tayloj7

Hai!

BREAKING NEWS FROM UMBRELLA LABS Patients with metastatic butthurtedness who no longer respond or tolerate other available treatments do not benefit from OWF posts (OWFps), according to recent results of an Umbrella Labs clinical trial. The results of the trial, conducted over a 4 year period, were presented this week at the Bob Society for Medical Buttology (BSMB). Researchers found that initial exposure to criticism can trigger the onset of acute butthurtedness in 1/10 former MHA patients. Trolling was also found to synergistically enhance the rate at which butthurt was found to spread amongst patients. Initially treatments with careful politicking (PLT) appeared to have a promising effect in minimizing the spread of the initial butthurtedness, however; these results did not translate into a superior overall survival in patients receiving PLT as relapse rates have now been found to spike even years after initial remissions. “The data confirmed PLT is an active compound and had a significant effect in stabilizing butthurt disease for patients with advanced colorectal inanity ,” professor Steve Von Tordold, MD, PhD, professor at the University of Pacifica in Boblivia, and lead investigator, said in a press release. “Unfortunately, this benefit did not lead to an increase in overall jovialness and we are currently analyzing the data to better understand this outcome,” he said. Currently, PLT is approved to treat idiopathic idiocy in the U.S. and Japan and for some cases of raidisms. Patients receiving PLT also exhibited more frequent Grade 2 or higher adverse events, such as verbal diarrhea (16% vs. 8%) and finger fatigue (9% vs. 6%). “The ultimate goal of our butthurtedness program is to develop treatments that will change posting practices to benefit the lives of patients and their alliances,” said Dr. Von Tordold. “While the outcome of the trial is not what we had hoped for, we continue to learn and evolve our posting strategy with every study result from our development program,” he said. [disclaimer: this article is presented from a non-CN source and is probably mostly fictitious but I came back to check in on things and just couldn't help myself]

Yeah we don't need to stop raiding to track the nations, I like Hero's idea here. Science! My only input would be that you can't keep your 'untouched' control untouched without actively interfering, so perhaps just make that group much much larger so that if say somebody gets raided 30 days into the study you still have a sufficiently large pool to draw from for data. [Plus you could also look at retention rates for different scenarios, i.e. raided in first 30 days, raided in first 90 days, etc., I would suspect somebody raided on day 10 is more likely to just saw well screw this compared to somebody raided on day 30 or 60 but I could be wrong!] It'd be nice to ask players why they're leaving the game too, especially new players, but that's tricky since often the new guys just stop playing completely so you'd never get a response once you've figured out they're quitting :(

The future is now

Farewell GOONS, congrats on your final victory :)

I thought long and hard about this and here's my thoughts on the top 20, tried to make this as accurate as possible please don't take any of this personally: NPO - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group GPA - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group IRON - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group Umbrella - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group NpO - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group WTF - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group ODN - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group VE - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group R&R - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group Sparta - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group NATO - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group Valhalla - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group NEW - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group DT - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group MI6 - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group Pax Corvus - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group FAN - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group GOONS - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group FARK - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group SNX - Mostly good people, some annoying ones, overall good group *all ratings have a standard deviation of +/- (my inactivity) * (Are we currently at war with them)

lol loved both of these :D

Go Canucks!

I don't think I have a WWF persona to match me :(, but i'd be happy to be proven wrong!

hello spartans :D

What? As if a bunny could ever be in a boss fight...

^_^

Don't worry we're working on getting everybody in range :D Also sorry I guess we're a little behind on those May 1st plans, any day now though i promise!

Dang, was one of the few nice additions to the forums recently, best of luck geniusinc.

Did this just get upgrade to a dance party?! Time to bust out some new moves then :D

nice glad to see, good luck to both of you :)

o/ good luck Rey!

oh shoot, duh, yeah equilibrium war not karma lol

technically it was prior to the Karma war, the date we use was the initial DoE, but the real date was lost because I was inactive during the whole alliance update thing and since at that time there was only a couple of us still on the AA it ended up being deleted/reset :(

Me too! :) I won't add much here since others have already argued this point far better than me, but essentially: sure lets say this war is just for the sake of war, I don't see how that is any different than the flimsy CB's that have been used to start global wars previously. Further to that I don't think anybody really ever believes that the CBs used are the real reasons for war to begin with maybe a few exceptions. In the past, and still today, people will play politics for a year-ish and then once their coalition is in place try to find a CB to declare war with but its usually something inconsequential and an obvious excuse. Go back to any global war and find the CB discussions threads they're always good for a laugh, as i'm sure this thread already is. Where in any of that do I imply that we are imposing our will on others? You have not yet addressed that the mass exodus started under the system you are so strongly advocating a return to, unless you are referring to the very beginning of this game but that's just unlikely to ever happen unless there's a total reset, and even then people have now figured out game mechanics and building strategies so a new beginning would also probably look quite different. You say we are not interested in the political aspects of the game but have provided no proof to justify that statement,if we are not interested in the political aspects of the game we would be completely unaligned yet we arent we have active diplomats, allies, and are constantly seeking out new friends. Just because we might not be interested in playing by the status quo rules doesn't mean we are unpolitical. It kinda just sounds like you want to impose your will on the planet and are upset that you do not currently have the power in which to do so. That one time you are referring to was many many years ago now, the world has changed, the gameplay style has changed, and its unfortunate that not everybody likes the changes but good luck on trying to create a game that everybody is going to like all the time. I once played this game very similar to the way you mention [and we have members from alliances that still play the game in a similar fashion]. I had a nation that I just was content to build up and then one day I was attacked. I was completely unready, and I was mad. At first I was mad that I was attacked but then I realised war was kind of fun, I ended up losing big time and not too long after the war finished I deleted my nation... and then something magical happened. I decided that it was my own fault, I hadn't paid enough attention to what was going on in the world, I hadn't invested enough time to find out what the best way to grow my nation was, I hadn't really made any friends in the game so I had no reason to stick around. So I restarted, almost a full year later, and decided to play the game differently and now i've stuck around for a pretty long time. I get what you're saying, i was once essentially one of the people you are referring to, but at the end of the day I realised that it wasn't everybody else who was to blame it was myself for not having the foresight to protect my nation. We also aren't hurting everyone that's just simply not true. I'm sorry if you don't like the current state of the world, but you've just answered your own question. If you don't like how the world is currently operating the beautiful thing about this game is you can actually do something about it. No it won't be easy but this isn't a game for people who only care about easy to accomplish things, it is a long arduous road, but it is that same road that makes this game fun and attractive. edit: Also tywin, why would I want to actively seek out discussion with individuals such as yourself. Your posts over the past year have been attempting to systematically villify us. When your arguments are met with criticisms you do not capitulate you just take the same stance regardless. We've never claimed to be some holy entity or moralist, but that doesn't instantly mean we are the spawn of satan seeking to destroy planet Bob. I just don't see the appeal of continuing to be insulted hence why I think most of us probably have you on ignore now.

If you are implying that our wars have driven people out of CN, certainly some people have quit. This is also true for every global war (and usually non-global wars), so I don't think this is a fair criticism of the way we play the game our the effect it has. Nor do I concur that our wars are all simply the result of boredom, that's certainly a factor but we're not a barbarian horde as some would like to depict us DBDC has been playing the political game as well albeit with its own special twist on things, but is it such a bad thing to shake up old political structures especially when those structures don't necessarily benefit certain alliance styles or structures? You also imply that this game would not be losing people if we returned to the political wars stagnation of the past, and to that I completely disagree, the downward trend of people leaving began far before DBDC was every created. The political system is captivating certainly if you are actively involved with the politics but if not then you sit around waiting for something to happen, and once you finish purchasing your improvements and wonders there's really not much else to do. Compound that with people playing for a decade, well many of us don't have the free time we did have when we were 16 and aren't wanting/able to commit the time to be actively involved in politics and so the game would be far more boring and probably not offer much in the way of retention value. You could also say that the neutrals, arguably the exact opposite of ourselves, have been the pushing force behind the decline of the game as they have massive nations that just keep growing that anybody starting out today, working in either the neutral sphere or in the political war sphere, would have basically zero chance of catching up to, and even if they did it would take several years [now i'm not saying that's unfair since they did put in several years as well but still]. So you may have already guessed but we obviously aren't a group of teenagers. As to accountability, we've given plenty of people opportunities to hold us accountable, and sometimes have been [although not necessarily militarily]. As to why bother building up your nation, well I think you answered your own question. If you are playing this game to uphold certain priniciples and somebody tries to destroy you based on different principles then the point of building would be to try and support a resistance against the things in the world you oppose. If you just sit around and think oh well no point in building cause i'll just get knocked down again then you've already lost, if you don't even try then what was the point in starting the game in the first point? Also if you ask me a debate centered around political rhetoric isn't really much of a debate to begin with, at least a debate with guns would probably achieve something in the end. As to abandonment, is this necessarily a bad thing? I've seen some cases of abandonment, but they're usually people who were wholly unprepared for an aggressive military encounter. I'm stereotyping but in general those that abandon were lacking warchests, or military, or hadn't been tech dealing, basically were not very active or organized to begin with. This is a different play style and I don't think its fair to hold us accountable for attacking people that were unprepared in a game where war is not an uncommon event. To those that are just demoralised, well certainly being at war is demoralising, hence the term war weariness. But is it really the job of the attackers to rally the morale of the defenders? Being on the losing side sucks, sure, but it is the job of an alliance and its leaders to plan for worst case scenarios, make the community fun and attractive, etc. so that when such events arise that the group sticks together. If when confronted with a challenge you collapse as a group its easy to blame those that presented you with the challenge but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also be taking a look around at why things collapsed and determining what could be done to improve morale going forward to prevent such challenges from occurring again. [and of course how to maneuver politically to prevent such events from occurring again] As for how is this fun? [I mean come on, who hasn't secretly wanted to kinda kick a neutral around for a while now, but i digress] Well, i'm going to be a bit elusive but I'll answer your question with one of my own. How fun would Risk be if we just let everybody own one country and nothing ever changed. We'd just keep building our armies every turn. Or how much fun would monopoly be if all you did was rolled the die and never purchased any property. Nobody would want to play, especially not for years. I guess my answer is this is fun for a large number of reasons. There's the camaraderie of participating in a war with you alliance mates. There's the thrill of not knowing exactly how any given war might turn out. There's the satisfaction of knowing that planning that went into place is finally being acted upon. There's fun in watching people get mad at you on the OWF because their plans weren't as good/succesful ;-). [sorry couldn't resist the jab]. In essence it is fun because this is a game, and we're playing it because we like the game and the people in it. If it wasn't fun we wouldn't be doing it. Its of course easier to find the fun in such things when you're on the winning side. You call us pathogenic but the largest alliances in this game have not changed really changed all that much in a very long time and the number of nations playing the game decreased heavily before we were created. In fact we've just turned two years old, I still think its far too early in our existence for anybody to claim that we have had a net positive or negative impact on this game. Have we potentially changed political dynamics and structures, sure. Whether those changes are good are bad are still yet to be seen, and i would argue your glasses are tinged with the bias of being on the opposite side of us during these changes. In any case Sir hoppington is out of brussels sprouts again so time to head back onto the battlefield....

If your aim was to make us feel bad about our actions I'm not sure they're having the intended effect, as insults and threats generally don't produce the best of discussions, but lets all take a step back. To get everybody calmed down I think its finally time to reveal the true purpose of DBDC. You see DBDC was actually created as a means to secure all the brussels sprouts on planet Bob. Sir Hoppingtons wife is really partial to them and to keep her happy he's decided to make sure she always has tasty sprouts to eat. So my apologies, it is truly a romantic endeavour alas rabbits unfortunately lack empathy [especially when seeking scrumptrilescent sprouts] and so there's been a few unintended consequences of this years long quest. Ambitious? certainly. Evil? Misguided maybe, but not evil. Adorable? most definitely.

If I were a Dame, even just for a day I'd roll out of bed in the morning And donate what I wanted and go Drink mead with the knights And chase after tech I'd kick it with who I wanted And I'd never get confronted for it 'Cause they stick up for me <3

happy bday guys o/

welp i missed this earlier I guess, Happy belated 7th guys! Also acrux is still around?!?!