[Policy Regarding Tech Received From Multis]

Unfortunately, the most you can do about that is speculate. Of course, under the current rules who's a multi and who isn't is largely speculation without heavy self-incrimination.

I think if someone received 20k tech from multis, it wouldn't be speculative to assume he or she knew they were getting illicit tech.

[Policy Regarding Tech Received From Multis]

Really need to take this one step further and delete upper tier nations who have received a large amount of tech from multiple multis. Surely these nations knew what they were doing and knew what they were doing was against the rules.

[On "The Usual Suspects"]

I won't speculate on which specific alliance(s) are to blame for the manipulation of the "coalition" at-large, nor will I bother listing the non-leader alliances, as I would enjoy being able to bump this in the inevitable future just to demonstrate the literal formula that certain groups use to ensure their own dominance at the expense of every single periphery group in CN.

No need to, we all know who is pulling the strings manipulating the treaty web around them, Even the leaders of non-leader alliances know only too well who their puppet masters are.

A shame really.

[The 'C' word]

Hope to see you back here soon

Good luck.

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

By all means shnookums, continue to think your alliance is well received and not a hindrance to your allies.

I don't think any MI6 member thinks we are generally well received outside of our general allies because we pretty much tell it as it is. If someone has thin skin or can't handle the blunt truth and would prefer to be told some cute little nicety then it's case of too bad so sad.

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

You can do it any time you want sweetiecakes. By all means, do not address the points, address my actions. This is why you remain toxic. "What, us? No we are grand."

Which points were these? All I managed to get from this blog was that you were seeking some way of being the centre of attention yet again. Wars come and go but rush remains the same.

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

Dear Rush

At what point can MI6 become smug enough so that we can create blog posts judging whole alliances and spheres whilst residing in an AA which has been inactive and irrelevant since I can't even remember.

[21:34 +KingWilliam • You should do a blog and assign each alliance a rastler]

I told you on IRC, NG is doink.

[Are there any moralists left?]

Pseudo-Moralism is still around.

[Quality of topics lately?]

Nobody is making topics which even come close to PC's retirement topic from GGA

[imagine thinking outkast isn't the greatest rap duo ever]

I rate Boi far higher than Andre if I am going to be honest.

[Dajobo - a call out]

I am a Queenslander and I actually hope NSW wins this year so I can get excited for next year. It's been really boring seeing the same team win it every year for the last 8 years.

[Playing to win]

If the war cycles were more rapid and flowing it would help. Short sharp wars every 2-3 months etc. You might get more kick out of playing the strategy game as the "moves" would tick over more rapidly. I think the big reason why it settles into a social game is cause at 6-9 months at a pop the peace cycles require's something more to motivate you to play and most folks lean on the social facebook side to give them reason to log on each day. Without it, honestly there just isn't much strategy to keep you entertained year in year out unless your really wound up on some grand revenge mission vendetta or something. If by chance your unlucky and 2 war cycles pass in a row without major political movement in the sides hell you can spend the best part of playing 2 years with little strategy thrills to show from it at all.

I still say global reset and toss us all back in day one like lord of the flies killing each other over scraps of cash and tech. 3 week wars every few months and dynamic rise and fall of power clusters as new growth targets get hit, each MP becoming a major win etc.

Or just a 2nd server where everyone can start fresh.

[Federation: An Alternative to Merger?]

Using a federation to benefit yourself at the detriment of others within the federation goes against the spirit of the federation itself.

[Federation: An Alternative to Merger?]

You mean like...a federation.

Heh you knew what I meant. Achieving goals that only benefitted one party within the federation instead of the whole federation benefiting.

[Federation: An Alternative to Merger?]

A few of us, myself included tried an idea similar to this back in 07 and it didn't get off the ground. Primary concern was that some alliances might have more influence than others and would use the Federation to achieve their own goals.

Truth be told in CN I think an imperial federation would be the better way to go anyway.

[To: GOONS]

You

Fidel Castro and Che Guevara landed in Cuba on an old boat with only 82 men. Three years later, they marched triumphantly into Havana.

No revolution has ever had any chance of succeeding. The reactionary forces have always had the better weapons, the largest armies, and the most resources. The revolutionaries succeed because they fight for a greater purpose than money.

I hate to break it to you but you aren't Fidel and you certainly aren't Che.