The Story Thus Far

[TehChron]

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.

[bakamitai]

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.

Edit: I found the perfect tl;dr for this entire discussion.

[img]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9vbwgxqK71qz8z2ro1_500.png[/img]

Edited December 25, 2011 by bakamitai

[OsRavan]

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.

The historian in me (and as someone who has been in plenty of internet games similar to this one) makes me point out that things always seem better in the past. During karma people were complaining about missing the good old days of 2006. Now they are complaining about missing the good old days of 2009. If we are all playing CN four years from now, people will be complaining about missing the good old days of the Pre-Empt War (or whatever you want to call this.)


The only fundamental difference i've seen, is that for in-game mechanic reasons wars tend to happen less often now then back in the day. Which in turn means dynamic change happens less often. If wars happen with 1/2 the frequency, it makes sense that political change moves at 1/2 the pace it used to.

Maybe its due to me not being around for most of these early days. But I have to say a lot of the complaining always struck my as over-glorification and hero worship. I've no problem with people liking Ivan. He seems a smart, motivated, intelligent guy. But you aren't going to convince me that there arent a dozen people playing today as active as he was, as smart as he was, and as motivated. He isn't a real-life Napoleon (and you could argue Napoleon wasn't really Napoleon). Just an intelligent guy who got stuff done. There are hundreds of thousands of him in the world (indeed i've never come across any organization that has been successful for even a few years and didn't have a few 'legends'). And i'm confident there are a dozen or two with his ability in this game as we speak.


Mostly though, I find irony in a bunch of people sitting around complaining no one else is being pro-active.

The irony of that statement causes me to conclude that, most likely:
1) People arent actually any more or less pro-active today then the past, its just a glorification of the past.
or 2) The issue isn't about people being pro-active, but the mechanics of the game. Since clearly we have all these well intentioned people in this thread who are unwilling or unable to do what they are demanding others do for them, there must be a problem with the game mechanics itself. In which case, no blame can be attached to current leaders or alliances.



And on a final side-note I've seen probably a dozen situations as out of left-field as Londo's raid on Ni. What you are trying to get at (I think) is not that londo's raid on Ni was so particularly shocking or daring. Instead imo what you are observing is that it was impossible to predict the results of a war if that expanded. While before (and since) when alliances do stupid things you can usually predict ahead of time what the results will be.

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.

Edited December 26, 2011 by OsRavan

[Roadie]

I would say there's some truth to all of those observations excepting for the people missing the times of 2009. I've never heard a single one of those, and even if there are a few, they're downright minuscule compared to the clamors for the Wild West Era.

Which I think is the main issue for the lack of dynamic new leadership. The planet has matured now and is as such less dynamic. It doesn't change quickly enough for someone to go swaggering around the joint and bring the world to himself before it comes to get him.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1324864782' post='2886402']
Which I think is the main issue for the lack of dynamic new leadership. The planet has matured now and is as such less dynamic. It doesn't change quickly enough for someone to go swaggering around the joint and bring the world to himself before it comes to get him.
[/quote]

I beg to differ. I'd have to agree with OsRavan, it takes a little longer but things are changing and things are interesting. It would happen much more faster if inactive people left government positions but CN seems to be full of people who seem to content to let what someone has done in the distant past allow them to be leaders for years on end...

[Ying Yang Mafia]

I think the impact of internal alliance affairs is often understated in threads such as these. There is not much that I can say from a foreign affairs standpoint that has not already been said. I strongly dislike blocs, wish for more spontaneity (raiding AcTi was probably the most fun I've had in this game), and I wish more alliances would set and follow a distinct ideology. But I think there is a better chance of college football getting a 16 team playoff before the former three happen.

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.

With the people in government in NG it would certainly take me a long time to work my way up to something meaningful, unless Xander and Zoom decide they're sick of this game. Quite frankly, I find it to be much more fun to chime in occasionally here or on our forums, and grow my nation only to watch it burn before I can buy a WRC.

That said, I'm not inclined to wholeheartedly embrace the doomsayers who claim this is a dying game. There are many people who still have a strong passion for politics and/or nationbuilding. So long as they stick around, we still have something going for us. Quite frankly, I'd love to see what the game becomes if there are only 2000 odd people sticking around. You think grudges are bad now?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I started a war.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1324877028' post='2886475']
I started a war.
[/quote]
I started one and a half.



[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1324871130' post='2886436']
I beg to differ. I'd have to agree with OsRavan, it takes a little longer but things are changing and things are interesting. It would happen much more faster if inactive people left government positions but CN seems to be full of people who seem to content to let what someone has done in the distant past allow them to be leaders for years on end...
[/quote]
It would happen much, much, much faster if the average alliance pursued a unipolar, goal-oriented foreign policy rather than signing numerous MDPs and holding closely on to those MDP partners who end up on the other side of the web. Such treaty conflicts create a mess that inevitably gums up efforts at large-scale political movement. Getting people to take a side and take a stand in the last six months has been like yanking teeth, as the average major alliance had one or more allies on the other side of the web and did not want to risk losing them.

TOP held many MDPs up until the time of the BPW. We had them for the sake of having them, and we were hesitant to cancel any of them even when it was apparent that some of our MDP partners had priorities vastly disparate from ours. Ever since then, we've maintained a foreign policy that is goal-oriented and includes a select group of MDP partners so as to avoid split priorities, and our CN-lives are richer for having more flexibility and less stress headaches.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']
If the problem actually is no one stepping up to 'spice up the world' and just sitting around complaining... [/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.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Crymson

[Max Power]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']
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]
Great point. At some point not all that far from the conclusion of this war, I'd love to see one medium to big alliance stealth attack another out of nowhere for seemingly no reason, the whole thing blow up into a semi-global war, and the coalitions build up ad hoc. It'd be crazy.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']
The only fundamental difference i've seen, is that for in-game mechanic reasons wars tend to happen less often now then back in the day. Which in turn means dynamic change happens less often. If wars happen with 1/2 the frequency, it makes sense that political change moves at 1/2 the pace it used to.[/quote]
Wars happen just as frequently as they have since 2007.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400'][s]Maybe[/s] its due to me not being around for most of these early days.[/quote]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']
The irony of that statement causes me to conclude that, most likely:
1) People arent actually any more or less pro-active today then the past, its just a glorification of the past.
or 2) The issue isn't about people being pro-active, but the mechanics of the game. Since clearly we have all these well intentioned people in this thread who are unwilling or unable to do what they are demanding others do for them, there must be a problem with the game mechanics itself. In which case, no blame can be attached to current leaders or alliances.[/quote]
The only irony so far is that you paid off GOONS against your ally's will to stop a war and you're in here lecturing your elders down your nose about us not doing things.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']And on a final side-note I've seen probably a dozen situations as out of left-field as Londo's raid on Ni. What you are trying to get at (I think) is not that londo's raid on Ni was so particularly shocking or daring. Instead imo what you are observing is that it was impossible to predict the results of a war if that expanded. While before (and since) when alliances do stupid things you can usually predict ahead of time what the results will be.
In other words imo what you all want is not actually 'daring' leaders, or people doing idiotic but surprising moves. Instead you want uncertainty. [/quote]
This is a poor example. The entire point of the raid on Ni! was that the outcome was entirely predictable: Alliance with no treaties gets rolled. But your premise is correct; more uncertainty makes for more exciting gameplay. I look forward to C&G cutting the umbilical cord and becoming its own distinct entity some day soon.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324864150' post='2886400']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]
Again, I don't know where [i]you [/i]found the gall to say this to anyone else. It's the combination of hotshot 'tude and in-game record. If you were some random guy that hadn't spent a year+ actively grinding down action and wanted to be a smart-mouth, ok. If you wanted to offer your two cents as a guy who's spent a year+ as part of the logjam, but without the mouth, ok. But the two together, mm mm.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Monster]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1324880684' post='2886505']
I started one and a half.




It would happen much, much, much faster if the average alliance pursued a unipolar, goal-oriented foreign policy rather than signing numerous MDPs and holding closely on to those MDP partners who end up on the other side of the web. Such treaty conflicts create a mess that inevitably gums up efforts at large-scale political movement. Getting people to take a side and take a stand in the last six months has been like yanking teeth, as the average major alliance had one or more allies on the other side of the web and did not want to risk losing them.

TOP held many MDPs up until the time of the BPW. We had them for the sake of having them, and we were hesitant to cancel any of them even when it was apparent that some of our MDP partners had priorities vastly disparate from ours. Ever since then, we've maintained a foreign policy that is goal-oriented and includes a select group of MDP partners so as to avoid split priorities, and our CN-lives are richer for having more flexibility and less stress headaches.

[/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 name='Aquiles' timestamp='1324834694' post='2886208']
The last hope I had to see something interesting was the resurface of NPO but since MK and Co. like to Pre-NO CB and beat the heck out of NPO, they killed the game.

Pacifica has bend over to MK and Co., and the rest of the alliances really do nothing, so many alliances and not one single leader comes up with something to spice up the world.

After this TOP-Polaris war is over then what is left? Having NO CB wars are are good but having a CB war is much better, I hope some alliance leaders take actions in this war and make things interesting again.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? NPO was going to have to enter. The outcome wouldn't have been really different for them other than Polaris not having an out and having to stay in once Legion and NSO got involved until they got peace. !@#$ was going to hit the fan, so to speak, regardless. We could have let the preempt of NSO go through, would you have preferred that? I wish we had, but that wasn't my decision. The wiki entry is BS and my sig can prove that. It was never ever clear that Legion and TPF weren't going to enter. Seriously. If they stay out and let Legion and whoever else in their list of allies goes in consequently after get rolled they'd not only look cowardly, they'd have set themselves up for an easy future rolling. That would have been stupid. You guys all ate the !@#$ sandwhich they made for you.

The reasons TCK cited for TPF not entering were a treaty conflict with TOOL in terms of Brigade and NV having wf covered.

It especially sucked that NV and RoK signed themselves up to be meatshields for Legion, TPF, and NPO's last chain strategy and vastly complicated the war.

I never intended to use anyone as a meatshield, as I prepared for months of war, while their fronts would only last for weeks. Suck it, Yak.

If NPO had let its allies get skewered, I'd have helped my friends at FAN address their very legit grievance after. I never attributed such shortsightedness to NPO and its allies, though, which is why NPO was attacked. Let it never be said NPO was wronged while they cheer on preempts on other alliances. Little to do with MK by itself.


edit: Oh right, the impetus for the FAN preempt plan was me learning that FAN had wanted to do it for a while(Thanks CheeKy) and that FAN had some connections to alliances disaffected by the Polar aspect of the war.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Roquentin

[Ardus]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1324877028' post='2886475']
I started a war.
[/quote]
I sets 'em up, yous knocks 'em down.

[TehChron]

[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.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1324885147' post='2886531']
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]
Tough calls are only [i]tough calls[/i] because people are unwilling to admit that treaties are political tools, not friendship certificates. Once you get past that, it is much easier to make the calls before they, indeed, become tough calls.

But if this war has taught us anything, it's that a lot of alliances will simply see the sandbox, bury their head in it and hope the problem goes away before they do have to make tough calls.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324886588' post='2886538']
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]

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.

[TehChron]

[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.

[OsRavan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1324883501' post='2886520']

The only irony so far is that you paid off GOONS against your ally's will to stop a war and you're in here lecturing your elders down your nose about us not doing things.

This is a poor example. The entire point of the raid on Ni! was that the outcome was entirely predictable: Alliance with no treaties gets rolled. But your premise is correct; more uncertainty makes for more exciting gameplay. I look forward to C&G cutting the umbilical cord and becoming its own distinct entity some day soon.

Again, I don't know where [i]you [/i]found the gall to say this to anyone else. It's the combination of hotshot 'tude and in-game record. If you were some random guy that hadn't spent a year+ actively grinding down action and wanted to be a smart-mouth, ok. If you wanted to offer your two cents as a guy who's spent a year+ as part of the logjam, but without the mouth, ok. But the two together, mm mm.
[/quote]


::amused::. I like how even in OOC discussion forums you seem to hold random and un-explainable grudges and to side-track conversations when you don't have good answers. And to be obsessed with following me around and screaming at me. Not healthy that.

In any event... 1) My 'elders'? ::snorts::. This isn't the first (or third) time you've pulled a 'respect your elders' card on me when we have had conversations.

Leaving aside the fact that attitudes like that are the of cause many problems in this game... I also happen to be an adult, and very likely older then you. Certainly older then most in this game. I know you meant in-game, but I don't see any particular reason to kow-tow to someone who has been here 6 years as opposed to my three. What possible ooc significance does that have? OR are you actually implying that people who have been in the game only three years are not as qualified to talk as those who have been here six? And we should just mind our manners and stand in the corner? I'll laugh in your face. I've noticed you bring this 'elder' bit up before. It makes me wonder if you have your priorities straight.

The whole 'elder' thing is pretty illogical, and in fact gets to one of what i've felt to be the actual problems of this game and a pet-peeve of mine. Namely the difficulty of newer people to become relevant in the game. Both from an in-game perspective an an out-of game.

In other words, what game takes two/three years to build a nation that can stand up to the more established players? Not many successful ones. Likewise, I've been active in this game over three years. Yet, I often notice that in the upper circles i'm one of the newer players. Its still filled chock-full of 06ers for the most part. And while nothing perse is wrong with that.... is the issue that newer players cant take leadership roles or that established ones won't budge aside?

i think you will find that our issues with player retention are partially due to in-game dynamics that makes it take years to build a large nation, but also partly due to attitudes like the one you demonstrate here. Where people either overtly or subtly try to put newer players in a position below their 'elders'.

A side rant, I know. But I couldn't let the sheer ridiculousness of that comment pass by without commenting on it.


2) You also clearly had the entire point of my post fly right over your head. The posts of people who have a problem with current leadership are ironic because they are posts from people demanding others due what they cannot or will not do themselves. My post can't be ironic since I actually disagree with their analysis of the problem. So even if my actions 'fed' the problem of this thread (something I don't agree with) that still wouldn't be ironic or hypocritical (or whatever) on my part since I actually don't agree with said problem.


As to CnG. *WE* are quire satisfied with our level of 'distinct entity'. I don't see why anyone but your alliance should care about what you think on the matter. Why is CnG's satisfaction or lack there of any business of yours? You worry about making coj into your vision of what a good alliance is, and cng shall worry about cng.

I don't know why i'm actually bothering to debate with you, since you seem exactly the same ooc as ic. You don't have any interest in an intelligent exchange of ideas, just in 'winning' the debate. But hey, whatever floats your proverbial boat.

[TehChron]

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.)

[OsRavan]

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.

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.

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.

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

Edited December 26, 2011 by OsRavan

[Crymson]

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.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Crymson

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[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]

I'm not much of a Chron fan, but if a Pacifican saying this isn't "the pot calling the kettle black" I don't know what is.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324920771' post='2886645']
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]

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

[TehChron]

[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.

Edited December 26, 2011 by TehChron

[TehChron]

Edit: Double post

Edited December 26, 2011 by TehChron

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324918512' post='2886634']The whole 'elder' thing is pretty illogical, and in fact gets to one of what i've felt to be the actual problems of this game and a pet-peeve of mine. Namely the difficulty of newer people to become relevant in the game. Both from an in-game perspective an an out-of game.
In other words, what game takes two/three years to build a nation that can stand up to the more established players? Not many successful ones. Likewise, I've been active in this game over three years. Yet, I often notice that in the upper circles i'm one of the newer players. Its still filled chock-full of 06ers for the most part. And while nothing perse is wrong with that.... is the issue that newer players cant take leadership roles or that established ones won't budge aside?
2) You also clearly had the entire point of my post fly right over your head. [/quote]
How could the point of your post fly over my head when I made it last week?
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107595&view=findpost&p=2880389
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107595&view=findpost&p=2880439
Again, it is nothing more than the gall of such a stagnating personage such as yourself which inspired my ire.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324918512' post='2886634']I don't know why i'm actually bothering to debate with you, since you seem exactly the same ooc as ic. You don't have any interest in an intelligent exchange of ideas, just in 'winning' the debate. But hey, whatever floats your proverbial boat.
[/quote]
There's no debate, you're saying the same things that I've said, you're just saying them while never having done them.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324920771' post='2886645']
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]
Except for this tripe about game mechanics, which is tripe. It is tired, tiresome blame-shifting to put one's failures onto Admin. 6-yr old nations aren't meant to fight 6-month old nations, and--what's more--they don't need to in order for an alliance to do its thing. Nations are not all the same in real life, why would a geopolitical simulator like CyberNations be structured such that a player shows up and suddenly is on equal footing to a nation that has been around for 6? And unlike the real world, those new nations get the gracious bonus that the advanced nations can't attack them.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324920771' post='2886645']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.

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]
It is up to leaders to lead. If they are unwilling to lead, then they are not qualified and should step aside. If they dare and their membership disapproves, they will be removed by the membership, or the membership will move on.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324918512' post='2886634']
I don't see why anyone but your alliance should care about what you think on the matter. Why is CnG's satisfaction or lack there of any business of yours? You worry about making coj into your vision of what a good alliance is, and cng shall worry about cng.

::amused::. I like how even in OOC discussion forums you seem to hold random and un-explainable grudges and to side-track conversations when you don't have good answers. And to be obsessed with following me around and screaming at me. Not healthy that.[/quote]
This is a meta-thread in the OOC part of the forum, which is a place that people gather to discuss things. You will find that I will reply to you if you decide to join a discussion. If you think that's stalking, then you'd better find a game I'm not playing.

[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]
Chron opened his own thread to do it, you use everyone else's threads to do it. We all do it. It's a [i]forum[/i], do your Latin homework.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Schattenmann