How NPO lost the game

[zigbigadorlou]

I fixed your "intellegent" typo in the topic for you.

=)

Thank you very much. That was bugging me that I couldn't fix it.

zigbigadorlou, Sad to see you go, Will miss you.

Who said I'm leaving?

This is a resignation from NPO, not the game.

[Max Rockatansky]

You stole Mogar's avatar. Not cool. Now give it back.

[OOC] My avatar declares war on Mogar's avatar. I rolled 20, your move Mogar.[/OOC]

I'm not sure what OP was trying to accomplish other than to try to stir the hornet's nest, those stingers are hard to remove. Good luck.

Edit: I can haz edukashun?

Edited March 25, 2009 by Max Rockatansky

[Epik High]

Indeed. I'm not sure how not having fun at a game is winning, but by all means continue on.

I find the game pretty fun as an observer. I don't need to fight a war to have fun in this game; I'm more interested in what course this political simulator takes over the span of years--how players adapt to changing political situations and how norms develop within an internet community, under a set of rules that have more or less stayed constant throughout the game's history. But this view of "fun" is entirely personal and I don't expect anyone else to share it. But that's beside the point. On the other hand, it appears as if you are advocating that the alliances in power satiate your standard of fun. I believe that your definition of winning and expectation that alliances adhere to this cause is unrealistic and therefore your claim that the NPO has lost the game is largely superficial.

On your point of too much work = bad. The reality we live in is that those who work harder, put more effort and develop more skill at this game, will succeed and triumph over those who do not. They gain power, the "right" to play and mold the game in the way they see fit. The only thing that could change that is a change in the way this game is moderated OOC. Not really something to blame the NPO over; tell admin to create more incentives for war, or other forms of political conflict. You cannot change the nature of the beast.

Point two: NPO is too strong and efficient at deposing of competition. You're basically presenting the NPO with a catch-22 here; if they maintain their position by crushing rivals, they lose because they don't have any fun. If they allow enemies to rise up and crush them, they lose because they wouldn't exist. There are no rules in place that prevent alliances from wiping others out, so how can the NPO trust that an enemy will not do the same to them? A bipolar world will only last for so long, given that there is no real deterrence from two sides fighting to the very death (all pixels) until one victor emerges.

And your last point:

"This ties the two together. Because NPO strives for efficiency and the natural goal of being the best ever, they have no purpose except to maintain the greatness, have no desire except to keep the peace, and cannot truly achieve the purpose of the game because they are stuck on the natural ideas."

What alternatives of purpose are there for an alliance in this game? Maintaining the so-called Pax Pacifica is a pretty nice challenge to strive for. Yes, this involves a lot of organizational work and backroom diplomacy rather than war. But any fool can wage a war, wouldn't you say what Pacifica arguably has achieved is far more significant than what, in your world of fun, would amount to CN:TE?

tl;dr - I disagree with your fundamental assumption and consequently all of your following points. I also think you don't really prove anything, except that you're upset they haven't catered to your idea of fun. =\

[zigbigadorlou]

I'm not sure what OP was trying to accomplish other than to try to stir the hornet's nest, those stingers are hard to remove. Good luck.

One last note before

First: NPO has 3 people hitting me without a stated valid reason other than "we will destroy you"

Second: I knew it would be controversial, but that does not mean that it warrants ZI

Thirdly: I apologize if I was unclear. I suck at essays. I understand this. But I had to display the theology somehow and those that understood it and didn't critique the spelling and format seemed to agree with it. Well, as long as they weren't in NPO or Vox.

Forthly: No matter how much you attack, I refuse to retaliate. I will not allow you just reason to continue this stupid war.

[/transmission]

[Mogar]

I was hoping for something with more substance, but then I remember who OP is. Oh well

Leave my avatar alone.

You stole Mogar's avatar. Not cool. Now give it back.

No, mine has words, his doesnt.

I believe you're thinking of Mogar.

Also, OP made me lose the game. Not fair

Thanks for the love esau

Not this time.

good.

[OOC] My avatar declares war on Mogar's avatar. I rolled 20, your move Mogar.[/OOC]

I'm not sure what OP was trying to accomplish other than to try to stir the hornet's nest, those stingers are hard to remove. Good luck.

Edit: I can haz edukashun?

My avatar will win through sheer meth useage, and stirring the hornets nest can be entertaining.

[Emperor Whimsical]

While not quite as eloquent as Doitzel or NPO's writing, I see your point, and I liked how you didn't to coat in Rhetoric to justify it. Its just honest writing.

[Reason]

OOC: So... your justification for the entire basis of political power distribution in the game totally relies on it being 'a game'? How is this a simulator, then.

[zigbigadorlou]

First: a note that this philosophy is not neccessarilly NPO.

I find the game pretty fun as an observer.

Really, you are fairly rare. Taking a look at treaties and such is basically all that happens 98% of the time. Even so, you're way to win is similar to mine. In order to observe these changes, there must be some sort of change. Drama. Etc.

But this view of "fun" is entirely personal and I don't expect anyone else to share it.

MANY just within NPO do. Not directly, but the overarching idea is the same.

But that's beside the point. On the other hand, it appears as if you are advocating that the alliances in power satiate your standard of fun. I believe that your definition of winning and expectation that alliances adhere to this cause is unrealistic and therefore your claim that the NPO has lost the game is largely superficial.

I am not necessarily advocating they conform to my will. I am merely saying that the general policies ought to keep the maintenance of drama in mind. Also, the claim is mainly for shock value. I will admit this.

On your point of too much work = bad. The reality we live in is that those who work harder, put more effort and develop more skill at this game, will succeed and triumph over those who do not. They gain power, the "right" to play and mold the game in the way they see fit.

As I stated, this is not necessarily "succeeding". It's supposed to be, but isn't. Also as I said, the right to play and mold the game as they see fit is reserved for the very high ups. The lowers really see nothing of this other than the propaganda.

The only thing that could change that is a change in the way this game is moderated OOC. Not really something to blame the NPO over; tell admin to create more incentives for war, or other forms of political conflict. You cannot change the nature of the beast.

I can try to change the nature of the beast. In any case, I agree that things ought to be suggested, though what that would be is beyond me. Which is why I wrote this. The only way to change is to change IC actions.

Point two: NPO is too strong and efficient at deposing of competition. You're basically presenting the NPO with a catch-22 here; if they maintain their position by crushing rivals, they lose because they don't have any fun. If they allow enemies to rise up and crush them, they lose because they wouldn't exist.

They by no means have to be crushed. The point is to allow enemies that have legitimate power rather than resorting to making Vox.

There are no rules in place that prevent alliances from wiping others out, so how can the NPO trust that an enemy will not do the same to them? A bipolar world will only last for so long, given that there is no real deterrence from two sides fighting to the very death (all pixels) until one victor emerges.

In any case, this is the most interesting to watch and take part in. Its not necessarily losing that brings winning, but the ability to lose. There must be a fair antagonist for every great hero.

And your last point:

What alternatives of purpose are there for an alliance in this game? Maintaining the so-called Pax Pacifica is a pretty nice challenge to strive for. Yes, this involves a lot of organizational work and backroom diplomacy rather than war. But any fool can wage a war, wouldn't you say what Pacifica arguably has achieved is far more significant than what, in your world of fun, would amount to CN:TE?

As I was saying, Pax Pacifica is not something to be sought. You just need to look at their priv channel on the right day and you'll see "I want war" "WHy didn't we hit someone bigger?" etc. The problem lies not in the lack of a foolish war, but of interesting actions and drama. I do not really condone all out war, because that sucks. This game is designed for structuralism war and legitimate tactics. This game takes skill. I could be ratting on everyone else for not rising up and attacking, but I know they will never do that unless they follow this same sort of logic.

tl;dr - I disagree with your fundamental assumption and consequently all of your following points. I also think you don't really prove anything, except that you're upset they haven't catered to your idea of fun. =\

I will agree that my philosophy is not perfect, however the main idea remains.

the internet is SRS BSNS? no.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the intelligent critique. If/when I get out of war, fifty tech is coming your way.

[zigbigadorlou]

OOC: So... your justification for the entire basis of political power distribution in the game totally relies on it being 'a game'? How is this a simulator, then.

Nation simulator, game, same thing.

No practical difference.

[Reason]

Nation simulator, game, same thing.

No practical difference.

Yes, there is a difference. The purpose of cybernations is not just to play a game like the term 'game' brings some specific defintion of rules to the table, such as those you propose. In fact, a geo-political simulator ought to be exactly what the name implies: a simulation. A simulation is conducted by the actions of its partaking members, and these members take it as a serious political system. How do you intend to argue this is inherently wrong or confused?

[Epik High]

First: a note that this philosophy is not neccessarilly NPO.

Really, you are fairly rare. Taking a look at treaties and such is basically all that happens 98% of the time. Even so, you're way to win is similar to mine. In order to observe these changes, there must be some sort of change. Drama. Etc.

MANY just within NPO do. Not directly, but the overarching idea is the same. I am not necessarily advocating they conform to my will. I am merely saying that the general policies ought to keep the maintenance of drama in mind. Also, the claim is mainly for shock value. I will admit this.

As I stated, this is not necessarily "succeeding". It's supposed to be, but isn't. Also as I said, the right to play and mold the game as they see fit is reserved for the very high ups. The lowers really see nothing of this other than the propaganda.

I can try to change the nature of the beast. In any case, I agree that things ought to be suggested, though what that would be is beyond me. Which is why I wrote this. The only way to change is to change IC actions.

They by no means have to be crushed. The point is to allow enemies that have legitimate power rather than resorting to making Vox. In any case, this is the most interesting to watch and take part in. Its not necessarily losing that brings winning, but the ability to lose. There must be a fair antagonist for every great hero.

As I was saying, Pax Pacifica is not something to be sought. You just need to look at their priv channel on the right day and you'll see "I want war" "WHy didn't we hit someone bigger?" etc. The problem lies not in the lack of a foolish war, but of interesting actions and drama. I do not really condone all out war, because that sucks. This game is designed for structuralism war and legitimate tactics. This game takes skill. I could be ratting on everyone else for not rising up and attacking, but I know they will never do that unless they follow this same sort of logic.

I will agree that my philosophy is not perfect, however the main idea remains.

the internet is SRS BSNS? no.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the intelligent critique. If/when I get out of war, fifty tech is coming your way.

My points were mainly based on the current norms and structure of the game. Right now, the norm is for alliances to pummel to the death their foes. In much of history, the NPO has had an advantage in both technology and human capital (technology as in systems of communication/organization/strategy, and human capital as in they drew talent to their ranks). Combine that with the way the game operates (the war system, moderation rules on things like EZI) and this narrowly limits any mainstream definition of purpose to Pax _________. Maintain the peace. Accrue political capital. Grow.

But you're right, things change. In GWI the nature of peace terms were much more lenient than today, perhaps we will revert to this norm. As the ideas that are developed in NPO and other alliances disseminate into the general public (the idea of warchests, update blitzes, etc) the playing field gets more level. The problem I have with the statement that "NPO has lost the game" is that it simply is not true in today's world. They are winning, until the definition of victory changes in the future. I don't believe it has. I don't believe that posts on these forums have been particularly effective at changing the idea that enemies should be crushed, that people need to stop working so hard to bring peace, and rather bring about war. Was it the OWF that caused the change in peace terms from GWI - GWII? Was it the OWF that prompted NPO's alliance-building initiative? (pun intended)

That said, it would definitely be interesting to see whether a movement in OWF opinion results in substantive change on the issue of the hegemony. I don't think its wrong to either pursue change or maintain the status quo, good luck.

[HeinousOne]

Well, he definately got the jist of what goes on there in his time in the alliance. Wasting your time though attempting to bring change to them. The NPO is what it is because the majority of the members like it as it is. It is what the NPO is about. Many of the players enjoy putting in the work and seeing what comes out of it.

Yes it may be like a part time job but they seem to think the reward is worth it so good on them for that. The NPO is what it is.

[Daigan]

Not only NPO, but also every single one of you, have just lost the game.

I think thats the point he's trying to make.

[Griff]

The game? You just lost it

[Jason Salovsky]

But this view of "fun" is entirely personal and I don't expect anyone else to share it. But that's beside the point. On the other hand, it appears as if you are advocating that the alliances in power satiate your standard of fun. I believe that your definition of winning and expectation that alliances adhere to this cause is unrealistic and therefore your claim that the NPO has lost the game is largely superficial.

Point two: NPO is too strong and efficient at deposing of competition. You're basically presenting the NPO with a catch-22 here; if they maintain their position by crushing rivals, they lose because they don't have any fun. If they allow enemies to rise up and crush them, they lose because they wouldn't exist. There are no rules in place that prevent alliances from wiping others out, so how can the NPO trust that an enemy will not do the same to them? A bipolar world will only last for so long, given that there is no real deterrence from two sides fighting to the very death (all pixels) until one victor emerges.

I don't agree with the first bold, he has a point. While he may ultimately suck at essays, it has some truthfulness to it.

As for the second I totally agree. It's like being stuck "between a rock and a hard place".

One last note before

First: NPO has 3 people hitting me without a stated valid reason other than "we will destroy you"

Second: I knew it would be controversial, but that does not mean that it warrants ZI

Thirdly: I apologize if I was unclear. I suck at essays. I understand this. But I had to display the theology somehow and those that understood it and didn't critique the spelling and format seemed to agree with it. Well, as long as they weren't in NPO or Vox.

Forthly: No matter how much you attack, I refuse to retaliate. I will not allow you just reason to continue this stupid war.

This happened to me too. The beginnings of my hatred for NPO.

second: You are correct.

Overall, I don't usually post in this kinda stuff, but there's my two cents... I find this whole thing amusing and can't wait to see where it takes us all.

EDIT: quote mess-up...

Edited March 25, 2009 by Jason Salovsky

[jerdge]

I'd classify this essay as one of the best pieces of unintentional satire ever written. I also see some irony in the fact that the "overly serious" NPO would be attacking him for an OOC commentary (although I suspect that that has nothing to do with this thread, actually).

I anyway also feel some simpathy for you, zigbigadorlou, and I (think I) understand your perplexities. If you think you might need some diplomatic help, please PM me.

Edited March 25, 2009 by jerdge

[Beauty]

Who said I'm leaving?

This is a resignation from NPO, not the game.

Oh then nevermind, Have fun. Stay in game :-).

[Mogar]

I'd classify this essay as one of the best pieces of unintentional satire ever written. I also see some irony in the fact that the "overly serious" NPO would be attacking him for an OOC commentary (although I suspect that that has nothing to do with this thread, actually).

Officially, you're correct jerdge, he's being attacked for leaving NPO during an active war.

[Max Beck]

Forthly: No matter how much you attack, I refuse to retaliate. I will not allow you just reason to continue this stupid war

I always disliked when a target didn't want to fight back. If that's your style, carry on, but remember, a defeat message is also a way of losing you know? I'm just saying...

[OOC]

Whatever game you play, it can essentially be classified as work. The term "work" is more of an IC term, meaning you play the game and have fun by working IC. When you kill something in a game it doesn't make you a murdered, or does it?

[/OOC]

[Mongrel]

The daily alliance work can get pretty boring and monotonous wherever you go, Pacifica fails to be unique in that respect. Take some time off, and learn that you can enjoy yourself if you make it enjoyable.

Good luck with the NSO.

[jerdge]

I'd classify this essay as one of the best pieces of unintentional satire ever written. I also see some irony in the fact that the "overly serious" NPO would be attacking him for an OOC commentary (although I suspect that that has nothing to do with this thread, actually).

Officially, you're correct jerdge, he's being attacked for leaving NPO during an active war.

jerdge nods

In fact:

1. The NPO drove a perfectly coordinated attack on his Nation, starting only five minutes after this thread was published, with a second wave less than ten minutes later, and a third attack just after update (to execute the stagger). I was told that the NPO machine is good, but I daresay that even them can't organize that in five minutes.
   
2. Mary the Fantabulous already explained that the NPO has been aware of his leave for some (unspecified) time (he is charged to have been ghosting/exploiting the NPO AA after having applied to another alliance).
   
3. I can't recall a single case of a Nation attacked by the NPO for any post in any OOC forum.
   
4. I can instead very well recall that the NPO is officially at war, and that they have a policy that forbids to leave during a war (unless authorized, but this wasn't obviously the case).
   

[HeinousOne]

Officially, you're correct jerdge, he's being attacked for leaving NPO during an active war.

Obviously that war is not very taxing then.

[Chimaera]

It's a little ironic, I think, that after a post about how NPO has lost the game, they immediately begin to cause you to lose the game. I appreciate little things like that.

Now, onto the topic, which for some reason at its heart I believe deals with the necessity of parity in a game such as this: your goal is writing this whole essay-thing is somewhat correct, but mostly not correctly articulated. You spend all of your time dealing with how good they are, yet attempting to use that same IC logic for why they are losing, which is very Orwellian and paradoxical (which, again, I appreciate but is probably not useful for your argument).

Loathe them or love them, NPO and her rulers are very good at what they do. Have they gotten a few lucky breaks to get there? Absolutely, but then again everyone on top needs a little luck every now and then. Any alliance who eventually supplants them will need just as much luck and just as much talent. I've fought against them nearly as much as anyone remaining in this game, and I swear fighting Dilber is about as much fun as you can have in the game.

Sorry for that little tangent. Do I think NPO has won the game? No, absolutely not; this is a game that is constantly in a state of flux, being brought about by the dynamics and quirks of the personalities in charge of multiple alliances, as well as the convoluted backstage politics (which is, to be honest, the real bread-and-butter of CN) that keeps everyone around discussing when the next Great War will be. Then again, I don't think they're losing the game, either; while their situation is perhaps more tenuous than it was at the end of GW3 or the UJW due to their seemingly unstable allies across the game, they are still number 1 for a reason.

I do agree with you about fun, though. This is a game, and true "work", as we know it, isn't something that the majority of the 30,000 players are interested in. In every alliance, no matter how big or how small, there are a select few who do the vast majority of the work. NPO's pool is statistically much larger to draw on than everyone else's, especially considering they have many players who were working in their style of alliance for many years before Planet Bob was created.

Regardless, I'll end this little rant here. Good luck in CN.

[Jack Diorno]

Zig.. Zig, Zig Zig..

I actually came back from the dead when I saw this thread.

Just remember Zig.. There's a starman, waiting in the sky.. He'd like to come and meet us, but he thinks he'll blow our minds.

That man is me.. and together we become Ziggy Stardust.

*floats away*

[Woodrow]

Officially, you're correct jerdge, he's being attacked for leaving NPO during an active war.

jerdge nods

In fact:

1. The NPO drove a perfectly coordinated attack on his Nation, starting only five minutes after this thread was published, with a second wave less than ten minutes later, and a third attack just after update (to execute the stagger). I was told that the NPO machine is good, but I daresay that even them can't organize that in five minutes.
   
2. Mary the Fantabulous already explained that the NPO has been aware of his leave for some (unspecified) time (he is charged to have been ghosting/exploiting the NPO AA after having applied to another alliance).
   
3. I can't recall a single case of a Nation attacked by the NPO for any post in any OOC forum.
   
4. I can instead very well recall that the NPO is officially at war, and that they have a policy that forbids to leave during a war (unless authorized, but this wasn't obviously the case).
   

Yeah...someone just happened to stumble across his application, told us about it, and then when confronted about it, started a bunch of crap.

The thing is, as you said, we are at war. Noone is allowed to leave unless authorized by Moo(which has recently happened, so its not impossible.)

The huge problem with zig, is just last night he gets on and insults leadership of the alliance. His attitude was not one that fit well into the NPO culture. Believe it or not... we don't just sit in the private chan thinking about !@#$ to troll. Josef Thorne maybe.. but not so much us anymore. Just the other day he played one of his "trolling" games where he decided to prove to everyone that $%&@ was ok. But yeah... *we* lost the game.