deth2munkies Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Raken' timestamp='1318218312' post='2821947'] Words still matter, we just prefer a real-time, less polarized medium. Some people need conflict more than others, and the OWF provides that forum - we prefer not to. IRC also gives us a great amount of flexibility in our communications, and it is a great indicator of people who can think on their feet. Also with regards to the bolded part of your quote, that analogy is so poor and just plain false. I've never seen such a distorted exaggerated view of what IRC is. Who knows maybe we just are able to use IRC more efficiently. [/quote] It's a quite perfect analogy. If you post something on the OWF, someone can come back and check it. If you say something on IRC, you have to be logging it to go back and check, you also have to be in the right channel at the right time and never, ever turn off your computer or IRC. God help you if your internet connection goes down. If you fear conflict that much, you shouldn't be playing this game. That's literally why politics exists: a system to mediate conflict between individuals and groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Most people don't announce stuff on the OWF because they don't feel it's worth announcing. That, and when/if they do, they get poo-slingers telling them they're irrelevant and should stop posting etc. etc. because they take up "precious OWF space". It leads into a vicious cycle where less and less people post updates on the OWF, and the "standard" for the OWF slowly drops to a stage where no one wants anything to do with it. It'll take a major revolution in CN to turn this around. Perhaps as big as the Karma revolution. Shark Week please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 It just takes someone that starts announcing stuff "on behalf" of the people that didn't and you'll see how quickly the trend stops. It's simply silly to give to your enemies, or even just to neutral third parties, a chance to start a discussion on your treaties on the bases they want, instead of the terrain you choose. Give it time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladisvok Destino Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1318260528' post='2822249'] It just takes someone that starts announcing stuff "on behalf" of the people that didn't and you'll see how quickly the trend stops. [/quote] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103806]I thought we'd already started that[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [i]OOC: People, people, people...seven pages about this already? [/i] It's simple. It has [b]always[/b] been customary to post treaty announcements on the OWF in Alliance Announcements. Indeed, even now when people are "flinging poo" at each other over some 4 nation protectorate getting attacked, almost inevitably someone links the OWF treaty announcement proclaiming the protectorate as evidence that those that attacked the protectorate had no excuse for not knowing. It also be noted that there was a time before the CN Wiki (which numerous people have derided as being an "unreliable source of information", even while shaming people for not checking it...) that if a treaty didn't get announced on the OWF, it was seen as less legitimate and perhaps even an attempt to sneak through a "secret treaty" (OMG! ). Now, if there is consensus that we're not going to bother with announcing new treaties, treaty changes and the like on the OWF, fine. If we're going to say that the CN wiki or the alliance's forums are the only place to check for treaties and the status for treaties, wtf ever. But whenever protectorate "Y" gets rolled because no one found a treaty on the CN wiki because "The Minister in Charge of Tech, Wiki Updates, and Despoiling Good Beer" for alliance "X" forgot to do an update since...last August, you may all turn in your baww cards. Edited October 10, 2011 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Raken' timestamp='1318218312' post='2821947'] Words still matter, we just prefer a real-time, less polarized medium. Some people need conflict more than others, and the OWF provides that forum - we prefer not to. IRC also gives us a great amount of flexibility in our communications, and it is a great indicator of people who can think on their feet. Also with regards to the bolded part of your quote, that analogy is so poor and just plain false. I've never seen such a distorted exaggerated view of what IRC is. Who knows maybe we just are able to use IRC more efficiently. [/quote] The elitism is getting more and more humorous. If you regard your thousands of fellow players with such disdain, maybe you should quit and find a game more worthy of your ~IRC efficiency~. [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1318197680' post='2821734'] The two of you consider IRC to be an inferior source of information to the OWF? Probably explains a lot. [/quote] IRC is inferior to the OWF for informational purposes. It concentrates and privatizes information in the hands only of those who were present for the conversation. Anyone else is locked out, dependent upon transcripts posted somewhere else. As soon as those transcripts, logs, or summaries are posted, the parties to the conversation claim that they were spied upon, and so the dissemination of the most common, mundane sort of information becomes a trap and an overwhelming obstacle. I spent a goodly portion of my career [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58165"]making sure[/url] that just the opposite is the case, and childish tantrums or smug elitism about the way some people [i]might [/i]reply on the OWF is a sad, sad argument to the opposite. Edited October 10, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318262479' post='2822276'] The elitism is getting more and more humorous. If you regard your thousands of fellow players with such disdain, maybe you should quit and find a game more worthy of your IRC efficiency. [/quote] Couldn't you say the same to any neutral alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 It's a conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318262922' post='2822278'] Couldn't you say the same to any neutral alliance? [/quote] That is a silly political swipe that has nothing to do with the discussion to hand. Neutral alliances, by their nature, have only internal business and are self-restricted from getting involved internationally, and the OWF is about global matters and gobal involvement. Their lack of participation is part of their gameplay, not an elitist rejection of the community. To their credit, many of the neutral AAs take the time and courtesy to inform us of thei gov changes, anyway. Edited October 10, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Seriously we have a thread that has me agreeing with Hal and Schattenman at the same time. That !@#$ just doesn't happen every day. All treaties, upgrades, and downgrades, should be announced on OWF in one form or another. If nothing else, the community could designate one active player as "That guy we send news to of all our minor business that isn't worth its own thread" and that person posts up the compiled list of !@#$ at the end of the week, month, whatever. So you get rid of a lot of the poo flinging, or at least if there is poo flinging, there's likely material for poo flinging on all sides instead of just one alliance getting picked on for being downgraded. That said, I don't think the above should be necessary, and people should just post their crap, and not worry about what OWF is going to do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1317920502' post='2818637'] As much as it pains me, I must somewhat agree with Schattenman's position[/quote][quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318263765' post='2822284'] Seriously we have a thread that has me agreeing with Hal and Schattenman at the same time. That !@#$ just doesn't happen every day.[/quote] This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Age of Aquariussss, Aquariuuuusssssssss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318262922' post='2822278']Couldn't you say the same to any neutral alliance?[/quote] But but but.. We do announce our treaties on the OWF! Just, we don't sign any... But seriously, the neutrals aren't elitist nor they (mostly) stay away from the OWF because of disdain. Talking on the OWF (IC sections) can be dangerous, especially for people that don't have anyone else backing them up in case the crap hits the fan, and it's also quite difficult to comment on anything without taking sides and without making void/pointless statements either. That said, your point isn't invalid. I too think that neutrals should participate more in the OWF life, IC sections included. The GPA always updates about her government changes (often being told: "why do you tell us it's useless", by the way) but we could/should do more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318263301' post='2822282'] That is a silly political swipe that has nothing to do with the discussion to hand. Neutral alliances, by their nature, have only internal business and are self-restricted from getting involved internationally, and the OWF is about global matters and gobal involvement. Their lack of participation is part of their gameplay, not an elitist rejection of the community. To their credit, many of the neutral AAs take the time and courtesy to inform us of thei gov changes, anyway. [/quote] How does that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? You are faulting Umbrella for not announcing an inter-alliance matter not directly of use to your alliance nor to people outside of those alliances' direct treaty partners. You are faulting them for keeping something to themselves. The neutral alliances hardly announce anything, don't involve the outside and keeping everything to themselves. I would put this in the same basket of "regarding thousands of fellow players with disdain". And since when was not-announcing anything a problem? I've never heard any negative (public) comments to FARK who have not announced several downgrades and cancellations and do not partake in OWF posting. Don't they hold thousands of fellow players with disdain also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Roll fark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Ya'll are just newbs who don't know how to use IRC. Only the elite know how to sit on IRC 24/7 and build a network of contacts so that all information reaches their desk first. It's a shame you don't understand the efficiency of IRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318266334' post='2822303'] How does that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? You are faulting Umbrella for not announcing an inter-alliance matter not directly of use to your alliance nor to people outside of those alliances' direct treaty partners. You are faulting them for keeping something to themselves. The neutral alliances hardly announce anything, don't involve the outside and keeping everything to themselves. I would put this in the same basket of "regarding thousands of fellow players with disdain". And since when was not-announcing anything a problem? I've never heard any negative (public) comments to FARK who have not announced several downgrades and cancellations and do not partake in OWF posting. Don't they hold thousands of fellow players with disdain also? [/quote] Fark does not generally make announcements, but Fark's treaties and cancellations etc are announced: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105092 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104310 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103121 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102954 There is a reply in Feanor's NpO-Fark thread also full of Fark announcements. While this is pure speculation on my part, I would assume that Fark's problem with the OWF is that when they were founded the entire world pounded them in a record-setting length war for no reason other than that GOONS didn't like tham and had the treties to do it. I wouldn't talk to you guys after that, either. By contrast, the other examples from other alliances have all been "let's prevent discussion abotu this" duck-and-cover affairs. I've already explained why neutral AAs don't annouce things, I take your repeptition of your original argument to be a rejection of the very obvious reason why you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318269265' post='2822318'] While this is pure speculation on my part, I would assume that Fark's problem with the OWF is that when they were founded the entire world pounded them in a record-setting length war for no reason other than that GOONS didn't like tham and had the treties to do it.[/quote] Actually, somethingawful.com and fark.com have had a rivalry (friendly/unfriendly/ask them on current status) that predates the existence of Cyber Nations by a number of years. The war here was almost certainly simply an extension of that rivalry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1318271023' post='2822336'] Actually, somethingawful.com and fark.com have had a rivalry (friendly/unfriendly/ask them on current status) that predates the existence of Cyber Nations by a number of years. The war here was almost certainly simply an extension of that rivalry. [/quote] I'm well aware [quote]for no reason other than that GOONS didn't like them[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1318011045' post='2819888'] Rather than bore you all with a longwinded OP I'd like to pose this simple question. Why are more and more alliances refusing to announce new treaties (or changes to existing treaties) on the Big Boards? [/quote] You also have to keep in mind that some of these same alliances are also alliances which have lately taken to refusing/failing to even post declarations of war http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98200 (for the same silly reason of "it clutters the OWF") and whose allies have then been turning around and abusing the lack of a DoW to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98921"]activate defense clauses[/url] when the attacked alliances respond. Edited October 10, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that we're essentially living in the cover of the 1994 Green Day album "Dookie". [img]http://www.poster.net/green-day/green-day-dookie-5001235.jpg[/img] Having now unlocked the answer to the Ultimate Question, I expect the servers will shutdown at update. Thanks everyone for playing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1318275669' post='2822384'] Having now unlocked the answer to the Ultimate Question, I expect the servers will shutdown at update. Thanks everyone for playing! [/quote] But, Hal, it's so unpredictable and edgy and lulzy and fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1318266546' post='2822304'] Roll fark! [/quote] You heard it here first, folks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318271211' post='2822337'] I'm well aware [/quote] GOONS had a perfectly legitimate reason to hate them in the fact that Wil Wheaton is a biased piece of !@#$! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Perhaps an easy to use and prominent "treaty changes" page on the wiki is in order? Or a thread on these boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318266334' post='2822303']How does that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? You are faulting Umbrella for not announcing an inter-alliance matter not directly of use to your alliance nor to people outside of those alliances' direct treaty partners. You are faulting them for keeping something to themselves.[/quote] Well, moving from mandatory defence to optional defence quite changes the treaty web mechanics, wouldn't you say that it matters to everyone in the web, and not just to their treaty partners? Mind you, (I think) I fully understand the reasons behind not announcing stuff and, although I think it's a tactic that can't work in a generalized fashion for a long run (we'll see), I acknowledge that it's [i]rational[/i]. I don't think that OOC considerations (respect for other players, as players) should prevail against IC convenience - unless the game really risked to be broken - otherwise the game becomes polluted with OOC stuff that has no bearing with it. I'm not against not announcing stuff by itself, but I don't get why "the party line" is that the things that don't get announced «don't matter». It's clearly a poor line of defence as [i]evidently[/i] they [i]do[/i] matter. Just admitting that things don't get announced because it's [i]convenient[/i] to do so, or even just not replying to criticism, might do a better job in defending that position. As a side note, I'd love if the players of this game were able to separate IC and OOC to the point that (in this case) you and Schatt could argue over this in WA and at the same time you two could share compatibile/similar POVs here (if you have them). It would be nice but I understand that the lust for raw victory is still too strong in this game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.