Charles Bolivar
-
Posts
1381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Charles Bolivar
-
-
This is like the dumbest argument you could make. UPN did a lot of purging fairly recently and it just meant a reduced member count. There wasn't some improvement in overall activity. Just kicking people doesn't change anything and it's very wrong minded. There was a reason for it and it was probably beneficial in terms of avoiding bank raids and such, but it didn't make them elite or anything.
It's time to stop acting like you have some formula going that others could just simply implement with ease. In your alliance's case you basically ported the most active people from several (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances(inb4 no connection to MI6/Sparta) and actives from Tournament Edition and other places. TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.
Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy.
Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that. Simply losing isn't a criteria of judgement for anything. It's a really weird attitude you have here where winning is the only thing that matters. Like I said, it's bizarre seeing this perspective from you, but power or rather the notion of having it can get to people. I mean, no one forced Tenages to step down for having his backstab leaked which ended up resulting in a total loss and he was a celebrated leader of your sphere for a very long time.
With your other post, it's just so funny since it seems like you're somehow so upset that not everyone is just subscribing to the '"WINNING IS EVERYTHING. SUCK UP TO TS TO AVOID LOSING" mantra you're preaching here.
I would love to see a post from you which doesn't make a reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways),
Anyway, moving on because I don't feel like wasting my time discussing a game which has no bearing whatsoever within this war.
TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.I personally believe TEst is as potent a force now as it was before the sparta merger. Then again, I thought TEst was pretty fearsome before Pref even joined it and when Phiney was the original nation killer on Orbis. I would say TEst's influence now is directly attributable to the work Pref and others have put into it and not just the result of random chance. Or do you really think having Sparta, an alliance which had considerable stats in its own right, merging into another alliance is just a piece of random luck? TEst's influence is a direct result of their membership requirements, policies and particular style of leadership, it isn't some miracle of sheer luck but a result of the effort put into the alliance and the reasoning used in deciding the alliance's direction.
Responsible leadership achieves superior results. poor leadership achieves poor results.
Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy.
I actually somewhat agree, members who leave after one defeat aren't generally the sort of members you want. This is different however from members who leave after repeated defeats which can be attributed directly to the mistakes of their leaders time and time again. If the leadership won't take steps to rectify these mistakes or step down in favour of new leaders who will provide better outcomes for the membership then voting with their feet is the only real and reasonable option for a member to take. The sole purpose of an alliance's leadership is to look after the best interests of the members, if the leadership cannot provide this then why should a member stick around only to keep getting rolled repeatedly just because one or two of their leaders refuse to take an alternative course of action?
Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that.I will let Partisan elaborate on the drama which occurred after he trusted Cynic with certain intel last year. If I remember correctly Partisan himself was ready to step down and left it to the membership to decide his fate. We stuck with him after Impero annoyed a few of us by demanding we replace him and made it pretty clear to Partisan he had to fix his mess or his head would roll.
Not recommending anyone start sucking up to tS, far from it. What I am recommending however is to not keep repeating the same mistakes and then crying rivers of tears when you keep getting the same result over and over again.
Quit this constant whinging and blaming everyone else and get to work on improving your own sphere, I strongly doubt anyone is buying this faux outrage you are conveniently flooding the forums with, it's unbecoming of a Pacifican leader and l won't bother writing much more on it but instead I will just paste what Aza posted previously on the matter.
I'd talk about it further but it's a waste of time because I don't believe any of the complaining about it to be sincere, it's just a form of stonewalling because you don't want to take the economic hit of paying reps. I can't blame you for not wanting to pay reps, I personally don't like reps, and I could respect rejecting them on the principle that reps shouldn't be a thing in this world. But the insincere whining is unbecoming and makes me not at all sympathetic. -
I just read 19 pages of this crap and all I got from it is that commies gonna commie and Roquentin's tears could end California's drought.
-
4
-
-
Obviously there is... The leadership of the alliances cannot do anything to make people become active. I guess your response will be, well just kick the inactive ones... well that doesn't do much to change anything, since it's not like there's a massive influx of players into the game.
Mensa are the anomaly in terms of activity, and would keep their levels whatever happens I would guess. You have to realise that with most people interest level in the game is somewhat determined by how the game is going too... for example UPN has gradually got less and less active with every war that we lost. Not that I am saying it's your fault or whatever, just pointing to the observation that the losing side will always get less active if things aren't competitive.
Well you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about having an inactive bloated alliance incapable of achieving results and then simultaneously complain about having to implement measures to rectify this. You either stick with the bloated and inactive membership or take a gamble and kick the dead weight and impose some higher standards.
You wouldn't need an influx of new members in order for it to work and you don't need a large membership either in order to become competent. It just takes some hard work and a genuine drive to succeed coupled with competent leadership. Such notions naturally attract more competent and experienced members. The perfect example of this being naturally TEst.
If UPN wants to keep their community alive and not lose members as a result of losing wars constantly...then stop making silly decisions which lead to you losing war after war. No one is forcing you to continuously attack the same coalition over and over again, UPN's and paracov's leadership in general need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions.
Do you really think tS' gov members would still be in gov if they had the same track record of continuously losing wars for decisions they made and refused to take responsibility for the aforementioned decisions? They would have been forced to step down or have the alliance vote with their feet long ago if they had. If we had lost the massive gamble that was the last war when we basically pulled a leeroy jenkins inspired attack then heads would have rolled.
To be frank, I don't really need to inform UPN about this since I am pretty much preaching to the choir when it comes to telling UPN about members voting with their feet given the decline in membership since the last war.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6sARmxEuc
Video above seems oddly relevant given the discussion about numbers of nations on the opposing sides in past conflicts but it is essentially the point at hand.
The general consensus in most of the past conflicts (besides the few Yoso has shown above) was that we (tS, BK, TKR and Mensa) were typically outnumbered in terms of nations. The deciding factor in these wars wasn't the number of nations on either side but instead the number of competent nations on either side who knew how to fight alongside their fellow members and allies.
Our side simply has more of these competent nations found throughout our memberships. This can be attributed to a variety of reasons such as community spirit, alliance leadership structure, alliance policies and so on. Plenty whinging and salt being thrown over this particular point but our surplus of competent nations is simply a result of our own actions and policies.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the likes of NPO, UPN, Rose and so on emulating our side in this regards.
Start to favour quality over quantity and you might begin to see results.
-
2
-
-
How does Rose get 16 pages but SK only gets 3
Roq's tears add 10 pages onto any topic.
-
2
-
-
Nah, we never reached out for a treaty. We did uphold cordial communications when NPO first started out, including gov-gov channels. We refrained from reaching out beyond that as we hoped NPO would make something outside of the present dynamic happen.
They didn't.
Yeah, I distinctly remember we reached out in some manner to keep relations positive in some manner or fashion but that it didn't go anywhere and here we are.
Yeah, like Auctor said we don't buy this as the reason. You attempted to single NPO out and we know you tried to strike deals with constituent alliances to diminish our support. If it was about Paracovenant, you wouldn't have done so.To be frank, it doesn't matter if you buy it as a reason or not. We have stated our stance and you aren't in a position to do anything about it.
#hardtruths
-
1
-
-
Didn't we reach out to NPO only to be rebuffed in favour of our traditional enemies?
Associates with enemies, acts like an enemy, signs treaty with enemies. Usually is an enemy in my book.
If you didn't want to be viewed as an enemy, don't associate yourselves with our enemies and then whinge about it when you are treated as such.
-
I'm just responding to him with the same vitriol he usually employs. Just I've seen the same post a few times as he's made it in several topics. I'm just having fun with his whole "oh I know what's best for Paracovenant alliances because I'm on the winning side and particularly NPO because I have an axe to grind" shtick.
An axe? Don't give yourself too much credit. All I need is a couch so I can sit my rear end on it and watch you flailing around looking for someone else to blame for your own failings
-
Breaking news, Charles: No one cares what you think. You contribute nothing constructive to any discussion and are a pompous blowhard no one takes seriously. Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you.
I get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out. The bragadoccio is charming. pretty much it seems like everyone who is like you gets intoxicated off winning in a game for a change of pace. You Holton, Eumir, and the list just goes on. I love how you guys constantly prove me right.
Maybe when you finally lose enough times, you can rogue out and delete here too?
Your assessment of our leadership has never mattered.
Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you.
I am totally shocked by this, I thought I was loved by everyone and respected by most of my fellow alliance buddies. It is most hurtful to find out that by having an opinion I might annoy a few people. Thank you for bringing this to my attention roq, I will make it a mission now to find out who these people are who are annoyed by me so I can go back to not really giving a shit
And lolroq, for someone who blames (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for the reason he keeps getting rolled, you just love to keep mentioning it here when the truth of the matter is you are the only person who cares about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Or cares enough about it to use it as an excuse for why he keeps failing in this game. Either one works so feel free to keep ranting about either.
You are right though, my assessment of your leadership doesn't matter. What matters is how your own membership assesses your leadership. Or lack of it.
get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out.
Actually, I reckon these people who I do annoy only tolerate me because I am a winner. If my damage stats weren't as consistently high as they usually are I predict I would be expelled instantly
-
In all truth though, NPO's leadership should resign. That or NPO's membership should appoint new leaders or vote with their feet.
Appoint new and responsible leadership who won't sign treaties with terrible allies who get you rolled every 3 months.
It is rather amusing to see these so called "leaders" refuse to take any responsibility for their own failings and instead deflect all responsibility to the winning side but I do pity the NPO membership in possessing such a reckless leadership who refuse to even acknowledge the concept of responsible governance.
-
IF NPO's leadership wishes to keep fighting then let them, by all means allow them to keep digging their own grave.
It is after all NPO's leadership who will have to answer to their membership at the end of the day.
Oh wait, I forgot, this is NPO we are speaking about. Drones gotta be dronish and accept their terrible leadership without having much say in the matter.
-
1
-
-
Nah, it's hillarious how much effort you guys have to put on Alpha because Mi6 is salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).
Stop drinking Roq's Kool-Aid.
.....
They do
Do tell.
-
"won"
Yet Alpha and every single one of their allies surrendered all the same.
Funny that.
-
I dont see the skill in TS having more people with less IRL work than NPO (Which is majority 18 + and has to do work and stuff) or UPN. (Ime there were like a ton of senior/colledge people there and PW isnt worth studying).
This is just precious
-
It's almost like no one in this game utilises hyperbolic license for recruitment purposes except us. Who would have thought...
Does the use of hyperbole also apply to constant repetition of the game allegedly being imbalanced?
-
What would've been better for this war? Alpha with 300 nukes in this war or Alpha with 0 nukes and no NRF's? You won't answer this because you know tactically nukes have their place in this game. And you do realize that most of tS's upper tier has a NRF right?
You think Alpha was my first alliance? First off, we didn't get so many nukes until I realized your side was going to target us in the most epic amount of butthurt I've ever seen in any games I've played. When Rose/VE dropped us we went into full nuke stockpile mode. Until like 2 days before the war, getting dogpiled was all we thought would happen, but were asked to try conventionally and we were initially successful on Mensa as evidenced by your chart, despite Fark/Alpha being smaller than Mensa. Then ALPHA DOGPILE 2.0 happened. And I was 100% right.
Now, I'll educate you on my past, b/c you seem to think I've only been playing 6 months.
Did Alpha nuke UPN when we hit him with Guardian?
Did Alpha nuke SK when we hit them with a little help from VE?
I was even in Guardian fighting conventionally. I was always asked to hit the top alliance's target(s). And I did.
You talk tough, but you rely on the dogpile and then act like we are stupid for not being able to defend 3 defensive wars. That is plainly ridiculous. You lost your first war due to losing the political war. It happens. I've picked my allies and I'm happy with them. Even if they lead me into a losing war.
I'm not going to be a !@#$ TLF and abandon my allies. Nor am I going to be a Pantheon who sticks by allies who dilberatley let it get rolled because my other allies matter more. Screw that. I'll take the loss every !@#$ time if it means I have to sell out to get a victory like so many alliances have done switching sides. If that makes me bad at politics, I can live with that.
Common mindset in tS is actually along the lines of "we have these nuke projects that we never use, wish we could swap it but we spent so much $ on it so we will just keep them anyway".
I got rid of mine a couple months back, never used it or even had an opportunity where using it was optimal.
-
It really isn't, they are terrible.
I was trying to be nice
-
-
You guys like to play up the skill level, but it's really more so about activity and getting people to declare wars. The having people to declare wars is basically what politics is all about. Skill only matters if you have equal sides, and we'll never have a war like that. No one will ever let it happen. In the end, at this point it won't matter, the interest in this game is already starting to drop off.
Mensa making topics like these to squash even the smallest chance of damage will only make things worse. You can't really say "nukes are stupid and don't matter" while also saying "nukes are soooo important we need to make a special "league" about destroying them". Can't have it both ways, imo.
The irony is Mensa isn't the alliance that will ever take many nukes because they keep their cities small. So not sure why they feel they need to be the hegemonic driving force behind this.
This is why your sphere loses constantly.
Has been numerous occasions when skill for the outnumbered side was a winning factor (for our side anyway).
-
Ugh, NPO had been involved in 1 alliance war when I made the poll. How on earth could anyone know if they were good fighters or not?
Jury is still out on that one.
-
Could probably make a similar meme for the amount of times Roq accuses everyone of rolling NPO because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) shenanigans.
Dear Roq, nobody but you cares about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Move on.
-
The real kicker is when we reveal that The Syndicate has been Pacifica all along.
NPO is the bastard child of Syndicate after all.
-
That's an OOC attack
You are starting to sound like Roq now
-
NIGHT KING?
MORE LIKE
I actually like this, it is pretty great!. Would you mind if I use it on my forum profile?
-
1
-
Rose's Surrender
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by Night King
To be honest, I found fault with the Alpha members who remained in Alpha during that entire war. Literally defied belief that any reasonable person would allow themselves to remain in an alliance being led by a leader who made the decisions steve and his fellow leaders made both before and during that war. Loyalty is a two way street in my opinion, if the leadership isn't rewarding the loyalty of the membership by taking reasonable decisions for the betterment of the membership itself then members sticking around out of blind loyalty is really achieving nothing else but the enabling of poor leaders to continue making poor decisions.
I certainly wouldn't have deemed any Alpha members who left during the war as deserters and so on, I would have just regarded them as people making the correct decision in looking after their best interests because their own leaders clearly weren't performing that duty which is their sole duty.