Blog Name

Pick a retarded idea from the real world and try to apply it to the game world, BRILLIANT

Pick a retarded idea from the real world and try to apply it to the game world, BRILLIANT

I would appreciate your comment more if you actually attempted to explain your position.

Pick a retarded idea from the real world and try to apply it to the game world, BRILLIANT

Every political ideology and discussion in this game is from the real world. If your problem is with objectivism, just say so, and why... if you can.

As for me, I am not an objectivist as I understand it in popular use for reasons I'd enjoy sharing if any debate appears here, unless you'd prefer we follow your lead and call it retarded without explanation.

I'll post a rebuttal in the morning, but for the moment, I will say that I think you have simplified a number of very complicated political dynamics that currently exist in such way as causes you to drawn erroneous conclusions about what would change.

TypoNinja, if you don't want to make intelligent comments, try and avoid the blogosphere. There's an entire forum out there full of rather unintelligent people, you'd fit right in.

Objetivism would kill the game, much like it would kill the real world (see Bioshock). Commitment to an alliance, being part of a community, is what keeps the players interested in the game.

Yes, a lot of players don't give a !@#$ about that. But if we eliminate the community, the wars, the people standing by his friends... if we take away the Drama, all we have left is a game full of zombie players who just log in every few days to collect taxes, pay bills, and buy infra.

Objectivism applied to alliances wouldn't work, neither. An alliance works because their members have some sense of loyalty towards it. An alliance whose members limit themselves to cold, strict, contractual adherence, doesn't work. Said alliance stagnates and decays, because no one cares to govern it, for starters.

The first and most noticeable change would be that nations will begin to exist for their own sake and not for their alliance

Sounds alot like anarchy to me. If I exist only for my own sake, then I will tech raid whoever is in my range. Since everyone else exists for their own sake, their alliance mates shouldn't come to their aid because it would not benefit them to help them. Right?

Wars would become much less common

Why would we want wars to become less common? Wars are a driving force behind this game. Without wars we have stagnation.

And they will not go to war to save their allies but to defend their interests.

Defending ones allies should also be defending their interests, otherwise why are they your allies?

My question to you is: Why are you in an alliance that is devoted to helping victims of tech raids? What benefit does your nation get out of helping said victims?

Alliance leaders would realise that their thousands of members are just holding them back. They would run off to the mountains where everyone would be an alliance leader, and without having alliances to mess it up, would all be incredibly successful. Utopia ensues.

Then, that night as the fire roared, Archon would see the shapely outline of LiquidMercury. Slowly, his heart beating faster, he approaches...

I'll post a rebuttal in the morning, but for the moment, I will say that I think you have simplified a number of very complicated political dynamics that currently exist in such way as causes you to drawn erroneous conclusions about what would change.

Possibly. I don't know much about the current political landscape save for the stuff I see on the forums and on public IRC channels.

Objetivism would kill the game, much like it would kill the real world (see Bioshock). Commitment to an alliance, being part of a community, is what keeps the players interested in the game.

This is not necessarily true if players adopt an objectivist point of view. Players would derive enjoyment from existing for their own sake and not for the sake of their alliance.

Yes, a lot of players don't give a !@#$ about that. But if we eliminate the community, the wars, the people standing by his friends... if we take away the Drama, all we have left is a game full of zombie players who just log in every few days to collect taxes, pay bills, and buy infra.

Objectivists would actually enjoy collecting the fruits of their own labors. Of course, most players are not objectivsts so they will most likely get bored with doing what you described above. To clarify, I'm making the assumption that everyone adopts an objectivist philosophy before attempting to predict the impacts it would have upon the game.

Objectivism applied to alliances wouldn't work, neither. An alliance works because their members have some sense of loyalty towards it. An alliance whose members limit themselves to cold, strict, contractual adherence, doesn't work. Said alliance stagnates and decays, because no one cares to govern it, for starters.

The workings of an alliance would be completely different if all members do accept an objectivist point of view. If it is within the interests of the alliance to have a stable government, then the members will most probably support the creation of a stable government. Most likely, the charter will outline the structure of the government and those who have leadership experience will volunteer to govern the alliance (since it is in their interest to do so).

Sounds alot like anarchy to me. If I exist only for my own sake, then I will tech raid whoever is in my range. Since everyone else exists for their own sake, their alliance mates shouldn't come to their aid because it would not benefit them to help them. Right?

Not necessarily. An objectivist would join an alliance in order to gain protection and expand its economic opportunities. It is in the nation's interest to help others since it might someday depend upon those nations to help it. Of course, an objectivist would most likely want to see this agreement codified in the charter.

Why would we want wars to become less common? Wars are a driving force behind this game. Without wars we have stagnation.

Again, I'm assuming that everyone has adopted an objecitist view point to the world.

Defending ones allies should also be defending their interests, otherwise why are they your allies?

My question to you is: Why are you in an alliance that is devoted to helping victims of tech raids? What benefit does your nation get out of helping said victims?

Of course, you are correct. If you are allies with another alliance, then you probably have an interest with them. However, the statements I've seen on the forums about defending allies are somewhat sentimental, which is what prompted me to make that statement.

This is all hypothetical. I'm not advocating for the adoption of an objectivist system. I'm only musing upon the possible consequences of such a system.

TypoNinja, if you don't want to make intelligent comments, try and avoid the blogosphere. There's an entire forum out there full of rather unintelligent people, you'd fit right in.

It was late at night, I foolishly thought people could draw their own negative conclusions on attempting to destroy the social dynamic in a social game. Clearly I over estimated the audience.

As for why objectivism itself is a bad in the real world and not specifically to CN, well others are already explaining.

Cybernations is very collectivist in nature. Effective CN play requires surrender of freedom for security. Or you can hang out in None and get raided all day every day.