TehChron

It doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, since the greater number of persisting communities in CN have their origins based in other games/communities/sites. FAN included. So what in particular is wrong with the most engaging part of CN being it's metagame/narrative/community? All that matters is if it's interesting.

HWHNN, you're misunderstanding the draw entirely. Actually, the true appeal of CN has little to do with power playing, it's all about the narrative. Im gonna get into that in this thing Im writing up now.

[quote name='Lamuella' timestamp='1324240655' post='2881340'] these complaints about how CN isn't as good as it used to be aren't as good as they used to be. [/quote] i guess someone will need to bring back the classics brb

[quote name='Mr Garcia' timestamp='1324041828' post='2879846'] It is pointless to just make a list with 30 names on it, as some people have done. If people really want to make a "Hall of Fame" kind of thing, then they should at the very least try to define what a "legend" is. It would also be interesting for all of the entries (or at least the top-tier ones) to have some kind of definitive biography, high and low points, and the like. The ones whose main achievements were years ago might even be tempted to share what went on behind the scenes at the time, the kind of thing that most people will never read about normally. Of course, it is always subjective. There are a lot of influential people in all kinds of fields, but only a few of them stand out. A football analogy would be that Cruyff is a legend, while Bergkamp was just a great player. This makes the distinction clear, without diminishing the greatness of the latter. Anyway, they would probably be forced to make some kind of hierarchy, with tiers like: [b]First tier:[/b] those people never to be topped, people who combined several great aspects. There have been a lot of people with organisational skill, military intelligence, diplomatic ability, personal charisma, etc. But also consider just how they put these skills to work into concrete achievements of massive importance, the ability to actively take credit for their achievements so that we may remember their names, a large following, etc. It seems to me that there are only a select few who combined all or most of these aspects. Of course, there are also those who were perhaps strictly organisationally strong (i.e. people lopsided towards one very specific skill which they were excellent at), or people who did not have extraordinary skills except for the charisma and the ability to be at the forefront of extremely important events. Perhaps we need to look at their impact to determine whether they still belong in this tier. [b]Second tier:[/b] I think this would be for people who, for instance, created a significant treaty system or was prominent in a global war, or someone who glued a treaty system with lots of opposite alliances together, those who founded new and unique alliances and brought them to prominence against the odds, but who did not influence things beyond that, on a gamewide scale. So basically people who had an impact, but not one that is necessarily felt by all of us. [b]Third tier:[/b] if people want to even bother with this, it could include the kind of people who just have fame or notoriety in general, or specific achievements that are just plain interesting. People who managed to get their alliances sanctioned despite all odds early on, rogues, rebels, lesser organisers in important wars and alliances, leaders of major alliances that achieved long-term stability and diplomatic and military success for themselves in general, etc. [/quote] Youre the third person to randomly show up within this thread, and within their first 5 posts, tell the rest of us how we should rank things. In all seriousness, why? What inspires you to tell the rest of us what is right and what is wrong? Just what empowers you with this awe-inspiring authority? What about this topic inspires new players to try and make their imprint upon it? This bizarre urge baffles me.

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1324011618' post='2879574'] Im going to love seeing you guys burn. It may not be now, but it will happen. [/quote] Make it happen, then. Should be fun to see that happen, as a matter of fact.

This is the most beautiful war ever. I love it. It's fantastic and epic and makes me wish I were drunk to enjoy it even more. Allarchonu Ackbar!

[quote name='Great Lord Moth' timestamp='1323655483' post='2874503'] Honestly, I don't see the NSO as a whole doing much different from everyone else in terms of character. It still all reeks of the same Machiavellian thinking that drives all the politics underground. I[b] kinda miss the utopian mentality that drove treaties like Think of the Children.[/b] People actually trying to achieve peace. When was the last time someone tried that? With this increase in people thinking that war is boring, boredom is no longer an excuse. Hell, it might even be more fun to try and achieve peace at this point than to continue the war cycle. [/quote] lol With regards to the NSO, while we're open about the Machiavellian attitude, that's just one aspect of our personality. The problem Heft is pointing out is that [i]a lot of alliances lack even that amount of substance in their character[/i]. So while we flaunt the stuff out in the open, most other alliances do everything they can to keep whatever is interesting about themselves underground and out of sight from the rest of the planet, lest anyone discover their secrets. No, but really, the bold? lol

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1323587602' post='2873607'] If they had any they wouldn't be trying to make their war declarations about haiku. Haiku! Haha! So cute and funny! Do you feel nauseous? No? Just me then. also, hello [/quote] They got someone who's a legend at being terrible, if that counts.

If you want verbosity, Stonewall Jaxon, you can always contract me out. Im sure I can come up with a wordy justification for either side. That being said, Im not really in a position to agree or disagree, since I was always pretty indifferent to Lady Justice around these parts. Most of us are ruled by personal feelings rather than lofty ideals. Most, if not all, orators throughout the years were much the same. That awareness is what enabled them to do what they did so well.

[quote name='mpol777' timestamp='1323452910' post='2871029'] Declaring on NPO wasn't so much a question of 'why' as it was 'why not'. The 'grudge' is there, but certainly wasn't a determining factor. Can you think of a reason why we should [b]not[/b] be at war? I can't think of one. I agree we don't stand to gain much of anything. We also don't stand to lose much of anything. It's a wash. And I agree that this whole war, and really much of the time before now, is a total yawner. What suffices for tasty drama now wouldn't have made a blip on the radar in years past. We spent a considerable amount of time and energy in trying to point out to the world that they are living in !@#$. That their treaties and false sense of power in reality makes them weaker. It's like talking to a rock. In the end, people preferred this mind numbing existence to anything that might entail some risk. Maybe someone will step up. When they do I'll join them... or fight against them... whichever makes life !@#$%* for the most amount of people. [/quote] As long as we're in agreement that this isn't really all that interesting to watch, then I don't mind agreeing with you on the rest of this stuff either. I'm all for "why not", after all.

[quote name='mpol777' timestamp='1323450142' post='2870995'] We're not tied to anyone. Unlike the rest of the world. [/quote] Eh, it's nice hyperbole, but there's a limit to how much I can buy. I'm aware of a few groups that would be willing to do what you keep on espousing, but [i]you yourselves have already demonstrated no interest in working with them, even when their policies more closely mirrored your own ideals[/i]. So I take your self-righteousness with a grain of salt, no offense meant. Declaring on the NPO with Fark isn't about balls, or "changing the face of the game", it's just a tired old story that's been repeated elsewhere so many times by a bunch of different characters, and is likely the only real reason FAN sticks around here. Grudges are nice and fair game and all that, but dressing it up as something glorious, or honorable, or hell, even exciting is completely misrepresenting the truth of the matter. That's certainly my take, at least.

What's worse is that they actually believe it, too.

Your title should be "hypocrisy: when you all need to learn to just shut the $%&@ up" imho

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1323409053' post='2870455'] What was the reasoning for the attack? Have we really degraded to lord of the flies now or was there even a reasoning given for this war? [/quote] If you're trying to imply that MHA is getting hit by a boulder here, Im sorry to say that the roles are reversed in this particular scenario. The voice of reason demands that blood be spilled, and spilled it shall be.

They don't get shouted down for their naivete. That's why they leave. No, they receive rough treatment on the OWF because their uninformed opinions (most of which can't really be held against them) wind up making their input seem ridiculous to long-time players. That's all. The BR will be a poorer place without you, Lam, I always enjoyed reading your posts.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1323374994' post='2869486'] My apologies for the confusion, but I wasn't actually being sarcastic. [/quote] You are now 10-50 times more awesome in my eyes. Also, good idea on the tiers, Doitzel. Damn oDoAPs are so completely pointless that they should be penalized out of existence.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1323373123' post='2869436'] Brilliant idea, Doitzel. Reparations of 5000 tech per treaty held. Ardus for Chief Negotiator of DoomHouse [/quote] Sarcasm aside, I kind of like the implications if such a thing were to become the assumption under which all alliances around here operated, "If we lose then it's 5000 extra tech we've got to send to GOONS afterwards, so let's try and be smart about this, alright?" But I suppose I simply fantasize too much.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1323298998' post='2867829'] Your confidence is outweighed only by your impotence. [/quote] What a brilliant reference. I forget who you're quoting, though. Anyway, always a pleasure to read, mpol.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1323271397' post='2867320'] I have nightmares sometimes that one day DerekJones will return and post that log. Not a high point. [/quote] god i wish i could see that

[quote name='Sterling' timestamp='1323235001' post='2866881'] I found Regent Pancras's reaction to Smurf's thread to be quite appalling, but we all make mistakes. Anyone who judges him, let alone the entire alliance, based off that one rage post needs to get off their high horse and re-evaluate themselves. [/quote] You would have had a point were it only Regent Pancras' who overreacted. But his rage and call to arms for raiders to hit smurf kind of overshadowed the other rage posts in that particular discussion. So...as a matter of fact, it's not that the impression that Regent gave of the Legion was inaccurate, it's simply a true reflection of your guys' community. And the attitudes they hold towards others.

[quote name='theArrowheadian' timestamp='1323202624' post='2865977'] Yes, but your memory seems to be awful or maybe your reading comprehension is not up to snuff. It was in fact different. Not a huge amount, but like I said, there was always at least one discussion going amongst the riff-raff. Maybe you don't remember it maybe you just want to stereotype the whole time as the same. You're entitled to your opinion though. [/quote] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=61826&st=0&p=1647395&#entry1647395"]Yeah you're totally right this place used to be so much better over 2 years ago, no wait was it 4 years ago?[/url] You know what's really funny? You're just trying to revive a trend I started over two and a half years ago. And even back then said trend was entirely devoid of any substance, not to mention the fact that it was entirely self-serving. [quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1323203733' post='2866007'] That's actually complete rubbish. There was some really great vitriolic dialogue in 2006-2007. We were terrible and we mocked each other, but it was substantive, especially when[b] Denial, Arctic, Archon, or a few others[/b] came out swinging. Eventually the CoaLUEtion side faltered with defeat and attrition (I still feel bad for Vincent Xander), the UJW happened, a lot of the big personalities left, and the old guard got complacent. NPO completely lost its identity over the years and nobody has ever been able to fill that void which was central to that political dynamic (save Polar, for a bit). [/quote] Always the bridesmaid, huh...

I enjoyed the read, although I didnt find it to be rip-snorting hilarious or anything of the sort. Must be the hangover. Although I am amused to see so many people talk about how they don't care so much that they're coming out if the woodwork to let us know how much they simply don't care. Ugh. Definitely a hangover.

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1323085678' post='2863605'] Fair enough I can and do appreciate this post. [/quote] I have difficulty telling whether or not you were serious when you were accusing anyone of having a desperate need to appear relevant. To be fair my judgment is slightly impaired at the moment, but if you were, then the irony is quite staggering. I mean, you'll have to do a lot more to get an apology from me then just tossing out random assumptions and self-delusions, you know? It kind of makes me wish you were capable of something other than relying on your own self-made image of your own ability when it comes to responding to critics. But as I have said, my judgmwent is slight impaired at the moment, so if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, tjen I apologize. Otherwise I won't. Honestly. Oh well, have fun in this war, Brehon. I'm sure you can manage that much, at the very least. Heh. Desperate need for relevance. I will certainly give that one points for originality, if not accuracy.

edit: random double post

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1323055896' post='2862988'] I still haven't seen you present a comprehensive logical narrative or analysis; all you've done is insult Brehon. Do you really have a story that varies heavily from the story as Brehon presented it? If so, please elaborate, and try to incorporate the term "soft power" if possible. [/quote] Well, yes, that is, in fact, all I have done. But since I don't need to pad wording, I'll simply phrase my opinion of events thusly: Rather than allowing treaty chains to proceed in a way guaranteed to favor the Grudge Coalition, this is an attempt to cause treaty chains to fall in based on an NPO-centered conflict that would draw in CnG swiftly, thus keeping those alliances occupied while SF and it's own heavy hitters come to bat in order to assist the Polars. While, if you actually read what I said (you did, right?), I pointed out that Brehon's viewpoint was valid, it simply didn't take into account that if another alliance fit the bill other than Pacifica, then they would have been hit instead. Brehon just outright assumed that the strike itself was about Pacifica as the basis for his reasoning, which I think is incorrect since...well...yeah. I guess if Fark really did operate in a vacuum and would make ridiculous leaps of logic, then sure, I guess he could be right about this really being a grudge match. But I always operate under the assumption that people are intelligent until proven otherwise. [i]That being said[/i], the major flaw of this perspective is that it assumes that those who would undergo such a strategy would be betting that people would just tuck their thumbs into their pockets and follow the treaty chains like falling dominoes. It's not really a flaw in the analysis, per se, but a flaw in such a strategy. Once again, my critique of Brehon's analysis was his assumption that the "grudge match" was the root cause of the declaration, rather than taking into account the context of it. He limited his reasoning to a vacuum, which tends to be a fatal flaw in any attempt at deduction. Also "soft power". We cool?