Kadin

I don't know what's going on, but hello!

Oh, GOONS. Putting yourself in my line of fire like that. ?

Man I thought you were banned. How've you been?

Hey I still owe Black Knights a beatdown. If you do fight them, you're not allowed to destroy them completely.

No sympathy for me, and personally I don't really care if someone goes and does something like that. It's 100% the fault of the alliance leadership for allowing someone who would do that to have that kind of bank access in the first place. With that said, the alliance should definitely crush anyone who does this to them, preferably without mercy.

I'm the newer model Kadin, modified by years of dedicated research & development. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but them's the breaks. Sorry to disappoint.

Hey man I don't really have a dog in this fight but I gotta ask how you managed to get more negative karma than posts? Do you like carefully craft your replies in order to farm the most negative reactions possible or did it just happen that way? ?

Sorry but I have to disagree, there is nothing fun about drinking - It tastes like crap, the buzz itself leaves a lot to be desired, and it really messes with your decision-making. Believe me, none of you want to deal with drunk Kadin, and I'm not too big on the idea myself. Now, a little marijuana on the other hand, that's what I call a good time. Where's the smoking buddies treaty? I'll sign onto it right away.

Oh lord this paperless meme still exists? The sooner that nonsense fades out of this world, the better. If ever there was a clear indication that an alliance feels incapable of planning ahead, it is being "paperless." The fear of commitment is a powerful force it seems.

Hello world, Today, I am here to make a once-in-a-lifetime offer. I, Kadin, master in alliance-building and alliance leadership, am officially looking to take some eager future world leaders under my wing and teach them the ways of building a game-dominant alliance from the ground up. I have many years of experience doing just that, and although you may or may not have heard of me, I have all the knowledge and tools needed to show you the way to becoming the leader of an alliance that is both respected and feared. We will, of course, be learning by doing - And you will play an instrumental role, under my guidance, in making it happen. Don't worry, I'm not asking anyone to drop everything right away and join me. After all, I only just recently returned to the game, so my nation isn't even large enough just yet to establish an alliance. What I am doing today is seeking to find just the right people with just the right energy and motivation. Those who fit will be introduced to the framework I already have in place and given a brief explanation of the underlying philosophy of alliance-building that has proven successful. From there, our team will be officially organized, the alliance officially established, and we will get into the business of building an alliance that is destined for greatness. To anyone with a genuine interest and passion in leadership, and especially to those who feel their current alliance does not have the flexibility or capability to allow them to shine in a leadership role, you are invited to message my nation. All inquiries are confidential, so you do not have to worry about your current alliance or anyone else finding out. This is a great opportunity for anonymous lurkers, unappreciated workers, or just people stuck in inflexible or inexperienced alliances in general.

Now this is the content I came back to the game for. Thanks, friend.

Peace has never been anything more than a period of preparation and planning for war.

Hate to break it to ya, but formal surrender or no, if you're losing - And I have to assume that to be the case if surrender is even an option open for discussion - Then the message has already been sent as far as it ever will. I'm a huge believer in treaties. Many wars are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired due to the power a strong foreign policy approach can wield. But, hey, these things happen sometimes, and to me it sounds like perhaps someone should have worked to cultivate a stronger relationship with their allies so that this wouldn't have happened. Without that, no treaty is worth the paper it's printed on. But, really, I just came back - I don't know jack about what's going on right now.

Was the condition that they make a post in this forum saying this? Maybe I'm just missing something but I don't really see why alliances are announcing their intention to begin surrender talks. Also, I hope they know there is no shame in surrender. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Who the heck wrote this? This is so poorly written it's barely coherent, no offense. As someone who just came back to the game the other day and has no idea who is fighting who or why, this entire statement just comes off as garbledegook. It's not even clear who is surrendering to who. With that said, I have long believed that the proper course of action for the losing side of any war is a quick surrender (assuming reasonable terms). Any less is simply delaying the rebuild and revenge process.

What you're describing is bad leadership, not an inevitable consequence of non-democratic government. If you're blocking a skilled and hard-working person from advancing simply because of a disagreement on a particular issue, then you are no longer acting to the benefit of the alliance so much as you are acting to the benefit of maintaining the status quo. I can tell you that I have worked with many people who I had disagreements with on major issues, even at the highest levels of alliance leadership, and I've personally facilitated the advancement of members who I inevitably clashed with on occasion once they got into government. That's not meritocracy, it's just dictatorship and inflexible leadership. I don't blame anyone for leaving under those circumstances, and frankly, it seems to be more the rule than the exception. The number of times I've found myself bored or even openly antagonized in alliances with inflexible leadership or no true opportunities for growth is much higher than the number of alliances I've seen that are truly committed to doing the right thing. Either way, what you're talking about here is a problem of leadership rather than government type.

I was mainly referring to formal democratic processes and institutions such as elections and elected offices designed for the purposes of representation. These things are highly impersonal and restrict the membership to a passive role within the alliance. Even if you encourage them to actively participate as well, they will not be as easily motivated to do so because they have a lazy passive alternative readily available. Of course anyone can leave if they want, and leaders have to be tolerated by the members, but the post I responded to was an answer to someone specifically calling out elections. My governing philosophy has long been that the membership IS the alliance, and the role of leadership is to shepherd and guide them in such a way that the alliance grows and strengthens itself. If you want to call that Democracy, then fine, but to me it is rule by the competent and those willing to work. You asked, "Do you believe every other sort of decision making process utilised throughout PnW isn't rigged?" My answer is that, if all systems are rigged as you seem to believe, then it would be best for the system to be rigged in favor of those members who produce results and those leaders who can get the most out of the crew they're given. Now that I've said all that, I gave your post another read-over, and it seems we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of alliances. Members and leaders both serve the interests of the alliance as a whole, and both benefit from the success of their alliance. I don't agree that alliances only serve leadership.

Howdy. ?

I can't pronounce your name, so you are disqualified from being king. sorry.

Please, my love is reserved for only the purest of souls. This wretched hive of scum and villainy has yet to pump out anyone capable of reaching those standards.

I have no idea what's going on but war is always good. Democracy is terrible in these games. I'm not going to sit here and say it's "rigged" (although there are certainly many ways for elections to be rigged, and I've seen it happen), but the democratic process generally does not produce leaders capable of lifting alliances to new heights. Alliance members should be contributing in direct ways, by actively working alongside leadership to build the alliance, rather than by passively voting for someone who magically does it all for them. When you introduce democracy, meritocracy goes out the window - People know that their work will not necessarily be rewarded, and in fact, they can earn more simply by being liked than by being effective. That's how you get people like Prefontaine running your alliance (no offense).

This seems like the kind of thing that would belong in Orbis Central. But, heck, what do I know?

Is Partisan picking on the mentally challenged again? For shame.

Once again the opposition falls flat on its face. If I didn't have better things to do, I may even feel compelled to come out of retirement just to build a proper rival for Syndicate and co. Can't be assed, though, and it would take too damn long anyways. Oh well. It's been fun, hopefully the next round doesn't disappoint. Round 1 was a blast.

Then I guess it's a good thing that it's their guys getting wrecked, not ours.