Backstage - OOC Forums

EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Seriphyn on 19 Dec 2012, 12:35

Title: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 19 Dec 2012, 12:35
I might be influenced too much by the Summit/OOC clique here, but I'm just probing to see if the desire for improved Minmatar and Caldari relations is driven by actual realpolitik or because these two factions are "hip" and "cool" or badass or whatever.

The Caldari do not seem to give a shit about any other group unless they are Caldari. They are inward-looking or somesuch, which is fine. Can't expect a man to sacrifice his child for ten anonymous lives. But I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit, especially a market which doesn't seem to put much stock in capitalism (thus making it easier to dominate, as the Gallente have done). Similarly, if the Minmatar have allegedly not fairer well under Gallente influence, they sure as heck won't under the Caldari, who dont even have the humanitarian pretense that the Fed has.

Now its fine to RP against the grain, I was just wondering if there was OOC awareness of the above points. I don't think the corporation = tribe angle works since thats going to be present in any human society, just with different names. Spirituality doesn't work either, considering there are similar beliefs amongst the Gallente. Cultural similarities are not enough. There needs to be a core strategic reason from which rationalities (such as culture) can be derived AFTER not before.

The original reason the Gallente helped the Minmatar was to weaken the Amarr. The ideology of emancipation supported the strategy. Whether characters want to accept it or not, the Federation is the most powerful empire other than the Amarr. If the Minmatar want to destroy the Amarr, it is in their best interest to remain with the Gallente, not move to the Caldari who have little interest in other races business. They'd alienate all the Minmatar in the Fed, too. If I were Caldari wanting to build bridges with the Minmatar, you'd want to make peace with the Fed first.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silas Vitalia on 19 Dec 2012, 12:48
Great opinion, agreed.

I think I treat any Caldari/Matari relationships as more an aberration than the norm.    Especially with TLF pilots assisting FDU pilots against State interest.


I've a feeling the State as a whole is extremely cut and dry with this sort of thing, and wouldn't even beat around the bush politically.

"Assisting my enemy makes you my enemy."  *Fires Torpedos"

Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 19 Dec 2012, 13:06
I've long suspected that there was a deliberate element of "tragedy" included in that the two cultures who have many elements of their history in common ended up on opposite sides of the battle lines. At this point, I don't think the gap that has been rended between the Caldari and the Matari will be mended terribly soon.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 19 Dec 2012, 13:11
Oh yeah, would stress the above is just an opinion. I just havent heard anything beyond "it would be cool".

And I dont think the enslavement of the Minmatar is comparable at all to the Gallente-Caldari dispute.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Mithfindel on 19 Dec 2012, 13:13
Well, if we go on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend", then if the Matari oppose a specific megacorporation, they might be temporary allies with their domestic competitors. However, there is some mutual reason for keeping each other at an arm's length, not the least the Matari habit to steal Caldari technology. Uh, not sure what the description says right now, but back in its mining days, the Scythe had bits and pieces stolen from the Caldari. As an example. Also, some Matari may appear as cannon fodder to the Gallente.

Outside of these specific cases, I'd expect that the Caldari view of the Minmatar would be rather neutral. Back when we had shareholder information, at least Kaalakiota owned stock in a few Minmatar corporations. Edit: And if co-operation works, it might grow into friendship, but this is highly case-specific.

Edit 2: Assuming old shareholder information is correct, Echelon Entertainment has 15% share of Native Freshfood. E3: Caldari Funds Unlimited, 20% share on the Leisure Group. Err, ok. (Isn't quite as bad as Angels owning shares in TransStellar Shipping!)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Pieter Tuulinen on 19 Dec 2012, 13:20
Both races are highly exclusive in terms of their membership and insular in their outlook. They both resent any attempts to meddle with what they see as their self-determination and have a certain amount of impatience with 'crusader' cultures like the Amarr and Gallente.

Alliances with the Amarr and Gallente always carry with them the knowledge that the Amarr wish to prosletyse for their Faith and that the Gallente are inveterate political meddlers. I can see both the Minmatar and Caldari finding that tiresome.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 19 Dec 2012, 13:23
On the other hand, I can't see either of those outweighing the fact that the Caldari are allied with the Amarrians, Pieter. The State's own anti-slavery stance is irrelevant - they are still allied with the Empire despite it.

Until the State gives the Amarrians the diplomatic equivalent of a defenestration, it's completely unrealistic as a concept that the Republic and the State could be allies.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 19 Dec 2012, 13:26
But that's ideology, not strategy. Just because they are insular doesn't mean they are naturally compatible. Plenty of Gallente are insular and anticrusade. Doesnt make them natural allies to the Caldari. In addition, the Caldari are said to be the most meddlesome, not the Gallente or Amarr. That would be worrisome to any Minmatar; at least the Gallente and Amarr have SOME noble intentions. The Caldari want to make a profit for themselves.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silas Vitalia on 19 Dec 2012, 13:38
I think plotting against rival Megacorps stop right at the State border; IE they are cuthroat with each other but the State comes first.

Alliances with foreigners to dominate another Megacorp seems to cross several lines for me, but my State RP knowledge is fairly weak.

Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 19 Dec 2012, 13:41
Oh, approaches to foreign policy is not enough. Real life comparison; US have been interventionist recently, while Europe is avoiding what it sees as neocolonialism. The two are still allies.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: kalaratiri on 19 Dec 2012, 13:43
The reasoning I've heard behind this is the supposed similarity between the Caldari mega-corporations and the Minmatar tribal structure. While I can take some of the points behind this idea into account, having been a member of SKDI in I-RED, I was never entirely convinced and neither was Kala. Mainly for the reasons mentioned above, to do with the Caldari already being allies of the Amarr. It's why my viewpoint began to shift towards 'Minmatar first, everyone else can screw themselves' >.>
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 19 Dec 2012, 14:42
Pretty much my opinion Seri, yes.

Firstly I think parallels can be made between every faction. We can even find parallels between the Minmatar and the Amarr easily (like they both are at least partially anti meritocratic on paper and both have a form of aristocracy). It doesnt make them that close to each other to the point of being buddies.

Then the megacorp = tribe idea is quite stretched in my opinion. As Seri said then a megacorp can be equated to a Holder's lands, or to a fed district/state. The only thing they share is the territorial scale and the fact that they are just below the upper governement in terms of power.

Every faction is incompatible with the others more than it is compatible, or compatible factions would already have more or less merged together.

Culturally wise, I really doubt that the Caldari society would fit the Minmatar very well :

- Asking them to be meek, productive citizens, when most Minmatar have a staunch independant and free mindset, almost "rebel" in essence, where the Caldari average citizen is only a cog in the machine, and proud of it. Community vs individualism -> conflicting.

- Asking them to sacrify their traditions in favor of meritocracy and/or plutocracy. In tribal society, the elder people are revered and hold most of the power. It's kindof like a seniority succession, where it is not merit that is valued, but experience (associated, rightly or not, to the age). And when it is not directly linked to the age, it probably is to the experience. Of course, subtribes are legion, all with their different rules and laws and culture, but still. Meritocracy vs Seniority -> conflicting.

- Probably more...

In terlms of realpolitik and historical events, the Caldari and the Minmatar, at best, do not like each other very much. I wouldnt say that they are neutral or indifferent toward each other at all.

Firstly, the most obvious, the Caldari are Amarr allies, and even if they do not practice slavery, they also have nothing against it except when it breaches their internal laws forbidding it.

Secondly, a lot of caldari megacorps have important contracts with the Ammatar Mandate for mineral prospects on the borderzone, and are often only a step behind the usual skirmishes in the ambiant chaos here.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Arnulf Ogunkoya on 19 Dec 2012, 15:02
Lyn, I'm not sure that most Minmatar have a "staunch independant and free mindset." I get the impression that clans tend to enforce conformity on their members. And to a lesser extent so do tribes. Maybe not to the same degree as the Caldari Megas, but this is an analogy we are discussing rather than an equivalence.

I would agree that as nations they are unlikely to be allied, except on very rare occasions. RSS being the twisty minded folks that they are I can't see them being being above using the Caldari to prevent the Gallente becoming too dominant. Likewise the Caldari can use the Minmatar to keep the Imperials nervous and inclined to keep them as allies, rather than potential vassals.

Pieter states "Both races are highly exclusive in terms of their membership." My experience of Minmatar roleplay is that a person is widely held to be Matari if they take the time to learn the ways of a clan and undergo a Voluval; this is regardless of actual ethnicity. I have no idea if PF supports this at all, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

If all this seems odd then bear in mind that capsuleers are supposed to be odd. If nothing else we can travel a lot more and see a lot more of other cultures. One thing that might make for an interesting PF seed is the effect this has on our crews, and the effect they have when they retire to stationside, or travel back down the well.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Louella Dougans on 19 Dec 2012, 16:12
several Caldari are enthusiastic converts to the Amarrian faith.

it's probably one of Anoyia's scriptures that does it. the "constantly prove yourself worthy" thing, of continual self-improvement.

Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Mithfindel on 19 Dec 2012, 16:13
I think plotting against rival Megacorps stop right at the State border; IE they are cuthroat with each other but the State comes first.

Alliances with foreigners to dominate another Megacorp seems to cross several lines for me, but my State RP knowledge is fairly weak.
Corporate-specific alliances with foreign entities include, amongst others, Lai Dai's invenstment into Khanid Innovations. Of course, it is arguable that the Greater Amarr is allied to the State.

As of corporations backstabbing each other abroad, there's mentions in PF about corporations sabotaging each other. I was able to find the following:
http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3431&tid=11
(Though for some reason I seem to remember that it wasn't the only such incident - I also think the Lai Dai / SuVee thing spilt abroad... just can't find the news.)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 19 Dec 2012, 16:44
Lyn, I'm not sure that most Minmatar have a "staunch independant and free mindset." I get the impression that clans tend to enforce conformity on their members. And to a lesser extent so do tribes. Maybe not to the same degree as the Caldari Megas, but this is an analogy we are discussing rather than an equivalence.

Yes, that sounds fair.

Though isn't it the case for most societies ? The Amarr with their religion, the Caldari with their patriotism, the Gallente with their mass media... Even if less true for the gallente in the end, they seem conflicted in that matter (liberty of opinion vs the media soup they eat everyday).

What I was refering too was more the "spirit" behind. After so many years of enslavement it would seem logical to see a strong sense of independance emerging, though like in a wolf pack, very conformist to the kin. It's true that it can create parallels with the State on that point.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 19 Dec 2012, 17:25
I don't think I-RED's official reasons either IC or OOC was that the Minmatar are buddy-friends to get close to. Some of our members may have incorrectly put it that way though, and the error is on them for it. I-RED has from the start considered the Minmatar untouched markets that should be tapped. Ishukone has PF history of cooperation with the Republic (until recently with Hilen Tukoss), and with foreign markets in general. I-RED was following along that.

It should be noted that unofficially IC, we did purposely bend the wording of public announcements and private conversations with Minmatar to appear like we wanted to be buddies. I don't think friendship was ever really one of our goals IC. Only a means to an end, if that.

I-RED had for a while been attempting to build bridges for the purpose of cooperative trade, but it became clear that all four 'faction blocs' were against I-RED forming relations with the Republic. Amarr saw it as an insult to current trade agreements upheld by Ishukone Corporation. Gallente railed against Caldari exploitation of the Minmatar. And Minmatar attacked I-RED's past and Ishukone Corporation's current trade with the Amarr. Top level decisions were made to completely abandon all public trade initiatives with Republic entities, thanks to the political s**tstorm that occurred IC. Some private arrangements remained.

All in all, it ended up being a very well played out political RP across all four major power blocs. It was very realistic, in that there was no deus ex machina that could be employed to suddenly get the Minmatar to cooperate with I-RED or Ishukone. It was simply not possible to build bridges. To counter Seriphyn's assertion however, the Caldari conflict with Gallente never really stood in our way. It was the cooperation with Amarr that was the largest impediment to progress.

I'll answer his question OP. It was a stragetically profitable move to cooperate with the Republic because 'cooperation' with foreign markets is one of the strongest 'Liberal' Caldari ways of doing business. For non-Liberals, I suspect there may be the element of weakening the Gallente by 'stealing their friends', so to speak. I think that's just as legitimate. The Minmatar might be trying to Steal the Caldari friends from the Amarr too.

IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, and the Caldari and Minmatar allied with each other at the expense of their current allies... that would leave the other two largely alone to fend for themselves (counting only the big four). For both Minmatar and Caldari, this is something beneficial to both.

OOC? Maybe we're just sick of roleplaying the same tired 'alliances' and want to try forging something new.

Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silas Vitalia on 19 Dec 2012, 17:53
I think plotting against rival Megacorps stop right at the State border; IE they are cuthroat with each other but the State comes first.

Alliances with foreigners to dominate another Megacorp seems to cross several lines for me, but my State RP knowledge is fairly weak.
Corporate-specific alliances with foreign entities include, amongst others, Lai Dai's invenstment into Khanid Innovations. Of course, it is arguable that the Greater Amarr is allied to the State.

As of corporations backstabbing each other abroad, there's mentions in PF about corporations sabotaging each other. I was able to find the following:
http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3431&tid=11
(Though for some reason I seem to remember that it wasn't the only such incident - I also think the Lai Dai / SuVee thing spilt abroad... just can't find the news.)

I think the article you referenced is about one corporation being underhanded to secure more foreign contracts at the expense of it's rival, not colluding with an enemy of the state to benefit themselves at the cost of the State, right?

Business seems to be business and most anything goes, but I still think the Megacorps have certain lines they are weary of crossing.   
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 19 Dec 2012, 20:36
What Kat said.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 19 Dec 2012, 21:20
I might be influenced too much by the Summit/OOC clique here, but I'm just probing to see if the desire for improved Minmatar and Caldari relations is driven by actual realpolitik or because these two factions are "hip" and "cool" or badass or whatever.

The Caldari do not seem to give a shit about any other group unless they are Caldari. They are inward-looking or somesuch, which is fine. Can't expect a man to sacrifice his child for ten anonymous lives. But I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit, especially a market which doesn't seem to put much stock in capitalism (thus making it easier to dominate, as the Gallente have done). Similarly, if the Minmatar have allegedly not fairer well under Gallente influence, they sure as heck won't under the Caldari, who dont even have the humanitarian pretense that the Fed has.

Now its fine to RP against the grain, I was just wondering if there was OOC awareness of the above points. I don't think the corporation = tribe angle works since thats going to be present in any human society, just with different names. Spirituality doesn't work either, considering there are similar beliefs amongst the Gallente. Cultural similarities are not enough. There needs to be a core strategic reason from which rationalities (such as culture) can be derived AFTER not before.

The original reason the Gallente helped the Minmatar was to weaken the Amarr. The ideology of emancipation supported the strategy. Whether characters want to accept it or not, the Federation is the most powerful empire other than the Amarr. If the Minmatar want to destroy the Amarr, it is in their best interest to remain with the Gallente, not move to the Caldari who have little interest in other races business. They'd alienate all the Minmatar in the Fed, too. If I were Caldari wanting to build bridges with the Minmatar, you'd want to make peace with the Fed first.

I might be influenced too much by the Summit/OOC clique here, but I'm just probing to see if the desire for improved Minmatar and Caldari relations is driven by actual realpolitik or because these two factions are "hip" and "cool" or badass or whatever.
It is actually a uninteresting line. So let me try to answer that small question first before I move on. So we have first to look....
What is the "benefit" for a Minmatar to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?
And as you already mention, benefit in a realpolitical sence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik). As the wiki says: "politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises." And as it generally done in the international relations... we go out form a standpoint their is anarchy in the international relations.

The second question would be just the other way around:
-What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?

Both question most have a reasonable answer to change the relation between the nation, one postive and one negative wouldnt change the current nature. As Hobbes has it put nicely in his 13th chapter.... You can be pacifistic and can be peace loving as much as you like. Your action doesnt matter, because if other side decides for war/to killing you; you are than in a war, independent from you own convictions.

______________________

So lets looks on the second one (the Caldari). In a monetary way.... a improvement would give a new market as you already mention:

...I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit....

So a improvement would give the Caldari a tool to expand their market share on the Minmatar market. It would also most likely mean, that they would loss some share on the Empire market place... So in the best case a zero sum game. And I say best case, because the Empire market is way bigger as the Minmatar ones, so any small change in the Empire market "would have"/"most have" a huge share change in the Republic to be similar in size. Thats way I wrote best case.

What is with the strategic site? The Caldari would for sure loss an ally (the Empire), and win a new one (the Republic). At first glance again a zero sum game; but as we life in a world of anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_%28international_relations%29), there will be a problem. But first let me explain shortly... what I mean with it.... as the wiki article gives the full picture. That the anarchy is the base for many theories in the international relations (positivstic theories, like realpolitk is)... but in short form, what I will come out is, that nobody can enforce a guarantee etc... So in first glance we have here again a zero sum game. But in reality it isnt, because the Caldari cant be sure that the Minmatar again ally with the Fed. We can say that a most likely the Fed will not ally with the Empire, but we cant say that or lets say guarantee that the Fed doesnt ally again with the Republic. So in his case... the Caldari would loss for sure the Amarr as allies, to get a new ally which isnt guarantee that that ally is team-up again with the enemy (the Fed). So this uncertain which is given with the Minmatar, but not with the Amarr, is the reason that a strategic improvement would be a no win (and in the best case, if we live in a world without anarchy a zero sum game. But as we already mention, in our case we work with anarchy in the interantion realtions. So a No win.)

So lets see: What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?
Is their a monetary "benefit"? Answer A zero sum game (in a best case scenario).
Is their a strategic "benefit"? Answer No.
______________________

For first one (the Minmatar): They would in such a case win the Caldari, but surely loss the Fed... so as you mention:
 
[/quote]
Similarly, if the Minmatar have allegedly not fairer well under Gallente influence, they sure as heck won't under the Caldari, who dont even have the humanitarian pretense that the Fed has.

I would add that this "humanitarian pretense" has bill the Elder fleet, it was Fed money which was used for it. You can also add that most likely a lot of money is coming from the Minmatar immigrants inside the Fed (like the cubans in Florida and "their sending back money", are making a big contribution.... to rise the standard of living  and the spending power)´. So if we look it in a pure monetary way, it would not be advisable to switch flags.

Now, let use look on the strategic site. We can say (almost for sure), that in such an "improvement" the Amarr would be hurt and would loss an ally (the Caldari). As for the Fed, they would loss an ally too (the Minmatar). But I dont think, such an move would lead to an Gallente-Amarr Alliance. So strategic would be "just", to weaken your enemy; by taken away an ally in form of changing my own ally. So for the Minmatar on the first glance a no winner (just an ally swap), on a second glance it would be a win. But as I mention before this second line... which gives use a "benefit" would be just as long be true as the their isnt any Amarr-Gallente alliance. If this isnt the case... It would be for the Minmatar in a best case just be a "zero sum game". As I call it "best case", in reallty I would count the Fed stronger as the State (but this is my 50 cents). So lets just say.... "best case" = a zero sum game. A win would it be just if the Minmatar can guarantee their will be never a Empire-Fed alliance, which the Republic as outside player cant.

So lets see: What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?
Is their a monetary "benefit"? Answer No.
Is their a strategic "benefit"? Answer Yes, but not guarantee; also a possibility for a zero sum game.
______________________

So now back to may half ass Hobbes line. So, as we have now in a realpoltikal way describe for both sites the benefits (monetary and strategical ones). And come to the conclusion that a improvement is most likely not the case. As the Caldari havent any strategic "benefit" and the Minmatar no monetary.... This means no change.... as both sides need to have a win-win that does relations change from the current status quo.


Sorry for any misspellings and so on... for any question ... just comment..... So overall I have to agree with Seriphyn there isnt a general/coherent reason for both side to be allies. One side can win in certain areas, but not both in the same area. See you all and fly save. :)







Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nmaro Makari on 19 Dec 2012, 21:54
I think it's important to remember the word "stalemate". A diagram would be better but this should do:

Gallente: needs to keep Amarr and Caldari from becoming too powerful, Minmatar alliance essential for that purpose.

Minmatar: needs to press on with the war against the Amarr because :slavery: Gallenter essential to stop Amarr overrunning Minmatar in the first place.

Caldari: needs to become more powerful to stand toe to toe with Gallente, feels the victim of the Gallente. Amarr empire crucial in forming the defensive front. Ideologically similar to no one, really, but less dissimmilar to Minmatar

Amarr: needs to keep the Minmatar menace at bay and prevent any meddling from Gallente which could weaken the Amarr and make the Minmatar stronger. Caldari essential in combatting the Gallente.

Above is the (very) simplistic reason why Caldari and Minmatar are not jumping into bed anytime soon.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 19 Dec 2012, 22:01
The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).

That being said, I think there is a fairly strong argument to be made for there also being strategic, economic, and political reasons for better relations with the Republic. For one thing, if you look at the map, the State terratorially has a certain level of exposure along that border. Additionally, there are various State corporation that operate in the Republic and vice versa. The Republic might also make a useful place for a proxy influence war with the Gallente, forcing them to abandon influence or spend resources to maintain influence in the Republic - and if you are the Federation, you don't want that money Minmatar migrants send home to the Republic being subsequently spent on Caldari exports.  :yar:

I agree that they aren't likely to suddenly break with their current partners - but I also think that at the start of the FW nonsense, it would have been far more interesting if they had allied than the current situation. And I also think that the major obstacle to that is that from a plot perspective, CCP needed 2 sides. It wasn't that the Minmatar and Caldari weren't a good fit, it was that it would leave the Amarr and Gallente as the other side which makes no sense.

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Ava Starfire on 19 Dec 2012, 22:32
The reasoning I've heard behind this is the supposed similarity between the Caldari mega-corporations and the Minmatar tribal structure. While I can take some of the points behind this idea into account, having been a member of SKDI in I-RED, I was never entirely convinced and neither was Kala. Mainly for the reasons mentioned above, to do with the Caldari already being allies of the Amarr. It's why my viewpoint began to shift towards 'Minmatar first, everyone else can screw themselves' >.>

Ava's viewpoint has similarly shifted. She sees the Caldari as having similar traits in ways, but not as allies; theyre aligned with the Amarr, that is reason enough. Does she see similarities? Of course; lost homeland, advancement through merit, loyalty to one's duty and group. Does she see friends or allies? No.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 19 Dec 2012, 22:46
The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).

That being said, I think there is a fairly strong argument to be made for there also being strategic, economic, and political reasons for better relations with the Republic. For one thing, if you look at the map, the State terratorially has a certain level of exposure along that border. Additionally, there are various State corporation that operate in the Republic and vice versa. The Republic might also make a useful place for a proxy influence war with the Gallente, forcing them to abandon influence or spend resources to maintain influence in the Republic - and if you are the Federation, you don't want that money Minmatar migrants send home to the Republic being subsequently spent on Caldari exports.  :yar:

I agree that they aren't likely to suddenly break with their current partners - but I also think that at the start of the FW nonsense, it would have been far more interesting if they had allied than the current situation. And I also think that the major obstacle to that is that from a plot perspective, CCP needed 2 sides. It wasn't that the Minmatar and Caldari weren't a good fit, it was that it would leave the Amarr and Gallente as the other side which makes no sense.

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)

The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

Most likely but also on individual, the mikro level; you have the same rules/laws as on the makro level. Which means both sides have to have a win-win. Or on your mikro level: Both individuals should be "benefit" from it (see benefit def. above). Because as we know without a benefit, no improvement in the relation.
There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).
True that, but you have than also to explain why that thing "opposing Heth" is a benefit for the other side.... So that the other side improves its relationship to you. So lets say... you as individual (Caldari) have already a good relation to a matari, how those that you dont like Heth improves your relationship form the current status quo? I would say not at all. Just my 50 cent :)

Like I said: One side can win in certain areas, but not both in the same area.


About:
And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)

True that.... If you dont mind, I split if you like:
certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.
I would totally agree on that.
And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship.
True that..... I think nobody said that :P But it - the relationship - will just improve in those areas where a win-win is possible. Over that small strap of commen "benefits", I dont see any improvement at all.  :( I even thing that the current stats quo shows that their is a very small commen win-win (Which got, as the OP mention, alittle overblowen by us players. The reason? As you mention FW, boredom etc.....).
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 19 Dec 2012, 22:55
* There are a lot more options than the fairly insulting range Seriphyn puts up.
* The two nations have far less baggage working against a neutral stance than a hostile one.
* Both are only too aware that their current allies are far from healthy in the long run and will sooner or later become a problem.
* Both are aware that reducing tension and hostility means that much more resources can be shifted against the real enemy.
* Both are aware of the fairly significant trade and technological possibilities.
* The Summit is not even a statistical representation of the nations. It does not need to be RPd as such.
* If the Fed/Amarr RPers are that much less compatible for RP than the Min/State ones, that's how the RP will go.
* Warm and fuzzy feelings does not enter into it either. From purely practical points of view neutrality would benefit both incredibly much.

tl;dr, there'll always be something stopping any kind of alliance between the two, but there is frankly nothing stopping them from moving towards a neutral position that would benefit both. Especially in RP where it turns out the "stay within the painted lines! Caldari/Amarrian and Minmatar/Gallente only!" roleplay alternatives are just unlikable.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: John Revenent on 19 Dec 2012, 23:28
What Kat said.

I-RED took alot of time getting the Cal-Matari program in place most of it was backroom deals and such so many people have a hard time understanding what really went on. All in all I-RED managed to make a few billion off the Matari markets and some private deals before shutting the project down as it was starting to strain relations we required elsewhere. Not saying some people involved did not really try to create a working relationship but it is almost impossible due to cultural differences between Matari/Caldari RPers.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 19 Dec 2012, 23:53
* There are a lot more options than the fairly insulting range Seriphyn puts up.
It is his style... so dont be insulted  :D.

* The two nations have far less baggage working against a neutral stance than a hostile one.
Nice theory, plz explain. As I see it...it is the opposite.... As the Caldari have hugely invested in the Ammatar Mandate (see here (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/The_Ammatars_%28Chronicle%29)), Khanid Kingdom, and the Empire (see Carthum and Lai Dai etc) (and of course the other way arond see CAESA etc..). I would say that form you mention "baggage" isnt so small as you think or which. But as I said plz explain  :)

* Both are only too aware that their current allies are far from healthy in the long run and will sooner or later become a problem.
Plz explain your theory. I would say on the current state none of the EVE nation is "healthy", most of all the Jove ones. If you mean with "healthy" stabile ones? I would even say the opposite... that both Fed and Empire actually more stabile. But as I said plz explain your theory and what you mean with healthy?

* Both are aware that reducing tension and hostility means that much more resources can be shifted against the real enemy.
I would also mean that the Fed needs put less resources to you. As they will most likely not support a Repuclic which is in the bed with the main enemy the State. I think such a move would even split the matari population in the Fed, and shift them to the Fed side more (It would be great tool for an assimilation. As were done it done by the prussians to get the french huggenotten integrate in to the state... but it would take to long to explain see here (sub-chapther Model Patriots (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugenotten_in_Berlin&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugenotten_in_Berlin%2523Vorbildliche_Patrioten%26hl%3Den%26tbo%3Dd%26biw%3D1400%26bih%3D698&sa=X&ei=uJ_SUKz2D4PatAa0yIHICg&ved=0CDQQ7gEwAA) or Huggenottes in third reich.... but very off topic.).

So overall you spend less resources against Caldari and would get less, a zero sum game. And in the worst case, you would loss the matari in the Fed. Me personally I wouldnt do it.... most of all not in a"one-way only". Meaning, put out my resources in the hope that the Caldari doesnt use it to greater their benefit.... Image it like a Prisoner's dilemma were you choice the "possible"/"but not likely" pareto optimum and "choice to cooperate" (in our case pull out resources), without knowing what the other side is doing... and If the other side doesnt choice to cooperate, but choices defects they win. As you have now, no resources against them; which lets that you lost the conflict. So I would say it "is"/"and will be" in the Nash equilibrium, that both defect; and thats the reason why both cant pull out resources; just my 50 cents.....As I already said.. plz ecplain your theory.

* Both are aware of the fairly significant trade and technological possibilities.
Plz explain your Theory.... I would say... that, as mention some post before, that "any significant trade and technological pluses tru improve relations, will must counterweight the negativ of lossing another market (As for the Caldari: Empire, Kingdom, Mandate etc.. and for the Matari the Fed.). So as I mention (seíhe above) in the best case most likely a zero sum game. But again plz explain, what you have in mind?

* The Summit is not even a statistical representation of the nations. It does not need to be RPd as such.
True that... but has someone said something else? Ans is it improtant (P.S. I try not to comment on the IGS  :) Most people know may stands on it)?

* Warm and fuzzy feelings does not enter into it either. From purely practical points of view neutrality would benefit both incredibly much.

Have we enter a IGS 2.0? Or what you mean with warm and fuzzy feelings? As for the second part... please explain... the win-win of both side.... As I mention their is ... but I also thing that those are used up and the reason why both arent on each other neck. As anything new above of this current status quo, I dont see anything; or in other words "no new win-win aeras". If ypu see some... as I said, plz explain.

tl;dr, there'll always be something stopping any kind of alliance between the two, but there is frankly nothing stopping them from moving towards a neutral position that would benefit both. Especially in RP where it turns out the "stay within the painted lines! Caldari/Amarrian and Minmatar/Gallente only!" roleplay alternatives are just unlikable.

As you already marked nothing.... but havent explain it. I have to say pull shit (sorry). If there wasnt nothing...."stopping them from moving towards a neutral position" than why should they have current "hostile" status quo? As someone said in the Fiction section ones on a comment about the hate rant of another player (The player ranted that the Jin-Mai fiction wouldnt fit his picture of the subfaction. The second one mention is that what I try to say.).... If you dont like the facts of EVE... dont lie to yourself and more... dont trash it, because it doesnt fit in your world view or RP. It means even the other way around, that you have put in effort, to find the "true", or lets say a way that it fits in your RP.

The same have I to say here.... the current status quo is hostile, if you dont like it... it isnt the problem of the OP. If you dont can bring up a reason why those shouldnt be the case.... or that they should move over time to neutral... isnt the problem of the OP.... As I already said... YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOUR POINT (AWAY/OUTSIDE THE STATUS QUO) IS RIGHT; AND THE RELATION SOULD BE IMPROVE. If you cant do that (and I dont saw one argument), you have to re-think your point, but not the lore or the OP has to change.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lithium Flower on 20 Dec 2012, 02:17
Well, I agree with you guys, that Caldari-Minmatar friednly relationship is FREAKING ABNORMAL!

From my point of view, if Caldari tried to make ties first with Minmatars instead of Gallente, it
would cause an even greater cluster**** than we have with gallente. And the source lies in the fact, that these societies are completely incompatible.

For example, place a minmatar in Caldari society, he will find unable to put his family to jobs near him, because of new anti-nepotism policies. He will be all alone in a hostile ruthless capitalist world.
On other hand, a caldari in Minmatar society will find that most of good positions are closed to him, because he is not part of the 'kin'. He will be alone and he will suffer from his abilities cannot be claimed.

Dealing with Minmatar means dealing with emotions, and dealing with Caldari means dealing with cold calculations.

The line that CCP has drawn, that Caldari are better allies with Amarr looks much more natural for me. Some peoples told me, that if we imagine that the State and Empire will win this war, then the Empire will start conquering the State with religion by force or other means. My position on this, that this will never happen, because if you look into Caldari mind and tell Caldari to convert into Amarr religion, she will say: "Ok, I will do this." And this won't be anything wrong for Caldari, because it will be a demonstration of respect to their Amarr partners. Participation in rituals and praying in Amarr temples Caldari will take as a great honor and duty to maintain good relationship. Not because they will suddenly start to believe in God, but only because this will be part of business.

Now tell a Minmatar or Gallente to pray to Amarr God, and you will have huuuuge ****storm.

Besides, most of alliances are made not because of sentimental, but of practical values, or just common interests.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: lallara zhuul on 20 Dec 2012, 04:51
It seems that the xenophobic nature of the Caldari people is conveniently forgotten.

The post by I-REDs John Revenent kind of outlines the Caldari mindset pretty well, they made billions off the Minmatar market.

Not in it, off it.

Abusive mindset, not a cooperative, abusive.

One of the reasons Caldari are working with the Amarr is that they make a lot of profit out of it.

The Amarrian economical practices seem to be pretty much inefficient across the board.

One of the ruling families is a merchant family and probably not nearly as ruthless in business as the Caldari.

Therefore Caldari can latch on to the Amarrian Empire like a remora and glut itself with the edge in business practices that they have.

The fact that the Amarrians are xenophobic themselves means that they will leave the Caldari the fuck alone.

Just like the State wants.

The Empire and the State have pretty much the perfect relationship for the State.

The Empire leaves them doing their own thing if they leave the Empire do their own thing, while the Caldari can grow in wealth and power.

The Gallente would enslave the Caldari and the Minmatar would insist that they change their business practices (not deal with the Amarr) or they would have to take part in charities that would cause financial loss (help with the impoverished.)

Amarrians just don't give a shit, if you pay lip service to their rules.

Just like their ruling class...
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Hamish Grayson on 20 Dec 2012, 09:00
I can't imagine any reason the Repbulic would want to see a wedge driven between the State and the Empire or why the State would like to see the Republic less friendly with the Federation.

Concerning the corporations versus tribes argument:  I think people are underestimating how much a Caldari’s personal identity comes from his mega corporation and also just how corporatized a modern Minamatar Tribe in Eve is.   Describing a Caldari Mega as a tribe or a Minmatar Tribe as a corporation wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.   

However, I don’t think that similarity offers a foundation for intra-empire relations. There are too many other cultural factors that I think keep the Republic and State from forming a real rapport.

I.e.  If a Caldari doesn’t like you he’s probably extremely polite, formal, agreeable, smiling, bowing (slightly)and using honorifics.   If a Minmatar doesn’t like you he’s probably going to be in your face screaming, spitting, swearing and using insults.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 20 Dec 2012, 10:53
However, I don’t think that similarity offers a foundation for intra-empire relations. There are too many other cultural factors that I think keep the Republic and State from forming a real rapport.

I have to agree with this: One could easily make the argument, that the royal family-clans of Amarr with their associated vassal family-clans are even more similar to the Matari tribes than the Caldari corporations. It shows, in my opinion, how not the similarities are what keeps cultures apart, but their differences. Thus, if one does monolaterally concentrate on the similarities between Cladari and Minmatar (or Amarr and Gallente) it is no wonder that the two seem quite compatible, of course. This, though, is quite trivial. One will have to look at the differences between cultures to assess the gap between the two.

And I doubt that if one looks at the differences between Caldari and Matari that one will not find a chasm that neither of the two is really willing to close.

That said, I also agree that there are little reasons for Matari and Caldari to approach one another that wouldn't be canceled out by the costs they'd have to pay if attempting such and the uncertainties whether the approach would be successful.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Gottii on 20 Dec 2012, 11:08
  If a Minmatar doesn’t like you he’s probably going to be in your face screaming, spitting, swearing and using insults.

This isnt necessarily true.  Many of the tribes have different responses.  Its certainly portrayed by this in RP, but dont mistake dubious or trope RP for actual PF.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Korsavius on 20 Dec 2012, 12:03
Basically what Kat and John said.

Kor IC, beyond attempting to expand business relations, also truly did want to form if not a friendly relationship with the Republic, at least a neutral one where we did not follow the whole "you assist my enemy and are therefore my enemy" mentality. I think because Kor was the most outspoken one in I-RED about the Cal-Matari Program, people falsely constructed the view that I-RED just wanted to be happy friends with the Republic and nothing more. All of these IC opinions and feelings Kor has as a character are in part due to the relationships he built while training to become a capsuleer in the Republic.

But overall I am quite pleased with the Cal-Matari Program, and I'm kind of glad I shut it down. Seeing the political shitstorm unfold is much more interesting than continuing to try and help filthy Matari peasants, anyway ;p
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 20 Dec 2012, 16:10
That thread was enlightening, good points on both sides.

Eventually anyway all of this really is to be discussed ICly.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 20 Dec 2012, 17:10
It seems that the xenophobic nature of the Caldari people is conveniently forgotten.

Caldari PF clearly states the Caldari are not xenophobic. What you may be referring to is the Patriot Caldari trade doctrine of generally avoiding foreign markets, instead focusing internally. Might be wrong about that. Best to ask Dex or someone from WHG.

"Although not xenophobic as such, the Caldari are very protective of their way of life and tolerate only those foreigners that stick to the rules." (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Caldari)

Quote
The post by I-REDs John Revenent kind of outlines the Caldari mindset pretty well, they made billions off the Minmatar market.

Not in it, off it.

As someone who has worked with John very closely for the past year+, who has personally edited many of his IGS posts and Alliance mails to match his wording to his meaning... I can safely say you are reading too much into the semantics of his post.

Quote
Abusive mindset, not a cooperative, abusive.

That is a Practical Caldari outlook, not Liberal.

Liberal Caldari trade practices (as 'Liberal' is a trade doctrine, not really a political one) stress cooperative trade with foreign markets. That isn't to say we aren't shrewd, or that we have no backbone... but it means we aren't hiding a big stick behind our back while we shake your hand.

Again, I can speak firmly that I-RED did not 'abuse' the Minmatar markets. To claim otherwise is a bit presumptuous, especially from someone who wasn't there for any of the actual meetings, did not see the trades, did not handle the accounting, and did not speak with I-RED leadership for hours at length on voice about the RP-storyline.

We went in there to seek mutual and fair trade. That was our OOC goal. It wasn't just some In-Character RP trope we were spicing up our .01 ISK wars with. It was our internal policy of persuing trade that keeps both people happy. In fact, I'll step out of line and say John has personally made sure we LOSE MONEY on many of our RP trade deals because he doesn't want I-RED to be avoided for being too shrewd.

Yes, you read that correctly. We sometimes trade at a loss because John wants to make sure people will make money by roleplaying with us.

So, with as much respect as I can muster... if you would like to insist that we somehow were somehow abusive to the Matari either OOC or IC, knowingly and willingly... please provide some sort of evidence. Don't point out semantics in John's post to highlight some conspiracy of abuse and exploitation.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 20 Dec 2012, 20:09
It seems that the xenophobic nature of the Caldari people is conveniently forgotten.

Caldari PF clearly states the Caldari are not xenophobic. What you may be referring to is the Patriot Caldari trade doctrine of generally avoiding foreign markets, instead focusing internally. Might be wrong about that. Best to ask Dex or someone from WHG.

"Although not xenophobic as such, the Caldari are very protective of their way of life and tolerate only those foreigners that stick to the rules." (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Caldari)

I think you would find that, when the Patriots act most xenophobic, it is actually not towards the Minmatar.  It is predominantly towards the Federation, but plenty of us have concerns about the influence of the Empire that get discussed internally.  Years ago, LDIS called I-RED out for its activities in Providence and lack of support in the State  (Gosh, this crow taste good).
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Natalcya Katla on 20 Dec 2012, 21:51
I picture the Caldari-Minmatar friendliness as being more a capsuleer trend than a baseliner one. For a capsuleer, who enjoys the wealth and freedom to travel anywhere and talk to anybody, developing a romantic kind of kinship with that other group of presumably valiant once-rebel fighters - and regret that they're not on the same side - is perfectly reasonable. For the huge majority of their respective fellow citizens, I expect those notions would be much less common. I imagine the average Caldari has never even met a Minmatar, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: lallara zhuul on 21 Dec 2012, 05:25
http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=oct01-01 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=oct01-01)
Quote from: The chronicle
Mordu was a brilliant young officer and one of the more open-minded Caldari, who generally are extremely xenophobic.
Could have slipped the PF retcon, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Dec 2012, 06:24
It has, apparently, been retconned, in a way. The source that Kat was giving is more recent and CCP approved and it qualifies the statement in the Mordu's Legion chronicle decisively. Caldari are not xenophobic in every possible regard, as the quotation that Kat gave point out, but "are very protective of their way of life and tolerate only those foreigners that stick to the rules."

Caldari don't have problems to get into contact with foreigners or to have foreigners around, they have a problem with foreigners trying to change their cultural identity (as the Gallente tried to) or to subvert it.

Conversely, Caldari have little scruples to force their way of life onto others: If you're a foreigner who wants to live in Caldari space, you have to do as the Caldari do. That probably counts as well for regions that the Caldari conquer. As I see it, the Caldari aren't subscribing to a doctrine of "Don't meddle in my affairs and I don't meddle in yours." It's a doctrine of: "Don't meddle in my affairs." Full stop. Certainly though they might make it appear a bit softer around the edges, sometimes, but as PF states: "Coupled with the fact that they are more unscrupulous than the Gallente and more combative than the Amarr, this makes them in many ways the most meddlesome of all the empires."

Perhaps surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) the Caldari have very good experiences with the Amarr in that regard. Contrary to what most players intuition is, the Amarr are faithful to the spirit of the Caldari-Amarr Declaration of Friendship (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Transitional_Era_of_the_Amarr_Empire#Caldari_Non-Aggression_Pact), a pact that agreed to respect the sovereignty, not interfere in the internal affairs, and share intelligence on the enemies of the other side. At least so far, the Amarr have proven to be valuable allies to the Caldari and vice versa.

For sure, there is the fact that peaceful cooperation isn't the modus operandi that the Empire used to go by in the past. But then the Caldari are probably intelligent enough to realize that in the past, the Empire largely (since the conquest of Athra) dealt with nations that were vastly inferior and that the Amarr realize that the Caldari aren't in that position. (One could even argue that probably the Amarr were only invading the Matari successfully because the Matari caused natural disasters on their home planet by mining away an entire Moon.) The Caldari can be reasonably sure not to get into that position any time soon.

At the same time, the Republic -probably- only exists because of intervention of the Federation. That and the shared history of the Caldari and the Gallente would be enough to cast suspicion at the Republic. But above that the Republic was taking pressure off the Federation and that was reason not to engage in diplomatic relations with the Republic but the Empire, to again increase pressure on the Federation.

So, 'historically' speaking, I see little reason for the Caldari to rethink their alliance with the Amarr or try to approach the Matari. Also, the Matari wouldn't be assured to live with any less outside influence if they switch from the alliance they share with the Gallente to an alliance with the Caldari.

To me the conclusion is that culturally, politically as well as historically, there's a gulf between that Matari and the Caldari that seems to be insurmountable. Exceptions to the rule are just that: exceptions. I as well think that the Caldari capsuleers aren't in general as friendly to the Matari as it seems. Those friendly to the Matari only seem to voice their opinions more loudly.

So, all is well, imho.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Hamish Grayson on 21 Dec 2012, 07:09
Liberal Caldari trade practices (as 'Liberal' is a trade doctrine, not really a political one) stress cooperative trade with foreign markets.

I would suggest taking another look at the Crielere project if you want to know how the liberals practice business.  The fact that a trade partner parties benefits just as much from free trade with Ishukone is just an unintended side effect of the type of trade policy that is most beneficial to Ishukone.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Desiderya on 21 Dec 2012, 07:42
Quote from: Seriphyn
But I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit, especially a market which doesn't seem to put much stock in capitalism (thus making it easier to dominate, as the Gallente have done).

Who are "The Caldari". If you're talking about the NPC entities they do not want to associate with them beyond that very business area. If you're talking about the caldari roleplayers I still don't see a majority that plays bestest buddies. If you're going to judge this by Summit standards then everyone is bestest buddy with everyone else, whatever they are.

PF wise I'd simply say that there might be a reason to work towards not being at war with them but only because this probably hurts business. There's no pressing need to act in that direction since *some* business is apparently still done (We do still have caldari stations in republic space as we do have gallente stations in state space) and then there's hardly a real war taking place between the State and the republic. Sometimes capsuleers (TLF) clash with each other, but that's it.

The way the caldari people tick is that the State comes first. So there's indeed no real reason to overly empathize with the fate of the Minmatar. Additionally it can be argued that many caldari would rather look down on the republic (not necessarily the minmatar as a race) for not being able to take proper care of and provide for themselves.

In the end it comes down to the characters in question and the base fact that a couple of players can be a sizeable chunk of the community yet they aren't representative of the legions of NPC caldari. In other words I think you're exaggerating again to stifle a discussion.

Quote from: Hamish
I would suggest taking another look at the Crielere project if you want to know how the liberals practice business.  The fact that a trade partner parties benefits just as much from free trade with Ishukone is just an unintended side effect of the type of trade policy that is most beneficial to Ishukone.
I always felt that win/win is a concept that's rather a side-effect than goal in the State.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Ava Starfire on 21 Dec 2012, 08:26
Who are "The Caldari". If you're talking about the NPC entities they do not want to associate with them beyond that very business area. If you're talking about the caldari roleplayers I still don't see a majority that plays bestest buddies. If you're going to judge this by Summit standards then everyone is bestest buddy with everyone else, whatever they are.

Never mistake friendliness, at least Ava's, for "bestest buddy". Ava is quite cordial to Aldrith, Salena, Logan, and many other people in that channel. This does not mean she will not, with much eagerness, kill every one of them should the chance arise.

Ava has mentioned a few times that, during her stint with IRED, she was made constantly aware of the fact that she is not Caldari. Ava herself is constantly aware of the fact that the summit is full of non-Minmatar, or people who, in her opinion, are Minmatar by blood only. She can be friendly enough, because rudeness for rudeness' sake is usually pointless, but she would treat a Caldari in Minmatar space no differently than she would treat any other outsider; as just that, an outsider. I think a few others who seem "friendly with everyone" have a similar approach.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 21 Dec 2012, 08:41
Nata made a good point about this being understandable as a trend among capsuleers rather than in general.

That said, I also agree that there are little reasons for Matari and Caldari to approach one another that wouldn't be canceled out by the costs they'd have to pay if attempting such and the uncertainties whether the approach would be successful.

So, so much this. The mere attempt of forging an alliance with each other would probably cause the Federation to drop the Republic, and the Empire to drop the State - regardless of whether any deals went through or not. The two groups simply have too much to lose by disrupting the status quo for this to be a reasonable idea outside of the capsuleer community.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 21 Dec 2012, 09:22
Liberal Caldari trade practices (as 'Liberal' is a trade doctrine, not really a political one) stress cooperative trade with foreign markets.

I would suggest taking another look at the Crielere project if you want to know how the liberals practice business.  The fact that a trade partner parties benefits just as much from free trade with Ishukone is just an unintended side effect of the type of trade policy that is most beneficial to Ishukone.

Excellent point.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 21 Dec 2012, 09:24
Nata made a good point about this being understandable as a trend among capsuleers rather than in general.

That said, I also agree that there are little reasons for Matari and Caldari to approach one another that wouldn't be canceled out by the costs they'd have to pay if attempting such and the uncertainties whether the approach would be successful.

So, so much this. The mere attempt of forging an alliance with each other would probably cause the Federation to drop the Republic, and the Empire to drop the State - regardless of whether any deals went through or not. The two groups simply have too much to lose by disrupting the status quo for this to be a reasonable idea outside of the capsuleer community.

I agree with both of you. I would even just change/add one line: "The two groups simply have too much to lose by disrupting the status quo" You could even say... that "If one group has to much to lose, a disrupting of the status quo isnt possible" (as it need two player for a change... as mention before... or as I try  :P)". So if the Rep will... does it not mean the Fed will or visa versa. So as I said I totally agree, and would just add.. that even a attempt in a small part/portion/fraction... like some sort of "multi-lateral monetary alliance" or a "strategic alliance" or even a small contract wouldnt work (As I cant think of that both goverments are as selfless as some RPlers :P.).
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Vikarion on 21 Dec 2012, 10:12
A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 21 Dec 2012, 10:49
A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.

True that....Sure that is something new.... but new doesnt mean good. For example I can make a Corporation which says that Jita is part of the Khanid Kingdom or even its capital system.... I will ones... sooner or later fall down, as the ingame reality is that not the case (damn you reality...again. *Publius is to lazy to search for another topics wer he had dam the reality*). I think was the OP had try to say... and that stays as TRUE: "There isnt actually a foundation for this kind of behavior; aside form personal friendship etc...."

So it is less a "you doing it wrong", as more "look dude... Jita isnt the capital system of the Khanid Kingdom". A friendly reminder that somethings arent natural... as they look... as the OP had what I try think to explain.... So that it is more or less an unnatural alliance or behavour form some RP. And the OP could make a thread open, if I would say the Khanid Kindoms capital is Jita. With a comment that is unatural or even untrue: and HE WOULD BE RIGHT. Because in this case, there is a right or worng; or in many IGS discussion... but that is very off topic.

Or I explain it this way.... I had not long ago a moronic discussion with a guy... were I try to explain something... by NOT SAYING YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG... AND I EVEN HAD TRY TO SAY WERE HE HAD HIS ERRORS, and give him some benefits (isk) if he can find it by himself. BECAUSE I GENERALLY try to give a benefit of a doubt, that someone is just a moron and not a racist; and just dont understand what his comments mean in the end. BUT THIS WAS AN ERROR FROM ME... I should just comment in a IGS Style...

Which means: First: The borderline racist quote form that guy in the topic about slavery... with a line from me below it... which says:

You doing it wrong. Are you a moron or racist?

This line would summe up alot of work of my site. So there is always a possiblity for someone doing something wrong (as saying Jita is the captial of the KK), or saying that the republic and the stats are natural allies (as some really say on the IGS)... or that they will naturally come together (as someone wrote here).


As I said before, I agree with Mithra and Morwen.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 21 Dec 2012, 11:13
A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.

In my case (and Morwen's to some extent, if/when she feels like commenting on this sort of endeavour), it's less a "you're doing it wrong" and more of a "while this is an interesting idea, you should be careful and make damn sure you aren't wasting your time and everyone else's, because the odds of this going anywhere in the long-term outside of the capsuleer community is nearly non-existent".

She's by no means an absolute pacifist but she does think that the Empires have far bigger fish to fry than each other and would rather see them focusing on that than playing chicken with steam valves.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 21 Dec 2012, 13:51
I almost forgot something fundamental on the matter and Nico's link reminded me of it...

Instead, he renewed peace talks with the Caldari. As the Empire had found the Federation meddling in its affairs, it attained common ground with the State. This shared dislike of the Gallente was a springboard for peace talks.

What keeps the Caldari close to the Amarr is the fact that both litterally despise the Gallente, the same way both of the Gallente and the Minmatar despise the Amarr and are allied because of it. The only thing where dislike is not especially strong is between the Caldari and the Minmatar, and what keeps them separated that way is precisely the political circumstances. They are literally stuck because of it.


For sure, there is the fact that peaceful cooperation isn't the modus operandi that the Empire used to go by in the past. But then the Caldari are probably intelligent enough to realize that in the past, the Empire largely (since the conquest of Athra) dealt with nations that were vastly inferior and that the Amarr realize that the Caldari aren't in that position.

There is also something that people often forget, which is the last Amarr change of mind and politics under Heideran (and Doriam). The Empire went from a warmongering entity to an "Empire of Peace", as described in the PF. It is also said that Heideran managed to progressively change the Amarr society a lot (helped by the doubts raised after the defeat against the Jove).

That state of things lasted a good part of Heideran's life. We have to keep in mind that the last public image the Empire has kept in the cluster (except of course in anti Amarr circles) was an image of prosperity, peace and cooperation. That might have started to changed but it has only been a few years that Jamyl rose to power and we don't even know well what are her policies on the matter.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 23 Dec 2012, 05:44
Blown away by this thread, fantastic replies on both sides. I particularly enjoyed I-RED's response.

Since we're on the topic of strategic relations, will make another point based around that. We've already seen points about empire expansionism and alliances of best interest etc.

But I think a really big point has been ignored here. One-fifth of ALL Minmatar are in the Federation (in turn one-third of the whole Fed), and one-quarter are in the Republic. That is a VERY close gap.

That is the biggest insurmountable political reality. It keeps the Federation-Republic tied together. It would be astronomically insane Republic policy to distance themselves from the Federation and abandon a huge group of Minmatar. That's the thing; the Republic do not claim a monopoly on the Minmatar identity. Minmatar identity is dictated by the clan level, correct? Compare that to Caldari identity; dictated by massive interstellar megacorporations, not familial kin units. The Republic are just one group of Minmatar. They don't call the Minmatar out of the Republic 'traitors' like the Caldari call those Caldari out of the State as such.

The population bonding is the biggest reason things won't change IMO.

EDIT: This is not about "doing it wrong". This is more exploring actual, hard political reasons as to why getting friendly would be sound policy, rooted from PF discussion by looking at ALL factions. A holistic approach, basically. IMO, I-RED put up a very good rationale.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 23 Dec 2012, 15:31
And one third are in the Empire.

I think it bears repeating that a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides and declaring war on the Federation or something - and in fact from a diplomatic point of view, a better relationship with the State gives the Republic leverage with the Gallente (Let's make this agreement more favorable for us, or maybe we get it from our new friends in the State.) That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically.

Also, I'm not sure where you get that the Caldari consider all Caldari outside the State traitors - leaving aside the fact that there isn't really any population of Caldari outside the State with a similar enough history to even compare them as far as I know. The closest would maybe be the Caldari who are part of Mordu's Legion, and they are highly regarded. Most of the Caldari outside the State (as far as I know) are still part of their parent megacorps (much as, I think you are saying, most Minmatar in the Fed are still part of their tribe, if not clan). Obviously it isn't nearly the same numbers, and the reasons aren't exactly the same (which is why I don't think it is comparable), but they certainly aren't considered traitors.

Edit: Also, if you read back, I think you will find that the Minmatar population in the Fed has been mentioned repeatedly, not ignored.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 23 Dec 2012, 17:42
Have to say I don't understand the idea that a total political reversal is aimed at. It's not about forging some new alliances, simply dialing back hostilities to a closer to neutral stance. The State has nothing to gain from having a war on two fronts and neither does the Republic. Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Both has to consider the future as much as the present, and even should any side decisively win (which we know they won't, but let's just go with it) there's the peace-time afterwards to consider. Not having yet another enemy to fight would be beneficial for everyone involved.

No one's denying that the Caldari aren't fuzzy hugamathrons who wuvs and adowes the Minnies. Any relationship would be a professional one benefiting the State, or preferably both at once. This is absolutely no barrier to a professional neutral stance between the two. Especially since neither would have an interest in imposing their culture on the other.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 23 Dec 2012, 17:47
Speaking of possible future outcomes - even as notional allies of the Empire, it is in the State's interest for the Empire to continue to be counterbalanced by the Republic.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Bong-cha Jones on 23 Dec 2012, 22:37
And one third are in the Empire.

Also, I'm not sure where you get that the Caldari consider all Caldari outside the State traitors - leaving aside the fact that there isn't really any population of Caldari outside the State with a similar enough history to even compare them as far as I know. The closest would maybe be the Caldari who are part of Mordu's Legion, and they are highly regarded. Most of the Caldari outside the State (as far as I know) are still part of their parent megacorps (much as, I think you are saying, most Minmatar in the Fed are still part of their tribe, if not clan). Obviously it isn't nearly the same numbers, and the reasons aren't exactly the same (which is why I don't think it is comparable), but they certainly aren't considered traitors.

On the first point:  The presence of Matari in the Empire is not really analogous to the presence of Matari in the Federation.  The Republic is angry at the Amarr for holding so many of their people in bondage (though of course some are free), while I think they are more puzzled by or disappointed in those Matari who choose to live in the Fed.  Wildly different circumstances and relationships.

On the second point:  There are quite a few Caldari in the Federation (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Gallente_Federation#Caldari).  It's apparently a sticking point and I doubt the State thinks kindly of them.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 23 Dec 2012, 22:56
If you compare the numbers, those populations of Caldari are probably fairly insignificant. Also, again, the situations aren't really similar enough that they compare to the Minmatar in the Federation.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Bong-cha Jones on 23 Dec 2012, 23:20
If you send me the numbers, I'll be happy to do the comparing  ;)

Sure the situations are different, I think we agree that the Matari situation isn't really strongly analogous to anything, but I was intending to rebut the idea that there weren't meaningful numbers of Caldari outside the State apparatus.  It might not be huge numbers on a cluster-wide scale, but entire planets aren't insignificant either.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 00:13
And one third are in the Empire.

I think it bears repeating that a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides and declaring war on the Federation or something - and in fact from a diplomatic point of view, a better relationship with the State gives the Republic leverage with the Gallente (Let's make this agreement more favorable for us, or maybe we get it from our new friends in the State.) That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically.

true that... on the first part that a "a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides". And true on "leverage", but as I said in anarchy, even the Fed can than use a "leverage" in the Empire and can as I mention before use it for assimilation of their own matari popolus. When you say... that their is a leverage you are right. I repeat you are right. And that it is a "That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically." But, a huge BUT.... why hasnt the Gallente in your example this tool?



As I said again and again.... just saying their is something... but not playing it tru... means in short form:
We Matari smart can use leverage (or other tools)
Gallente stupid havent that tool.... (or think behind a first move)






And that is a major thing in all of your arguments (I mean here with yours... pro matari & caldrais bffs).... that you always forgot that the other side has most likely the same tools and brainzelles as the matari. Just we all love them in real life, doesnt mean that every other side does become a moronic zombie without any tools to counter any matari move.


By the way you (with you... I mean here Silver Night) still havent answer my question from before. Lets say Im a matari freedom fighter... and we are best friend forever, how those that you dont like Heth improves our relationship. I has matari, would say thanks for the information (as friendly matari), and move on. Why? As it doesnt mean you are on my side.... or I put it that way: against Heth dont equal pro matari... ot can also mean thousend other things... like you are pro magecorporation etc.....




So If you try to use rational and realpolitik... plz give everyone the same tools, skills and informations. We dont play our charackters like Tony G arent we? I think he has show were it leads if you have just stereotypes, which havent a fuel skillset, or charackter etc..... It leads just to some broke halffinsh charackters.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Mithfindel on 24 Dec 2012, 03:52
I found the notion of Caldari tribes loyal to the Federation (or at least, opposing the State) living around Kaalakiota Peaks, Caldari Prime (now controlled by the Caldari State) quite amusing. But yes, on the topic of Caldari in the Federation, we may assume that there's individual settlements, much less than the amount of Jin-Mei, which is in the large scale of things a negligible amount. Specially if they do limit outside contact.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 24 Dec 2012, 05:52
Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Of course the Empire and the Federation are exactly in the position to get 'uppity' over State/Republic neutrality. First, the State is supposed to be the ally of the Empire while the same is true about the Republic and the Federation. Second, the State depends as much on the Empire as the Empire on the State. At least the same is true about how Republic and Federation relate to one another, if the Republic isn't depending more on the Federation than vice versa. Third, this means that if the State and Republic drop putting pressure on the enemy of their allies, those allies will put off pressure from their respective Enemy.

It isn't in the interest of the Caladri, though, that the pressure on the Gallente by the Empire is lowered, nor is it in the interest of the Republic that the Gallente press the Empire less. The benefit of any neutral stance would thus, best case, be canceled out, probably the allied forces would take steps that go a bit beyond canceling out any benefits - though not too bi, as to not overstep the room for maneuvering they have because forming even neutral relations is an uncertainty as in a world with limited information available neither the State nor the Republic can be sure that the other party isn't playing a trick on them or will just outright block that move towards neutrality.

So if the Republic tries the "maybe we get it from our new friends in the State" move, the Gallente will be playing the "maybe we drop you like a hot potato" card and they will do so before the Republic can be even remotely sure about getting what they want from the State.

If you are allied with someone and you depend on that someone (and that's factually the case in the Republic/Federation and State/Empire cases, each party is depending on the other), than you don't make a move towards neutrality with the allied force's enemy.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 06:08
Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Of course the Empire and the Federation are exactly in the position to get 'uppity' over State/Republic neutrality. First, the State is supposed to be the ally of the Empire while the same is true about the Republic and the Federation. Second, the State depends as much on the Empire as the Empire on the State. At least the same is true about how Republic and Federation relate to one another, if the Republic isn't depending more on the Federation than vice versa. Third, this means that if the State and Republic drop putting pressure on the enemy of their allies, those allies will put off pressure from their respective Enemy.

It isn't in the interest of the Caladri, though, that the pressure on the Gallente by the Empire is lowered, nor is it in the interest of the Republic that the Gallente press the Empire less. The benefit of any neutral stance would thus, best case, be canceled out, probably the allied forces would take steps that go a bit beyond canceling out any benefits - though not too bi, as to not overstep the room for maneuvering they have because forming even neutral relations is an uncertainty as in a world with limited information available neither the State nor the Republic can be sure that the other party isn't playing a trick on them or will just outright block that move towards neutrality.

So if the Republic tries the "maybe we get it from our new friends in the State" move, the Gallente will be playing the "maybe we drop you like a hot potato" card and they will do so before the Republic can be even remotely sure about getting what they want from the State.

If you are allied with someone and you depend on that someone (and that's factually the case in the Republic/Federation and State/Empire cases, each party is depending on the other), than you don't make a move towards neutrality with the allied force's enemy.

+1 Really good.... I totally on your side on this. And I like how you have better explain the "natural standing/no guarantee", of anarchy than me... with the point: "limited information available". I really like it... It is a overall a better example as my half-ass prisoner dilemma example; as is show the from you mention "limited information available" and that the other side cant be sure that "other party isn't playing a trick."

If you could thumbs of a day you would get them :lol:
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Gesakaarin on 24 Dec 2012, 06:24
I've always wondered why everyone assumes the Caldari and Amarr are Best Friends when their alliance is nothing more than mutual interests and realpolitik aimed at containing the Federation diplomatically and territorially to their own advantage. Just because State Megas do business in the Empire does not mean they automatically condone its culture and politics, it's just the nature of corporations to seek their expansion into as many markets as possible for their own (And the State's) interests.

Kaalakiota for one has stations in the Federation, Empire and Republic and potentially continues some degree of operations in all three under the SCC. It does this because it wants market share and profit like any corporation, if it didn't expand operations and penetrate markets then it wouldn't be a business. Kaalakiota, like most Caldari megas is solely interested in advancing their own power and agendas and this extends generally to the State because that mindset of there being only ones own interests pursued at the expense of everyone else lies at the core of the Megacorporate mindset through the CEP and also held in varying degrees by its citizens.

The State and the Megacorporations could generally be said to be concerned solely about relative power compared to the rest of New Eden and particularly in ensuring its national survival through maintaining economic and military strength in comparison to others. With that worldview, the greatest threats to the national survival of the State are the Federation and Empire, and when the NAP with the Empire was signed the Federation was still very much a legitimate threat to the State if not an outright hostile entity whose motives were to be treated with suspicion.

Even with the change of relations between the Federation and State after Yioul and the formation of CONCORD where there was a re-engagement of sorts in bilateral relation and cross-border trade brought a thawing of relations, an alliance with the Empire still remained a relationship of strategic importance because it was insurance against hawks and nationalists in the Fed acting upon their agenda by having a powerful nation nominally aligned against them right on their border in addition to granting Caldari Megas preferential treatment over their Federal counterparts in Imperial markets.

The reason the State does not pursue an alliance with the Republic is that it simply does not grant the same strategic and economic benefits that its alliance with the Empire does. The Republic might be viewed by the State as essentially being a failed state on Federal life-support and taxpayer funding whose tribal system leads to government inefficiency and corruption that's just bad for business and whose military is not significant enough to hold off both the Federation and Empire in any future conflict in which the State and Republic are allies. It might be said that slavery should be cause enough for a State-Republic alliance but then again it's not Caldari citizens that are being held in chains; the Minmatar were more than glad to enslave each other in internecine wars in the past; and frankly, any Caldari leader that places supposed ethical considerations before the interests of the State and their corporation would be guilty of gross incompetence and more for the only moral imperative is to ensure the protection of the interests and maintenance of relative power of the Caldari State and people.

The only real relationship I see between the State and Republic is one of maintaining a phony war across their mutual border without actually invading and making assurances to that effect in private while seeking to play the Empire and Federation against each other so that they are able manipulate both in their own interests of gaining funds and materiel while ensuring a movement of opposing military units elsewhere to secure their own war fronts for themselves against their larger adversaries.

Given that view I'm not really sure where the whole Caldari-Minmatar outreach comes from because I don't think even the Liberals or Ishukone concerned themselves with the issue of Minmatar slavery when they sold TCMC to Khanid/Amarrian Holders to trial on slaves or that Gariushi's crisis of conscience over Insorum and giving it to the Minmatar only arrived near the end of his life. Unless it's Caldari playing the dissident Civire angle from the background, who move to the Republic for the same reasons as the Brothers of Freedom due to disagreements over the system in the Caldari State, yet still believe themselves patriotic enough not to live in the Federation during their exile with their diaspora brethren.

In the end, if the Republic is unable to provide tangible benefits to the State both economically or strategically then any discussions about formal alliances really is a moot point because for the citizens of the State the world is divided between those who are Caldari and serve State interests and then there's everyone else - you serve your own interests before worrying about the problems of others who are not citizens. Some might find such a worldview distasteful, but every nation in Eve does the same to one extent or the other otherwise they'd be consigned to the dustbins of history. The only difference is that the Caldari State is honest about it and doesn't wrap up its intentions in democratic and religious platitudes or moral and ethical self-aggrandizement.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 24 Dec 2012, 06:43
Snippity Snip.

The only real relationship I see between the State and Republic is one of maintaining a phony war across their mutual border without actually invading and making assurances to that effect in private while seeking to play the Empire and Federation against each other so that they are able manipulate both in their own interests of gaining funds and materiel while ensuring a movement of opposing military units elsewhere to secure their own war fronts for themselves against their larger adversaries.

Even more Snip.

Some might find such a worldview distasteful, but every nation in Eve does the same to one extent or the other otherwise they'd be consigned to the dustbins of history. The only difference is that the Caldari State is honest about it and doesn't wrap up its intentions in democratic and religious platitudes or moral and ethical self-aggrandizement.

The entire post is pretty much the best post on the subject so far, but I'd like to emphasize these two paragraphs in particular. If we also add to this that the Caldari has a significant motivation for preserving their culture, they would possibly be the nation in New Eden with the second greatest desire to ensure that the Empire never comes out on top, given they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list. How to do that? Well, look up at the first paragraph I quoted.

Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point.

And frankly, what the hell is the Empire going to do about it? Cripple their own economy? They're as dependent on the State as the other way around and short of switching sides the Empire simply can't justify severing ties. It'd hurt them as badly if not worse than the State.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Gesakaarin on 24 Dec 2012, 07:01
The entire post is pretty much the best post on the subject so far, but I'd like to emphasize these two paragraphs in particular. If we also add to this that the Caldari has a significant motivation for preserving their culture, they would possibly be the nation in New Eden with the second greatest desire to ensure that the Empire never comes out on top, given they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list. How to do that? Well, look up at the first paragraph I quoted.

Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point.

I'd say if the State wasn't currently hard-locked into the continuation of conflict due to a need of keeping FW alive then its leaders would have realized the benefits inherent in seeking an honorable solution over Caldari Prime through an armistice with Federation; pursuing armed neutrality and detente aimed at preserving its territorial integrity and then proceeding to seek in ensuring an escalation of conflict between the Federation, Republic and Empire aimed at bleeding them all out to the very bone while the Megacorporations use their neutral position to their own advantage to sell armaments to all side while making promises of potential support to all three and then maneuvering the State into the best possible position after the dust settles by offering, "Infrastructure Redevelopment".

That aside, the Caldari have always been described as particularly pragmatic, practical and patriotic - the alliance with the Empire has always been a cynical one aimed at delivering short and medium term gains for the State. Honestly, I'm also quite sure the CEP is watching if Sarum delivers on her promises of beginning a new Reclaiming because then the only option for the State would be to hop in bed with the Fed and apply the boots to the Empire, medium style.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 24 Dec 2012, 07:06
The entire post is pretty much the best post on the subject so far, but I'd like to emphasize these two paragraphs in particular. If we also add to this that the Caldari has a significant motivation for preserving their culture, they would possibly be the nation in New Eden with the second greatest desire to ensure that the Empire never comes out on top, given they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list. How to do that? Well, look up at the first paragraph I quoted.

Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point.

I'd say if the State wasn't currently hard-locked into the continuation of conflict due to a need of keeping FW alive then its leaders would have realized the benefits inherent in seeking an honorable solution over Caldari Prime through an armistice with Federation; pursuing armed neutrality and detente aimed at preserving its territorial integrity and then proceeding to seek in ensuring an escalation of conflict between the Federation, Republic and Empire aimed at bleeding them all out to the very bone while the Megacorporations use their neutral position to their own advantage to sell armaments to all side while making promises of potential support to all three and then maneuvering the State into the best possible position after the dust settles by offering, "Infrastructure Redevelopment".

That aside, the Caldari have always been described as particularly pragmatic, practical and patriotic - the alliance with the Empire has always been a cynical one aimed at delivering short and medium term gains for the State. Honestly, I'm also quite sure the CEP is watching if Sarum delivers on her promises of beginning a new Reclaiming because then the only option for the State would be to hop in bed with the Fed and apply the boots to the Empire, medium style.

I don't know who you are, but I like you.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 07:14
Snippity Snip.

The only real relationship I see between the State and Republic is one of maintaining a phony war across their mutual border without actually invading and making assurances to that effect in private while seeking to play the Empire and Federation against each other so that they are able manipulate both in their own interests of gaining funds and materiel while ensuring a movement of opposing military units elsewhere to secure their own war fronts for themselves against their larger adversaries.

Even more Snip.

Some might find such a worldview distasteful, but every nation in Eve does the same to one extent or the other otherwise they'd be consigned to the dustbins of history. The only difference is that the Caldari State is honest about it and doesn't wrap up its intentions in democratic and religious platitudes or moral and ethical self-aggrandizement.

The entire post is pretty much the best post on the subject so far, but I'd like to emphasize these two paragraphs in particular. If we also add to this that the Caldari has a significant motivation for preserving their culture, they would possibly be the nation in New Eden with the second greatest desire to ensure that the Empire never comes out on top, given they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list. How to do that? Well, look up at the first paragraph I quoted.

Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point.

And frankly, what the hell is the Empire going to do about it? Cripple their own economy? They're as dependent on the State as the other way around and short of switching sides the Empire simply can't justify severing ties. It'd hurt them as badly if not worse than the State.

lol.... As I said again and again.... Plz explain your theory. And plz use all players. "Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point." I got tickeling again as I read this. First... you and I repeat you have to show that that is the case.... that both will win (as I said some post earlier ..lazy to search... their isnt a new win-win). But if you find one, plz explain.

So your first task is: To show that "neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for the republic.... than play it tru again for the State (as werent Tony G... we arent doint any makro makra anlyse.... so try to use the weber bathtube... makro-miko-miko-makro... in short form: Imagen the nation as players). So I repeat again.... Ones play it tru for the State and than again for the Republic.

Have you done it? If the answer is yes. than it comes the next step, show that despite "anarchy in the ineternatial relations" and other players (like Fed and Empire); that this point "neutral stance" is even possible.


As I said it before... and I repeat myself very often, not just say, that will happend... or even lazier just define it as something that will happend... How I mean it. When you say, And frankly, what the hell is the Empire going to do about it? Cripple their own economy? You have to prove that it would cripple their economy. How... you would have to show that they are  interdependenz (like the KK and state see here (http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=1326&tid=2)).... which isnt the case as I know the lore.... But as I said, if you find a link were a interpendenz between Empire and State is proven... I will take it as point. So again... play it tru with all players and all player individually... than take other players in, and look what you have... ( a prisoner's dilemma or a deadlock game? etc...).... Than we can talk about interdependenz :lol:
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 24 Dec 2012, 07:15
You do realize I'm not actually reading your posts, Publius? I don't have the magic decoder ring.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 07:17
You do realize I'm not actually reading your posts, Publius? I don't have the magic decoder ring.

Which means? you are right or what? Their is now magically a interdependenz between state and empire?.....lol you clown..... interdependenz means more than they are working together.... it means both are in a correlation together. And some would say that the Empire is the most autark ones, as the lore article confirmes (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Economy_of_the_Amarr_Empire)...So BS:P
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Hamish Grayson on 24 Dec 2012, 07:19
they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list.

My opinion is that the Federation sits firmly a top that list.  Not only are they the most driven, especially were the Caldari are concerned, but by far the most effective and efficient at it.  Look at what they've done to the Minmatar.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 24 Dec 2012, 07:30
they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list.

My opinion is that the Federation sits firmly a top that list.  Not only are they the most driven, especially were the Caldari are concerned, but by far the most effective and efficient at it.  Look at what they've done to the Minmatar.

I would agree, except it's a slightly different kind. Instead of stamping it out, it's consuming it and twisting it. That's a whole different debate though, I think. Even if it is a quite solid point in favor of the Republic being wary of the Feddies.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 07:42
they're probably only second to the Sansha on the "Take over, stamp on everything and replace it with our own religion/ideology/culture/politics etc" list.

My opinion is that the Federation sits firmly a top that list.  Not only are they the most driven, especially were the Caldari are concerned, but by far the most effective and efficient at it.  Look at what they've done to the Minmatar.

I would agree, except it's a slightly different kind. Instead of stamping it out, it's consuming it and twisting it. That's a whole different debate though, I think. Even if it is a quite solid point in favor of the Republic being wary of the Feddies.

Come on... plz explain what you meant with magic ring...

By the way... can you explain this: "Practical neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both the State and Republic at this point.

And frankly, what the hell is the Empire going to do about it? Cripple their own economy? They're as dependent on the State as the other way around and short of switching sides the Empire simply can't justify severing ties. It'd hurt them as badly if not worse than the State."

As others already said and even you... Yes closer relationship hurts the State... as the Empire will act. So now... Why should the state than do it? Just on the "two" small chances/possibilities, that first: the new status quo on the mimatar maket will counterweight it and that the other side (minmatar) will not trick you? Both has to be true or they will not do it.

So again... plz explain. At leat this little question... why are both "things" are true in your case? No outsmarting ... from no ones (and we have here just two players... Can you imagen more  :lol:?); and best case scenaro of a economical counterweight, achieve tru this "new above the current stutus quo"....
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 24 Dec 2012, 09:26
I find that last page quite biased at times.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 24 Dec 2012, 12:56
Publius, going to put my moderator hat on here for a moment: I understand for some people on the board English isn't their first language, but spell checking and proper punctuation might help. I frankly can't tell what you are saying in virtually any of your posts, and I think that is probably hurting your ability to participate in the debate. If I (and others) can't tell what you are trying to say, we can't really respond to or discuss the points you are trying to raise.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 13:22
Publius, going to put my moderator hat on here for a moment: I understand for some people on the board English isn't their first language, but spell checking and proper punctuation might help. I frankly can't tell what you are saying in virtually any of your posts, and I think that is probably hurting your ability to participate in the debate. If I (and others) can't tell what you are trying to say, we can't really respond to or discuss the points you are trying to raise.

Sure, sure.


The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3884.msg62344#msg62344
About, that comment from you. It left me with some question marks. It raised the question by me: How those that "opposing Heth" improves or in general changes your relationship with a minmatar?


I think it bears repeating that a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides and declaring war on the Federation or something - and in fact from a diplomatic point of view, a better relationship with the State gives the Republic leverage with the Gallente (Let's make this agreement more favorable for us, or maybe we get it from our new friends in the State.) That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically.

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3884.msg62418#msg62418
This comment from you left me as well with some question marks. As I mention before, why you dont count any leverage the Gallente could have? Why in your example, have the players* different "tools", which they can use in their relationship to each other? Do you think you have miss something? Would you say, you have give a unbalance view? Meaning that you miss a major part, which others have mention? *cough*

Something which could neutralize a matari leverage on the gallente? Anything?

players*=nations, empires
Edit:If their is any question just ask.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 24 Dec 2012, 13:34
Publius, going to put my moderator hat on here for a moment: I understand for some people on the board English isn't their first language, but spell checking and proper punctuation might help. I frankly can't tell what you are saying in virtually any of your posts, and I think that is probably hurting your ability to participate in the debate. If I (and others) can't tell what you are trying to say, we can't really respond to or discuss the points you are trying to raise.

If any question comes up..... Just ask people....
Some may ask maybe:Why is economical autarky different from economical interdependence? Or why does the one exclude the other? Or what I mean with "tricky*" or "no guarantee"?.... Just ask and I will try to explain it with an prisoner dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma).


Edit:*tricks

Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Shaalira on 24 Dec 2012, 16:38
The story will go where feature development demands that it goes.

And CCP will continue to develop lore and news articles that gives all four empires cause to distrust / dislike one another, while foiling attempts at long-term reconciliation.  This is because war, mistrust, and ethnocentrism all create conflict-driven content.

Speculation on what is in the true interest of each nation state is all well and good.  But in the end, this is an MMO.  And resolving either the Empyrean War or Sansha's Incursions will result in a removed or heavily modified game feature.  Consider the likelihood of the Alliance and Horde resolving their differences peacefully.  Their animosity isn't just story - it's game design.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Shaalira on 24 Dec 2012, 17:02
Quote from: Shaalira
The story will go where feature development demands that it goes.

And CCP will continue to develop lore and news articles that gives all four empires cause to distrust / dislike one another, while foiling attempts at long-term reconciliation.  This is because war, mistrust, and ethnocentrism all create conflict-driven content.

Speculation on what is in the true interest of each nation state is all well and good.  But in the end, this is an MMO.  And resolving either the Empyrean War or Sansha's Incursions will result in a removed or heavily modified game feature.  Consider the likelihood of the Alliance and Horde resolving their differences peacefully.  Their animosity isn't just story - it's game design.

Also, Dust 514. (http://www.dust514.com/universe/factions/)

The faction abstracts in that link basically sum up a development plan involving four distinct factions locked in 2v2 war.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 24 Dec 2012, 17:10
Also, Dust 514. (http://www.dust514.com/universe/factions/)

The faction abstracts in that link basically sum up a development plan involving four distinct factions locked in 2v2 war.

We all know none of these things will actually happen. That's not the point. We're discussing what could happen without the artificial limitations and restraints of game mechanics and balancing. Which is what the characters we play would base their viewpoints, plans and choices on. None of them know that we need balanced Militias for game-mechanics' sake. None of them know there's a massive pillock named TonyG that is running their beloved nations through the "for the lulz" grinder.

Simply put, this is about what characters can roleplay. Whether or not they succeed is irrelevant. The RP in itself is the goal.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Shaalira on 24 Dec 2012, 17:28
L'art pour l'art, then.  Very Gallente.

Certainly you can RP against the development trend - that can be fun.  Characters can and do espouse peace, even knowing OOC that such a development is highly unlikely.

At the same time, it's useful to have a reminder about the limits to such an angle.  All too often, I hear players asking if their PCs have roleplayed themselves into a cul-de-sac or a dead end.  For those who prefer to unify their actions-in-space with their RP, the direction the game mechanics go is a very real consideration in laying out our long-term plans.

If that's not a big concern for a player, though, they're certainly free to pursue storylines that grow increasingly divorced from the gameworld around them.  The only issue then is whether the result will be too jarring for other roleplayers who haven't been playing along to participate at all.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 24 Dec 2012, 18:25
There are, really several misconceptions about the Amarr Empire going around, I think, the most important being:

First, historically speaking there is no deep rooted conflict between the Empire and the Federation. They used to get along, though wearily. The Federation's true opponent is and always was the State and vice versa. That the Empire and the Federation can work together if they want to shows the example of Heideran and Aidonis Elabon.

Second, the Amarr Empire is going around trying to 'Reclaim' everyone by force. That's just not true, the Empire showed actually a quite rational approach: Those you can easily subdue militarily, you do subdue militarily. Those you can't you deal with diplomatically. Even when the Empire discovered the Mimatar it was due to the natural disaster happening to the Matari homeworld that the Empire choose to invade. When they made first contact with the Federation they quickly realized they had someone on an equal footing there and opted for diplomatic solutions. The same with how contact with the State was made. And they only attacked the Jove exactly because they thought they were an easy target.

As such, third, the idea that the Amarr would get into a war with the Republic and the Federation if the State declared neutrality is thus unrealistic: The Empire might very well push for a non-agression pact with the Federation and concentrate on the Republic while the Federation could then enact retributive strikes on the State without fearing that the Empire would intervene. Or some other such thing.

I think there is factually a lot to loose for the State if it abandons it's alliance with the Empire and little to gain. One has to do a cost/benefit calculation there: And as there are sure benefits, the costs prevail in sum. IOt's all nice and good if one only lists the benefits, but forgets about the costs. If one calculates the costs as well, then one will come to the conclusion that the best option for State and Empire is to kept that alliance up and to support one another against their enemies.

Does that mean that the State and the Empire are best friends? No, of course not. It means the two are bound to one another exactly because they serve their own interests. That this doesn't entirely preclude the  State from doing some business with the Republic comes with no surprise: Even the Empire itself is conducting business within the Republic's borders.

P.S.: Shaalira's argument is quite important. One would expect that if CCP puts those limitations of a 2v2 scenario on the game it will also show in the background. Indeed, I think, CCP worked on the background of the 4 factions to put them in sucha situation that the 2v2 situation arises. Now one could say that this is 'just due to game design constraints', but I don't think our chars would say: "Oh no, that historical event that bound State and Empire together was purely out of game design reasons, it doesn't count!"
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 24 Dec 2012, 18:30
Of import in this entire conversation is a simple truth.

The Republic/State began as a rebellious faction against the Empire/Federation; their cultures irrecoverable changed by the time spent as part of the larger entity.

The Empire & Federation are horribly opposed ideologically and represent a peer adversary on the grand scale.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 24 Dec 2012, 18:33
The Empire & Federation are horribly opposed ideologically and represent a peer adversary on the grand scale.

I highly doubt that. It pretty much depends on how you frame the picture. Or rather, on what you declare to be frame and what to be picture.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 24 Dec 2012, 18:40
You do not think the Empire's and Federation's core tenants are in direct opposition?  Or you do not think they are near-peer adversaries?
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 24 Dec 2012, 19:11
Honestly this almost sounds like an IC debate.

You do not think the Empire's and Federation's core tenants are in direct opposition?  Or you do not think they are near-peer adversaries?

It depends. Black and white has never been part of that universe, or maybe with some TonyG scenarios.

Grey scales tell me that their ways of life and ethics are fundamentally opposed, but they also tell me that their behaviors and political ideals are very similar. They both are imperialistic. They both want to control. They both want to bring their ideologies to everyone. It can obviously put them against each other, but it can also gather.

That's what made them lead the assault together against Sansha (the Gallente in space, the Amarr on ground).

That's incidentaly what brought Aidonis and Heideran together like the best buddies in the world, the same way that some Caldari/Minmatar parallels can at times bring them together, even if it has yet to happen in the PF (and unlikely will since thanks to EA we now are not in a cold war anymore, but a declared war).
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 24 Dec 2012, 19:27
I doubt both propositions to be unqualifiedly true:

I think stating it with as broadly a brush as you're employing there, it is oversimplifying the background CCP provides. Empire and Federation are quite opposed in their ideologies in some respects (e.g. 'secular' vs 'religious', 'liberal' vs 'authoritarian') and quite aligned in other respects (e.g. 'existence of universal values', 'missionary drive'). Likewise, they act as adversaries in some respects (Empire allied with the State, Federation with the Republic) and in others not (Aidonis and Heideran working together on forming CONCORD).

So if one does look from one perspective, they do generally agree and fit quite well together: All humans have to be brought under one set of universal values. They just don't agree on the 'specifics', but that doesn't prevent them from working together (as seen by Aidonis and Heideran).

From the other point of view, they disagree profoundly in their ideology, one embracing slavery and the other liberty, nonewithstanding that both embrace the notion of universal values. They work as adversaries against one another as can be easily seen by the Empire's support for the Caldari and the Federations for the Matari rebellion.

So, it really depends on what you decide to pick as picture here and how to frame it. Probably it would be better to allow for a more complex relationship, though. One that is accounting for the possibility to be framed both ways.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Publius Valerius on 25 Dec 2012, 06:26
Publius, going to put my moderator hat on here for a moment: I understand for some people on the board English isn't their first language, but spell checking and proper punctuation might help. I frankly can't tell what you are saying in virtually any of your posts, and I think that is probably hurting your ability to participate in the debate. If I (and others) can't tell what you are trying to say, we can't really respond to or discuss the points you are trying to raise.

#Sorry for any misspellings, Im not a native speaker.


I have to try to re-word it (see here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3884.msg62443#msg62443)). If you have still any question about one of the questions just ask. It would be great if you could give me an answer  :lol:. Not just to get the discussion forward, it will help me to get your points (as I see it: You and JinOtsi are the last guys which say: "neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both"). And I cant agree on that, if I dont understand your points, so answering the questions would help me to understand you, and it will help to judge if your are RIGHT and Im WRONG.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Seriphyn on 27 Dec 2012, 05:08
Quote
First, historically speaking there is no deep rooted conflict between the Empire and the Federation. They used to get along, though wearily. The Federation's true opponent is and always was the State and vice versa. That the Empire and the Federation can work together if they want to shows the example of Heideran and Aidonis Elabon.

I thought it was always obvious it was the Empire and Federation who were the true polar rivals of New Eden. They are two massive expansionist empires. Of the total population of New Eden, the Fed is 20% and the Amarr Empire is 25%. The Caldari have cooperated on more occasions with the Fed than the Fed and Empire. Just because the Fed and Amarr pursue detente doesn't mean they are fundamentally enemies. The US and USSR signed START and all that.

Both the Fed and Amarr have two end goals that involve all of human civilization being under their banner. They have two completely opposing methods to do that. That's why they are inherent enemies. The Caldari are reconcilable with the Federation. It's already http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=10-03-06 here anyway.

Besides, are we really going for the Minmatar Republic as the archnemesis of the Amarr Empire? In Dark End of Space, the Minmatar military command acknowledge that if it wasn't for CONCORD and their regulated war, they would be curbstomped because the two are completely mismatched. They're not archrivals, because the Minmatar are not trying to make everyone Minmatar.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 30 Dec 2012, 14:55
Who says that the four nations of EVE need to be the arch-nemesis' of each other? If I had to pick an arch-nemesis for the Empire it'd be the Sani-Sabik cults, if it weren't for their lack of organization, or maybe better Sansha. After all is said and done, the four nations aren't that different, really, if you compare them with the factions that didn't sign the CONCORD charter.

I think it's one of the big ailments of the EVE community that they have to think, apparently, that within the four nations there must be the 'big struggle' and that this is oftentimes thought of as a struggle of 'good versus evil'.

Nations don't need arch-rivals to whom they are opposed eternally and locked with into a struggle that is about all or nothing, save for their propaganda. That's why a senator will say such a thing. It's not because the Empire is really the Federations arch-nemesis: It's to keep his voters in line. Fear is a strong ally in the struggle to get re-elected.

So, as I said, the tendency to paint any two factions as polar opposites that by necessity need to exterminate another eventually is just oversimplification of the situation, imho. It's even more simplistic than the picture CCP is already painting.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Silver Night on 30 Dec 2012, 15:49
I'm not sure how prevalent the tendency toward polar opposites is (and I'm not sure how much of it is 'real' and how much is politicking or propaganda). I do think that, for me personally, when I see it done by CCP for example, it makes Eve as a setting less interesting. Complicated and messy is, in my opinion, more fun. Not only that, but I think there is plenty of room for that in Eve.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 30 Dec 2012, 16:42
I agree, I like to maximize the 'complicated-messy-ness' in my interpretations of PF and to minimize 'polar opposite' scenarios, because I think a more complex, less clear-cut situation offers more fun.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Arnulf Ogunkoya on 30 Dec 2012, 16:49
How is this for "complicated & messy"?

Republic Fleet have sent me on missions to destroy structures that I am told are inhabited by Federal spies in Republic space, and are defended by Gallente Navy ships. And yet I have taken no faction or, I think, Fed Nav standings hits for these actions. They never happened as far as our allies are concerned. I am even able to cheerfully mission for the FIO and build decent standings with them.

Are there equivalent missions given out by Imperial or Caldari agents?
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 30 Dec 2012, 17:28
There is an Amarr storyline mission that sends you to destroy a Khanid envoy meeting with Republic agents in Amarrian space. The storyline is wut-worthy in and of itself (it's made pretty clear that neither of the parties are "traitors" from their larger factions), but due to how derived standings work you will probably gain Khanid standings for running this mission.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Mithfindel on 31 Dec 2012, 05:05
How is this for "complicated & messy"?

Republic Fleet have sent me on missions to destroy structures that I am told are inhabited by Federal spies in Republic space, and are defended by Gallente Navy ships. And yet I have taken no faction or, I think, Fed Nav standings hits for these actions. They never happened as far as our allies are concerned. I am even able to cheerfully mission for the FIO and build decent standings with them.

Are there equivalent missions given out by Imperial or Caldari agents?
Oh boy. There's at least one Caldari mission where you shoot a competing Caldari corp. ("Cut-throat competition (http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=CutThroatCompetition3&show_comments=1)") The ships are tagged "mercenary", so no standings hits. The pile of Caldari tags in my hangars would probably look pretty dodgy, though.  (And of course, there's also a mission where the corp sends you to "retire" an underperforming executive. On top of all of those DED informants and spies we have to kill.)

There is an Amarr storyline mission that sends you to destroy a Khanid envoy meeting with Republic agents in Amarrian space. The storyline is wut-worthy in and of itself (it's made pretty clear that neither of the parties are "traitors" from their larger factions), but due to how derived standings work you will probably gain Khanid standings for running this mission.

Haven't ran into that, but might be an old mission? Because Khanid and Amarr haven't been always positive towards each other. (The Amarr datacenter rookie COSMOS thing has the player shoot Khanid activists, if I am not terribly wrong.)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Vendrin on 31 Dec 2012, 05:13
Don't know if someone else has pointed this out, because long thread and i only pop in like every 3 years to post something... But way back when in 2006 when Vendrin ran APEX and was a liberal (go go economics, gallente aren't all bad) state loyalist he pushed friendliness with minmatar out of a dissatisfaction with the Amarr. He figured that if the Amarr ever get powerful enough they will just go all Pax Amarria on the Caldari and well fuck that. So fuck the Amarr, befriend the Minmatar to replace lost markets while weaning them off their dependence on the Gallente, thus weakening the Gallente, leaving both the Federation and Empire isolated.

That was all when I thought storyline or some stuff would change due to player action but  :psyccp:and I was naive and such.

I imagine many caldari rpers on the liberal angle of such thing have had such thoughts. It's not their is a great reason for us to be friends with the minmater, but we have more reason to be friendly with them then the amarr.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 31 Dec 2012, 05:55
I imagine many caldari rpers on the liberal angle of such thing have had such thoughts. It's not their is a great reason for us to be friends with the minmater, but we have more reason to be friendly with them then the amarr.

I disagree, both sides have reason enough to be friendly with one or the other.

But otherwise that's what makes RP material for IC debates.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 31 Dec 2012, 10:47
I imagine many caldari rpers on the liberal angle of such thing have had such thoughts. It's not their is a great reason for us to be friends with the minmater, but we have more reason to be friendly with them then the amarr.

Plenty of patriots are concerned about the growth of Pax Amarria.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 31 Dec 2012, 12:47
Pax Amarria grows ?

Since Heideran and Doriam are dead and now we have zombie reclaiming Jamyl, it sounds weird...
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 31 Dec 2012, 12:53
I suppose I should rephrase it to be the growth of the Amarrian Empire. 

8 years ago, the Kingdom was sovereign and now it seems to have made itself a protectorate of the Empire.  The Mandate seems to have lost the autonomy it did have.  To Caldari Patriots, who watched in horror as Heth placed the State in debt to the Empire, the seeds of being Reclaimed seem to be planted.  This is not a good thing to any of the Caldari political factions.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 31 Dec 2012, 13:56
Ah right
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Vendrin on 31 Dec 2012, 18:16
I imagine many caldari rpers on the liberal angle of such thing have had such thoughts. It's not their is a great reason for us to be friends with the minmater, but we have more reason to be friendly with them then the amarr.

Plenty of patriots are concerned about the growth of Pax Amarria.

A fair point. But the patriots (at least in my time) were more worried about the gallente cause of :caldariprime: then the true threat of the amarr.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 31 Dec 2012, 19:14
The point about the Pax Amarria is that peaceful cooperation between Amarr and other nations is possible. I just think there are some misconceptions about how the Empire operates there, that lead to the idea that the State would have to be afraid of being Reclaimed (as would be the word that one would have to use if one feels threatened by the Amarr, I'd say). I tried to point these misconceptions out in some posts above.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 31 Dec 2012, 21:10
I imagine many caldari rpers on the liberal angle of such thing have had such thoughts. It's not their is a great reason for us to be friends with the minmater, but we have more reason to be friendly with them then the amarr.

Plenty of patriots are concerned about the growth of Pax Amarria.

A fair point. But the patriots (at least in my time) were more worried about the gallente cause of :caldariprime: then the true threat of the amarr.

I think "in your time" there wasn't a definite Patriot organization.  I don't think CAIN counted/counts.  While it had/has Patriots, it also had/has Liberals.

Like I said earlier, LDIS is busy eating crow in Providence as I-RED is busy in Placid.

The point about the Pax Amarria is that peaceful cooperation between Amarr and other nations is possible. I just think there are some misconceptions about how the Empire operates there, that lead to the idea that the State would have to be afraid of being Reclaimed(/i] (as would be the word that one would have to use if one feels threatened by the Amarr, I'd say). I tried to point these misconceptions out in some posts above.

IC, the misconceptions are exactly what is played off of.  Just like the Patriots worry about the strength of the Federation, some of us have carried that forward to worrying about the strength of all the other empires especially with regards to the State.

It isn't about how the Empire operates now that necessarily worries the State, just like how the Federation operates now does not necessarily worry the State.  It is how the Gallente and the Amarr have operated in the past that worries the Caldari.

It is straight-forward for a character like Seriphyn or Andreus to say (yes I am putting words in your mouths):

Quote from: Federation Supporter
The Federation is welcoming to all and we have learned the lessons from the past.

(And they are right for the most part.)

The very Caldari response to this is:

Quote from: Caldari Response
We have heard sweet words from the Gallente before.  The Gallente demonstrated they only have their own interest in mind!

This can be extended to include other "benefactors."

Quote from: Caldari Sentment
We have heard sweet words from others before.  They demonstrated they only have their own interest in mind.  You are likely no different than them!
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 31 Dec 2012, 21:24
IC, the misconceptions are exactly what is played off of.  Just like the Patriots worry about the strength of the Federation, some of us have carried that forward to worrying about the strength of all the other empires especially with regards to the State.

It isn't about how the Empire operates now that necessarily worries the State, just like how the Federation operates now does not necessarily worry the State.  It is how the Gallente and the Amarr have operated in the past that worries the Caldari.

The misconception is, though, that the Empire did in the past uncompromisingly reclaim every other nation or people it met by force, without further qualification. Every other entity it reclaimed by force was, historically speaking, for one reason or the other weaker then the Empire, militarily. they didn't do it with the Khanid, who converted out of their own volition, apparently. When the Empire did in the past encounter cultures that were on an equal footing, they went for diplomatic solutions. I don't see why the State should fear that being allied with the Empire would lead to them being reclaimed, unless they think that it will somehow lead to them weakening substantially.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 31 Dec 2012, 22:11
I don't see why the State should fear that being allied with the Empire would lead to them being reclaimed, unless they think that it will somehow lead to them weakening substantially.

The Caldari fear and loathe any culture which tries to subvert Caldari cultural integrity and national identity. They learned this fear through experience with the Gallente, who did exactly that. I don't think the Caldari fear or worry about the Empire one day attacking and trying to enslave them. In fact, I dare say the Caldari would favor an honest fight over the Empire diplomatically trying to merge the State into itself.

The simple answer is that the Patriot Caldari aren't worried about being the next Minmatar. They're worried about becoming the next Khanid.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: lallara zhuul on 31 Dec 2012, 22:26
The Republic and the Federation, at the moment, have a minority of people that follow the Amarrian Faith.

The State is 'just' an ally.

All it takes is a few millennia for the heathens to join the flock.

Because God is the Truth.

(Went a bit IC there, but it is a viewpoint after all.)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Vendrin on 31 Dec 2012, 22:28
IC, the misconceptions are exactly what is played off of.  Just like the Patriots worry about the strength of the Federation, some of us have carried that forward to worrying about the strength of all the other empires especially with regards to the State.

It isn't about how the Empire operates now that necessarily worries the State, just like how the Federation operates now does not necessarily worry the State.  It is how the Gallente and the Amarr have operated in the past that worries the Caldari.

The misconception is, though, that the Empire did in the past uncompromisingly reclaim every other nation or people it met by force, without further qualification. Every other entity it reclaimed by force was, historically speaking, for one reason or the other weaker then the Empire, militarily. they didn't do it with the Khanid, who converted out of their own volition, apparently. When the Empire did in the past encounter cultures that were on an equal footing, they went for diplomatic solutions. I don't see why the State should fear that being allied with the Empire would lead to them being reclaimed, unless they think that it will somehow lead to them weakening substantially.

Because if it came to all out war between the current alliance of Amarr/Caldari vs Minmatar/Gallente, when the Amarr/Caldari win(cause of course they are going to win, am i right? {character perspectives ftw}) the Amarr will recover the quickest, having a larger empire, will benefit more from the fruits of victory (hello all you billions upon billions of slaves, we will put you right to work) and thanks to Heth's little stupidity own a significant portion of State debt. If it's only the Amarr and the State left, the State will lose.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 01 Jan 2013, 06:08
It is valid to think that this case could be possible, but it is only possible. I still have to understand/comprehend/grasp what is the exact political alignement of Jamyl. It's quite obscure. Considering that the past centuries have seen drastic changes in imperial citizens morals, ethics, mindset, and faith to the point it does not look like the old Empire anymore, I have difficulties to see the real influence Jamyl (short reign for now since she is very new to the throne) has on the Amarr society. Especially since her policies are obscure to me. Anyway, it would take more than a few years to reverse what Heideran has done over centuries.

It is funny however to see Caldari patriots afraid of the past actions of other Empires when their own current actions threaten the rest of the cluster (<- that's not a neutral pov, mostly Lyn's).
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: orange on 01 Jan 2013, 11:18
It is funny however to see Caldari patriots afraid of the past actions of other Empires when their own current actions threaten the rest of the cluster (<- that's not a neutral pov, mostly Lyn's).

Just as there are nuances discussed about the Empire, there are differences between Patriots and Provists.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 01 Jan 2013, 12:31
Patriots do not support the assault on Caldari Prime ?
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Katrina Oniseki on 01 Jan 2013, 12:56
Patriots do not support the assault on Caldari Prime ?

Almost all Caldari, Liberals and Practicals included, supported the assault on Caldari Prime. The rest of the war, Heth, and his polices... that's what's up for debate.

I think what Dex is trying to say though is that the Patriots, excepting the issue of Caldari Prime, do not really want to see more war or invasions or conquering mentality. In fact, the Patriots have always been the most insular, not wanting to deal with the other Empires at all. The Provists, who happen to have the most direct control over most Patriot megacorps, are the radical conquerors.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 01 Jan 2013, 15:48
I don't see why the State should fear that being allied with the Empire would lead to them being reclaimed, unless they think that it will somehow lead to them weakening substantially.

The Caldari fear and loathe any culture which tries to subvert Caldari cultural integrity and national identity. They learned this fear through experience with the Gallente, who did exactly that. I don't think the Caldari fear or worry about the Empire one day attacking and trying to enslave them. In fact, I dare say the Caldari would favor an honest fight over the Empire diplomatically trying to merge the State into itself.

The simple answer is that the Patriot Caldari aren't worried about being the next Minmatar. They're worried about becoming the next Khanid.

Because if it came to all out war between the current alliance of Amarr/Caldari vs Minmatar/Gallente, when the Amarr/Caldari win(cause of course they are going to win, am i right? {character perspectives ftw}) the Amarr will recover the quickest, having a larger empire, will benefit more from the fruits of victory (hello all you billions upon billions of slaves, we will put you right to work) and thanks to Heth's little stupidity own a significant portion of State debt. If it's only the Amarr and the State left, the State will lose.
So, simply put the Caldari fear that they are either culturally or economically no match to the Empire? While on the other hand being able to deal with the Federation?

I'd think the Caldari would have more reason to be confident that they do not end up like the Khanid, as they have enough cultural integrity not to convert with elation out of their own volition - especially as the Khanid started so right when they learned about the Amarr religion, while the Caldari were at least able to resist that "temptation" until now. Also, I'd think that the Caldari had a bit more reason to trust in their economic capability. It sounds like a Caldari who has a really shaken self-confidence, who claims that the Empire would be able to recover quicker from the war than the economically sophisticated State economically.

But then, I guess, if one wants to find reasons one can.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 02 Jan 2013, 13:37
Patriots do not support the assault on Caldari Prime ?

Almost all Caldari, Liberals and Practicals included, supported the assault on Caldari Prime. The rest of the war, Heth, and his polices... that's what's up for debate.

I think what Dex is trying to say though is that the Patriots, excepting the issue of Caldari Prime, do not really want to see more war or invasions or conquering mentality. In fact, the Patriots have always been the most insular, not wanting to deal with the other Empires at all. The Provists, who happen to have the most direct control over most Patriot megacorps, are the radical conquerors.

I understand that, but the assault on Caldari Prime was "unpredictable" and that's what makes the State a threat either through a certain angle, that's all I wanted to imply really. And that is a biased pov, as I precised, the same way that considering the Amarr having eyes on the State makes them a threat is a biased pov too, but totally valid since it has good arguments to support it.

However, I have already had OOC troubles with other Caldari RPers stating like you that (almost) every major group in the State supports the assault on Caldari Prime since I seem to recall quite differently, but without any certainty. Do you have sources or something ? I am asking mostly because it already created heated discussions on my side that I would like to avoid in the future...
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: JinOtsi on 02 Jan 2013, 14:01
I can't recall exactly where, but if you read generally about Heth/Homeworld on Evelopedia, there's talk about how Heth taking Homeworld back has the support of the megas, but they're still ready to take action once his star fades again.
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Lyn Farel on 02 Jan 2013, 14:06
Yes, it's Heth, and the megas are only backing it out of political interest.

Which does not state anything other than that. But cf the other subject that seems to have emerged (on diplomatic solutions). I seem to have found my answer thanks to Mithfindel. =)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Hamish Grayson on 06 Jan 2013, 06:54
It's taking Caldari Prime that the Patriots approve of, the method by which it was taken is what pisses the Patriots off.    If T0nyG hadn't infected the Gallente military with a bad case of the dumb that day the Caldari State would have been lost.   Risking the Caldari State on a gamble that should have lost is a big no no in the Patriot book.

(http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/213/3/5/heth__s_plan_by_Johnnygeeksheek.jpg)
Title: Re: Rationale behind Minmatar-Caldari friendliness
Post by: Gesakaarin on 06 Jan 2013, 17:00
However, I have already had OOC troubles with other Caldari RPers stating like you that (almost) every major group in the State supports the assault on Caldari Prime since I seem to recall quite differently, but without any certainty. Do you have sources or something ? I am asking mostly because it already created heated discussions on my side that I would like to avoid in the future...

I think the real issue is that even if one disagrees with the assault and taking of Caldari Prime in the State, it's an opinion that is difficult to express in public because in many respects, culturally, the Caldari are a diaspora people and for a nation that has extremely deep notions of their own tradition and identity the Homeworld is almost "sacred soil" because it is where every Caldari traces back their roots and ancestry.

Taken from a purely objective political and economic viewpoint the State has been willing to accept never having their Homeworld back in the interest of maintaining the peace with the Federation -- but that certainly does not mean that for some Caldari they did not dream of having their ancestral land in their possession. Tibus Heth realized that dream, and in that single act managed to invigorate a State in recession and people apathetic about their lives in the corporate hierarchy. For many, he is a hero because of it, because he achieved in one day what two hundred years of war and peace could not.

Admittedly, it was just another deus ex machina in a narrative full of it, but that doesn't change the fact that Tibus Heth did in fact succeed.