Hyperbad

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1289798359' post='2513381'] No one here has ambition anymore. [/quote] I think they do. Merely the laws set up to guide nation growth and the society we've developed around them stifles it causing everything to move at a snails pace.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289076106' post='2504207'] Not even willing to help your friends and allies without making any profit from it? Again, truly pathetic. [/quote] Their doing it is understandable. [quote name='OP' post='2504199']The Conclave fairly recently started a new and potentially prosperous relationship with AcTi.[/quote] Even if they held your view of all friendships equating to mindless droning (or mob mentality if you prefer) they're still in the process of building that relationship up. Few would give the shirt off their back to someone they're still in the early stages of getting to know. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1289089068' post='2504444'] And that's why I don't believe in the ODP Treaty menace! [/quote] I assume that's true for many as with it they'd be held accountable for their actions and nobody wants that. [quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1289096294' post='2504570'] None of this makes it honorable for the Conclave to stand idly by as their allies are crushed. [/quote] This announcement is honor neutral. The Conclave might not be fighting and dying besides Acti but they are offering assistance post war and aren't looking to cancel the treaty for some cheap reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a lack of concern over what's the most honorable action. In fact I'd say those who feel the need to prove how honorable they are at every turn have a serious lack of self-confidence and massive amounts of insecurity. edit: wrong post id put in 2nd quote

To be fair if anyone were to demand that I choose between them and someone else I'd say bye-bye. Making it personal in that manner has no place in an alliance much less the government and I certainly wouldn't appreciate that person trying to use my own view of them to dictate alliance policy at least when it comes to matters like that. Of course, after demasking the person who makes such an ultimatum I'd demote the person who abused their powers, bringing them down to ordinary member and along with the other individual also removing this ones IRC ops. Some people aren't fit for leading others but it is possible they might still make adequate members.

And in their honor I shall binge drink from the gallon of water in front of me while playing Aquaria.

You should probably stick with alliances ranked 81 and below for the above stated reasons that way both of you will have work completed that is referenced and aren't redundant.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1287958512' post='2492279'] Have any of you ever heard of this site? I sure haven't.[/quote] Yes, about ten years ago D: [quote]I don't think it gets enough traffic that anyone will come to CN because of it.[/quote] Yeah, it looks a lot more barren than it used to be, from a time when games with 40k+ players would compete there monthly and there were thousands of votes for the top ranked. The effect had is probably one of more people visiting to vote up their favorite game than anything else. Though I do personally still browse it periodically for what new browser games are around. Since they tossed in games like World of Warcraft and continue to list (nearly) defunct games I haven't bothered much. Still, even if there is little traffic, if there are enough new unique visitors new players might be attracted. The biggest downfall to it all is the rule of one win per year which I suppose was put up to avoid the zerg rush you're all in the process of doing. I don't have access to it now but does it say once per 12 months or calendar year? I ask because if a win is achieved I'd rather see CN win December and January back to back. It would probably be a stronger statement.

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1287864180' post='2491427'] I voted but i know of some games that do a small benefit for voting. maybe a couple thousand dollars a day would make people vote there (as well as other game sites) more often. just a thought [/quote] I'd say if it's done, then an option between 2 tech, 2 land or $25,000 per day. New nations might pick the last one, old nations the first two. It would add up to 724 tech, 724 land or $9,125,000 if you vote every day. It's not much on any particular day but it'll add up thus providing the incentive. Thing is not all of these sites will consider the votes legit if you reward players for voting. I forget what mpogd's policy is on that. Another issue is most of these websites have a vote confirmation page and in that case players can click the link thus getting the reward and simply close out the page not voting at all.

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1287863550' post='2491420'] Wow CN jumped like 19 spots today. Edit: We can vote tomorrow too! [/quote] From here on out it will probably be more difficult to climb as the top games are typically the most active and have been actively going at it all month long though over the years it seems as if fewer votes over all have been cast.

Yup, you can vote once per calendar day on that site. There's about a dozen other websites like that one which have the monthly bit and all allow a vote per day though this is the one which probably receives the most traffic. They do it every month though, starting on the first of each. Some games give out bonuses to those who vote while logged into their game accounts. Using that and just eager players there've been some who dominated the vote for quite a few months before others managed to rally their player base better. Also, there's totally a [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=2692]thread[/url] already for this. This forum is probably better for it though.

Cats Coke Night Cold Burger East Neither - all beer is trash Football footbal (which is american) Powerade

Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I don't even like the present set of social norms I merely understand the fuss over it. The reason it's come about is people holding preference over defense to offense because of the assumption that the defender might be an innocent thus should be protected. A way to challenge the notion of the defender being an innocent thus not worthy of outside aid is to charge that they've wrong another party some how in a manner others can get behind. What wrong others may rally behind will again, depend on social norms.

Methrage If anyone joins the war with that as the reason then the one they should be joining to support really is FnKa. The Ninjas are merely backing up their statements with no clear goal other then to respond to what was more or less "do something about it" and your alliance went to war under dubious cicrcumstances no matter your intentions. This leaves FnKa is really the only one to openly state their reason and making demands on the topic of GOONS's raiding practices. Everyone who was considering war for the same reason of what probably boils down to "I don't much like GOONS" was there. That doesn't speak on what those who might join would need to convince them. Personally I think having as many varied reasons as one possibly can have will typically work in persuading multitudes of others to take part in your favor or sit by instead of joining the other side. There isn't anything inherently wrong with trying to secure that extra support even if the reasons for that support might differ from your own goals. The problem was with how things were progressing in the logs, not with the fact that they wanted to keep the firepower on the other side limited. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way which is why when you wish to achieve a political goal it's never a good idea to just think if it's good enough for me it'll be good enough for everyone else. Would contriving a CB make a difference? Certainly. What kind of difference or whether by "difference" you mean significant, I have no idea. It depends upon what they would have came up with and how it all played out (log leaks, etc.).

Going in kamikaze style in this case not only wouldn't have achieved what those planning had hoped but also would have solidified the other sides position by removing themselves as factors in future disputes. Thus it is possible to believe in something and not emphasis the points you believe in while trying to have your side appeal to others. This isn't to say I condone the manner in which they went about it but I think you too readily jumped to that statement. Edit: hopped != hoped

I lol'd

To be quite honest I don't think CN suffers that terribly from players who leave the game after being attacked in a raid relative to the whole. There was a time after the Red Safari where I became disillusioned at the prospect of new players being targetted by others, feared they would leave and felt they deserved a chance before being preyed upon. Fast forwarding I decided to write up a message which when ever I got around to it, would send to new unaligned nations. The content in the message greeted them to the game with a brief comment of it having a rich history, informed them of the risks they stand in being unaligned, that small alliances face the same risk and it's generally recommended that they join an alliance after first researching them to see what culture would fit their tastes. Lastly I wished them luck in their future endeavors. I stopped sending them once my alliance began actively recruiting so that they wouldn't disregard my message as just another recruiting attempt. Of the hundreds to whom I sent the message well over half would never even open it. Those who would actually respond could be counted on my two hands. Unfortunately I never kept relevant statistics but it seems the vast majority leaving the game shortly after creating accounts with a significant portion of new nations joining alliances even before I sent messages out. The impression I'm left with is most don't play their accounts because of things related to game mechanics and the look of the website but that's speculation.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1286272394' post='2475773'] You posed the hypothetical situation above as a method to argue against my post after directly quoting it. Did you forget that you did that or something? [/quote] Not at all. I think you're missing the point in my bringing it up. I wasn't arguing in favor of that position but brought up another perspective which would account for your statement while allowing for the possibility of it having a negative impact. The reason it was brought up is precisely because your "data" doesn't account for this possibility due to a lack of information. Therefore we can not make any proper judgement. Never have I actually argued that it does have a negative impact on new player retention. The closest I've come is saying such an impact might exist but also said it probably isn't the main reason people leave.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1286268718' post='2475754'] Precisely what you have in determining the success rate of our mercy board, as you pointed out that there are other routes to take. tsk. [/quote] Seeing as how I made no claims either way on the mercy board's impact on new player retention and only stated it's a possibility there might be one and your only quoting me I have no idea who you're arguing with. You may wish to clarify this in the hopes of your desired opponent will respond to you.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1286259112' post='2475668'] Then I suppose you'd be satisfied with the statement "Of those raided nations that have utilized the Mercy Board, the majority have been observed to have enjoyed the process"?[/quote] Yup. [quote]I think the point is that, while we understand that the concept of such a board could be displeasing or off-putting to those who are not familiar with it, in the end it isn't a particularly painful process for those who let go of their reservations and embrace the experience.[/quote] I can really see both sides here and really; I don't have a strong opinion either way. The strongest cases I see against it is how it's not befitting of a person with the stature of nation leader to require it of other nations to draw silly cartoons or write silly essays and then that some people just might not be as creative as your alliance desires thus might feel put off simply because of that. The claim of humiliation I'm not entirely certain how far that can go because I never visit your boards but I suppose some might feel that way. On its own I suppose it isn't much to ask from others. Shoot, in an alliance war if I led any and we won I could see myself (and in the past have actually) wishing to demand the loser to, disregarding OpSec, write a five to ten page essay, double spaced with 10-12 size font explaining what caused the war and what they'll do to ensure mistakes made are not repeated, among other things. Some might feel it to be humiliating even though I'd find that in place of reparations or other things to be the most likely to garner a positive response from the loser where a reflection is truly had. It's all a matter of perspective based upon ones experiences, perspective/philosophy and general expectations. Do I think the mercy board and even raiding itself might have an impact of some kind on new player retention? Yes. Do I think it's the determining factor in most cases? No. I remember first joining the game back in 2006 and feeling disappointed, or should I say disillusioned, because its description felt misleading. I imagine a lot who join on their own accord at least are looking for "...an Internet game designed to simulate nation building and management and will require you to exercise your management skills on a day to day basis."

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1286253912' post='2475553'] Ah, so by that rationale, there are more people that hate McDonald's hamburgers in this world than people that like them, simply because they haven't had a McDonald's hamburger. Damn, that's harsh. [/quote] No, by my rationale you have insufficient information by which to make any assertion what the case actually is for how many find the mercy board fun when you only include those who take part in it and not those who haven't yet were either directed there or didn't care to seek peace, for one reason or another. "Could be argued" does not mean is being argued in such a manner. Rather it's typically used to point out another perspective where your statement might be seen as questionable.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1286036773' post='2472256'] We've had more people have fun with the mercy board than not.[/quote] In fairness this could be argued as a result of those who would not enjoy simply not visiting preferring isntead to either delete, fight it out, or join an alliance.

[quote name='Bilrow' timestamp='1286220014' post='2474407'] Still looking for discussion on to the things I highlighted about the sales pitch on Pandora's Box. Located [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93065&view=findpost&p=2474396]here[/url] if you missed it. [/quote] I think it's a poor attempt. I mean, at least an effort was made but the way everything was phrased and organized along with what the emphasis was put on just wouldn't be convincing to me. I always found the most convincing arguments were those who present the information in an impartial manner then presented both cases. Instead some information and buzz words were used while trying to make a case for it before getting to the "case" for or against where no real effort was put into showing the flaws of such a design and what real concerns might be, barring one perhaps all leading it to be not the least bit convincing, even if I ignore what AAs are listed. What I find the most baffling is the following quote: [quote]SF/C&G will be kept abreast of the bloc once they are notified, and this isn't designed to diverge away from them. We all have common allies in the two blocs, and we all have no intention of creating a new side in this game. This is a way to chart our own path while still maintaining the relations we have with our outside allies.[/quote] What they're doing isn't charting their own path but swapping Super Friends and Complaints & Grievances for who their path is dependant on for those alliances in this block. What really should be happening if they want to chart their own path is downgrade treaties if they feel stifled and having no room for independance instead of signing a bloc which will incur greater demands and less flexibility. The failure to respond to such a thought of them going about it the wrong way with this bloc leaves this question wide open making it seem as if they have no response. It can be damaging to the argument for the bloc. All in all, a stronger case could have been made for the bloc which would better catch the attention of those on the fence and those opposed by making it more wide ranging in what it covers with greater detail in a more impartial manner.

Bullied from 3rd grade into highschool at first I resisted and fought back. My father and sisters also used to tease me a lot so by around 7th grade though I just grew exhausted from always having to defend myself and withdrew myself. I started to ignore every one and at first it was difficult, particularly in 8th grade. In highschool it was easier and I gained some confidence in my superiority over them. At that point I stopped responding because I wasn't going to play their game. At this point some lost interest in bullying me, it just wasn't "fun" to them because I wouldn't respond like other kids were. On the other hand, some were afraid I was going to either go on a shooting rampage or blow up the school and possessed a list of those I wanted to do away with thus treated me well or with indifference solely because of that. I always found this whole thing to be rather amusing myself. That isn't to say it was easy. I was an emotional/psychological wreck for years after highschool to the point of doing and trying some things I deeply regret. Since some people who took part in it I atually considered friends at one point it made it very difficult for me to develop a bond with anyone or simply socialize and from this angle still has some kind of impact on how I interact with others. If you would have asked this question years ago I could have given a case study of myself as I sat in contemplation often trying to figure myself out.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285738927' post='2467879'] My apologies, but this is an aggressive action against us without a legitimate CB. How are we not defending ourselves? [b]The precedent some of you are trying to set, that inviting someone else to fight you is a CB, is a dangerous one indeed.[/b] I'm sure every alliance here has at one point had a member invite another alliance to fight them over whatever grievance the two might have with eachother. [/quote] What's dangerous about it? It's effectively saying you want to fight and are willing to but wish for them to make the first move. Don't invite someone over if you don't want them to come knocking. It's really as simple as that.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285441096' post='2464425'] No, I read them, and disagree with them, and even addressed them.[/quote] To be quite honest I didn't see you addressing them. If you'd be willing to point me to them however I'd read them and of course reply as appropriate. [quote]You're supposedly taking a position of "neutrality" in concerns to rogues. Or even claiming that someone who aids an enemy and then declares war on an alliance is not a rogue. So there we go, red sphere takes a stance of "neutrality" in concerns to nuclear rogues, holding nuclear rogues in the same regard as alliances and deciding not to get involved.[/quote] You're mis-characterizing things. The position isn't saying we won't sanction rogues but that we won't sanction them because they aren't rogues. There is quite the difference and it ultimately boils down to motivations and the general situation. Edit: you're not your

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285439592' post='2464409'] As said there are different forms of aiding. One form would be secretly sending stockpiles of guns and missiles and bombs to someone and denying that you had any involvement. Secret aid. This sort of thing is a sneaky underhanded move that is definitely cause for reps, and very large ones, or war. One form would be openly assisting by sending money and weapons openly and admitting to the world that you're eager to publicly assist. Another form would be denying sanctions for no particular reason, or just because you don't like the person being attacked. That is, taking a stance that nuclear rogues are completely acceptable as long as they're attacking someone you don't like. You may not be [b]directly[/b] assisting that mugger by letting him beat up someone, but standing there watching isn't going to win you any fans. Nor are you going to convince anyone that you're "neutral" because you aren't doing anything about the situation even though it's fully in your power to. Unfortunately, red sphere knows that there's little if any precedent for considering refusing sanctions "assistance," and are quite happy to "assist" rogues in any way that they can't [b]quite[/b] be held accountable for. [/quote] You and others keep saying we are aiding them and yet have no addressed counter points made to explain how you're streteching the usage of aid and assistance. I took the liberty of pulling just my own previous statements on this topic from posts previously made in the hopes that maybe the walls of texts caused you to miss them. [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1285396132' post='2464057'] Sitting idly by and not assisting either party by use of sanction is a position of neutrality. Aiding and supporting takes a degree of action or inaction in one's favor above another. In this case inaction is of benefit to both parties thus impartial. Supporting them would either be filling their coffers or imposing sanctions on GOONS and their allies.[/quote] With additions to explain it a bit more thoroughly... [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1285438511' post='2464394'] Additionally if you really want to stretch the definition of aid to the point that it no longer fits then we are giving more aid to GOONS and their allies for who is benefiting more from not receiving sanctions on their nations in combat? Easily they are receiving the greatest amount of aid because they have so many more nations. Also by inaction, and once more using the reasoning you display in the quotation, we agree with GOONS because our refusal to sanction their nations and those of their allies is aiding them in this fight. [/quote] If you wish to continue to assert that we are in fact aiding them then you're going to have to do more than repeat yourself particularly since as you said, we're standing by and watching. Only the situation isn't a mugging but an ordinary fight. With that said you seem to have found one possible reason someone may have supported not applying sanctions, taken it as their only one and assume there's no room for others to play any kind of role much less a central one in their decision making process. Additionally you take that reasoning and apply it to all parties concerned. What you hope to accomplish by rushing to these conclusions and ignoring the concerns expressed here in this thread over the topic and placing sanctions I do not know but do you honestly believe it will help what ever it is you are seeking to achieve?