MaGneT

Until I noticed less than 3,000 nations still exist.

So, um, it sounds like this is a bad time to come back after a 7 year hiatus? EDIT: Holy hell, DT is still around and we're a sanctioned alliance now!

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1342066708' post='3008843'] Nope, all part of PF's plan to roll DT and AZTEC. I'm looking at you, Auctor. [/quote] Wrong. [s]It's all part of my plan to get you to think that you have a plan that Auctor says that he has and meanwhile all of the plans are just [/s] Hi everyone. If someone attacks DT, please make sure you have someone who isn't boring attack me. I'm around 50k NS, so you can keep this in mind when you make your lists.

Is there a war on?

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1339214647' post='2979692'] Quick everyone, a thread about CN. Let's be sarcastic and hate on a game we've been playing for 6 years now. [/quote] To be fair, anyone who is complaining and has been around that long isn't hating, they're just trying to improve (and not lose) a game that's become part of their life.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1338417258' post='2974765'] I was actually kind of surprised at MaGneT's thread since he said he was against the reps. I wonder if it was a widespread sentiment in DT that led to this. [/quote] I'm not sure if it was, I don't know if anyone other than me would have lobbied for this, and I sure as hell didn't. I still haven't logged in to the new forums, nor have I been on IRC in months, so this couldn't have come from anything I've done. That being said, good to see that we're doing sensible things. Also, hi guys

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1338295064' post='2974030'] The problem is is that there is no real boogeyman like when NPO played the boogeyman. MK/DH have tried but they have not truly managed to pull it off. When they did just randomly attack alliances, it was NPO or some other alliance(s) that was in fad to be hated. NPO committed attacks against CIS, VE, and GPA when all three of those were not that hated. Hell, even GGA managed to pull off being a boogeyman better than MK/DH have. [/quote] Hey, old friend. The old times of NPO vs. anti-NPO were good, not because we had poles on our treaty web, so there were defined "sides" at all times, but rather because it was the closest we came to ever being about ideas. Remember, you can have two clearly defined sides and still fight over absolutely nothing meaningful. I'd say the era from the end of GW3 - when Pacifica had assured full domination - until the end of Karma, the two coalitions represented "freedom vs. tyranny". NPO was a proud superpower and tyrant, who claimed to know what was best for the world, and was not afraid to enforce that with an iron fist. They had the guns, the numbers, and the political capital, so they could trample anyone easily. Those who supported Pax Pacifica did not mind the centralized worldwide decision-making process, as it made them safe. In some cases, they even supported it as the right way to go. Many who stood against NPO and those of her style were the "lulz alliances", look at the Unjust War. There was a group of alliances that acted like a bunch of raiding Huns, simply because they could - and why not? Of course, that didn't fit in with Pax Pacifica, and they were rolled. Vox Populi, of course, was probably the pinnacle of ideas in CN. There was a legitimate, powerful popular movement on the CN forums of open rebellion against the ruling clique. Players like Doitzel stepped up and denounced why the tyrannical actions of NPO were wrong, and the funny thing was, people agreed. No one liked that innocent alliances like GPA were being stomped simply because they took #1 on the leaderboard, not because it had an effect on their gameplay, but because players truly held ideas about what was right and wrong IC. Players like Schattenmann and Electron Sponge proved that the giant all-powerful beast was lumbering, and could be prodded at. They revealed secrets using spies, and showed that Pax Pacifica wasn't an invincible status quo, but rather something that could be changed if enough hearts and minds were won. After Karma, unfortunately, these ideas died out in most players, and with the exception of the "moralist vs. anti-moralist" squabbles that precipitated the BiPolar War, we've resumed acting like a bunch of insecure and manipulative Mean Girls (great analogy, Roq). [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1338306778' post='2974076'] I have (a lack of) values that I stand for. It's why I'm in GOONS and not anywhere else. [/quote] The thing is, this sort of nihilism is, at least, something to stand for, ironically enough. DH provided one of only two glimmers of intrigue that I've seen since the last embers of Karma were extinguished with their "Everything Must Die" campaign. They got up and said "$%&@ you, $%&@ everything, and we're going to take our guns and go ahead and $%&@ everything." Of course, they didn't end up fully committing to that, and it was as much of a political stunt as anything else is nowadays - but at least it was something. The other glimmer was when my alliance, DT, got in the whole run-in with CsN during the last war over extorting reps and whatnot. A bunch of us were outraged by what was essentially armed robbery for no good reason at all, and we led a moral crusade, and won the hearts and minds of many. In fact, that's what gave us the moral high ground to roll SF in the last war (unless there's been a war since, I've been pretty inactive). Of course, that, too, was as much of a political stunt as anything else is nowadays, as the leadership of my alliance and bloc didn't have the testicular fortitude to abide by the stand that I led against extorting people. They went ahead and extorted just the same, so that way we could have tech, so as to be prepared for our time on the chopping block, if it ever came. It's a lack of principle, mostly. People are willing to talk the talk, but no one is willing to walk the walk, and this has caused much of the community to be jaded to the point that many have resigned to simply being cowards who try to scramble to the "right side" at any given opportunity.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1338264003' post='2973936'] I agree with everything you've said but I'd rather see a list of practical solutions than a list of problems. [/quote] Well, I wanted to see if anyone thought they were even problems, to be honest. Personally, I think they are. I think those 3 things are the reason that I've been inactive for so long - there's nothing to motivate the intrigue, so there is none.

Hi everyone. For those of you who don't know me, I'm one of those old-timers who drifts in and out of activity for whatever reason, but when I'm here, I usually have a lot to say. For those of you who do know me, howdy. I've been watching CN from afar for the past few weeks and I've noticed that while a lot has changed since the last time I regularly checked these boards, just as much remains unchanged. Most notable among the unchanged is the fundamental modus operandi of politicking on CN. Everyone continues to play by, more or less, the same rules. I think the set of unspoken rules that govern the way we play this game are the biggest determining factor in whether or not each of us has fun. To be clear, I'm not complaining that any group of people is "ruining the game", that "CN is dying because _______" or anything along those lines. I'd simply like to have an OOC discussion with y'all about whether or not these things are true; and, if you think they are, I'd like to ask you if they affect the amount of fun you have when you log in. 1) [b]It's not what you know, what you stand for, or what you believe. [i]It's who you know, who you stand for, and who you believe.[/i][/b] In other words, CyberNations players make political decisions for social reasons more than ideological reasons. The first political decision you make as a player (and for some players, the last) is which alliance you join. There are a few exceptions to this - GPA comes to mind - but, for the most part, people do not even choose an alliance based on any sort of belief on how your nation should be run. In fact, I'm included in this group, as I'm a member of DT mostly because these are the guys I used to play StarCraft with who got me into CN. Alliances make treaties with one another not because of common belief. After all, most alliances have no beliefs to share with others other than "we want geopolitical power, and we can help each other get there". Other times, treaty partners are chosen purely on "friendship", which means that a political favor was done involving two or more players in the leadership positions of these alliances, or they just like each other from talking on IRC and want to fight together when the time comes. That brings us to the flip-side of this coin: alliance wars. Why do alliances fight each other? Sometimes there are legitimate grievances - someone's member attacks someone else, the leaderships are stubborn, and a war unfolds. These are usually minor spats and squabbles. Typically, major wars are started for the same reasons that alliances are made. "Killing you will earn me geopolitical power." That, or someone said something you didn't like on IRC once, so you're going to go after them. 2) [b]I don't want to get hurt, [i]I don't even have a stake in this fight[/i][/b]. That's a pretty common refrain you'll hear from most CN players every time "global war" time rolls around. Sometimes you'll hear it from alliance leaders dragged in through long treaty chains to the periphery of someone's petty conflict, but you'll constantly be hearing it from the rank and file alliance member. Considering the fact that no one makes political decisions based on ideas, as I discussed in #1, the average player doesn't care whose friend got attacked by whose enemy this time last year, so now that we've signed some smart treaties this year, we can make them pay. It's just some other guy's affair that you've been dragged into, and it's not even for a cause that's worthwhile. What kind of warfare can be fought by reluctant generals leading unenthusiastic, disinterested soldiers? Only the kind of warfare that you see today in CN, that is, half-hearted, half-peace-mode semi-combat, in which the primary focus is not destroying an enemy that has gone against what you stand for, but rather, the focus is on minimizing damage so you can be best prepared for your turn on the chopping block. No one wants to risk too much, because there is nothing to risk it for. No one wants to risk risking nothing, however, because appearing weak is the biggest risk of all. In essence, this has made modern warfare in CN little more than a show of bravado rather than the culmination of deep disagreements in a violent pyre. 3) [b]It's just a game, so I'll treat it like one [i]and have no real views[/i][/b]. People have this attitude in shocking consistency throughout CN, and it's, in essence, the anti-RP attitude. The idea is that because CN is a game, it's silly to pretend to have a concrete opinion on the way you play it. In essence, if you're pretending to be a nation ruler, or an alliance member, or an alliance leader, you can't really weigh in on what the right way to do it is - the only way to determine this is who has the biggest guns. Everyone treats CN as a short-term game of risk, when, politically, it is built as more of a long-term RPG. Do you think these things are true? Problems? Good things? I'll edit my opinion into a spoiler later, I want to see what you guys (and gals) think.

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1325886178' post='2894294'] Liz paying 2.5k tech was her idea, not ours [/quote] Oh, that makes it all right then.

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1325882117' post='2894261'] Meh. I couldn't even trust myself to reply to this last night. To say that Valhalla isn't happy with this would be an understatement. We're willing to be team players for the moment though. [/quote] Welcome to the club...

Not really sure why we took reps, but I guess you can call it justified... whatever. I'll bite my tongue for once.

It's things like this that remind me of why OBR is the best alliance here.

[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1324160154' post='2880712'] No, actually it needs a 4 man alliance lead by Vlad. Just saying. [/quote] Oh, come on, let them talk tough. It's really all they have.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1324023907' post='2879739'] This is not the Ritalin you're looking for. [/quote] Hopefully it proves to be a better use of the pent-up angst than the last crusade . . .

[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1323985783' post='2879110'] I really hate to agree with Magnet, but I am afraid he is right. Piss off CSN. Edit: Also, please attack us, we hit your ally, and they really are in trouble. kthx. [/quote] Whoa, I'm someone who people hate to agree with? I didn't realize I had that kind of notoriety...

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1297646561' post='2631763'] I do have a lot of respect and like for CSN but 40,000 tech is absurd. Afterall they were the Declarers. CSN should get nothing. Fight to the death DT as all of my personal respect for CSN has been lost. [/quote] Check out this gem.

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1323845203' post='2877547'] - Is the CB actually justified? - Is this attack justified? - Are the CB from other nations valid? [/quote] Would you prefer if I said: -Yes -Yes -Yes Or should I ask SoM, Goose, KOwens or other rational members of CsN? I understand that you're upset that you're being triple teamed and that two of the alliances you're fighting were treatied to you around the last war... but that's what happens when your alliance acts the way it did. People don't like it.

I'd almost be surprised, but this sort of pathetic behavior has become about par for VE...

You're really the only person I respect enough to answer here. I'm not dumb enough to be blind to DH's political objectives. That's why I'm amused by the fact that despite what I know to be poor judgment, for some reason I can't help but like them. Perhaps flak attack is right. They've just got style. Now, it's a crass, angst-ridden-teenagers bent on world domination kind of style, but let's be real here. That's actually hard to dislike. (at least for me)

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1323829452' post='2877143'] I would tell you to go read the damn thing, but you damn well know the process, you were in it. It is apparent from the logs that DT tried to play the witty merchant and failed, but you're too irrational to see it behind your hormones.[/QUOTE] Really? Witty merchant? Based on what? [QUOTE]Then I'll burn my nation fairgame. Better than the alternative of surrendering and conceding to what I know is wrong. [/quote] So what is it that's so wrong? Prominent members of your government have admitted that you had this coming. What are you martyring yourself for?

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1323775676' post='2876444'] So, you seem the type that thinks that trash-talking people makes you right. The answer is not, it only makes you inmature.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for my [i]in[/i]maturity. [QUOTE]You pal there said it: "[i]This probably could of been avoided from the level that it has gotten to if CSN would of manned up on their pride and actually did something right from their own doing then running around asking "What can we do?" DT doesn't want to tell you want to do to make things right. Show us that you know what is the right thing to do.[/i]" I suppose one option would have been to buy you off, lick your boots and become your meatshields, like Legacy did. Another option could have been to return the reps and an "I'm Sorry" from Liz? I'd like to know if it would have been, and hence my previous question. I'd appreciate a mature anwser instead of your childish attemp at humiliating people with witty pics. [/quote] Well, we opened an embassy for your government on our forums. SoM and KOwens came over in good faith, looking to try to make bad blood good. I believed that they had the best of intentions, but I did not buy that anyone else in CsN was really looking to make things right. And I was one of the most vocal DT members for a diplomatic solution. Simply put, we did not feel that CsN was serious in pursuing that diplomatic solution. Thus, we felt that the necessary action to take to pursue justice was to attack you. KOwens continues to have the right attitude that will lead to what I hope will be a fair and just peace agreement.

[quote name='Amossio' timestamp='1323770968' post='2876411'] it's funny as our wiki page and it's related articles are regularly changed to suit SF perspective, oh well I suppose they have to look strong and just somewhere, shame it's on wiki not anywhere-else. [/quote] I really think that this sort of behavior should be Locked out of our community, to be quite honest.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1323634127' post='2874180'] OOC: The OOC swipes here are pathetic. [/quote] No, they're not. I'd even regard them as IC, to some extent. Harry Potter is a known theme of their alliance. Didn't they (... jeez ... how am I going to do this ...) migrate to Planet Bob from a HP forum? I'm pretty sure that's the case. If that's the case, here's a list of things it's no different than: [list] [*]Fungicide 2012, going after MK [*]Criticizing GOONS for acting like they're on SA [*]Make mocking references to the Dark Side when fighting NSO [*]Laughing at the people in OP and TOP for being so zealous about someone named "Johan" [*]Laugh at a bunch of people pretending to be vikings in a bloc [*]Telling a Protoss-themed alliance to construct more pylons [/list] Do any of those things strike you as "pathetic OOC swipes"? We see alliances get poked at for their theme all the time. GOD and their apologists are the only people who have a victim complex pathetic enough to feign offense at this. Pay attention. You're smarter than that, WC.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1323749273' post='2876125'] I'm holding you to that. [/quote] It shouldn't be that difficult to mend the grudge if government officials like KOwens here are as reasonable as he is below: [quote name='KOwens06' timestamp='1323753695' post='2876224'] Hey now, Don't lump all of the gov into this I came over to try to shed some light on it and bring a fresh light to the situation. I get why this war happened I don't blame you one bit. To those of CSN that are posting this is crap or whatever please get over it its getting super annoying. We can war with some class here. DT did this for valid reasons, I don't doubt any of you would do any different in their situation so lets move on and war. [/quote] I understand that you guys did not find trying to settle this peaceably pre-war to be possible. Perhaps you were right. I have to thank you for your forthright attitude, though, and I hope to see this attitude down the road if you choose to initiate peace talks. Enjoy your wars.