Forwardism is a proposed ideology about uniting people through the use of thinking, doing and moving foward while bearing in mind the lasting effects.

The basic points of forwardism is that:

• Everyone, everything and every action has a ripple effect.
• Thinking about point A is one thing but doing point A is another.
• Everyone has a choice, everyone has a voice and everyone can join.

The meaning of these 3 points are

• Doing something can change something or have repercussions on something (i.e our alliance) whether is be it good or bad
• There is a difference between thinking and doing and you gotta do one or the other bearing in mind the ripple effect
• Member(s) chooses something (a doing action), members talks and discusses about it (applies a thinking/doing action) and members can join it (again doing action)

A part of Forwardism is the Economic Forwardism which applys the basics of Fowardism with economy.

For example, an alliance that uses Economic Forwardism will have a member or members thinking about and choosing to do tech deals (or other economic activites) and other members will talk about it and discusses it and can join it which will then have a ripple effect on the alliance that can be econmically good or bad while at the same time getting people together and talk about things which would unify them and move the alliance forward to its economic goals.



I created it sometime ago, tell me your views on it, i know it can be confusing but then again i can always try and make it more clear. I think it can be good espacially in inter-alliance discussings and that.

Actions have consequences.....brilliant! I never would have figured that out on my own. Oh, where would we be without your delicious inputs?

Reminds me of a movie

Are you basically saying that you have to really think things through before acting upon it? That's how I was raised to think. But it would be better if everybody had that same thinking.

sort of yea

its pretty much sayin that if someone thinks of something then people can come together (uniting them) by discussing it if its beneficial to the alliance(s) (can help improve relations) and if they all join to do it (bearing in mind the ripple effect it can have) then it could get alliance(s) moving foward (like towards peace or acheiving goals etc.). You could also say that social class (in terms of leaders, noobs, experience players so on) is not a matter.

The ideology is pretty much can evolve or be improved upon and made more clear.

If everyone thought about everything before moving, then noone would ever move.

Eh, choice is an illusion. Your "choice" is dictated to you by circumstance.

whether choice is an "illusion" or not you go through life having to choose stuff and you will get choices to which you can choose. In terms of forwardism, people have a choice of joining in discussing (uniting people) and if agreed do what they discuss and move forward hoping the effects of it be good or they can not join the discussions and more likely be isolated from the group (if all/most members do so the alliance is not united fully) which forwardism doesnt want.

you know by saying that i think i can improve the concept of forwardism or what i originally posted on here

Because you loved it when you were new to CN and people shot you down in public, rite?

How about this:

"Keep doing your duty, don't worry about the rewards"

Now abide a bit, by saying do your duty, it is not implied that keep following orders. Instead it means, keep doing that which you know to be the right thing. Almost a billion people following this in one way or another in RL cant be all wrong :/

For more Wiki

How come the words Butterfly Effect come to mind.....

Oh yeah thats rights its almost identical

it may share the whole ripple effect thing but its different, the butterfly effect just deals with small things making big difference kind of thing but Forwardism deals with the idea of getting people together as an alliance (or inter-alliance sitution) through discussing ideas (which rejects isolation and inactivity in the alliance/group) and if they like the ideas while bearing in mind any rippling effects good or bad, big or small the ideas can have in alliances/inter-alliances relations then they all join in and do so hoping to get the alliance or alliances moving foward co-operating and enriching the alliance and so on.


Forwardist alliances will have less (or none) alliances wars with other Forwardist alliances (as they can co-operate with each other) and can get better tech deals or whatrver aid, possibly creating blocs and NAPs and so on.

In short, a alliance can only move forward if its united and and have good structure that can evolve with time only through discussing, thinking and joining in on ideas sharing, this is what forwardism does. It also thinks of what can happing if such idea sharing will do (ripple effect).

Thinking of the ripple effects is sort of like a precuation or something.

A Marquis? How quaint.


I suppose our French cousins do not endorse the period anymore, eh?

It certainly is something to strive for in every alliance. I can see it is based highly upon high activity, high communication, and strong decision making skills thinking of effects a decision would have on other things. Again, something every alliance is looking for but if you put this into a charter as strict guidelines to making alliance decisions, then I think you've got something new. If the discussion of alliance affairs with all membership was made mandatory, and the idea of coming to a consensus and making concessions to others in the alliance when decision making was enforced (so you'd get something done) I believe it would make a strong community and would produce high quality decision-making based on the views of all members.

Good idea, I say.

Thanks,

plus i like to add the possiblity rogue attacks (depending on the viewpoint that alliances are against is) can/could be lowered with an enriched discussions and so on,

also forwardism can be beneficial for small and new alliances where the members were recruited randomly off the "display all nations" section on cybernations and not know each other prior to joining the alllances, with forwardism these allinaces will gain a stronger togetherness and so on, which will move the alliance foward and the ripple effect of that is they may be able to recruit better co-operate better and so on.

Good!

Peace Be With You,

Pope Benedict XII.

How about; Lurk More, n00b.

This ideology is nothing more than, think before you do, if there is bad stuff don't do it.

Which is what most people do. However, we can't all think of everything as you clearly didn't think we would shoot this down so quickly

Insomnia cured. Thanks!

Now this SOUNDS good, but can it be applied without it being abused?
Hmmmm

Every action has a concequence and while it may be good to look ahead to the future, if you only look forward and forget the present the problems you are propsing to fix will never get fixed and an endless cycle of conversation will take place. Action without thinking while not always a good thing sometimes has better results in the long run than contemplating over an issue for a period of time before making a decision.

These are relatively solid premises to build an ideology on, but traditionally an ideology will provide a more detailed analysis arising from these premises. You touched on this when you mentioned unity as a desirable thing achievable through collective action, and the irrelevance of 'social class', but you never explored where exactly this came from or what it means. I'd be interested to see the implications of the original premises developed further.

That economic part was kinda pointless, I'm not sure how you can build an ideology out of people doing tech deals and then chatting about it afterwards.

Rebel Virginia's comment sums up my thoughts on this, at laest the first point.

The other two points I rather like. This ideology is simple but I do agree with it for the most part

think before you do

In my opinion, ideologies in CN have always been "SRS v LULZ", basically "Victory v Community".

"Victory" alliances are your alliances that strive in-game dominance, and gain their prestige by being "the best" at something. Doing everything and anything it takes to be successful. Typically these alliances have a strict or even elitist member-acceptance policy and they earn respect by driving others into the ground, or signing powerful treaties. Good examples of this would be almost every sanctioned alliance, and specifically NPO is the prime example, an alliance that has worked it's way to the top and maintains it's stranglehold on this very idea. Do whatever you can.

Another dieing breed is "Community" based. Community based alliances are known for great IRC channels, forum activity, and an overall sense of friendship. They also typically have a less serious outlook on the game, and are more prone to mistakes. While they may not sign as many high level treaties as a "Victory" alliance, their allies will usually vouch for them and refer to these alliances as great friends, outstanding people, etc. Great examples are the UJP era alliances, as well as some of the old aqua alliances before MHA and Fark got so big, as well as some of the alliances on minor spheres, making a niche (CD, TCB, etc)

Strong communities are not required to be led by a mass of clueless inactives or have a significant proportion of clowns which usually run the "community alliances", "Victory alliances" as you put it almost always have a strong community but have capable and/or active leadership.

Think of the death of your version of "community alliances" as evolution of community rather than the death of it - alliances led by people that are capable of burning their house down whilst making toast due to incompetence invariably leads to the death of certain communities but Id argue if your in an alliance run by such people that scenario is inevitable from the outset.

"Victory alliances" survive because of their community, the effort and time the community puts into running the alliance is what keeps them alive and on top.

As I am in a Victory alliance I may just crush your alliance; no particular reason why I just need to earn the respect of my hommies in other Victory alliances; that and the fact that if I dont destroy you I wont fit in either your Community or Victory box which would be most disappointing

Didn't someone have a theorem regarding this?

I think the only ideology this community adheres to is "total hatred" and any attempt to change that will be met with, well, total hatred.