Mogar Posted October 29, 2013 Report Share Posted October 29, 2013 1. That's a damn shame then. 2. Where in the world did you get this conclusion from? everything delta said is quite true, change in this world takes time and effort, both of which very few people are left with the motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letterkenny Posted October 29, 2013 Report Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) First four months of 2009 were awesome even while they were happening, but in general yeah. Most periods seem more interesting in retrospect than they were to live through because you remember all of the dramatic events and forget about the days and weeks in between when nothing happened. Yeah there are certainly exceptions. I was nowhere near the center of activity through Karma, but was plenty involved in the war itself once it escalated. That was a fascinating time period to "live" through here. Indeed, you nailed it in that last sentence. That applies to anything, really. I love 60s-70s rock more than any genre of music and I/my friends consider it to be greatest time period in history with regards to music. But that, of course, is cherry picking music like Country Joe, Cream, Zeppelin, Hendrix, and a few others and not regarding some of the truly terrible music/ styles that emerged back then. Perspective is everything. Bringing it back to CN: If you think there needs to be a revolution or you're unhappy with the situation you're in, change it! If Solis or RIA or Kashmir or __ isn't doing it for you or you think there's some kind of radical change needed, it's probably a change you yourself can make. And if you can't make yourself happy on Planet Bob... the hell are you doing here? Edited October 29, 2013 by Letterkenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Tell you what, I'm going to pursue the change I want. You go ahead and pursue yours. Let's see who is more successful in a few months' time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 I have heard rumors about a revolution against the NPO. Yeah man I think I heard something about that too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) My main question about a revolution is who would people be revolting against? Revolution assumes that there's one set power structure and there doesn't seem to be that now. Also, even in times where there is what appears to be a power bloc, they may not be so close that you have to take them out together. You may be able to take them out one by one. For example, Super Friends were pretty tight but some in Continuum didn't know each other that well and in many cases liked their other allies more. To take out SF, you would have needed a large strike force but to take out Continuum, you could have used a gigantic strike force, but with a little patience, waiting for the treaty to dissolve on its own or using the Continuum members' other treaties to keep them sidelined would have been just as effective. Edited October 30, 2013 by Monroe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 There is the theory that the oppressive power structure is that of the elite and government members ruling over the average players, which are used as foot soldiers and cannon fodder (or coopted in the elite, when it's convenient). According to this theory, the average player is not left free to develop their nation (statistically and politically), except if they join a truly democratic alliance which doesn't surrender too big of a part of their sovereignty to allies. Which basically would mean that the only "free" players are in democratic alliances at the top of politics (e.g. TOP) or in neutral alliances (which are all democratic, I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manussa Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Do you mean to revolt against the throne or the power behind the throne and is this a war in game which you want to happen or something far greater IE admin and mods which powers that be are you referring too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Which basically would mean that the only "free" players are in democratic alliances at the top of politics (e.g. TOP) or in neutral alliances (which are all democratic, I think). Pax Corvus definitely isn't; they are a meritocracy. Whether the World Task Force is a democracy is also rather debatable; the Oxford Dictionary defines democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" and I don't actually know whether they have a government and if they don't that would seem to preclude them from being such.The Green Protection Agency, the Grey Council, the Green Old Party and The Democratic Order are definitely all democracies, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Well I didn't research it. :D ( Cerr you fail us... :P ) How is a meritocracy different from an oligarchy, by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Well I didn't research it. :D ( Cerr you fail us... :P ) How is a meritocracy different from an oligarchy, by the way? Theoretically, oligarchy would be rule by the privileged; meritocracy would be rule by the competent. In practice, pure meritocracies are difficult to pull off because accurately measuring competence in an unbiased manner isn't easy to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 In a meritocracy those that decide whom is considered competent are sovereign. If they are a restricted group their sovereignty is a privilege, thus they have an oligarchy. If they are a large group that includes all or almost all that want to be part of it, they have a democracy. I don't see any middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) There is tons more opportunity these days to rise in influence and stature. It's not like in the hegemony when everything was so locked down. If you have talent and ambition, there are many mid-level and even a few high level alliances just waiting for you to join and rise in rank. At that point, you just have to be smart with foreign affairs. Edited October 30, 2013 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 At that point, you just have to be smart with foreign affairs.Follow your own advice dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 In a meritocracy those that decide whom is considered competent are sovereign. If they are a restricted group their sovereignty is a privilege, thus they have an oligarchy. If they are a large group that includes all or almost all that want to be part of it, they have a democracy. I don't see any middle ground. Hence the difference between the theory of a meritocracy and it's practice, and why meritocratic is so much more frequently used to describe an organization's principles rather than structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 Be careful what you wish for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opportunity Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 What's changed? I'm listening. We were on the same side 8 months ago, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstorm777 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Yes it will. Only a violent overthrow of The Powers That Be can restore CN to what it once was. It is TPTB who are ruining this game. Um..... No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 If you want a revolution, you could start by Admin implementing a script such that anyone who types some variation of "as everyone knows the game is dying..." in a forum post is auto deleted and banned. I predict a rise in the net number of nations in a month. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted December 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Um..... No? Who are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstorm777 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Who are you? Darkstorm777, you can just check my username to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Revolution, huh? Generally, you have to have something to revolt against, rather than an impersonal title of "The powers that be". I'm going to have some trouble targeting them, and motivating other players to join the cause, if that's the case. You can't revolt without a catalyst. Vox only worked because NPO gave us an endless supply of recruits. Who are you going to recruit with nobody practicing PZI, or really, anything reprehensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. Self improvement is masturbation. Now...self destruction... We must denounce our pixels. Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. It's only when we lose everything we're finally free to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoCore Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) 2. The Kashmir model is the perfect example of a successful alliance that does not entangle themselves in treaties. I propose a UN-like organization, although this may not be realistic right now; with ample planning it could eventually be integrated into CN. Huh? They are far from perfect. They are with NSO who is entangled, so by association they themselves are another alliance entangled. Honestly, within 6 treaties you can almost combine every alliance in the game to every other alliance. Kaskus -> Swash -> DBDC -> etc Kaskus -> GOD -> etc Kaskus -> SRA -> PPO -> etc Kaskus, the lone wolf basically in every war it has ever been in has connections with everyone Edited December 8, 2013 by KenoCore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted December 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Huh? They are far from perfect. They are with NSO who is entangled, so by association they themselves are another alliance entangled. Honestly, within 6 treaties you can almost combine every alliance in the game to every other alliance. Kaskus -> Swash -> DBDC -> etc Kaskus -> GOD -> etc Kaskus -> SRA -> PPO -> etc Kaskus, the lone wolf basically in every war it has ever been in has connections with everyone Honestly, I wrote that post before the war started. I really had no idea how their treaties worked. Edited December 9, 2013 by Loki Laufeyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) It had one already, Vox Populi in 2008-2009. The game is smaller now, and there will never be a power as "evil" as NPO pre-Karma. Edited December 9, 2013 by Ryan Greenberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts