Sterling Shmigadoo
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Sterling Shmigadoo
-
-
Pro tip: Put script next to camera to stare wide eyed at both.
Diet and shave optional.
Pardon my insolence, but as I was reading your reply I had to do a double take on your avatar. Instead of cloth I saw hair... lots and lots and lots of hair... so much hair I thought she/you had wrapped her/your wandering underarm hair around your/her breasts.
Also, back on topic to a point, I enjoy these mamby-pamby indirect challenges to alliance messages.
A lot.
-
Given the history of our politics:
the most important treaty of all time = non sequitur
Amirite or amirite?
/chuckles
-
Remind me not to google "spreading cheer."
Merry Christmas
-
Apparently, this is1 a hair question.
[1] Forsooth!
-
We're all friends. Why aren't we all treatied?
Can I say "this"?
Yet...and yes: the OP is right on. Right on.
Indeed, there is no answer to this question.
Like it or not, as soon as we collect taxes, let alone post here, we are all LARPers, a broad term which in itself is a frothy frothiness blend of frothy somethingness and nothingness all rolled into one tasty or not so tasty milkshake.... you and I are about to drink up.
-
Holy tarp bailout, my bills on the first day were t.w.e.n.t.y.do.n.g.s!!! 20-eleeventy!
Although....apparently even with zero infra I do have 56 (homeless) citizens lurking about.
Spare a bro a dime? If I walk your leader's dog every other Thursday?
No euphemisms needed.
:-*) <--Winston Churchill at the mike
-
Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant.
With full force of spirit, good fortune to you on your merger's designs.
~Shmigadoo
o'
//Ravenprice
-
I'm here for the humor.
227?
ROFLOLCOPTER.
That's hilarious, mange!
Serious..lee...
Congrats en' all on the great growth and the new former ex-consejero-advisor-dewd.
//
-
I also pointed out what happened last time it was tried, I suggest you look at the public records to see what happened during that incident, the whole issue of the morality of poaching was discussed at length then.
Could ya link a bro out? I have no idea what "last time" you are talking about.
Thank you,
Shmiggy
-
Stop using facts. They're dangerous. Using them also proves that you are motivated by revenge and that the Karma War was unjustified.
You are a funny one.
What's even funnier is that word not it, I don't think.
-
It's possible you don't know what's being discussed here, or that you simply cannot justify your position.
I was expecting more out of this. Hell, I could think of some round about reasons why poaching violates alliance sovereignty, but all I'm getting out of this thread is "hurr durr why don't you try it?" Disappointing.
Aye, it is beyond disappointing to see we are still stuck in a dark age of thoughtlessness.
Is is most distressing to see that so many leaders of nations still confuse the whispers of infantile insecurity with international security in their alliance affairs.
What strength does an alliance truly have when it cannot trust its member nation leaders to receive and read what most here should readily recognize as junk mail?
Further, is there any message any nation can send another that can challenge the sovereignty of your alliance?
If there is, your alliance has its work cut out for you.
-
Please keep us informed here in advance (reminder threads like AirMe's shows perhaps) if possible of your weekly radio shows.
Thanks for all you have done with this! Sad to see it end, but most understandable.
-
Hooray! I have no idea what this is about but o/ CnG for whoever we are supporting and for whatever reason they are being hassled.
Jack Diorno out!
With this post, you, kind Sir, discredit the spirit of your alliance.
o/ Vanguard for x, y and z.
-
What drew you to your alliance?
Best recruitment message (i.e. message content and alliance principles)
Why have you stayed in your alliance, what makes it better (in your mind) than maybe a larger alliance?
They are not national micromanagers.
Why, in your opinion, do people "hop" alliances?
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
12 gallons
-
The arguing about nothing makes the thread worthwhile though.
The icing is tastier than the cake. And the filling is what makes the pie.
In other words, indeed?
-
I honestly don't see anything wrong with any of these.
I agree and, for the life of me, I simply cannot see how anyone could not vote"none of the above."
I mean come on... messaging a nation that your alliance is better than the one they are in... violates anything???
-
Nice treaty name even if optional defense is, at best, an e-lawyer shield.
We live in a litigious society.
-
I certainly understand the temptation to throw caution to the wind for some rivalry, especially if a person has decided to take leave of CN. But, imho, there are more productive things a person can do with his/her nation than to go rogue. Offload tech and cash to friends, for instance.
Regardless of political affiliation, rogues are bad. Always. Glorifying the final suicidal act of roguery is not my cup of tea.
Rogues are never heroes.
Hmmm... so many pages and this sentiment was expressed on the first one.
If rogery were my cup o' tea, I'd go rogue on Watchman for appealing to "regardless of political affiliation," and a general disregard for what is entailed in a cup of tea.
Also, I fear if I took the time to read this entire thread of vitriol and ado I'd... I don't know what I'd do...
Chimcheeeree!
-
I do not understand where in my post I stated that I did not believe in democracy in real life, such was certainly not my intent. If you could specify what you mean, I will clarify.
Perhaps democracy (in real life) does have its flaws. It’s actually an entirely useless, !@#$ty government system. But it’s also the best government system in the history of the world. The communists may debate that communism is better than representative democracy and capitalism, but the reality is that communism does not work, and hence every communist regime that has arisen thus far has been associated with mass murder, re-education camps for those brave enough to dissent, and so forth. But I digress. This thread is about democracy in a Cyber Nations context.
I think the semantics and open endedness of what many of us take or dispute to be "democracy" is to blame here, for I actually agree with much, if not all, of what you wrote. I think most of what we take to be democracy naturally leads to flawed ways of conducting any organizational venture, here or elsewhere, but... like you, I also agree that it is still a far better approach to dealing with others than any alternatives we have seen.
Back specifically to this topic, I suppose my central objection to the OP is that I simply do not see how we approach or attempt to practice "democracy" in Cyber Nations differs at all from how we approach or attempt to practice it in "real life."
-
Democracy can be an effective form of government, if the alliance is elitist. Otherwise, experienced and active members who understand how the game works and know about alliance politics have the same voting rights as a totally new player. This simply means that the alliance will not function as effectively, because it relies on the opinions of those who are not qualified to provide opinions on anything pertaining to this game.
When I have debated this with people previously, a common rebuttal is ‘but democracy works fine in real life!’ and indeed, I believe that in real life, democracy is the best form of government. This is not because I believe that democracy is the most efficient government system – indeed, a country governed by a voting body of intellectuals might actually function better than a proper democracy representative of the people of an entire nation – but because what the majority of people want, they get, regardless of whether it is best for them.
In Cyber Nations, things simply don’t work like that. An alliance is designed for maximum efficiency, and if the members don’t like the decisions of their rulers, they can go elsewhere. It’s not about what the majority of the members want, but what is best for the alliance, in the eyes of the people who are most qualified to decide on what is best for it.
Everything you have written sounds reasonable...
But...
Consider for a moment that, at least according to your qualified post, you don't even really believe in democracy in real life.
Consider further that we've never seen a democracy result in anything but mediocrity at best and chaos at worst in real life.
Finally, ponder for a while just why and how self-proclaiming democracies receive their senses of legitimacy.
I'd argue that what we see here evenly mirrors real life, from theory right through practice: the greater the illusion of democracy, the higher the level of individual acceptance of said governing system, no matter how any system, real or gaming, really is organized.
People want to think they make a difference. Tell them they do and give them a way to make a difference, throw in a little charisma to guide the "public" discourse, and they will believe a "limited" dictatorship is actually a form of democracy.
-
Are we not all hypocrites? You all speak of morality, yet most of us have engaged in the senseless bloodshed of tens if not hundreds of thousands, the launching of nuclear missiles, and the bombings of civilians. The author's argument in essence attempts to define morality in terms of good reasons to go to war, but there are none, war is never moral.
I disagree. I believe in the use of defensive destructive force a la defensive warfare. I find it to be quite consistent with any natural law discussion of morality, or with even the most relativistic approach to your quandary.
-
Why do you think so many of the cyberverse's more dynamic nation leaders are drawn to dark or evil-themed alliances such as yours?
-
Interesting perspective, heavily weighted down by complicating factors that, to me at least after reading the OP, have little to do with the claim made as the title of this topic.
From what I read here in these forums, the Sith alliance very closely resembles a direct democracy.
I cannot speak to their success, but I can speak to the level of discourse of their members here.
By that standard alone, I would judge it a very successful aka healthy alliance, inasmuch as I judge success or health here primarily on the engagement of an alliance's members.
Or am I missing something?
-
My knee-jerk reaction here as I prepared to post was to object to how Msr Vilien has his opening discourse framed.
I see some others also objected to this, perhaps or even likely on similar grounds objecting to the characterization of fear and the human spirit. Yet....I still feel motivated to further challenge that opening assertion regarding fear since so many responses here overlooked that slight and jumped to reject any consideration of morality qua morality. But... yet^2 or even indeed^1 or perhaps ^3, I am mostly disturbed by those who object to any universal expression, let alone acceptance of any moral standard.
I applaud this topic's pursuit and further consideration all the more so upon seeing lines of thought such as that expressed and pursued by President Kent above.
There is a right and there is a wrong. All you need to do to see what distinguishes these two fallaciously dichotomized terms is to stand in front of a mirror the next time you prep your next presidential or dictatorial address. You will see it.
Thank you for your thought and consideration of this important topic.
Shmiggy
The Old Coots' Weekly Letters
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Where is my pipe and footstool and fire-stoking servants?
Nice... the WALLo'TEXT rant seems a bit out of tune or place, but I do enjoy the interview"logs," even if the party(ies) in question know the lights are on.
Also, no one escapes the public consideration's inquisition.
/subscribed