Jump to content

If the Mushroom Kingdom loses two more members...


Archon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

[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 :unsure:

Edited by Fyfe XIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 It's not some kind of hidden swipe at MCXA or something, it's saying that the requirement is outdated and terrible.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

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

[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 It's not some kind of hidden swipe at MCXA or something, it's saying that the requirement is outdated and terrible.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

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

[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 by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^
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 by Sandwich Controversy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

[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

[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 by Sandwich Controversy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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

[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

[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

[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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...