1) Identify yourself with a moral code. Don't worry too much about its tenets, as long as they're clearly delineated, and it's easy to identify infractions.
2) Scan the active threads in Alliance Announcements for a few days. Identify an alliance, individual, or policy that transgresses your newly acquired modal code. Note that this is not the same as transgressing the alliance or individual's own moral code.
3) Post in the relevant thread something along these lines: "Your bullying and tyrannical behaviour will not be tolerated forever. You may think you're on top now, but you have already sewn the seeds of your own destruction. You are tragic villains, who will be brought low by your own hubris and the ire of those you have trampled underfoot. A reckoning is on its way."
4) Under no circumstances should you actually take any actions against this alliance, individual or policy. You have already taken enough action.
5) repeat steps 2 to 4 around 5 times in total over the course of several months or years. Take all the time you need.
6) Keep one eye on the alliances, individuals, and policies you have spoken doom against. Do nothing to them except observe. If the alliance flourishes and continues to transgress your moral code, feel free to repeat your prophecy of doom. Remember not to give any specifics.
7) should any of your targets suffer adverse consequences of any kind at any point, be the first to remind them of your words. You will seem like a visionary and the Voice Of The People.
That's all there is to it. Broadcast the hits, forget the misses. Your position in CN's most pious choruses is all but guaranteed.
edit for the thinking impaired: It was fairly obvious that I wasn't talking about those moralists within this game who actually do take action or effect change. The parts that make it fairly obvious are the "without really trying" part and the "under no circumstances should you actually take any actions". I'm fully aware of moralists in the game who effect change. Much as I dislike Schattenmann for more reasons that I could comfortably list here, he takes an active role in changing things when he sees things that he thinks should be changed. I'm not talking about Schatt here. Roquentin has and does effected change. I'm not talking about Roquentin here either. Repeat this simple caveat with the name of every other CN moralist you think I might be talking about. If they have attempted, in whatever means, to combat the things they consider to be immoral (and I use combat in a general rather than a militaristic sense) then I'm not talking about them.
I'm instead talking about the many armchair moralists whose reaction to something they don't like in CN is to make the fairly short odds bet that those currently enjoying good fortune will not always enjoy good fortune, and who then proceed to do nothing at all apart from prophesy doom. My problem is that it's the safest bet in existence, especially if you stay vague about it. Every alliance that exists, has existed, or will exist will have points in the game where they are brought low. If an alliance has not experienced such a point, then you might more correctly say that they haven't experienced it yet. Hence on a long enough timeline any suggestion that an alliance will reap what it has sown will come true, for broad enough values of "true".
if you want to play the game according to your system of morals, great. Do so, live according to your code, try and change the world to your code. Have a great time and I wish you all the luck in the world. You have skin in the game and I hope you play it to the best of our abilities. I probably don't like you that much but I'm blown away by your ability to show up (to quote Keanu Reeves). It's the people who aren't investing anything in their worldview who get my goat. Armchair quarterbacks with nothing but prophecies.
Glad to have cleared that up, and apologies for quoting Keanu Reeves.
My personal favorite top 5 war movies. So many to pick from but wanted to narrow it down to just the top few. Feel free to reply post with your own, may remind me to check out a few I've totally forgotten about! Wasn't till I finished that I realised I've selected nothing pre WWII, and thats including war movies set in the Middle Ages, Industrial Age etc but I guess none about that era really hooked me in as much. Was pretty hard to leave out Apocalypse Now but I felt it a little narrow minded to list nearly all Vietnam era films. Here goes...
2: Full Metal Jacket
3: The Beast (1988) (also sold in some countries as "The Beast of War")
4: Saving Private Ryan
5: Black Hawk Down
Analogies can be a good thing. They can be incredibly useful in education; when trying to explain an unfamilliar concept by relating it to something familliar. This is a completely neutral action and I urge you to use them in this manner whenever you wish. You have my blessing.
Analogies used in an argument are nearly always utter crap. But even when a great analogy is used, it more than likely shouldn't have been. There are many issues, but they all stem from one thing: analogies are not equivalencies. Meaning that even in a great analogy, the situations will always have differences. "Oil is like water" gives you some understanding of what oil is like if you have never seen it, but it doesn't give you the full picture. You would never want to drink oil, for instance, but it is still a "valid" analogy.
Immediately, we come across what is likely the biggest reason that analogies in arguments are a terrible idea. Right now, in your head, you're probably thinking of all the ways that oil is unlike water, and all of the qualifiers that could be added to the analogy to make it more accurate and "correct". There's nothing wrong with this in itself, for at the moment, you mostly just have concern for the hypothetical person who doesn't know what oil is, and want them to have as clear a picture as possible.
But now imagine there are two people addressing this poor fellow. One has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is more like water, and the other has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is less like water. We then land ourselves in a death-spiral where both sides offer more and more detailed versions of the analogy that are "more correct" while still supporting their bias. The end result is an analogy so needlessly complex and detailed that it's useless as an analogy; you might as well just be discussing the actual subject directly.
And yes I realize the humour of using an analogy to elucidate my reasoning on why not to use analogies. The tl;dr:
Analogies are never perfect, so they are prone to ridiculous bias when used in an argument. They are also prone to pointless back-and-forth revisions to make the analogy "more correct". This makes the analogy useless, as it'd be simpler to discuss the subject directly.
Pretty much everyone sucks at making analogies anyways, so don't even try. Even you, special snowflake, are at the mercy of confirmation bias.
When people on top of the CN social ladder claim that anyone angry about their bull !@#$ is trying to score political points. There are some of us out here who legitimately don't like OOC attacks and bullying people around. We don't have anything to gain by calling you out, but we do it anyway, because we believe what you're doing is wrong. So shut the $%&@ up with "omg faux moral outrage!".
On the 23rd, one of our long-time members, OrangeAvenger decided he had gotten bored of planet Bob and was going to go out with a bang. He decided to rogue as his means of escape. Naturally he decided to nuke Sardonic (who wouldn't?) but he also chose two other targets: Schattenmann and HeroofTime. Can't say he has bad taste.
If I may sidetrack for a moment, I want to briefly explain the point of this blog. In the past, GOONs has gotten a lot of flak for "calling in allies" or "not being able to fight for ourselves" or "not interpreting screaming cries as meaning no, please, stop it." The thing is, we rarely "call" for allies or ask for help, if ever. It just happens that way. But we constantly get made fun of for it. Regardless of the facts.
* When Roguefest happened and PC/iFOK (before they were NG) decided to chip in, we were insulted for not being able to fight our own battles.
* When the 7th largest nation in the entire game attacked Umar (after he was exposed for aiding Methrage) and some of our allies in Umbrella retaliated because we simply don't have any nations in that range, we were called cowards.
* When Timeline went rogue and FOK declared a couple wars on him because he was finally open season, we were made fun of for being too afraid to fight him ourselves. Even though we never asked for help.
And of course, people are always quick to criticize how we roll as Doomhouse and not individually. As if we should not have allies, or get help from anyone else. Or even just let them chip in if they want to. We always have to handle our own situations. I would post 117 more examples, but I don't have as much free time as Schattenmann.
Now, OrangeAvenger is unfortunately gone. I'm not totally clear on the details, but he sent out aid and then did something to cause his nation to vanish forever. That means we can't simply go look at his nation and find out what all went down that day. Fortunately, I had the foresight to take a screenshot.
Applying the same logic as everyone always applies to us, I am forced to conclude:
A single goon nation is too much for UE and CoJ to handle with all of their combined forces. They had to call in allies to help. They are weak and cowardly; unwilling to fight the war themselves, or at very least unable to. It's amazing how much they struggled against the might of a single goon nation, and how quickly they ran fleeing to their friends to back them up. Poor show, UE/CoJ. In a mere 3 hours, you had already surrendered and fled to get help from TPF.
I think this is how it works, anyway. Let's find out.
Jack Diorno returns as a purple team nation
So, I return.
Olympus has been very kind in granting me a home within their walls, and I can even choose my own resource, a definite boon for nuclear rogue nations...
After browsing the forums for a while I noticed that nothing has changed, people are posting about their new micro alliance, why the game is going downhill, complaining about how many recruitment messages a new nation gets.
Hmmm, 15,000 nations seems to be about what I left at so I would say the nation count is around steady.
The amount of pseudo-intellectuals seems to have increased, I guess the firefox synonym plugin is working its magic.
If you want to talk to me or are a former Athens member, also join #athens
A friend of mine wrote this essay for a class that he took called "Confronting Moral Dilemmas." It's pretty funny - read past the first few paragraphs for the better parts. For what it's worth, he got an A on this paper.
At the beginning of the term, I felt as though I had a coherent grasp on many concepts concerning morality. I have strong opinions concerning many of the issues mentioned in the course catalogue, and I was excited to take a class which would focus on moral dilemmas and allow me to explore concrete examples of controversial issues. In that capacity the class has been very helpful. Learning about the great philosophers and their ideas, particularly social contract theory, has made me examine and in most cases reinforce my opinions on a variety of moral issues.
One of the strong points of this class was the literature we read and the in-class discussions in which we explored the ideas presented in the assigned text. Though a portion of the reading was difficult and somewhat inaccessible, the professor's guided discussions of the readings always ensured that everyone was on the same page. The fact that some readings were very dense social contract theories in the tradition of Rousseau and Kant while others were fictional short stories also served to add variety to the course work.
Overall, this was a highly effective class that allowed students to expand as writers while receiving grounded, helpful critique from a qualified professor. However, I did not progress as much as a writer as I had hoped to by the end of this term. My main problem with essay writing, as it was in the beginning of the term, is quite simply time management. I write very meticulously and slowly, and so have had some difficulty completing assignments in the allotted time. The draft process also proved difficult for me to adjust to, because I edit as I write rather than writing a first draft and then refining it. A prime example of my difficulty with drafts is my research paper concerning the Death Penalty.
My initial draft of the Death Penalty paper was poorly written and not well organized. I did not allow myself enough time to research the subject matter, and I was both physically and mentally drained when I began the essay. In some ways this was helpful as it forced me to revise and re-write a significant portion of my paper to complete my final draft. Had I written a first draft that I was happy with from the start, it would have been difficult for me to make changes for my final draft. As it was I was able to make several important additions to my paper, namely a paragraph discussing how the death penalty is not administered universally or fairly across racial or gender-related lines. Additionally I polished and refined much of the sloppy writing of my first draft.
Initially, I thought that “Confronting Moral Dilemmas” was a course designed to help students understand the life and reproductive cycles of the Common European Mange-Donkey. I have always been extremely interested in equine biology, and so I jumped at the opportunity to learn about a specific subject in such depth. However, I quickly realized my assumptions concerning the course's subject matter were incorrect. Instead of mange-related fur deterioration and foot and mouth disease, we were discussing human rights issues!
Since I was initially misled by the course title, the remainder of this essay will not discuss my experience in “Confronting Moral Dilemmas”. Instead, I will present my own research relating to the behavioral and reproductive habits of the Common European Mange-Donkey. For the sake of concision I will refer to the Common European Mange-Donkey simply as “The Mange-Donkey”. Of course, if I were writing an essay concerning multiple species of Mange-Donkey (i.e American Mange-Donkeys, Afro-Asian Mange-Donkeys) than a greater degree of distinction would be necessary.
Mange-Donkeys are similar to standard donkeys, and both species belong to a greater family known as the Equidae family. This family also includes zebras, mules, and horses. Though horses look sleek and get most of the publicity, they also suck. Mules cannot reproduce, but they are great for party tricks, and zebras are more often striped than not. Mange-Donkeys, however, are in a class all of their own.
It has often been said that being a Mange-Donkey is not simply a matter of genetics- rather, it is a way of life. While it is certainly true that Mange-Donkeys are most easily distinguished by temperament rather than appearance, there are still visually observable distinctions that set the Mange-Donkey apart from the standard donkey. Physically speaking Mange-Donkeys are differentiated from the standard donkey by large, moth-eaten patches of hair, a certain troll-like cunning in the eye, and a strong North Yorkshire accent present in the bray. If they serve dual duties as Slapping Donkeys, Mange-Donkeys may also exhibit such characteristics as a balding or hairless hindquarter and a tattered mane and tail.
While it is commonly supposed that the Mange-Donkey came by its moniker because it is prone to a mange-like skin rash, this assumption is incorrect. The skin rash (known as “rain scald” or “mud fever”) is in fact common to both Mange-Donkeys and standard Donkeys, and is caused by prolonged exposure to damp conditions. In reality, “Mange-Donkeys” are known as such because they are half mange, half donkey. It is interesting to note that unlike most hybrid animals (mules, ligers) Mange-Donkeys can reproduce.
I have devoted much time and effort into researching the etymology of the word “donkey”, but have not had much success finding accurate sources. As a result, I have formulated my own theory concerning the names' derivation and origins. To me, the most logical answer is that the word “donkey” is a diminutive of “Don Quixote”, the name of the Spanish knight in Cervante's novel. Somewhere along the line, a committee was called and an executive decision was made to get rid of the oats and the tea, leaving only “Don Qui”. This became further corrupted as the syllables were combined into a single word and the spelling was anglicized, ultimately evolving into the modern English “Donkey”.
I feel that the skills I am lacking in terms of my writing abilities will all come simply as a matter of practice. The more papers I have to write to make a quick deadline, the more drafts I complete, the better and less frustrated I will be.
Author's note: Woo! I'm blogging again! I'll post when I feel the need to rant/extol virtues/whatever. Thanks for reading!
Since I've returned to CN, I've seen quite a few references to real life ideas of international political theory. I the Roq debacle, I heard Hobbes ideas thrown around, and a few months ago a serious discussion on realism in Cybernations took place. I am a poli-sci major in real life, so I inherently find this stuff fascinating. However, after some thought, I'm ready to give my two cents on the subject.
Firstly, one of the great strengths about CN is it's remarkably intricate political system. With it's many conflicts, rivalries, and all manner of political maneuvering. But the truly interesting thing about this is that there are many parallels in CN politics to real world international theory. It's interesting to say the least, but don't go writing your term paper on CN just yet. I find that although there is a place for using some manner of international relations theory in CN, it does not fit tit for tat in it's entirely.
Example number one: The absence of liberalism. Students of IR are well aware of the competing philosophies of realism and liberalism. For those who aren't versed in this, A quick overview is that realism says that states will always go for what benefits themselves in the immediate term. Liberalism adversely encourages cooperation among states to further the goals of the world as a whole, generally speaking.
The problem lies that there are very few ways for an alliance to behave in a liberal manner. Part of this can be attributed to a combination of the fact that Cybernations is in fact, a game, and the goal of a game is to win, or be dominant. Cooperation for the good of the world is nonexistent as it should be. There are no incentives for alliances to resolve conflicts among each other because in the end, all we lose are pixels and war is kind of fun. No real lives are on the line of course and there is no "bigger world" alliances have to live in and deal with repercussions of their actions (With the exception of World Radiation, which has all but been ignored) with the exception of retaliation by another alliance. Which leads back to realism. A state (alliance) according to realism should have no concern for morals or ethics, only to ensure a better place for themselves as an alliances. Even further, the technical liberal tenants, such as foreign aid, NGO's such as the U.N., and economic interdependence can't apply to the game by limit of the games mechanics.
In short, there is only really one way to behave according to IR theory, and that is through realism and only realism. Even realism can't apply in full as even realists like to avoid war if possible, but for CN, the only purpose our nations exist is for use in war, unless you get satisfaction out of building and building and building which is rare in and of itself. The presence of only one pseudo-theory in existence makes real world political situations and cybernations events for all intents and purposes incomparable.
The second point I would like to make is the game's limitations on democracy in cybernations. I've been hearing a lot of Hobbes thrown around lately and the merits of authoritarian systems of government. Again it doesn't apply 100%.
The biggest flaw of democracy is that it is slow to make decisions. In CN, where an alliance can be demolished over the course of an update, it is difficult to have a democracy respond in time, hence the presence of authoritarian systems in CN, who have no need to go through a democratic process to make snap decisions. This benefit is nice for CN, but if you tend to try an authoritarian system in real life, you run into things like civil liberties, property rights, and other things enlightenment thinkers would have demanded. These are a non-factor in CN as you are not born into your alliance, you pick it voluntarily. By joining an alliance you surrender your delegate your sovereignty to an alliance who in theory, you should be content with their government leaders and choices. Authoritarianism, regardless if elected or appointed survives by the consent of the alliance for they have no reason to dispute it. If they don't like an alliance, they can just leave.
So in short, for CN, Authoritarianism is fine and dandy, but don't go voting for the facist party in your next election if you really want life to be awesome.
Please excuse any errors, I'm a bit tired and will proofread later. Any questions or discussions are welcome.
So as I elucidated on a past blog entry (link) I am a wee bit crazy about cycling, fanatical would probably be a good way of putting it. Back then I was riding a Kona Dew Deluxe (2010 model), and it got used a hell of a lot…doing a 12km commute during the weekdays and probably notching up a further 5 Km’s over the weekends, in short she got rode hard (no innuendo intended). But last month some piece of !@#$ decided to steal my rig…and not off the street but from the ‘secure’ underground car/bike parking area underneath my apartment block. With full CCTV coverage we got the guys face in glorious Technicolor (no mask…not even a baseball cap, is that !@#$@#$ brazen or what!).
But despite this evidence looking for one guy and a bike in London (estimated population of just under 8 million people) is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Hell according to the British home office around 533,000 bikes were stolen from 2009 to 2010!! It is a burgeoning problem and rightly or wrongly it is not considered a priority by the police (who admittedly have their hands full in our great city with rising violent crime among the youth among other things). Of course such numbers of theft are in due part to a demand for decent bikes at a cheap price purchased with no questions ask (to use a popular British expression ‘off the back of a lorry’), such people looking for a deal fuel the rampant theft of bikes in London and this seems unlikely to change, because lets face it most people are unprincipled and care little for the wider community. But it is obviously big business as the losses show, based on police crime statistics from 2010, a report released in June 2010 suggested that bicycle theft costs British cyclists around £80m a year! No small amount by anyone’s standards.
A bike lock manufacturer actually made a short film based on a experiment to gauge how the average man in the street reacts to bike theft, setting up 10 bikes they staged 10 thefts and each one not a single member of the public intervened in what was clearly a crime: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/feb/06/protect-bikes-theft
Oh well life goes on and I have purchased a new rig, a stunning Kona Band Wagon (2011 model) with a chrome/white scheme. I have been riding Kona’s for years now and I am very loyal to the brand, besides lets face it Canada has some of the best Bicycle manufacturers in the world.
I will take out fresh insurance and buy the most heavy duty locks known to man (not to mention that it is locked up securely in my 'secure’ underground car park)…but even then it will not stop the possibility of it being stolen in the future, because if a thief wants something he will go for it, all you can do is make it as difficult as possible for the $%&@ers. But the bottom line is that I will not let some ‘tea leaf’ (British slang for a thief) stop me riding, enjoying the thrill of filtering through traffic at speed and generally pissing off Taxi Drivers (one of a London’s cyclists common enemies on the road) …NEVER GIVE IN & RIDE ON BROTHERS AND SISTERS!!
I am bored and, rather than write a RL essay, I decided to finally make use of my blog.
So I found an old post I wrote awhile back that I thought was rather insightful, edited it a bit and used superscript annotations to expand certain sections. A link to the original can be found at the bottom of the post. Hope you all enjoy.
A before and after of this war. A couple alliances accidentally got left off (GDA and NPL that I saw), and the Asg-Val merger threw off some numbers (I could probably fix it, or at least make it more accurate for "now", but it would be misleading in the before/after I was going for, I think anyway).
Couple of questions now...
Should I do this next war, too?
If I do, is there anything I should add?
After spending a few hours aimlessly walking around town contemplating the inevitability of death and pointlessness of existence, I decided to take a load off and get drunk instead.
So I headed off to the local sin merchant for my dose of sweet sweet oblivion. As usual I grabbed my bottle of Franziskaner Weissbier as a starter but I was at a loss as what to get next. Something different...
I like rum. Mainly because I fancy myself a land pirate. And want to live in the tropics. Other than that... well, that's all there is. So I like rum.
Unfortunately, most rum I drink is in mixers. And for good reason, too, because it's hard to find a rum that you can drink on it's own. Well, Lady Luck of the high seas dealt this crusty land-lubber a charming hand this time 'round.
Cruzan sells for roughly $12.00 per 750 mil at 80 proof. (Which if you noticed my last booze review, I was buying stuff for $9.99, so I'm moving up in the world. )
Brewed on the Virgin Islands in St. Croix by the Nelthropp family since the start of their sugar mill in 1760, this dark rum has been produced by the same family ever since.
The color is an aged penny-brown. The smell was not strong at all and you'd have to really get your nose in it for a whiff.
Tasting this fine rum was an experience unlike any I've had before. Only in that it was the most even tasting rum I've ever had. It had a hint of vanilla, and... maybe some type of white pepper and liquorish. What was surprising is that it was very simple. Not complex at all. And yet, none of usual flavors of booze dominated. It wasn't heavily dosed with spiced flavors or char. It was a simple and tasty light sipping beverage.
It had a strong finish, put some fire in the belly, and potent alcoholic fumes evaporating from the residue, but the ethanol taste was not overtly strong as it often is in cheaper rums.
Over all I am very happy with this bottle, and will definitely get this again.
I'm Kzoppistan and this is my booze review.
Well seeing as bros already accepted [on air] that he did snoop on UPN when he had admin access, by simply clicking on a thread in the gov areas... Roq pretty much stands proven true on the "MK Spied" issue.
While this has been interesting to see, i would rather Roq took a different approach to this. It is always better to let the masses whip themselves into a frenzy than to seem like you are trying to whip them into a frenzy. The best way to drop a bomb, Roq, is to just drop it, and then pop in every one or two days, answer any pertinent posts, ignore the obvious tangents and focus on the smart questions that are relevant to the topic at hand. Done right, it is a thing of beauty.
Right now, the T machine is trying very hard to make it about Roq and not about the issue. They have also had a modicum of success in this endeavor. Yes a few will winnow out the chaff and retain the salient points, i wonder how much that will help Roq's goals at this point in time.
Add to that the CBs based around spying have traction only when when an alliance with muscle is making the allegation. From the looks of things, in the public domain so far,UPN and RoK and the Sith are not about to make a thing of it. I am not even sure that the NSO even thinks its that big a deal or are even convinced that they were spied upon. UPN apparently forgave bros. RoK ... i think they will thank you for not making them "the news" at this point in time.
So you have one confirmed and one possible victim that are already curled up in the fetal position, a third that is "meh" about it and unless Nagasaki is something really ground breaking [but really guys, is there anything that we cant brush off?] i don't see any immediate impact of Roqgate.
Pity really, i was hoping for a flare up. Watching the scotch bottle mysteriously get emptied over the hours is not all its cracked up to be.
PS: bros... why man? wtf were you thinking.
This isn't exactly addressing a bad argument per se, but I reserve the right to depart from this blog's theme whenever I damn well please. Also it follows along the general theme of elevating the level of discourse.
I'd just like to speak a bit on a piece of my personal philosophy. It's very simple, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but its implications are wide and honestly it can be more difficult to follow than you'd first imagine.
Err on the side of caution.
This is a very useful thing to keep in mind whenever making risky decisions, but I think that it's something that can be viewed as an approach to dealing with the world. Granted, there are going to be situations where haste and risk are necessary, but any good rule has its exceptions, and everything should be met with discretion.
Another more specific way to say this that relates better to our politics:
Only makes assumptions to your detriment.
This is about staying intellectually honest as you disagree with a person, as well as resulting in a much more sound and thoughtful argument. If you can still thoughtfully debate for a point while giving favour to your opponent's viewpoint whenever as assumption is required, then not only can you be sure that you were intellectually honest in presenting your opinion, but also that your point will stand up to far more scrutiny than it would otherwise.
If you are unable to make an assumption in a way that favours the other viewpoint (it doesn't have to be by much), then you must either find a way to reach your conclusion without the assumption or at the very least be honest about how big the assumption is.
I got a bit distracted while writing this, so I can't remember if I said everything I wanted to. So as always, if any elaboration is required, please say so.
I always love it when two alliances are so close to each other statistically - not only in terms of score, but also in terms of nations. These two are virtually tied in terms average NS, but who would come out on top in a one-on-one fight to the death? No allies, no peace treaties, just a battle of wits and nukes.
Let me know what you think.
We both knew better. I have rearranged your post to organize it by topic.
You made some rather dashing personal attacks, but you can't demonstrate them and they don't merit response. But this is the part of your post that I most wanted to address.
I myself am always amused by the people who level attacks that boil down to Schattenmann is a lunatic has-been who is sad, and Cult of Justitia is a bunch of idiots that Schattenmann has hoodwinked into worshiping him. The insult is oxymoronic to begin with, but it is simply put laughable.
To demonstrate once and for all (I say "once and for all" but we know some retard will repeat these insults again, probably while I'm still typing, but let's hope!) the fallacy of this idiotic argument, I have made a list of everyone who has been a member of CoJ (applicants who were rejected are not included) and what their backgrounds were:
Valerius (PresidentKent) NADC: Senator; GATO: Congressman, MoFA
Sarah Tintagyl NSO: Minister of Propaganda; Noted CNRPer
Freelance____r The Coven
DJTJ7 SUN: MoFA; IDC: MoFA
Biff Webster GPA: President, Minister of Membership Compliance; Red Dawn: Red Senator
sirdeclan NPO: Tech Corps manager; ACID: Triumvirate
Hyperbad GPA: Director of Communications
Jonathan Brookbank GGA: Triumvirate; Vox Populi: Founder (JB did a bunch of other stuff, but he didn't list it in his application)
zarophel (Francesca) MCXA: MoFA; Vox Populi: MCXA sleeper
Jack The Ripper
Sitethief Fok: Vice President, MoFA; TOP: Knight Hospitaler, Heptagonist
Subtleknifewielder Second most posts on the OWF
ImperatorAzenquor TAB: High Magistrate
Gran TTK: Elder Council
ITDA (Il Terra Di Agea)
Don Chele GPA: Director of Communications, MoFA
BaronOfBeef GPA: President, Minister of Membership Compliance
Zarfef NSO: Marauder of War
Generalissimo ODN: Second Secretary General of the ODN
Lord Rav Greenland Republic: Triumvirate; GPA: MoFA, Dir of the Academy
Earogema (MegaAros) \m/: MoFA, Minister of Finance; TORN: Minister of Recruitment; Vox Populi: Senator, Founder
daggarz Nemesis: Triumvirate; Elysium: Chief Ambassador; TPF: MoC; Rapture: MoD; IPA: Senator
that-one-place ARES: DoD; Nemesis: Triumvirate
Yawoo ODN: Senates 13, 14, & 16, Secy State, MoD; MOON: Secy State, Emperor; Nemesis: Triumvirate, MoIA
Hellenica Founder of CNtel (expelled)
Duckz NPO: -classified-; Carpe Diem: Minister of Finance; The Lost World: Minister of Finance
We Are Not Alone
Crazy Crazy Honour: MoFA; Nemesis: DMoFA, DMoIA
Biohazard DefCon: MoFA; Gondor: DMoFA
rishnokof RoK: Triumvirate
Flyingscotsman Browncoats 1: MoFA; HPS: Founder; IAA: MoD
Stonewall Jaxon NADC: Senator; ACV: MoIA; MHA: DMoFA; Vox Populi: -classified-;
Sargun TAB: MoFA; Pendulum: Consul, Regent; PIMP: King; NSO: Marauder of War, Marauder of Economics
Comrade Korey Purge: Triumvirate
Sun WuKong GPA: President, Vice President, Dir of Recruitment; Jade Confederacy: Founder; Old Guard: Triumvirate, Delegate to Citadel, Delegate to Continuum; House Atreides: Dir of Recruiting; GOP: Triumvirate; TOOL: Councillor; Bushido: Daimyo
Kahn (Durim) SSX: Founder; Browncoats: Home Minister; IAA: Academy Headmaster
Awesome Dog GPA: MoD, Vice President
bigdaddychacha ODN: Senate 36, Dep Secy State
zzzptm ACDC: MoFA, Triumvirate; BDC: President, Nueva Vida: Lord of the Interior, Lord of History; Dark Templar: MoFA
For brevity's sake, this list does not include the 31 nations who joined CoJ when Dark Nations Association merged with us, but they include the government and founders of LEN, Silence, and others.
So, when I read some gadfly like MrWuss say that CoJ is nothing more than me being "closely followed by a band of raving morons who worship the words that spill from your twisted, self-centric mind" I am insulted not personally, but on behalf of these people. Sun WuKong, Tri of Old Guard, Delegate to Citadel and Continuum worships me? Ohhhhhh dear. Three Presidents of GPA raving morons? NSO Marauders? TOOL Councillors? Senators and Congressmen of ODN, GATO, NADC, & NAAC? The Vice President of Fok?
My dear Mr Wuss, I dare say that when you insult Cult of Justitia, you insult everyone.
Cult of Justitia is not about me; it's about Justitian ideals. Look at the roster: TPF, NPO, GATO, ODN, NSO, Browncoats 1, Old Guard, RoK, Fok: all enemies of Schattenmann. These are the rulers that for 5 years have ground my nation to dust, and derided me in their time as you do now. They do not worship Schattenmann, how could they? They know his every fault, his every failing.
The Cult of Justitia--Justitia's Cult, not mine--has attracted these many men of many accomplishments by its ideals and its commitment to its ideals. But they never boast (I daresay I will get a fair scolding for boasting on their behalf) because when they enter the Temple of Justice they do so having first read and acknowledged that "This is the altar upon which you place your nation.
In the state of nature, a nation is the property only of its ruler; a ruler is accountable only to himself. As an unaligned ruler, you stand before this altar in the portico to the Temple of Justice as a wild animal.
Before you may pass the threshold, you must outline your qualifications, and verbalize your intentions, but most importantly: acknowledge your new existence as part of a body greater than your own nation, signified by an oath to the Cult"
CoJ was founded immediately upon the dissolution of Vox Populi--the point in my history at which I was more popular and more powerful than at any time before or since; therefore, the point in time at which your accusation might ring most true. And yet, out of the 40 or so Vox, only 1, just 1, came to CoJ. And for weeks we were only two. And then for months we were only 5. And for months more we were never more than 15. And so for over two years, Schattenmann the man has moved further and further from the glory days, and yet more and more men who have done greater things than I, men who've had more power than I, men who've ZI'ed me have joined Justitia's Cult. There is no Cult of Schattenmann, that time passed a long, long time ago. Justitia's Cult and Justitian ideals tower over Her Presbyter.
I am humbled with every new application, and I am reminded that this is the Cult that Justitia built. Lonely? No, I am privileged to be in the company of some of Digiterra's greatest.
Well, I'm back!
I was only gone for about 3 months, but the reason I'm back is to sort out something very important I can't really tell you about yet.
But don't panic, my blog will be the FIRST place you hear about it!
So I've been blessed with my grandfather's hair, which basically means I've got a receeding hairline that has developed pretty steadily since 18-19. Soon to be 23, hair is still fine short, but I've seen my fellow comrades in arms struggle with keeping a respectable appearance and I'll look better with a shaved head anyway. I'm thinking of going with the lowest setting on clippers.
However, I need to find a good set to invest in. Any tips?
I'm a busy man, so this will be a short one. Comment if you require elaboration.
An argumentum ad hominem, to borrow from wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."
The specific data point people need to take from this is that an insult is not by default an ad hominem.
Also something I want to try to mention every time I bring up fallacies: if an argument contains a fallacy, it is not by default wrong.
So today I realized I only know the geography of North America and Europe and then the rest of the world never seemed to matter. I'm fourteen, almost fifteen, and I am officially feeling like such an idiot for not having taken the time to learn it before.
I've spent most of my life focused on English, so I've never had to glance at a map much, and my history classes up until now have been American History only, pretty much.
I'm in my first Geography class ever, and I'm doing badly.
What should I do to get better at Geography so I can keep up with my class?
Cybernation Wars. Why are they so big?
Well what we have is The Aggressor Attacking the Defender. Then there allies come in, then more allies of allies and so on, which ends up with alliances who are fighting and alliance they dont need to be fighting.
We didnt attack the people who attacked menotah because we were weak, it was because the fight was for NpO, not Menotah. We fight for our friends, not for our friends, friends friends.
If this was the way it was in the current climate we would most likely have more conflicts and more wars, with different alliances each time. that way there would be more than two sides to be on and more fighting for alliances who want to fight and less for those who want to grow more and then fight.
So in short, why fight for someone who isnt your friend? if you want to go fight a war go fight one, if someone threatens your alliance, or a friend dont sit back. fight back either diplomatically or by fighting. dont sit back and let this game die because you people wont get of your bloody asses.
feel free to take this how you want to, but it is the view of my alliance and mine to.
Lord Caparo, Emperor of Kaskus