eyriq

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299445018' post='2654610'] Now what on earth is that supposed to mean? [/quote] [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1299445028' post='2654611'] Xiph is what is wrong with CN, plain and simple. A CN without him is a far brighter world and anyone who thinks different needs to open their eyes. He is the sole member of the upper echelon of alliance leaders trying to carry on the New Pacific Order's old style of play that we all fought so hard with to destroy. [/quote] This, exactly this.

Xiph was on the wrong side of Karma and is trying to make up for it?

The Grand Federation is in good hands. Glad to see another young alliance under your guidance. o/ AzN

Good to see NAC peacing out from this war.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1299034145' post='2649090'] yeah! that rep. Hear that everyone? I've got brothels at my borders for all of your troops who try to invade. Come and get some fresh tail. [/quote] They sunk a nuke into you, you should be honored!

Are you insinuating that we are gay? Hater.

The anti-rankism meme will centralize the behaviors of the community leading to what exactly? By what qualities would I identify this hypothetical community? Also, inherent in centralizing a community via a meme is the formation of a centralized brain trust; a top down system. It is the nature of the varying degrees of activity withing the community that such a top down state is unavoidable. The only real way to avoid diversity is to implement a ruling structure based on a codified set of parameters dictating every behavior and leaving this set abstract from the community.

You'll rebuild. Maybe I'll buy some tech from you guys? We can arrange it so that on consecutive good deliveries I'll throw in a 50/3 mil deal. Anyway, you guys would make Rocky proud, hang in there.

Considering you've lost over half of your NS it is a sign of resiliency to be keeping up the positive talk. It is a shame that you have to sacrifice so much.

The great quality of number 4 is that instead of going through hoops trying to match resources you could simply bunch up 5 players and pick the resources from there. I love the potential for entire alliance wide or allies wide trade circles.

It is like a game of course, but that is not to say that it isn't important or serious or emotionally meaningful. I cherish my community and value many of the people I've met here, I also call many friends and believe those relationships are portable from this game to other walks of life. I pay attention to CN events and when my community needs something I step up to the plate and happily *work* to get things done. I've been a part of my alliance longer than I've been on several sports teams and I try just as hard to help us *win* in this environment as I did or would in those others.

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1297712751' post='2633182'] Uh, Xiph's p. much... always like that. I'm not sure how you could miss it, if you've been reading his "material". [/quote] lol, maybe I should have just said blog, material comes across like I'm trying too hard. Regardless, it is good to know.

[quote name='Balder' timestamp='1297706196' post='2633077'] Did you find that surprising in some manner? I'll say one thing, I feel a hell of a lot more safe with Xiphosis then I do the people screaming white peace. [/quote] It would have surprised me just a few days earlier, but I've since read more of his current material and am up-to-date with his agenda. So no, not surprising. Unwelcome.

[23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If it was me it'd be no terms, tbh. [23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> If someone hit me with an ODP or a PIAT [23:16] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They'd be put down This is good to know.

Thanks for the explanations. I am intrigued by the 'shallow CB/shallow pleasure/shallow war' train of thought, coupled as it is with your judgment that white peace leads to shallow decision making. It is certainly true that white peace limits the impact of losing a war and thereby may have the secondary effect of making the decision to go to war in the future less difficult. Whether that decision being 'less difficult' constitutes 'shallowness' isn't at all clear imo, as the validity of a CB is quite difficult to determine. What I find distasteful about your argument is the clear 'might makes right' slant running through it. I'll take a moment to explain what I mean. In RL, organisms/organizations pursue a policy of preservation/replication to their benefit and ultimately to the worlds benefit. It is through this process that simple uni-cellular organisms were gradually replaced by more complicated organisms, and so on till today when we have humans and the diversity of life we see around us. Or how tribes where gradually replaced by city states and then empires and nations, all dependent on the organization's ability to harness ever more complicated technologies. This policy of preservation/replication is very much driven by the 'might makes right' meme, or as they say, 'the strong will survive'. This is great in zero sum interactions; you want the greater complexity to win out over lesser complexity, that is call progression. Many games are zero sum at their base level, like chess for instance; you need a winner and a loser. But I'd argue that this game is not zero sum but instead is optimally a positive sum game. Think of it like a league, like the NBA for example. In the NBA on the micro-level you have a lot of zero sum interactions, teams either win or lose games. On the league level however you need positive sum interactions, and hence you have a 'league commissioner' who attends to the league as a whole, you have salary cap policies so that smaller markets can stay competitive with bigger markets, and you have profit sharing where teams over the salary cap pay a tax which is shared throughout the league. All these measures are taken to ensure that the environment for micro-level zero sum interactions is sustained. Cybernations is our 'league', we need to sustain an environment for our micro-level zero sum encounters, and we can do this by limiting the negative repercussions of being on the losing end of those encounters.

Not to go all socratic here but I have two questions that if you answer will help me understand your position better: Would it be fun to encourage more wars? How do you see white peace as an outcome of war effecting an alliances' future desire to war?

You never answered this question.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296556602' post='2614537'] They came in for MCXA. MCXA peaced. This is only logical. No reason for them to keep taking damage for Polaris or Pacifica. [/quote] Exactly. Bloodlust consumed my mates but this was a reasonable conclusion to a reasonable war.

A much shorter war than we had been expecting but considering the pressure that MCXA was under and that UBD was in here to defend MCXA a completely rational conclusion. Edited for rules

Congrats to my allies in NEAT and SC, it was a blast fighting besides you.

Congrats on two solid years. Our interests align pretty solidly, which is always healthy for good relations. Have a great and impactful third year. o/ Green

[quote name='Lord Anthraxus' timestamp='1296415853' post='2611356'] Hey WC ! I was wondering where you went after BN. I`ve always been a fan of yours since US! Good Luck with your war! [/quote] We've still not recovered, so we just [s]stalk[/s] follow her around.

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1296411616' post='2611269'] You have an account on our forums? I've only ever seen you on MK's. Definitely stop by sometime. [/quote] SirWilliam was one of the first to grace our halls actually. Haven't you noticed his plaque hanging in my office? Subtitled "CN's Gentleman".

Good to see this.

Looking forward to the good fight.