King DrunkWino
-
Posts
1,153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by King DrunkWino
-
-
I nominate the CN Staff alliance for this position.
Methinks you'd be busy with other things. If not, I might suggest deleting that idea before someone comes along and decides to give you more to do.
-
To: <removed> From: <removed> Date: 2/19/2010 7:55:24 PMSubject: Our War
Message: Well, I see you too have come to pick at the bones of my nation. Pick away, then, vulture. I'm finished fighting this war, and as soon as my last aid deal expires, I'm deleting my nation. You win. I hope you're happy.
I hate hearing of people leave the game in situations like this. I don't really blame you or GOONS, but damn, this kinda !@#$ sucks.
-
Yeah, I figured
What's with the mad face? Drunk $%&@s need loving too. WHY DON'T YOU VALIDATE ME?!?!
-
Need uranium again btw?
Thanks, but I got it covered. Astronaut Jones is hooking me up.
Seems he had a little problem from the sanction bug because he decided that this is a game and the point of a game is to have fun. He was good enough to look out for a brother even when somebody else decides his brand of fun isn't theirs.
/Yeah, basically I'm taking the time to take a shot at the weenies who called sanction. Don't like it? Suck it.
-
No, me drunk.
-
Question....did you really write this? No offense, but the silly spelling mistakes in the poll selections and the verbose post below them couldn't have possibly been written by the same person.
My handle is DrunkWino and I pop pain meds like Pez. I even have a Oxycontin dispenser.
So yes, it could have been written by the same person. Unless I have multiple personalities. In which case that sucks because both personalities are my idols.
-
that depends on which rights you are talking about. many of the conquered's rights stem from the conqueror as well. The right to rebuild. The right to keep a standing army without it being blown away. The right to growth outside of peace mode.
The winner gets no rights that the loser doesn't give. If the loser says no, then the only thing the winner can do is continue to war. That might scare the stat whores and the newbies of an alliance, but anyone who's been around the block once or twice quite frankly doesn't really care all that much. Hell, they might look at it as a good time to reroll for better resources.
The winner can force nothing upon the loser that the loser doesn't agree to. In that vein, the winner is really at the mercy of the loser. Funny ole world that way, isn't it?
-
Victory gives the conqueror the right to impose his will upon the conquered.
The conqueror only becomes the conqueror at the consent of the conquered. The second that the conquered reseeds that right, then the conqueror becomes, well nothing to the conquered.
So what you really mean is that the rights of the conqueror come only from the consent of the conquered. Which is why crippling reps mean very little in the scheme of things. Either the conquered decides that the conqueror has become too much of an $@! and tells them to $%&@ off, or the conquered decides that the conqueror isn't that much of an $@! and decides to simply take care of business before telling the conqueror to $%&@ off.
Either way doesn't matter too much since it eventually ends with one party telling the other to $%&@ off. Until somebody finds a legal way to put a real gun to the head of the player of the character that's a member of an alliance, the rights of the victor come solely from the consent of the conquered.
-
I have no beef with simple reparations. It's the ones designed to cripple an alliance in the wild hope that most will leave than pay and eventually that alliance dies that I got beef with.
Even if you despise a certain group of people, why the $%&@ do you think for a second that you can just bust them up? Honestly, it's a load of chicken**** and even though some folks that I might just like do it, it doesn't excuse it.
-
My objective is to help my bloc. My job is to help my alliance. My priority is to protect those I am responsible for. What I would like to do is low down on my list, though I'll admit there are some perks to make up for effort and frustration.
My primary motivator is an inability to cede my responsibilities to anyone who is not demonstrably better at it.
That's gonna be of a problem there Cupcake since you just happen to be one of the best at what you do.
-
If you ever have a need of somebody to run further testing on it, I'll help for a modest fee.
-
Which is why it may be perfect to have wars for reasons other than simple grudges taken too far. Grudges held in preparation for a war that is often months away is, in my opinion only, one of the reasons why there is so much actual hate around planet bob that goes further than anything in game.
War for the sake of war isn't really what I was suggesting though, but rather different reasons for war, and also a collaboration on the war by the warring parties. If you are a fascist alliance, and your ideological enemy is found in any number of the communist alliances, why not get together with one of them to war? Or if your alliance is Republican in nature, and you would like to war against an alliance that is Liberal in nature, then why not do the very same?
War doesn't need to be about coalition building, or grudges. Grudges turn into hate all too quickly in this game, which is why we often see atrocious behaviour from people.
We need to validate other reasons for war, to help keep things fun for people.
And, personally, I would love to see a star wars vs. star trek war, or anything similar, for no other reason than fun and to decide whether spock could take darth vader.
XD, I think the problem is there are lots and lots of Star Wars alliances and not many Star Trek ones. If there were a big enough Star Trek one, somehow I think that Ivan might let the NSO out to play for a week.
Other fun wars that could happen include: IAA vs <any Republic themed alliance>, MK vs BTO (Mario vs Turtles,) The RIA vs. just about anyone for some randomly insane sounding reason, FOK vs TGE for some mythical European cup, That conservitive alliance vs FARK with the reason given as "Suck it libs," GOD vs CCC (although we already had that one,) and one from back in the day, IRON vs RHUST.
I'm with ya. There are tons of ways that wars could be more frequent and a whole lot more fun if folk just broke the current endless cycle and broke loose with some fun.
-
Too many people at top spots take Cybernations too damn serious and/or refuse to get out of this prepackaged loop of how the game should be played. The loop runs something like:
- Decide you don't like some alliance or leader/Continue vendetta against some alliance or alliance leader
- Quietly build/Luckily stumble into a coalition against said alliance or leader
- Sneak around and plan the burning and pillaging of said alliance
- Get one of those CB's people really don't care about, invent one, or just ignore a CB totally
- Engage in tons of mindless hive-minded trolling against the other side
- Wait till your at your strongest and/or the other side is at it's weakest and THEN actually war
- Blow stuff up
- Whine and troll OWF
- Win or lose war
- Talk about your mercy by your mercifully stealing what you didn't already blow up/Complain about the fact that the other guy is robbing you even though you agreed to it
- Go back to the top and repeat loop
I probably missed a step or two but that's it in a nutshell. Now, no offense intended here, but that is really kinda played out. I'd love to see more alliances get toghether and agree to a fun war for no real reason every once and a while. There really doesn't have to be all this chicken**** grudges and paranoia about each other. It's just a game after all. Does anyone still think that business as usual is really that much fun anymore? Heck, the only reason this war is fun is because it's completely off the charts as far as lunacy goes. It makes it seem new and fresh. I think the bulk of us can agree that new fresh ideas are needed. If you don't believe me, go to the suggestion box and see how many folks suggest gameplay changes. This game ain't all about admin changing things around for us to have fun. CN is probably 25% the actual point and click element and 75% player driven content.
- Decide you don't like some alliance or leader/Continue vendetta against some alliance or alliance leader
-
There are plenty of alliances not prepared for an eternal war at all. At what point do alliance leaders stop to consider the amount of nations they now have on their way to deletion? How long do you fight to defend your pride at the cost of the general membership? I bring this up after the slew of blog entries I’ve seen about tips on being a great leader. Now I don’t state I am the judge on who is and isn’t, but it seems taking pride in bill lock and deletion before surrender seems ridiculous.You want the honest answer? You sure? A lot of folks wrote checks that their *** can't catch and they haven't bothered to look at the checking account lately.
/Letting your members be driven to bill lock so bad that deletion is the best option over THOSE peace terms?! If that's true than each one of those alliances better have a member riot and coup.
-
What Damsky said, although I'm not sure what you mean by "Asperger's Syndrome rejects"
As someone with that condition myself, that grabbed my attention.Simple, it's the folks that walk into the head shrinks office and says "Doc, I think I have Asperger's," to which the physiologist replies "No, you're just an ***hole."
-
You can punch on the messenger all you like, it doesn't change the fact that he's got a point, a very good point.
-
You are?
-
I, for one, am glad I attended this seminar. The material presented was excellent and the professor was entertaining, though I think he might have been drunk.
Might? MIGHT?! Have we not met yet?
/and yes, there is a test. every day you lead an alliance and your membership doesn't want to impale you, you pass.
-
That's so sad. Really, my heart bleeds.
You should get that checked out, a bleeding heart can lead to all sorts of nasty things like wanting universal health care and wanting to save widows and orphans. Real nasty stuff.
-
What is going on here....I am starting to agree with you way too much for my own good!
Don't sell AJ short. That man may be fairly rough with his language and has the diplomatic skills of a coke snorting bull that's been injected with heroin, but that dude has some really impressive insights to what's up. All you gotta do is laugh off all the censored words and the occasional rant and you'll find he poops out nuggets of gold a good bit of the time.
-
If you want to dig deeper, and find the reason why things are happening, you often have to ask. Alliances will often keep even that information from members, under some !@#$%^&* "need to know" policy.
The WHY of things is easy.
There are a lot of kids that play CN. Even us older fogies are known to have a pre-pubescent slip every now and again.
-
And that's the thing, there is no OPSEC, or whatever !@#$%^&* people want to call it to make themselves feel important. There's none. IF you know who to ask and where to go, you can find out most anything before it happens. If you don't, then you're seemingly one of the members that is lied to, or has blinders put on them by their alliance leaders, and only told things that they deem necessary.
Hell, half the time you don't even need to go ask. Basic logic can tell anyone what's gonna happen round here with a much better than average success rate.
-
It's not outright trickery, I don't think, but the motivation behind alliance actions and directions is often masked with, at the very best, the cliff notes version of the truth. At the very worst, the alliance's top brass will know what their intentions are, what they're striving for, and what they're planning, while keeping the membership in the dark until it's time for "war."
People will always claim that there needs to be secrecy within an alliance, especially at or near the top, but at what point does secrecy cross the line over into deception?
Most of the time it's like that, sure. It's what most call a necessary evil that full disclosure must be sacrificed on the alter of OPSEC. Which is really dumb considering that OPSEC in CN is a joke to begin with.
Now me, I find that I like the Athenian (the historic one, not the CN one,) idea of total democracy. Instead of trying to figure out what needs to be secret and what can get filtered out to the masses, I like the idea of complete and total disclosure. Tell 'em everything, show 'em the logs and your thought process that leads you to the decision you're about to make. Then listen to the membership. You never know who out there will bring up a good point or find a flaw in your thought process. Treat your members like valuable partners in an alliance instead of just the folks you give the orders to.
/Yeah, I know that ideal most likely needs a smaller tight-nit alliance to begin with. But that's how we're rollin' over in The Jedi Order and I admit I'm getting spoiled by it.
-
the problem with that king is that some members will not feel at ease with the course of action the leadership will promote to deal with certain situations. but since they know only the part of the story the leaders think they should know, they can never actually find out what is really going on.
That's not a good thing in my opinion. If you are leading and your members are uneasy about where you're leading them to, then it's up to you to listen to what they have to say. Maybe they have good points and maybe they don't, but part of the job has to be getting your membership pulling the same way toward the same goal. Not telling them what's up, nah that just don't work for me so much.
As someone with that condition myself, that grabbed my attention.
Ya know what? Sometimes doctors can't figure it out
in Ramblings of a DrunkWino
A blog by King DrunkWino in General
Posted
After a year, I can claim somewhat of an expert knowledge of quite a few drugs. Even get advice from an excellent pharmacist that happens to be a friend of mine. My wife actually brings her over to gauge my dosing strategies. I think she might even be writing a paper on it.