Alex987

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1358831296' post='3083105'] I like this one better [center][img]http://i.imgur.com/aRfco.gif[/img][/center] [/quote] I did not even know that existed, that is far superior. o/ walls of text

March 12th

[quote name='Toby Ziegler' timestamp='1358655150' post='3080632'] Good luck? Maybe? [/quote] Pardon me but sir your name is fantastic. Oh, and o/ Fark

DLT :| Good to see something like this completed, congrats everybody!

Trinidad James - All Gold Everything

[quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1357178813' post='3070708'] Be interesting to see who the main recruiter is for each AA so we can have a better understanding on whether its a team thing or just a certain individual. I wonder who has the best retention rate of new recruits. [/quote] Hehe, that would be very interesting if specific people had greater retention rates on their recruitment, though unlikely. The only significant variable would be the message they use

DLT's been shamelessly flirting with us for a long time, just think of it as a .10 bump each month for a year or something

Orange rising!

o/ Echelon

Impressive job guys, now stop taking all the recruits!

This race needs more FOK

o/ this treaty!

I'm disappointed with the increasing proportion of rhetoric:propaganda in this thread :/

Great job everybody, RnR Applicant for sanction! Congrats especially to our hard-working recruitment team (Oh, and NPO are cool guys too )

Best treaty theme I have seen in a while.

The point that Gaku was making is that 50-$100 per month is better than $0 per month if the game shuts down. Only once the game costs more than profits generate or once the labor becomes too intensive (which is pretty much totally a non-factor) will the game be shut down. And the point that rebel was making is that once it becomes a binary choice of shutting the game down or trying radical ideas to keep the game afloat, that radical ideas will be tried in a last-ditch effort. You flip flop your stance between ratings/numbers dropping and profit dropping as the reason it'll get shut down, which one is it? If it's the profit, then once the profit disappears any radical shot in the dark is better than just shutting down the site without even trying. And trying radical ideas earlier would jeopardize profits, but if the profits are all gone, what is there left to lose? Nothing besides the time required to implement a monthly subscription etc, which isn't such a radical idea after all. And all of ^ that ^ is assuming that we hit worst case-scenario and it's a choice between pulling the plug or trying something new, which we might not even hit as Gaku said. Too much doom and gloom.

The point wasn't about raising the numbers, the point was that there is a certain supply-and-demand effect. Once the supply decreases enough, people become more individually important/appreciated, and it should even out.

Well it sounds like from this thread most people don't think that, which was the point of making it in the first place, to see what everybody thinks. Most of the usual OWF posters seem to have a similar attitude as you, but those that don't post as often seem to think more like me. Quite ironic really...

Well I've been around CN for almost 2 years, haven't really posted on the OWF but I do follow it a bit. The general attitude seems to be a sadness that CN is dying and that it is on an irreversible path of shrinking until it eventually disappears. Random wars, random grudges, random anything. The problem with this way of thinking is that it fosters the same kind of end it laments. As the population of CN decreases - the impact every individual has increases. Alliances become smaller, so an individual's alliance work and war prowess become more important than just a number on a stat sheet - or at least a number on a smaller stat sheet. What also goes hand-in-hand with this is how the majority of people that delete from CN are inactive, or soon to be due to real life circumstances, etc. These also lead to a more compact community. The problem is when active people turn into inactive people, due to the depressive way of thinking that CN is dying. This is more a mental trend of low confidence and interest more than anything else. If mindsets change, the community and trends would change, and the voices that speak the most are typically the ones that have the largest impact. But hey, if mindsets don't change, I'll be more individually important, so I suppose it's a win-win lose-lose either way If I'm misunderstanding anything please feel free to point it out, it seems like there are inherent positives and negatives that come from both sides, and only the negatives are being acknowledged.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1345643512' post='3024307'] Non Grata is actually a good pick IMHO: he will hardly get bored. I have also yet to meet an unpleasant/classless NGer: I highly doubt you have many (if you have any at all). And of course welcome back MrCyber. [/quote] You have not seen Lord Nettles Welcome back!

Congrats guys

Interesting.... Congrats to GATO and NPO

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1344750709' post='3021125'] Perhaps this is why you people keep losing. Political realities and friendships are completely different realms and need not be mixed. Signing a treaty with an alliance on the complete opposite side of the treaty web, or maintaining one, is stupid politics. You can like an alliance and be friendly without signing a treaty, and if your interests should align you can choose to work with them or assist them based on your own sovereign right as an entity. Treaties in this place have turned into best friends forever pacts like we're a bunch of bloody school children. The proliferation of treaty signing which has spread faster than a venereal disease in a whorehouse is the reason for stagnation on planet bob. These treaties which have no basis in political reality choke make it impossible for alliances to take any type of action and choke the life out of this place. Alliances should have lots of friends, and few treaties. Treaties are political tools, a great example of treaties used right was the TOP-VE treaty when both alliances had a common interest and thought it would be politically expedient to join together. In the end, those interests diverged and tensions about this very treaty precipitated the cancellation of the TOP-VE treaty when it had outlived its usefulness. If you're political interests line up with that of a friend, by all means, sign a treaty. But treatying someone merely for friendships sake is idiocy. [/quote] I disagree. Treaties for purely political, Machiavellian purposes more likely lead to stagnation. If everybody behaved that way, every war would be a one-sided curbstomp, with no excitement, because without friendship, there is no reason to jump in on the losing side. And something as absolutely decisive and unpassionate as a new curbstomp every few months just for political expediency doesn't keep people excited. Sure, it works on an individual basis, but then again, if you wanted to build strength, why not just go GPA-mode as an alliance, then once you're large enough just come out of neutrality? That sounds like a better approach if it's truly about politics and strength, not friendship.

o/ protectorates Best of luck Opus Dei, and nice flag.

Launched CMs at 12:56:10 and 12:56:18, see thread posted at 12:57. Man am I good at this. Good fight everybody