Father Christmas

OK...a few interesting replies and a few dull trolls. First off, as far as I can tell, the only true neutrality is peace mode...for which there are economic (happiness) penalties, so I stand by that argument. The whole thing increasingly reminds me of the Monkey Experiment (http://safetynut.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/the-monkey-experiment/). I am certainly no hippy, I am (and always have been) happy to fight wars; but to keep fighting over something that barely anyone actually remembers seems rather stupid. Nick1A...actually I think my preferred option would be to empower the senators and make that the focus of CN politics. Have a council that decides on disagreements and get people to agree to support their decisions, it would make getting elected worthwhile and give alliances a reason to actually engage with others (if only to try to get elected). Mech - I'm afraid you have lied. You were not fighting 3 people when I attacked. http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=175869&Extended=1 shows that you were fighting suryahalim and were on the last day of hostilities with Andrewopia. So you were fighting 2 wars, both of which you started. A little factual accuracy would be a good start. Finally I'm not mad, just bored. Nothing new to do in the game, perhaps that's why people are so determined to re-run the past again and again. I have nothing against MK, I don't really know any of you, just as I'm sure most of you don't really know anyone in Invicta; so all the "you'd be better in a different alliance" is a little pointless and based only on hearsay and recieved wisdom on each side (see the Monkey Experiment again!). I have read all the posts and there are many interesting replies (for which thanks, especially to those who actually took the time to understand my point and craft proper replies) which I don't have time to answer, I'm not ignoring your points but I am busy with RL....

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1298356594' post='2641506'] Spoken like a true Rectum. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone is surprised when you guys are made fun of. [/quote] Thank you for your well thought-out, erudite and comprehensive reply. I assume that you think yourself one of the great wits of your side, for what it's worth, I think you're half right. This is why there can be no proper politics, it doesn't matter what is said, it only matters who said it and which side they are on. This is why there can't really be any diplomatic progress and why the whole political dimension of the game is so pointless. To those who say nation-building gets boring and see war as the only avenue to maintain interest, try something new...maybe form your own micro and fight without the guardianship of your massive bloc. I remember one of my alliance-mates getting into trouble for simply daring to send financial aid to an unaligned nation being tech-raided. Apparently it is fine to attack a new player and demand tech with menaces, but not to help someone out. I don't want eternal peace, I am certainly no hippy, but I'd like the wars to be about something concrete; to have some meaning beyond a huge curbstomp because the dominant alliance feels threatened by someone else doing nearly as well as them.

To all those suggesting neutrality, thank you, I am aware of that option. But the economic penalties spoil it as an exercise in nation building; and any alliance can be dragged into a war, however neutral they are or try to be. I don't object to war in principle, but more to the feeling that we are all simply re-fighting the same war over and over and the truth is that, bar a few vociferous posters here, no-one really cares about the so-called reasons for war; everyone is simlpy following orders from their respective alliances.

So it seems we are again overtaken by another war about something or other (it's probably about something someone might or might not have done or said to someone else, but frankly who cares, and what difference does it really make?). I've been playing this game for over 3 years and have been involved in any number of wars, sometimes on the "winning" side, sometimes on the "losing" side; and the truth is that none of it has made a blind bit of difference, other than to drive away the players who have their nation wrecked without any understanding of the underlying reasons. Given that at least 66% of the nations on CN didn't even exist 2 years ago, it is obvious that most of these people are fighting a war over something that originated long before they started their nation. So the elite of the game sit there with their established, untouchable nations (often in peace mode while the fighting goes on) and make endless posts on here decrying the other side over imagined slights, or events that happened so long ago that most players have no idea what the "truth" is or why it is still worth arguing over. No doubt some will argue that war makes the game more interesting, but rather than taking this to its logical conclusion and going solo or forming unsupported, unaligned micro alliance, they prefer to organise another curbstomp and destroy a host of nations so they can have their fun. When people say they enjoy war, they actually mean, they enjoy forming an alliance that can't be beaten and ganging up on smaller alliances or the poor unaligned - noone wants to be in a war they can't win. Well, you will see more players leaving again after this war, so you will have less people to enjoy the so-called "politics" of this game (nb politics is more than shouting abuse at the other side; it also isn't really politics when both sides are so codified that there can be no movement). Then again, as only a tiny proportion of people actually participate on this forum you probably won't notice that you're arguing on your own. You'll go back to posting nonsense about how one side or other "rocks" or "sucks" at war and how one bloc or the other is trying to "stop others playing the game". The only people doing this are the regular posters here, the leaders of the major alliances on all sides. There is no negotiation possible when the sides have no aim other than the destruction of the other. Still, some big nations will get bigger on the back of all the reps that someone will end up paying (and the actually payers will be the small nations who probably picked an alliance at random when they started - guess what, they'll get bored and leave the game too). This is how the planet dies, eventually, there will be no more willing soldiers to fight pointless wars on behalf of the respective leaderships...people will realise that there is no hope of ever catching the giants of the game and will lose interest. So, what are the alternatives? A fresh start? Forgive and forget perhaps? Unlikely....we still have people arguing over 4 year old wars that barely anyone remembers. A new way of doing business? Make the senators a kind of supreme council where disputes can be resolved, with their majority decisions upheld by the combined militaries of the nations signed up to the system. Perhaps, but probably against the vested interests of too many who have been here too long and take themselves too seriously. An end to this war with some sort of terms imposed, followed by a few months of peace and then another curbstomp when someone threatens to get too close to parity (or just because people got bored). Most likely. As the song said..."Same as it ever was". And slowly people will drift away.... It goes without saying that these are my views and my views alone; I'm sure I'll either be abused or ignored (I don't have several thousand posts here, so what would I know??) - but I really don't care. (added some breaks as requested!)

Just to note that, as things that happened (or didn't?!) 2 years ago are being mulled over again, it's worth being aware that about 66% of current nations didn't even exist 2 years ago. I imagine that many of these nations' leaders probably find fighting (on whichever side) rather less interesting as the basic reasons for the war are things they weren't around for. It all seems a bit Orwellian...welcome to the alliance, we fight the other alliance, we have always fought the other alliance...apart from when we were on their side fighting the third alliance, we have always fought the third alliance, well, apart from when we were on their side fighting the other alliance etc etc....ad infinitum. The vast majority of people don't play any part in the politics and (I suspect) want little more than to develop their nations, the occasional war to defend their alliance-mates from a misguided raid and maybe a bit of large-scale war on a broadly equitable basis now and again. Instead we get to listen to people (on both sides) crowing about how "great" they are at war, usually on the back of a curbstomp where one side stood no chance. No wonder people get bored and leave. Build up your nation...fight for your side (you have to get in an alliance or you'll just get raided to pieces)...get destroyed in another curb-stomp over something you don't understand or care about, wonder why you bothered...then wonder if its worth starting again as your alliance is now under "terms" and you have to give all your tech to someone else anyway.

All the purple haters have been added to the Naughty List. No presents this year. Unless you count the CMs coming down the chimney?

<insert witty comment here> then go join Invicta!

Purple...you know you want to!

It's a great time to join Invicta, come on folks, we're just getting set up for the holidays!

Thanks to all of you for your (mostly!) kind words and an especial thanks to those who have also sent presents! One of the first presents was not collected within the time limit and has been redistributed, the recipient (miso55 of World Task Force) opened the messages but did not accept the aid. I'd just like to reiterate that there are no strings whatsoever attached to the gifts I'm sending, so please let your smaller alliance mates know that it is OK to accept the aid - I won't be back demanding tech or anything! I should also point out that some of the recipients in the first round of gifts are my own tech sellers, who have clearly been very, very good and so have been sent a present each outwith this scheme (just to say this before anyone calls shenanigans at the number of Invictans on my aid screen!). Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!

It's just a time thing, to get the gifts out takes time and if I leave it later I won't be able to send as many.

Presents can be accepted or rejected for any reason, or no reason. If you get one and don't want it, give it back and it'll be re-gifted to someone else.

It's that time of year when presents are given; this year the deliveries will start early - this week in fact! There are some rules: 1. You must be nice, not naughty. This means you mustn't be the agressor in any war. If you're being attacked, Santa may check his list twice and see if he can find out if you deserved it. 2. Christmas is for the Kids. You must have an NS below 5K. 3. You must be home. The nation must have been active in the last 10 days. 4. You must check under the tree to see if presents have been delivered. The present will be taken away and given to someone else if it hasn't been unwrapped after 5 days. Please note the following: Accepting or rejecting a present ($3M aid package) is entirely without prejudice. I won't be upset either way. Accepting a present doesn't mean you agree with me or Invicta; just as me sending one doesn't mean I agree with you or your alliance, or that I support you in any war you may be engaged in at the time (see also rule 1). I'm the one sending the gifts, as a personal thing. Some time ago there was a furore about nations offering support to victims of tech raiding, on the OWF thread about that, I said I thought it was sad that the only contact some smaller nations had with the wider world was to be raided. This is, in some ways, me putting a bit of my money where my mouth was. This is therefore not an officially sponsored Invicta project, so if some of my cash ends up with someone you don't like, tell me, not Invicta. The nations will be selected at Random (a simple MS Excel RANDBETWEEN function, with the upper limit set to the nation ID of the newest nation, if you must know!) - I will repeat the function until I find a nation that meets the criteria above and then send the aid - providing they have a slot free. I will not be seeking to cause or avoid controversy with these presents, fate will play its part and the gifts will go where they go. The first gifts will go out shortly. Of course, I can only send so many presents between now and Christmas, so I invite anyone who has the means and the inclination to do the same! Happy Christmas!

Just a quick bump... Join Invicta and get your name on the Nice list!

Time for a story.... "I went to school today and there was this one kid on his own without many friends. Some bigger kids bullied him and stole his sweets. But then another kid came by and gave the little kid some money. The little kid didn't buy more sweets, but bought himself a stick and hit the kid who bullied him. Then the bully went off crying to his friends about how unfair it was for someone to help the little kid. So all the bullies gathered round and cried foul and ganged up to try to beat up the kid who gave a victim some money." Are we really living in a world where the only acceptable behaviour towards the weaker nations is to attack them? And where helping someone out makes you the bad guy? One where a tech raid "isn't a war" but helping a tech raid victim with money is "an act of war"?