porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) 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." Wow! Planning deadlines and stuff for things as important as alliance names and carrying out all-nighters to bring such an honest hard-working alliance together. This IS serious business! "The Corporation" - it's unoriginal, uninspired, and well, unfun. I give it B-/C+. If you're enjoying it, run with it! keep it up! but: "lame band of "lulz" players" = A+++++++++ SOLID GOLD NEXT LEVEL MIND BLOWN Edited October 28, 2009 by porksaber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) Wow! Planning deadlines and stuff for things as important as alliance names and carrying out all-nighters to bring such an honest hard-working alliance together. This IS serious business! It was a short analogy, continuing with my recurring high school theme in this topic. I figured you, with your appreciation of lulz, would appreciate the attempt at meaningful humor. Again, my point about following "non-conformist" trends, regardless of how you truly wish to behave, comes to mind. Edit to counter your edit: "The Corporation" - it's unoriginal, uninspired, and well, unfun. Perhaps you misunderstand how I personally like to view this game we play. How many times have you played Mario, or whatever kids play these days, and just jacked around the map until your lives ran out, just so nobody could accuse you of taking the game seriously? In a game, the fun should come from striving for success, and taking it "too seriously" would be defined (at least by me, that is) as when it ceases to become a game and actually intrudes into your real-life. Playing a game with success in mind doesn't mean you take it seriously, just that you're not so self-conscious that you refuse to exert an actual effort. You remind me of the kid in gym class who, whenever he would get the basketball, would try to shoot it in a disinterested manner, yet, when he would not make it, would quietly wish he had made it so that he could impress his friends. In an unrealted topic, CN is more like high school than I could have ever imagined. Edited October 28, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Its ok Magz, your Cardboad boxes are top notch quality and fine by me, even if they are not made in USA and you use them to drift from island to island. o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 What you all know as "fun" is the most serious threat this community has ever faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Perhaps you misunderstand how I personally like to view this game we play. no, not really. I just don't care. How many times have you played Mario, or whatever kids play these days, and just jacked around the map until your lives ran out, just so nobody could accuse you of taking the game seriously? i've never done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 lulz alliance - n. An alliance that is organized strictly for fun. The hallmarks of a pure lulz alliance include a loosely organized government (sometimes even no government), a general disregard for the conventions of traditional alliances (e.g. formal admissions process, formal aid to member nations, military units, etc.), "stunting" in public forums for attention or simple comic effect, and only a very loose sense of role play when it comes to the game (frequent references to "the game", other "players", etc.). Raiding of other nations for purely for fun or alleviate boredom is a common activity. The opposite of a "serious business" (sometimes: 'srs bns') alliance. Note that pure lulz alliances rarely exist, just as purely srs bns alliances rarely exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 no, not really. I just don't care. Of course you don't. I'm surprised you didn't grade that post. Fake indifference, a classic for the outcasted high schooler. i've never done that. Why? Is it because you take Mario too seriously, or because you actually have ore fun trying to get past the evil mushrooms rather than goofing around and losing your lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 As someone who believes heavily in the concept and discriminates accordingly, I do not believe you have the slightest understanding of the expression in the manner I would use it, have used it and will continue to use it until the end of time. Perhaps you should seek a proper definition in context as it has nothing at all to do with tantrums, real or imagined, nothing to do with bawing over any issue and a lot to do with the outlook of an alliance and the types of behaviors they routinely tolerate in their forum presence, their IRC channels and their general persona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 As UberSpion once said... The Lulvolution is upon us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 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. Uh no. That's just stupid. "HEY THAT GUY HAS A DIFFERENT CULTURE THAN MINE I SHOULD KILL HIM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louisa Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 To counterfeit a phrase, They will never get you boxes at the [slcb] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lulz alliance - n. An alliance that is organized strictly for fun. The hallmarks of a pure lulz alliance include a loosely organized government (sometimes even no government), a general disregard for the conventions of traditional alliances (e.g. formal admissions process, formal aid to member nations, military units, etc.), "stunting" in public forums for attention or simple comic effect, and only a very loose sense of role play when it comes to the game (frequent references to "the game", other "players", etc.). Raiding of other nations for purely for fun or alleviate boredom is a common activity. The opposite of a "serious business" (sometimes: 'srs bns') alliance.Note that pure lulz alliances rarely exist, just as purely srs bns alliances rarely exist. oh dear I am virtually a "lulz Alliance" myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Lulz alliances are alliances that do funny and sometimes borderline suicidal things dont care of the consequences. Bel Air for example, those guys are bad $@! mothas. They have come so many times to being rolled its not even countable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Amazing how most of the critiques of SLCB in this thread came from people who know nothing about how SLCB operates. We pride ourselves in being a well run, efficient, smart, and active alliance. If we were taking the "we don't care about the game" approach, do you really think we'd still be here now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) 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 You do make a lot of good points. My problem with you is that you prefer to be annoying, to spam IRC chans with nonsense and to query people with nonsense. As you've more or less admitted to me: that is the character you've chosen as you like to push buttons. That's frustrating, and whether you like it or not it does reflect on the alliance you are a part of. Just as those of you reading my posts in this thread and disagreeing with them are probably going "wow... that Corporation is filled with a bunch of idiots." I strongly feel, again, barring better definition from the OP, that SLCB is a lulz alliance precisely because it does try to be silly, and annoying and cause trouble. Again, see purple senate. Also, to your point about me starting this because of the Corporate theme. That is incorrect. My issues with CSB and you began long before The Corporation was an idea. The way you handled yourself on IRC, the forums, and in various channels giving alliances a hard time because they chose a path different than the one you were choosing, are the reasons I began to dislike you. Also, maybe I remind you that you fired the first shot in the Corp vs. CSB nonsense, with your claims of copyright infringement (which, admittedly, was funny and if it was a stand alone incident I likely would have laughed along with you.) Edit: Fail typo Edited October 28, 2009 by Kevin McDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnegafan Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 SLCB is the most alliancy alliance I've ever been in. The most (percentage wise) organized and active alliancy alliance. Certainly not a lulzy alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtCobain Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 i'd just like to congratulate porksaber on his recent recognition, good job good sir. keep being that positive role model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Wait, are people down on you because you're just out to have fun, or because you're out to intentionally tick people off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 In my mind, you have to earn the title 'lulz alliance'. Once one of these alliances lures a bigger alliance into attacking them or simply initiates a totally lop-sided conflict, then they have earned the title. Most lulz alliances these days talk lulz but fail to deliver imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I don't consider SLCB a lulz alliance. That said, SlolCB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Wait, are people down on you because you're just out to have fun, or because you're out to intentionally tick people off? Because they're out to intentionally tick people off. And not all of them, just certain ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Because they're out to intentionally tick people off. And not all of them, just certain ones. Wait, but I thought I was the "walking example" of my alliance? Aren't you going off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Wait, but I thought I was the "walking example" of my alliance? Aren't you going off topic? Not off topic... being inconsistent in my message perhaps. But, I conceded that point to you after your well written post last night. So no, you're not the walking example of your alliance. You do, however, have to expect that some people who disagree with your methods or actions might paint all of SLCB with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 An attitude of, "screw you guys, we're gonna do it our way!" is not being a lolzy alliance. It's a failure of diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Not off topic... being inconsistent in my message perhaps.But, I conceded that point to you after your well written post last night. So no, you're not the walking example of your alliance. You do, however, have to expect that some people who disagree with your methods or actions might paint all of SLCB with the same brush. Well, close minded ones might. For example, I met a *insert adjective* person once and they were rude to me. Therefore I can only assume that all *insert same adjective* people are rude. They have a name for this phenomenon you know, and you're demonstrating it to a T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Well, close minded ones might. For example, I met a *insert adjective* person once and they were rude to me. Therefore I can only assume that all *insert same adjective* people are rude. They have a name for this phenomenon you know, and you're demonstrating it to a T. Stereotyping? Well, it's only fair to assume that all members of the same alliance have something in common besides an AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts