Jump to content

IYIyTh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,457

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by IYIyTh

  3. Steve Buscemi

    Posted

    So, back on point.

    If you don't like it, do something about it. Join a micro, or make your own. Quit waiting for other people to make the game interesting, do it yourself (or if you feel less ambitious, seek out one of the pariahs that is already doing so - we are usually grateful for help.)

    I have no interest in investing thousands of hours of work in a nation simulator to attempt to break up what amounts to OOC circle jerking for the amusement of a handful of people.

    That card isn't going to work.

    It's not 2006 and I'm not 18 anymore with too much time on my hands. Folks have repeatedly gone out of their way to kill the game -- advocating for "change," (re: proposing that large nations become even more powerful,) that has lent its current shape -- a diminishing pool where most "new," nations fall into the wonderful "multi," rule. None of these nations have any impact on the game, of course -- because they require ~ 2-3 years of unhindered growth to get at a moderate size, while those above them grow logarithmicly. Meanwhile, the game has reached a protracted stage where less inclined political folks are weeded out (usually,) before they can reach a position to do anything interesting (In Cybernations, people consider self-immolation interesting.). Those that do find themselves talking to a vast good ol' boys network that will log your address of actual residence in addition to whatever plotting you may dare think about.

    SE needs a reset, or the plug pulled -- claiming that folks espousing this sentiment are part of the problem is rather ridiculous and contrary to any objective statistical analysis.

    We've reached a point where there are only 2-3 growing communities within the game, and they're all looking at OTHER games to sustain themselves as opposed to continue to waste their time here.

  6. ChairmanHal

    Posted

    Because people are using the whole "spouse/"sibling" rule to make more multi's then use the excuse it's not the same person, it's my wife or brother or something else. Is in some instances this likely true, yes, but I bet in more instances then not, it's the same person using two nations.

    I made my point known when this whole new rule was talked about, and then introduced. I knew it would become what it was, where it pretty much allows everyone to have a multi and claim it's a family member. I do not claim to know the admin's ways of proving someone a multi or an actual other family member, but honestly, I don't see how you can possibly tell the difference. Thus, now most people are banned if reported that someone has two nations on 1 IP, be it legitimate or not.

    There's only really 3 options, either return to the former rule where there is only 1 allowed nation on an IP, allow up to a certain on one IP (knowing people will make multi's, and some will be true but unable to determine the legitimacy), or 3, just let people do as they please and make as many nations on 1 IP as they please. I personally think it was a dumb idea when they made this new rule, and argued it shouldn't be introduced. There's no clear way to determine the legitimacy of a claim it's someone's family or not in the same house or someone just having two nations.

    Not only that, but all the alliances proven to be multi's who were made to send out free tech mostly just got deleted, and the people receiving the tech wasn't even punished by either a ban, or removal of all the tech that was sent to them from those nations. Sure, I am not saying just ban someone who received aid from a multi as some may not know, but there's been plenty of instances that it's pretty clear that certain nations were obviously part of the whole multi ring and were the ones benefiting from the tech sent to them before the ban. So what does that really do.....force someone to go about making more multi's and doing the same....not that bad of a deal when they already profited months of free tech before the multi ring was actually removed.

    I thought and still think it should of remained 1 nation per IP, and unfortunately that would effect people truely having two people on the same IP wanting to play, but would simply cut down on the instances of multi's as well as trying to determine if it's a multi or not.

    I totally and wholeheartedly agree with everything said here -- it's really a problem the admin/mods made for themselves and the onus shouldn't be on folks who are utilizing the rule (unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they're breaking it ** something you'll never convince me of even if you document them logging on immediately after one another,) to prove they're not breaking it, because it was made legal.

  7. ChairmanHal

    Posted

    I have no inside knowledge of the detection methods, but I would speculate that more than just your log in credentials gets passed over to the server when you log into to your account. Same goes for the data coming back at you, which probably consists of more than just the content of the web pages.

    That said above in my comments, I don't want or need to know their detection methods. However, what I need is to be assured that whatever methods they are using don't result in "false positives", such that situations where two people are legitimately playing the game and obeying the rules about nation interaction on the same IP don't get zapped. Statements like "it's more art than science" or "there is an amount subjectivity to the process" should cause you concern. Frankly I'd rather be playing knowing that there are probably a few people running an extra nation than watch honest people being shown the exit.

    As for forum bans, your experience may be different, but when I think back to all the people who were "warned out of the game" those that were genuine problems were the exception, not the rule.

    Once again, if there is one computer in the household, or even two -- if people are sharing it it's really not that uncommon.

    I'm really having a hard time justifying any moderation action on that basis or any basis. "HEY I NEED HELP ON MY NATION, HERE LET ME LOG OUT OF MINE REAL QUICK AND WE'LL LOOK AT YOURS."

    Even if mac/ip/et al are all the same, there is literally no way you can prove even a preponderance of evidence that I think by opening that pandora's box the moderation owes the users they administrate before terminating them for a rule they essentially changed from black and white to gray.

  8. ChairmanHal

    Posted

    I'm confused, someone was deleted for another person in their household having a nation (something the mods say they allowed?

    Frankly unless the mods are actually in your house at all times, I don't see how any kind of evidence (including logging in at the same time) could be damning,. Two people decide to play the same game at the same time all of the time in other arenas.

  15. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    Actually....Rush is correct about MI6's reputation outside its small group of friends. Kudos to those friends for sticking up for you, but you've really done nothing to deserve it yet. Time will tell.

    And Rush, if you're looking for someone to congratulate for Nordreich's continued existence, look no further than the current Kaiser, MoFA and Reichsbanker. I only came back to CN in August, but from everything I've seen they're the heroes who kept it all together when the fair-weather friends walked out.

    KZ, as someone who hasn't been playing during nearly the entirety of our existence -- unless you've had a fetish for CN's recent history or are relying entirely on second hand accounts -- I don't know what you're basing it on.

    The idea that our value is vested in how other people attempt to influence others to portray the rest of the world is simply false.

    In fact -- we've even had some nice intel that despite certain peoples desire to forget the past and claim we're evil incarnate based on a few perpetual CN malcontent's / false brotherhood of irrelevant political pawns like Rush-- dislikes and desperate desire to hit TOP and its allies -- no one actually has wanted to step forward and do anything about coming after us -- even your pals in Non Grata backed off.

    So unless we are taking value in something so hilariously subjective as "how x alliance views common enemy due to de-facto ties to y," feel free to cut down on the trite !@#$%^&*. This game is too old to be pretending that perception is anything but a lie used as a means to influence rather than an actual barrier.

    It's like saying y'all ended up curbstomped last war because people didn't like Nordreich.

    People are more than capable of deducing that if we wanted to abandon our allies we could have maneuvered ourself into quite the safe position.

    Unfortunately not throwing your allies into the garbage at the first opportunity is a forgotten relic of the past it seems and woe be unto those who rather than ditching them for the convenience of never having to fight a meaningful war stand by them through thick and thin.

    I must be a real smug prick for writing this though!

  17. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    I called your alliance out simply for what it is... a smug alliance that has done 0 to earn its smug. You flaunt your smug to everyone. You ARE the reason nobody would give TOP-Polar the time of day, and you do not even realize it, but ask around... you will find out that you were just too busy being fabulous to recognize the damage you were doing. Congrats on being kings and not kingmakers.

    lol, people like you are the only people calling us smug.

    as usual, your political analysis is basic and completely lacking anything other than surface knowledge.

  22. HM Solomon I

    Posted

    What about when someone makes a Blog post on the CN forums asking for people to recruit them?

    Like a giant "Please recruit me," thread. Followed up by ranking the messages this individual receives.

    Is it rational to expect an alliance leader to drop everything they're doing IC and OOC to stop a problem until then they didn't even know existed? Is it this alliances fault that this user suddenly doesn't want to be messaged and continues to get messages despite no indication (including in his blog where the original soliciation existed,) that he was "done," receiving messages he asked for?

    Is it ridiculous for that person to create an OWF thread complaining that they received just a couple more messages about being recruited when they specifically asked for them -- and how long should that person hold a grudge for a "problem," (I use this loosely, because I can't conceive of how deleting an in game message or closing a query tab, or even using an ignore function,) they created?

    All very interesting questions

×
×
  • Create New...