Moridin Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 It's not that hard to recruit if you want a sanction. Or if you don't want MCXA to get a sanction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fyfe XIV Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294812646' post='2572828'] STA signs a big treaty so you come up with this to attention whore and shoot insults at MCXA. Stay classy Archon. [/quote] Why does nobody understand think about the irony they are posting around here Edited January 12, 2011 by Fyfe XIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1294812528' post='2572826'] I thought that MK didn't like sanction? Or was it just TOP? [/quote] Alliances are dismissive of the sanction when they're on the verge of losing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1294814221' post='2572857'] Alliances are dismissive of the sanction when they're on the verge of losing it. [/quote] Literally the only thing that matters is the flag. Beyond that having the sanction is actually detrimental to your alliance. Now that we have two flags, it's not really an issue. Anyway, why are so many of you missing the (incredibly basic and clear) point? It's not some kind of hidden swipe at MCXA or something, it's saying that the requirement is outdated and terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 As I understand it, the requirement exists as an encouragement for alliances for alliances to actively recruit and thus give new players a place to go in the game. How many of the alliances which would be in that top 19 but not have a sanction actively recruit? TOP doesn't, MK doesn't, Umbrella doesn't, and WTF is actively avoiding the sanction. I'm not sure about TDO, FOK, or FAN, but I'm inclined to think the latter two do not actively recruit from the CN community. So as far as I can tell, the requirement is continuing to do exactly what it was intended to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294814447' post='2572862'] Literally the only thing that matters is the flag. Beyond that having the sanction is actually detrimental to your alliance. Now that we have two flags, it's not really an issue. Anyway, why are so many of you missing the (incredibly basic and clear) point? It's not some kind of hidden swipe at MCXA or something, it's saying that the requirement is outdated and terrible. [/quote] Why don't you go tell Admin to change it then? Because you guys are really only attention whoring and taking jabs at an alliance you deemed not worthy should you lose it. The MK pattern is well known. Be it arbitrary or not, the requirement is the current rule. You guys aren't special enough to have it reduced. Gnite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 As the number of CN players decreases, logically so too should the number of members required for an alliance to earn and maintain a sanction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanus Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 OP makes a good post and a good point about an inherent flaw in the game mechanics. People read what alliance makes said post. Baawing ensues. But really, why do we even need a limit? If alliance score is what an alliance is ranked on, shouldn't it also be the sole factor to determine which alliances are sanctioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Epiphanus' timestamp='1294815058' post='2572874'] OP makes a good post and a good point about an inherent flaw in the game mechanics. People read what alliance makes said post. Baawing ensues. But really, why do we even need a limit? If alliance score is what an alliance is ranked on, shouldn't it also be the sole factor to determine which alliances are sanctioned? [/quote] No, it should not be the sole factor. Edited January 12, 2011 by Fernando12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1294812096' post='2572813'] The 19th ranked alliance in the game, the MCXA, is next in line to get a sanction. Nineteenth. Ranked. Alliance. [/quote] So sack your recruitment guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) ^ hahahahahaha of course [i]you[/i] don't get it either [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294814784' post='2572867'] Why don't you go tell Admin to change it then? Because you guys are really only attention whoring and taking jabs at an alliance you deemed not worthy should you lose it. The MK pattern is well known. Be it arbitrary or not, the requirement is the current rule. You guys aren't special enough to have it reduced. Gnite. [/quote] Once again you prove your utter illiteracy. Seriously, what is wrong with you? We don't want the rule changed specifically for us, we don't even want the damn sanction. The requirement was already lowered before and it should have been again years ago, as the population continued to decline. It doesn't matter if it's MCXA or RIA who gets the sanction from us, the point, which you have again missed even after having it pointed out to you so directly, is that five alliances are being skipped over. Edited January 12, 2011 by Sandwich Controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan a Dale Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Discussion of changing the sanction limit can go here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79002 where it belongs. If all that this thread continues to discuss is changing the sanction limit, it will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294815254' post='2572885'] ^ hahahahahaha of course [i]you[/i] don't get it either Once again you prove your utter illiteracy. Seriously, what is wrong with you? We don't want the rule changed specifically for us, we don't even want the damn sanction. The requirement was already lowered before and it should have been again years ago, as the population continued to decline. It doesn't matter if it's MCXA or RIA who gets the sanction from us, the point, which you have again missed even after having it pointed out to you so directly, is that five alliances are being skipped over. [/quote] Once again you prove your utter illiteracy. Seriously, what is wrong with you?I haven't missed the point. You are missing the point. If you and those five alliances that are going to be skipped over want the sanction then you and they need to recruit. It's been pointed out several times in this thread that you all need to recruit to keep the sanction, go do it and quit your crying. EDIT - Mods, I was typing as the post above mine was made. I didn't see it until after I clicked to post. Edited January 12, 2011 by Fernando12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Sanctions favor mass-recruiting alliances, obviously, since they're trying to bring more players into the game. Realistically, sanctions probably make your alliance worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294815548' post='2572895'] Once again you prove your utter illiteracy. Seriously, what is wrong with you?I haven't missed the point. You are missing the point. If you and those five alliances that are going to be skipped over want the sanction then you and they need to recruit. It's been pointed out several times in this thread that you all need to recruit to keep the sanction, go do it and quit your crying. EDIT - Mods, I was typing as the post above mine was made. I didn't see it until after I clicked to post. [/quote] [i]We don't want the sanction and nobody sane would ever want it except for the flag[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scigirl543 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 In the interest of redirecting the thread away from its original purpose: How many alliances are left in this game, anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294815883' post='2572906'] [i]We don't want the sanction and nobody sane would ever want it except for the flag[/i] [/quote] I don't believe you. You are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scigirl543 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294816103' post='2572915'] I don't believe you. You are lying. [/quote] Compelling argument. Why don't you believe him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294815254' post='2572885'] ^ hahahahahaha of course [i]you[/i] don't get it either [/quote] I did I just dont want to see this changed to suit you and your posse because you dont want to follow rules in place years. A leader coming out and whining like a commoner is far funnier. I dont think TOP did it when they were below the 200 mark they had some self respect. They accepted the natural order and did some recruiting. If you or any of the other people unable or unwilling to get/keep a sanction as it has always been then you dont deserve it. Membership level is important, in a time where people are trying to get numbers into CN rewarding lazy recruiting nations by waiving the member requirement for sanction status because of the butt hurt of those who cant manage it is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Pretty sure TOP didn't recruit outside of word-of-mouth of members within TOP recruiting friends. Part of it was that they had ghosts coming on to their AA and people naturally flocking to them because they were the premier alliance with all their stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Scigirl543' timestamp='1294816218' post='2572918'] Compelling argument. Why don't you believe him? [/quote] I really want to know why anyone would want to keep their sanction after they have their flag. Collecting as many ~caspers~ as possible for meatshields, I guess. Edited January 12, 2011 by Sandwich Controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294815548' post='2572895'] Once again you prove your utter illiteracy. Seriously, what is wrong with you?I haven't missed the point. You are missing the point. If you and those five alliances that are going to be skipped over want the sanction then you and they need to recruit. It's been pointed out several times in this thread that you all need to recruit to keep the sanction, go do it and quit your crying. EDIT - Mods, I was typing as the post above mine was made. I didn't see it until after I clicked to post. [/quote] If we really cared we wouldn't need to recruit more, just lower our admissions standards. Unlike some alliances such as yours, we place quality over quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1294816267' post='2572920'] I did I just dont want to see this changed to suit you and your posse because you dont want to follow rules in place years. A leader coming out and whining like a commoner is far funnier. I dont think TOP did it when they were below the 200 mark they had some self respect. They accepted the natural order and did some recruiting. If you or any of the other people unable or unwilling to get/keep a sanction as it has always been then you dont deserve it. Membership level is important, in a time where people are trying to get numbers into CN rewarding lazy recruiting nations by waiving the member requirement for sanction status because of the butt hurt of those who cant manage it is a mistake. [/quote] You realize we were in the top 12 while lacking 200 members for a long time right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted January 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1294816267' post='2572920'] A leader coming out and whining like a commoner [/quote] Bro, it's an OOC forum. I'm just another player. I mean, I know most of you can't even conceive of what role playing or "IC" is anymore, but seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294816654' post='2572926'] I really want to know why anyone would want to keep their sanction after they have their flag. Collecting as many ~caspers~ as possible for meatshields, I guess. [/quote] Ghosts: confusing enemy target list makers and winning wars since 2006. Yeah, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts