TehChron

That still doesn't make sense. What do the reparations bit have to do with Evangelion?

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325080243' post='2887938'] There is some valid comment in the OP, though the 'oh isn't Ivan great' gets rather tiresome. [b](If he was that great, his second coming wouldn't still be stuck in an irrelevant annoyance of an alliance.)[/b] The NPO-led Initiative/Continuum period left a lot of people and alliances on 'the other side' with a huge distaste for that style of play, and after that side comprehensively won in Karma, none of them want to be led by a 'new NPO' and therefore none is allowed to appear. There are far too many 'leader' alliances, wanting to control their own destiny and run their own power sphere, and not enough 'follower' alliances, to allow a single megabloc to emerge which could control a plurality of the political strength, never mind a majority (which is what you need to be an aggressive hegemon). For all the IC jokes about MK running everything, they are but one among many alliances which each control sections of the political web. And that means that no single one of those sections can do anything that would lose the support of the others, otherwise they would get crushed. The sole exception to that is DH attacking NPO, which they could only do because all of the other post-Karmic power clusters were already busy in the NpO war. Don't expect any change until most of the main Karma and post-Karma actors fade from the political scene, or until they decide that their aims are similar enough to work together into a unified hegemony. At the moment there's at least MK, TOP and VE and so each one of those must consider what the others' reaction would be (undoubtedly negative) to any overt hegemonic coalition building. Although there are treaty networks between them, none would be happy in a hegemony run under the style of the other two, and therefore they won't come together into an AoA-style partnership at the core of a hegemony. (Doomhouse appears to be trying to do that, but they lack the support of several important alliances and therefore can't run one.) There have been some moves in that direction. OV folded long ago, Athens has merged away and stepped back from the front of the stage, Citadel imploded, and now SF is being dismantled. Archon has essentially retired from active duty and that may pull MK away from the front line, although Ardus seems to be playing a similar role. But it is a slow process and I don't see it going far enough to allow a hegemony for some time yet. I'm not actually sure I agree with your conclusion that we want bipolarity, anyway. Your perspective on how fun that was is greatly skewed by being in the hegemony (and the core of it, at that) the whole time, and likewise your perspective on post-Karma is biased by being in an alliance with little political freedom and which is often picked on. [b]The measure you use (OWF thread size) is more reflective of a cultural change towards back channels and secrecy than of a lack of interest, in my opinion (though that trend in itself is damaging to inclusivity and fun for all players) – those Karma or earlier threads were full of posters trying to change opinion through public posting, and that is much less common now.[/b] [/quote]... I know you're probably as biased against me as WarriorConcept is, but did you actually read the OP, or did you just use selective speedreading? First bold, I mentioned Ivan once or twice. And to be frank, Ivan has always been more interesting to watch work than you and yours. It hardly constitutes worship to state a bald fact. Additionally [i]most of your random speech has nothing to do with what I was discussing, which was a lack of interesting personalities in positions of power and the effect that has upon the community[/i]. I don't see how you can not get that. It's right there. For the second bold...Yes. That is a point I made. And that was a result of bipolarity. Multipolarity just hasn't been as interesting to follow. Like it or not, the OWF is the one stage everyone sees, and the fact that the stage is rather dull reflects on the narrative being rather dull, which affects motivation, and therefore, retention. Links of causation. You're arguing that my perspective is flawed when I explained already that it's not. If anything, it's you who possesses access to the full picture that just doesn't appreciate how average individuals don't find the narrative interesting. You possess a flawed perspective, Bob. You're just mistaken.

We play it by ear. They're less rules, and more of a set of guidelines. :jacksparrow:

Hold it. Hold it hold it hold it. This discussion is [i]not[/i] about game mechanics. There are dozens of other discussions elsewhere for that. This is about the stuff I brought up with in the OP [i]which is, at most, parallel to the issues of game mechanics you guys are bringing up[/i]. The two discussions are not parallel. It's a tangent. I want to make that clear.

Yes, but I already addressed that in the comment immediately preceding your own.

Rules are made to be broken if you can pull it off. This is for the sake of those who can't.

Alright then: 2. Try to not make it personal.

Yeah, you tend to be a pretty good example of doing it right, Ardus, I'll certainly grant you that. 1. Save the aggression for IC discussions

There's something I've been wondering about lately, and since I haven't used this option in quite awhile, I figured I'd bring it up here. But seriously, there have got to be some concrete rules or conditions a person should need to satisfy before they try and take a jab at people. After all, we've got stuff like this: Which, naturally, opens one up to stuff like this: Or even this exchange right here: So setting aside the why of these burns being terrible (we can all pretty much agree on that point), we need to come up with some set of rules that can save people from making bad comments like this. I mean, it's pretty clear that these kinds of posts accomplish about as much as trying to use a cigarette lighter to burn a bonfire, and end just as badly for the one attempting it. I think that this is a service that needs to be rendered for the greater CN community and would absolutely serve the greater good. Think of the many people who's dignity could be saved, were we to adopt a comprehensive ruleset for burning. They'd learn a lot, and our noses would be saved from the great risk of severe disfigurement which we all face on a daily basis with the present circumstances. What say you guys? What do you think needs to be done? And any ideas on how we could go about agreeing on these "rules of engagement"? I'm really looking forward to hearing about what others think on this vital and necessary subject, you know?

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1324811234' post='2886134'] You spied on GOONS? Did you find out what color dress Sardonic is wearing to his wedding with SirWilliam/Beefspari???????????? I need to match my socks to his garter belt. pls find out soon ok thanks bye spy friend [/quote] I heard that it was a deep blue. Made of suede. So you may want to take that into account. And no I didn't get that from spying. It's common knowledge. I guess I'll have to do better.

Edit: Double post

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1324922830' post='2886656'] At this point, Chron, your involvement in this thread seems to be motivated mostly by your enjoyment of the sound of your own voice. Nowhere in the rolling purple-prose of your last several posts has there been any sort of coherent point. [/quote] What's naive is assuming that I was ever motivated by anything else. Setting aside captain obvious for the moment, I have actually been contributing to the discussion. That the point goes over your head is hardly surprising. After all, if you knew what I was talking about, then you wouldn't be an example of a failed antagonist. [quote]I liked this one. CN was once boring for me, so I joined Vox. Then it was boring again, so I found other ways to play the game differently. There's no reason to be legitimately bored playing CN. The possibilities of what one player can do are nearly infinite[/quote]That is exactly right. Also the day I get real fans is the day I out and out quit this place. Seriously. !@#$ be creepy, you know? [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324920771' post='2886645'] I actually wasn't responding to your post at all Chron, but to Schatts. If I was going to answer yours though, my point for you would be I am going to assume that the people raising issues in this thread *would* do something to change it if they *could*. Since they don't seem able to change the CN environment, the problem does not imo seem to be with leadership of alliances or attitude of the alliances so much as in a fundamental structure of the game that doesn't allow intelligent individuals to act as you want them to. [/quote] Ah, I thought that bite was directed at me. Sorry. But that structure, too, is a part of the "narrative". It's a really nebulous and nearly-all encompassing thing. [quote]I do think it is avoiding the issue to place the blame on 'leadership' of alliances (and hey I may be biased since I am said leadership). Since essentially you are holding them to a standard you are not holding yourself. Whether its a democracy or not, most people become leaders with the support of their alliance (people vote with their feet after all). That to me implies these leaders, for the most part, aren't doing things their alliances have problems with. I would guess in fact, that most alliance leaders (always those exceptions) are hard working and intelligent people, making the best choices they can to further their alliances goals. So again, the question becomes not why arent leaders doing X, but why is X not the smart move for smart leaders to take? And the reason for that is buried in game mechanics. [/quote] And with your latter point, I just want to say that my opinion of you has risen greatly. That is exactly right. The ability to discern "the best option" is what most people in positions of leadership lack. So they instead opt for the reliable, the safe, and the undynamic in order to hedge their bets and ensure at least some measure of payoff for their invested time and effort. It is also, as I have said elsewhere, the defining characteristic of Ivan Moldavi's style of play. You may be right in terms of saying that there are people playing this game as intelligent and charismatic and hard working as Ivan has ever been, or even moreso than he will ever be. But, it is that ability to discern that it is not X, but Y that is the smart move for a leader to take which sets him apart from everyone else in this community. The key to politics is not charisma. It is not intelligence. It is not subtlety or brute force or coordination. The key to politics is the ability to utilize the correct perspective for any given situation, in the best manner possible. [quote]I would also argue most people don't want *their* alliance leaders to start doing insane-stupid stuff to shake the game up. They want *someone else* to do it. They want uncertainty and insanity in the game. They just don't want to be the ones to pay the price for said uncertainty/insanity, because they know based on game-mechanics their alliance would never recover from the resulting curb-stomp. Most people that want more londo/ni issues would crucify their own leadership if said leaders attempted to do that.[/quote]The problem is that is a false-choice. There is always "another option" which exists allowing an alliance leader to have the best of both worlds. It is simply a combination of various circumstances relative to the situation that keeps them from acting upon that "best possible option". [quote]I do happen to agree with you that the only person who can keep the game interesting for you is yourself. Not others. I'm a firm believer of you either make the game fun for yourself or you stop playing [/quote]Thanks.

If you're referring to this, OsRevan: [quote]If the problem actually is no one stepping up to 'spice up the world' and just sitting around complaining... isn't this thread highly ironic? Shouldn't every one of you who is claiming there's no 'villain', and that the world needs one, be out there trying to cause havoc? Instead of in here complaining about the lack of leaders? (I exclude myself from this list, because I find that notion ridiculous). Why is it someone elses job to delivery to you the sort of leadership you want? If that is truly the problem, why aren't you stepping up and seizing it? IMO the answer is because that is not actually the issue at all[/quote] That's stupid. You say that that isn't the problem, and then go on and describe one aspect of a boring narrative as your reason for disagreeing with me. Now you can be as pithy as you want about how ironic things are, but the real irony is that for all your wordiness, you're really just agreeing with me in a roundabout manner. And as with all irony, I find that to be hilarious. (also, as I have said on several occasions, unlike other examples of poor antagonists in CN history, I am fully aware of my abilities, and know that the only person I can serve to keep interested in this game is myself. Not that that's a problem. But, once again, I'm just trying to define [i]why[/i] CN is boring for so many people, not complain about it.)

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1324812025' post='2886138'] While we're at it, we should totally start up a forum so those former signatories of WUT can talk and relive the past because that's the only way I can feel self-important. Honestly, I don't know how we've gone so long without a venue where we can talk to each other. I miss NpO. [/quote] We can make it really classic and call it #disgaea2. Maybe then we can get back Sponge or even Dilber. That would be pretty cool.

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1324895186' post='2886566'] As far as a passionate, engaging, political narrative goes; this is an expression of the malaise affecting the game, but it's not the malaise itself. Quite simply, we are in a deflationary era. Tech becomes more and more precious every day, if not on a direct level, but because the tech markets are in the process of collapsing. At a certain point, all the tech available in the game will have to be bought by buyers themselves to the dearth of sellers, and at that point, tech becomes extremely, extremely, expensive. A point of tech spent today is more valuable than a point of tech spent tomorrow; so consequently, because it's so hard to recover from your losses, people are less inclined to take risks. [/quote] That has no real effect on the average, active player. The average player either becomes recruited into an alliance and becomes introduced to the political narrative by that means, or they get raided and go to the OWF or the alliance boards of the individual hitting them to complain/respond/etc and get exposed that way. Or they just leave. Either way, such issues as the potential value of tech have nothing to do with it.