Commonly Misunderstood

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

Recently I heard someone on IRC use the term "lulz alliance". It stuck me as odd, seeing as the phrase has more or less faded out of use. But then it got me thinking. The following chain of dangerous cause and effect resulted in this thread.

As I pondered about the decreased use of the "lulz alliance" label I remembered that the whole thing had started out more or less as a joke. The ol' "Don't be a lulz alliance or NPO/NpO/GGA will get you" humor pervaded the game after the events of the Unjust War. But had this label ever really caused anyone any harm? The natural conclusion was of course not, but upon looking deeper maybe the label wasn't so pure.

Take into account the original GOONS, perhaps where the roots of the term are based. Even after the war that resulted in them having been battered bruised, and eventually pushed to disbandment their name had come out more sour than it ever had before. The common GOONS had become more fact than humor. It can be said that it was only the actions of a few individuals before and during the war that helped paint this image but I believe there is more to it than this.

The reason that "lulz alliance" was used was to satirize those who felt threatened by these alliances. They were painted as wild, destructive, unpredictable. Having allies like this was dangerous, much less having them as enemies, so they were singled out as not following the rules; not bending to the norms of a civilized CyberNations. Lulz alliances were dangerous. A threat to all that took themselves seriously.

But back to my revelation on IRC. The term was used in regards to my own alliance, the Seaworthy Liberian Cardboard Boxes. Admittedly, we do take a looser approach to CyberNations than most. We enjoy it in different ways than most. Does that make it wrong? Does that make us a threat? The parallels are striking, especially in the situation SLCB finds itself on the purple sphere. A dangerous influence has invaded the purple senate my friends, the doom of the "lulz alliance".

Just because the term has faded from use does not mean the branding has not. Those that wish to play the game as they please are still treated with hostility. Adherence to the rules is irrelevant in this matter. Conformity or exile is still very much a part of the CyberNations community in these times. One must only look back to see the cost of this policy.

Edit: i r gud at spel

Edited October 28, 2009 by Magnum T. Gundraw

[A Soviet Attack]

We shall overcome!

[Commisar Gaunt]

Have you forgotten that fun is not allowed

[Erwin Schrodinger]

Keep speaking the truth, brother.

Why can't everyone just have fun?

Edited October 28, 2009 by E Schrodinger

[Ejayrazz]

Like most terminology, people use it without understanding the true meaning behind it.

Welcome to Cybernations, where terminology makes as much sense as Parish Hilton trying to sing.

[Corinan]

I've heard people call the New Sith Order a lulz alliance. This confuses the hell out of me.

[KillerKoel]

Let the lulz alliances overcome!

[Quinoa Rex]

Pardon me, sir, but I believe you're misunderstanding. CyberNations is serious business.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Just because the term has faded from use does not mean the branding has not. Those that wish to play the game as they please are still treated with hostility. Adherence to the rules is irrelevant in this matter. Conformity or exile is still very much a part of the CyberNations community in these times. One must only look back to see the cost of this policy.

Edit: i r gud at spel

So, you pride yourselves for doing things "a different way," then bemoan the fact that you're not accepted as a "normal" alliance? I see this in too many children today; if you're going to be "non-conformist," then don't cry when the other kids pick on you. It's illogical.

[lebubu]

As my comrades have already stated, this is not the place for your "fun". People need to learn to separate games from real life - actions in geopolitical simulators have, unlike in real life, serious consequences. Don't sit in tears in front of your laptop when you face them.

Edited October 28, 2009 by lebubu

[Kevin McDonald]

There's nothing wrong with having fun. There's nothing wrong with being a lulz alliance.

That said, SLCB isn't a lulz alliance for any reason you describe. You are a lulz alliance because you do silly, childlike things that are funny to outside observers. You insist on doing things your own way, and proceed to get petulant and throw tantrums when someone disagrees with your way. See purple senate. That's also funny to outside observers.

Do what you gotta do, guys. I've long since stopped getting annoyed over your antics, and have decided to try to give it to you as good as you give it, but spare us the feigned surprise at people who don't "get" you.

[New Frontier]

So, you pride yourselves for doing things "a different way," then bemoan the fact that you're not accepted as a "normal" alliance? I see this in too many children today; if you're going to be "non-conformist," then don't cry when the other kids pick on you. It's illogical.

This is essentially my view.

Sure, you can run your alliance however you want. But if you run your alliance in a lulzy manner, you're likely to be seen as a lulzy alliance.

[D34th]

lol pink

err...

[Ejayrazz]

There's nothing wrong with having fun. There's nothing wrong with being a lulz alliance.

That said, SLCB isn't a lulz alliance for any reason you describe. You are a lulz alliance because you do silly, childlike things that are funny to outside observers. You insist on doing things your own way, and proceed to get petulant and throw tantrums when someone disagrees with your way. See purple senate. That's also funny to outside observers.

I disagree.

NPO threw tantrums, they weren't considered Lulz.

GGA.

Valhalla at one point.

TPF at one point.

Should I really continue? Being silly and being lulz aren't the same. I guess every alliance pulling a stupid April fool joke is now considered lulzy alliances? The ops definition hits the nail on the head of its true meaning.

[Kevin McDonald]

I suppose it's all in how you define lulz...

[Balder]

I disagree.

NPO threw tantrums, they weren't considered Lulz.

GGA.

Valhalla at one point.

TPF at one point.

Should I really continue? Being silly and being lulz aren't the same. I guess every alliance pulling a stupid April fool joke is now considered lulzy alliances? The ops definition hits the nail on the head of its true meaning.

They're a completely different sort of tantrum, I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. As for the April fools joke part, that's also a pretty bad argument as well because I'm pretty damn sure (yup, I'm right) that Kevin pretty well inferred that it's SLCB's capability to cause !@#$storms in a less-than-professional manner that gives them the tack of "lulz." The op swings, then misses, then swings again and breaks his thumb.

[porksaber]

There's nothing wrong with having fun. There's nothing wrong with being a lulz alliance.

That said, SLCB isn't a lulz alliance for any reason you describe. You are a lulz alliance because you do silly, childlike things that are funny to outside observers. You insist on doing things your own way, and proceed to get petulant and throw tantrums when someone disagrees with your way. See purple senate. That's also funny to outside observers.

Do what you gotta do, guys. I've long since stopped getting annoyed over your antics, and have decided to try to give it to you as good as you give it, but spare us the feigned surprise at people who don't "get" you.

spoken like a real stupid chicken mcnugget dome.

[Ejayrazz]

They're a completely different sort of tantrum, I'm not sure how you can even compare the two. As for the April fools joke part, that's also a pretty bad argument as well because I'm pretty damn sure (yup, I'm right) that Kevin pretty well inferred that it's SLCB's capability to cause !@#$storms in a less-than-professional manner that gives them the tack of "lulz." The op swings, then misses, then swings again and breaks his thumb.

Ah, the whole swings and misses statement which does nothing at all when not prooven.

I am not hear defending his alliance, I am hear defending the title and how it relates to Kevin's definition.

And no, the tantrums are not different whatsoever. I have played this game for four years and the tantrums are actually very similar: Blowing things out of proportion, being complete hypocrites, and bawwwing.

How are they NOT the same? We don't see as many 'lulz' alliances. We see many alliances with different styles, but not necessarily the traditional 'lulz'. This is exactly my reasoning in practice; lulz is used too loosely towards those who, generally, use more of a humorous approach and 'have fun', which hardly exists anymore in this game.

Now we're speaking about professionalism, which for the most part many alliances within the Wut era (Particularly those IN Wut) had no professionalism whatsoever. This point is more than moot and isn't even worth arguing. This is in relation to the above examples I gave in my former post.

As Kevin stated, its down to ones own definition of Lulz. Mine agrees with the ops, whether you like his alliance or whether his is lulz I wont get into.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[New Frontier]

Ah, the whole swings and misses statement which does nothing at all when not prooven.

I am not hear defending his alliance, I am hear defending the title and how it relates to Kevin's definition.

And no, the tantrums are not different whatsoever. I have played this game for four years and the tantrums are actually very similar: Blowing things out of proportion, being complete hypocrites, and bawwwing.

How are they NOT the same? We don't see as many 'lulz' alliances. We see many alliances with different styles, but not necessarily the traditional 'lulz'. This is exactly my reasoning in practice; lulz is used too loosely towards those who, generally, use more of a humorous approach and 'have fun', which hardly exists anymore in this game.

Now we're speaking about professionalism, which for the most part many alliances within the Wut era (Particularly those IN Wut) had no professionalism whatsoever. This point is more than moot and isn't even worth arguing.

1. You have not played this game for 4 years.

2. To pretend there is no difference between srs bsns alliance tantrums and lulz alliance tantrums means you're either a fool, or trying to fool someone else.

[Kevin McDonald]

spoken like a real stupid chicken mcnugget dome.

I had your nickname for me in mind when I wrote my post.

I really should have know better than to waste time trying to define your alliance as you are the walking definition of it.

[LegendoftheSkies]

I've heard people call the New Sith Order a lulz alliance. This confuses the hell out of me.

See that's the issue with how the OP and other people define a "lulz" alliance. An alliance that will try to do things differently and challenge tradition cannot necessarily be considered a lulz alliance.

An alliance like NSO does things differently in a serious and honest attempt to make a statement and/or to try and change the way things are. I'd probably use the term "Progressive" to describe such an alliance

A "lulz" alliance does things differently, but in a more carefree manner. They don't really care if they change the world or make their mark on CN or not, they just want to do stuff, see what happens, and have fun with it. They are, in some cases, even willing to put having fun over their own alliance's well-being.

[Ejayrazz]

1. You have not played this game for 4 years.

2. To pretend there is no difference between srs bsns alliance tantrums and lulz alliance tantrums means you're either a fool, or trying to fool someone else.

1. Nearly.

2. Kevin's definition wasn't clear at all. "Tantrums", as he mentioned, has been seen even by those 'srs bsns' alliances. In a traditional sense, of course lulz and srs alliances tantrums are considered different, but not by how he defined it. As I said, his definition has been applied to the 'srs' alliances mentioned above, therefore it needs elaboration. /me facepalms

Keep going.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Kzoppistan]

Silly only becomes lulz when it threatens some one else's power.

I think there's two issues here, the first I mentioned ^. Consider the Rubber Ducky Division; you have to admit, that's a pretty silly concept, but in a benign and cute sort of way. Now compare that to the Stickmen-invade-purple declaration thread.

The other issue is the clash between playing styles and what people want to get from the game. Some people really enjoy playing the part of a nation leader, and subsequent roles of Minister, President, Dear Leader, ect. Those that do not adhere to such a serious stlye of play sort of wreck that illusion, perhaps that is part of why they do it.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[porksaber]

I had your nickname for me in mind when I wrote my post.

I really should have know better than to waste time trying to define your alliance as you are the walking definition of it.

dude, i've never had the pleasure of being in with a better bunch of folks then the ones in SLCB, and thats a fact. so, if i'm the "walking definition" of it, that's the highest compliment anyone could pay me in this game.

somehow you've decided to start a corporate-themed alliance and focus on all the boring parts of that structure after Magnum had all the fun with it. so, your hardly original, played out theme, combined with the fact that's its spawned from magnum and my own has-been past really indicates that you're secretly envious. it's ok. you're allowed to have fun here kevin. let it all out! say what you really feel...

and show us the real lulz

Edited October 28, 2009 by porksaber

[Stonewall Jaxon]

A "lulz" alliance does things differently, but in a more carefree manner. They don't really care if they change the world or make their mark on CN or not, they just want to do stuff, see what happens, and have fun with it. They are, in some cases, even willing to put having fun over their own alliance's well-being.

Exactly. I've always used the high school social system to define CN players, and SLCB is the kid who "rebels" and does all of the other "non-conformist" things because he thinks being a "non-conformist" is cool, and being one will make people like him. Sure, he may look like he's a rebel and doesn't care about the opinions of others, but everybody laughs at him when he turns his head around and goes "why doesn't anybody love me for saying I don't care what they think?"

My point is that CN has taken a "pro-lulz" stance in recent months, so SLCB is acting carefree and lulzy, but it's ruined by the fact that they are actually serious about their lulz. "Why can't I be accepted? I'm a rebel!"

somehow you've decided to start a corporate-themed alliance and focus on all the boring parts of that structure after Magnum had all the fun with it.

Incorrect from the get-go there, buddy. We started out to create a respectable alliance. We had everything planned out in one all-nighter, and in the morning realized that the name was also due. The Corporate theme in no way defines the Corporation, and, to be honest, I don't care if some lame band of "lulz" players think they have some form of ownership over the word "Corporation."

Edited October 28, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon