Jump to content

An open letter to CubaQuerida


The Zigur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thank you, I believe I now understand. You are not a fool. You are merely a lunatic who subscribes to a philosophy that even its alleged founders deny exists. Go along then. I shall trouble you no more.

 

You still are just repeating yourself and failing to present an alternate system or philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

You still are just repeating yourself and failing to present an alternate system or philosophy.

Do I strike you as someone who cares enough to spend a long time developing a pseudo-philosophy? I should hope not. Regardless, my saying or not saying anything means in the end. It will not make Francoism anymore real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those interested in learning about the roots of the Pacifican revolution [ooc?] may start here;[/ooc] on the oldest known boards Francoism first began to take shape following the overthrow of the Userites in The Pacific. It was this revolution lead by Comrade Francos which resulted in the first ever overthrow of a Userite regime.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The only fundamental understanding about "Francoism" anyone needs to know is that it is a pseudo-philosophy that can mean whatever you want it to at any given time for any reason. Even rubber bands aren't that flexible.

This is a very good summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still trashing allies in public, eh?

You-Stay-Classy-San-Diego-Anchorman.gif

I believe he posted that before they were allied.  In any case, I think a reasonable exception could be made for Tywin even if they were.

 

What made it worthwhile to skim the replies is Hershey and Farrin's images.  I did laugh.  Still won't read the OP though, no amount of tech would get me to.

Indeed, the responses are great.  Especially current and former NPOers trashing it.  But yeah, not reading the OP. I'd rather read a couple random pages in the dictionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe he posted that before they were allied.  In any case, I think a reasonable exception could be made for Tywin even if they were.

 

Indeed, the responses are great.  Especially current and former NPOers trashing it.  But yeah, not reading the OP. I'd rather read a couple random pages in the dictionary.

 

Somewhere around my thousandth reading of "boozhwa" I just put him on ignore. Now I only see his quarter-coherent, uneducated gibberish if someone is foolish enough to quote it.

 

Give it a try. I think you'll find the results quite pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge problem with your philosophy. Civilization (the game) does not fully flower when people follow the status quo. In fact the population of this game has been declining due to the status quo for some time now. Peace is and will never be the answer. Introduce a little fun and anarchy and people just might get interested. In fact DBDC is pretty much the only interesting thing happening these days with so many cookie cutter alliances running around doing the same ole song and dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think alliances like DBDC are whats bad for the game, its the lack of willingness of others to properly respond to alliances like DBDC which can be bad for the game. Conflict between good and bad alliances makes the game fun. There just aren't very many left willing to fight for what's right these days.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the world was vibrant, DBDC wouldn't exist. The decline of the community is the cause rather than the consequence of its rise,and is pretty much a sideshow for anyone not in range. Their presence discourages nation-building, but so does the increasing list of wonders - favouring established nations over newcomers. This is an insurmountable barrier to replacing overall losses.

 

They're not the problem, but they're not a solution either.

Edited by RevolutionaryRebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the world was vibrant, DBDC wouldn't exist. The decline of the community is the cause rather than the consequence of its rise,and is pretty much a sideshow for anyone not in range. Their presence discourages nation-building, but so does the increasing list of wonders - favouring established nations over newcomers. This is an insurmountable barrier to replacing overall losses.

 

They're not the problem, but they're not a solution either.

I don't see how their presence discourages nation building, I think it encourages building to even higher levels to try beating them or match them. Only to someone with a defeatist attitude would seeing their exists people stronger than yourself, as reason there is no point in becoming powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you're trying to define DBDC as good or bad, you're going to have an answer that suits your own purposes.  It doesn't matter how you see us, what matters is that we are here, and we are very real and our impacts can be felt in virtually every sphere if we need them to.  Just because we have limited interactions with the main CN body doesn't stop us from actively participating in inter-alliance politics and it doesn't shield us from becoming a target down the road.  It's not a matter of if we are doing it the "correct" way, because there is no correct way.  

 

The "correct" way led to some of the most unfair global wars we have ever seen, so much so that it inspired me to take the mantle and swear that I would never have to fight friends again for someone else's cause.  While it's true that DBDC does politics different than any alliance out there can, it's still a very real and effective tool and can be dealt with either with opposition (and you've seen how that ends) or with acknowledgement, respect and candor.  We strive to align ourselves with the people we trust most, as does any reputable alliance.  

 

I see nothing wrong with those voicing opinions contrary to DBDC's principles or values, but to question DBDC's right to exist or right to function a certain way is bordering on the absurd.  Not only do you lose the respect of the main community, but you alienate yourself from logic and aren't bringing anything of substance to the discussion.  The status quo is evolving, talk to any major alliance leader and you'll notice that the way things have always been done is ancient history now, be it on a individual nation-based level, alliance-level or even at inter-alliance/coalition levels.

 

It's been said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  I would argue that those that ignore the present are doomed to be defeated by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how their presence discourages nation building, I think it encourages building to even higher levels to try beating them or match them. Only to someone with a defeatist attitude would seeing their exists people stronger than yourself, as reason there is no point in becoming powerful.

Only a reasonable person would conclude that at a certain point, the level of investment required for a younger nation to reach the 'top' exceeds a sane level. Newcomers aren't interested in investing years of effort into obtaining even a fraction of the strength of DBDC, and meeting their membership requirements is definitely something that requires years of effort. I definitely don't blame anyone that looks up to them, but I have better things to do than stargaze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a reasonable person would conclude that at a certain point, the level of investment required for a younger nation to reach the 'top' exceeds a sane level. Newcomers aren't interested in investing years of effort into obtaining even a fraction of the strength of DBDC, and meeting their membership requirements is definitely something that requires years of effort. I definitely don't blame anyone that looks up to them, but I have better things to do than stargaze.

I've rebuilt from losing just about everything to over 10k infra many times, from sub 2-3k infra amounts back up to above 7-8k infra many more times. Who even begins any game which hasn't just come out and expects to reach the very top? In any online game which involves gaining strength over time, there will always be someone stronger and out of your league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a reasonable person would conclude that at a certain point, the level of investment required for a younger nation to reach the 'top' exceeds a sane level. Newcomers aren't interested in investing years of effort into obtaining even a fraction of the strength of DBDC, and meeting their membership requirements is definitely something that requires years of effort. I definitely don't blame anyone that looks up to them, but I have better things to do than stargaze.

 

How is this any different than joining an MMO where 90% of the community is max level?

 

How many times has the top nations changed since you have played this game?

 

Why should this time be any different?

 

Everyone playing this game, minus the newcomers, know how to take DBDC down a peg.  The only problem from the past and now is that none of you have any balls left and are pixel hugging your groins.

 

I mean some of you invested many years into this game and for some reason continue to invest time so why should that deter away a newcomer to invest that much time?

 

I mean being a semi-newcomer myself i actually enjoy slowly growing and having the options of different wonders.  I think it would be much more boring sitting around and WAITING for a wonder to come out than actually being able to purchase them every month.  

 

Also, isn't stargazing the main reason you aspire to get to those levels?  You need some sort of inspiration in order to have things to achieve.  Isn't that the point of MMOs? To be the best and when you see the best you want to grow to beat the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge problem with your philosophy. Civilization (the game) does not fully flower when people follow the status quo. In fact the population of this game has been declining due to the status quo for some time now. Peace is and will never be the answer. Introduce a little fun and anarchy and people just might get interested. In fact DBDC is pretty much the only interesting thing happening these days with so many cookie cutter alliances running around doing the same ole song and dance.

Actually if you look at the "golden era of CN", the number of nations declined after every single major war.  So to say that "war is good for the game" just by itself is a lie.

 

FYI: DBDC is in fact not good for the game at all, but then they are also a symptom, not the disease.  More on that later.

 

No, what is/was "good for the game" is all the effort and activity that is required to building up an alliance.  Those alliances that sit back and rest of their reputation and claim to be too hip to recruit or only want "veteran players" slowly but surely die out.  Too many alliance do just that.

 

Indeed, people are tired of being bored to death...DBDC lovem or hatem (lovem) is whats good for cn.

As mentioned above, they are a symptom of very bad things going on the within the game community, so no they aren't good for CN at all, unless you count events like the war with RIA to be "good for CN" because they briefly increase activity within any alliance that is attacked by DBDC.

 

If the world was vibrant, DBDC wouldn't exist. The decline of the community is the cause rather than the consequence of its rise,and is pretty much a sideshow for anyone not in range. Their presence discourages nation-building, but so does the increasing list of wonders - favouring established nations over newcomers. This is an insurmountable barrier to replacing overall losses.

 

They're not the problem, but they're not a solution either.

Correct for the most part.

 

We can debate whether the increase in the number of wonders helps/hurts the game, mostly because I think you are discounting the affect it has on player retention (long time players have something to strive for or additional options other than the accumulation of wealth, etc.), but ultimately DBDC wouldn't exist if Planet Bob were more active--it wouldn't need to, because those who accumulated there would be busy within separate alliances and probably fighting each other in global wars.  

 

They are part of the problem however in that DBDC accelerates the loss of long time players, thus hurt player retention, and as you point out, there is now effectively a glass ceiling in place at the #250 nation level, which can only be safely passed if you ally yourself directly or indirectly to DBDC.  They are not by far the biggest problems with CN however.  By far we have much more serious issues down at bottom 1,000 nations with player retention and nothing really that DBDC is  doing right now affects that one wit.

 

I don't see how their presence discourages nation building, I think it encourages building to even higher levels to try beating them or match them. Only to someone with a defeatist attitude would seeing their exists people stronger than yourself, as reason there is no point in becoming powerful.

Methrage, unless you have a dollar amount that can be paid to Admin that will ensure I can pile on 30,000 tech tomorrow night, then no, it's not as simple as "you need to build faster/better" in order to match them or beat them.

 

I think if you're trying to define DBDC as good or bad, you're going to have an answer that suits your own purposes.  It doesn't matter how you see us, what matters is that we are here, and we are very real and our impacts can be felt in virtually every sphere if we need them to.  Just because we have limited interactions with the main CN body doesn't stop us from actively participating in inter-alliance politics and it doesn't shield us from becoming a target down the road.  It's not a matter of if we are doing it the "correct" way, because there is no correct way.  

 

The "correct" way led to some of the most unfair global wars we have ever seen, so much so that it inspired me to take the mantle and swear that I would never have to fight friends again for someone else's cause.  While it's true that DBDC does politics different than any alliance out there can, it's still a very real and effective tool and can be dealt with either with opposition (and you've seen how that ends) or with acknowledgement, respect and candor.  We strive to align ourselves with the people we trust most, as does any reputable alliance.  

 

I see nothing wrong with those voicing opinions contrary to DBDC's principles or values, but to question DBDC's right to exist or right to function a certain way is bordering on the absurd.  Not only do you lose the respect of the main community, but you alienate yourself from logic and aren't bringing anything of substance to the discussion.  The status quo is evolving, talk to any major alliance leader and you'll notice that the way things have always been done is ancient history now, be it on a individual nation-based level, alliance-level or even at inter-alliance/coalition levels.

 

It's been said that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  I would argue that those that ignore the present are doomed to be defeated by it.

Nice speech, but...

 

1. Since your alliance came on the scene, the number of nations at all levels continues to decline.  It does nothing to promote player retention, save for a few top end heavy hitters who are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

2. Effectively what you are saying is that you reserve the right to pick a side based on your personal prejudices regarding "fairness" not what is actually fair, nor what is actually best for the flow of the game, which has seen beat downs motivate people to do better (present company included, Valhalla is a better alliance for the beating it took in Karma, I was a better CN leader after my experiences in the Unjust War) and created some very dramatic moments in CN history.  The reality is that you think you are helping, but you are not.

3. Your alliance singles out people it doesn't like and attacks them.  If it can't attack them in game, it mocks them in offensive Youtube videos.  Sometimes it does both.  It threatens to attack people who disagree with you in the OOC Suggestion Box part of the forums, and sits on that part of the forums like a vulture, making sure to turn any suggestion that might go against you in a flame war slag that will eventually be ignored.  It raids nations multiple times for the sin of staying in range.  You say that you see no problem with those voicing opinions contrary to DBDC's "principles and values" (as if what you are doing could actually be guided by such a thing), but the evidence suggests something completely different.

 

Simply put, you are not what you pretend to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...