Jump to content
  • entries
    5
  • comments
    43
  • views
    1,560

Case Study: Cobrasphere


Tevron

274 views

Case Study: Cobrasphere

 

Lo and behold, we have reached the third case study. This time featuring Cobrasphere. It’s key to note that in the case of Cobrasphere and RFI, they both did not exist when this supposed stagnation was cemented. However, they both bear considerable responsibilities with regard to the state of current foreign affairs. I covered RFI last time, so I’ll cover Cobrasphere now. They are primarily low tier nations and are the most dominating force in that area. They are more active on discord and in-game than many alliances that belong to other spheres. So, how could the state of politics be their fault, if at all?

 

Activity is not politics. This is an age-old lesson in CN, perhaps best explained by MI6 and DK, two alliances with much different cultures, memberships and FA strategies, but who both ultimately succumbed to political pressures in one way or another, while other very active alliances (Umbrella, NPO) were able to dominate the game. Cobrasphere does not benefit politically from their activity, because the activity that they display is not conducive to working toward common goals or coalition building.

This comes down to ideology primarily. I’m going to look at how their ideological positions relate to various areas of their approach to politics. Each of these plays a role in the political position of the Cobrasphere and their own ability to alter anything with regard to the overall landscape. The foundations of their ideology are mainly centered around militaristic actions and war. They would call this Laytonism most of the time. Since they are focused on aggressive actions rather than a more diverse portfolio of actions, it fundamentally affects how they interact with all other alliances. They typically view other alliances as inert, scared of war, and as sippers of the haterade. These are all somewhat justified views, as these case studies have and will show, but things are a bit more complicated than that. And being “right” in your analysis does not necessarily result in effective politics. 

 

Let’s talk about their public relations. As a whole, their PR strategy is centrally concerned with revenge, having the last word, and stern independence. The side effects are evident. Cobrasphere has always been willing to argue on the Open World Forum, but mostly they split their posts between three major strategies: First, they focus their efforts on general bickering and derision aimed at alliances that they hold responsible for the current state of affairs. Secondly, they harass alliances or individual members who engage with them. And third, they support one another. In these three endeavors, they often include blatantly false information. So why Tevron, why do you seem to think that Cobrasphere’s posting on the OWF has an actual political effect?

 

Based on personal discussions with a variety of leadership across the spheres, OWF posts are the biggest view that most alliances have into how this sphere operates. And that is because these behaviors are predictive. Praise the sphere? You will be ignored at best. Engage with them critically? You will be harassed by at least four or five of their members. In a world where critique of your actions and debate have genuinely been a source of entertainment for those who use the OWF, Cobrasphere displaces that with their combativeness. Since they do not rely on an épistémè that allows for mutual understanding of what specific terms mean: (For example, not understanding the word “until” as inclusive of a given day, or not understanding two rounds as the time equivalent. You can read about it here: https://cybernations.fandom.com/wiki/Snake_Eyes_War ). This extends rather clearly into their OWF posting. Specific examples would highlight individuals in a negative light, so I will not provide them at this time, but I would suggest reading the three largest, most recent threads with large Cobrasphere presences and counting the number of misunderstandings that seem to occur between the people replying to one another.

 

This kind of posting is not consistent across the sphere, but it is prevalent in an abundance of its members. Only a few examples (Johnny Apocalypse/TDT, Kapleo, Lyanna) are the exceptions to a rule that is largely a cloud of negativity and toxicity that often misrepresents and harasses both individuals and alliances. Incidentally, Cobrasphere understands criticism against them and their conduct as reflective of a desire to silence them. The truth is that their critics would like them to behave differently. This goes hand and hand with another tendency of Cobrasphere politics, namely the frequent victimization of their individual alliances and sphere. It is rare to find a situation that involves COBRA or their allies in one way or another that does not involve them being the victim of an unjust act, usually at the hands of CLAWS or FTW in recent years. These OWF practices color the political perception of COBRA as a combative alliance that is unwilling to cooperate and that will frequently make enemies out of anyone connected to their grievances in order to exploit the potential PR possibility. By repeating their combativeness with the same alliances, which other alliances do not have issues working with, it highlights that the source of these problems are tied to the sphere itself and prevents political maneuvers with the Cobrasphere. Who wants to work with someone who can’t even bury a hatchet? 

 

With regard to Discord, their behavior is slightly different. They do not have a consistent conduct policy and have frequently exposed the public to a variety of content, some of which would be characterized as ableist, sexual, or targeted harassment. Their individual members tend to follow conduct rules on other servers thought. It is not a huge cause for concern, individual members can only be as curbed from undue behavior as far as an alliance government allows, but it does affect their image as well. Personally, I think these matters are not integral to their image, but there are surely some who may object.

 

Finally, their in-game activity is focused on war, raiding and forcing micros not aligned with them to disband, most notably in their recent extermination of JDA, who had been lied to over the course of the Snake Eyes War and thus did not choose to optionally enter upon the battlefield. These small acts are inconsistent with their opposition to curbstomping, but also drive non-like-minded micros from planet Bob, paralyzing micropolitics into a singular sphere outside of a pair of protectorates scattered across the world. Of course, this issue is, broadly speaking, an outcome of the concept of "fun" itself. Where are you to find "fair wars" at all? I am curious to see how LH's micro thrives or dies in its already clearly antagonistic relationship to the broader microsphere, which is highly aligned.

 

To sum up, Cobrasphere has an active and thriving community that could potentially dish out some political action, but they do not have any ability to build a coalition, which is based on a combination of factors, the most significant of which are mainly their ideology, inability to agree to similar terms as other alliances, public relations strategy and their general negativity. There have been some recent mutterings of change in the Cobrasphere though, so perhaps there is hope in the areas that are most inhibiting to political development. Next up are the remnants of Aftermath and the non XX part of the beer-o-sphere. We typically call them the ex-moralist spheres in discussions I have had. Looking forward to your responses.

Edited by Tevron

11 Comments


Recommended Comments

"paralyzing micropolitics into a singular sphere outside of a pair of protectorates scattered across the world"

 

One could say the same about certain blocs which are effectively paralyzing macropolitics into a single sphere outside of a pair of neutrals scattered across the world. 

You actually already did (excellent read, btw)

 

A vast majority of the player base is concentrated in the mid-upper level and they are slow. Real slow.

Ever building up for a war that will never happen.

The micro world works differently.

It is a faster community.

Always has been.

Disband an unprotected micro militarily and your members gain experience  while the defenders seek a new home/independent FA to contribute towards a common goal. Disband them through inactivity and no one gains anything except for maybe those tech stocks.

 

The problem here is that many of the micros that pop up these days are rerolls or just splinter groups (genuine or otherwise), which is OK but it goes back to what you said about an 'Old Guard'

Same principle applies because habits is habits.

What about protection status?

A trend that seems to exist is the eventual merger of Protectorates to their protecting alliance, which I generally don't approve of unless that alliance is going inactive.

But we need to understand why this happens-

Are certain blocs as culturally prone to merging as ours is to violence? And if so, what can we do to encourage a symbiotic understanding between them?

 

 

If COBRAsphere conducts itself in a perpetually aggressive manner, then it is most certainly a result of a large scale adaption through interaction with larger groups such as your own. Your assessment is mostly accurate, I will say (IMO) and you are correct in pointing out a lack of political ambition, which is definitely in its infancy.

 

I leave on this note;

An antagonizing force is essential to the survival of this game.

Think back to the bad guys of yesterday and ask yourself how drastically different the landscape of today would look had they not existed.

Link to comment

First I'll say your analysis is thoughtful, clearly you put in the time.  There are some big gaps in your understanding that are plugged with bias or speculation, but thats not entirely unexpected. It is by far the most interesting region of Bob right now, and being an outsider is going to lend itself to speculation and assumptions.  

 

I won't repeat everything GK said as he hit many of the big points, but some of your claims I do resent. You can DM me to discuss if you want. 

i'll give a 4 of 5 

 

Its thoughtful and a good read even with the holes, and this kind of content is always appreciated 

 

thank you 

Edited by Lucius Optimus
Link to comment

Very interesting read from the other side's perspective.  Would lie if I say it wasn't pleasant to read, plus pretty much what my colleagues said.

Link to comment

Apologies for the delay in response. I wrote one up on my laptop, but it turns out the cache didn't save the response so I didn't get around to posting it. Here's my rewritten responses:

 

Thank you for your thoughtful responses GK. I appreciate that you read this and had something to say! Overall, I think we largely in agreement! I cut out the parts that I just agree with and don't have any additional comments on!

 

On 8/23/2020 at 12:59 PM, General Kanabis said:

The problem here is that many of the micros that pop up these days are rerolls or just splinter groups (genuine or otherwise), which is OK but it goes back to what you said about an 'Old Guard'

Same principle applies because habits is habits.

What about protection status?

A trend that seems to exist is the eventual merger of Protectorates to their protecting alliance, which I generally don't approve of unless that alliance is going inactive.

But we need to understand why this happens-

Are certain blocs as culturally prone to merging as ours is to violence? And if so, what can we do to encourage a symbiotic understanding between them?


Protection status and protectorates + mergers don't really seem to do anything unless the protected alliance is going inactive.... The same can be said for the splinters themselves, they can be seen as positive except when they rob their host alliance of significant activity. I wish there were more new alliances that weren't either re-rolls or splinters, but I think we're basically down for the count with regards to that at this time, barring some sudden youtuber invasion.

I would suggest that certain spheres do have cultural thrusts, but I think the individual leaders are probably more important than that overall sphere culture. An alliance leader can easily decide whether or not to break with the ideas of the past and head into new directions, but usually they have to do it more gradually or as a series of compromises. I think that COBRA, for example, is already a lot different than they were two years ago. Doubly so for alliances like CCC or Sparta that were literally dead until recently. As this relates to the culture of merge or violence, I do think in COBRA's case it is a genuine culture of aggression and military superiority over the micro-tier. From that perspective, it's kind of hard to deny that the reverse could be true. Maybe alliances in RFI, Oculus, Ex-Moralists are all simply more culturally driven to merge for a variety of reasons. What aspects of their cultures seem to individually support that?

 

I've noticed merges of inactive alliances tend to be halted almost entirely by pride, so now instead of mostly inactive protectorates, there are simply only inactive ones.

 

On 8/23/2020 at 12:59 PM, General Kanabis said:

I leave on this note;

An antagonizing force is essential to the survival of this game.

Think back to the bad guys of yesterday and ask yourself how drastically different the landscape of today would look had they not existed.

I agree with you that antagonizing forces are essential to the survival of the political game. I think the problem is that the bad guys are non-existent right now from a narrative perspective. One of the tragedies of the last five years has been that there has been no truly villainous sphere to rise up. There were times when people expected Polaris to bring about a kind of anti-oculus, Karma 2.0 but that narrative was made impossible by the very same people who acted like it could have been a possibility to begin with. Alliances like Non Grata who have certainly been the 'bad guy', ultimately joined the 'good guys' and became the neither good nor bad guys in Oculus. I wonder if part of the reason there are not strong villainous alliances right now is because moralist politics are near completely dead. More on that in the next blog post...

 

On 8/23/2020 at 2:36 PM, Lucius Optimus said:

I won't repeat everything GK said as he hit many of the big points, but some of your claims I do resent. You can DM me to discuss if you want. 

Thanks for the response Lucius, but I believe GK and I didn't really disagree on many points. Could you tell me which of my claims you resent? If you want people to see that I have a biased or incorrect assessment, I think you should just reply here so that I can understand some of the insights that you have. Your vantage point is certainly a lot better than mine of your own sphere. 

 

On 9/1/2020 at 1:38 AM, Kapleo said:

Very interesting read from the other side's perspective.  Would lie if I say it wasn't pleasant to read, plus pretty much what my colleagues said.

Thanks Kapleo, I appreciate your comment!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tevron said:

I wonder if part of the reason there are not strong villainous alliances right now is because moralist politics are near completely dead. More on that in the next blog post...

 

I disagree. Moralist politics still exist. It's just that they don't serve a purpose since no one is willing to make moves.

 

Also, very nice read.

Edited by Thrash
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tevron said:

Protection status and protectorates + mergers don't really seem to do anything unless the protected alliance is going inactive.... The same can be said for the splinters themselves, they can be seen as positive except when they rob their host alliance of significant activity. I wish there were more new alliances that weren't either re-rolls or splinters, but I think we're basically down for the count with regards to that at this time, barring some sudden youtuber invasion.

I would suggest that certain spheres do have cultural thrusts, but I think the individual leaders are probably more important than that overall sphere culture. An alliance leader can easily decide whether or not to break with the ideas of the past and head into new directions, but usually they have to do it more gradually or as a series of compromises. I think that COBRA, for example, is already a lot different than they were two years ago. Doubly so for alliances like CCC or Sparta that were literally dead until recently. As this relates to the culture of merge or violence, I do think in COBRA's case it is a genuine culture of aggression and military superiority over the micro-tier. From that perspective, it's kind of hard to deny that the reverse could be true. Maybe alliances in RFI, Oculus, Ex-Moralists are all simply more culturally driven to merge for a variety of reasons. What aspects of their cultures seem to individually support that?

 

I've noticed merges of inactive alliances tend to be halted almost entirely by pride, so now instead of mostly inactive protectorates, there are simply only inactive ones.

 

There are really only 3 reasons an alliance would merge; for Political reasons, for Ambitious reasons, or for Emergency reasons.
Unfortunately, all three seem to apply for (some) fairly recent mergers.

And here is where the violent culture of a lower tier alliance comes into play as a stark contrast of what their historic enemies represent.
A larger force is more likely to take under their wing, newer AAs that spring up, adding to the power and capabilities of tomorrow's potential enemy, precisely because they are expected to merge eventually.
Of course, when speaking of an ultra violent sphere, you can imagine anyone is a potential enemy.
But going back to what you previously said about victimization, I can agree that it plays a major role in this attitude.
If an alliance has good historical reason to perceive ill intentions from a larger group allied to an even larger group allied to a megacrew, then you can understand why they might be on edge all the time.
When applied in game, this thinking creates a sort of Cold War, or micro arms race, if you will.
Within the parameters of this dilemma I have established that to one side is left the majority of the burden, and perhaps it is indeed a time for real change, but in order to bring about such a solution, a deeper examination of the other side is needed;

The specific point I would say is the tendency of former Doom affiliates to disband or merge constantly under obvious duress.
I believe this is one of those tri-category situations I outlined above.
Coming from me, it may sound like hateful pessimism, but when an alliance, or a group of alliances undergo this process under those specific conditions, a pattern of recklessness emerges.
Recklessness in the sense that for the sake of all affected, certain considerations should never be rushed.
In other words; you can't leave any loose ends!
Because ultimately, it is hard to leave the past where is belongs when the vestigial consequences don't trail far behind.
 

 

6 hours ago, Tevron said:

I agree with you that antagonizing forces are essential to the survival of the political game. I think the problem is that the bad guys are non-existent right now from a narrative perspective. One of the tragedies of the last five years has been that there has been no truly villainous sphere to rise up. There were times when people expected Polaris to bring about a kind of anti-oculus, Karma 2.0 but that narrative was made impossible by the very same people who acted like it could have been a possibility to begin with. Alliances like Non Grata who have certainly been the 'bad guy', ultimately joined the 'good guys' and became the neither good nor bad guys in Oculus. I wonder if part of the reason there are not strong villainous alliances right now is because moralist politics are near completely dead. More on that in the next blog post...



An influx of players is ideal but ultimately we have to work with what we have. It's a type of adaption I would imagine springs into action when an entire ecosystem is on the verge of extinction. Rather than focus on something we cant really control (unless we suddenly learn how to advertise en masse), we need to understand why people become so disengaged.

I blame the general attitude that has developed within this community and is largely endorsed by the old group of players who basically run the show.

When activity appears on the OWF, people are engaged, no matter how toxic.
In fact, the toxicity levels and activity levels often correlate!

"Waste of time"
"Irrelevant"
"Who cares"
"Game is dead"

That's not what generates active or spawns culture.
It in fact, props a status quo among the residents of Bob that isolates any desire to participate in the game because the cool kids don't agree with it.
The result; the only perceived villains left are those who dare rage against the dying of the light.

Link to comment

Heya there 🙂 -- great read as always, even if it's criticizing the bloc I'm in.
Told myself that I'd respond to this post back when it was first posted but never got around to it, so here goes (speaking as an individual, not as a representative of an alliance, just btw):

"Activity is not politics." <-- it sure is better than inactivity, though, something that has plagued the majority of alliances in modern Cyber Nations and whom seem to be in no hurry getting out of. And, frankly, why are we acting like Cobrasphere isn't producing politics? Just because it's not the type of politics that RFOculus loves (hoarding all the treaties like you're Gollum) doesn't mean that it's nonexistant, and I frankly feel like it's a better type of politics than y'alls.

Your whole OWF thing <-- Why are you all not drowning us out? You outnumber us (as you do not hesitate to show during wartime) by at least 5/1, if not 10/1; there's no reason why you can't dominate OWF discourse. You all seem to be convinced that the OWF, the place that Admin specifically made for publicly discussing politics, is a "joke" that should not be used; change that mentality! Bring life back here, and functionally get rid of any "cloud of negativity and toxicity" that we could possibly create here! It'll surely make for a more interesting Bob.

Snake eyes <-- have you ever considered that we could have reasons for being generally distrustful of RFOculus for actual reasons? For example, Kapleo (the leader of my alliance) was a member of TPF (whose demise I assume that you're familiar with), and many others of our members likely have similar stories to tell. Regarding the war in particular, it was afaik your sphere's epic botching of diplomacy with regards to what was an unauthorized raid by a low-tier nation, followed by a war that would have expired after the protected period (as for why we don't believe peace would've been actually offered, see the first half of this paragraph), although I'm not super familiar with it myself.

Discord <-- yes, we have (age-restricted) nsfw channels (gasp of horror!). And besides, RFI is really one to talk about unbecoming discord activities haha.


Other micros <-- Take a look at the bottom-left two continents on this map and note the number of alliances there, most of which are fellow micros; I don't think that we're exactly destroying micros left, right, and centre. I don't know of JDA, but the only micro that I know we've attacked recently was WS, and even that was just for a day in response to repeated raids.

Lmk if you wanna talk further, either here or on discord (stq#8639) -- this probably sounds a bit rambling and mildly incoherent haha.

Link to comment
On 9/13/2020 at 1:24 AM, Thrash said:

 

I disagree. Moralist politics still exist. It's just that they don't serve a purpose since no one is willing to make moves.

 

Also, very nice read.

If something does nothing when observed from the outside, does it actually exist? Thank you for the compliment!

 

On 9/13/2020 at 2:04 AM, General Kanabis said:

I blame the general attitude that has developed within this community and is largely endorsed by the old group of players who basically run the show.

When activity appears on the OWF, people are engaged, no matter how toxic.
In fact, the toxicity levels and activity levels often correlate!

"Waste of time"
"Irrelevant"
"Who cares"
"Game is dead"

That's not what generates active or spawns culture.
It in fact, props a status quo among the residents of Bob that isolates any desire to participate in the game because the cool kids don't agree with it.
The result; the only perceived villains left are those who dare rage against the dying of the light.

 

Overall I agree with you again GK :). I think that you may have mistaken what I deemed as toxicity as being forum drama itself though. I think arguments, heated passion and so on are the lifeblood of the OWF! Watching people get owned, including my own side, in arguments over the Snake Eyes War (for example) are a positive form of activity that gives alliance leaders something to discuss and weigh in on. The toxicity that I meant is more the automatic disdain and undercutting that has become more and more frequent. Sure, we're all familiar to some extent, but it's simply boring when threads are always Us vs Them and there is little to no agreement or discussion. We have seen a huge decrease in people who are willing to argue about the issues -- just take a look at the lame riffs about not knowing the name of RFI from some of the active forum posters -- these unsubstantial contributions are meaningless and simply say "we don't like you" again and again.

 

I view the people who constantly whine about the death of the game (in both OOC and IC areas) as nonsensical. The "waste of time" that is our simulated entertainment should probably matter more to these people, but they've become obsessed with a circlejerk that has been around for as long as I've been here. Unfortunately, the people who consistently cry in every breath about the "dead game" or "who cares" are clinging to their ivory towers and/or the sunken cost fallacy that keeps them around. They tend to be the same people who obsessively reference 2007 CN politics for whatever reason.

Of course, this series is about the Death of Politics in our world, so I may be just as guilty of poo-pooing the state of the status quo, but this series obviously sets out to identify problems rather than to give in to the existing world and resign ourselves to simply waiting for the heat death of Bob.

 

"

Quote

Activity is not politics." <-- it sure is better than inactivity, though, something that has plagued the majority of alliances in modern Cyber Nations and whom seem to be in no hurry getting out of. And, frankly, why are we acting like Cobrasphere isn't producing politics? Just because it's not the type of politics that RFOculus loves (hoarding all the treaties like you're Gollum) doesn't mean that it's nonexistant, and I frankly feel like it's a better type of politics than y'alls.

 

Yeah, of course activity is better than inactivity, but that's not really the point of what I'm writing about. If I was evaluating the qualities of each sphere, Cobrasphere would get a lot of points for being active, having interesting character, etc. but that's not why I'm here! I would argue that Cobrasphere (and COBRA in particular) have only recently embraced the production of politics outside of micropolitics. One thing that makes your sphere interesting is that it appears to be changing at a rate much faster than the others. Treaty hoarding is something that is a valid critique, and I think i brought it up in the Oculus Case Study. I personally don't think treaties harm nor help politics. People will always be willing to throw allies under the bus, as history has shown. Hell, ODN didn't defend FTW in that NG-FTW conflict.

 

Quote

Your whole OWF thing <-- Why are you all not drowning us out? You outnumber us (as you do not hesitate to show during wartime) by at least 5/1, if not 10/1; there's no reason why you can't dominate OWF discourse. You all seem to be convinced that the OWF, the place that Admin specifically made for publicly discussing politics, is a "joke" that should not be used; change that mentality! Bring life back here, and functionally get rid of any "cloud of negativity and toxicity" that we could possibly create here! It'll surely make for a more interesting Bob.

Not everyone likes to argue on internet forums. While I am one of the people who gets off on the heat of a debate and will chime in, many of my core membership have very explicitly told me at one point or another that they don't use the OWF anymore because they don't see how any good can come of it and that it's just angry &#33;@#&#036;posting. From the perspective of my own alliance, we use the OWF quite a bit more than other alliances. I remember at one point when I was AC, a third of all first page OWF posts were from my alliance. I will admit that I've recently opened less topics, but that was actually because of the Snake Eyes War and the overall feeling that we didn't want to post certain threads (like our individual treaty with Argent) simply because we knew it would turn into an anti-RFI circlejerk since that's what every single other thread was at the time. It was easier to celebrate with our wine glasses in private.

 

I don't disagree with you though, that the best way to change a negative situation is to change your relationship to it. I intend to post more often once again for this reason.
 

Quote

Snake eyes <-- have you ever considered that we could have reasons for being generally distrustful of RFOculus for actual reasons? For example, Kapleo (the leader of my alliance) was a member of TPF (whose demise I assume that you're familiar with), and many others of our members likely have similar stories to tell. Regarding the war in particular, it was afaik your sphere's epic botching of diplomacy with regards to what was an unauthorized raid by a low-tier nation, followed by a war that would have expired after the protected period (as for why we don't believe peace would've been actually offered, see the first half of this paragraph), although I'm not super familiar with it myself.

 

I think every alliance that isn't an ally to RFI or Oculus has a reason to distrust one if not the other. I don't see how that relates to the discussion though.. Clarify?

 

Quote

Discord <-- yes, we have (age-restricted) nsfw channels (gasp of horror!). And besides, RFI is really one to talk about unbecoming discord activities haha.

 

Not what I was referring to, and I dismissed it myself as a minor complaint that impacts image but isn't a big deal.


 

Quote

Other micros <-- Take a look at the bottom-left two continents on this map and note the number of alliances there, most of which are fellow micros; I don't think that we're exactly destroying micros left, right, and centre. I don't know of JDA, but the only micro that I know we've attacked recently was WS, and even that was just for a day in response to repeated raids.

I don't think Cobrapshere is destroying micros all the time either. I just was highlighting how curbstomping, which is considered to be an alliance killer and bad practice by most everyone (on the public level at least) is something that Cobrasphere is also guilty of. Their hands are not the most clean on that, since obviously the ex-moralists aren't rolling anyone at all.

Edited by Tevron
Link to comment
On 9/15/2020 at 4:01 AM, Tevron said:

Overall I agree with you again GK :). I think that you may have mistaken what I deemed as toxicity as being forum drama itself though. I think arguments, heated passion and so on are the lifeblood of the OWF! Watching people get owned, including my own side, in arguments over the Snake Eyes War (for example) are a positive form of activity that gives alliance leaders something to discuss and weigh in on. The toxicity that I meant is more the automatic disdain and undercutting that has become more and more frequent. Sure, we're all familiar to some extent, but it's simply boring when threads are always Us vs Them and there is little to no agreement or discussion. We have seen a huge decrease in people who are willing to argue about the issues -- just take a look at the lame riffs about not knowing the name of RFI from some of the active forum posters -- these unsubstantial contributions are meaningless and simply say "we don't like you" again and again.

 

I view the people who constantly whine about the death of the game (in both OOC and IC areas) as nonsensical. The "waste of time" that is our simulated entertainment should probably matter more to these people, but they've become obsessed with a circlejerk that has been around for as long as I've been here. Unfortunately, the people who consistently cry in every breath about the "dead game" or "who cares" are clinging to their ivory towers and/or the sunken cost fallacy that keeps them around. They tend to be the same people who obsessively reference 2007 CN politics for whatever reason.

Of course, this series is about the Death of Politics in our world, so I may be just as guilty of poo-pooing the state of the status quo, but this series obviously sets out to identify problems rather than to give in to the existing world and resign ourselves to simply waiting for the heat death of Bob.

 

As someone who has recently  (and painfully) made a real effort to separate toxicity and character, I agree with you to a certain extent. 

20200916_040950.gif

 

But I don't believe that trolling, by itself, is in any way responsible for the lack of players.

What you call a "boring riff" has more political reference than your biases would care to acknowledge.

International leaders do it all the time.

When Iran was accused of launching drone attacks against Saudi Arabia, Putin suggested that the Saudis had purchased an inferior air defense system and that they should instead, invest in a Russian one, like their Iranian allies had done. He said this to Saudi leaders while holding back literal lulz.

Hugo Chavez once commented that the UN smelled of sulfur (after George Bush gave a speech) because the Devil was there.

 

As much as we want to simulate a valid experience in politics, we must recognize that there simply is no politics without trolling, especially in CN.

 

But back to the dying.

Someone made a post recently about being disillusioned with CN, specifically, the lack of people who they (the poster) had been building up to hit one day.

That's the thing...

The culture throughout COBRA and our extended family is that we won't ever let an opportunity slip our grasp if and when we have determined that the time has come for retribution. 

To you that may seem like we cant bury a hatchet, but just because we pick up a similar hatchet from a similar location doesn't make it the same one.

It just means hatchets are getting harder to come by.

And it's a real shame because that is the primary tool used to forge the legends we so secretly cherish (can't let your friends know you read the wiki too!)

 

We have now identified; ultra violence, excessive merging, old guard politics, and cult apathy as contributing factors to the decline.

If your aim is to possibly propose a solution to the overall stagnation in game, we would be happy to help.

I actually believe our spheres can work together to encourage growth.

Link to comment
On 9/15/2020 at 7:01 AM, Tevron said:

Hell, ODN didn't defend FTW in that NG-FTW conflict.

 

Not true. They did but it was very limited. There was a lot more they could've done, but didn't for some strange reason. Props for keeping me staggered the whole war, but declaring on me and not nuking me allows me to get out of anarchy and launch 4 more wars. The entire war mostly just placeholders thrown at me. If you're gonna declare war at least do something. Applies to NPO also. An alliance of that size should have been able to throw more people at us, but they're an inactive hulk. It's sad that FTW and Legion bore most of the weight from that war, when they had allies many times the size of them, who just didn't produce. I'm thinking some people might need to rethink their connections, stir it up. Oc did nothing to help RFI except cover staggers.

 

There's no reason Bob needs to die, but what I've stated above is what is killing it.

Edited by Thrash
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Thrash said:

Not true. They did but it was very limited. There was a lot more they could've done, but didn't for some strange reason.

I'm not referring to the separate Oculus CB and declare. You are incorrect. 

 

You're definitely right about Legion and FTW pulling most of the weight in Snake Eyes. Their commanders, Windmark and Kaznawim did really well at organizing internally.

Edited by Tevron
Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...