Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

The Brehon-Schatt Chat

Posted by Phineas , 09 March 2012 · 34 views

So…  I listened to a fair deal of Schattenmann's chat with Emperor Brehon last night.  The part where they talked about developing  (or just getting) better dogmas struck a chord here since I have been tempted to be a full-time idiot poster since there really is not much good debate on the OWF.... and being an idiot seems to get the most attention around here and.... why yes, I am an unapologetic attention seeker.

So, some reaction:  if I understand correctly, the NPO's dogma is to have no rigid dogma, they believe in living the idea that an alliance should be able to change as reality changes.  Please correct me if I misunderstand or mischaracterized that.

Now what about other dogmas out there?  I know the gpa has a dogma of neutrality at almost any cost (correction from Jerdge, this should read at any cost

). I know the goons have a dogma of something awful at all costs. I know my alliance has a dogma of speaking truth to power at a lot of cost, but what about other alliances?

What other alliance dogmas are out there that might be less obvious but are more talked about? Do we have enough dogma pieces to build on to start making another kind of sense out of our politics?

Daimos

Mar 12 2012 12:07 PM

That was a great show.

Hope to hear more prominent guest to show up and talk about what they think of politics on CN.

New Frontier

Mar 12 2012 12:30 PM

Deinos is a strict moralist alliance that views CN essentially how we would view RL. We refuse to abide by those who do evil acts such as bullying or extortion, and see ourselves as the lone "good guys" of CN.
I laughed.

I don't get the joke.

ktarthan

Mar 12 2012 04:41 PM

Everything. Must. Die.

ktarthan

Mar 12 2012 04:51 PM

Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.

Phineas

Mar 12 2012 06:02 PM

I know the gpa has a dogma of neutrality at ~~almost~~ any cost.
I fixed it for you, Phineas.

My bad, thanks.

Phineas

Mar 12 2012 06:17 PM

Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players.

ktarthan

Mar 12 2012 06:28 PM

Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.
I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players.

There are also a lot of in-game factors that heavily disincentivize any form of war as action. And that is, for most, the primary way of affecting change. This is why I add the caveat about reducing potential for future changes. Without the NS to back it up, it's difficult to make changes unless you're one of the few that are gifted enough to manipulte others to achieve your goals. And, with that exception in mind, most changes come about through some loss in NS. So you have to balance your ability to make changes (weight of NS) with the actual changes you make (loss of NS).