King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 OWF is best at tracking the loudest, not necessarily the correct, positions of alliances. For example those in favour of exterminating the NPO are the loudest, and angriest, and feel the need to share their hatred. Those of us who do not have the same level of enthusiasm do not feel the need to say so quite as often. I'd take that a bit further and say that this means of communication are good for tracking the loudest of individuals. It's not uncommon to find a particular person scream the loudest and most tenaciously about a matter that their alliance has a much different opinion on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 OWF is best at tracking the loudest, not necessarily the correct, positions of alliances. For example those in favour of exterminating the NPO are the loudest, and angriest, and feel the need to share their hatred. Those of us who do not have the same level of enthusiasm do not feel the need to say so quite as often. ... Thanks for helping my point? I'm not sure what you are getting at. It was a jab at the thought that all Echelon nations had fought in the war to some capacity, and this is the second time you quoted me with a nonsense retort without refuting what I said. You should probably interject some content any time now. It doesn't have to be popular, just make it something. Because what you said made no sense. I will begin to insert content once you start making some sense in your posts. Saying "No one left, Echelon lost 5m NS by fighting" makes ZERO sense and you look silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Because what you said made no sense. I will begin to insert content once you start making some sense in your posts. Saying "No one left, Echelon lost 5m NS by fighting" makes ZERO sense and you look silly. Whatever man, you keep on keepin' on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ...Thanks for helping my point? I'm not sure what you are getting at. That the largest of the loudmouths aren't political trends. They're loudmouths doing what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That the largest of the loudmouths aren't political trends. They're loudmouths doing what they do. Right, and the most repetitive posters should typically be ignored when surveying the OWF for general opinion. You cannot merely look at one poster here, and another poster there, to determine the political movements. You have to look at general trends. I'm sorry if that got lost somewhere. Obviously Halfinger, myself, and others don't necessarily always depict the popular political trends. However, it's everyone else. Those who post sometimes and not others, the over all response to a thread or topic, etc. That's how you deduce trends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Right, and the most repetitive posters should typically be ignored when surveying the OWF for general opinion.You cannot merely look at one poster here, and another poster there, to determine the political movements. You have to look at general trends. I'm sorry if that got lost somewhere. Obviously Halfinger, myself, and others don't necessarily always depict the popular political trends. However, it's everyone else. Those who post sometimes and not others, the over all response to a thread or topic, etc. That's how you deduce trends. I'd actually say you deduce political trends by observing what alliances are doing and not what individuals are screaming. Lord knows if I were the sole person running an alliance, about the last place I'd look to for advice and ideas would be here. You can say what you wish about individual crusades on the OWF, it's only when it becomes a discussion at the alliance membership level does any idea begin to gain traction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'd actually say you deduce political trends by observing what alliances are doing and not what individuals are screaming. Lord knows if I were the sole person running an alliance, about the last place I'd look to for advice and ideas would be here. You can say what you wish about individual crusades on the OWF, it's only when it becomes a discussion at the alliance membership level does any idea begin to gain traction. Right, the trends on the forum have little effect on non-democratic alliances. I think, still, that the insight on popular opinion does impact even those alliances. The sociology of Planet Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 forcible removal of government members sucks Actually, NPO did it to Legion after GW3. They had the leader (His name eludes me) and founder (Great Britain) kicked and Perma ZI'd if I recall correctly which I'm 100% sure I do. I'm not defending anyone's removal mind you nor protecting a stance, just pointing out a fact that seems to have been long forgotten... Oh and this is my last post in this thread as I am growing tired of the incessant bickering, so wasting your time replying to what I just said is just that, a waste of YOUR time, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Right, the trends on the forum have little effect on non-democratic alliances. I think, still, that the insight on popular opinion does impact even those alliances. The sociology of Planet Bob. If *any* alliance tried to use the political trends seen here as an internal barometer on how to conduct their affairs, we'd see about 9001% more alliance civil wars from sheer sycophantic behavior. If a group of people come toghether as an alliance, 9 times out of 10 they already know what they want to do and how they want to do it. Changing behavior at the drop of a hat simply because it's the trendy thing to do here will guarantee that your alliance has no identity of it's own. I'd go so far as to say that successful alliances tend to ignore the bulk of what goes on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendale Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Disgraceful! Karma has obviously become what they were fighting...it's not enough to decimate and obliterate an alliance they need to PERMANENTLY step on them with overwhelming reps and hogtie them by not allowing the smaller nations to help pay the reps. This will take them years with only 26 nations over 1000 tech who can help pay it off. And to ban someone from EVER holding office! Ridiculous! KARMA whatever you thought you were, YOU ARE NOT, nor ever will be! Edited July 6, 2009 by BenDale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 If *any* alliance tried to use the political trends seen here as an internal barometer on how to conduct their affairs, we'd see about 9001% more alliance civil wars from sheer sycophantic behavior. If a group of people come toghether as an alliance, 9 times out of 10 they already know what they want to do and how they want to do it. Changing behavior at the drop of a hat simply because it's the trendy thing to do here will guarantee that your alliance has no identity of it's own. I'd go so far as to say that successful alliances tend to ignore the bulk of what goes on here. I think you're taking it too far. I'm not recommending using the OWF as a metric on which sunglasses to wear. I'm stating it can be used to determine political trends. For instance...everyone should have seen this war coming months in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I think you're taking it too far. I'm not recommending using the OWF as a metric on which sunglasses to wear. I'm stating it can be used to determine political trends. For instance...everyone should have seen this war coming months in advance. While that has some truth to it, anyone paying attention to their alliance boards would have had an additional few months warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Disgraceful!Karma has obviously become what they were fighting...it's not enough to decimate and obliterate an alliance they need to PERMANENTLY step on them with overwhelming reps and hogtie them by not allowing the smaller nations to help pay the reps. This will take them years with only 26 nations over 1000 tech who can help pay it off. And to ban someone from EVER holding office! Ridiculous! KARMA whatever you thought you were, YOU ARE NOT, nor ever will be! Eh, if it takes them longer than three months then maybe they do need a viceroy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) EDIT: You know, I really wish some of you (GOD/MA) would take a step back and realize how arrogant you are acting right now. This is all going to come back and bite you, yet you don't even seem to realize it. Speak for yourself, about arrogance. We may be arrogant, but at least we have the decency of not going around telling others how they have to rule their affairs and then calling them arrogants for not agreeing to our dogmas. It's a bit tiresome to arge with you, idealistic people. And by idealistic, I mean people that see and judge things in black and white morality and who think that there is an utopian status quo that can be achieved and mantained forever. I mean all that crap about "breaking the cycle" and "bringing a new era to Planet Bob". Planet Bob is inhabited by individuals, wich in turn form alliances, each one with their own personalities, interests and all that. And that means it's inevitable that interests will clash, and those contradictions will be resolved, one way or another. That's how things work, and if you want to build something reasonably viable, you better start by accepting how things really work. And not persist to think they work in the idealistic way you like to think they work or can work. I have to give credit to the NPO for one thing. They did this, they acknowelded how things work, and that's why they managed to build a system that has worked for quite a good amount of time. But nothing lasts forever. One of the things you notice when you read about all the utopian societies that have been proposed, is that all of them assume that a perfect equilibrium can be achieved and History can be stopped. But that, of course, leads to stagnation. Change is necessary in order to mantain things alive. For Planet Bob, achieving a perfect equilibrium would mean Game Over. This Great War is going to bring a big change to Planet Bob. But that change, luckly, is not that now we are all nice friends and there will be no more wars or conflict and we all will fusion in one big Twinkie Winkie group hug. I say "luckly" because that would mean rapid decay, loss of interest in the game and it being shutted down. The big change here is that international affairs in Planet Bob are going to evolve from an one-sided model, in wich an Hegemony held the monopoly to rule things, and those dissaproving were bound to destruction, to a one more multi-polar system that, frankly, will not be perfect, but will be much more fair. And not a few words about this Peace Agreement and how GOD, MA et alt. have acted. We analized our position and we came to the conclussion that enforcing those peace terms were the best course of action. You don't like it, I respect your opinion, but this is not your decission to take. It's ours. We are the ones to be affected by this decission so we are the ones to decide about our destiny. And it's quite arrogant from you to assume we are inmmature and have not taken this decission knowing the costs and the consequences. We know. Just like some months ago Echelon took the decission to support NPO and they, I suppose, were well aware of the impact it would have on their integrity. Taking decissions, taking risks, or avoiding them. But being aware of the price and the possible outcomes. And accepting them. That's what maturity is about. No place to assume a risk, lose, and whine later. I'm not seeing the Echelonians whining in this thread, wich means they knew what was in the lot and accepted it. Two thumbs up for them. If we are to fight you again in the future, hope we all have a good time again. And yes, given enough time, probably many or all the today-victorious alliances will dissapear. I don't know if they will dissapear out of stagnation and boredom, or will be brought down by another newer, fresher group of alliances. But I know two things: It will not happen tomorrow. And it will not happen at the hands of Echelon. That's all. Sorry for the rant, and for any bits of OOC that have splint away. Edited July 7, 2009 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 But I know two things: It will not happen tomorrow. And it will not happen at the hands of Echelon. Well that's good, because Echelon was definitely a powerhouse that dominated the world by itself. Other than that I really enjoyed your post. It was very well put together. Thanks for the considerable amount of time that took to write, it definitely helped me to understand where you are coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 as GFL already said, R&R was declared on in spirit, but no wars were waged against R&R.as for the terms? these terms were offered to echelon before they started bleeding members and when they had a total of over 150k tech. They didn't take them then, they took them now. huh well do the have a total of 150k tech or more now ?, no I really don't think so, please don't try to justify these reps, even if they were all active 67 nations are going to have one hell of a time repaying these reps. by the way, I am not a fan of echelon, never was but slapping this heavy of reps on an allience after a 2 and a half month long war is wrong. huh, but words only say so much in fact I think I'll join echelon just because they will need help /OOC this is a game after all, just because I was at war with them, does not mean I hate them/OOC p.s this is not for pr or to look good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Disgraceful!Karma has obviously become what they were fighting...it's not enough to decimate and obliterate an alliance they need to PERMANENTLY step on them with overwhelming reps and hogtie them by not allowing the smaller nations to help pay the reps. This will take them years with only 26 nations over 1000 tech who can help pay it off. And to ban someone from EVER holding office! Ridiculous! KARMA whatever you thought you were, YOU ARE NOT, nor ever will be! I honestly hope this was sarcastic, because Karma isn't represented by few, it's a massive coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) huh well do the have a total of 150k tech or more now ?, no I really don't think so, please don't try to justify these reps, even if they were all active 67 nations are going to have one hell of a time repaying these reps Next time don't wait until you're a fraction of what you used to be before accepting terms. Don't whine to us because your opponents had a stronger will than you did. You signed the terms, you live with them. Edit: Realized the poster isn't from Echelon. Point still stands, but replace "you" with "they" Edited July 7, 2009 by Seerow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 huh, but words only say so much in fact I think I'll join echelon just because they will need help If you're not over 1k tech don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Next time don't wait until you're a fraction of what you used to be before accepting terms. Don't whine to us because your opponents had a stronger will than you did. You signed the terms, you live with them.Edit: Realized the poster isn't from Echelon. Point still stands, but replace "you" with "they" You accepted the terms from NPO last year. Does this make those terms okay? After all, MK signed them. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You accepted the terms from NPO last year. Does this make those terms okay? After all, MK signed them.-Bama MK had no problem paying it off. They weren't happy about it, but they couldn't complain, as they didn't expect terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omfghi2u2 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I didnt know Echelon started the war. And here I thought it was NPO the whole time. PS I am not gonna read 34 pages to see if this was already debated or not which I am pretty sure it has. -omfg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 If you're not over 1k tech don't bother. 5k infra and I make over 6 mil a day I can buy my own tech (considering the circumstances) besides I have over 1k tech anyways, I am very much aware of what I am doing and have already decomissioned most of my military. also, I'm aware of what they did in the past, alliances change, especially after being pummeled to an oblivion, but as always if I am, in the future proven wrong then I'll admit it until then,good day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 5k infra and I make over 6 mil a day I can buy my own tech (considering the circumstances) besides I have over 1k tech anyways, I am very much aware of what I am doing and have already decomissioned most of my military.also, I'm aware of what they did in the past, alliances change, especially after being pummeled to an oblivion, but as always if I am, in the future proven wrong then I'll admit it until then,good day I have to say, props to you if follow through with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 MK had no problem paying it off. They weren't happy about it, but they couldn't complain, as they didn't expect terms. So the terms were okay, and NPO was right to give them? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.