Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
[H|F]
Aug 17, 2007 23:18:08 GMT
Post by Natmus on Aug 17, 2007 23:18:08 GMT
I pretty much agree with domhnall. I said it when it was obvious that E|S had been defeated, and that was that someone was going to get smart and try to drive a wedge between Morkin and DIGG, if they ever wanted to break the DIGG/Morkin stranglehold on this server. Or more precisely: Isolate DIGG from all other alliances, alienate them to such a degree that the other alliences with band together to fight DIGG. Morkin is the obvious alliance to form the backbone of such a coalition. If DIGG have the same view, there's the reason for their recent communications trying to strengthen the ties with us.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
[H|F]
Aug 18, 2007 2:37:34 GMT
Post by Clausewitz on Aug 18, 2007 2:37:34 GMT
I have a confession, Natmus.
I wrote extensive treatise for DIGG, many months ago, about the state of a hegemon, and the danger of "balancing" (i.e., precisely what you're talking about as the banding together of other alliances to create a rival coalition). Unfortunately, I went into great detail about the tactics for the superpower/hegemon to prevent balancing; namely, co-opting potential counterbalancers through security guarantees and military support, create appearance of "community good" role (i.e., AMC, persecution of multi's), and maintain high transparency to prevent "unpredictable" perception which leads to insecurity.
Long story short, DIGG is well aware (or at least, those who bothered to read the treatise, which was most of the senior leadership at the time) of the nature of the threats, and the reality of counterbalancing they face.
Basically, this sort of theory and application is precisely what I'm studying for my graduate degree, so I was able to spin up a "crash course" in international politics with relative ease.
Is it possible that such a coalition could emerge? Of course. But Pantheon is more akin to have DIGG as an ally to protect it from other adversaries, and thus one of the largest in raw production capacity has been co-opted. I find this coalition strategy highly unlikely, and would rely on a "cult of personality" wherein an individual would have to unite multiple key leaders. The fact that E|S, H|F, MX, FOIMP, Phoenix basically presented themselves as one target to focus on after another, lacking any degree of cohesion, tells me this is a much further-off prospect.
The intermediate-term prospects for DIGG's decline? Boredom. That simple. Lack of war will atrophy their membership. The members have become almost Orc-like, and most are internet fiends to a degree they will lose interest in a game that does not provide the instant-gratification of constant war.
What does this mean? It's precarious. On one hand, failing to present any adversaries to DIGG will inevitably atrophy membership and create a more even balance on the server. On the other hand, DIGG senior leadership may very well pursue the Orc-path to prevent this from happening (though I had often warned that this would inflame counterbalancing).
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
[H|F]
Aug 18, 2007 8:10:17 GMT
Post by Arminius on Aug 18, 2007 8:10:17 GMT
On a purely hypothetical basis, I'd guess that we might be able to unite other smaller alliances against Digg, should it ever come to this. I'd hope that our reputation would suggest to others that we're serious (and wouldn't just want to install ourselves at the top like the other contenders), though I'd have doubts that they would not just turn into vultures and would leave us with doing the fighting. It'd be a lot of hard work to keep this going, and I think I wouldn't be prepared to do that right now...
|
|