Voxism entirely explained

[Earogema]

This is an interesting way of perceiving the Cyberverse. I applaud you for writing something so thought-provoking. However...

QUOTE (MegaAros @ Feb 4 2009, 06:53 AM)

However, there is no discernable way of finding out how these things work. Science and scientific means are all rendered useless. Science of course, being founded upon principles of objectivity based upon the five senses of sight, taste, touch, smell, and sound. Four of the five senses are absolutely useless for understanding Planet Bob. The only one that works effectively is sight, and that sight is not based upon actually seeing our nations as rulers, but rather, upon statistics that are complied as we build up our nations. Thus, most scientific means of understanding the world are non-existent. As such, to place our trust in objective observations based on scientific principles is impossible.

(OOC) This implies that the five senses allow us to understand objective truths about the real world. I want to play devils advocate here and ask you if the five senses are really reliable for observing the real world, and whether science is therefore a reliable source of knowledge or not? Because if not, then the way we understand the Cyberverse is largely the same to the way we would understand the real world, and your bringing up this point about the how the methods that we use to evaluate our world and the Cyberverse differ is largely irrelevant. (OOC)

OOC: Personally, I don't even know. I know the five sense in humans not perfect, and perhaps unreliable, yet science has proven itself time and time again in assisting human advancement.

Even if Science were subjectively founded on imperfect senses, I'd still put a great deal of trust on it I think.

However, the Cyberverse still varies in that it only precludes one of the five senses, whereas in the real world, we have five. Although science in the real world isn't perfect, Cyberverse science is much worse.

Edited February 4, 2009 by MegaAros

[Unko Kalaikz]

Most arguments so far are stemming from this one, so I'll address this.

Instruments which detect temperature use feeling, as does the human body. Pressure = feeling. How do you measure pressure with sight? It is simple, you do not.

That's what we have barometers for. That's also what we have computers to view our cybernations statistics for. Unless the barometers and computers are lying to you. (More likely, you're lying to yourself)

True science doesn't only rely on sight. Yes, going back to the red rose, I can see it's a red rose, but only with sight, it would be impossible to see the rose actually develop, actually understand that the rose's scent is what attracts animals to it, and MANY other properties of the rose. To say that we would know absolutely everything about the rose is a flawed statement, so saying that one is enlightened to true objective understanding would be false. Therefore, yes, you could rely on sight alone, but if you did, you cannot say you have all objective means to understand anything. In reality, very little is understood.

...

The difference between CN and your rose, is that the rose to be fully analyzed forces you to rely upon more than your eyesight alone and will require observations and testing in multiple ways. CN can only be measured by eyesight and thus you only need your eyes (and some intelligence) to analyze CN and develop a proper analysis. CN is far simpler to analyze than your red rose and your comparison is completely flawed.

Even if sight was all that was required, I also state that a reason that subjectivity will always trump objective means is because all people have different perceptions. The statistics in the game seek to correct these different perceptions, but even then, people will have different ideas about which stats are positive and negative, as well as how to harness these stats.

:lol:

What absolute nonsense! I understand your anti-materialist standpoint here, but there is a reason why people rely upon game statistics and mechanics rather than flights of whimsy, and that is because said statistics are a measure of skill, effort and ability on the part of the player. As important, the improvement of your statistics will increase your ability to influence others (i.e. power).

If Francoism's research were truly objective, then papers being published about them would be unnecessary. The mere fact that papers are published about that which is already objectively known proves only two things. Either A: That Francoism is something that is already inherent to the world, and thus publications on it are pointless, or B: That it must have subjective meaning to it also, thus why it must persuade individuals to it.

Again wrong. That's like saying any scientific theory cannot be published if it is truly objective. A scientific theory is published to promote discussion, further understanding, highlight potential flaws in the work, and educate those who may not understand the concepts involved. Additionally, francoism isnt "inherent in this world," it's just an analysis of the material conditions of this world. That's like saying the theory of gravity is inherent in gravity.

As for Nihilism, you are far too behind. Nihilism only exists in the Voxist world if you want it to.

Definition of Nihilism:

1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2 a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

[Starfox101]

Why do you Vox types waste your time with this stuff? We all know exactly what you want: Less boredom, Less Francoism (I'll leave it up to you to find the irony), Less hegemony, blah blah blah. Basically, you want political intrigue.

None of that is achievable by you.

So why should we not try?

Just because something seems impossible doesn't mean you should give up.

[A Soviet Attack]

So why should we not try?

Just because something seems impossible doesn't mean you should give up.

Well I commend you on that, I suppose.

[UTOPOS]

Simplified:Voxism is UME with walls of text and no chance of winning the internet.

Edited February 4, 2009 by UTOPOS

[BamaBuc]

Simplified:Voxism is UME with walls of text.

I don't agree with Vox on a whole lot, but no.

-Bama

[Doitzel]

Typical Voxian counterargument, except they are rarely ever rational arguments and more often shots at the messenger.

I can understand your frustration at my ability to turn your ridiculously overinflated dross into layman's terms, but I don't recall taking a shot at you Junkalunka, except to say that you are guilty of what you accuse us of. For someone criticising others' abilities to "look closely", however, you seem to have glossed over the fact that I made no counterargument because the absolute absurdity of you now advocating the assertion that infrastructure is more important than ideas is simply tragic. I suppose I should've seen it coming from a surrender monkey like yourself.

Regardless, I don't step on the heads of those who've fallen into the mud. I left the Order long ago.

[Heft]

This comes from one the alliances that created the "peace mode" ad hominem. Classic.

I'm quite sure that insults revolving around peace mode have been around long before IRON was involved in anything where using them would be relevant, and probably before IRON was ever founded (I remember peace mode playing an important role in Citrus War rhetoric, though how much of that was ad hominem could perhaps be debated). Also, IRON generally doesn't resort to that particular line, at least not as much as others do. It's much too cliche to have any real impact anymore.

Anyway, this essay is much better than the last and does a much better job of establishing a stand-alone philosophy rather than simply opposing a different one. I still don't agree with some apparently important parts of it, but I get the impression that most of those objections could be waved away with some form of "yes but this is just my subjective analysis of the world which will be different than yours." Though that really doesn't help if you're trying to devise a philosophy that many people can relate to and embrace. There seem to be two main arguments being made here. First, that it is impossible truly and objectively understand the world or why it is the way it is. Secondly, that we cannot find any objective purpose or meaning for our nation's existence and must therefore create a subjective one.

On the first point, yes, our senses are severely limited, but the world is not that complicated. We may not be able to ever fully understand ever single part of it, but we can understand enough of it to formulate objective conclusions, which we all do. It's a scientific process that leads us to understand the most efficient way to build a nation. That building a nation does not have any readily apparent end other than destruction does not invalidate the science of how to build (or destroy) a nation. And our citizens are not always equally happy (within the definitions of their world), but scientific methods can teach us how to maximize that happiness, and when sacrificing some measure of their happiness achieves a greater efficiency. For example,

However, there is no discernable way of finding out how these things work.

We cannot justify why they exist or why they do what they do, but we do know what they do and we can measure and observe and predict what they do, and we can use that analysis to decide how to best utilize them for whatever goals we have. That is science. It may be impossible to scientifically establish inherent emaning in the world, but to extend that to say that objective analysis of the world is impossible is really a bit of a stretch. Relatedly, I've always taken the scientific analysis of Francoism to refer more usually to the analysizing of events and people. To put it more simply, theirs is "How the world is" and yours is "Why the world is." I generally refrain from getting into detailed discussions regarding Francoism because it's really not my thing, but that seems like an important distinction. That difference in the fundamental question and purpose of the two explains most of the differences. To a materialist, it isn't so important why a material is or necessarily how it does what it does. Being able to predict and know what it will do in the future is, and that is entirely possible and done everyday.

I would agree that in a general sense there is no inherent purpose or meaning for nations, and that such meaning is assigned to them by their leader, and that there are few restrictions on what shape that meaning can take. At the same time, the shape of the world, even if we can't explain why it has that shape, seems to point us in certain directions, such as continuous creation and periodic destruction. That we can choose a different route and decide that the "default" activities, if you will, are pointless and worthless and emphasize something else (such as constant conflict and tension with only so much peace as is necessary to keep such conflict meaningful) doesn't mean that all available routes are equal, just that they are available.

There are only two things that we can do as nation leaders: create and destroy. Every action we take is towards at least one of those goals. Inaction is not an option, as the world itself forces us to either take action or be completely destroyed. If we were to leave this analysis at that, then we could conclude that creation and destruction are more or less equal in value, which would (I think) hold with your system. However, this analysis can be taken further. The majority of our tools are aimed at creation, and destruction is impossible without something to destroy. Further, our ability to destroy is amplified continuously as we create. So it seems entirely justified to then say that the reason we exist is to create things. That process perhaps has no end, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no worth. It is the purpose of our nations, and it is what gives them worth. Now I don't entirely adhere to this kind of belief, but it seems worth mentioning.

If it is supposed that there is no reason for our existence, there are three options. The first is suicide. The second is to exist in a meaningless void. These nations will invariably not do much than simply exist. The third is to make meaning to exist within that void. This meaning is then made subjectively. All nation rulers in their own subjective thought will seek to make meaning mean what it means to them.

With the people totally devoted to the nation ruler, and with their existence tied to him an only him, it becomes clear that their meaning is achieved with however the ruler would use them.

Now, how should the ruler create meaning? That is mostly up to him. However, the most easily possible, and the one that all Voxian nations will use is the policy of inflicting conflict.

This seems to be the true crux of the argument. The first and second paragraphs are agreeable (we all make our own meaning). However, the third paragraph, the conclusion, does not seem to follow so easily. I've already established why I think that creating and occasionally destroying is a much more reasonable "meaning" to take. Inflicting conflict is not something the world pushes us towards, which at the very least makes it not the easiest. If it were the easiest, then Vox Populi wouldn't ever have been created because it would never have had a reason to come into being. Further, not everybody enjoys conflict or finds conflict in anyway rewarding. For some, such a path may be meaningful and worthwhile, but certainly not for all. So, it is certainly an option, as it is possible within the world, and it may be the preferable option for you specifically, but it is not the natural option that nations will instantly gravitate towards.

You then argue that there is no meaning without opposition, but that obviously, again, is not true for plenty of people. Plenty of nation leaders are content with an existence centered around building their nation most effectively, or building international relationships and institutions most effectively. Admittedly, for most, periodic episodes of conflict and destruction are preferable, but constant conflict is not. They may seek it out from time to time, but they will not deliberately spend the majority of their time instigating it, because that is not what they desire. They get to decide their own meaning, and constantly inflicting conflict is rarely it. You can try and say that their existence is meaningless, but you've already claimed there is no true, objective meaningful existence, so in that system yours is just as meaningless, as far as any outside observer can tell.

[King DrunkWino]

I would argue that the reason for nation leaders to exist is the production of infrastructure. When you got to that point, you went on a tangent.

I'll argue that one with ya Mothra. Infrastructure is nothing more than a means to an end. The simple act of producing that infrastructure does little more than provide more money via more taxpayers. Yet, does money that is doing nothing truly have value? Obviously, it can be exchanged for military equipment, technology, more infra, wonders or improvements, but if it just sits there with no reason behind it, does it really have a value? I have a toaster. If I use it to toast bagels on a semi regular basis, it has a purpose and a value; but if I do nothing with it, if I don't have a reason for it, then it's value to me is little more than what I can get at a yard sale for it.

By that train of thought, if infra isn't the reason nation leaders exist, then what is it? I do agree that we, as those nation rulers, chose our own purpose.

[UTOPOS]

I don't agree with Vox on a whole lot, but no.

-Bama

Another elegant "troll" argument.

[Earogema]

On the first point, yes, our senses are severely limited, but the world is not that complicated. We may not be able to ever fully understand ever single part of it, but we can understand enough of it to formulate objective conclusions, which we all do. It's a scientific process that leads us to understand the most efficient way to build a nation. That building a nation does not have any readily apparent end other than destruction does not invalidate the science of how to build (or destroy) a nation. And our citizens are not always equally happy (within the definitions of their world), but scientific methods can teach us how to maximize that happiness, and when sacrificing some measure of their happiness achieves a greater efficiency. For example,

We cannot justify why they exist or why they do what they do, but we do know what they do and we can measure and observe and predict what they do, and we can use that analysis to decide how to best utilize them for whatever goals we have. That is science. It may be impossible to scientifically establish inherent emaning in the world, but to extend that to say that objective analysis of the world is impossible is really a bit of a stretch. Relatedly, I've always taken the scientific analysis of Francoism to refer more usually to the analysizing of events and people. To put it more simply, theirs is "How the world is" and yours is "Why the world is." I generally refrain from getting into detailed discussions regarding Francoism because it's really not my thing, but that seems like an important distinction. That difference in the fundamental question and purpose of the two explains most of the differences. To a materialist, it isn't so important why a material is or necessarily how it does what it does. Being able to predict and know what it will do in the future is, and that is entirely possible and done everyday.

Simply because we attempt with limited means to understand science doesn't make it true science. If I attempt to see an atom, I will fail. With the proper equipment however, the objective truth is revealed. If we rely on false means as objectivity, simply because they are the only means available at the moment, we end up setting true science back years based upon our arrogance. No, we cannot claim to know objectivity, ESPECIALLY, if we realize that we are handicapped.

We can attempt to measure and predict, and observe, but that doesn't mean it is an absolute objective means. Our attempts may be incorrect. You should recall some sciences that came about eariler in our time that while "science" was completely incorrect because it didn't harness the remaining senses. Simply, sight is not enough, and will never be enough for understanding the world, and the ruler's mind.

As for Francoism being objective in it's description of people, I'd like it to explain myself as an anomaly then. Science in all means is supposed to be absolutely objective, and applicable to all situations, unless an objective variation is discovered, usually, also by scientific means. Francoism tries to tap into the mind, and view points of rulers, and that simply isn't scientifically possible.

I would agree that in a general sense there is no inherent purpose or meaning for nations, and that such meaning is assigned to them by their leader, and that there are few restrictions on what shape that meaning can take. At the same time, the shape of the world, even if we can't explain why it has that shape, seems to point us in certain directions, such as continuous creation and periodic destruction. That we can choose a different route and decide that the "default" activities, if you will, are pointless and worthless and emphasize something else (such as constant conflict and tension with only so much peace as is necessary to keep such conflict meaningful) doesn't mean that all available routes are equal, just that they are available.

There are only two things that we can do as nation leaders: create and destroy. Every action we take is towards at least one of those goals. Inaction is not an option, as the world itself forces us to either take action or be completely destroyed. If we were to leave this analysis at that, then we could conclude that creation and destruction are more or less equal in value, which would (I think) hold with your system. However, this analysis can be taken further. The majority of our tools are aimed at creation, and destruction is impossible without something to destroy. Further, our ability to destroy is amplified continuously as we create. So it seems entirely justified to then say that the reason we exist is to create things. That process perhaps has no end, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no worth. It is the purpose of our nations, and it is what gives them worth. Now I don't entirely adhere to this kind of belief, but it seems worth mentioning.

You bring up an interesting point here. In order for conflict to exist, the nation ruler must build up his nation to ranges which will allow for conflict. In order for conflict to be possible, the nation must be a threat, and it cannot do so if it rests at 0 infrastructure.

The building of Voxian nations is for the sole purpose of being able to eventually do damage to their opposition. In Voxism, there will exist those that choose the path of building up nations. However, those nations are also required in the Voxian theme of things. You see, once those nations are attacked, in order to will themselves back to creation, they must destroy their opponent. They become destroyers as well, in order so they may revert to creation. Just as destruction requires creation, creation requires destruction. Thus, why a balance of half peace, half conflict, must exist. Creation is directly died with destruction in this sense, as well as the next one.

The conflict of peaceful nations vs. warring states is just one of these examples. Tech raiders and the like regularly declare on peaceful nations with the intent of creation, yet they do so by creation of conflict, and said conflict may escalate into "a tech raid gone wrong." The destruction had the end of creation in mind. In other words, it more than possible to have balance between the two, and to have it favorably.

Even if this isn't believable, it is as you state: that nations must be built up in order to destroy. There must exist a balance of the growth and destruction of the nation in order for true conflict to spawn. An infinite cycle of creation and destruction.

As for conflict only being needed in small doses and not incurred upon, I doubt even you believe this. If this were true, there would be no CBs, as most alliances would simply allow the incident to take care of itself, and leave it be. In times of massive peace, rulers will hold competitions as to generate some conflict. Tech raiding alliances will tech raid. Conflict will be generated in some sense. Now, as for it being the undesirable view, and only an option, yes, it is only an option, and an option for Voxists. Naturally, anti-Voxists will be attacked by Voxists, and conflict will occur regardless. (Those who want only peace, will be attacked by those who wish to generate conflict).

This seems to be the true crux of the argument. The first and second paragraphs are agreeable (we all make our own meaning). However, the third paragraph, the conclusion, does not seem to follow so easily. I've already established why I think that creating and occasionally destroying is a much more reasonable "meaning" to take. Inflicting conflict is not something the world pushes us towards, which at the very least makes it not the easiest. If it were the easiest, then Vox Populi wouldn't ever have been created because it would never have had a reason to come into being. Further, not everybody enjoys conflict or finds conflict in anyway rewarding. For some, such a path may be meaningful and worthwhile, but certainly not for all. So, it is certainly an option, as it is possible within the world, and it may be the preferable option for you specifically, but it is not the natural option that nations will instantly gravitate towards.

You then argue that there is no meaning without opposition, but that obviously, again, is not true for plenty of people. Plenty of nation leaders are content with an existence centered around building their nation most effectively, or building international relationships and institutions most effectively. Admittedly, for most, periodic episodes of conflict and destruction are preferable, but constant conflict is not. They may seek it out from time to time, but they will not deliberately spend the majority of their time instigating it, because that is not what they desire. They get to decide their own meaning, and constantly inflicting conflict is rarely it. You can try and say that their existence is meaningless, but you've already claimed there is no true, objective meaningful existence, so in that system yours is just as meaningless, as far as any outside observer can tell.

Although conflict is not desirable to most, it is to some. Those are the Voxians we have now. So yes, there are those that gravitate toward destruction and conflict simply because they can. Yes, it is not easy. Simply look at my nation. Yet, I am still here, and I enjoy my existence.

Now, as to appeal to the others, I understand that the building of nations and relationships is desirable for some, but as I have argued above, destruction is directly linked with creation. Many of the relationships of alliances building these relationships are MDPs which are designed to create conflict to another party who would otherwise not be involved. Instead of building your nations, the MDPs which you have, force you into situations with mass conflict, causing destruction to your nations, yet you come to their defense so they may create once more. MDPs in essence, only exist because you EXPECT conflict. The relationship of creation is based upon the fact that something will attempt to destroy the alliance you are allied with. Alliances and nations and rulers want conflict, and they prepare for it by creative means by building things such as MPs too.

The only reason that some creation occurs is because conflict may occur! So yes, I would argue that all nations have some sort of will to want conflict within their lives, otherwise they would simply avoid all conflict all together with peace mode forever. Some nation do just that, and they are the second type of nations, in my opinion. Those nations that have no meaning. Most of them will cease to be in due time.

Finally, I was arguing that there was no inherent objective meaning. Granted, I would also argue there is no objective meaning either, it doesn't make Voxism meaningless. On the contrary, the fact that I allow for other subjective philosophies creates philosophies which directly conflict with Voxism, in turn, fulfilling Voxist ideal. If Voxism should become the only philosophy of the world, then the world is still in mass conflict, yet if a philosophy combats Voxism, Voxism finds the conflict it was looking for regardless.

Edited February 5, 2009 by MegaAros

[Earogema]

That's what we have barometers for. That's also what we have computers to view our cybernations statistics for. Unless the barometers and computers are lying to you. (More likely, you're lying to yourself)

These can only be made by people who have more than just eyesight. Also, my argument was if all 4 of the sense stop existing at all in this world, which is precisely what they do. An type of equipment that was not based on sight would be rendered useless on Bob.

...

The difference between CN and your rose, is that the rose to be fully analyzed forces you to rely upon more than your eyesight alone and will require observations and testing in multiple ways. CN can only be measured by eyesight and thus you only need your eyes (and some intelligence) to analyze CN and develop a proper analysis. CN is far simpler to analyze than your red rose and your comparison is completely flawed.

Just because it is the only means doesn't mean it is absolute truth. If I can only hear, and I hear the voice of a very effeminate man, should I assume he is a woman because it is the only mean I have?

What absolute nonsense! I understand your anti-materialist standpoint here, but there is a reason why people rely upon game statistics and mechanics rather than flights of whimsy, and that is because said statistics are a measure of skill, effort and ability on the part of the player. As important, the improvement of your statistics will increase your ability to influence others (i.e. power).

Laughable. Your previous anti-Vox argument using this same premise was already defeated, but if you insist again on bringing this here...

There are plenty of people who lack skill yet have tons of stats. I am ranked #137 in causality count simply because I am experienced in war. That means that over 28000 nations are less than me in war. Does that stat mean anything to you?

Again wrong. That's like saying any scientific theory cannot be published if it is truly objective. A scientific theory is published to promote discussion, further understanding, highlight potential flaws in the work, and educate those who may not understand the concepts involved. Additionally, francoism isnt "inherent in this world," it's just an analysis of the material conditions of this world. That's like saying the theory of gravity is inherent in gravity.

You have a point here.

Definition of Nihilism:

1 a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2 a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Except that Voxism creates meaning by use of conflict. It begins in the Nihilist void, and then, fills that void.

[Earogema]

Would you have come to this conclusion if you were on the side that was winning? Right now?

I would argue that the reason for nation leaders to exist is the production of infrastructure. When you got to that point, you went on a tangent.

I would yes.

OOC: In FPS games, I usually always side with whatever team that's losing to make it more fair. If I'm winning, I will go join the other team. Same for RTSs and new players who could use some help. Same for really anything. To me, it's only actually playing a game that makes it fun. In monopoly games, I'll made crazy trades that screw everything up. The only game I don't screw myself over in is Chess, because it's 1v1.

IC: See my post to Heft about why infrastructure is important, but not the absolute only mean of existence (or rather, why it shouldn't be).

Edited February 5, 2009 by MegaAros

[Unko Kalaikz]

I can understand your frustration at my ability to turn your ridiculously overinflated dross into layman's terms, but I don't recall taking a shot at you Junkalunka,

Actually, you do nothing of the sort, each time you reply to me is just a pretext to call me "Junkalunka" in order to try to discredit me.

you seem to have glossed over the fact that I made no counterargument because the absolute absurdity of you now advocating the assertion that infrastructure is more important than ideas is simply tragic. I suppose I should've seen it coming from a surrender monkey like yourself.

I never said infrastructure is more important than ideas. Quote where I said that.

Also, I don't recall surrendering to Vox.

[Kronuso]

TL;DR version: Cybernations is a game made for war.

My conclusion: I'll keep fighting on the winning side.

But nice post Vox.

Not sure if you realize just how much you are showing the problem.

It's even more telling coming from a member of an alliance with some history like ODN, one that has not always been sure just what that winning side is supposed to be.

[BamaBuc]

Another elegant "troll" argument.

Why? Because I don't believe that UME and Vox have a lot in common? That's my opinion.

-Bama

[Homura]

<Utau> i am not trolling, i'm boxxy

* Doitzel sets mode: +b *!*@coldfront-[removed]

* You were kicked by Doitzel (Doitzel)

Doitzel, your crimes against Boxxy will not be forgotten. To counter this fiendish ideology, I now found Boxism, the best ideology ever to grace Planet Bob. It is so on, hardcore.

[Mandrivia_2]

Oh Silva, how low have you stooped since you were the great emperor?

Edited February 5, 2009 by Mamaev II

[Margrave]

Count Silva=Junka/Mobius?

So which loyalty are you holding today, turncoat?

[Earogema]

Not sure if you realize just how much you are showing the problem.

It's even more telling coming from a member of an alliance with some history like ODN, one that has not always been sure just what that winning side is supposed to be.

As much as I hate to say it, the GGA has won every single war it has fought.

How that has gone on for so long is beyond even Admin's abilities.

[Earogema]

Count Silva=Junka/Mobius?

So which loyalty are you holding today, turncoat?

He's pretty pro NPO, but they wouldn't let him in, so he's with NATO, and very anti-Vox, as his thread in Global Politics shows.

[Kronuso]

As much as I hate to say it, the GGA has won every single war it has fought.

How that has gone on for so long is beyond even Admin's abilities.

And that is exactly the point... some rubber-spined alliance leaders are better than others at seeing which way the curbstomp wind is blowing before picking sides.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

Psst, I never applied for NPO. Try again.

By the way, I heard you guys had like five threads all about me on your forums. That's quite flattering.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Qaianna]

Interesting little writeup, although as mentioned earlier I do have to doubt the whole 'if it can't be sensed, it's not science' bit. While there's the uncertainty principle of whether the citizens will demand an airport or not, the chances of which will resolve only upon collection of taxes or payment of bills, I will as well cite that observation or lack thereof does not discredit phenomena or their workings. When the trees fall in the woods, they make sounds.

Of course, the whole 'citizens as unwilled peons' part would explain why every so often I end up getting protests in the streets from the rabble along the lines of 'Liberty NO, Dictatorship YES', 'Islanders For Abuse of Power', 'I demand this protest be brutally suppressed and my rights trampled underfoot!', and so on. Rotten proletariat also seem to randomly change faith en masse. I'd call it a cult with a short attention span ... well, OK, after mass protests I now have to call them 'peons'.

Then again, since I'm part of the hegemony, I have to ruin their dreams of oppression by forcing economic and/or political freedom on them! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Cobalt]

because said statistics are a measure of skill, effort and ability on the part of the player

Nope. In CN a nation's statistics are more a measure of the player's alliance and its financial abilities... the individual player could not achieve much on their own without an influx of money from the alliance, and with the prevalence of guides the player doesn't even need skill, effort, or ability to grow.