DragonsPhyre

Piggybacking on this thread -> All embassies on our forums are being reviewed to see if they're worth keeping there. If your alliance has an embassy on our [url=http://gato-forum./net/"]forums[/url], you have a week to post in it and show interest in keeping it around before I archive it. No exceptions unless I tell you you have one.

Congratulations to those elected, new and old.

Congratulations to your new government. Ready to kick some ass?

I like this one.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283558549' post='2440854'] You make the better argument. [/quote] You can make the better argument and still fail to convince anyone. Arguments are words. They do nothing by themselves.

Schattenmann brings up some excellent points. A couple others too, particularly the one that mentioned the "politics is really only played at higher levels" thing. The nature of the game as it has evolved is less of a "nation simulator" than a "alliance politics simulator". Our nations are more provinces in the larger nations that alliances are, which means a minority of the players actually see the real CyberNations. Most players see us bicker and piss and moan at each other, threatening this and that and using them largely as pawns in our grand schemes. Enough like it that way that they stick around. Some are more ambitious and go for middle management. Others are even more so and seek to replace the leaders or to become leaders themselves. But by and large, the population of big players in the game hasn't really changed in ages. The playing field shifts every so often and some names change, but the objectives and the people going for them are the same or copies of what was there before. Specific alliance requirements for protectorates aside, we have several blocks that new alliances must overcome before they're considered a real alliance. In no real order - [list] [*]They must meet tech raider alliances' definitions of being a non-target. This varies per alliance, but usually of moderate double-digit size in membership. Usually solved with a protectorate. If this doesn't happen, they risk getting taken apart by one of the numerous alliances full of tech raiders in the game. [*]They must gain the respect and sponsorship of at least one serious alliance before they can really show themselves to the world. You noticed, I assume, that almost all DoEs are accompanied by a protectorate agreement. [*]They eventually have to get enough players to follow them that they'll be something more than a micro-alliance, forever dependent on a Big Daddy alliance to protect them from the rest. [*]They have to be not led by strutting fools. Most alliances fail here. [/list] New players face the ingrained attitudes of veterans at the game. If they want to go anywhere to see "the real game", they have to prostrate themselves before the leaderships, bleeding for someone else's causes, and doing their chores. They have to prove themselves to not be a threat to the status quo or else face the wrath of those with connections and power. Essentially, unless they show themselves to be brilliant geniuses that inspire the common man in sacrificing himself for their own greater cause, they have to make playing internal alliance politics a bit of a career before they're ever really introduced to the smoke-filled back rooms of inter-alliance politics. Democratic and meritocratic alliances both have their advantages for new blood and old players alike, so there's no obvious solution in the structure and procedures of the alliance itself. Similarly, the reasoning for the smoke and mirrors game of the leadership is sound. Their enemies can't know too much of the leadership's plans. So simply making everything transparent doesn't really work as a solution. That pretty much just leaves the people that make up the leadership. People like Xiphosis, Cortath, myself, TypoNinja who all make up some part of how the alliance government runs. And it's not just the people in the positions themselves. Often ex-government members will continue to advise the present government, adding their views and biases to the mix. It's the people you have to change. The culture that they make up and take part in. Unless we all start getting much more welcoming to new alliances and players, letting more of them into the sanctums over time, while simultaneously opening up "the real game" to more than the select few, I don't know that this game can really continue to be anything more than it is. It's not like the browser game is some epically entertaining challenge to overcome. I've been contemplating solutions that I can implement to do my part in it, but I'm not sure what real effect they would have. It's a difficult problem to overcome. People are prone to just do what they've been doing for the past two, three, six years. You can always challenge someone in power and change the leadership, but how do you change their attitudes, their biases, when you're not in a position to kick them out?

Congratulations, Pacifica, on not only surviving this long, but also continually thriving as a community and as an alliance. I firmly believe a constant process of self-examination and questioning is healthy and necessary for any group to function well over a longer period of time and I've been mostly happy with what I've seen of NPO since her last war. If we never learn from the lessons of the past, then we never truly advance beyond what we are. Change is essential.

Magicninja is one (very vocal) member of the Global Alliance. He doesn't represent the alliance, nor even the majority of views of alliance members. You would be pretty silly to take his statements and apply it to all of GATO. As a whole, members don't usually post here. There's no reason for them to, so few feel compelled to do so regularly.

o/ FIRE Good to see some of these people in there.

I like this announcement. Good luck, STA.

I'm unhappy to see this go, personally. Fare well, comrades.

We bound ourselves to rules and procedure to ensure as much of the alliance is as a close to an even playing field at all times, whether it's a court case, an election, a Congress vote, or simply speaking your mind. Those rules ensure that every member is bound by the same limitations and expectations as anyone else, limiting the effects of individuals that would seek to twist them against us. That means technicalities happen. Sometimes, it's a good thing. Sometimes, it's a bad thing. When a rule turns out to hurt more than help, we have to change it. There was an amendment already being voted on at the same time as the treaty thing that removed this particular requirement, meaning votes will last 24 hours from now on.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281593345' post='2412394'] [color="#0000FF"]That is something I truly wished to keep in spite of this war, however, understand the betrayal we felt when Omni comes out here, calls us a bad ally, spews lies about us not informing GATO (because for some reason ICAN knew about this before we did), and other rubbish. I still hold nothing against the members of GATO, and I still think rather fondly of some of you, but I will be damned if I just sit back and say nothing while the NSO is slandered with various unsubstantiated truths. You talk about how friendship is a two way street, well, GATO threw it in the garbage first. Remember that.[/color] [/quote] I understand. I really don't mind you defending yourself. What I don't like seeing is how personal everyone seems to be taking it, even Omni and magic. I understand the emotion and why you want to lash out. It's just not helping matters any. I really regret seeing the effects of this decision, and as much as I wish it could happen, I can't snap my fingers and reverse everything. It's done. Maybe we'll resign it someday. Maybe we'll simply let it lie for and cooperate on other matters. Maybe we'll just simply be content with each other on Brown and snub the other at parties. Let's not fight, though. What's done is done, and by now, it's pretty well documented what happened and what we all think of it. It's !@#$%^&*, justified, betrayal, what's due, whatever. GATO and NPO spent years holding an alliance-wide grudge against each other and it did nothing serve to help destroy both alliances later on. We've moved past that, though not without some, er, bumps. We, GATO and NSO, can move past this too. I want to do as much as I can to help the process move along, but I can't do it alone. I understand that it will take time, but it has to start sometime.

I'm just going to say a couple things here. GATO is an alliance made up of hundreds of members, a couple dozen of which maintain good activity on our forums to the degree that they actively try to influence the way things wrong. Even with this smaller group, there is a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints represented and any discussion can quickly turn very lively. In the past, these discussions even contributed to raging flamewars across the forums and grudges that are still held today. It takes a lot to really unify opinion, depending on what it is. I know we're not treating you right, NSO, but right now, it seems like you're trying to kill whatever's left of the relationship we once enjoyed. You had people fighting for you. You still have people fighting for you, to a degree. You're alienating more of those people the longer you continually insult us and furthering the cycle that's simply going to destroy any chance of a good relationship in the future. Relationships are a two-way street. Believe me when I said there are people inside GATO that want to maintain at least some degree of relations with you, myself included. I like you guys. Even with all this, I still think you can be pretty cool people. Even if we don't have a treaty, we can still be friends. I'll do what little I can to encourage good behavior on our side. Can you do the same on your side? I'm not asking for your trust. I'm simply asking for your friendship.

Welcome back, Chris Kaos. Good luck with GARO.

This almost makes me want to change my name.

Couptober was a fun month. Too bad he waited until my birthday to actually do the deed. (and thanks for the kind words).

Three votes for worst, and one for best. I don't think I did that bad a job, but eh. Just tried to make the best of a bad situation. I forfeited my vote to see the results, figuring I'm probably slightly biased since I'm one of the people in the poll. I should've guessed Laserwolf would be leading the favorites.

[quote name='Ragashingo' date='30 January 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1264916472' post='2146795'] Its hard to tell, are you joking? Because it really should be a tough call. [/quote] In this particular set of circumstances, not particularly.

Better get cracking to make it so.

I'm looking forward to seeing more of GATO's potential being unleashed during this term. I've got plans, y'see, plans.

Actions speak louder than words, but in a world where words are mostly all I have to go by, they speak volumes of themselves. If you were roleplaying, things would be done entirely different. Someone pointed out ZIing, which is a good example. Tech raids wouldn't be half as acceptable as they are. Really, what sane nation leader condones half the !@#$ CN nations pull on a daily basis? We enjoy piling up casualties in war, sentence nations to ZI (even perma-ZI), and raid other nations for land and tech with no real concern as to consequences. Yes, it is, considering what it involves. Real world comparisons of population are irrelevant, only the actions are comparable. And when you're deliberately destroying every bit of infrastructure in a nation, killing or displacing thousands of noncombatants in the process, you're committing a form of genocide. Rightfully, you should be condemned for such actions, regardless of the provocation. But you're not, and so here we are. People delude themselves into thinking they roleplay here and support their assertions with bizarre arguments. Sorry, folks, it's reality. This isn't a RPG. It never has been, and I strongly doubt it ever will be unless some extreme changes occur in the player population.

Not saying it's a FPS. It's just not a RPG. It's really not as simple as whether or not you're technically doing things as a nation ruler. It's the intent and reasoning behind what you do. While I'll grant you that CN does require specific lines of reasoning that could be considered IC for a few actions, I maintain that the majority of the community here do not roleplay in any meaningful form. You might argue technicalities all you want, but CyberNations is no more a RPG than playing Supreme Commander is.

Sure. We have 'characters', if you want to call them that, those being the nation rulers. There's a technical divide between IC and OOC that's semi-enforced. And you could argue that there is a meaningful fictional setting all this takes place in, with a RP-based ruleset (of a sort). But the important part is missing. The community isn't that of an RPG, both in the administration of the game and of the general membership. The majority of those playing CN do not separate in-game and out-of-game identities and thus the reasoning for their actions is not that of their characters, but of the players behind them. Alliances such as the OBR are a welcome sight to see, but they're a minority, a rare gem in a field of sand and cacti. It's not a roleplaying game.

No, it isn't. At best, it's tolerant of those that would like to RP here.