Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Content Count

    4,517
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. Trading has always been OK, except when nuclear rogues usually get sanctioned. But no one goes after their trade partners, anyway. It should remain like that, IMHO, as having to set new trades is unfairly annoying for the uninvolved people, considering that forcing the nation at war to find new trades (even on Grey) isn't that much significant in comparison. Asking to everyone to constantly monitor what their trade partners are doing would be equally crazy. The other two are clear problems, but then I don't understand why your questions are about direct attack on the nation sending the aid. Diplomacy should be used and military action should be the last resort: in 99% of the cases the aid is just part of a tech deal and the aiding nation deserves a chance to explain/remedy before they are attacked.
  2. jerdge

    RE: Miley

    My friend, you seem to be saying that a group you labeled "American liberal feminism" and that would adhere to no morality would have decided that women "must" act like men. I'll start by asking to you how you identified that group: Do they have an association or do they gather in some geographic/Internet place, or anything like that? Or do you group them based on their behaviour? Or how does it work? Second: How can "they" adhere to no morality and at the same time decide that anyone ~must~ do anything? The two things don't seem to add up much. I have this sensation that your hit missed the strawman that you had built. And yes, condemning Thicke is condemning Miley and it's condemning Beyonce, but the point isn't about condemning the people that are on stage, it's about calling out those that selectively condemn them. You're looking at the moon when you should be looking at the finger! Note that I don't care about all these condemnations, moralism or lack of thereof, about the people you mentioned and almost all of this trash. My only comment on that is "lolshowbiz". But I am interested in your logic, that surprisingly seems rather lacking in this case.
  3. jerdge

    RE: Miley

    lolshowbiz Thicke's "music" is terrible BTW. The only good thing of Blurred Lines is the .
  4. Many new players don't stay. Find the reason and you'll likely have a solution.
  5. Certainly not, RL is much more complex and you certainly can't reduce everything to just a few factors like you would in CN. Whatever reason(s) RL countries have to grant asylum - and the US are certainly not an exception, as they grant political asylum in the tens of thousands each year - it certainly isn't just a case of generalized "return on investment".
  6. jerdge

    NG

    You can always link it if you put an alert besides the link.
  7. Ah ah that's funny Minion Rouse.
  8. While perusing the GPA in-game member list I stumbled (again, but you wouldn't know) on Wikichang of Sheldonnopolis, our "dear" long-term ghost. His feat must be made known, as you don't always meet a 750-ish NS ghost with 532 days of Alliance Seniority! (He never exited Peace Mode, and in fact he has never been in War Mode since his inception in CN. Really an hippie! ) Too bad that I can't relay to you any of his thoughts or beliefs, as he never answered to any of the PMs we sent to him... Terrible jokes aside, if you know of other extremely long-term ghosts please share your story.
  9. "You suck" / "your post/entry sucks" (and variations) are translated as: "The posts praising me/my friends are the only good ones. ... Isn't the OWF dull BTW? "
  10. Not really. The GPA does not mess with what people do in their RL.
  11. Ah ah good one! Hey Myth you know that I could provide references as well, why am I not included into that list? As for my esteemed President's invite to consider the GPA, I must warn you that we still have a gag order that covers all the IC forums and threads: if you apply you must accept the idea of keeping your mouth shut for a long while (exceptions are made but they're extremely rare and I don't see you getting a permit, anyway. Not if I still draw breath!... )
  12. Don't give them ideas, Prodigal Moon... But seriously, if the content of this entry is the reasoning behind having treaties, it's horribly flawed. Treaties don't really provide safety. I suspect that they have more to do with having something to do in peace times and with having an excuse to participate in war times.
  13. I said it was a satire but I didn't say it was a satire of you.
  14. It's very nice and refreshing to hear about a (relatively) new player's opinion on CyberNations: thanks for sharing it. I don't really care about CN that much anymore (this might change: I just have other stuff to do), but I concur that the community is one of its best traits. You just have to learn to not always take seriously all those people that drip wit in every word they type, and you'll go well! According to my experience, intra-alliance "life" is probably the best part of CN. But doing something FA-wise and getting to visit other people's forums is also something everyone should do some time.
  15. The GPA HoF announcement is too old and I left my spade at home, but I don't want you all to just have that puny little war to keep you busy... Round one of the GPA voting on her Hall of Fame saw several people take really many votes, and the race to get to the second (and final) round was really close for many of them. Alas, we couldn't carry everyone into the HoF and some really deserving names had to be excluded this year too. I am anyway pleased to unofficially inform you that we picked the twelve nominees for the second (and final) round of votes. Six of the following fine people will enter the GPA Hall of Fame this year. I am sure that some names will be recognized by many. Jericthegreat AwesomeDog Fodell Rooman33 nik718 Apriland Pippedy Azaghul Mark8240 probablamenteno Helpma jerdge I actually ran a random number generator to put these names in random order.
  16. Good read. It could lead to a lot of debates and walls of text, but for the moment I'll limit myself to the following thought. You seem to be saying that the current shift of power (if a shift will be) won't bring substantial changes in the "might makes right" paradigm, i.e. the change will be enacted through hard power. What IMHO is missing from your analysis is that the hard power that has been united against DH & co is the result of a long exercise of "soft power" (values, morals, standards, call it as you like). The tool looks the same, and it is the same, but what allowed AI & co to put it together might not have been the same process.
  17. Posts are made by a small minority that is sturdy, tenacious and - let's face it guys - a bit obnoxious. Like weed. Posts will keep raining, we're here for other "milestones". (Not to mention that the number of players is amazing for a game like this, it's just that in the past it was even more amazing.)
  18. I am not directly touching the specific incident with a ten foot pole, for various reasons, but you people have to understand that, in general, the rule about war slot filling has two conditions attached: actual attacks being made and lack of competition for war slots. The second condition usually applies for intra-AA wars, but I think we can all take for granted that being on different/not allied AAs doesn't automatically mean that everything is fine (otherwise the rule could be easily worked around). The rationale of the rule is quite simple, when you think of it. As the game mechanics limit defensive wars to a maximum of three, the war slot filling rule was put in place to avoid that players could unfairly exploit such an artificial limitation in order to attain goals that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Should any party fill the slots of any nation with the purpose of preventing others to do so, in a way that objectively effectively affects the possibility of others to intervene (e.g.: allowing someone to hit Peace Mode after just one round of war), that party's actions wouldn't satisfy the second condition for them not to be considered war slot filling. I.e. they would be punishable. Please note that I am just saying that the arguments brought into this discussion to criticize this (or any equivalent) decision are (this far) incomplete: they can't be accepted as decisive. I am not saying or implying that this specific decision was right/wrong or that this specific situation satisfied/didn't satisfy the second condition explained above.
  19. jerdge

    Standards?

    Sorry for not having replied earlier, but my phone "ate" my reply and I couldn't then get back at your question until now. I was talking of "fair play" as in recognizing that the (political) game is worthy and to be respected because it's what the community of players get their fun from, thus it would be a good idea to let the strategy remain meaningful, to follow your treaties (maybe even interpreting them "conveniently", but at least not outright ignoring them), to declare war for a reason (that makes sense in game) and so on. The unfair part would be in playing the game with utter disregard for the political simulation part. While it's true that everyone is entitled to play CN as they like (as long as they don't break the game rules) it's also true that a gaming community centered around a simulation suffers a lot when a significant group of players completely disregards the simulation part, short-circuiting it by heavily substituting the simulation dynamics with OOC and RL drives. It's especially problematic and disruptive when these players get influence and intentionally and systematically undermine the credibility of the simulation (also managing to intentionally insult several people in the process, on top of it). It's the freedom we've been given by the mods, if you will, that becomes a double-edged sword when misused. Maybe I misunderstood, maybe I was confused/unclear, maybe both. The above reply might help in understanding what I was meaning: I don't think it's completely different from what you were saying, although I also extended the scope of the discussion and I tried to provide an explanation of why we're where we are.
  20. jerdge

    Standards?

    Maybe I should/could have used "sportsmanship": clicky.
  21. jerdge

    Stockpiling CM's

    I guess they were good to increase one's NS, to get to/stay in the top 5% and to then be able to get nukes (MPs were not part of the original design).
  22. jerdge

    Standards?

    The pre-empt movement was certainly a blow, but quite a bit remained. You have to admit this pretty much drains it to zero though. Source: Just an ordinary DoW Sorry (or you're welcome) if this is short, but my time isn't much either. Standards, you (both/all) say? That's a discourse that may have a leg to stand on if covered with IC propaganda and hypocrisy (which are nothing bad by themselves, anyway). But I suspect there was an OOC tone to that exchange. As a casual observer from a neutral point of view I saw any standard that we (as a community) may have had going down the drain years ago. The ancient Pacifican Hegemony already didn't respect much the players (e.g. EZI), and what standards they maintained were mostly just form. After the inter-reign of the DH-SF rivalry the form was thrown out of the window as well, when every pretension that this is "politics" was erased by the lulzy "it's just an horrible game let's grief these idiots" attitude. Any narrative was finally erased by (for example) the intentionally story-less "Everything. Must. Die." and the intentionally lulzy "for Dave!" wars. Incidentally, note that respect for players didn't come back at any time (e.g. personal attacks on Hoo/Kait). Please don't talk to me of standards. Please. (Sorry for the rant, you may now go back to your regularly scheduled click-click-click, I go back to my boring other pastimes... ) EDIT: Personal attacks or EZI aren't the focus of this entry, anyway: I am talking of fair play. Fair play would (should) arguably lead to respecting the game and to maintaining standards so that the game remains acceptably meaningful for everyone that's interested in that. But you don't get that if people disrespect and trample all over the other players, and point and laugh at any attempt to play the game as a game of "politics". When power is in the hands of those that find the game stupid and worthless, good just as an occasion to vent their lesser instincts, and their friends support them just because they're "friends" (i.e. for OOC/RL reasons that have nothing to do with the game mechanics), you obviously don't get fair play anymore. Everything becomes acceptable and the whole game becomes an extension of external dynamics, which inevitably leads to the irrelevance of any "standard". CN hasn't any scarce resource we can fight over. It's driven by the raw grab for power for the sake of it, by made up ideology/beliefs and by grievances. When the drive becomes completely OOC - power is a tool to grief, ideology is a mockery and grievances are RL-based - you get what we have now: the lack of any standard or fair play.
  23. Hey Omni, happy holidays to you as well.
×
×
  • Create New...