R3nowned
-
Posts
1,520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by R3nowned
-
-
That blue text. It's strangely alluring.
-
... Okay? Good for you.
-
Londo was at the head of an alliance, that spent literally its 18 months of existence, either being rolled, or threatened to be rolled, by the powers that be of that time. Through all of that , he kept it together, and GREW Athens into prominence. If that doesnt qualify as a LEADER, then your criteria, is severely flawed.
If that was unique to Athens back then, then maybe it would be of note. As it happens, there are other alliances out there that have done the same. It is an incredible feat, but the fact that Athens survived should be credited more to her members than Londo.
-
You cannot blame me for the cowardice of others.
You also forgot Viktor, Corinan, and Doppelganger.
Care to inform me of what they/he did? I don't know those men/that man's history
-
I have led men like Damsky and a few others to true glory. It is a shame that there are not many like me. In fact, I am such a great leader my enemies refuse to acknowledge me as such, and lesser men are unwilling to follow me. It is not that they do not recognize my greatness, but rather because they fear it, and they know that they themselves are not worthy.
I acknowledge that you are a great player, and should I make a blog for "best CN players", you would be there. As a leader though?
Also, Londo would probably fall under the "best CN players" category for me, rather than "CN Leaders". He's a good player and pretty cool guy, but as a leader? Perhaps more of a follower?
Before you go hating on me, a follower is just as important as a leader, for a leader can't lead without a follower.
-
Haha.. Any "leader" list that includes Joracy, literally the laziest guy on CN (he admits it, Im not flaming, I love the dude).... is laughable.
Also.. any leader list of recent times, that does not include Londo (like him or hate him).. is ridiculous.
Joracy pretty much reformed ODN from what I've seen. Lazy as he is (I know that...), that is no mean feat.
Also, I've seen Londo do a lot of following, but very little leading. Athens has always been following Mushroom Kingdom around, and I haven't seen any independant decisions made by them. Sorry if my view upsets you.
-
You left Sponge and Rebel Virginia off of that list.
Sponge is no longer around, and Rebel Virginia has done very little leading from my perspective.
-
Ivan Moldavi and Dilber are the only ones I recognized. They certainly were leaders from what I can remember.
They certainly have a higher profile than most leaders around, but they are most definitely not the only leaders.
-
Moldavi has always been described to me as a big picture guy, not an elbows-deep leader.
I agree with you on that point, but he is certainly more than "just an active member" as well. I'm being very liberal with my definition, or else the list will just become too depressingly short.
-
What does that have anything to do with me being in denial?
-
Wow, no wonder you went in the way you did.
You were still in denial. How cute.
And I have no idea what you're talking about
-
Generally, diplomacy would mean both sides would give a response towards the issue. What's happened here is that it seems (according to the logs) that VE brushed off Polar's attempt at giving a response, thus the claim of the lack of diplomacy.
-
@zzzptm: I know, but then why are people so hungry for wars?
@sir pwnage: Backroom channels get dull unless there is actual drama going on. Bragging only provides menial entertainment, and if you're organised in peace time, you'll also be organised during war.
Co-ordinating is more of a chore for me, since you're simply just supposed to do it anyway. It's just part of war.
-
Or perhaps we'll move towards an era whereby individual treaties become more rare. Certainly, there are more and more blocs popping up everywhere, while existing ones have expanded - it's a trend that's been taking place for quite a while.
-
Where can we listen to/download the podcast?
-
Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72
When I first took this test, I was a leftist. Then I became a conservative. Now I'm somewhere in the middle. I was always along that X axis though, so I'm neither authoritarian, nor am I libertarian
Haha
-
Off you go then, OP.
I am a product of this culture. I do not know how to change it, or if I even want to change. Such is the way that I was brought into CN politics.
I see the problems we have, and the roots of the problems. I see very different problems with other nation sims.
Other games have problems of people coming into the game. The player base is very loyal, but there are very few new players. With CN, there are many people coming to the game everyday. These people, however, find CN to stifling. There is very little room to move here. You can't prosper without joining an alliance. In other games, nations can reach very high up in the ranks without joining an alliance, if only they put a little extra effort in.
This isn't blaming raiding. This is blaming the general attitude of the players that have been here 2, 3, 4 or perhaps even close to 5 years. Especially the ones that have been around longer, as they were (and are still [sadly]) the ones responsible for our culture today. Nations can't do anything but join an alliance and become a mindless foot soldier. There's no freedom to "go it alone" without getting crushed within the first day you come out of peace mode.
I think it was the to the detriment of CN the day treaties were first signed, and that was the point of my OP. Treaties have led to CN developing huge alliances, alliance coalitions and large wars at the start where there were few alliances, but with the hundreds of alliances today, people can't move a step without getting rolled. Fear is a large motivator. Too large. Because of that motivation, more and more defense treaties are signed. Because of that motivation, people are afraid to start wars. Because of that motivation, people leave CN.
Alas, all I see are problems, not ideas on how to fix it.
-
You didnt mention hegemony or anything like it once. Your post was more to do with treaties in general, e-lawyering in general and didnt mention one group or another beyond the two paperless alliances & the DF/NEW fight.
I suppose I shouldn't expect people to read, interpret and come to conclusions by themselves eh?
-
If this war had non hegemony alliances at its core the hegemony would have rolled with or without treaties and a cb. Dont kid yourself this is the future, it was just the wrong part of the treaty web for the so called great powers.
What I said completely went over your head. Re-read, digest, and come back with a different answer.
What I wrote also tackled the issue of a hegemony, why there is a hegemony, and why there always will be a hegemony as long as treaties still exist.
-
The prophet of CN spoke, and it thus came to pass
-
Really?
So it is okay for NEW to attack a protectorate, but not okay for TPE/INT/FARK to defend it from an unwarranted agressive attack?
Who said it was okay? Where? You're stretching pretty far there
Let's be honest here, I don't fault FEAR as much as I fault NEW for making such a horrible decision. But FEAR does make itself a partner in crime so to say of NEW by supporting them in their war effort.
Partner in crime? Really? Please explain in more detail. I really don't understand that one.
You're not old school, just holding onto a misconception.
Your choice, but don't cry when FEAR gets its ass kicked for it.
I think the misconception is yours. See, when I see "MDP", that means, defend if attacked. Doesn't matter why, just defend. If you don't like it, drop the treaty afterwards. You're saying that MDPs don't exist anymore, and that they're all ODPs, since we have the option of sitting out if we don't like the reason for war.
-
I'm not really sure if that is what FEAR intended to fight for, I don't think they're that stupid. Apparently you do though!
... No. I really don't think you're that dense. A defense treaty was activated, and no matter how you try spin it, FEAR was defending NEW from treaty obligations.
See, maybe I'm just old school in my interpretations of treaties. MDoAP means that you can join others in declaring war, but if your ally gets attacked, no matter the reason, you're going to be there for them. Both PC and iFOK's treaties were chaining. In my view, they're just weaselling their way out of this.
-
Indeed. Where's all the guts and bravery? PC? iFOK? Several of your members have already left you to ghost NEW to fight for them. At least some in your alliance had balls. Apparently your gov doesn't.
-
You make it sound like iFOK and PC didn't want to help, and that NEW didn't ask them to sit it out.
I wonder why the same request wasn't asked of WFF and FEAR?
If iFOK and PC wanted to help, they're free to do so. Nothing is stopping them. (well okay, iFOK has their hands tied cause of a treaty clash, but PC is free to help)
Lack of leaders
in R3nowned's Blog
A blog by R3nowned in General
Posted
Oh yeah, fo sho... My memory is poor these days.
Lol...