Jump to content

TehChron

Members
  • Content Count

    5,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TehChron


  1. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325080243' post='2887938']
    There is some valid comment in the OP, though the 'oh isn't Ivan great' gets rather tiresome. [b](If he was that great, his second coming wouldn't still be stuck in an irrelevant annoyance of an alliance.)[/b]

    The NPO-led Initiative/Continuum period left a lot of people and alliances on 'the other side' with a huge distaste for that style of play, and after that side comprehensively won in Karma, none of them want to be led by a 'new NPO' and therefore none is allowed to appear. There are far too many 'leader' alliances, wanting to control their own destiny and run their own power sphere, and not enough 'follower' alliances, to allow a single megabloc to emerge which could control a plurality of the political strength, never mind a majority (which is what you need to be an aggressive hegemon). For all the IC jokes about MK running everything, they are but one among many alliances which each control sections of the political web. And that means that no single one of those sections can do anything that would lose the support of the others, otherwise they would get crushed.

    The sole exception to that is DH attacking NPO, which they could only do because all of the other post-Karmic power clusters were already busy in the NpO war.

    Don't expect any change until most of the main Karma and post-Karma actors fade from the political scene, or until they decide that their aims are similar enough to work together into a unified hegemony. At the moment there's at least MK, TOP and VE and so each one of those must consider what the others' reaction would be (undoubtedly negative) to any overt hegemonic coalition building. Although there are treaty networks between them, none would be happy in a hegemony run under the style of the other two, and therefore they won't come together into an AoA-style partnership at the core of a hegemony. (Doomhouse appears to be trying to do that, but they lack the support of several important alliances and therefore can't run one.)

    There have been some moves in that direction. OV folded long ago, Athens has merged away and stepped back from the front of the stage, Citadel imploded, and now SF is being dismantled. Archon has essentially retired from active duty and that may pull MK away from the front line, although Ardus seems to be playing a similar role. But it is a slow process and I don't see it going far enough to allow a hegemony for some time yet.

    I'm not actually sure I agree with your conclusion that we want bipolarity, anyway. Your perspective on how fun that was is greatly skewed by being in the hegemony (and the core of it, at that) the whole time, and likewise your perspective on post-Karma is biased by being in an alliance with little political freedom and which is often picked on. [b]The measure you use (OWF thread size) is more reflective of a cultural change towards back channels and secrecy than of a lack of interest, in my opinion (though that trend in itself is damaging to inclusivity and fun for all players) – those Karma or earlier threads were full of posters trying to change opinion through public posting, and that is much less common now.[/b]
    [/quote]...

    I know you're probably as biased against me as WarriorConcept is, but did you actually read the OP, or did you just use selective speedreading?

    First bold, I mentioned Ivan once or twice. And to be frank, Ivan has always been more interesting to watch work than you and yours. It hardly constitutes worship to state a bald fact.

    Additionally [i]most of your random speech has nothing to do with what I was discussing, which was a lack of interesting personalities in positions of power and the effect that has upon the community[/i]. I don't see how you can not get that. It's right there.

    For the second bold...Yes. That is a point I made. And that was a result of bipolarity. Multipolarity just hasn't been as interesting to follow. Like it or not, the OWF is the one stage everyone sees, and the fact that the stage is rather dull reflects on the narrative being rather dull, which affects motivation, and therefore, retention. Links of causation.

    You're arguing that my perspective is flawed when I explained already that it's not. If anything, it's you who possesses access to the full picture that just doesn't appreciate how average individuals don't find the narrative interesting. You possess a flawed perspective, Bob.

    You're just mistaken.


  2. Hold it.

    Hold it hold it hold it.

    This discussion is [i]not[/i] about game mechanics. There are dozens of other discussions elsewhere for that. This is about the stuff I brought up with in the OP [i]which is, at most, parallel to the issues of game mechanics you guys are bringing up[/i].

    The two discussions are not parallel. It's a tangent. I want to make that clear.


  3. [quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1324811234' post='2886134']
    You spied on GOONS?

    Did you find out what color dress Sardonic is wearing to his wedding with SirWilliam/Beefspari????????????

    I need to match my socks to his garter belt. pls find out soon ok thanks bye spy friend
    [/quote]
    I heard that it was a deep blue.

    Made of suede. So you may want to take that into account.

    And no I didn't get that from spying. It's common knowledge. I guess I'll have to do better.


  4. [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1324922830' post='2886656']
    At this point, Chron, your involvement in this thread seems to be motivated mostly by your enjoyment of the sound of your own voice. Nowhere in the rolling purple-prose of your last several posts has there been any sort of coherent point.
    [/quote]
    What's naive is assuming that I was ever motivated by anything else.

    Setting aside captain obvious for the moment, I have actually been contributing to the discussion. That the point goes over your head is hardly surprising. After all, if you knew what I was talking about, then you wouldn't be an example of a failed antagonist.

    [quote]I liked this one. CN was once boring for me, so I joined Vox. Then it was boring again, so I found other ways to play the game differently. There's no reason to be legitimately bored playing CN. The possibilities of what one player can do are nearly infinite[/quote]That is exactly right.

    Also the day I get real fans is the day I out and out quit this place. Seriously. !@#$ be creepy, you know?

    [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324920771' post='2886645']
    I actually wasn't responding to your post at all Chron, but to Schatts.

    If I was going to answer yours though, my point for you would be I am going to assume that the people raising issues in this thread *would* do something to change it if they *could*. Since they don't seem able to change the CN environment, the problem does not imo seem to be with leadership of alliances or attitude of the alliances so much as in a fundamental structure of the game that doesn't allow intelligent individuals to act as you want them to. [/quote] Ah, I thought that bite was directed at me. Sorry.

    But that structure, too, is a part of the "narrative". It's a really nebulous and nearly-all encompassing thing.

    [quote]I do think it is avoiding the issue to place the blame on 'leadership' of alliances (and hey I may be biased since I am said leadership). Since essentially you are holding them to a standard you are not holding yourself. Whether its a democracy or not, most people become leaders with the support of their alliance (people vote with their feet after all). That to me implies these leaders, for the most part, aren't doing things their alliances have problems with. I would guess in fact, that most alliance leaders (always those exceptions) are hard working and intelligent people, making the best choices they can to further their alliances goals. So again, the question becomes not why arent leaders doing X, but why is X not the smart move for smart leaders to take? And the reason for that is buried in game mechanics. [/quote]
    And with your latter point, I just want to say that my opinion of you has risen greatly. That is exactly right. The ability to discern "the best option" is what most people in positions of leadership lack. So they instead opt for the reliable, the safe, and the undynamic in order to hedge their bets and ensure at least some measure of payoff for their invested time and effort.

    It is also, as I have said elsewhere, the defining characteristic of Ivan Moldavi's style of play. You may be right in terms of saying that there are people playing this game as intelligent and charismatic and hard working as Ivan has ever been, or even moreso than he will ever be. But, it is that ability to discern that it is not X, but Y that is the smart move for a leader to take which sets him apart from everyone else in this community.

    The key to politics is not charisma. It is not intelligence. It is not subtlety or brute force or coordination. The key to politics is the ability to utilize the correct perspective for any given situation, in the best manner possible.

    [quote]I would also argue most people don't want *their* alliance leaders to start doing insane-stupid stuff to shake the game up. They want *someone else* to do it. They want uncertainty and insanity in the game. They just don't want to be the ones to pay the price for said uncertainty/insanity, because they know based on game-mechanics their alliance would never recover from the resulting curb-stomp. Most people that want more londo/ni issues would crucify their own leadership if said leaders attempted to do that.[/quote]The problem is that is a false-choice. There is always "another option" which exists allowing an alliance leader to have the best of both worlds. It is simply a combination of various circumstances relative to the situation that keeps them from acting upon that "best possible option".

    [quote]I do happen to agree with you that the only person who can keep the game interesting for you is yourself. Not others. I'm a firm believer of you either make the game fun for yourself or you stop playing
    [/quote]Thanks.


  5. If you're referring to this, OsRevan:

    [quote]If the problem actually is no one stepping up to 'spice up the world' and just sitting around complaining... isn't this thread highly ironic? Shouldn't every one of you who is claiming there's no 'villain', and that the world needs one, be out there trying to cause havoc? Instead of in here complaining about the lack of leaders? (I exclude myself from this list, because I find that notion ridiculous). Why is it someone elses job to delivery to you the sort of leadership you want? If that is truly the problem, why aren't you stepping up and seizing it? IMO the answer is because that is not actually the issue at all[/quote]

    That's stupid. You say that that isn't the problem, and then go on and describe one aspect of a boring narrative as your reason for disagreeing with me.

    Now you can be as pithy as you want about how ironic things are, but the real irony is that for all your wordiness, you're really just agreeing with me in a roundabout manner.

    And as with all irony, I find that to be hilarious.

    (also, as I have said on several occasions, unlike other examples of poor antagonists in CN history, I am fully aware of my abilities, and know that the only person I can serve to keep interested in this game is myself. Not that that's a problem. But, once again, I'm just trying to define [i]why[/i] CN is boring for so many people, not complain about it.)


  6. [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1324812025' post='2886138']
    While we're at it, we should totally start up a forum so those former signatories of WUT can talk and relive the past because that's the only way I can feel self-important. Honestly, I don't know how we've gone so long without a venue where we can talk to each other. :(

    I miss NpO.
    [/quote]
    We can make it really classic and call it #disgaea2.

    Maybe then we can get back Sponge or even Dilber. That would be pretty cool.


  7. [quote name='Instr' timestamp='1324895186' post='2886566']
    As far as a passionate, engaging, political narrative goes; this is an expression of the malaise affecting the game, but it's not the malaise itself.

    Quite simply, we are in a deflationary era. Tech becomes more and more precious every day, if not on a direct level, but because the tech markets are in the process of collapsing. At a certain point, all the tech available in the game will have to be bought by buyers themselves to the dearth of sellers, and at that point, tech becomes extremely, extremely, expensive. A point of tech spent today is more valuable than a point of tech spent tomorrow; so consequently, because it's so hard to recover from your losses, people are less inclined to take risks.
    [/quote]
    That has no real effect on the average, active player.

    The average player either becomes recruited into an alliance and becomes introduced to the political narrative by that means, or they get raided and go to the OWF or the alliance boards of the individual hitting them to complain/respond/etc and get exposed that way. Or they just leave.

    Either way, such issues as the potential value of tech have nothing to do with it.


  8. [quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1324915329' post='2886618']
    The daunting task of political relevance means nothing to the "average player", thus it has no true affect on their ambition. When it comes to a large alliance, very few members hold any interest in building political relevance. They collect taxes, tech deal, and hit who they're told to hit (or screw up staggers). An alliance succeeds when it can provide a sufficient amount of propaganda to turn other alliances into a distinct enemy, one that the average player can dislike, for no apparent reason other than they're supposed to. Charismatic players can turn a personal vendetta into an alliance wide grudge, and thus supply a fine narrative for the rest of us.

    My point is, the daunting task of internal politics robs this community of those individuals who could supply, as you desire, a compelling narrative to make this game somewhat interesting. Sure, this is nothing new. But neither are the much lamented game mechanics, yet they clearly are a contributing factor to the declining number of nations.
    [/quote]
    My response was more an attempt at a supplemental than a rebuke, but your point is most certainly a good one.


  9. [quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1324848170' post='2886296']
    If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that TehChron has lost whatever relevance he had to actually shape the flow of world events. Let's have less bark and more bite, poppet.

    [/quote]
    LOL

    Are you serious?

    Did you ever think I had any relevance to shape the flow of events in the first place? There's a limit to unrealistic responses, you know.

    (Also, Baka, you've been in the NPO for almost five times as long as I was, and are still not yet even one-third as competent as I am. When you do something that makes you more than just the leftovers from when JrComm bailed, then you'll have all the room in the world to talk down to your betters)
    [quote]In other words imo what you all want is not actually 'daring' leaders, or people doing idiotic but surprising moves. Instead you want uncertainty.

    In fact, I think this (imo idiotic) obsession with 'real leaders' and worshiping of a non-existent heroic past is clouding what is really the 'issue'. Namely, we need wars where you cant predict the result six months ahead of time. Uncertainty. That (along with the before mentioned longer gaps between wars due to the recovery time of nations) are the only real difference I see.[/quote]OsRevan, while I disagree with almost everything else you've said, this point alone is entirely correct. While hero worship indeed clouds the issue, [i]the fact remains that it is the Real Leaders, and they alone, that generate uncertainty that serve as the real spice of the narrative. Not the meek, please keep that much in mind.[/i] Denying even that much is simply base ignorance.

    Also. People. Quit accusing me of hero worship or complaining about a, b, and c. I spent the OP defining "boring". Having to constantly correct that misunderstanding is annoying.


    [quote]There are numerous things that I would love to do, should I ever become the leader of an alliance that carries some sort of weight or influence. Unfortunately, the time commitment required to get that far just isn't worth it, in my opinion. After wasting hours upon hours of my time in lower government during the Karma era, I've since decided I have better things to do with my time. I have no doubt being in a high position of power would be interesting, this community is not short on an array of interesting and intricate personalities. But it takes work to get to the top, and that is what gets me.

    The tendency to gravitate towards larger alliances (obviously size is relative, especially in a declining community) restricts the number of people who can make things happen. Throw in bloc politics and the number of people who can make any true impact on the community whatsoever declines measurably. It would not surprise me if there are many people, like me, who don't have the energy, or the time, to dedicate hours to tasks such as recruitment (or trades, was there a more godawful government job before the trades update?) in order to eventually move up in the ladder. [/quote]YYM, this goes back to the issue of the narrative being "interesting". While OsRevan nails one aspect that defines an interesting narrative as "uncertainty", there is also the very strong implication that clearly divided and impassioned powers also serves as something interesting for the average player.

    Unrealistic amounts of time and energy being invested in order to individually rise to prominence is nothing new. What has always made things worthwhile for the average individual, the "real protagonist" as it were, has been the narrative. That is what serves as their motivation when the daunting task of political relevance saps away their ambition.

    [quote]There were those of us who stepped up to do so, and it led to this war. However, it was hugely difficult, as the average alliance has many allies and wants the perfect scenario for itself. Of course, said perfect scenario will never exist, but that doesn't stop alliances from often balking when a potential war scenario might not match it. If enough major alliances do this, major political movement becomes very difficult for anyone to bring about. So you see, the world vitally depends on people stepping up, but it is also completely necessary that the rest are willing to follow even when such requires tough decisions to be made.[/quote]And this war has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that events like these just aren't enough, Crymson.

    This is the limit of your style. It's not a criticism, but a reality. This is a culmination, a plateau, a conclusion. The challenge now is surpassing this. Somehow. Someway. And that seems to simply not be possible by the efforts of a few motivated people in a world of those who lack any real motivation save staving off boredom when it's convenient for them.

    That's the truth. Again, not a criticism. I hope you can do better than you've done thus far, quite frankly. There's no reason for you not to be able to, right?

    [quote]Enjoy the tough calls you will have to make along with your bloc partners as treaty conflicts arise in the future as no policy stays "Unipolar" for long.[/quote] Sides develop because the charismatic convince others to close potential avenues whereby they can shore up their own bases in exchange for throwing all of their support behind those charismatic individuals. A dearth of such characters is what leads to uneven sides, as only one side possesses the charisma, and therefore, the ideal-ish following/side/setup.

    Or something. Honestly that's a really bad overgeneralization on my part, and if someone comes up with a better explanation, I won't dispute it.


  10. Pacifica as it is now does not possess the strength of personality or leadership to take any serious political initiative. The personalities that drove them to dominance have all either been driven out or left of their own accord, what's left is what's left.


  11. [quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1324825907' post='2886174']
    I'd say it's a lack of ambition combined with a lack of creativity. Some people are legitimately stagnant and see that as successful (i.e. if your alliance doesn't get rolled, you're doing your job), while others are plenty ambitious but lack the situational awareness to make politically advisable moves (see SuperFriends)
    [/quote]
    The problem is that the common rule of what a politically advisable move is tends to trend towards encouraging stagnation. So that's more an issue of competence than creativity, I think.


  12. [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1324786188' post='2886006']
    You see, he was making light of the fact that the one nation in Aloha had 24k infra and very little tech. It was quite amusing and a fitting end to this thread.
    [/quote]
    Eh, I disagree that it's a fitting end to the thread, since this is probably one of the more fruitful discussions of this subject that there has been in awhile, since it didn't revolve around pointless bellyaching about game mechanics and wishing people would go easy on them politically.

    But, hey, I guess some people really like agreeing with ChairmanHal, so I can't really complain there.


  13. [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1324773417' post='2885902']
    If that happend en masse with most alliances it could help change the dynamics of politics as too many long time leaders and high government members are set in their ways, no new ideas through no new blood...
    [/quote]
    This comes down to a lack of motivation, moreso than a lack of ambition or too many old fogies in positions of power or something like that, I believe.

    People need to care about what's going on, and that just isn't happening.


  14. [quote name='Proest' timestamp='1324764356' post='2885821']
    This whole thread is why people don't care; walls of text followed by hail such and such and actually followed by actually and dead space.
    [/quote]
    The tragic irony is that the above post is why people don't really have any faith in the average member of the community:

    Random commentators who confuse an inability to read with jadedness/wisdom and then make pre-packaged comments without bothering to check if they actually apply to what they're talking about.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you can't be bothered to read something, why comment on it? All you're doing is broadcasting your own lack of reading comprehension. I just can't understand why someone would want to do that.


  15. [quote name='Opethian' timestamp='1324717715' post='2885527']
    Why does everyone complain about the lack of antagonism (in the literary sense) and yet do nothing about it? [b]It's easy enough to claim that the game was better when you were the bad guys, but as with any serious claim you're beholden to repeatability.[/b]

    If your methodology was the magic that made the machine work then you have no excuse to let it languish as it does. If, instead, your particular reign as the bad guy du jour only coincidentally coincided with the peak of the game's popularity you may need to get over yourself.
    [/quote]wut?

    Who said that and when? I'd like to read this particular claim.

    Link?


  16. [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1324714615' post='2885504']
    I remember when NpO was trying to convince NSO to pull out and I was arguing with Ivan Moldavi we should stay in for TOP and IRON when he considered peacing out. NSO ended up staying in for a long time and MK was angry with their plans not working out to close that front. If I didn't argue to stay in I wonder how that war would of turned out different for grub had NSO peaced out then.
    [/quote]
    No, I mean bungled on Grub's part.

    And to be fairly honest, Methrage, please don't give yourself too much credit. If you think you were the only person arguing to stay in at the time, you have a faulty memory.


  17. [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1324714082' post='2885500']
    I'm not sure the kind of backstabbing NpO used in trying to destroy TOP was as creative as completely foolish short term thinking. With that war giving TOP reason to crush NpO right now and for as long as they want, while also turning MK against NpO causing them to have no allies.
    [/quote]
    If you think of it in the terms that Grub uses to boast about it, you can see how it could have been original, the primary issue is the bungled execution.


  18. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1324711114' post='2885487']
    I think you're being generous for no particular reason, or you're just repeating your point because it's your point. What was creative about signing a hundred treaties between SF and C&G? What was creative about forming PB? What was creative about rolling TPF for spying while they were at war? What was creative about ... anything that happened after Karma? This is an honest question; I'm old enough in the game to be jaded, and I don't remember everything that happens, but, honestly, I can't think of anything that struck me as creative in the past 3 years. There have been interesting developments, but nothing creative. [i]Ooh, another bloc! Oh! And now its members just signed 4 MDPs with alliances in another bloc! How marvelous! I say, why hasn't there been a war yet?[/i][/quote] If I had to pin it down I'd say the former. I mean, the concept of Supergrievances could be construed as an attempt at creativity, you know, if the people at in the top political class were trying to outsource political antagonism while also maintaining their dominance.

    PB and the TPF war were by no means creative. And Grub tried to be creative with BiPolar. I will give credit where it's due. He just failed at it. I'll also say the Knights of Ni! raid was original in it's open-faced audacity. And I'm sure that there are a dozen or so smaller examples that don't come to mind because they never really went anywhere.

    But like I said, Im probably just being generous.

    [quote]For me, the post-Karma era ended with the formation of Pandora's Box. The post-Karma era was defined by its unprecedented freedom: of association, of sovereignty, of ideology, to declare war without bringing half the world in, to create any little alliance that popped into our heads, the closest to inter-alliance anarchy that we've been in a long time. But do cattle run free if the fence is torn down? No, though they may walk past the fence, they still behave as cattle. And so as the dust from the Karma War settled, alliances fell back into the Pax Pacifican mentalities. Pandora's Box and Doom House's formations coupled with the devolutions of C&G and SuperFriends (and later the subservience of PF and Mjolnir) have brought us full circle. Alliances, for so long used to defining themselves by association rather than internal identity, did not know what to do with themselves post-Karma, and they have been overjoyed to stampede back into the comfort of a fence now that it is up again. It is a product of lack of ambition, of self-confidence, and a reliance on outsourcing brains and victory. That is why I formed Cult of Justitia, it is why I will not quit on CoJ.[/quote]The tragedy is that is actually a very reasonable perspective.

    By that token, the only reason we haven't returned to the pre-karma era is because the role of antagonist has been left empty, and those who are in power now are too afraid of being rallied against should they attempt to take up the mantle. It may or may not be the one truth of the matter, but it's by no means an incorrect viewpoint.


  19. [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1324677746' post='2885083']
    There is no alliance that can afford the kind of cartoonish villainy you people want. The moment somebody prances about like a full-blown, clear as day antagonist they'll be abandoned by allies and murdered by the world.
    [/quote]
    I'm saying that using that as an excuse is indicative of the limitations of your own imagined approach.

    If you can't find allies that are driven more by self-interest or loyalty (the latter of which I hear was the point of CnG), then you're clearly not suited for the role. So don't pursue it.

    But just because you can't find a way to pull it off doesn't make it impossible. So please, refrain from the absolutist statements. Your approach just hasn't worked to keep anyone entertained, not even yourselves.


  20. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1324654212' post='2884868']
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    I paraphrase myself from last week's "CN is dead" thread as an expert in the field: Until alliances develop true ideologies and then base actions and ally-relationships on those ideologies, you will all remain boring and your treaty mess will prevent fast-paced action. The post-Karma Era ended months ago, Chron, as the sun set on the timeframe for alliances to take advantage of the freedom afforded them in the vaccuum left by the devolution of Continuum.
    Far from your claim otherwise, it is a lack of creativity and an adherence to 2007 modes of play which have brought us to this point[i] once more[/i].
    [/quote]
    People have attempted to be creative, they just haven't done a very good job of it.

    I consider competency to be paramount in creating an interesting narrative. Moreover, why do you think post-Karma ended months ago? What exactly served as the closing of that period's curtains in your eyes?


  21. [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1324626441' post='2884717']
    Well you've certainly shown yourself to be quite an expert over the previous three pages. :rolleyes: You've got it all figured out.
    [/quote]
    Sarcasm works better when you're implying something that is actually ironic, rather than simple snapping.

    And I, by no means, pretend to have it all figured out. But I think I know what I'm talking about better than you, and certainly don't assume that I'm right despite not knowing what I'm talking about.

    Once again: Good stuff. Keep it up. It's pretty funny.


  22. [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1324625594' post='2884707']
    It's because you're irrelevant. You're not a power player on either side (and make no mistake, the "sides" have been the same for about 5 years now - occassionally someone switches sides, but they are pretty much the same) and you were created out of two alliances that were never a power player on either side. Being a meatshield and dutifully marching off to war does not make you a mover & shaker; all it makes you is Valhalla's replacement when Mjolnir takes it's beating next spring break (summer at the latest).

    EDIT: TPF was a toadie alliance. PC split off to do it's own thing. It did nothing of note. It absorbed iFOK and basically became TPF; you once again are a toadie alliance. They don't write books about the toadies.
    [/quote]
    lol

    Wo-how-ow-wooooow.

    You know what? I'm not even going to start off on the numerous things you've gotten wrong in this comment and your previous one, and am just going to let the people who you're actually lobbing stuff at handle this.

    This is pretty funny. Good stuff, I'm enjoying it.


  23. [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324613398' post='2884525']
    Then what about Xiph?
    [/quote]
    Iunno, I wasn't around for his heyday, and while we were screwing around with him over at the NSO he never struck us as particularly impressive. Maybe it was because he associated himself with people like StarcraftMazter or something? Who knows.

    In any case, considering our Beer Review, it's hard to take the guy seriously after we pulled something like that over him. So maybe that's more personal bias than anything?

    *shrug*

×
×
  • Create New...