Friendship - Killing Politics on Bob?

[Gingervites]

If people think my definition of winning is off or doesn't mesh with yours. I invite you to give me another one. 

You are wrong, no one wins cn.  Also the neutral ns is useless ns anyways, it just inflates top 5% margin which again doesn't matter since everyone over 25k ns has mp's. 

[OverlordShinnra]

You are wrong, no one wins cn.  Also the neutral ns is useless ns anyways, it just inflates top 5% margin which again doesn't matter since everyone over 25k ns has mp's. 

 

 

Then what is the purpose of this game?

[Gingervites]

To argue about e-politics, the meet and potentially make new friends you'd otherwise probably never meet, to build up stats so you can have fun watching them get blown up while you are blowing up other peoples stats...there is no purpose for the game, people still play it because it has a cult following. It's a place for guys and gals to potentially have fun or more likely be stressed out.  If your goal in cn is to be in an alliance that is ranked number one then good for you but that doesn't mean you win. The number one spot changes, alliances come and go. There is no way to win this game because there is nothing to win, MHA was number one before, so was Sparta, so was NPO, etc etc. and now it is GPA.

[Enamel32]

The funny part of reading all of this... is reading this, and then going back to the chats you and I had during the war. You know.. when you told me you would be perfectly ok with being an NPO lap dog if it means getting DH and C&G killed multiple times. Or when you told me you were well aware of Sparta's reputation, and you thought more or less the alliance deserved its rep, THEN said you did not care about the rep because you were planning on vacating Planet Bob after the war. 

 

What you do not seem to understand is this. Sparta(and by and large, XX as a whole).. is completely disdained by EVERYONE in the game. Nobody in your alliance, not one person, has ever even tried to rally your members to make a showing, to kill your stereotype through action, to show one single ounce of pride in wearing the name Sparta. If you smile, remain weak,  and show no passion or pride for yourselves, then natural selection takes over. The reality is... DR-DH-C&G-NPO are the big dogs, and maybe, just maybe, by getting rid of the bottom feeders like Sparta and MHAand by extension, XX as a whole, the 4 can finally line up in some way, shape, or form, without having to worry about one side carrying the worthless dead weight you represent, and without the other side having to worry about the worthless dead-weight bandwagoning to make themselves feel like they are finally a part of something. Rally your alliance and win some respect, then come talk to the rest of the world about wanting to play big boy politics.  You have all of those members, all of those stats, now make them stand up and look like they care. Just a thought.

I don't recall saying I'd like to see CnG rolled multiple times, but I am drunk. So maybe I did. Admittedly, CnG is low on my list of most liked alliances/blocs, due to how much they've fucked us, but that's my very personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I saw you, personally, lose 6K tech, and really that's all I cared about.....and I'd say that drunk or sober. Heck, you can ask me tomorrow.

 

Naw, you're missing the point. Haters gonna hate no matter what.  I had DA proofread my initial post to make sure I wasn't mindlessly rage/posting. He said it the post was ok, but iterated that rush sykes might come out of hibernation and post a foamy WoT. By Golly he was right! 

 

22:28:20: <DeathAdder> You might annoy CnG, and I expect Rush to reply with a TL;DR wall-of-text to discredit you, but yeah.

 

But that's exactly my point that you are distorting. I don't care about sparta's rep, because haters will predictably hate, as you sir have just proven. We do what we do (this is a game after all) and that is pretty much the long and the short of that story, whether anybody else, aligned or unaligned, likes it or not.

 

OOC: And yep, still thinking about quitting. The lolatics of this game have really become to much for me to bear.  Man, you really want me to quit. This is the second time you've mentioned it. I must really grind your gears :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:

[OverlordShinnra]

To argue about e-politics, the meet and potentially make new friends you'd otherwise probably never meet, to build up stats so you can have fun watching them get blown up while you are blowing up other peoples stats...there is no purpose for the game, people still play it because it has a cult following. It's a place for guys and gals to potentially have fun or more likely be stressed out.  If your goal in cn is to be in an alliance that is ranked number one then good for you but that doesn't mean you win. The number one spot changes, alliances come and go. There is no way to win this game because there is nothing to win, MHA was number one before, so was Sparta, so was NPO, etc etc. and now it is GPA.

 

 

See either all of those alliances were winning at the time they were number 1 OR there is no purpose to this game. I believe the former because being in a dominating position is as close as you will get to winning in this game.

[D34th]

See either all of those alliances were winning at the time they were number 1 OR there is no purpose to this game. I believe the former because being in a dominating position is as close as you will get to winning in this game.

 

We have a winner!

[Gibsonator21]

The funny part of reading all of this... is reading this, and then going back to the chats you and I had during the war. You know.. when you told me you would be perfectly ok with being an NPO lap dog if it means getting DH and C&G killed multiple times. Or when you told me you were well aware of Sparta's reputation, and you thought more or less the alliance deserved its rep, THEN said you did not care about the rep because you were planning on vacating Planet Bob after the war. 

 

What you do not seem to understand is this. Sparta(and by and large, XX as a whole).. is completely disdained by EVERYONE in the game. Nobody in your alliance, not one person, has ever even tried to rally your members to make a showing, to kill your stereotype through action, to show one single ounce of pride in wearing the name Sparta. If you smile, remain weak,  and show no passion or pride for yourselves, then natural selection takes over. The reality is... DR-DH-C&G-NPO are the big dogs, and maybe, just maybe, by getting rid of the bottom feeders like Sparta and MHAand by extension, XX as a whole, the 4 can finally line up in some way, shape, or form, without having to worry about one side carrying the worthless dead weight you represent, and without the other side having to worry about the worthless dead-weight bandwagoning to make themselves feel like they are finally a part of something. Rally your alliance and win some respect, then come talk to the rest of the world about wanting to play big boy politics.  You have all of those members, all of those stats, now make them stand up and look like they care. Just a thought.

1. No one really cares what Enamel says, not even allies.

2. When is TLR going to give their great showing? The world's been waiting since the formation. So far you've lived up to the stereotype of three inactive alliances merging.

3. Personally, I don't count C&G as a "big dog." I count them as a follower.

4. I'd say half of XX is actually better than TLR. Both have sentimental ties, but R&R and Fark just so happen to be tied to alliances in weaker positions.

5. I do agree with you that MHA and Sparta are dreadful alliances, though.

[Garion]

People who think wanting the #1 alliance spot is an illegitimate way to play the game, while residing in alliances that have supported NPO regimes in the past, are pretty funny.

 

I don't think anyone said it is an illegitimate way to play. It's just not everyone's way. But nice try.

[Ali bin Turban]

I've got nothing against SF/XX, but I must admit plenty of you, in this conversation, seem to be blind. There's no semi-neutral thing, there's no "CN kindergarten tough guy strategy". You don't live in vacuum, you do have treaties, you do take part in wars. There are alliances you don't like and others that have grudges against you too. It's not about beating on the weakest, it's about settling a score when the enemy is weakened.

 

Secondly whether you like it or not you have your weight that can be thrown around to shift the balance of power. Do you really expect dominant powers to ignore you just because you're not a threat to them on your own? It's a very basic logic here: there's sphere A and B fighting for dominance and sphere C sitting on the side. Assuming both A and B being more or less balanced it's obvious that C's involvement will be a major factor to the outcome of the fight. It's most logical that before engaging in battle both sides (A and B) will try to secure that flank, either by acquiring C as allies or if that's impossible repeatedly rolling them into insignificance (especially when there's bad blood between them).

 

If you really don't want to be bothered or take part in world's politics, go GPA's way. Clear all grudges and declare full neutrality (no "semi-neutral" bull$&#). You've right to play as you want, but don't act surprised when someone is shooting back after you've shoot at him.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Ali bin Turban

[the rebel]

See either all of those alliances were winning at the time they were number 1 OR there is no purpose to this game. I believe the former because being in a dominating position is as close as you will get to winning in this game.

 

The only winning move is not to play.

 

As in not to play the elitists game of power stagnation.

[D34th]

(..)  there's no "CN kindergarten tough guy strategy". It's not about beating on the weakest, it's about settling a score when the enemy is weakened.

 

 

Thanks for the morning laugh. 

[Garion]

I've got nothing against SF/XX, but I must admit plenty of you, in this conversation, seem to be blind. There's no semi-neutral thing, there's no "CN kindergarten tough guy strategy". You don't live in vacuum, you do have treaties, you do take part in wars. There are alliances you don't like and others that have grudges against you too. It's not about beating on the weakest, it's about settling a score when the enemy is weakened.

 

In the hope that your statement is sincere, I will remind you that you examined in your consideration the comments coming from a Spartan who's not been in charge of things since ages (Louis) and of a STA member, who's not even remotely tied to XX (D34th).

 

 

 

[Blake Griffinin]

In Character, folks. Careful with the "game" references when postinin please.

[Rush Sykes]

I don't recall saying I'd like to see CnG rolled multiple times, but I am drunk. So maybe I did. Admittedly, CnG is low on my list of most liked alliances/blocs, due to how much they've fucked us, but that's my very personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I saw you, personally, lose 6K tech, and really that's all I cared about.....and I'd say that drunk or sober. Heck, you can ask me tomorrow.

 

Naw, you're missing the point. Haters gonna hate no matter what.  I had DA proofread my initial post to make sure I wasn't mindlessly rage/posting. He said it the post was ok, but iterated that rush sykes might come out of hibernation and post a foamy WoT. By Golly he was right! 

 

22:28:20: <DeathAdder> You might annoy CnG, and I expect Rush to reply with a TL;DR wall-of-text to discredit you, but yeah.

 

But that's exactly my point that you are distorting. I don't care about sparta's rep, because haters will predictably hate, as you sir have just proven. We do what we do (this is a game after all) and that is pretty much the long and the short of that story, whether anybody else, aligned or unaligned, likes it or not.

 

OOC: And yep, still thinking about quitting. The lolatics of this game have really become to much for me to bear.  Man, you really want me to quit. This is the second time you've mentioned it. I must really grind your gears :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:

 

Your commentary, while cute, ignores the entire point of my post, and therein lies the problem with your alliance. The complacency and acceptance of the game-wide overarching public opinion of Sparta, is what will keep you in that position of always having a target on your back. Whereas alliances like MK, NPO, had targets on their backs because they did way more right, in regards to winning (or trying to win) the broader political game. You do not need to set out for world domination to avoid a reputation such as yours. Take DT for instance. They are not really disrespected as an alliance, or fighting force by anyone on the game, yet nowhere in the back channels of CN do leaders sit around going "I wonder who DT is planning to go after next on their march to the top"... they are quiet (like you say Sparta is), they keep to themselves (like you say Sparta does)... but when the buttons get pressed, instead of slinking off into a deep dark corner, they saddle up and ride out. It is utterly amazing that after 5 years in CN, no leader in Sparta has ever realized that formula for success. So by all means, plug your ears, view my rant as a hate-masked personal vendetta (most of the time, it admittedly is, but in the broader area of this OP and ensuing conversation, it is a 100% honest, and globally predominant view of your alliance, and nobody works to fix it.), and just continue to be the worlds convenient punching bag simply because you accept the mediocrity of your members, and refuse to make the punching of your alliance inconvenient for those punching (re: stop rolling over and stand up).

 

1. No one really cares what Enamel says, not even allies.

2. When is TLR going to give their great showing? The world's been waiting since the formation. So far you've lived up to the stereotype of three inactive alliances merging.

3. Personally, I don't count C&G as a "big dog." I count them as a follower.

4. I'd say half of XX is actually better than TLR. Both have sentimental ties, but R&R and Fark just so happen to be tied to alliances in weaker positions.

5. I do agree with you that MHA and Sparta are dreadful alliances, though.

 

1) It is not really that i care either, but when he is spouting out FA advice to DR, NPO, then a contrast needs to be drawn, even if just for entertainment purposes.

2) This is absurd for so many reasons, I suggest asking those who fought us this past war. Or checking the compilation of coalition statistics from both sides and then tell me how "inactive" we are. An massive IRC presence is not the most important measuring stick of any alliance, who shows up at war time, is far more important.

3) Personally, you are wrong. Not unusual though.

4) lolNo.

5) At least we have some common ground.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The reality is this:

1)If you base your treaties on friendship before politics, your alliance is worthless. People can be friends without being treaty partners but treaty partners should always align politically or give each other some sort of political benefit.

2)We are losing nations daily. In the past few years, we have went from over 35,000 nations to a little less than 12,000. That means less alliances, less blocs, less poles.

3)There simply isn't a lot of real leaders. Most alliances are led by people who shouldn't be in leadership positions because they're either too incompetent to occupy such a spot or lack any form of ambition or project.

 

The problem with #3 is that we currently have two blocs and a half without any semblance of capable leadership. Worse, they seem to be happy to wallow in that state of apathy, doing nothing to better their situation, waiting for the next beatdown to happen. They remind me of broken prisoners who, after too much torture or a prolonged jailtime, end up accepting their fate and stop fighting. 

 

We used to think viceroys were horrible things; right now, it would be merciful to impose viceroys on that collection of beaten down states. Sparta, my hand is still extended. We can help you.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[the rebel]

The problem with #3 is that we currently have two blocs and a half without any semblance of capable leadership. Worse, they seem to be happy to wallow in that state of apathy, doing nothing to better their situation, waiting for the next beatdown to happen. They remind me of broken prisoners who, after too much torture or a prolonged jailtime, end up accepting their fate and stop fighting.

 

I suppose they could try and make friends with the cool kids if allowed to, then circle jerk into the abyss.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I suppose they could try and make friends with the cool kids if allowed to, then circle jerk into the abyss.

Or maybe better themselves, cut their loose ties and either form a decent opposition (one less likely to be rolled) and be more likely to attract new friends or create a different powersphere. It's not like they're not currently circle jerking already.

 

Anything is better than their current apathy.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Rush Sykes]

Or maybe better themselves, cut their loose ties and either form a decent opposition (one less likely to be rolled) and be more likely to attract new friends or create a different powersphere. It's not like they're not currently circle jerking already.

 

Anything is better than their current apathy.

 

Seriously, I was almost replying to Rebel's post with this exact word for word post when the forum informed me that a new reply was posted. Get out of my  head Yev.

[WarriorSoul]

The pat-on-backing going on here in the last few posts has been great guys, honestly.

 

But let's be honest here, listening to FA advice from anyone from C&G or TOP is essentially like attending "Become a Satellite/Serf 101." I find it incredibly ironic that anyone from C&G would dare criticize how another alliance or sphere handles its own FA when in reality, the FA policy of C&G has been "Attach Ourselves to the Winners."

 

We can trace that back to C&G and SuperFriends back in 2009, from Karma forward, until C&G decided to hop off and leech onto PB/DH. Now it would seem that NPO's making its rise again, and guess who's hopping on the NPO bandwagon? That's right - C&G. Now I'm not going to be critical of playing politics that way - if you all are content jumping ship to ship, that's entirely your call, I have no say nor do I care to have any say in what C&G elects to do FA-wise. But for the love of God, don't be the call girl of every rising power sphere and then go tell others that they need to step up. That's plain hypocrisy.

 

But honestly, it shouldn't come as shocking that you guys would suggest such things - that's been your doctrine for a while now. "Get in bed with every new power, jump ship before everyone turns on you."

 

 

Yev, you're welcome to read that entire post over again, but replace "C&G" with "TOP." It should serve the same purpose. The only difference being that TOP never had the foresight to jump ship before getting rolled with all of its butt-buddies.

[Enamel32]

For blocs that are apathetic and irrelevant, Yevgeni and Rush sure base a significant amount of their political agendas on them. I really don't understand what your guys obsession is with them. I don't think anyone on that side gives two shits about either of you or your alliances.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Enamel32

[RevolutionaryRebel]

"CN is dying because X Alliances are doing Y with Z."

Where X is an alliance your current AA doesn't like. Simple template for replies to this topic.

[enderland]

This is a good topic.

 

The reality is this:

1)If you base your treaties on friendship before politics, your alliance is worthless. People can be friends without being treaty partners but treaty partners should always align politically or give each other some sort of political benefit.

2)We are losing nations daily. In the past few years, we have went from over 35,000 nations to a little less than 12,000. That means less alliances, less blocs, less poles.

3)There simply isn't a lot of real leaders. Most alliances are led by people who shouldn't be in leadership positions because they're either too incompetent to occupy such a spot or lack any form of ambition or project.

 

IC: This is really true. I would add one of the main problems with politics in CN is there is no tangible "goal" to strive for other than "fun" so the incentive to participate in politics boils down to, "does your alliance and/or you want to be involved in politics?" with no meaningful penalty (outside having no influence) in answering no.

 

OOC: people play this game for different reasons. Some play it for IC politics. Some play it OOC for fun and friends. The IC problem above means no penalty for "not playing" the political game.

[Roadie]

Rush once stated the problem in the simplest terms I've seen yet. "Everybody knows everybody now". It's a paraphrase, but it's close enough. 

 

We're all carrying our otherworldly morality into this world where it is in some ways baggage. Nobody wants to stab their friend, or even a friendly, in the back. If we want lively politics, it's time to do what people complained about the hegemony doing and start stabbing our friends.

 

It might sound bad, but it works. NPO was brought down after they did it to enough allies or former allies that even former tC members took part in taking Pacifica down. The last major war was arguably made at least in part possible by trying to do so with NoR. Granted, selling our allies or recent allies is incredibly stupid politics and no alliance should want to so, but without such action, we're all out here complaining about stagnation.

 

At the very least, cut some critical ties like TOP and IRON did. 

 

e; 300 tekbits gets NPO.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Roadie

[OverlordShinnra]

Meh, any alliances are aloud to have any ties they want and it should be valid. But I do agree that people need some ambition. There are few alliances that drive politics. It would be great if there were more. I'm not claiming one bloc has a monopoly on moving politics or making the game interesting. But I am claiming that these politics moving alliances are few and far between and a lot has to do with the apathy and lack of ambition alliance leaders have.

[D34th]

Meh, any alliances are aloud to have any ties they want and it should be valid. But I do agree that people need some ambition. There are few alliances that drive politics. It would be great if there were more. I'm not claiming one bloc has a monopoly on moving politics or making the game interesting. But I am claiming that these politics moving alliances are few and far between and a lot has to do with the apathy and lack of ambition alliance leaders have.

 

"The shoemaker's son always goes barefoot."