Some thoughts on the trends in CN and personal thoughts. Why would you be interested in reading this? Beats me. But if you're as bored as I am, it might help pass the time reading it as it did for me writing it.
First, look at this:
In recent news:
Might as well throw my two cents in on this.
NSO/RoK & Crew:
NSO had it coming. 'Nuff said. Step on enough toes and those you piss off will take advantage of the first opportunity to isolate and destroy you. I don't know much about RoK, except that this hyper-aggressive stance seems typical of them.
Are RoK, GOD, VE, ect., ect., aggressionists? (I just made that word up.) Probably. But it's a political simulation and war is just politics by other methods. It's not supposed to be all rosey and hand holding. So they had a reasonably valid CB (they probably jumped for joy considering it's rarity) and rolled out as quickly as possible. That's that. Don't like it, plot to destroy them. I'm sure plenty of people are.
As for NSO, I'm rather 'meh' about them, and I think they were doomed from the start. Ivan's mistake was calling it the New Sith Order. What's in a name? Not much, usually. But in this case, Moldavi adopted a theme and name that instantly set them up for failure. While I'm not the biggest Stars Wars geek, I do know that the Sith are the "evil" side, treacherous and violent. The only way one can exist with such a label (and still enjoy diplomatic inclusion) is to be violent, dangerous, court those of a like personality, and strong enough to resist those that would attack such a threat. Ironically, could they have fulfilled that role they would've seemed better suited to be allied with those currently attacking them.
While an impressive figure in his own right, Moldavi doesn't seem able to play the role of leader of a lesser power sufficiently. He seems better wielding a great power, but not so much a weaker one, the lack of strength in NSO limits his "aura". Without the ability to follow through on threats, NSO members remind me of timid tribal people or teenagers who, emboldened by the goading of their peers, race up to the edge of the border to throw a rock at the other tribe before running back to the safety of camp for some nervous high fives. They've had a few impressive milestones and some good members but unfortunately they can't quit stand up to the image they portray.
Instead of trying to debate the CB and circumstances, which, being the ones outnumbered and attacked, looks like nothing more than trying to squirm this away and that to spin public perception to their favor, they should just fight. To do what they are doing, that is the sign of weakness. You can't be "Sith" and try to play the sympathy game.
(Edit: Or at least take some tips from NPO on how to put a situation in a more favorable light. See Sir Paul's publication)
(Second Edit: I may sound like I'm ragging NSO, I'm not, I am only being critical. I can be rather biting in my evaluations, but there aren't many alliances I actually dislike. I've enjoyed a number of shenanigans and threads by NSO members and would like to see them come out of this current scrap stronger. I was, perhaps, let down a little bit after the return of Moldavi and it's been hard to shake that. I do like to see people exceed my expectations of them.)
Smart move, NSO are liabilities, but horrible timing and crappy thing to do to someone you called a friend or ally. What's with the pathetic use of a technicality? Now it looks like either it was a set-up to the conspiracy nuts or they were trying to save their skins. Pretty weak. I liked GATO before. Not so much now.
*Incidentally, I feel the almost exactly the same way about the MHA cancellation on Ramlins, despite GRE's currently disastrous image.
OOC speaking, I don't really care. In fact, if fate had been different, and I was shunted into a raiding alliance instead of Zenith, I probably would be a raider. I think the game should cover a number of interests for the variety of people out there. I haven't seen too much evidence that raiding affects game membership one way or the other. I will say that excessive raiding probably stifles creativity as almost everyone has to follow the same paradigm of alliance joining, treaty webbing, ect., or otherwise have their game ruined, which sort of adds to the stagnation. But on the whole, it's a game, and the risk of failure is essential to sweeten the taste of victory. Just like life, there has to be an element of danger.
I wouldn't want to see tech raiding or other actions like that eliminated. It's part of the fun for many and somebody has to be the bad guys. And I'm too pretty for that. But, I do think that a campaign to push back tech raiding occurrences would make for great role-playing potential. Changing the group behaviors and standards is what makes the game interesting.
I am vehemently against tech raiding in game for a number of reasons. One, it puts me at odds with a majority of people and I like conflict. Two, it adds a touch of nobility to my character, and I like playing good guys. Three, most people who complain of tech raiding are nothing but whiners and victims butthurt over some traumatizing episode of the past. They rely heavily on what is "moral" and what not. I am, however, an ethicist last, and a Machiavellian Darwinist first. Pretty much a wolf in sheep's clothing. I understand the mindset of a raider intimately and like to surprise those unfamiliar with me by being just as hardnosed and vicious about wiping them off the face of the planet as they are about protecting their "right" to raid.
Some people say they don't "roleplay" their nation leader, that they are pretty much the same in rl. Others say they use the opportunity to be a different person. I've never been able to find a comfortable line between the two. I've more or less adapted to the position I find myself in, but often find myself conflicted by real life opinions and the opinions of what I think a leader of a nation would have. Plus, IC isn't rigidly enforced in the alliance announcement areas so its easy to lapse into just being average joe. (for some reason, I find the RP section creepy and refuse to play). But I do try to play it "IC" as best as I can. When first starting out, I was working in the FA ministry and did my best to limit my OWF comments to those of a diplomatic mindset. A lot of mild, encouraging, and easy going comments flowed forth. But unfortunately, not only is that pretty boring but I also found my sense of humor beginning to leak through. I have a perverse, macabre, silly, and often non sequitur, bizarre even, sense of humor which often proves irrepressible. I'll never have the devastating wit of, say, Sal Paradise or comedic stylings of zzzptm but I do like to make people laugh and am not above playing the fool to get a few chuckles out folks and brighten their day. I've been able to hold my tongue with more biting comments, but find it difficult to withhold a joke or general silliness.
Since being relieved of all gov. duties, my forum "personality" has been evolving in directions I never considered. For one, I saw the "Most Arrogant Player of the year" or some such thread and thought I'm going to win that next year. So I shifted my style a little. While I don't go over the top a la Rebel Virginia, as to copy his signature style of self praise would be nothing short of plagiarism of his brilliant rooster strutting, nevertheless, my own particular is working quite well. How much of this self-absorbed narcissism is is real and how much is an act? Quite a bit, actually.
So who is the real Mr. O?
The man behind the mask, as they say. That's easy:
Don't know what that is? Look it up.
The Recipe of Mr.O's Character:
85% Sadomasochistic Hedonist.
1% Mystic Wanderer.
With a dash of magic sprinkles.
Take the preceding ingredients, Mix 12 oz. of Whiskey with 8 Shots of Espresso in the handbag of a prostitute (shaken and stirred) for the Kzoppistan Kamikaze. Chill and Serve on silver tray with Fat Blunts.
"But Kzopp," I hear you say, "you seem like such a nice chap." Well, you're right, I am pretty great. I'm not a complete and total !@#$%^&, lengthy criminal record notwithstanding. On a personal level I do have a lot of sympathy for my fellow man. I've volunteered at the homeless shelter on Christmas, made donations of goods, for example, and often do little acts to help others not really worth mentioning. But I'm just as likely to laugh when you trip and fall down the stairs. (For the record, I would also laugh at myself should I do the same.) Unlike a lot of these whippersnappers here, I'm not middle-class, been to or are going to college (well, one college credit), don't have a promising future, healthy family, will never obtain the white house with picket fence and 2.5 kids. I've been at the very bottom and have seen many things that a lot of people haven't. I've survived 3 life-or-death situations, I've hitchhiked all across the US, and been a victim, witness, and actor in a number of shady and/or violent incidents. These sort of things take their toll on the mental and emotional health after a while. It turns you cynical and callous. So in an ironic role-reversal from most folks, despite my stunning charisma dashing good looks, I'm actually much nicer on the forum than in person.
Lol, ok, that's not true, I'm just protecting my sensitive side (no, really). But I am often cranky, snide, condescending and sarcastic. Just like all you other pricks. I'm trying to be a nicer person, really I am, but sometimes these traits leak out on the forum, and you can see it when I take offense over something some one says and then pick an argument with them. Sometimes I just take a contrary position that I don't even really believe or care. I can't help it, I just like to give people a hard time. Bust their chops a little.
So now you know everything about me. Maybe. It could all be lies, too.
Well, I've got more random babbling, but that's enough for one day.
Anyone else want to share on the topics discussed?