Hyperbad

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280020412' post='2387863'] We are a typical raiding alliance that usually puts the PM for peace. Mercy board isn't something that we just throw at very single tech raid target all willy nilly. Sure we could have moved on to a less drama ridden target but we felt insulted when the said target is so lazy that not only can he not write his own essay, HE CAN'T EVEN PROOF READ IT TO REMOVE THE PART THAT SAYS REMOVE.[/quote] Is it at all possible that he or others within what's now his former alliance might be insulted by the terms for their achieving peace or how members of your alliance have conducted this unprovoked aggression towards them? In the event you do hold this double standard why should anyone (including those who are aligned) care if you feel insulted by anything? [quote]This tells us that peace is worth less to him than the 1 minute needed to go over his post.[/quote] To be quite honest this sounds a lot more like what you want to be the case instead of what it really is. How did you come to such a conclusion while eliminating the possibility of it not only being incorrect but all of the possible explanations which don't even touch the value that peace has to him? [quote]But to the heart of the thread let them camp on your AA until wars ride out, then make them a member.[/quote] I see you telling others what to do (or what not to) but haven't seen you explain why they should listen to you and as such I remain unconvinced that said course of action should be practiced. Explain.

[quote name='Jakome' timestamp='1280006662' post='2387700'] I thought the normal thing to do was allow the nation at war to sit on your AA until all the wars expired then allow them to become full members. Though the accepting alliance may approach the nations currently at war and seek peace for the member they are accepting. [/quote] If by normal you mean the most widely conducted practice with regards to nations at war, yes, it is.

Let's just nip this heated debate. To answer the OP, both parties are justified in their positions but because they have different perspectives, philosophies, priorities or interests one can not be measured as more justified than the other in an objective manner. From the GOONS perspective they are more justified. From the CoJ's they are instead. Yes there were blunders on both sides of this without which things could have gone a lot smoother but focusing on who is more justified, what an alliance is, whether tech raiding is good or bad or whether it's to be commended or denounced when an alliance accepts nations at war isn't/wasn't going to get us any where. In fact it will get both sides to feel defensive which in turn would impede on any progress one might see. Instead you work with what you have towards a solution where neither party is happy - that's called a compromise.

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 July 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1279417978' post='2376542'] I'm assuming you listed MKs treaties? I dislike our web too and if it was up to me we wouldn't keep most of them.[/QUOTE] I didn't post it to comment on what you like (hate micros or new upstarts all you want) but to comment on where most of the treaty web appears to rest. A more thorough job would show all the interconnecting treaties between nearly every one and thus just how suffocating the web is at its heart. Those with protectorates are pretty straight forward with what's typically a single treaty line going to them making them not quite such a large part of the madness. [quote]Maybe I should form my own alliance to get anyway from it? Wanna hook Mega Cool Alliance (MCA) up with a protectorate? We'll totally become relevant and really stir things up on planet bob.[/quote] How about an ODP instead?

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 July 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1279415268' post='2376504'] How to stop the treaty web? Every random idiot makes their own alliance, but if the established powers would just stop protecting them raiders would make sure these worthless alliances would disappear as fast as they appear. [/quote] 4 protectorates, 2 odps, 12 mdoaps, and the 6 member bloc. Yes, the problem is only with new alliances forming and has nothing to do with the prevailing attitude in the "established powers."

[quote name='bros2' date='17 July 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1279408287' post='2376391'] Invisionplus looks horrendous And invisionfree is ran by Invision on Invision Power Board 1.3 [/quote] They're both horrendous and have been since they first came out. Still better than AvidGamers if anyone else remembers using those waaaay back in the day. Most of the archives were active no more recently than mid 2006 though one forum I have gets used as storage for miscellaneous things when I don't have access to my home computer, a flash drive, or my external. When I get home I back up the data.

This thread scared me. There were several forums no longer used that are still up as archives. I thought they were lost. Apparently IPBfree got hit but neither invisionplus nor invisionfree were.

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='17 July 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1279396943' post='2376163'] whats wrong with the treaty web? it makes things interesting. [/quote] I'm not sure how alliances being so inflexible with relationships that they mandate their support in conflict by treaty is making things interesting. I would think things being spelled out ahead of time makes it, well, boring.

[quote name='wickedj' date='17 July 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1279394585' post='2376120'] That worked out well when NPO came a callin' edit: likewise when TDO was threatening ADI lol[/quote] I seem to recall when the NPO came calling rather few alliances were safe and the conflicts had quite a bit to do with leadership at that time and how they handled the situation but considering the stats now and their (neutrals in general) numbers in the top ranks I'd say it has worked out. I think it's pretty safe to say they've probably taken less damage and lost less time devoted to growth than the interventionist alliances have.

[quote name='kitex' date='17 July 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1279383364' post='2375856'] First of all before I tell you how to end the treaty web madness, I [i]must[/i] give stupid dumb props to the user iamthey for putting this in CNRP treaties. The way to end the treaty web madness is simple: In all treaties just include an anti chaining clause that looks something like this: [/font][/font] [font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"] [/font][/font] [font=tahoma,][font="'Courier New"]That would easily end all the craziness and wars wouldn't have to go global unless people wanted them to.[/font][/font] [/quote] In order to be called an anti-chaining clause shouldn't it you know, prevent chaining instead of making it optional in order to be called that? I honestly don't mind much that wars go global. I simply find it ridiculously stupid that people (not necessarily all or even a majority) feel the need to have treaties to act as the justification for their participation in it. Those announcements always sound like someone without the capacity for independant thought.

[quote name='The Reccesion' date='11 July 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1278883545' post='2367238'] Those are some meanings of the term "bandwagon". So you hear a lot about bandwaggoners, my question is [b]What makes a bandwagon during a war?[/b] [/quote] From my perspective it's a mentality, not an act and applies to anything in politics. The mentality is one of "meh, why not" and you possess no other reason for participating which is actually related to the conflict itself or its consequences. Those holding treaties and those without can both ride the bandwagon. Those who bandwagon can be the closest of allies or most unpredictable of entities. The only thing which is actually bad about holding such a mentality is how the actions taken and result thereof could be counter productive to what goals they possess.

Sounds like it's been established that pips aren't to be relied upon for an accurate statement as to which alliance someone belongs to. It should also be mentioned how it's only a minority of alliances and players which actually have one that could accurately identify them anyway so you'd just have to check their profile or in-game nation to see what their alliance is. This is just a pet peeve blown out of proportion to any potential issue of confusion it causes. The confusion will have minimal impact on anyone understanding in-game events or policies.

Bloc Stat link is broken. Not Found The requested URL /blocstat/2010-07-01.html was not found on this server. Thanks for all the stats though ^^

[quote name='TOLWYN' date='01 July 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1277997267' post='2356638'] NOW THAT WE HAVE CAUSED MILLIONS OF DAMAGE TO THE CULT, ARE YOU WILLING TO DISCUSS SURRENDER NOW. [/quote] Awesome. I didn't even realize we had millions to lose. Schatt, you're really falling behind on the milestone announcements. In other news, I have put in place a "No Child" policy for anyone with descendants from DINOLAND. The stupid must not be allowed to spread.

[quote name='Jakome' date='18 June 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1276907952' post='2342367'] Any chance you guys can just start doing a recap every 20 or so pages? [/quote] Why bother, it would always read the same.

I disagree with the notion that an alliance should by default pay out for any claim made about tech scamming against any member. The alliance with the accused in my opinion holds no responsibility to fix anything unless evidence of a problem actually existing can and is presented. They lay the claim, now prove or provide evidence for the deal going sour. Sounds to me he was just saying so long as it can be properly investigated (hence his complaints about the tech being a month old) then he's willing to work with you. If however it's impossible for him to conduct it due to age and deletion then he doesn't see how one could reasonably expect him to make a decision in the accusers favor. The end effect might be that tech may not be sent but that's because he doesn't see anything to support the claim being made. It's a reasonable position to take even if he hasn't been phrasing it in such a manner. The only reason IMO for this particular mess tech should be paid - despite my believing Rush - is because Panda looked into it earlier and came to the conclusion it was owed. Fernando should have confered with Panda before making the decision. Had Panda not looked into it though then Fernando's decision is the proper one. More absurd things have happened. Additionally the fact it might be absurd doesn't remove the possibility for mistakes to occur or scams to occur by the person making the accusation or for such an open policy of giving tech out to any one who lays unsupported claim could encourage those who might scam in such a manner. I can think of a number of ways in which someone who claims to be a buyer might do so. Frankly, I don't see why one should assume a position of guilt by the seller when it comes to this.

I wish to add to "IMO sellers as well as buyers should really be saving proof of their transactions in this game." that it's far easier to provide evidence for a positive and not possible to prove a negative, though taking screens every 5 days of your aid screen could remove doubt unless they cry it was shopped out. Ultimately it was nothing more than a number of mistakes by yourself and FAR's government. It's nothing to lose sleep over. I do believe that taking anyone's word is a bad idea and someone should look into it just to see if either or both stories are plausible.

It's really a tough break. Both sides could have handled it better. You really should have taken screens of the aid and unread messages prior to bringing it to their attention and with any others sent after. Panda should have done some preliminary investigative work before sending the message out to the would-be seller in the event any aid offers were deleted as a result of receiving the message. Fernando also should have conferred with Panda if he didn't. Great ignoring or merely not responding to Panda's message (if what you say is true) should certainly work against him. Really, it could have gone more smoothly and if all Fernando did is ask "did you send tech" and "are you sure?" then there probably wasn't enough questioning. IMO sellers as well as buyers should really be saving proof of their transactions in this game.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='04 June 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1275626312' post='2323133'] I don't entirely agree, while its obvious that making decisions based solely on emotion is a bad thing the polar opposite is just as bad I think. A leader with no passion, no spirit, will have no drive. We look to our leaders for inspiration and direction. A computer does not inspire loyalty or devotion. Similarly we are often forced to make decisions on incomplete information, in these cases our intuition and feelings come into play. One should of course strive to eliminate bias, but it is our emotions, our feelings, and our personal drive that makes us individuals, and it is the desire to reach for those goals that we are driven to by our passions that separate the merely competent leaders from the great leaders. [/quote] There's a difference between suppressing emotions for the purpose of making an important decision and suppressing them entirely. One can think logically yet be filled with passion in what they do and inspire others.

[quote name='Mathias' date='04 June 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1275693466' post='2323865'] That's ludicrous. GPA shouldn't be oppressing their members like that.[/quote] That policy was put in place by a President of the GPA at a time when the community had turned on them. Many were claiming the GPA wasn’t neutral and this impression stuck with them more so out of fear that another war may occur for their not being "neutral enough". If an effort to remove that posting ban were raised then the first challenges older members would throw at it is the question of it being neutral. Some will attempt to reinforce that position by saying not many members would post in those regions they have the self imposed exile on. [quote name='bakamitai' date='04 June 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1275693991' post='2323871'] Why would anything the GPA does provoke us?[/quote] It doesn’t matter if anything would. It’s the chance of another war happening that has the older membership paralyzed, afraid to move forward. They still live in the past and for them it doesn’t even matter if they have a good reason for any action they take. All that matters is what other alliances will think about it. Neutrality, while the foundations of the alliance, is used largely as a buzz word to strengthen support for positions taken out of fear. [quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='04 June 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1275701102' post='2323967'] Given all the work Sal did, a simple 'thank you' would have been sufficient.[/quote] The GPA being an isolationist alliance rather than interventionist one means it will see little action and with their seeing little if any action that would make any military wonder virtually a wasted investment if purchases prior to any economic ones. So while I can see what Sal is trying to do I must say that even if the GPA were to change in how they do things while not being interventionist I think they’d still see little if any action thus keeping economic wonders the preferred investment. [quote name='Shaka Zulu' date='05 June 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1275750337' post='2324540'] I'm pretty sure those Hailing this would not like for their nations to be inflitrated with false propaganda. Especially since it came from an outsider posing as a government official.[/quote] There really wasn’t an infiltration because Sal never joined. It was merely an impersonation and while something to be frowned upon in any case (and I would understand a desire to knock Sal down a bit) the membership of the GPA had the means available to them with which they could inquire if this was legitimate or not. The GPA has never given their members orders in how their nations should be built thus this move by Sal was out of character and should have been questioned by anyone who’s been on that AA for a remotely significant amount of time. [quote name='Captain Flinders' date='05 June 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1275758002' post='2324622'] Do you believe that the GPA had the proper means to defend themselves from a largely nuclear assault, as most would be in the world today, before (or for that matter now) Sal decided to boost your MP numbers? [/quote] They still don’t after this and still won’t except for months of only military wonders being purchased.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='29 May 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1275156743' post='2315706'] 29 nations remain since the Easter Day Accords. 43 nations have left since that day. 96 nations have left since Karma. And that's the nonsense facts assuming they didn't gain any members since then, like the Filipino Heroes. That means probably only ~10 nations remain from the Karma Gre.[/quote] Roughly half - 14 - of those who were members during Karma are still present. Of the 14 approximately 9 had them joined 420+ days ago. What relevance that last figure has I have no idea. I just thought it might be something some may wish to note.

FreddieMercury, I think you would have like AstroNest then. It had the Space Empires ship design sort of customization. It also had a unique take on the end round thing. The top 10 players could start a project at any time. Once started I forget how the end of the round was determined but the rest of the game could decide whether to fight with the top 10 players or fight against them. If you knock them down (was it one or five of the top 10?) then the project is stopped. So it really left the end of the round up to the players. The revival project is titled Neo AstroNest. Unfortunately it doesn't look like it will go anywhere though as it's been years since the website popped up. With CN I think some declining community interest will occur over the next several years especially as it ages if nothing new is done but the biggest risk to the game is if something occurs in admin's life requiring his attention to be focused elsewhere. There will be a time however when comunity interest could become barely existant if nothing new is done. That simply has to do with age, been there done that and others innovating where admin stopped.

It wasn't so much a question of whether I was bored or not as seeking to find elements in games that I hadn't seen before. Others were just to see what the spin offs were like. It's actually dead. Jolt shut it down and might shut Utopia down. NukeZone was one spin off from that game and Mars2025 is another.

I've played browser based games like Cyber Nations for about ten years now and after visiting an old one, seeing it announced as closed I began to try and recall all of the games I had played. Most of them were upwards of five years ago. Around that time I had the most free time and interest in this type of game. Unfortunately I can only recall a few that I've played and I've bolded the ones which are no longer playable either because in accessible or because the administrators disabled game functions. A number of those not bolded however are virtually dead with unresponsive staff or a near dead community. Some that are in ordinary text I just couldn’t access the community to tell if it was still active and alive and frankly, I wasn’t going to register an account just to check. All Out War Ambar Archmage Army Commander Astro Empires AstroNest Astro Wars Dominion Dystopia Earth 2025 Empire Quest Imperial Conflict Last Knights, The Mafia 1930 Mech Wars Netropolis Nexus War NukeZone Omni [something or other] Planetarion Sim Country Teq Urban Dead Utopia Vagabond’s Quest 1 [First was text based, then switched to java] World War 3 – The Patriots WW1 - Subversion WWII - War of Supremacy Some games have returned by the will of the community, others are spin offs during their lives because of perceived neglect. There have been all sorts of administrations which range from those that saw their games as a method of potential income, others that saw it as a fun thing to do and more that just considered theirs a project to work on. No matter the reason for their creation there is always the possibility of neglect or closure. I wonder where CN will be years from now in this list. Where do you the reader think it will be two, five, ten years down the road?

I just wish to thank all of the participants for this astoundingly long thread where the discussion is reminiscint of the time when Clark Griswold was stuck in the loop of Lambeth Bridge's traffic circle. It's been quite entertaining. I'm just curious, does any one here feel actual progress has been made through the discussion? Speaking as someone who has not participated in this thread, its participants largely (though not all of them) are reading the others posts for what they want rather than what the case is and instead of arguing based on the latter are winding up into these endless tangents which run in a circle. There are a handful of good posts in this thread but largely the honest discussion stops with them and this thread appears to have outlived its usefulness. Perhaps it might be helpful to start over from square one in an honest and non-demeaning manner, clearly phrasing ones position using a different angle then has been used thus far?