Derantol

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315458773' post='2796676'] Just because DH and DR do not call themselves blocs, does not mean they are no longer blocs. 3+ alliances with a single treaty has always been considered a bloc. So yes, TOP is directly tied to DR and DH as well as in PF and has an ODP with a PB alliance. we can talk all the semantics we want but the truth is easy to see. [/quote] That's all well and good about DH, but DR actually isn't a bloc - IRON is only tied to two of the four other signatories, making it not even a de facto bloc the way that SF would be if the SF treaty itself was dissolved. And all this arguing about treaty web stagnation... that mire we call the treaty web is one way that politics can become as exciting as they are here. And I say that as a longtime member of CN who has never held any government position and has never been privy to much OPSEC information. I like watching and waiting for the next piece of tension to arise, and there are enough people dropping hints here and there on the OWF that speculation becomes a fulfilling activity as well. If that's not your thing, then I suppose you're one of the people that ought to "do something about it" as they say. But be aware that when you do that, and especially when you bring it here, it does create entertainment for a reasonably number of OWF lurkers.

Just a thought, and probably a stat no one's interested in, but would it be possible to add the biggest gain over the course of the current gaining streak? All it would do is serve to stroke some egos, I know, but I can't imagine it'd be overly tough to add that in - just a reference check from the day the current gaining streak started and a calculation for each alliance present on both days in the race, right? With a few lines making sure new alliances didn't get included, naturally. EDIT: Plus, I want my ego stroked occasionally too. Even if it is by a cold, heartless program. EDIT2: Perhaps a more meaningful stat would be biggest gainer over the last week, or 10 days, or whatever arbitrary amount of time you choose. Or top 3 in said category.

It would probably be five minutes of additional work per update - basically making an excel spreadsheet and uploading it to imageshack. It would just be a static image - nothing like what UE used to have.It also probably wouldn't give the best indication of how a war is going - alliances joining or leaving would mask how much damage is actually being done. If you've got a spreadsheet with all the data kept in it, you could just have the chart of the alliances currently involved - it would give a good indicator of how well the coalition will continue to perform. So if you had GPA, TDO, and WTF in the war, and GPA left, the next update of a chart would only reflect TDO and WTF throughout the war, completely ignoring GPA's influence. It would be easier to predict how the war at present will continue.

You mean there isn't a global war developing right now? Darn it, I got all excited for global meltdown. As far as the stats go, maybe a date for each pair of warring alliances indicating when that individual pair's war started, including the score for each on that day (kind of like what Schad is suggesting).

Could there be a pair of rankings? One with all the averages, and one with all the totals? Or just the totals that aren't factored into the ASR, such as a WRC, SDI, MP, and perhaps infra and tech, though they do indirectly affect NS.

4 [412] [color=green](+11)[/color] [color=orange][b]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/b][/color] : 47.22 --> 47.84 [color=green](+0.62)[/color] 5 [346] [color=green](+1)[/color] [color=black][b]Sparta[/b][/color] : 47.97 --> 47.68 [color=red](-0.29)[/color] Mini(ish) update

CnG and SF were both suicide pacts in some respect upon their formation, I believe. Then they actually beat NPO. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about either bloc, but I'm guessing that both survived this long because they found something to focus on. That doesn't mean they had goals the whole time, nor does it mean they do now, but at one point, both had clear FA goals that they pursued more or less singlemindedly. It's not just about protecting membership - it's how you do that.

But the idea isn't to have blocs disband - a bloc should have a cohesive FA policy beyond "You guys are my best friends!" Blocs are more or less adding an additional semi-permanence to the natural ebb and flow of treaties, which is incredibly slow in the first place. Without a concentrated effort by all members of a bloc, it just freezes the web, and the only factor that seems to change that is war friction, which only comes around once every five hundred years or so.

What are your opinions on IRON? If you can fit that in around the tenser questions, of course...

If we do, either everyone would have to keep track of the streaks, or Gopher would have to post every single update. Since others are beginning to pick it up again on their own, streaks aren't overly feasible unless Gopher had a database with his program that could be loaded up to a website somewhere. Gopher?

[quote name='RustyNail' timestamp='1301635192' post='2681961'] I would never sign up for TOP boards, the traitorous scum. Also, the Martin series is great. Reading them again right now myself. [/quote] I'll be doing that this summer before number 5 comes out. And I very well may hop over to the TOP forums to check that out.

For a point of reference, one of the reasons that Native Americans make their land claims is based upon their religion. For Christianity, a religion most people here are familiar with, the important parts of the religion in a nutshell are the ceremony, the scripture, and living by the moral guidelines set forth within the religion (each of these are more or less important given the denomination). Native religion, on the other hand, is very site-based, and there are many sacred sites that were taken away from them way back when when the governments here signed treaties with them, based on a lack of understanding of the importance of actual physical sites to their religion. I'm not going to try to argue one way or the other on this one, as far as what is right to do now, but I did want to provide some context to why Native Americans press so hard for land sometimes.

It appears as though Unspeakable Evil has disappeared - is there word on where he is? I don't know if I missed anything in that regard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Sparta's dot be gone? I don't think they're involved with the war anymore.

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1297742712' post='2633946'] Congrats on IRON's new found path of neutrality and idleness. [/quote] We're not neutral, we're independent!

I was curious as to why None was added to some of those stats - particularly the membership graph. It makes the graph relatively meaningless, since you can't see the gradual changes in various alliances.

You have longest gaining streak up there - is it possible to see the biggest gaining streak as well? Who has gained the most score since they last lost score, as opposed to who has been gaining score the longest.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1296156943' post='2605950'] No. Gramlins died because of Ramirus stubbornness. Nothing less, nothing more. [/quote] To clarify, all that we did in IRON was maximize the little damage we could do while still rebuilding ourselves. For a while, there was an internal NS line that we were requested to stay under, or stay in PM if we were over it. So the most accurate description was that IRON stood strong while Ram destroyed Gramlins on us. We did nothing *to Gramlins* except stubbornly refuse to stand down. It would have taken years at that rate for us to actually bring every nation in Gramlins down into the dust.

I'm theorizing that they designate those who are involved on the Doomhouse-NPO front, as opposed to the VE-NpO front.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1295555484' post='2587040'] Even if MK drops below 200, we'll keep the Add Line tied to them for a while, like what we did with FOK a couple months ago. [/quote] Would it be prudent to shift the rules to simply attach the add/drop lines to the 12th place alliance? Or 13th, or 15th, or whatever place you choose. It would eliminate the need to freeze them in cases like this, and it's inevitable that the problem will come up again.

I remember when TOOL was fluctuating members in the hundreds for a while. You guys have changed a lot since then.

Well, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on economics, but one thing that I definitely absorbed from the econ course I took last year is that inflation, in and of itself, is not bad. Inflation rates between 1? and 3? percent are signs of a healthy economy. If it gets higher than that, the inflation affects reliability in prices. If we experience deflation, that's also a sign that the economy isn't exactly in the best place. Overall, I don't think it affects what you're saying much; just be aware that inflation rising isn't inherently bad.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1287446186' post='2487275'] Highest nukes/nation should stay in the race if everything else is tied since it's harder for them to increase their nuke count. [/quote] This, and failing that, the alliances with the least nukes total should be dropped first since they probably will have an easier time gaining more.

I voted regular, but by regular I take it to mean at about the pace we've been having special events. I also took it to mean that we had something going on, not necessarily the same thing going on each time. I voted before I read... I like the variety, though. The Olympics format was really cool, I thought. Survivor is fine as well, but I think if that one was done too regularly it would lose its luster.

What does "fraud" mean in the first article? I mean, leaving it ambiguous like that certainly gives you flexibility, but if you're defining aggression, you need to be more careful. With the three options you have there, you are bound to have left something out that very well could warrant an aggressive (but still justified) action. You could even make the argument that a period of stagnant peace warrants some sort of aggressive "fixing" of the peace, on the basis that having a particular type of war would keep people around.