've already stated the differences between Paragon's cutting of ties and tS paperless: deterioration in relations. If their former allies were upset with tS and communication went down to almost zero, then it'd be the same.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

IQ is the spiritual successor of the ParaCov coalition that stood as revisionist powers against Syndisphere. Yes immediately prior to its formation, the world was unipolar but that pales in comparison to the extent the world existed in a bipolar system.  You're continuing to selectively ignore the history of this world. It arguably lasted from Proxy to after Silent. And before then the world was multipolar. Guardiansphere, Paragon, the Covenant. Paragon 2.0,Syndisphere, and Paperlesssphere  It doesn't even stop with this world, another world say its most iconic moments happen in a multipolar world too,  The Unjust Path, SuperFriends, BLEU, OV, CDT, CnG, Citadel, OuT and even far into that game like, XX, DH, AZTEC, DR. All of these smaller spheres drove the politics of this world in an era that lasted many times longer than it did as a unipolar one. And that is completely removing the context with which Syndi claimed its dominance. It occurred over several hard fought wars. Most of these conflicts they weren't even the favored party. Just because Syndi did become the dominant sphere and went on to become a unipolar one, does not mean it was inevitable. It was a perfect storm that had to have several dominoes fall into place for it to happen assuming another multipolar world would end up as such stipulates those dominoes will fall into place again despite the privilege of history. And even if it does bounce back to a similar situation the journey along the way provided some of the most interesting interactions and relationships this world has ever seen. The journey itself to a hypothetical eventuality would be worth it and if we set the precedent to break the wheel to begin with we can do it all over again x years down the line it takes us to get there. Years of multipolarity is vastly more attractive to years of bipolarity. That seems to be a consensus.                                            Yeah, I get that seems to be a real fear for folks on that side of the web. Which is why I'm trying to address it. Signing more intrapshere treaties is a reactive stance, not a proactive one. Folks want a multipolar world, they're just skeptical that it can work. Once you get over that skepticism and accept the possibility that someone could eventually become as strong as Syndi and it will be up to those leaders to deal with it, then the sooner we get to enjoy the pros that a multipolar world gives us and enjoy the ride and like I said if it does happen. Folks have already proven themselves capable of self regulating. 

You're referring to a period that goes back well over a year,. The periods it was multipolar were short and reverted to bipolar quickly within months in PW.  The level of political diversity in terms of alliances that weren't familiar with each other doesn't exist anymore in PW as it is no longer fresh. Your (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) examples are mostly just components of wider bipolar coalitions and wouldn't be much different from ParaCov except with more components. The smaller spheres were always parts of bipolar coaltions and one would always rise to the top and then jettison other components as I said. Theoretically that could already exist here, but the issue with PW has always been the vastly limited number of  alliances that come anywhere near the top 10 and there's a huge drop off. These are mostly sub-spheres within coalitions(SuperGrievances is one you cited) and there's nothing precluding that right now aside from having enough alliances for it or real divisions in policy thinking. There hasn't been a bloc of elite-style alliances like Citadel for instance that had its own style/orientation. The spheres you cite had unique identities that developed organically e.g. NV's protectorates becoming AZTEC and being largely unconnected to anyone except through NV initially.  I'm not removing the context and I'm accounting for the possibility of the other side having one and becoming the unipole as well. Since multi pole just mean subdivision of a coalition and not entirely separate entities, which I assumed was what you wanted before and would be more of  a change, it would easily end up back in the same situation, especially if the multiple poles are just manufactured and not organic and not representative of actual faultlines. Pretty much anyone on your side could have formed a bloc within Syndi or EMC a long time ago. People thought OO was like that, but as we learned, you didn't privilege it above other ties. So I'm really curious as to how these multiple pole are supposed to originate or on what basis.

This is where it really gets tricky. Your examples are just of blocs that eventually join wider coalitions, but that was all organic so no one had to make it work. The examples you brought up do end up with someone becoming powerful and ending up like Syndi which is what people wouldn't want, but it's all coming out of nowhere rather than something that develops on its own. Those wider coalitions that the spheres were part of broke up for real reasons and not just because and they didn't develop just because. At the least what you propose isn't a real change and is just people labeling themselves differently and at most it's just a simulacrum of a multipolar world with no basis which will really be problematic.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

 

Ya, you need folks under your up-declare in order to pin down the folks you hit. You also had that problem towards the end of last war when the coalition started eating its way up but you delt with the the same way you will deal with it in the future, by selling down and keeping them pinned. Its happened before and you still retain the capacity to do it again. Zodiac lost members to splinters that decided to sign onto your sign as protectorates. Still well within your sphere of influence and reinforcement range if it come down to it. I don't see how that counts as a loss. We didn't sign the Mensa splinters as protectorates and we didn't sign tS's exclusive allies to them either. That is real loss. 

I was referring to the upper tier nations HW hit. You said you needed HW for it, and they're out of the equation. AIM formed with the intention of not being involved in politics.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

You choose the believe whatever you want when it concerns to tS, any amount of information regarding the state of the relationship seems to be dismissed. 

That is the thing it is a cycle of change and it is going to over time manifest itself into various forms. We have already seen what happens in this world and the next when a side in a multipolar world gains a relative edge over the others. Everyone tries to destroy them. The same thing will happen if we try again but assuming the same outcome will happen just because we exist in a reality where it did (by the falling of a number of dominoes) isn't logical. And yes the interests of smaller alliances would become more influential in a multipolar world thanks for agreeing with me. Though, I cannot respond in kind to your assertion that multipolar would lead to one sided curbstomps. In fact history has shown us the conflicts in multipolar are some of the closest and fiercest fighting of any system. 

Fine.

Okay, we have a huge problem here. Before this, I assumed it was basically just rehashing the previous mini-spheres idea of multiple spheres that don't really align with one another and this would entail a definitive separation of alliances. Your examples are basically, just blocs that have ties to other blocs and participate in bipolar conflicts with the ties the blocs have sometimes changing. As I said, there's nothing stopping that from happening as is. Multipolar in this form since there's no organic basis for these other blocs would basically be make a bloc and give yourself a label and keep your intersphere treaties. Before your elaboration here, I mostly thought it was a bunch of fragments that don't cooperate, so a smaller disliked alliance would be easy pickings since its limited allies would be accounted for easily. You're right then, it wouldn't result in curbstomps since hitting one alliance would still trigger a global if it's merely part of a subdivision of a grand coalition.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

There were a number of reasons why people were unhappy with the initial change so I won't speak for all of them. I know I was upset with it because I knew it would mean war on allies we've been close to for a while and there was another possible alternative that wouldn't divide the world into two. Alas that was never acted upon and so we experienced the inevitable conclusion that unilateral change brought about. People are unhappy now because it seems the change that was the supposed justification for the move has only given us more of the same bipolarism that existed before the unipolarity. People are unhappy, because they know there is an alternative to bipolarism and that alternative is seemingly being rejected by your sphere. Whether that is the case or not idk, talks of this alternative are extremely young, but the underlining desire is old. 

It was more like there were pretty bitter reactions and the alliances in question were seen as untrustworthy and people were calling for Curufinwe to get sacked and were also saying CS had gone nuts. I haven't really seen a change in the betrayal narrative since then. If that change, that's news to me. The alternative is something that's ill-defined.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

What do you mean there is no reset? You're in a bloc with an alliance you've fought against twice! You're in a bloc with a bunch of alliances that used to be allied to the other side. And we're in close association to alliances that we've been bitter enemies with since our inception. There IS a reset of relations YOU just choose not to embrace it selectively because it would not suit YOUR agenda. Disputes are often not elected to be acted upon because of cost-benefit analysis, but that absolutely would change in multipolar. The difference of dragging in an entire machine to fight vs the cost of dragging in a vastly smaller scale into a conflict cannot be overstated. The various agendas and considerations you have to keep in mind when bonded by paper severely limits your potential actions. Because it only takes an alliance here and there in your coalition to decide not to back you and all of a sudden you're at an immense disadvantage in comparison to your enemies. Deciding enter conflicts only when the absolute greatest threat is at hand is DULL politics. There is a point about pr hits as you put it, but those non chaining treaties only lessen the blow for folks who do not honor their word. Alliances still retain that pr hit. That is not even mentioning the cookie cutter road map treaties present for alliance leaders who refuse to consider dynamic action even when it would be in their interests because of paper with alliances they no longer have the same relationship with. And yes, while we have seen some changes here and there with regards to alliances dropping or signing treaties, these moves are the exception, not the rule and that is important to remember. 

There isn't a universal reset in relations. The alliances that partook in IQ were specifically ones geared toward change. For Chola and CS, it wasn't their first attempt. In general they had more of an open mind and people were upset with them for embracing their historical enemy. Like I said, it doesn't change in a multi-polar with the examples you use. I'm going to need serious clarification here. One is something with precedent and the other is something without precedent.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

The alliances in IQ that fought together since the last war are almost entirely still with IQ. We can go back and forth. And if you believe we have an advantage over you, how would weakening ourselves suit our agenda? You can't reconcile the two. I want to bring about multipolar because I think that sort of system is the most fun. And why play a game if you don't think its fun. The bipolar dynamic isn't recent. Its been in place since 168 with a brief intermission after Silent. Yeah, multipolar isn't brand spanking out of the box new, but its been a lot longer since we've seen multipolar in-comparison to the other systems. Multipolar is also better, which is another reason to go with it. You could say me bringing it up is because of an agenda. Ok, but it really wouldn't further an agenda aimed to put TKR in the best possible position because we'd be kneecapping our support, cutting ties to allies we've known for a while, all while being the #1 alliance in the game and so the most likely target of any ambitious pole who would want to take us on. If I really wanted to give TKR the best chance of becoming the next uni-pole, I'd work to break alliances away from your sphere. But thats not what I'm doing.

I don't think it's a good enough advantage to your liking and if I'm being particularly suspicious you just wanted IQ weakened because the disparity isn't big enough. You made and attempted to make moves after the last war to mitigate the issues you encountered even though you insisted it was a complete victory and your entire side refused to even contemplate conceding anything. The vitriol doesn't disappear easily. Like I said multipolar needs to be defined better since your examples are just blocs that cooperate with other blocs, which is already feasible if blocs had developed on there. A lot of people thought that might have been the case with OO being its own pole, but it wasn't, so in a way you thwarted your own ends before. It could very well bolster TKR's position and make it 100% safe as the #1 if IQ fragmented, as TKR would have fewer alliances it'd need to keep happy in an informal capacity if it was a manufactured split, while it'd be harder for IQ to reconstitute. If one were being totally cynical, they would assume this is the purpose.

30 minutes ago, Kayser said:

I'm calling for mutual destruction of BOTH spheres so we can make a multipolar world and create a more enjoyable environment. The idea that you hold onto about past grudges only reinforces the fact. If you refuse to take an actual change, in light of the relationship you and BK now have as proof of concept you're only contradicting yourself. 

This really isn't well detailed and is just too abstract. The examples don't suit the purpose. The idea about grudges is fully warranted, tbh. Just because BK chose to move on from its issues with NPO, doesn't mean all the others would. It's a very unique turnaround.

 

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

If EMC is still considered the same sphere it was regardless of how many core alliances have switched sides or left, then IQ (the sphere not the bloc) should be judged by the same standard.

Under your line of reasoning, Its basically still Syndi-OO vs Paracov, but key pieces in each have left or switched sides. This might be true except by this point many of these alliances have undergone leadership changes, the power dynamics within the spheres are completely different, different sphere leaders likely results in different attitudes and FA positions.

 

 

 Since the start of the year, the main alliance in your side has been seen as TKR and that hasn't changed. Let's make an honest comparison: with TKR,  there's direct continuity as Lordship handled FA and was #2 the entire time. Guardian same leader and Mensa gov was incorporated into their gov. Pantheon has direct continuity. These alliances tie a lot of NS on their own. Rose signed Mensa in October I think, so Rose only has a year under its belt and the others have more, especially TKR/Guardian.

With Paracov, it completely collapsed and there was no continuity and the most politically active alliance and influential alliance Paracov during its entire existence  was yours which has maintained the same FA post-silent. That VE is on our side is a product of circumstance and not because it aligned with their prior FA policy.

I agree there have been shifts, but the alliances on our side have changed more than the ones on yours.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Since the start of the year, the main alliance in your side has been seen as TKR and that hasn't changed. Let's make an honest comparison: with TKR,  there's direct continuity as Lordship handled FA and was #2 the entire time. Guardian same leader and Mensa gov was incorporated into their gov. Pantheon has direct continuity. These alliances tie a lot of NS on their own. Rose signed Mensa in October I think, so Rose only has a year under its belt and the others have more, especially TKR/Guardian.

With Paracov, it completely collapsed and there was no continuity and the most politically active alliance and influential alliance Paracov during its entire existence  was yours which has maintained the same FA post-silent. That VE is on our side is a product of circumstance and not because it aligned with their prior FA policy.

I agree there have been shifts, but the alliances on our side have changed more than the ones on yours.

Define "main". The largest? The most influential? The argument that TKR was the "main" alliance in the sphere assumes that the only alliance that matters is the main one.

Spheres are made up of a group of alliances, leaders may weight heavier due to political influence, but you take enough alliances away, hell, have them swap sides, and you have changed the sphere.

The "transition" to EMC began I would argue post silent war and just like any change it was a gradual process. You claim t$ hasn't been the key figure for a year, but dogpiled them in the previous war and have consistently continued to refer to the sphere as Syndi-sphere. This is the issue with your entire outlook, you only recognize change if its bold and dramatic and blatantly obvious, otherwise its essentially non-existent. Although even t$ exited is not worthy of that consideration now. Change rarely happens that way, its rarely that obviously and someone with your experience in politics should know that.

Who were the key political alliances in Syndi-OO?

t$, Mensa, TKR, BK

Who were the key political alliances in Paracov?

Rose, UPN, VE, NPO.

 

Rose broke away from Covenant, then from Paragon, then eventually signed Mensa and are now in EMC.

BK signed IQ with you.

VE also broke away from Covenant, then from Paragon, but signed back with IQ. Not a key political alliance in IQ either.

Mensa disbanded, but granted they joined Guardian, it remains to be seen whether that will actually impact Guardian in anyway politically so I think its too early to argue that case.

t$ went paperless.

UPN is now neutral and not a politically relevant player anymore, focusing on fixing themselves rather than FA, so neutral.

TKR and NPO are the only alliances who've not really moved, and NPO is the only alliance on the list who has seen no changes in leadership.

Both sides have picked up multiple new alliances and additions, and other alliances have been pushed more into the forefront (Rose/Pantheon, DEIC/NAC as Acadia and others who switched like BK).

My overall point is, neither side is the same they were before or even after Silent War. Both sides made drastic changes post Silent war, but since the formation of IQ through to the last war and beyond it, the only side that has really changed much is ours. Alliances that were less relevant have been pushed closer to the top, which inevitably impacts the politics of those spheres.

Your issue is you seem to see everything as a binary, and don't really recognize nuance, and are too quick to just assign your enemies as some hegemonic monolithic evil entity. Whether you do that on purpose for narrative reasons or out of ignorance is debatable.

So in summary, while I don't subscribe to the narrative that spheres can only change if all the key alliances change or leave or some dramatic example, if I DID believe that, I'd have a case for arguing that IQ has changed less since its formation than we have, and that our sphere is more dynamic as a result.

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you right now that previous Mensa leaders (including myself) have no plans to get back into this politically.  We've won.  Now the rest of you nerds get to deal with Roq's pity party of IQ's 'woe is me' stories.

 

Unless you're kosmo, then you're still stuck thinking that Mensa is doing bad stuff.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Define "main". The largest? The most influential? The argument that TKR was the "main" alliance in the sphere assumes that the only alliance that matters is the main one.

Spheres are made up of a group of alliances, leaders may weight heavier due to political influence, but you take enough alliances away, hell, have them swap sides, and you have changed the sphere.

The "transition" to EMC began I would argue post silent war and just like any change it was a gradual process. You claim t$ hasn't been the key figure for a year, but dogpiled them in the previous war and have consistently continued to refer to the sphere as Syndi-sphere. This is the issue with your entire outlook, you only recognize change if its bold and dramatic and blatantly obvious, otherwise its essentially non-existent. Although even t$ exited is not worthy of that consideration now. Change rarely happens that way, its rarely that obviously and someone with your experience in politics should know that.

Who were the key political alliances in Syndi-OO?

t$, Mensa, TKR, BK

Who were the key political alliances in Paracov?

Rose, UPN, VE, NPO.

 

Rose broke away from Covenant, then from Paragon, then eventually signed Mensa and are now in EMC.

BK signed IQ with you.

VE also broke away from Covenant, then from Paragon, but signed back with IQ. Not a key political alliance in IQ either.

Mensa disbanded, but granted they joined Guardian, it remains to be seen whether that will actually impact Guardian in anyway politically so I think its too early to argue that case.

t$ went paperless.

UPN is now neutral and not a politically relevant player anymore, focusing on fixing themselves rather than FA, so neutral.

TKR and NPO are the only alliances who've not really moved, and NPO is the only alliance on the list who has seen no changes in leadership.

Both sides have picked up multiple new alliances and additions, and other alliances have been pushed more into the forefront (Rose/Pantheon, DEIC/NAC as Acadia and others who switched like BK).

My overall point is, neither side is the same they were before or even after Silent War. Both sides made drastic changes post Silent war, but since the formation of IQ through to the last war and beyond it, the only side that has really changed much is ours. Alliances that were less relevant have been pushed closer to the top, which inevitably impacts the politics of those spheres.

Your issue is you seem to see everything as a binary, and don't really recognize nuance, and are too quick to just assign your enemies as some hegemonic monolithic evil entity. Whether you do that on purpose for narrative reasons or out of ignorance is debatable.

So in summary, while I don't subscribe to the narrative that spheres can only change if all the key alliances change or leave or some dramatic example, if I DID believe that, I'd have a case for arguing that IQ has changed less since its formation than we have, and that our sphere is more dynamic as a result.

Main alliances and other major players within and many of them are still around.

It's called Syndisphere because that's the name people will hold onto. They weren't the key alliance after Partisan stepped down and that was noted several times including when Silent was started that people didn't think it was tS that would be pushing things but other alliances in the sphere. tS was on the surface hit hard because it required that number of alliances to hit them and fill the slots(up until the 11th hour) and we couldn't preempt the main alliance, TKR for the reasons I mentioned, so the idea was to handle that front first. You're making  assumptions here based on what didn't bear out on the ground and what has been explained ad nausea. 

I didn't say the sides hadn't changed at all, but the core including the biggest and most politically influential alliance is the same and other influential and others have stayed. I've brought up the Mensa thing and we haven't seen the impact of their disbandment/merger play out, but many of them are still around. The tS thing hasn't played out yet, either. tS has literally talked for years about going paperless. There isn't a complete shift to anything new. There have been personnel changes on the IQ side, especially with one major alliance that had huge changes since the last war as well if that's a major criterion.  

I didn't assign enemies a hegemonic evil monolithic entity. People want to maintain control and they don't want to do anything that could break a string of victories and that doesn't change . You're reading things into what I said. People won't just give up power they have. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. I won't assume the best in traditional opposition, but I'm not saying the complete opposite either. Given the narratives that have been abundant about IQ in each of these treaty announcements and were the reason I replied, it's not exclusive to have suspicions about the intentions of people. General statements are going to be made either way.

You're using IQ as a reference point to itself  when your previous comparison with Paracov and Paracov has less in common with IQ than EMC with "Syndisphere". It's good that you're just using that example for argument's sake rather than actual arguing it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're seriously talking out of your ass there.  Especially in reference to Syndicate.

>Syndicate wasn't a key alliance after Partisan stepped downn

Either you're kissing Partisan's ass or you really don't know them, or their contributions to the sphere

>many of Mensa is still around

We started with nearly 80.  There's like 15 of us still around, maybe less by now.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It does matter who it is, since it added nothing statistically. The reason it happened is they wanted to join and we weren't going to deny them for cynical PR reasons. We knew it would get us flak. There were plenty of redundant bilateral treaties that could have been signed, but people chose not to pursue them. You signed treaties right after the war to bolster your position and tied into an existing bloc at the time(Spectrum) so it's not really any diffeent.

The current system just necessitates having one or two ties to alliances that are hubs to be committed to a specific coalition. The additional treaties are just formalizations of friendship by alliances inside of it, not necessarily connected to the ambitions of the sphere as a whole e.g.  IQ had no influence on this decision as Sval pointed out. 

No, its doesn't matter who was added because the significance of the addition and what it says about your state of mind remains the same. Which is one of a bipolar mindset.You say you'd knew you'd get flak for it, because you know what the implications of adding to your sphere means when the other side is breaking up. But that does not seem to matter because the intention does not seem to be one to reciprocate. Being tied to a central hub does not equate to the willingness of an alliance to participate to the fullest in coalition warfare. As seen last war, many alliances choose to defend their direct allies instead of committing to a coalition entirely. Many on your side dropped out early when their ally managed to get peace. The chance of that happening once again is diminished greatly when everyone on your side is directly allied to everyone else. It reinforces the commitment you have to each other and makes it much more likely you'd all remain committed in a coalition war.  

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

IQ treaties would have happened independently of tS leaving or not. Only tS, CF, and tC "left" and the rest held steady and more treaties were signed preceding it. Rose-Guardian and Rose-TFP are good examples. The BC bloc is another thing since even though TKR and Rose didn't create it, it still is more consolidation. If IQ loses anyone, it gets into a real deficit. tS leaving doesn't leave you in a real deficit and it's a maybe thing at that.

I didn't call on EMC to do anything, just stating that aside from that "maybe" nothing in the direction was done before or after, which goes against the anti-consolidation narrative you're putting out.

This only you have brought up is a lot more than anyone has seen from a core IQ alliance since the end of the war. Until we see something of that magnitude matched, you really don't get to use "only" to qualify it. Bad Company is a bloc made by predominantly ex Spectrum members. It is a spiritual successor. It in no way mirrors the redundant treaties signed in IQsphere. You have in the past criticized Syndisphere for consolidating in the wake of Silent, and you have very recently downplayed the losses EMC have suffered after ToT, which means you'd only consider more losses as a sign of actual change which implies you essentially want EMC to act unilaterally. Not exactly a call, but your rhetoric with concern to EMC losses does not hint you consider them legitimate, even though they are. To act anymore would be EMC acting unilaterally.

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

UPN's decision was motivated mostly by a desire not to get involved in wars for IQ/NPO in general because they felt the pattern of losing wars was having a deleterious impact on their sustainability as an alliance, so it makes it very unlikely they'd help through a different treaty.  tTO was previously in the column and you use CF exiting your sphere when their participation in wars didn't have much of an impact and they aren't a politically active alliance. The alliances cited have much closer to zero probability of helping IQ. I didn't say I was 100% confident. It's just far more likely tS helps TKR than any external actor helping our side as there was no fraying of relations/definitive break in viewpoints

Yet, UPN retains its only obligation to defend an alliance with one closely allied to your sphere. TTO entered in the war to defend its ally and they made it clear that was their intention, any association with your sphere doesn't hold any water. They didn't value the coalition and thus shouldn't be attributed to it. CF exist along with TC constitute a greater percentage loss for EMC when taking into context our other upper tier losses and the progress IQ has made in the mid tier. Relatively, we worse off that IQ in comparison to last war.  

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm not really sure how multipolar would help us in this context. It's assuming some sort of fragmented part of your sphere would be amenable to helping IQ depending on the situation, which isn't likely. For us, we'd either have to make it an empty gesture or if we did it genuinely, it would leave us at a distinct disadvantage.

It really depends on what a departure constitutes. I don't believe that communication/cooperation is totally gone. The little cohesion that existed in ParaCov was totally wiped out and we were sent into crisis mode when it happened.  There isn't an obligation, but there is a long-standing pattern of cooperation beyond treaty obligations and the ties were much more developed between tS and its former paper allies than Paracov. Paperless wasn't a reset and it wasn't marketed as one, unlike the Paragon one.

I don't see why that is such an off the wall thing to consider. I don't think it is seems like most of the skepticism for that possibility lies over on your end. 

There is no pattern of extra treaty cooperation between us because we've been together since TKR was a twinkle in IC's eye. Controversy, there had been a history of collusion between Paragon and TC leading up to 168 and the trend continued until they split. There was more reason to suspect that continued collision than it is to suspect the relationship between tS and TKR looking at the history of extra treaty cooperation. 

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I didn't say it does. It would likely move with its direct partner. We specifically avoided a direct hit on TKR because of that factor since we were told a direct hit would trigger the ODP and bring all of nuke bloc in. I believe this was explained to you.

Yet, NPO did hit us directly after we hit SK. I don't recall any paper between you two. Taking the context of the greater coalition war or not, it was an aggressive hit on TKR in the context of an aggressive war on our sphere and that still wasn't enough to trigger the treaty. So, your assumption of the relationship of some folks over here is misplaced. 

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It's not paper. HW is a paperless alliance. It was an ambiguous announcement with no stated clauses or obligations and it was specifically made clear to me that whatever it was wouldn't come into play if NPO was attacked. HW entered the last war on something that was never disclosed to anyone publicly. No, I said, I don't know who HW is tied to because I don't have any agreements with them and they don't tell me that stuff. We haven't had any formal or informal ties since they dropped their protectors to go paperless. I have no clue what's happening with the current situation people are attributing to HW.  I didn't attribute HW to your coalition. I said they may or may not have ties to your side and they can't fight your side without it being suicide for them, so them posting an image that says "The Sorting of Azaroth" with Lordaeron literally changes nothing for you on its own. Paperless alliances have joined in on your side or stated it was their intention as in  CoS's case. tS going paperless even if they're 100% neutral doesn't put IQ in the driver's seat and if they're not neutral, then IQ isn't in a great spot with it either. I've already stated the differences between Paragon's cutting of ties and tS paperless: deterioration in relations. If their former allies were upset with tS and communication went down to almost zero, then it'd be the same.

Yet, that association is something that is not matched on this side. That gesture whatever it was does imply a level of cooperation that we haven't seen and that does mean something for us as it does to you whether you have a paperless relationship or not. However, judging by the very large loan you acquired from them, a pseudo relationship between you two does not seem too far fetched. 

Paperless alliances have joined a variety of actors of a number of sides in conflicts across history. Their decision to entry is more closely tied to their individual interests rather than any association with any past associates. That trend shows no sign of changing. 

I believe CoS stated during last war that they would assist you in your aggressive action if you could provide proof of your claims that made up your CB. You either elected not to recruit them or you were unable to. 

You have stated the differences, and I have stated why they do not matter. The reality of the matter is both actors cut ties to former allies and both separations were genuine and both separations were met with more consolidation from their counterparts. You're just trying to defend your present consolidation when in the past your criticized the very thing you are doing. It is a gesture that IQ has not met in kind, you've only met that action by walking in the opposite direction.  

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You're referring to a period that goes back well over a year,. The periods it was multipolar were short and reverted to bipolar quickly within months in PW.  The level of political diversity in terms of alliances that weren't familiar with each other doesn't exist anymore in PW as it is no longer fresh. Your (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) examples are mostly just components of wider bipolar coalitions and wouldn't be much different from ParaCov except with more components. The smaller spheres were always parts of bipolar coaltions and one would always rise to the top and then jettison other components as I said. Theoretically that could already exist here, but the issue with PW has always been the vastly limited number of  alliances that come anywhere near the top 10 and there's a huge drop off. These are mostly sub-spheres within coalitions(SuperGrievances is one you cited) and there's nothing precluding that right now aside from having enough alliances for it or real divisions in policy thinking. There hasn't been a bloc of elite-style alliances like Citadel for instance that had its own style/orientation. The spheres you cite had unique identities that developed organically e.g. NV's protectorates becoming AZTEC and being largely unconnected to anyone except through NV initially.  I'm not removing the context and I'm accounting for the possibility of the other side having one and becoming the unipole as well. Since multi pole just mean subdivision of a coalition and not entirely separate entities, which I assumed was what you wanted before and would be more of  a change, it would easily end up back in the same situation, especially if the multiple poles are just manufactured and not organic and not representative of actual faultlines. Pretty much anyone on your side could have formed a bloc within Syndi or EMC a long time ago. People thought OO was like that, but as we learned, you didn't privilege it above other ties. So I'm really curious as to how these multiple pole are supposed to originate or on what basis.

This is where it really gets tricky. Your examples are just of blocs that eventually join wider coalitions, but that was all organic so no one had to make it work. The examples you brought up do end up with someone becoming powerful and ending up like Syndi which is what people wouldn't want, but it's all coming out of nowhere rather than something that develops on its own. Those wider coalitions that the spheres were part of broke up for real reasons and not just because and they didn't develop just because. At the least what you propose isn't a real change and is just people labeling themselves differently and at most it's just a simulacrum of a multipolar world with no basis which will really be problematic.

How does the time-frame hold any bearing? The periods of multipolarity lasted from World War Alpha to 168, that is close to 2 years and constitute almost 2/3 of the history of the game. That is not a short amount of time. That is most of this world's history and it worked for most of this world's history. During that duration those spheres fought 5 major wars and a number of smaller scale conflicts. The amount of surface area was greater because the sides were less connected so the amount of interaction between them was a heck of a lot greater than that seen presently. With that in mind, the relationships that were built and tore down during that time weren't squeaky clean, they fought 5 major wars. Yet, those leaders made it work and created an environment that was more dynamic than anything we've seen since. 

Yeah, the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) examples I used were minispheres that took part in greater bipolar conflicts. I used their example of the short of dynamic shuffling in and around each other smaller groups of alliances are able to achieve. I would prefer if my idea was adopted unconnected spheres so the tendency of bipolarism is discouraged as much as possible. Just because a treaty break is negotiated does not mean it is any less real than if it fell apart due to deterioration. The decision to cut a tie in place of another is its own kind of deterioration. Shows you value some ties above others. That is a kind of discourse on its own. 

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

was referring to the upper tier nations HW hit. You said you needed HW for it, and they're out of the equation. AIM formed with the intention of not being involved in politics.

You seemed to be stating you needed numbers for submarine to work and even though your ceiling was raised your floor was also raised. I'm saying, even with that floor raised you still are well within the range of nations within relevant alliances and so still have capacity to make a pit. Only this time even more $ is within your range. 

So, are you telling me AIM has no intention of ever supporting IQ in any conflict?

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

ine.

Okay, we have a huge problem here. Before this, I assumed it was basically just rehashing the previous mini-spheres idea of multiple spheres that don't really align with one another and this would entail a definitive separation of alliances. Your examples are basically, just blocs that have ties to other blocs and participate in bipolar conflicts with the ties the blocs have sometimes changing. As I said, there's nothing stopping that from happening as is. Multipolar in this form since there's no organic basis for these other blocs would basically be make a bloc and give yourself a label and keep your intersphere treaties. Before your elaboration here, I mostly thought it was a bunch of fragments that don't cooperate, so a smaller disliked alliance would be easy pickings since its limited allies would be accounted for easily. You're right then, it wouldn't result in curbstomps since hitting one alliance would still trigger a global if it's merely part of a subdivision of a grand coalition.

No, I'm saying I prefer unconnected spheres of alliances. But, realistically there is a chance of those connected spheres to enter into each other's conflicts in order to protect their interests and that, if over time one particular one grew too strong, naturally the others would move to destroy that. That just because in this reality, that counter balanced failed because a few dominoes fell one way or another does not make it inevitable that it will happen again if we try. This emphasis on organic is misplaced for some reason. Negotiated separation is still separation and unconnected spheres will find themselves ill pressed to legitimize their entry into other conflicts if they truly are not there. The self regulation alliances will enact to prevent one sphere from gaining too much power will naturally kick in as we've seen it happen countless times. And no, if any negotiated split is even semi competent, there will be no easy pickings for one sphere or another. In order for this negotiation to work, it would have to have the concept of the vast majority of the parties. No one party will put themselves at such a disadvantage so any one sphere could stomp them "easily"

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It was more like there were pretty bitter reactions and the alliances in question were seen as untrustworthy and people were calling for Curufinwe to get sacked and were also saying CS had gone nuts. I haven't really seen a change in the betrayal narrative since then. If that change, that's news to me. The alternative is something that's ill-defined.

Quote

There were understandable bitter reactions. The move was sudden and made largely in secret No one likes to have surprises, especially surprises that involve getting into bed with the historical opposition. The lack of prior discussion on the idea was a source of a lot of the disapproval with the move. That is something everyone can relate to.

The alternative is something I am prepared to define in detail if you want to talk with me about it. 

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

There isn't a universal reset in relations. The alliances that partook in IQ were specifically ones geared toward change. For Chola and CS, it wasn't their first attempt. In general they had more of an open mind and people were upset with them for embracing their historical enemy. Like I said, it doesn't change in a multi-polar with the examples you use. I'm going to need serious clarification here. One is something with precedent and the other is something without precedent.

You're underplaying the potential for people to move forward. There isn't some special characteristic that is only found in members of IQ for moving past old relations. These alliances have done so many times over in the past both before during and after the bipolar system. The reason those alliances did it when they did was because no one spoke up about an alternative other than their unilateral departure. I am speaking up now. 

For clarification, minisphers/multipolar are unconnected, so it checks the box without precedent. We have a chance to set it :). 

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I don't think it's a good enough advantage to your liking and if I'm being particularly suspicious you just wanted IQ weakened because the disparity isn't big enough. You made and attempted to make moves after the last war to mitigate the issues you encountered even though you insisted it was a complete victory and your entire side refused to even contemplate conceding anything. The vitriol doesn't disappear easily. Like I said multipolar needs to be defined better since your examples are just blocs that cooperate with other blocs, which is already feasible if blocs had developed on there. A lot of people thought that might have been the case with OO being its own pole, but it wasn't, so in a way you thwarted your own ends before. It could very well bolster TKR's position and make it 100% safe as the #1 if IQ fragmented, as TKR would have fewer alliances it'd need to keep happy in an informal capacity if it was a manufactured split, while it'd be harder for IQ to reconstitute. If one were being totally cynical, they would assume this is the purpose

This suspicion is reasonable considering some of the history, but I can tell you the gesture is genuine. Folks want something like this to happen. The thought of an (unconnected) multipolar world is pretty attractive. As I have argued, yes the gap has shrunk between IQ and EM, but that is not the cause for this discussion. The desire for multipolar existed since before IQ was a concept. The trigger was not pulled by those leaders for reasons I do not know but it has cost our world the worse for it. The bitterness that surrounded the last war was built on distrust of IQ's intentions and its desires that was the core of the contention. The way IQ came about, in the darkness and at the speed of light were two characteristics off the bat that help set the stage of distrust. That distrust built upon itself until we ended up fighting a war against each other. 

Multipolar is being pushed by me now exactly because I see, as the NAP ends. Nothing has been done since the war to alleviate some of that distrust and if this trend continues we could repeat the past. I consider this to be pretty dull and so I want to head that off before we start down that road again. Which is why a negotiated split, rather than an organic one is preferred. So there is no distrust in each other's intentions. We can all be on the same page from start to finish and so we can come as close to a reset button as we're going to get.

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

This really isn't well detailed and is just too abstract. The examples don't suit the purpose. The idea about grudges is fully warranted, tbh. Just because BK chose to move on from its issues with NPO, doesn't mean all the others would. It's a very unique turnaround.

Its not unique because you have two other members of that bloc who used to be your enemies, now your closest allies. Its not unique because alliances have crossed the boundary from enemy to ally before. Its not unique because both sides have alliances they used to bitterly fight against. It is not unique and its not far fetched. 

  Are you yourself unwilling to move forward past old grudges because thats the vibe I am starting to get here. 

 

  • Upvote 1

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kayser said:

Are you yourself unwilling to move forward past old grudges because thats the vibe I am starting to get here. 

You're just now getting that vibe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kayser said:

No, its doesn't matter who was added because the significance of the addition and what it says about your state of mind remains the same. Which is one of a bipolar mindset.You say you'd knew you'd get flak for it, because you know what the implications of adding to your sphere means when the other side is breaking up. But that does not seem to matter because the intention does not seem to be one to reciprocate. Being tied to a central hub does not equate to the willingness of an alliance to participate to the fullest in coalition warfare. As seen last war, many alliances choose to defend their direct allies instead of committing to a coalition entirely. Many on your side dropped out early when their ally managed to get peace. The chance of that happening once again is diminished greatly when everyone on your side is directly allied to everyone else. It reinforces the commitment you have to each other and makes it much more likely you'd all remain committed in a coalition war.  

It does matter, since it's not a change. The game is bipolar and having a bipolar mindset makes sense in that context. It doesn't mean it's an actual us vs them or something like that. The dropping out happens on the losing side, yes. However,  that's more of a case of your side having more alliances being willing to practice coalition warfare, which has historically been the case and which is also why dropping treaties with no relation deterioration isn't a huge deal to me from your side Syndisphere has componentts willing to go where needed whereas others relied a lot more on treaty ties. You can't use the lack of cohesion other sides have had to prove you'd have a similar lack of unity in a war.  I don't know anyone on this side that sign multiple treaties with other coalition partners that dropped out early.

Quote

This only you have brought up is a lot more than anyone has seen from a core IQ alliance since the end of the war. Until we see something of that magnitude matched, you really don't get to use "only" to qualify it. Bad Company is a bloc made by predominantly ex Spectrum members. It is a spiritual successor. It in no way mirrors the redundant treaties signed in IQsphere. You have in the past criticized Syndisphere for consolidating in the wake of Silent, and you have very recently downplayed the losses EMC have suffered after ToT, which means you'd only consider more losses as a sign of actual change which implies you essentially want EMC to act unilaterally. Not exactly a call, but your rhetoric with concern to EMC losses does not hint you consider them legitimate, even though they are. To act anymore would be EMC acting unilaterally.

Heres' the problem: the most that someone potentially ending their alignment with your side did was even it out somewhat. If we lose people, we're in a real deficit. That's a huge distinction. You can't expect us to want to give you an advantage. It can't just be dismissed. It consolidated Rose and TKR allies together. The only ex-spectrum member is R&R. You could make a case for RUM, but that's it. With the complaints of consolidating and adding members in Silent, that was when the opposition definitively fragmented and weak and had come off  loss before Silent and after. The most someone leaving your side does is as I said, is make it more even. We have a lot more to lose since we're not in the superior position like Syndisphere was.  

Quote

Yet, UPN retains its only obligation to defend an alliance with one closely allied to your sphere. TTO entered in the war to defend its ally and they made it clear that was their intention, any association with your sphere doesn't hold any water. They didn't value the coalition and thus shouldn't be attributed to it. CF exist along with TC constitute a greater percentage loss for EMC when taking into context our other upper tier losses and the progress IQ has made in the mid tier. Relatively, we worse off that IQ in comparison to last war.  

It was NS we could previously count on and relied upon. If the intent of the cancellations being not to not help IQ  isn't enough to show you it's an actual loss for us,  I don't know what is. On the other hand, I don't think the intent of the paperless alliance with the cancellations was to rule out helping Radiantsphere. There's a definite position and an indefinite position.

 

Quote

I don't see why that is such an off the wall thing to consider. I don't think it is seems like most of the skepticism for that possibility lies over on your end. 

There is no pattern of extra treaty cooperation between us because we've been together since TKR was a twinkle in IC's eye. Controversy, there had been a history of collusion between Paragon and TC leading up to 168 and the trend continued until they split. There was more reason to suspect that continued collision than it is to suspect the relationship between tS and TKR looking at the history of extra treaty cooperation. 

It is off the wall to me, since it's without precedent. 

Here's another issue, there is a history of going beyond obligations and your big point with paperless is they don't have any obligation to help you nor you them. TKR went beyond any treaty several times: hitting VE as a protectorate, hitting Rose when Rose hit Mensa, hitting Fark when Fark hit Mensa. There are myriad examples of this on your side. Most of what happened between Paragon and Covenant relied on bilateral ties being triggered and when bilateral ties didn't exist or even when they did exist the level of cooperation was nowhere close. 

 

Quote

Yet, NPO did hit us directly after we hit SK. I don't recall any paper between you two. Taking the context of the greater coalition war or not, it was an aggressive hit on TKR in the context of an aggressive war on our sphere and that still wasn't enough to trigger the treaty. So, your assumption of the relationship of some folks over here is misplaced. 

By direct hit, i meant, an attack that would make TKR the origination point as that's what would constitute what was considered to be an unprovoked attack. The coalition war precluded that in our eyes, which is why we chose to wait for TKR to enter.

Quote

Yet, that association is something that is not matched on this side. That gesture whatever it was does imply a level of cooperation that we haven't seen and that does mean something for us as it does to you whether you have a paperless relationship or not. However, judging by the very large loan you acquired from them, a pseudo relationship between you two does not seem too far fetched. 

There was a previous association with no gesture that resulted in joining a conflict.  Loans for profit are purely business and have to do with who is willing to take them when a lending organization has money it wants making them interest. If you or even Buorhann had offered the same deals, I'd take them. I don't think we'll really make any headway, but if we assume HW-Lordaeron has some impact, then they'd still have to be suicidal to fight you and that's not the case for paperless hitting your opposition.

Quote

Paperless alliances have joined a variety of actors of a number of sides in conflicts across history. Their decision to entry is more closely tied to their individual interests rather than any association with any past associates. That trend shows no sign of changing. 

I believe CoS stated during last war that they would assist you in your aggressive action if you could provide proof of your claims that made up your CB. You either elected not to recruit them or you were unable to. 

Paperless alliances typically join based on having good relations with one side or bad relations with the other. Sometimes they have an agenda like hitting upper tier nations, but mostly its a product of liking disliking one side better.

That was just a rhetorical ploy to those it was directed to. They would be at liberty to determine the proof wasn't sufficient and did not actually contact the people they were calling out about it. edit: the thing about CS committing was as a misunderstanding. sorry.

Quote

You have stated the differences, and I have stated why they do not matter. The reality of the matter is both actors cut ties to former allies and both separations were genuine and both separations were met with more consolidation from their counterparts. You're just trying to defend your present consolidation when in the past your criticized the very thing you are doing. It is a gesture that IQ has not met in kind, you've only met that action by walking in the opposite direction.  

The differences absolutely matter because as I said one form of consolidation and incorporation of more alliances happened when Syndi was already in a dominant position, while IQ is in a precarious spot. As I sad, before IQ-side signing treaties doesn't add anything. Us losing people hurts a lot more since we were in a  worse position to start with. It has a greater risk of hurting IQ. If IQ was the preeminent sphere, then alliances would definitely begin to make moves as the ones that had issues with Syndi attaining supremacy would also have issues with that. 

Quote

How does the time-frame hold any bearing? The periods of multipolarity lasted from World War Alpha to 168, that is close to 2 years and constitute almost 2/3 of the history of the game. That is not a short amount of time. That is most of this world's history and it worked for most of this world's history. During that duration those spheres fought 5 major wars and a number of smaller scale conflicts. The amount of surface area was greater because the sides were less connected so the amount of interaction between them was a heck of a lot greater than that seen presently. With that in mind, the relationships that were built and tore down during that time weren't squeaky clean, they fought 5 major wars. Yet, those leaders made it work and created an environment that was more dynamic than anything we've seen since. 

The case you made is the journey would be long enough to justify it happening even if we think it'll return to bipolarity. There were multi-polar intervals but there weren't 2 years of multipolarity.  This may be a bit of out of my depth but going on what I know about the time period before I joined with august 2014 to january 2015.:World War Alpha was  more or less between the same two spheres that then fought in Marionette War. When Marionette happened there were alliances not tied to either, but they were newer and the VE/tS pole was a third one from January 2015-June 2016. The reason for the fluidity that 2015 experienced is new alliances came on the scene and were quickly able to gain strength in terms of VE/tS. Then the Guardiansphere fell and Guardian cancelled SK and signed tS and until the tS left Paragon, it was Paragon/TC. It only then became multi-polar when they did, so we get August 2015-January of 2016.

The real issue, more important than the historical details is  there's no new major overnight players like when the game was younger and thus less fluidity. In 2015, things were a lot more fresh. Now stances are a lot more hardened and major turnarounds are limited.

Quote

Yeah, the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) examples I used were minispheres that took part in greater bipolar conflicts. I used their example of the short of dynamic shuffling in and around each other smaller groups of alliances are able to achieve. I would prefer if my idea was adopted unconnected spheres so the tendency of bipolarism is discouraged as much as possible. Just because a treaty break is negotiated does not mean it is any less real than if it fell apart due to deterioration. The decision to cut a tie in place of another is its own kind of deterioration. Shows you value some ties above others. That is a kind of discourse on its own. 

The issue is, those groups were statistically significant on their own and there are far fewer statistically significant alliances in a game with a much smaller population and that shuffling took place over a span of years and was due to deterioration in relations. The number of potential configurations is pretty limited in comparison. A treaty break being negotiated is different from it breaking down organically as the relationship between the two alliances isn't impacted as negatively if at all. If there exist understandings and a prior history of not needing direct treaties to cooperate, then it's just easily handled by determining proper distributions for each sector for show.

Quote

You seemed to be stating you needed numbers for submarine to work and even though your ceiling was raised your floor was also raised. I'm saying, even with that floor raised you still are well within the range of nations within relevant alliances and so still have capacity to make a pit. Only this time even more $ is within your range. 

It's there's been a  change in tiering and either a quantitative loss given some alliances bled members or just a hold. More lower tier alliances are likely to participate in your side in the next war than there were in the last war, so the level of advantage needed for submarining to work isn't as great.

Quote

So, are you telling me AIM has no intention of ever supporting IQ in any conflict?

It was formed with the intention of non-participation in global conflicts and being a banking hub.

Quote

No, I'm saying I prefer unconnected spheres of alliances. But, realistically there is a chance of those connected spheres to enter into each other's conflicts in order to protect their interests and that, if over time one particular one grew too strong, naturally the others would move to destroy that. That just because in this reality, that counter balanced failed because a few dominoes fell one way or another does not make it inevitable that it will happen again if we try. This emphasis on organic is misplaced for some reason. Negotiated separation is still separation and unconnected spheres will find themselves ill pressed to legitimize their entry into other conflicts if they truly are not there. The self regulation alliances will enact to prevent one sphere from gaining too much power will naturally kick in as we've seen it happen countless times. And no, if any negotiated split is even semi competent, there will be no easy pickings for one sphere or another. In order for this negotiation to work, it would have to have the concept of the vast majority of the parties. No one party will put themselves at such a disadvantage so any one sphere could stomp them "easily"

It doesn't make it inevitable, but it's likely enough to cause serious concern and hesitation. I don't think it's misplaced. An organic separation makes collusion between those separating much less likely. If someone agrees with what X has done and still prefers them over Y even if they separate on paper for a change of pace, it's likely they will support X. Alliances only move to counteract someone growing too powerful if they have an issue with how that someone is going about it or if they just don't like them. The distribution of alliances isn't adequate for a negotiated split to give everyone a fighting chance , even if it was basically an alliance draft with shotgun marriages of alliances and that's the closest it could get. 

Quote

There were understandable bitter reactions. The move was sudden and made largely in secret No one likes to have surprises, especially surprises that involve getting into bed with the historical opposition. The lack of prior discussion on the idea was a source of a lot of the disapproval with the move. That is something everyone can relate to.

Yes, but they haven't particularly faded. It wasn't like temporary anger. It was holding alliances in contempt and there hasn't been much to show people are willing to move on.

 

Quote

The alternative is something I am prepared to define in detail if you want to talk with me about it. 

You're underplaying the potential for people to move forward. There isn't some special characteristic that is only found in members of IQ for moving past old relations. These alliances have done so many times over in the past both before during and after the bipolar system. The reason those alliances did it when they did was because no one spoke up about an alternative other than their unilateral departure. I am speaking up now. 

For clarification, minisphers/multipolar are unconnected, so it checks the box without precedent. We have a chance to set it :). 

I''ll be sure to ask you about it.

I didn't say there was a special characteristic. Those were the change-minded alliances were willing to execute and entertain working with people they had previously opposed and put themselves at a risk. Plenty of people have shown a lack of willingness to change in such a manner definitively.

Quote

This suspicion is reasonable considering some of the history, but I can tell you the gesture is genuine. Folks want something like this to happen. The thought of an (unconnected) multipolar world is pretty attractive. As I have argued, yes the gap has shrunk between IQ and EM, but that is not the cause for this discussion. The desire for multipolar existed since before IQ was a concept. The trigger was not pulled by those leaders for reasons I do not know but it has cost our world the worse for it. The bitterness that surrounded the last war was built on distrust of IQ's intentions and its desires that was the core of the contention. The way IQ came about, in the darkness and at the speed of light were two characteristics off the bat that help set the stage of distrust. That distrust built upon itself until we ended up fighting a war against each other. 

I don't know who all wants it to happen and how serious it is aside from you pushing it. Is it actually attractive or is just the idea?  On the surface, it looks like it was triggered by the changes. Anyone can have an idea and people have always had far-fetched potential things to do. The distrust you talk about hasn't particularly faded. 

Quote

Multipolar is being pushed by me now exactly because I see, as the NAP ends. Nothing has been done since the war to alleviate some of that distrust and if this trend continues we could repeat the past. I consider this to be pretty dull and so I want to head that off before we start down that road again. Which is why a negotiated split, rather than an organic one is preferred. So there is no distrust in each other's intentions. We can all be on the same page from start to finish and so we can come as close to a reset button as we're going to get.

Its not unique because you have two other members of that bloc who used to be your enemies, now your closest allies. Its not unique because alliances have crossed the boundary from enemy to ally before. Its not unique because both sides have alliances they used to bitterly fight against. It is not unique and its not far fetched. 

  Are you yourself unwilling to move forward past old grudges because thats the vibe I am starting to get here. 

 

The issue with an inorganic split, is without that distrust in intentions between longtime coalition members separating, a real separation is harder to imagine. I don't know how realistic being on the same page when it comes to a separation is since people will want it to play out in different ways and the incentive will be there for each party to try to achieve the best outcome for themselves.

It's unique in terms of the level of animosity being resolved by the principle actors involved in the tension. In most other cases where people really hated x,y,z it was only resolved by them changing organizationally so those involved were no longer in the picture.

No. The issue is typically that willingness is one-sided. For me, the less alliances that are antagonistic by default, the better, so it doesn't benefit me to hold grudges if the opportunity is there for them to be resolved in earnest. There's often always a lot of talk about moving on, clean slates, but those are usually platitudes which don't translate into practicality.

18 hours ago, Buorhann said:

You're seriously talking out of your ass there.  Especially in reference to Syndicate.

>Syndicate wasn't a key alliance after Partisan stepped downn

Either you're kissing Partisan's ass or you really don't know them, or their contributions to the sphere

>many of Mensa is still around

We started with nearly 80.  There's like 15 of us still around, maybe less by now.

I said wasn't  THE key alliance and they definitely stopped being seen as the definitive leader of the sphere since his successors had different ways of doing things.

I wasn't talking about what you started with. I was talking about what you had in the last war and then disbanded with. 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kayser said:

So, are you telling me AIM has no intention of ever supporting IQ in any conflict?

 

We don't right now. We're a protectorate. One way obligation.

No grudge to TKR-sphere.

No tie to IQ except Zodiac and that's not even an MDP.

Want us on a side, court us.

Promise us something worthwhile. Applies to both sides.

Otherwise, it's just another 9-man micro that's irrelevant.

We will only assist the next war if y'all want Swiss bank loans on money and resources. That's it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna tackle Roq's post tomorrow, those things take too much time. Until thien..

2 hours ago, Crossbones said:

We don't right now. We're a protectorate. One way obligation.

No grudge to TKR-sphere.

No tie to IQ except Zodiac and that's not even an MDP.

Want us on a side, court us.

Promise us something worthwhile. Applies to both sides.

Otherwise, it's just another 9-man micro that's irrelevant.

We will only assist the next war if y'all want Swiss bank loans on money and resources. That's it.

Gotcha. How about instead of courting you to join a particular side, I recruit you to support minispheres. What do ya think of it?

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2017 at 9:39 PM, Roquentin said:

This really isn't well detailed and is just too abstract. The examples don't suit the purpose. The idea about grudges is fully warranted, tbh. Just because BK chose to move on from its issues with NPO, doesn't mean all the others would. It's a very unique turnaround.

So here's the real question. What do you lose from getting in a discord channel with a bunch of leaders from everywhere in the web to hash it out and see what everyone has to say on the issue and act from there? Pretty sure sitting at a table and talking to other people would be a waste of time at the very worst. Is it not worth talking to see if something that's beneficial comes out of discussion? Can't see what you'd have to lose there, aside from some time.

  • Upvote 1

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It does matter, since it's not a change. The game is bipolar and having a bipolar mindset makes sense in that context. It doesn't mean it's an actual us vs them or something like that. The dropping out happens on the losing side, yes. However,  that's more of a case of your side having more alliances being willing to practice coalition warfare, which has historically been the case and which is also why dropping treaties with no relation deterioration isn't a huge deal to me from your side Syndisphere has componentts willing to go where needed whereas others relied a lot more on treaty ties. You can't use the lack of cohesion other sides have had to prove you'd have a similar lack of unity in a war.  I don't know anyone on this side that sign multiple treaties with other coalition partners that dropped out early.

It does matter because its an addition and it signals that you do have a bipolar mind, despite it being more of the same and historically, your side has argued against it. The addition signifies a rhetorical shift in mindset and it shows in the decisions that are being made. The other point I was making is about your signing of redundant treaties and how it adds to your willingness to practice coalition warfare, not to show a lack of will on our part to. Though, you have a point with regard to none of the redundant ties are to folks who dropped out early, so I withdraw that point. Dropping of treaties, whether relation deterioration or not, is still more change away from Bipolarism than we have seen from IQ so it should be a huge deal.

 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It was NS we could previously count on and relied upon. If the intent of the cancellations being not to not help IQ  isn't enough to show you it's an actual loss for us,  I don't know what is. On the other hand, I don't think the intent of the paperless alliance with the cancellations was to rule out helping Radiantsphere. There's a definite position and an indefinite position.

Yet, that NS wasn't reliable because they dropped out so they were not in your column and thus do not qualify as a loss. They were more akin to a third party than anyone that can truly be attributed to your sphere. One or both of the cancellations may have had their intent be related to not helping you, but one was not not even considered as part of your sphere and another still retains a high level obligation to your sphere. Neither of those count as real losses to me. As far as I know, none of the paperless have ruled out helping us out, but they haven't ruled out helping anyone out. There is no definitive, and you arguing there is only really makes it more likely they'd shy away from you seeing as it seems you're not open to working with them. 

 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It is off the wall to me, since it's without precedent. 

Here's another issue, there is a history of going beyond obligations and your big point with paperless is they don't have any obligation to help you nor you them. TKR went beyond any treaty several times: hitting VE as a protectorate, hitting Rose when Rose hit Mensa, hitting Fark when Fark hit Mensa. There are myriad examples of this on your side. Most of what happened between Paragon and Covenant relied on bilateral ties being triggered and when bilateral ties didn't exist or even when they did exist the level of cooperation was nowhere close.

Just because its off the wall doesn't mean it is impossible. And every precedent has its origin somewhere. Someone has to start it, it can be our generation of leaders.

Oh, you're referencing a problem with Minispheres is folks going beyond obligations? Well, those non-obligatory actions had their origins in paper, whether that being a protectorate treaty, a indirect tie through a treaty partner, ect. There were solid bonds that tied coalitions together in the form of paper and they often chained through each other. With minisphers, the spheres are separate, so there are no chaining obligations for alliances to legitimize their DoWs with. Alliances will be harder pressed to legitimize their actions in a conflict they have no chain in. If we're using a history of extra obligatory ties, the closest thing that comes to what you fear is Silent where two unconnected spheres aggressively attacked one. That has happened like once though, so I'm not too sure how we can use that in a trend. 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

By direct hit, i meant, an attack that would make TKR the origination point as that's what would constitute what was considered to be an unprovoked attack. The coalition war precluded that in our eyes, which is why we chose to wait for TKR to enter.

Ya, I get what you mean. But going into the origin of this point, that is exactly what treaty exclusivity is. You chose to wait for us to enter because the relationship between us and NK was exclusive. That exists over here too and your point that is doesn't is wrong. 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

There was a previous association with no gesture that resulted in joining a conflict.  Loans for profit are purely business and have to do with who is willing to take them when a lending organization has money it wants making them interest. If you or even Buorhann had offered the same deals, I'd take them. I don't think we'll really make any headway, but if we assume HW-Lordaeron has some impact, then they'd still have to be suicidal to fight you and that's not the case for paperless hitting your opposition

Yet, we presently do have evidence of a gesture exclusively with an alliance that is tied closely to your sphere. Loans for profit or not, it is an association and an economic incentive to support you in order to collect on a debt. It would not be suicidal if paired with support from your sphere. Considering the already multilateral ties that exist between the two, it does not seem out of the question. 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Paperless alliances typically join based on having good relations with one side or bad relations with the other. Sometimes they have an agenda like hitting upper tier nations, but mostly its a product of liking disliking one side better.

That was just a rhetorical ploy to those it was directed to. They would be at liberty to determine the proof wasn't sufficient and did not actually contact the people they were calling out about it. On the other hand, CoS had committed to hitting an alliance if it entered against an alliance on your side.

Paperless alliances have always acted on their interests, not their like or dislike. Arrgh decided to join previous conflicts because they were paid. TEst decided to join previous conflicts because they had an interest in hitting a particular target, and they were paid. TEst joins another conflict because they had an interest in hitting an upper tier alliance. Paperless entry into conflicts is dictated by their interest, not their particular likes. 

I mean you can call it a rhetorical ploy, but you never gave them the evidence did you? They could say it wasn't enough, but you never elected to take them up on their offer. That was a missed opportunity from you. They gave you ever chance to.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The differences absolutely matter because as I said one form of consolidation and incorporation of more alliances happened when Syndi was already in a dominant position, while IQ is in a precarious spot. As I sad, before IQ-side signing treaties doesn't add anything. Us losing people hurts a lot more since we were in a  worse position to start with. It has a greater risk of hurting IQ. If IQ was the preeminent sphere, then alliances would definitely begin to make moves as the ones that had issues with Syndi attaining supremacy would also have issues with that. 

Except those differences do not matter. Last war was not the one sided domination that NPO's first time was, there were obvious tiers of strength and to underplay yourselves isn't going to really work for anyone that was in the pit. You are no where as weak as you'd have others believe and the consolidation after your opponents have broken up only adds to your relative strength. EMC losing upper tier only hurts us more because the upper tier was what we had superiority in. Those numbers are much closer with our loses. The percentage loss of EMC strength completely overrides any of the comparatively cheaper middle tier nations IQ have. And considering the gains you have made in your tier of strength in combination with the increase of that strength's tier level. Your consolidation is on par if not worse than that exhibited by Syndi. Those that would have had issues with that like you say may buy into your argument and don't see themselves as being as strong as they are. And even if they did one can't rule out the chance they'd value avenging their loss over their ideal of parity. I mean, that isn't so hard to believe as there wasn't any parity at all in the lower-mid tier when the bloc was made. 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The case you made is the journey would be long enough to justify it happening even if we think it'll return to bipolarity. There were multi-polar intervals but there weren't 2 years of multipolarity.  This may be a bit of out of my depth but going on what I know about the time period before I joined with august 2014 to january 2015.:World War Alpha was  more or less between the same two spheres that then fought in Marionette War. When Marionette happened there were alliances not tied to either, but they were newer and the VE/tS pole was a third one from January 2015-June 2016. The reason for the fluidity that 2015 experienced is new alliances came on the scene and were quickly able to gain strength in terms of VE/tS. Then the Guardiansphere fell and Guardian cancelled SK and signed tS and until the tS left Paragon, it was Paragon/TC. It only then became multi-polar when they did, so we get August 2015-January of 2016.

The real issue, more important than the historical details is  there's no new major overnight players like when the game was younger and thus less fluidity. In 2015, things were a lot more fresh. Now stances are a lot more hardened and major turnarounds are limited.

The nuance in that more or less makes all of the difference. The wars you mentioned earlier were bipolar conflicts but the world was very much indeed multi polar. Just because there are only two sides of a conflict does not take away from the world. New alliances entering can be one way fluidity can be achieved, but I argue that breaking the bonds between major spheres with negotiation at that can replicate such a scenario. Which is why I'm arguing for it. Stances are not hardened, people forged new relationships and gave up old ones. IQ is an example of the willingness of the playerbase to forge those new ties. Do not write off the history of your own bloc members.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The issue is, those groups were statistically significant on their own and there are far fewer statistically significant alliances in a game with a much smaller population and that shuffling took place over a span of years and was due to deterioration in relations. The number of potential configurations is pretty limited in comparison. A treaty break being negotiated is different from it breaking down organically as the relationship between the two alliances isn't impacted as negatively if at all. If there exist understandings and a prior history of not needing direct treaties to cooperate, then it's just easily handled by determining proper distributions for each sector for show.

The blocs that can be negotiated into existed would of course be statistically significant in comparison to the others, otherwise the members won't sign off on it. There are plenty of stats to build minisphers around the top end of alliances would just all have to be within their own spheres with smaller alliances rounding them out. The configurations may be comparatively limited, but it isn't impossible. The difference between organic and negotiated breaks is not as large as you'd think. Being willing to break ties with an alliance even after negotiation is its own kind of deterioration. It shows a willingness to forgo that tie and an unwillingness to negotiate to keep it. The loss of legitimate entry in order to assist unconnected alliances will act as a barrier for those kind of extra treaty relations. And the mentality of making an exclusive, unconnected group will naturally make alliances prioritize their direct partners over a foreign one. The history you pointed to before of not needing direct treaties for alliances to assist each other, all had a paper treaty as a chain. Whether it was obligatory or not they all had paper at their core. That won't exist in multipolar.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It's there's been a  change in tiering and either a quantitative loss given some alliances bled members or just a hold. More lower tier alliances are likely to participate in your side in the next war than there were in the last war, so the level of advantage needed for submarining to work isn't as great

Yes, and that change in tiering has given you strength considering a lot of that floating upper tier that sat on you is now in your up declare range. If it works out the way you believe, it may not be as great, but that is made up by the sheer amount of upper tier loss we've suffered. That member bleed is nothing in comparison to wholesale loss of EMC strength.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It was formed with the intention of non-participation in global conflicts and being a banking hub.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It doesn't make it inevitable, but it's likely enough to cause serious concern and hesitation. I don't think it's misplaced. An organic separation makes collusion between those separating much less likely. If someone agrees with what X has done and still prefers them over Y even if they separate on paper for a change of pace, it's likely they will support X. Alliances only move to counteract someone growing too powerful if they have an issue with how that someone is going about it or if they just don't like them. The distribution of alliances isn't adequate for a negotiated split to give everyone a fighting chance , even if it was basically an alliance draft with shotgun marriages of alliances and that's the closest it could get

It is misplaced when you consider how many things had to happen in order for the reality we're in now where it did. Any one of those factors aren't there and Syndi never rises to prominence. And history has shown a willingness of alliances to stand against the perceived dominant sphere. Even if alliances have preferences of one over another they have the legitimize intervening or assisting X and they'd have to be willing to defend their legitimization. And the like and dislike felt by alliances change over time with shifting circumstances. No one is forever supporting of one alliance or another if they are unconnected by paper. Circumstances change and so do predispositions. I cannot agree with your assertion that there isn't enough stats to spread the wealth and give folks a chance. There are plenty of ways to solve the puzzle even if we don't have a shotgun draft (which I don't would be a little too  much of a stretch for some folks) but I like that you're thinking about it :).

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Yes, but they haven't particularly faded. It wasn't like temporary anger. It was holding alliances in contempt and there hasn't been much to show people are willing to move on.

Plays both ways brosef. I haven't really seen too much from the leaving alliances to suggest they're willing to. I mean, I'm reaching out and it has to start somewhere right. Wanna hold hands?

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I''ll be sure to ask you about it.

I didn't say there was a special characteristic. Those were the change-minded alliances were willing to execute and entertain working with people they had previously opposed and put themselves at a risk. Plenty of people have shown a lack of willingness to change in such a manner definitively.

Can't agree with that, we were willing to give NPO a chance before Silent when many thought that the previous interaction between our former leader and you made the marriage impossible. That relationship fell apart for different reasons than any perceived personal objections, but we were still allied at one point. Rose was Paragon and fought with and against folks on both sides. TCW is the spiritual successor of GPA who was neutral and chose to sign on with us even though we were associated with folks who raided them. They also have a number of ex Resp members who helped make Obelisk which had ties on both sides. Guardian signed on with tS to form a new sphere. Some of these are more recent than others, but it doesn't take away from the still present historical ability for folks over here to change and many's present open mindedness towards minisphere.

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I don't know who all wants it to happen and how serious it is aside from you pushing it. Is it actually attractive or is just the idea?  On the surface, it looks like it was triggered by the changes. Anyone can have an idea and people have always had far-fetched potential things to do. The distrust you talk about hasn't particularly faded. 

Yeah, I am pushing it but I have spoken to a number of folks on both sides and paperless and they like the idea. There are some concerns like you point out, but there is a real appetite for it and I'd have you as a partner to help bring it about if I can convince you. 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

The issue with an inorganic split, is without that distrust in intentions between longtime coalition members separating, a real separation is harder to imagine. I don't know how realistic being on the same page when it comes to a separation is since people will want it to play out in different ways and the incentive will be there for each party to try to achieve the best outcome for themselves.

It's unique in terms of the level of animosity being resolved by the principle actors involved in the tension. In most other cases where people really hated x,y,z it was only resolved by them changing organizationally so those involved were no longer in the picture.

No. The issue is typically that willingness is one-sided. For me, the less alliances that are antagonistic by default, the better, so it doesn't benefit me to hold grudges if the opportunity is there for them to be resolved in earnest. There's often always a lot of talk about moving on, clean slates, but those are usually platitudes which don't translate into practicality.

If you create a group of alliances, it inherently creates an us vs them mentality. There is your group and everyone else is other. Yes, relatively, there may be predispositions towards someone you have history with however, the new interactions created by the formation of the unconnected minispheres will cause new circumstances to arise during which folks will experience them together that will reinforce the relations in their group. This places a priority of your group vs their group, even if you have history together. It is as you say, people will seek the best outcome for themselves and their group. This tension, though artificial is still very real and it is even enough to potentially override the previous history some alliances share. 

The potential for that animosity to form because of the greater surface area of interaction that comes with unconnected groups of alliances is even greater. Even among previously associated alliances. Little unpredictable things like a raid here or thing accumulate over time and new attitudes can form out of something like accumulated deterioration. 

Then you should recognize an earnest attempt to move past old grudges when you see it. I'm not going to take the time to type wots as a platitude. If you thought that one sided willingness was originating from your end, then here ya go, its originating from ours. 

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

It does matter because its an addition and it signals that you do have a bipolar mind, despite it being more of the same and historically, your side has argued against it. The addition signifies a rhetorical shift in mindset and it shows in the decisions that are being made. The other point I was making is about your signing of redundant treaties and how it adds to your willingness to practice coalition warfare, not to show a lack of will on our part to. Though, you have a point with regard to none of the redundant ties are to folks who dropped out early, so I withdraw that point. Dropping of treaties, whether relation deterioration or not, is still more change away from Bipolarism than we have seen from IQ so it should be a huge deal.

The previous conflict was Bipolar and there wasn't a change in the dynamic since then and GoG being added was being discussed before anything done in terms of going paperlss. I don't recall anyone arguing about being in a coalition for more than one war being bad. What people saw as bad was one side always winning and the opposition continually being worn down. What happened is in one instance, we saw someone on the winning side drop ties, with an ambiguous ultimate outcome. You can say it's more, but it doesn't neccessarily imply a change from bipolar conflicts.

 

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

 

Yet, that NS wasn't reliable because they dropped out so they were not in your column and thus do not qualify as a loss. They were more akin to a third party than anyone that can truly be attributed to your sphere. One or both of the cancellations may have had their intent be related to not helping you, but one was not not even considered as part of your sphere and another still retains a high level obligation to your sphere. Neither of those count as real losses to me. As far as I know, none of the paperless have ruled out helping us out, but they haven't ruled out helping anyone out. There is no definitive, and you arguing there is only really makes it more likely they'd shy away from you seeing as it seems you're not open to working with them. 

Before the last war was reliable and it was counted in the planning. If it had just been additional NS that wasn't allocated, then this would hold. Retaining an obligation when it is possible to cite non-chaining given the intent given for their other positioning and becoming a protectorate in which their status as a protectorate is meant to supercede bilateral obligations is a loss.

I'm simply being honest. No one in earnest thinks there's an equal chance of people who have been tied to one side primarily helping the side which contains alliances they have traditionally disliked. No one besides you seems to be implying it's a 50/50 thing. I'd be happy to be wrong and I'm not trying to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

 

Just because its off the wall doesn't mean it is impossible. And every precedent has its origin somewhere. Someone has to start it, it can be our generation of leaders.

Oh, you're referencing a problem with Minispheres is folks going beyond obligations? Well, those non-obligatory actions had their origins in paper, whether that being a protectorate treaty, a indirect tie through a treaty partner, ect. There were solid bonds that tied coalitions together in the form of paper and they often chained through each other. With minisphers, the spheres are separate, so there are no chaining obligations for alliances to legitimize their DoWs with. Alliances will be harder pressed to legitimize their actions in a conflict they have no chain in. If we're using a history of extra obligatory ties, the closest thing that comes to what you fear is Silent where two unconnected spheres aggressively attacked one. That has happened like once though, so I'm not too sure how we can use that in a trend. 

It's not impossible but improbable. A lot of things are possible. 

Thus far, the game has had a mostly consequentialist viewpoint with regards to legitimizing entries. It basically has gone like this: anything is fine as long as you win. If people no longer have a lot of paper, they can just say they don't need any treaties to justify entering a conflict.  Paperless alliances you cited have entered for myriad reasons.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Ya, I get what you mean. But going into the origin of this point, that is exactly what treaty exclusivity is. You chose to wait for us to enter because the relationship between us and NK was exclusive. That exists over here too and your point that is doesn't is wrong. 

Thing is, with the change in status, there is no way to know if it remains exclusive. It would be different if it was just an O-level tie still. There exists an ambiguity.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Yet, we presently do have evidence of a gesture exclusively with an alliance that is tied closely to your sphere. Loans for profit or not, it is an association and an economic incentive to support you in order to collect on a debt. It would not be suicidal if paired with support from your sphere. Considering the already multilateral ties that exist between the two, it does not seem out of the question. 

The only things that have actually been acted on have been unannounced relations. It could have just been something to disincentivize aggression against vulnerable alliances since the only ones posted were Lordaeron and Sparta. Plenty of people are lent money and it's not limited to one sphere. One alliance that was on your side had loans prepared immediately after the war from the same people. It would be suicidal even with our sphere since our sphere doesn't have the presence in the 20+ tier to equalize yours even if we have a low-mid tier.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Paperless alliances have always acted on their interests, not their like or dislike. Arrgh decided to join previous conflicts because they were paid. TEst decided to join previous conflicts because they had an interest in hitting a particular target, and they were paid. TEst joins another conflict because they had an interest in hitting an upper tier alliance. Paperless entry into conflicts is dictated by their interest, not their particular likes. 

I mean you can call it a rhetorical ploy, but you never gave them the evidence did you? They could say it wasn't enough, but you never elected to take them up on their offer. That was a missed opportunity from you. They gave you ever chance to.

Arrgh was paid sometimes, but sometimes their decisions were motivated by actions taken by another party against them. TEst hit VE in the proxy war because there were issues between them.  Interests and dislike can coincide. "I don't want x to win."

It wasn't taken seriously and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war since it was a 13 man alliance in the tier your coalition had predominance in.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Except those differences do not matter. Last war was not the one sided domination that NPO's first time was, there were obvious tiers of strength and to underplay yourselves isn't going to really work for anyone that was in the pit. You are no where as weak as you'd have others believe and the consolidation after your opponents have broken up only adds to your relative strength. EMC losing upper tier only hurts us more because the upper tier was what we had superiority in. Those numbers are much closer with our loses. The percentage loss of EMC strength completely overrides any of the comparatively cheaper middle tier nations IQ have. And considering the gains you have made in your tier of strength in combination with the increase of that strength's tier level. Your consolidation is on par if not worse than that exhibited by Syndi. Those that would have had issues with that like you say may buy into your argument and don't see themselves as being as strong as they are. And even if they did one can't rule out the chance they'd value avenging their loss over their ideal of parity. I mean, that isn't so hard to believe as there wasn't any parity at all in the lower-mid tier when the bloc was made. 

I can't see how you can say the differences don't matter. It wasn't one-sided to me, but the pit was trivialized and people adopted a very condescending attitude that losses below the upper tier were insignificant and that any low tier coalition would just get starved out. Not really sure how we're not seen as weaker by most and the best case scenario that even outside observers have for IQ is not losing rather than achieving a complete victory. Even with the gains we've had we can't win in the upper tier so a significant number of nations won't be gunned down.  More of EMC has been pushing to the highest tier possible, meaning outside of reach.  The "cheap" middle tier nations were often not that low in terms of the alliances they happened to be in, so those losses weren't cheap. They may seem cheap to you. The consolidation isn't on par or worse as Syndi's was, since it was consolidation in all tiers, not just one. 

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

The nuance in that more or less makes all of the difference. The wars you mentioned earlier were bipolar conflicts but the world was very much indeed multi polar. Just because there are only two sides of a conflict does not take away from the world. New alliances entering can be one way fluidity can be achieved, but I argue that breaking the bonds between major spheres with negotiation at that can replicate such a scenario. Which is why I'm arguing for it. Stances are not hardened, people forged new relationships and gave up old ones. IQ is an example of the willingness of the playerbase to forge those new ties. Do not write off the history of your own bloc members.

If there are two sides and the spheres are just subdivisions, it's not too different. There are already potential subdivisions on both sides. I'm not as optimistic as you with the potential results. Stances have been hardened in most cases and many tend to stick to what is familiar and demonize the alliances their side fights. The IQ alliances were an exception rather than the rule. The level of risk-taking involved isn't matched by many.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

The blocs that can be negotiated into existed would of course be statistically significant in comparison to the others, otherwise the members won't sign off on it. There are plenty of stats to build minisphers around the top end of alliances would just all have to be within their own spheres with smaller alliances rounding them out. The configurations may be comparatively limited, but it isn't impossible. The difference between organic and negotiated breaks is not as large as you'd think. Being willing to break ties with an alliance even after negotiation is its own kind of deterioration. It shows a willingness to forgo that tie and an unwillingness to negotiate to keep it. The loss of legitimate entry in order to assist unconnected alliances will act as a barrier for those kind of extra treaty relations. And the mentality of making an exclusive, unconnected group will naturally make alliances prioritize their direct partners over a foreign one. The history you pointed to before of not needing direct treaties for alliances to assist each other, all had a paper treaty as a chain. Whether it was obligatory or not they all had paper at their core. That won't exist in multipolar.

Now we get a problem. If it's understood by the top end alliances that they need to have their own separatesphere with peripherals, that facilitates a basis for collusion or having understandings since the biggest alliances will act as hubs. Xsphere can just tell Ysphere "well we can't have both of us in one, but we'll side against Z".

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Yes, and that change in tiering has given you strength considering a lot of that floating upper tier that sat on you is now in your up declare range. If it works out the way you believe, it may not be as great, but that is made up by the sheer amount of upper tier loss we've suffered. That member bleed is nothing in comparison to wholesale loss of EMC strength.

It depends on what you mean in terms of upper tier. Mid tier is in reach, though. "EMC". IQ's ability to impact 18-20+ is still  limited if at all there.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Fair enough.

It is misplaced when you consider how many things had to happen in order for the reality we're in now where it did. Any one of those factors aren't there and Syndi never rises to prominence. And history has shown a willingness of alliances to stand against the perceived dominant sphere. Even if alliances have preferences of one over another they have the legitimize intervening or assisting X and they'd have to be willing to defend their legitimization. And the like and dislike felt by alliances change over time with shifting circumstances. No one is forever supporting of one alliance or another if they are unconnected by paper. Circumstances change and so do predispositions. I cannot agree with your assertion that there isn't enough stats to spread the wealth and give folks a chance. There are plenty of ways to solve the puzzle even if we don't have a shotgun draft (which I don't would be a little too  much of a stretch for some folks) but I like that you're thinking about it :).

It hasn't shown a willingness of enough people to stand against a dominant sphere when usually, the dominant sphere has remained the same and one coalition had a string of victories. Some alliances haven't won a war in over 2 years or ever. With redundant treaties, they're often manifestations of relations that existed off paper. Being unconnected by paper doesn't remove the reasons the alliances were connected to begin with.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Plays both ways brosef. I haven't really seen too much from the leaving alliances to suggest they're willing to. I mean, I'm reaching out and it has to start somewhere right. Wanna hold hands?

Can't agree with that, we were willing to give NPO a chance before Silent when many thought that the previous interaction between our former leader and you made the marriage impossible. That relationship fell apart for different reasons than any perceived personal objections, but we were still allied at one point. Rose was Paragon and fought with and against folks on both sides. TCW is the spiritual successor of GPA who was neutral and chose to sign on with us even though we were associated with folks who raided them. They also have a number of ex Resp members who helped make Obelisk which had ties on both sides. Guardian signed on with tS to form a new sphere. Some of these are more recent than others, but it doesn't take away from the still present historical ability for folks over here to change and many's present open mindedness towards minisphere.

When they were pretty much excoriated even up to recently, why would they? I mean, it's good you're reaching out though.

You mean before NPOFT and that example actually doesn't help since the period it lasted was very short with both of us in the leadership positions. In fact, the deterioration it experienced in that short time period is kind of the issue, especially when it became evident the previous interactions which had years in between them did still factor in significantly into perceptions and the grudgeholders weren't shy about showing it. Rose had a lot of shakeups in between all of those periods which involved being significant organizational shifts or their coalition partners wanting to backstab them(Tenages). Actually, TCW cited positive relations with TKR before as GPA and their former President joined TKR. It was also fairly clear that it was a conscious greater dislike of other alliances that hit them(TEst/Arrgh/RW) rather than Mensa. The Resplendent members split from Obelisk when Obelisk signed an alliance on the other side. With Guardian-tS, there wasn't a lot of perceivable direct tension between the two even when they fought. I don't mean to nitpick for its own sake, but the amount of genuine examples of two alliances with grudges burying the hatchet without drastic changes in composition are few.

21 minutes ago, Kayser said:

Yeah, I am pushing it but I have spoken to a number of folks on both sides and paperless and they like the idea. There are some concerns like you point out, but there is a real appetite for it and I'd have you as a partner to help bring it about if I can convince you. 

If you create a group of alliances, it inherently creates an us vs them mentality. There is your group and everyone else is other. Yes, relatively, there may be predispositions towards someone you have history with however, the new interactions created by the formation of the unconnected minispheres will cause new circumstances to arise during which folks will experience them together that will reinforce the relations in their group. This places a priority of your group vs their group, even if you have history together. It is as you say, people will seek the best outcome for themselves and their group. This tension, though artificial is still very real and it is even enough to potentially override the previous history some alliances share. 

The potential for that animosity to form because of the greater surface area of interaction that comes with unconnected groups of alliances is even greater. Even among previously associated alliances. Little unpredictable things like a raid here or thing accumulate over time and new attitudes can form out of something like accumulated deterioration. 

Then you should recognize an earnest attempt to move past old grudges when you see it. I'm not going to take the time to type wots as a platitude. If you thought that one sided willingness was originating from your end, then here ya go, its originating from ours. 

People like the idea, but the devil is in the details.

I brought up an example earlier if the separation barriers are just based on x needs to form its own sphere because it's too big to be in the same sphere as y, it's easy to just establish connections between hubs. I don't really know what new interactions would be facilitated. People do have an us vs them mentality but it's not simply treaty-based. If it's just formal separation, there isn't a whole lot of tension and the best outcome is figuring out how to collude with the easiest configuration. It would require people not having winning as the end-all be-all to be a real departure.

That can already happen. There isn't anymore surface area for interaction except formally. Those things can already happen. The biggest problem is there has to be a huge change in mindsets people have had for anything like this to work. The issue isn't so much the paper but the mentalities.

It all depends how cynical one is being. It could easily be seen as I've said as people not liking that they'll encounter some resistance even if they still win. I'm generally willing to take people at face value, though.

19 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Ok Roq, who was the "definitive leader" of the sphere?

After Partisan stepped down, it was mainly seen as OO being the new center of activity. BK was #2 and the biggest in OO and Mensa still maintained a fairly big presence. Then Silent War happened and BK took relatively a big hit proportionally compared to other actors in the sphere. People continued to see OO in the driver's seat and then TKR held onto #1 and came to the fore in Papers Please and that's when the Radiantsphere moniker came about. You can say "Oh that's not how it is at all since I was in all the back channels with all of these guys", but I'm talking perception. The post I originally replied to was that we had 7 alliances hit tS because we had some sort of particular fixation on them when we didn't and it was the product of not being able to hit a bigger alliance and activity/range issues necessitating filling the slots being a collaborative effort. 

3 hours ago, hadesflames said:

So here's the real question. What do you lose from getting in a discord channel with a bunch of leaders from everywhere in the web to hash it out and see what everyone has to say on the issue and act from there? Pretty sure sitting at a table and talking to other people would be a waste of time at the very worst. Is it not worth talking to see if something that's beneficial comes out of discussion? Can't see what you'd have to lose there, aside from some time.

There's a difference between just talking and anything  coming about especially when we're talking about redefining the game when there's been a consistent framework. I've never had an issue talking to anyone. I haven't said I wouldn't. The fact that I'm taking it seriously and raising my own concerns with it is an indication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roquentin said:

There's a difference between just talking and anything  coming about especially when we're talking about redefining the game when there's been a consistent framework. I've never had an issue talking to anyone. I haven't said I wouldn't. The fact that I'm taking it seriously and raising my own concerns with it is an indication. 

Great, one of you send the other a message then and have a serious conversation about it then. I have my own concerns about whether or not Kayser's ideals would work, but I want something like this to happen enough to be willing to partake in such a discussion. I would hope everyone would feel the same.

  • Upvote 1

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hadesflames said:

Great, one of you send the other a message then and have a serious conversation about it then. I have my own concerns about whether or not Kayser's ideals would work, but I want something like this to happen enough to be willing to partake in such a discussion. I would hope everyone would feel the same.

Yeah, going to do that. I think the history arguments have gone full circle, so I'll just focus on the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very interesting perspective if you came to the conclusion that OO was the center of  activity after Partisan stepped down from tS Affairs.  Like, literally, just that one person made that difference.

>collect every leader in a chat and talk it out

Coming from hades this is actually amusing.  I get the message, and it's not a terrible idea, but I'll give it 5 mins before insults and trolling starts to happen in that chat.  Again, and again, and again.

 

If you want that to work, perhaps you shouldn't send the leaders but representatives instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

That's a very interesting perspective if you came to the conclusion that OO was the center of  activity after Partisan stepped down from tS Affairs.  Like, literally, just that one person made that difference.

>collect every leader in a chat and talk it out

Coming from hades this is actually amusing.  I get the message, and it's not a terrible idea, but I'll give it 5 mins before insults and trolling starts to happen in that chat.  Again, and again, and again.

 

If you want that to work, perhaps you shouldn't send the leaders but representatives instead.

Orbis World Leaders Summit #1

Lets go :D

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2017 at 1:16 AM, Roquentin said:

It doesn't make it inevitable, but it's likely enough to cause serious concern and hesitation. I don't think it's misplaced. An organic separation makes collusion between those separating much less likely. If someone agrees with what X has done and still prefers them over Y even if they separate on paper for a change of pace, it's likely they will support X. Alliances only move to counteract someone growing too powerful if they have an issue with how that someone is going about it or if they just don't like them. The distribution of alliances isn't adequate for a negotiated split to give everyone a fighting chance , even if it was basically an alliance draft with shotgun marriages of alliances and that's the closest it could get. 

qft. The Leadership Summit would essentially be a waste of time lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dear Hippo. I miss you too.

 

 

With regards to the theorizing about Hogwarts' obligations, motivations and hypothetical future position: We do not want to be part of either of your spheres, nor are we particularly interested in overtly pursuing the rise or fall of either of you. Any and all Hogwarts actions or lack thereof have been and will remain situational: That is to say, we will continue to pursue our own interests, rather than prematurely locking ourselves down in your deadlock. What that ends up entailing is dependent on your own decisions and interactions pertaining to us, and the world at large.

 

With that clarified; Carry on.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
On 23.9.2017 at 6:29 AM, Sketchy said:

t$ went paperless.

 

"paperless"

 

I love the irony of Syndisph...... i mean EMC of course, silly me, complaining about IQ consolidating.

IQ started the war against Syndi to prevent a boring hegemonic system, Syndi won, now Syndi..... i mean EMC ,damn why do I always confuse these two totally different things????, after having implemented their hegemoney start complaining about how boring all of this is?

cool john oliver sarcastic GIF

Edited by Karl VII
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.