Hey guys, writing an analytical CN report

[Anarchia]

Hey there. As you saw, I wrote a term paper on the governments of CN, how the compare, and what seem to be sound principles for government.

TO help delicate the Cybernations Institute will produce Volume II: Where Ideology meets Real Life. This would interview and analyze why ideology alliances have been more stable than once, and why military action to attack leftist alliances is less likely.

We need both NoR and co-sec one, as well as people from CPCN, CN, SE, all of SWF, and the resistance and LSF.

If you know or belong, hook up with me. If you don't, be a administrator for the page.

[Anarchia]

Also if you are VOX but are imperalist presently, good job and please contact me!

[Monster]

Um, I covered why Political Philosophy/ideology are important in my paper.

[Anarchia]

You're entitled to think so, but as people said earlier your syntax is mediocre and you have too many CN jargon words.

I try to elucidate terms I can, and frame things so important things are first.

I do not see any of that in your work. It is a personal essay written for a specific niche. If you gave in my Pol002 class it would get a C+

[Monster]

How does that detract from the actual points made? it's pretty much looking at the form and determining it is the most important thing like when the guy said !@#$ about Myth's sentence structure. Most people think Kant's writing style is horrific, yet you still have to read him. Hell, I have to read people who go out of their way to be confusing. I think there is too much of a demand for simplification.

Good thing it's not for Pol 002, and I never really polished it. Also, if you're going to rail on stylistic grounds: you overuse dashes and have tons of long running sentences and it does not work well at keeping attention.

I love it being compared to your masterpiece which wasn't informative at all and didn't support its actual conclusions. What grade did you get on that? I mean, your arrogance is unparalelled for someone who constantly makes mistakes with no real fallback plans.

1. Start pacifist alliance that gains no additional members despite supposedly having a ready base of people to join
2. Get into a fight with Timberland
3. Go to war
4.start this

Edited April 8, 2012 by Roquentin

[Facade]

[quote name='Anarchia' timestamp='1333857423' post='2949803']
Also if you are VOX but are imperalist presently, good job and please contact me!
[/quote]

I was in Vox Populi and am now an Imperialist in TIO.

Somehow I feel as though you're not referring to me though...

[Schattenmann]

I was a founding member of Vox Populi, the weekly Vox presence on the OWF, and I now run an autocratic organization. But I donno if you want to talk to me, as you so vociferously pointed out I was "voted a troll" so maybe you should find someone else that's still around after 3 years and is running an alliance. You've got one other option. Buena suerte.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Monster]

Anyway, exchange aside, since I think that was a bit out of line on my part: The issue you should be focusing is the rich history of the game. Ideology is what differentiates cookie cutter Emperor alliances from the rest and the ones you should concentrate on are the ones who have managed to stand the test of time. Since you have seniority maybe you could add to Ardus' history.

[jerdge]

Oh well I am a <put worthless neutral pun here> and I don't fit in that profile, but I wish you good luck with this project.

I also wish you that people are helpful or just stay away, instead of engaging you in silly bickering, and that you too don't engage in silly bickering, remaining instead focused on your project.

[WorldConqueror]

i hope your paper is as well written as the first post

[Voodoo Nova]

Brain: Pinky, what are you doing?
Pinky: Writing a paper about fictional politics in an internet game so I can impress people on an online forum. Also, picking my nose.
Brain: Of course you are Pinky.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333896985' post='2949982']
How does that detract from the actual points made? it's pretty much looking at the form and determining it is the most important thing like when the guy said !@#$ about Myth's sentence structure. Most people think Kant's writing style is horrific, yet you still have to read him. Hell, I have to read people who go out of their way to be confusing. I think there is too much of a demand for simplification.

Good thing it's not for Pol 002, and I never really polished it. Also, if you're going to rail on stylistic grounds: you overuse dashes and have tons of long running sentences and it does not work well at keeping attention.

I love it being compared to your masterpiece which wasn't informative at all and didn't support its actual conclusions. What grade did you get on that? I mean, [b]your arrogance is unparalelled [/b]for someone who constantly makes mistakes with no real fallback plans.

1. Start pacifist alliance that gains no additional members despite supposedly having a ready base of people to join
2. Get into a fight with Timberland
3. Go to war
4.start this
[/quote]

I see a parallel:

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333857486' post='2949804']
Um, I covered why Political Philosophy/ideology are important in my paper.
[/quote]

Don't throw stones in a glass house, there.

Anyway, in response to the OP, there are so many "papers" about CN that no new points are ever really made. And even if they were made, they don't help anyone. If you're doing it for interest, cool, but don't act like it's changing anything around here.

[Monster]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1334041850' post='2950645']
I see a parallel:



Don't throw stones in a glass house, there.

Anyway, in response to the OP, there are so many "papers" about CN that no new points are ever really made. And even if they were made, they don't help anyone. If you're doing it for interest, cool, but don't act like it's changing anything around here.
[/quote]

Difference is, I've had fallbacks every time. I'm not really particularly sensitive to any criticism unless it's actually constructive and specific and not people just trying to score points on me. A one liner doesn't mean much.



You're right however, it's difficult to bring about change, especially when people are content to do nothing for the most part. Someone on cntel summed up it pretty adequately.

[quote]The leaders of various alliances don't really want to do anything. If you want to survive, do nothing. But I don't play a game to just hang out with people. If I wanted to do that, I'd be idling on public chans without a nation. I think alliances like MK and NG want to be hit, but they also want to win that war. There is no point in working for years in putting yourself in a politically fortified position and then have everyone ignore you.

But nobody really wants to do anything but idle on IRC. And the old, established alliances often don't want to take risks and be known as the one who kills their own alliance.[/quote]

Edited April 10, 2012 by Roquentin

[Kzoppistan]

Both papers were good, though Roquentin's was better written.

My bone of contention, is that both of these papers are pretty much introductory elements and neither actually put forth any deep consideration of how the mechanics of this particular style of configuration create any new form of thought. Basically, "nihil novi sub sole". What I need is a paradigm shifting synthesis of how these systems are reflective of but also original manifestations of human organization.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Monster]

Well, the thing is, he said it was a niche thing and used too much jargon, and I agree it's just introductory. I'm not sure what you're exactly looking for since I've done a lot of system analysis with regards to the MK Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334044204' post='2950649']I've done a lot of system analysis with regards to the MK Co-Prosperity Sphere.
[/quote]

Hmm? How's this? In what way?

[Monster]

Basic summary: for the most part MK relies on OOC interaction to maintain its diplomatic connections. They also incorporate former foes and maintain their allegiance by granting them a higher status over other allies. The ideology is basically "we talk about dicks together." Every rival is a potential future meatshield/attack dog.

"Friendship is Power" a la Ardus' custom title

With the MK configuration, IC politics or IC disagreements take a backseat to cultural interaction.

To give an example, MK maintains a set of allies that don't necessarily like each other or perhaps even really dislike each other. See the Rush quote or all the antagonisms like x not liking y that I mentioned in the GATO blog.

"Discipline, Punish, Co-opt"

Edited April 10, 2012 by Roquentin

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1334041850' post='2950645']Anyway, in response to the OP, there are so many "papers" about CN that no new points are ever really made. And even if they were made, they don't help anyone. If you're doing it for interest, cool, but don't act like it's changing anything around here.[/quote]

Why do you play this game any more if everything has been said, even what hasn't been said is useless, and intelligence can't change things? Where's the interest?

Also, how can a community of hundreds of "politically" active players have exhausted its propulsion? Thought still has its place in CN IMHO.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1334050554' post='2950658']

Why do you play this game any more if everything has been said, even what hasn't been said is useless, and intelligence can't change things? Where's the interest?

Also, how can a community of hundreds of "politically" active players have exhausted its propulsion? Thought still has its place in CN IMHO.
[/quote]

Because a CN "paper" has never changed anything in the game. A paper. Changes and intelligence in this game are still interesting in the form of actions. That's what needs to happen to maintain interest. That and an enjoyable community, which I've got the privilege of experiencing.

When someone puts together an obnoxious "I study political science, please pay attention to how smart I am" piece, it's almost always definitions, a bit of analysis, and very few constructive conclusions.

I play the game for my own interest. My interest lies in the game, not papers about the game that in [i]my[/i] honest opinion, add nothing to the game.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Ironfist

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1334117437' post='2950989']
Because a CN "paper" has never changed anything in the game. A paper. Changes and intelligence in this game are still interesting in the form of actions. That's what needs to happen to maintain interest. That and an enjoyable community, which I've got the privilege of experiencing.

When someone puts together an obnoxious "I study political science, please pay attention to how smart I am" piece, it's almost always definitions, a bit of analysis, and very few constructive conclusions.

I play the game for my own interest. My interest lies in the game, not papers about the game that in [i]my[/i] honest opinion, add nothing to the game.
[/quote]

I have to agree with this.

A good paper should end with a [i]conclusion[/i] that fosters a new idea or way of thinking that, in turn, manifests in ways of play that is original and creative. Anybody can write a "comparison of CN gov.s to RL gov.s" according to their level of political education, but it takes a real smart person to look at CN either holistically or reductionistically and produce an analysis that changes the elements of game play.

Now that would be worth reading.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Kzoppistan

[Monster]

Honestly, not really, because a paper wouldn't do that anyway. It's a habitus, meaning people would have to be conditioned in a different way. Theory is practice and practice is theory, so the best way to make something happen isn't through papers, but rather acting and writing about what you're doing or analyzing your own actions based off something you developed. It doesn't have to be long or anything, like I enjoyed your anthrax thing.

Right now, the conditioning that exists encourages inaction, inactivity, and passivity, for instance. Like the post I quoted, it has become ingrained that laying low, not doing anything is the best way to go about business. So pretty much what you want to do is throw all of those rules out and be successful in spite of it.

For instance, Mushroom Kingdom is able to designate targets their alliance plans to roll in public. They are able to broadcast their intentions without any worry, whereas if other alliances did that and actively schemed and everyone they were doing it, there would be more concern from the general public. By achieving a status as "rad individuals," they can get away with a lot more shaking up and rabble rousing than most people and have had a monopoly on it for some time.

Edit: It doesn't even have to be politically-oriented, at least not within the context of systems already established.

For instance, a communist alliance could be run like Mondragon or any worker coop where everyone is expected to do their fair share.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Freddy]

I have a concept for a CN secret society. Has that been done before? I've worked out many details in my mind and would be happy to write a paper if it's a novel concept.

Also, I plan to write a paper on persuasion and influence. The spycraft acronym MICE would be the central theme. It stands for; money, ideology, compromise and ego. I see persuasion and influence in this world as being mostly spycraft. Of course, there are genuine friendships.

[Monster]

The Coven of the Lost

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Coven_of_the_LOST

tied into http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legion-NPO_War

Edited April 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Freddy]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334167051' post='2951120']
The Coven of the Lost

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Coven_of_the_LOST

tied into http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legion-NPO_War
[/quote]

Interesting, thank you.

Even though it's not entirely original it might be worthwhile to plan a secret organization that can avoid falling apart because of a couple disgruntled members.

[Monster]

Yeah, was just giving you the history behind it.