[A Note on PB Military Tactics]

Stop bawwing and just enjoy the fallout. You tried to pick an easy target and now you are getting walloped harder than you though you would. You underestimated PC, bad move bro.

We didn't underestimate PC's fighting ability, in fact it appears we overestimated that Simply underestimated the lengths to which they would go in order to escape the beat down they've been receiving.

[Who SHOULDN'T disband?]

You want an alliance to disband? Make them.

Would love to see some people try and force some of alliances with less than 50 members to disband. Good luck with that. D34th is particularly amusing because he appears to have included an alliance with less than 50 members in his original list before stating that all alliances that small should die

[Tech Dealing]

Bring it pipsqueak. I promise I'll write a wall next time for you Proportional in size to the number of tech sellers you find me ofc.

[Tech Dealing]

There were plenty of sellers in GOONS.

I sent one GOON money and he deleted 20 days later God damn noobs

[The mercy board and the EoG list: Myth vs Reality]

As some one who has done a lot of work in recruiting/admissions, I have found that GOONS have done well in peacing out with nations once they join the applicant AA.

and the one time I've had to request peace for a nation once they joined the applicant AA of my alliance at the time it was rejected. Flow chart needs a bullet point saying that some or all stages are dependent on how much GOONS likes you

[Highlights from WCE: Part 18]

Oh so the raid which I had already pledged to pay damages on if they had bothered to calculate them? That one?

Yes that one. Sorry we're not privy to all of your private conversations pal.

[Spicing up the Sanction Race]

I loved the standard survivor the most of all of them, although the special ones coinciding with real life events are great too but alone. Particularly enjoyed the one with qualifiers beforehand as it gave many more alliances a chance to enjoy the ASR.

[A Grand Arbiter for Cybernations?]

I highly doubt there's anyone truly neutral out there that could take on such a position without imposing their bias on the negotiations. Either through their alliance affiliation and wanting to see their allies or friends come out on top or through personal bias. Everyone out there has an opinion on whether reparations are deserved, or acceptable in various situations. For example could you trust someone who doesn't believe in taking reparations from an aggressive war not to be biased in the discussions, no matter what their relation to the alliances in question are?

The only way around that, that I can see, would be to have a panel of people from different backgrounds in the game to work together on finding a solution. Yet while that might be effective in producing less biased decisions, they would be extremely hard to enforce. It's a nice idea but I can't see it ever being effective in the Cyberverse.

[April Fools]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/purp...AprilFools1.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/purp...AprilFools2.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/purp...AprilFools3.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/purp...AprilFools4.jpg

Good job Admin, I chuckled for a while at that reaction ^

[The IC/OOC line]

Personally I consider anything said in a public IRC channel, particularly by myself, as OOC. Said by the person behind the character, not the character in the game. When you get to queries or private (gov channels mainly) then it's different. I talk OOC and IC in those, but really I think it's easy to tell the difference, the only time the lines get blurred is when people deliberately blur them for their own benefit, usually an IC benefit.

In my alliance's public channel last night I was discussing an elaborate plan to overthrow Moo and take his place at the helm of NPO. It involved smothering a cow in vaseline so that when he attempts to hug it he slips and falls, then we tie him up and we're done. Now that's clearly entirely OOC, even if it is talking about an IC person/alliance, and everyone can see that because of how utterly ludicrous the entire idea is.

When people are having serious OOC discussions about IC issues, that's when the blurring of the lines can and will occur, which is annoying. Having to put OOC tags on posts etc in predominently OOC areas is unnecessary. OWF for example is supposedly an OOC forum, yet if you read through the first page of threads you can see a lot of veiled, and not so veiled, threats because of posts that have been made. OWF just seems to be an extension of AP to me right now.

Not sure if I've actually made a point in this whole post, just sort of started typing with nothing particular in mind :lol:

[Just Pixels...]

I'll have to disagree with that last comment really. The aspects of the game people baaww about are just pixels. Infra, tech, land, whatever, all just pixels and I don't need those pixels to enjoy the other aspects of the game you talk about. It was a nice read though and I agree with the rest of it

[The Now World Order]

Excellent post. I find it hard to disagree with any of this. Although I can't really think of solutions that are viable. Almost every issue brought up on the forums is met with a Private Channels FTW! post. When people see that threads aren't going their way they can just get them locked preventing any debate on the issues. A recent example being the disbanding of UA, but it's by no means the only one.

It's great to see a few essays coming out on OWF lately, they've provoked some interesting debate. Some I've taken part in, some I've just observed, and I'd love it if the AP forum became more like those recent threads.