Jump to content

Frawley

Members
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frawley

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    New Pacific Order
  • Nation Name
    stangerites
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order
  • Resource 1
    Iron
  • Resource 2
    Gems
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    stangerites
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    Eurasia

Recent Profile Visitors

892 profile views
  1. Pretty sure that is called taking the piss out of the rest of us.
  2. Well I just had a quick look through my own extensive donation history, (some $1600), and I can happily note that none of the numerous people I have donated to look to have been deleted as far as I can see. I guess some people are luckier than others. Regardless, if they have been, admin is welcome to that tech.
  3. About time, I don't know why this hasn't been policy since 2006. Good to see.
  4. You didn't read anything HMS said did you.
  5. While I appreciate the attempt at addressing the current issues in Cybernations, I believe you are sorely wrong. Cybernations needs consolidation, not micro-drama. Currently on Planet bob we have realistically 40 AA's that are not only large enough, but active enough to have an independent impact on Cybernations. The rest primarily rely on the much maligned treaty web with which to cause effect on anyone else. Add to this the fact that most of the remaining 260+ small AA's and micro's only usually have one or two people actively doing anything. It's not enough to keep the rest of the AA active, however it's enough to sign a few random treaties across the web, and of course this actually creates the current environment. One where the mess of treaties forces the larger players to not only consolidate treaties with other majors, but also to meticulously plan war escalations just to avoid some random tie putting then on both sides of the conflict. Look no further than the most recent conflict (MInc) where multiple Alliances with absolutely zero stake in the conflict were tied to both sides of it. A world war based on that would be absolutely pointless had it escalated by your own definition. At least with the Doom war, you had two roughly distinct sides with a mix-match of grievances between them. Even with the somewhat cloudy issues, enough AA's did have a stake in the fight that they actively wanted to participate, because even if they didn't get to thump the person they wanted to, at least that person was being thumped by their 'side'. Don't even get me started on the volume of time wasted by one and two man governments keeping alliances that are dead, active enough to sign a treaty, but not active enough to notice they are engaged in a war 'alive'. The fact is, many of the larger alliances could use an extra 20 active people each, and with that kind of activity base could probably handle the bureaucracy required to actually support the more casual or inactive members. Larger Alliances, with more active mid-tier leadership, more concentrated FA policies, and actual definable 'sides' would be far more reminiscent of pre-UJW politics which is generally regarded as a high point for CN in terms of OWF dialogue and 'drama'. As an aside, you might notice that Pacifica itself is not exactly struggling to retain members, and our activity for a mass member alliance (79.24% Aid slot efficiency pre-update), is direct evidence that a well maintained bureaucracy can actually encourage members to participate in the game.
  6. I THOUGHT YOU WERE MY FRIEND :((

  7. YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS HAHA

×
×
  • Create New...