porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Stereotyping? Well, it's only fair to assume that all members of the same alliance have something in common besides an AA. We all enjoy pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtCobain Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 'tiz true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnegafan Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I must come out and say it. magnum and porksaber are lulzy alliance members. I'm not even sure they have nations or know what CN is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnegafan Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 btw Y on porno. All types Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 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. TBQFH this is exactly what you're doing ITT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimmerwald1915 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 btw Y on porno. All types who not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtCobain Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 needs to be added to the SLCB application Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Uh no. That's just stupid. "HEY THAT GUY HAS A DIFFERENT CULTURE THAN MINE I SHOULD KILL HIM" You clearly misunderstand. I'm not saying that we should kill "non-conforming" alliances, but rather that they should not complain when the path they choose isn't respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il 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. How is that a failure in diplomacy? If you refuse to do some idiotic tradition or work with morons you aren't failing at diplomacy, you are ridding yourself of something useless. A lot of alliances view their FA direction in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 No one's mentioned Bel Air? I'm touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Smith Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 we don't like your kind on spheres that matter. move to pink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 TBQFH this is exactly what you're doing ITT. I have tried to conduct myself professionally in this thread, and tried to give what I felt was clear rationale for the opinions I've given. I've refrained from name calling, and haven't spammed or gone "lol SLCB" or "lol porksaber" or lol anything. I certainly haven't called anyone a chicken mcnugget dome, or any other kind of odd nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 No one's mentioned Bel Air? I'm touched. lrn2read, Druss. Also, I am in shock there isn't more stupidity in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 lol SLCB That's low, Kevin. Really really low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnegafan Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I can't imagine a worse situation than some alliance dissolving and the farewell thread being filled with posts such as, "well, I quite respected them, they were a very serious bunch" and "the decorum and gravitas they brought to CN will be missed" and "I always admired their appreciation of going through the proper channels" and "Today we lose a beloved bureaucracy" and "true purveyors of protocol" and "They were a group who truly loved pretending to be actual world leaders" and "hail the no-lulz alliance" and ummm well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 No one's mentioned Bel Air? I'm touched. Pink/Bel Air just isn't as "lulz" as they used to be, you need something original. Go protest about your senate elections not being fair, oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I can't imagine a worse situation than some alliance dissolving and the farewell thread being filled with posts such as, "well, I quite respected them, they were a very serious bunch" and "the decorum and gravitas they brought to CN will be missed" and "I always admired their appreciation of going through the proper channels" and "Today we lose a beloved bureaucracy" and "true purveyors of protocol" and "They were a group who truly loved pretending to be actual world leaders" and "hail the no-lulz alliance" and ummm well... Or "sorry to see them go, they were quite respectable" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Have you forgotten that fun is not allowed Indeed. Laughing, too, was outlawed by the Moldavi Act of 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The term lulzy originated from /b/ . The concept was simply reinforced by alliances like \m/ , GOONS and a few other alliances of similar ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Our Senate Elections are Rigged. Vote Druss the Legend for a free pink senate. amidoinitrite SLCB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) How is that a failure in diplomacy? If you refuse to do some idiotic tradition or work with morons you aren't failing at diplomacy, you are ridding yourself of something useless. A lot of alliances view their FA direction in this way. Establishing a line of communication with another alliance, however moronic they may or may not be, is diplomacy. When a dumb, noobie alliance makes a mistake and tries to declare war on a larger alliance way out of their league, diplomacy typically comes first. Now, you're right, they have the right to decide on what their FA direction should be, but if they do not even try to attempt to communicate with others, then they shouldn't be surprised if they piss some people off. However, that wasn't quite my point, and I'd rather not quibble about definitions. My point was that a "lolzy" alliance is more about how they perform their actions, not what actions are they doing. For instance, RIA and Fark are lolzy alliances, yet I would put them in a whole different category from SLCB or iFok because they do different actions, even if in the same manner. On the other hand, if you try to do things in your neighborhood (like, say, elect a senator of your choosing) without meaningful discussion with your neighbors, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be tension, regardless of whether or not the parties in question are "lolzy." The OP therefore is missing the larger point, which is people won't like you if you don't try to communicate with others on some level while still do things that might upset them. We've seen lol alliances in every major bloc pretty much and with every political affiliation. Hiding behind the title of, "Oh, we're a lolzy alliance, we just like to have fun" should not be a substitute for actually taking responsibility for one's actions. Edited October 29, 2009 by Ferrous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) It's obviously a cultural phenomenon, the difference between the lolz alliances and the serious alliances, I guess. I'd begin my using the "I have piles of black friends" argument and say there are a lot of alliances that fit my definition of lulzy that I really like, namely MK and Fark. But what it comes down to, I think, is the nature of rhetoric within the alliance, and then how that image projects onto the forums. Ultimately, I think the fundamental difference between alliance like yours and an alliance like mine is that yours is far more rooted in internet culture than mine is. An alliance from Fark, SomethingAwful, LUELinks, or 4Chan is by nature going to be what the CN Community calls lulzy because they're the largest communities from which this culture emanates (I know I am generalizing these communities, and that they have a lot of detailed differences. In the end, however, it is their similarities that are important in this discussion, not their differences). An alliance obviously does not need direct affiliation with any of these or other humor based internet communities, but I think the connection firmly establishes the culture. Of course, based on some of the posts in this thread, I am not sure my definition of lulzy complies with Magum's. I consider Fark to be lulzy, even though their government, in all of my experiences with them, has been extremely mature and responsible, and if their names were stripped of them one might mistake them for STA or TOP leadership. Ideas from the internet though, memes, cultural phenomena, games, and pornography find their way onto the Fark boards far more readily than they do the Polar boards. It is this ease of fluidity between the community of the alliance and the internet humor communities that ultimately breeds the difference. I know of some Polars that are /b/tards, some goons, and one or two farkers, but most members of Polar don't have membership in one of these or a similar community (heh, ebaumsworld), whereas I would reckon most of your members do. I think there might also be a fundamental difference in intent, although I am unable to draw a model with universal applicability, as some alliances slip through the cracks in the end. Alliances like Polaris, STA, IRON...these are institutions that were created exclusively to play this game, and that utility is the most important in the culture. Success and honor are most important at least to us. I confess I do not know much about your alliance, but you seem like a group of people that know each other pretty well, and I do not mean to presume your intent, it seems more like you just kind of joined together to hang out and have fun while playing the game. This is a characteristic I definitely saw in the culture of \m/, that although it was not the initial reason for the alliance, it was why it attracted so many members that had so much in common, I think. Of course, MK slips in between these, as an alliance founded to succeed in this game, as they are obviously doing, and yet one with, if not a majority lulz culture, a serious lullz population. They (and probably others) break this model, so I would consider the ideas in the paragraph of only potential applicability. edit: lost a preposition somewhere in there Edited October 29, 2009 by Proko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnegafan Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 The OP therefore is missing the larger point,... Hiding behind the title of, "Oh, we're a lolzy alliance, we just like to have fun" should not be a substitute for actually taking responsibility for one's actions. This is missing the point. The original post is declaring that the term lolzy alliance is unfair, and such a label writes an alliance off simply because they break a tiny bit from the CN norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) The use of the word "lolzy" in this thread disgusts me. As the leader of the most respectable alliance to ever grace CN, I find such "lulz alliances" to be quite unnecessary. Edited October 29, 2009 by King Xander the Only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Of course, based on some of the posts in this thread, I am not sure my definition of lulzy complies with Magum's. I consider Fark to be lulzy, even though their government, in all of my experiences with them, has been extremely mature and responsible, and if their names were stripped of them one might mistake them for STA or TOP leadership. Does this mean I'm all srs bzns? Why can't Fark be compared to those uptight people over at Gremlins and TOP be the fun lulz alliance? Also yes, you know how we like to bring every thread imaginable back to being all about TOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts