Freddy
-
Posts
1,284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Freddy
-
-
Cash and the infra to create it is so much more important than tech. Cash and infra is capital. Tech is labor, but the capitalists don't need the labor to produce $$$. So...there is no correlation to RL capitalist exploitation.
As for political power...it's far more a matter of effort (activity) and aptitude. Money is real god damn important to political power, but only if the person with the money or someone directing shit is making good use of that resource. Any sized nation can facilitate the effective use of OPM (other peoples' money). -
Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives.
Self improvement is masturbation. Now...self destruction...
We must denounce our pixels. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. It's only when we lose everything we're finally free to do anything. -
I love the OP.
IMO, the flaw in your game is that it is too random and therefore gives the public the feeling of safety through anonymity. I'd suggest cutting down the potential hit list to no more than 20 alliances who would actually feel threatened by Kaskus and of course name the alliances on that list.
-
I believe he understood the teapot riddle. What he didn't understand is why it was being applied in this situation and what the hell the significance of the teapot was.
Something about spouting steam, I guess. -
All this bs slander of TOP is making me even more eager to stand beside them in war.
-
Let it go
-
I do believe the highlighted MK nations are legitimate war targets for the neutral coalition?
"neutral coalition" lol :D -
The new nations lack the culture to do so, but older nations (or players) can educate them. The comparison with Socialism/Marxism continues... :)
Workers of Bob, unite! lol
The problem with any organization that would include all comers is it would necessarily lack culture. Not that that's necessarily what you suggest. In my estimation, the strongest cultures are the ones that reject the most. They reject the inactive, the uncooperative, the unmotivated.
-
First of all, thanks for these debates.
I have just a moment to post, thus I'll be brief.
I agree that an analogy between capitalism (and Marx's criticism) and CN can teach us something. In CN the old nations exploit the new for tech and power (manpower). The ways to do so are many, from the request of tech to give development aid, to the threat of violence if the new nations don't join an alliance, from propaganda of alliance culture to "religion" (e.g. the irrational belief that an alliance needs super-teched nations to keep the small nations safe too) etc.
Of course, it's just a comparison. But I find it intriguing. I've alway wondered what would happen if a revolution of the new and small nations had success. I'd have tried to do something in that sense, too, but I don't think I'd had the time for it.I agree this game does correspond too much with RL. When I attack someone, it's because I want something from them and when I give something to someone or submit to someone, it is also because I want something from them. That says a lot about unchecked or insufficiently checked capitalism.
I nearly wrote something about the potential for power inherent in the small nations. Like I said, I got tired and it was against my better judgement to make suggestions like that, anyway. Tywin's "Global Feudalism" thread had me thinking in revolutionary terms. Ultimately, the small nations lack the culture to do any such thing. You may find an ancient re-roll that could rally many small nations, but minus that it would never happen. It's not for a lack of anything, but a cohesive bond between the nations.
-
Well written but flawed attempt at a (valid) analysis.
You begin by stating that politics are generally "capitalistic." How is politics related to capitalism, which is "an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy." Unless you are arguing that finance capital rules the game, the comparison is invalid.
Second, I attempted to present a similar argument relating to national self interests years ago. In Global Despotism: Francoism in Decay, I concluded that "it is ultimately in the self-interest of every nation to choose it's own destiny, whether it be the the heights of civilization or the barbarism of absolute freedom... or somewhere in-between. To deny this is to show a regrettable misunderstanding of human nature."
The argument did not stand to logic, as Vladimir noted in his replies. I attempted to remove the central pillar of Francoism (objective analysis of material reality), and substitute vague values such as "human nature." Unfortunately, implementing subjective values downgrades an essay from analysis to opinion. This article should thus be called "Global Feudalism: An alternate opinion."
You contradict yourself from the outset in your second paragraph. You state that nobody can force someone else to do anything, and then state that you can force someone to die! If you can kill someone, surely you can also influence them in other ways, and that is the true essence of good diplomacy.
An alliance with a strong culture may be powerful, but that is not a way to effectively measure an alliance's power. After all, one could argue MK had a "strong culture," and yet in game their power plummets. "Culture" is a contributing factor, but not a measure of power. Even in Real Life, we see many vibrant cultures that have permanently fallen to the sword, or even to the coin.
By the third paragraph, your argument has become completely lost in the woods. You state that "chaos," another subjective measure, occurs because of "cultures." Furthermore, you state the "world is in decline" and state what you think "most people" believe. You even begin to exhort that many cultures are "average" and "bland." Finally ending with an argument that "they" are attacking "apathy."
I am sorry, although well written, this essay is not an analysis, but an opinion piece.
I was too tired (and apathetic) to even finish the second half.
It's a game, and the real rewards go to the player and not the nation. The prize valued is the prize the player receives. If the individual likes stacking cash or tech, then the financial gain of their nation is also what that player holds dear. Different players seek different rewards. Their desired prize and the effort they put into it and how those are exploited by others are all a capitalist value system. It's a default system, meaning a natural state of affairs we humans resort to when there is no over-riding coercion. Therefore, I would argue, that in this game there is inadequate motivation to act differently than complete self interest.
Killing someone is not at all similar to making them do something. If a player values something an opponent can take away, then that too is an individual valuation. Some players hardly care if their nation is entirely destroyed; others will submit at the first shred of lost pixels. The inconsistency doesn't point to a lack of logic in my statement; it supports my point that the world is chaotic because there is no unifying motive - only diverse motives. True, finding and manipulating leverage where it may be found is the heart of diplomacy. It's a rare and beautiful thing when it's accomplished here.
I would argue that MK disbanded due to weak culture, not weak nations. This only stands to reason...if an alliance doesn't possess the inner drive to maintain itself, of course they can't project any external motivation (other than their nukes). Then again, maybe it's all for shits and giggles. How the hell can you suggest order exists when nations are destroyed for nothing more than shits and giggles? Chaos is a subjective term, in light of that? No, chaos is absolutely definable here. Anyone will do whatever they please for any or no reason. Until someone (more likely some game update) changes that there will be nothing, but transitory order to this chaos.
I argue that chaos is the norm because of a shortage of compelling culture. Keep in mind "culture" comprises every positive method of obtaining cooperation. If culture is inadequate, we have either/both a lack of cooperation and/or excessively resorting to force to promote strong wills.
"Apathy" was a word I chose to replace a neutral alliance's complete lack of external culture. "They add nothing to this world", says the neutral haters...They add no culture, says I. If you were to really hold MQ to explain their feeling of the neutral menace, you may hear that conclusion from them.
An "average" culture is one that is just adequate to maintain its existence. It doesn't create much of a stir outside its membership. It isn't a derogatory term. It's not even an opinion. It's just a name for a particular level of culture.
-
Politics on planet Bob are very much like politics in RL. That is to say our politics are generally capitalistic. We are motivated by what we hold dear. What we each hold dear varies individually. The most basic motivation is mutual defense. The majority of rulers trade a degree of their sovereignty for a greater degree of security. Other rulers prize different motives more, so we see some deviations from the average. Some prize their infra above all else, some their sovereignty, some prize power most.
Too often we forget that the alliances are made of individuals. No alliance (or individual) can force a ruler to do anything (except "die"). Each alliance must win the cooperation of its members and prospects. This is accomplished on Bob same as it is on Earth - through propaganda, philosophies, culture. These are tools and nothing more. They may be used to create cooperation or hostility between alliances and power spheres. The alliances, blocks, etc. with the strongest culture (which will serve as a simple title for all the various propaganda and philosophical tools) will have the most power. When their culture declines, so too will their power.
Why is there chaos on this planet? Because the various cultures say there is chaos. It's nothing more than a stage to promote their particular brand of culture. The most compelling culture will prevail in the competition for cooperation and domination. The world is in decline because it's 2013 and most people are exhausted of the efforts of producing a strong culture. We have a lot of average cultures, which is just about good enough to prevent disbandment. A neutral was attacked because they personify this lack of externally directed culture. It isn't the rage quitting rogues that are killing this world, as so many have claimed. They are a symptom of the bland political condition. They are attacking apathy itself. Otherwise, they would just delete and go quietly.
-
Why do people keep forgetting what's already been said about which nations have protected status?
-
You know that number sounds very familiar ... oh right, that's pretty much exactly MQ's NS. What a coincidence ...
MQ has gained only 1.6 million NS. That leaves 1 million NS transferred to another/other AAs. That is a far cry from "not a singal nation". -
MK is gone when I see them all gone, until they are not still around then they can not be gone.
Barely a single MK member moved onto another decent alliance.
Last time I looked over 2.6 million NS has transferred from MK. -
Have fun, Mogar.
Can't say I agree with supporting people who have the policy of not wanting military support. All the same, I applaud you for acting on your ideals.
Good luck. -
IMO, anything that adds more to the game is good. Generals can be used to equal advantage by anyone/everyone. The idea that it drives people away is naive...there were much more nations at the start of the round because of generals. After the hustlers got their early xp the number of nations dropped to normal level. There was no gain or loss. Like I said, I like anything that adds more to the game. More money, not less. Port the SE style where xp is expended and generals can be assassinated. That adds more depth to the generals system. The only thing I wouldn't add from SE is the intel only gains xp when at war with the target.
-
Best of luck, Vosegus.
-
You've gotta help me out with something....how do you guys put up with Robster and Seuwp?
lol, hey Wes ;) drinking excessively is the only way to put up with them. -
If need be i may consider donations to other nations and alliances to use thermal nuclear war against the top nations in Iron to teach them a a lesson if your a nuclear nation and have the power to take on top leading people within I.R.O.N contact me and we may be able to make a deal if you willing to nuke the top leading nations of I.R.O.N.
Send me 100 tech then I'll send you some nuclear weapons. -
Hmmm
-
Too much bomber is easier to fix than not enough ball.
-
Awesome graphic. :awesome:
Is the one in the lower left corner pinching her nose... or hands real close?
Optical illusion...she's actually crushing your head. -
I'll give it a thought
(flips through lots of useless documents than promptly throws them away and goes back to watching World's Dumbest)
Fact is, most alliances have members or allies to handle this stuff. Few would want to pay someone else to receive xp.
Some pros with wonders and experience might be another story, tho. -
Somebody PM me if you know what the pink elephant is. I'll send $50k and 10 tech..
You had me at $50k...
The "pink elefant" is a lame attempt to extract info.
The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Or, rather than selling expensive tech to anyone they could sell cheap tech to a select group.