[If Alliance's had truthful slogans/mottos, what would they be?]

tJL: Either you're one of the six nations in our top tier, or you're in our bottom tier.

R&R: "Ew, that GOD treaty though"

This is a legit great answer.

[Four Years of Change]

Looks like you're doing well. Nice to meet you and glad to see you're passionate about HR of all things. (My background is similar.)

Needs more cat pics.

[Sheep inc]

someone needs to suggest "Sheep" as a resource. for justice for sheep everywhere.

So you're suggesting playing Catan? Works for me.

[Let's Talk About IC Values From an OOC Perspective]

Re: Max I dont think anyone is saying that if you dont raid you should automatically be barred from allying with raiders. It's not on that level of rigidity. The problem, if you think there is one, is not that it happens sometimes, but that it's the rule, not the exception. It's just one small reflection of the deeper problem - that alliances and rulers typically stand for nothing, have (or if you prefer act like they have) no values whatsoever, from an IC perspective.

from the OP:

For instance, if you've outright banned tech raiding, there is probably a reason for that, and it just might mean that the more aggressive, amoral alliances shouldn't be a natural fit.

I was responding to that.

[Let's Talk About IC Values From an OOC Perspective]

Alliances can absolutely support tech raiders without raiding themselves. There are two ways to look at this.

The less nerdy way is an alliance's belief that alliances in general should abide by their respective moral codes. This takes a relativist view that doesn't force an alliance's views on any other. This is pretty close to how I RP my position in tJL.

The nerdier way is to use D&D terminology and call it lawful-neutral. Sure, I want to obey my laws, but I'm not going to go around crowing about whether what do you is right or wrong.

A real-world example of this is how the Bismarck administration initiated the Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church in Prussia yet its closest ally was staunchly Catholic Austria-Hungary. This analogy gets zany when you call tJL "Prussia", tech raiding "Catholicism" and Kashmir "Austria-Hungary", but you can see how the underlying principle works.

Most CN alliances are monarchies, dictatorships, or something similar, and even the democratic ones are basically oligarchies. Comparing CN alliances to nations before WWI - and the CN war cycle is a lot more like the 19th-century lightning war period than anything since - there were tons of alliances made on friendship, or more usually, marriage. I think let's call it the early modern up to WWI period (c. 1453-1914, which, yes, I understand is an absolutely massive period) is a more accurate analogy for CN than the current world is.

[Shout-outs and an apology]

<3

Thanks to Kashmir and AI for having our backs, to NSO, SRA, PPO and Kaskus for stepping up the plate, and to those in tJL who stood up most under fire (you know who you are).

[Hardcore Lulzists: Part 4]

^Echoing that, including yours.

The text log between l0c0 and oyb is the best part.

[Hardcore Lulzists: Part 3]

These are great. Keep 'em coming.

"Yell at me later, we have more pressing concerns now."

I need to start using this in everyday life.

At least I died killing Tywin... D:

Who says you're gone for good? This'd be the perfect back story for how you could come back as, y'know, a Ghost.

[Unfortunate implications and coalltion war treaty chess]

LW is completely right but the fact that I think he's generally right shouldn't be a mystery at this point. We're gov in the same alliance ffs.

I see optimal treaties as friendship + politics. That means you're legitimately friends yet also share the same political goals. While it may seem tough to find other alliances like that, know what? You can probably find anywhere from 2-5. In excess of that, why do you even need more treaties? I guess it can be fun to maneuver Diplomacy-style but I personally hate Diplomacy so I'm not the best person to comment on all that. I mean hell, to me a realpolitik stance for tJL would be this: we are who we are, we won't change, we aren't going anywhere, our alliance model works, roll us, we don't care, we'll come out in the black in the end. Ultimately, when alliances get rolled in cycles every 1-3 years, what more can you want?

On the whole, I think using allies as shields in ridiculous, but if you're willing to be that shield, I can't stop you. I know if DS wanted to hit AI, or AI wanted to hit DS, I would be throwing a &#33;@#&#036;fit so loud it would be heard halfway across the world. Unlike LW above, I'd admonish A, B and C for allowing such ridiculous behaviour even more than I'd admonish X for being such an awful ally.

[Unfortunate implications and coalltion war treaty chess]

Well worded.

I have a way bigger problem with #2 as well, and it's one of the reasons I try to get to know allies' allies. #1... I mean going after less connected alliances makes sense for the naive reason of wanting to limit counters, if nothing else. It's like an incredibly benign form of pixel-hugging.

[Rush's thoughts on various alliances.... Wartime edition....]

I get two things from all this:

1. I have an insatiable urge to write my own version of this list.

2. The Disorder War seems to have not been very well planned. I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW OR WHY.

[Thank you War Posters - Now the OWF is fun to read again]

I'MMA BLOW YOUR BLOG UP NAO? K? Cause I have no other targets.

I laughed.

[Playing to win]

Been winning plenty and enjoying it thoroughly. I like what xoin said about definitions of winning, though.

[Recruit Me]

Join SRA.

Came here to say this.

[LoSS Treaty Web Generator]

You're missing NG-NoR. It's a MDoAP.

Including just MD level treaties?

Obvious adverse effect discrimination against tJL and Kashmir.

[Get Your Popcorn Ready]

I thought for a second the recipes would be the different counter scenarios, but that was apparently way too optimistic.

You kidding? My girlfriend and I have been looking for good popcorn recipes. This is one of the rare blog entries that actually has RL relevance.

5 stars, OP.

[MI6 Chess Tourney]

Sounds like fun indeed, great idea.

[To: GOONS]

I am proving that one nation can take on an entire alliance and be successful. That in and of itself is revolutionary.

You weren't around for Vlad vs. GOD, were you?

[The new wonders]

I can't see any of the new ones even though my wonder window's open but the Interceptor's already been used against me a couple times. Dammit all.

Always thought an offensive cruise missile wonder would be more effective than a defensive one but still cool.

[I was a little terrified yesterday.]

Don't believe this lie called "pregnancy". Girls' bellies swelling is just from the accumulation of poop they intentionally never release.

[Pacifica Sphere]

It's missing the NG-NSO both of those alliances with TLR treaties.

[From: NG-Val]

"Just a few more details to iron out."

I see what you did there.

[A Rant]

I like gift cards because:

1) it makes me spend money on myself (when otherwise I'd just save the cash)

2) I've not had a gift card with those problems for years

This, plus the fact that a lot of gifts can't be given directly. Buying dinner for people who aren't you? (Think parents paying for a kid's date, that sort of thing.) Buying clothing for people who have a horrible time finding stuff that fits but have a favourite store? Gift cards are perfect for that sort of thing.

[Normative rules of Cybernations-Why they have become your cage]

All that's completely fair, but to the typical player who uses CN as a way to kick back after work with some online friends - which I presume is far more common than the fanatic-level players we generally see running things - it's tough to imagine the climbing an enemy's ladder thing being all that appealing. As for deserving to be disbanded, again, it's difficult to say that from a purely OOC perspective. It's one thing to say someone deserves to be rolled IC for something IC, but to say someone's offsite-based CN community should cease to exist seems like a bit much.

[Normative rules of Cybernations-Why they have become your cage]

I think sometimes that if I were put in charge of a militarily dominant AA like NPO back in the day, I would try disband any alliance that I knew really had it out for us. Yeah, it would suck to end up on the receiving end of that, but it would give the game so much more of an edge if we all faced the risk of consequences like that. We're already immortal as players - we should take a bit more risk. Maybe people adhere to certain limits just because they want to maintain some future competition. In other words, they play to make things remain OOC fun. But in doing so I think they've doomed us to a pretty stale world, we go through the motions of a war of attrition, only to shuffle the players around a bit and then play it out again six months later, with no real long-term changes.

I'd sympathize a little more with this argument except that a lot of CN's greatest communities have been from offsite. I don't like the idea of telling people "you can't play CN with your friends from elsewhere on the internet", especially when there are members who rarely venture outside their own alliance forums. If you're someone who spends more time on your own alliance's forums than in the general CN community, why keep playing when you can't be in your alliance? I wonder what a forced bloc breakup would be like in today's world, so that instead of individual alliances getting destroyed it's just that they're not allowed to be tied to each other in certain ways, like the forced NPO treaty cancellations after Karma.