steodonn Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Because that's the truth You cant be serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 The CB comes after people have decided they want to attack someone and all the major CBs suck I miss the days when because we felt like it was still usable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 How about a three way war? No one has ever done one of those before. That actually seems really interesting, and there's no love lost between TMF and Bel Air. You guys are invited too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Because that's the truth Uh, not it's not, on so many levels. The FIRST Vox Populi is not in my areas of knowledge to a great extent. I do know it was Martens and Starfox, and they were going to merge with Purge and have a new name. And then RV joined, stole aid, and to get off the hook he dumped doctored/selectively-clipped logs to show Vox I as an anti-NPO alliance building an anti-NPO coalition with FAN, Browncoats, Purge, etc. It was in one of his first famous troll-a-thon threads: "Rebel Virginia vs. The Vox Populi Collection Agency" and as MoD of Purge it was a nightmare. The Vox Populi of fame which was founded in August 08 as an 11-man OWF troll all-star team in response to the noCB War was never for one second pro-NPO, it could not have been "pro-NPO until RV and Doitzel joined" (emphasis mine) because RV and Doitzel joined at the same time that everyone else joined. You can argue Starfox's motves, efficacy, etc, but you can't just make crap up and be so utterly wrong. Edited November 28, 2009 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Because that's the truth As someone who was there until the third or fourth day after it's creation, I can tell you that Vox was never pro NPO. The fact that you are trying to argue that it was, makes me question if you know anything about this game at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Because that's the truth Are we talking about the same Vox Populi? If you're talking about first, Starfox, while he did not want to fight the NPO did not want to support it either, and wanted Vox to be independent. I on the other hand pushed for a coalition. The second Vox, however, was anti-NPO from the start. It was a group of eleven haters. Simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Are we talking about the same Vox Populi? If you're talking about first, Starfox, while he did not want to fight the NPO did not want to support it either, and wanted Vox to be independent. I on the other hand pushed for a coalition. The second Vox, however, was anti-NPO from the start. It was a group of eleven haters. Simple as that. I agree. The second Vox was very different than the first. The original had actual plans of operating diplomatically and coexisting with most of the cyber-sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I agree. The second Vox was very different than the first. The original had actual plans of operating diplomatically and coexisting with most of the cyber-sphere. You were incorrect regardless of which one you're talking about. Doitzel never joined the first one, the second one was never pro-NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I agree. The second Vox was very different than the first. The original had actual plans of operating diplomatically and coexisting with most of the cyber-sphere. But we're not discussing the first, which is for the most part a forgotten alliance these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Cousteau Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Well written Starfox. I think this completely sums up my feelings on the subject. Most of us were in the same mindset as you throughout the past year and a half. I don't regret supporting you in your efforts at all, but it looks like some of the negative side effects are shining through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 But we're not discussing the first, which is for the most part a forgotten alliance these days. Ah... I was talking about the the alliance on a whole, but my specific points were about the original (which to my recollection did not last very long) Sorry for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I agree. The second Vox was very different than the first. The original had actual plans of operating diplomatically and coexisting with most of the cyber-sphere. The second alliance, read the OP, was more of a movement. They had spy rings and had the intentions of toppling the hegemony from the inside. It had no desire to enter the politics of CN rather to alter the landscape instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 The second alliance, read the OP, was more of a movement. They had spy rings and had the intentions of toppling the hegemony from the inside. It had no desire to enter the politics of CN rather to alter the landscape instead. Yeah, I left CN before the second one came to fruition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Starfox, do you think your thoughts on the issue might also be just as influenced by post-Vox Syndrome as actual game climate? We've got me stewing in the slow-growing CoJ, Sponge deleted, Doitzel all but dead, you the same, RV chilling in NSO with Cheyenne, Mega in the TJO backwater. Basically a bunch of guys that don't have a lot to do now that we're done. Do you feel like the color's gone out of your game since April? This may be a factor. It took so much effort it just burnt us all out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Its simple... all of you simply talk to damned much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Well written post, Starfox101. I would say that public opinion is a fickle and ruthless mistress and without a strong division in camps to direct the ire of people into two directions, everyone is wary of having the public turn on them. While I wouldn't quite use the same words RV did, I also believe that a lot of alliances, while the individuals in them are brave people, are basically cautious to the degree bordering on cowardly as the debacle with the Athens/KoN demonstrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Oh, I do enjoy me some good moral relativism. PS: No one person can claim to define the Vox Movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 So much to comment on. First: Starfox? old? 19? Thanks, i now feel old at 28. IAA vs The Moralist Front No, so i say lets kill them ALL! RV: SF is a bunch of survivalists? Did you spend the entire Karma war looking in a !@#$@#$ mirror or something cus last i saw most if not all of the SF alliances fought pretty hard. Fark having IRON/Valhalla, Rok having IRON/NPO/75% of the hegemony, R&R had NPO and a bunch of CDT, RIA had Valhalla and thats all i can remember without looking it up, GOD had NPO and Echelon and yet who did Frostbite fight So, whens the war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Oh, I do enjoy me some good moral relativism.PS: No one person can claim to define the Vox Movement. Just like no one can define Francoism, am I right or what. OMG ROFL LMFAO XD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Karl Marx, at the end of his life, is quoted as saying "I know one thing, and that is I'm not a Marxist" Movements tend to take on a life of their own, a meaning their founders probably never intended. But to be honest, once created a movement is independent of its founder and will often happily defy everything the founder stood for, eg: Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 GOD had NPO and Echelon And AB (who's worth mentioning for being prepared) and GDA (who's not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 So much to comment on.First: Starfox? old? 19? Thanks, i now feel old at 28. No, so i say lets kill them ALL! RV: SF is a bunch of survivalists? Did you spend the entire Karma war looking in a !@#$@#$ mirror or something cus last i saw most if not all of the SF alliances fought pretty hard. Fark having IRON/Valhalla, Rok having IRON/NPO/75% of the hegemony, R&R had NPO and a bunch of CDT, RIA had Valhalla and thats all i can remember without looking it up, GOD had NPO and Echelon and yet who did Frostbite fight So, whens the war? Frostbite was not a part of Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Hey Villien, why don't you attack Starfox for being immoral scum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OberstKrieger Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Ah... I was talking about the the alliance on a whole, but my specific points were about the original (which to my recollection did not last very long)Sorry for the confusion. You are a fool. Do not claim to have knowledge above that of others when you know nothing on the subject. No one person can claim to define the Vox Movement. You are extraordinarily correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) It's a matter of balance and degree, intentionally clouded by people with agendas.* Everyone on the losing end (or potential losing end) of something tries to spin what is being done against them as immoral. Former Hegemony attacks anything approaching an aggressive or punitive action by anyone in former Karma as equivalent to their former aggressions or punitive actions, also clouding the discussions. Almost everyone has to preach general pacifism and non-aggression because if you don't, they'll be seen and treated as a threat by others and those others will than work to take them out as a potential threat. Neutral parties will side with the threatened, and so any aggression (or potential aggression) is stifled. It's a general problem with the game that it takes to long to build anything and war is so costly. Everyone is so afraid of losing a war that whenever conflict emerges, anyone who thinks they might be on the losing side (which could be both sides), and their allies, do everything they can to stop it, and the issue gets resolved because conflict in this game is arbitrary. There's little to really fight over. Conflict has to be manufactured, and yet most don't want manufactured conflict. That's what happened in Karma, most of the fence-sitters joined with the defense, and that precedent has been set. That war only started because crucial players in Hegemony badly miscalculated the sides and thought they would win, something that everyone has learned from and will now try to avoid doing. If you want conflict, you have to tolerate manufactured CBs and drama, because that's what this game has to rest on, given it's limitations. In that sense, Hegemony wasn't really the bad guy and just an arbitrary opponent. The moralism, in my opinion, comes from the fact that Hegemony did take things too far. It didn't embrace real conflict, but created game-stifling mass-collectives like Q. OOC it made terms far too punitive and took the desire to eliminate opponents with things like EZI and permanent war way too far. We need a balanced moralism that doesn't disavow conflict, but does disavow things like EZI, harsh terms, and prosecuting war to the point of griefing. The biggest problem is with the game itself, it either has to be primarily a long term nation building game or a war game. Right now it takes too long for players and alliance to build up their nations to the highest level for regular game changing conflicts to occur. This factor only gets worse as the game continues and the average nation (and threshold for building a relatively large nation) gets bigger and bigger. *I'm not innocent of that myself: see the emphasis on using the "noCB war" name for that particular war. Edited November 29, 2009 by Azaghul 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.