Doug Falkner

[quote name='scutterbug' timestamp='1297795137' post='2634545'] If you wanna get the facts straight, and now im sorry for this IRON but its true. I posted against this treaty because i had my reasons. The MHA membership were not even told this treaty was happening and majority of us only found out when it got announced here by surprise. The membership also didn't get to vote on whether we actually wanted it. Cable took it upon himself to see there was maybe 20 people? In support of it so figured lets go ahead with it and bypass democracy. But thanks for being the one to air our dirty laundry in public first faulkner in trying to call me out [/quote] Scutterbug, I wasn't calling you out nor was I airing any dirty laundry. I just think you're mistaken about there being insufficient democratic consideration of this treaty within the MHA. We did talk about this on an open forum and there was near universal agreement that this treaty was a good idea. As I've noted to you elsewhere democracy isn't just a matter of formal voting - open discussion and consensus is quite a democratic process as well. That being the case, I don't think there is any dirty laundry to air.

Hey IRON, [s]we[/s] I missed Valentines day but still P.S. [quote name='scutterbug' timestamp='1297762491' post='2634315'] Well this will be interesting, a treaty that MHA members didnt even get a say on. [/quote] Uh, you posted in the thread at the MHA forums where we talked about this. It was a while ago, maybe you forgot.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1297214727' post='2626323'] What a bunch of emo simps. I slapped NPO's butt every day for 9 months, then I got over it. [/quote] While I tend to agree with your sentiment, it struck me that it should be NPO that would have a hard time getting over your repeated butt slappings. It's not saying much to say that you got over it. P.S. Oops, I should have just posted this stuff with my earlier comment. Oh well, deal with my semi-double posting.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1297214471' post='2626315'] I was increasingly coming to the conclusion that MCXA was one of the bad guys in late 2008. Then when TSO left I saw an opportunity to get the rest of MCXA away from NPO and reform ourselves (the rest of MCXA, by and large, were not pro-NPO.) OOC: Lawl. To think I actually tried to roleplay on my rerolls. I even used OOC tags to refer to stuff I'd done on previous characters at first. I've mostly given up now. [/quote] I remember those debates, you and NC were really angry about our treaty with NPO. I guess in the end it didn't matter. [OOC]The secret is to re-roll as the same character after a really long break, you get the freedom to join a new alliance but can still maintain your history[/OOC]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1297212560' post='2626259'] Heh, no. My opinions were radically different from those of TSO. TSO's exodus only increased my love for NpO. When we attacked Polar in No-CB, I didn't have any personal grudge against them (I saw it simply as an opportunity to take down one of the bad guys in the ~hegemony~), and then talked with electron sponge every day for a couple of months when I was in Vox which was enough to change my opinion of him. [/quote] Oh yeah, I forgot you joined Vox. I never quite got why you did that.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1297211348' post='2626220'] I'm not really trying to start a debate on whether what Polar did was wrong, but rather state the reasons that I have for disliking Polar. [/quote] I wonder if the reason might not be that you were in MCXA between '07 and '08. I really disliked Polar for quite some time until I stopped to think about it. The only reasons I could think of for my dislike of Polar was that I was part of MCXA during that period as well (and thought they treated MCXA like a client alliance) and the trolling by Penchuk. I wonder if your dislike for them isn't at least partly the result of your past affiliation with MCXA too. P.S. For anyone who cares, I don't feel one way or the other about Polar anymore. P.P.S. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1297212178' post='2626236'] From the fact that people hate them enough to jump them opportunistically when they haven't done anything, it appears that other alliances had a similar experience. [/quote] To be fair to Pacifica it seems that on Planet Bob there's been a history of folks jumping on alliances who haven't done anything for not very good reasons. I would contend that most people involved on most of the major wars on Planet Bob haven't had much of a stake in the CB underlying the wars or had any substantive grievance with their opponents.

[quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1297140270' post='2625218'] Please. [b]Try[/b] for once in your barbaric, heathen life to make an argument that I can't knock down with my breath. [/quote] I don't really want to get involved in this debate - so I won't - but I just wanted to note that the above sentence is the best sentence I've encountered in at least two or three weeks. I like how it both calls someone a barbaric heathen, which is a wonderful insult by the way, and suggests that the poster has terrible halitosis. Thank you Cairna for that sentence!

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1297117075' post='2624538'] oh i understand realpolitik. i have been there and done that. never really liked it though. [/quote] I must admit I'm not a huge fan of it either but it seems that the most dominant alliances are those who are the best at it though.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1297102074' post='2624212'] actually i am fine with either strategy. i don't care if an alliance declares war with a CB of "I don't like you". the issues i have is that the alliances doing such made a huge stink about proper CBs and how wrong aggressive wars for no reason are. and that, even though NPO attempted to use some sort of "real" CB instead of just declaring because they did not like an alliance but stated that NPO only hit the alliance cuz NPO did not like the alliance, and they made a huge stink over the fact that NPO only hit cuz they did not like the alliance and the CB was just trash; well i don't like hypocrites or double standards. had the alliances not made these huge stinks over such issues before, then i would not care about it now. if an alliance like NEW declares cuz they don't like the alliance, i would only have an issue if the alliance was an ally and that is only because they hit an ally. just like they did with DF. never had an issue with them hitting cuz they did not like DF, only an issue that they hit while DF was protected. [/quote] Fair enough. I understand your frustration with that. But, that said, folks will play their games. Dominance on Planet Bob is about getting folks who don't know any better to jump on your bandwagon - sometimes outrage for the sake of outrage does that. Sometimes declaring war on somebody because people still don't like them after 2 years does that. Doch, I've always found you to be a guy that understands that sort of realpolitik.

Doch, My point was that essentially they have the same strategy and the only real difference is the amount of effort put into the cover stories, with NPO putting a bit more effort. Though, I suspect that you and I might have different opinions of that strategy. I tend to think that it's fine - mostly because it's inevitable that alliances will act in such a manner. I suspect that you are not in favor of the strategy.

At the risk of taking this risk off topic, it has always struck me that war on Planet Bob is generally a matter of establishing one's coalition's place in the grand scheme of things. That being the case, whatever the stated CB is for any whatever the alliance, coalition, or whatever, in general war on Planet Bob tends to always be about the same things for the same reasons and the only real differences are the strategy employed to get the people you need to fight to fight you. So it strikes me the real thing to talk about is whether one prefers the old fashion way of doing things, which was best characterized by NPO's modus operandi prior to the Karma War, that involved either finding an excuse or maneuvering one's enemy into attacking or the new way of doing things, which is characterized by Doomhouse's declaration on NPO, and simply declaring war when one believes that a war would be strategically advantageous. In the end, the question is whether one prefers directness or subtlety or nuance.

Congrats on the peace bros and broettes!

Crushing one's enemies seems so violent. I prefer exuberantly hugging to bits.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1296466633' post='2612782'] MHA are fat. Being fat doesn't make them good at fighting, but it does hurt when they step on your feet. [/quote] We're not fat. We're festively plump.

I've noticed that no one has commemorated this moment with a Vogon poem yet, so if I may: [quote]See, see the bad cook sky Marvel at its big puce depths. Tell me, The People's Community do you Wonder why the pangolin ignores you? Why its foobly stare makes you feel groggy. I can tell you, it is Worried by your bazzlerod facial growth That looks like A sandwich. What's more, it knows Your usufruct potting shed Smells of turtle. Everything under the big bad cook sky[/quote]

[quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1296395137' post='2611077'] It's less about the pixels and more that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones kinda thing. [/quote] I always thought it was that people in glass houses should throw the most stones. I guess that's what I've been doing wrong....

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296374438' post='2610821'] Oh, I never stated you will ever satisfy everyone, I just called you retarded for only being able to see 2 options. The 3rd one, of course, is where you stick to your obligations as opposed to band-wagoning on what is literally a war of aggression. [/quote] You mean like our treaty obligations to Sparta. Because....

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1296341599' post='2610025'] [color="#0000FF"]I didn't say that.[/color] [/quote] Didn't you?

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296227214' post='2607430'] well that and Polaris was kinda pissed at MCXA jumping ship right before WoTC and backstabbing Polaris/BLEU just to gain a spot in 1V. but this is a whole other topic altogether. [/quote] I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

I don't know why people are getting so upset, we're just trying to demonstrate that you [b]can[/b] hug people with nuclear arms.

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' timestamp='1296170361' post='2606254'] Even in the absence of Q, TOP and MHA would be backing NPO, Sparta and MCXA would be backing NpO. [/quote] There's a small factual error above - MCXA was pretty angry with NpO from at least between the BLEU-NADC and the Karma war. So early on, MCXA might have backed NpO but for a substantial period of time while Q existed MCXA was rather unhappy with NpO. At least that's what I remember from that time.

While I'm neutral about this war, I'm totally in favor of this DOW. I think this has been my favorite DOW ever and I don't even like Metallica that much.

At the risk of bringing this thread back to its original topic, I wanted to comment on the OP. Particularly this section of the OP: [quote]What was wrong with the world before Karma There were several main problems with the war before Karma. NPO was a decent top alliance in some ways, in that it kept the game interesting. In other ways it imposed stagnation as a matter of policy, making the game boring. There were several different aspects to this. EZI is one, and one of the most egregious. The purpose of it was to literally keep players who opposed NPO and friends from playing. The fact that it doesn't exist in any form and and the community wouldn't tolerate it today (when anyone "threatens" it today it is almost always as a joke) is a testament to one very clear and obvious improvement from that era. Another one was the intentional unipolarity of that era. Q was a game breaker, it intentionally was a conglomerate of all the major blocks in the game. A way for NPO to have a solid power-structure over almost everyone in CN. This was corrected and is no longer true today. No block has anything close to the comparative power that Q held. Q was designed as a hegemonic instrument. No one has tried to set up a comparable block since then. A third was starting wars based on flimsy CBs against much, much smaller opponents. This on occasion is fine, but we need major wars between substantial coalitions as well. Fourth was the intentional suppression of freedom of speech, often coupled with EZI. A fifth was harsh terms designed to destroy communities and forced disbandments. Terms are a lot lighter now. Even though major reps are nothing like the terms of the past, I personally hope to not see them this war because they create too much of a gap between wars.[/quote] I have just returned to CN after a 2 year hiatus (I left shortly after the Karma war) so I can't comment on the conditions of the current era on Planet Bob. However, I do have some comments regarding the period when NPO and its allies were the dominant force. I think you're overblowing the effect of EZI, while I agree it was often an excessive response, it wasn't something that happened often and it wasn't something that tended to happen as the result of disagreements. Indeed, if I remember correctly - and I might not given that 2 years is a long time - EZIs tended to happen because folks would do things like constantly troll, hack or vandalize forums, or otherwise be excessively jerky. That said, there are better ways to address people who are !@#$% nozzles than to try to run them out of CN. Further, I don't think that large coalitions are wholly avoidable. As long as any coalition can become dominant over time they will accrue more support from people who desire the protection and stability that comes with partnering with the folks who call the shots. If no group has a much power as Q did - I would assume that it's not for lack of trying just lack of any single group to be able to be sufficiently dominant to attract enough satellite alliances. As for flimsy CBs and curb-stomps, I think they're again just unavoidable. It seems to me that most people are just unwilling to start a war unless conditions are favorable and when conditions become favorable they're inclined to get when the getting is good. I don't think there's anyway to change that. It would just be fool-hardy for alliance leaders to pick fights that might lead their alliances - who trust said leaders to help them promote their interests on Planet Bob - to ruin. Such an alliance leader would not be able to keep together an alliance for long. As for your final point in the quoted section. I think that's correct. I do think the excessively punitive terms at the end of wars did hurt the game. That said, it seems to me that it was largely the long term grudges that came with those excessive terms that spurred following wars. So if you want more wars maybe you might want alliances to be jerkier when they win so that other people get angry at them.

And it wasn't until the rediscovery of Latin and Greek texts that spurred the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.