Jump to content

Quichwe10

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    278

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Quichwe10

    [Surrender] Burning the House Down

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Quichwe10

    19 hours ago, Mayor said:

    Maybe it was a raid, I can't remember. I remember paperless alliances attacked and raided TFP a few times and we even protected them for a bit after that. TFP always had a good reputation in Arrgh.

    I remember TFP getting whacked a few times, from Arrgh, Mensa, and basically everyone else and their grandmother, but I don't remember ever getting tips. Like seriously, we were insular as !@#$. Only person who had any big idea what was happening on the broad Orbis stage was like Cromwell and maybe some of the OG TFP members. A lot of times when I go back to every time past me went, holy shit, steel is 5k PPU, it's because there was a whole war we basically ignored. First time I remember getting tips was when we were trying to finalize stuff with TEst and I was a fervent believer in TFP direct democracy.

    • Like 1

    2020 PnW Awards Nominations: Alliance Categories

    in Yearly Awards

    Posted

    Alliance of the Year: Rose
    Most Powerful Alliance: t$
    Most Improved Alliance: TFP
    Best Rookie Alliance (must be an alliance formed in 2020): Error 404
    Best Alliance for New Players: TI
    Most Honorable Alliance: TFP
    Best Alliance Growth: Rose
    Biggest Alliance Decline: Schrute Farms
    Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Eclipse
    Best Economics Department: t$
    Best Foreign Affairs Department: CotL
    Best Internal Affairs Department: Error 404
    Best Milcom Department: Rose
    Best Government Line-Up: TFP
    Best Bloc (can be a bloc that disbanded this year): Hedge Money
    Best Alliance Ad (please link): Any by Wei
    Best Flag (peacetime/standard flags only please): Aurora
    Best Holiday Flag: TI

    • Upvote 1

    [TREATY] VT-GATO Optional Defence and Optional Aggression Pact

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

    I’m a bit confused why a protectorate is signing treaties 😕 Isn’t the point of a protectorate to learn the game and be protected by their protector until they can be on their own (IE: be sovereign)?

    After protectorate-hood, sign away. In the meantime....why?

     

    Best of luck regardless. Nice folks in both alliances.

    I'm likely a dissenting opinion compared to others in the game, but for me, I usually expect protectorates who sign on with TFP to be capable (or mostly capable) of independent and reasonably competent behavior (usually meaning they don't start a ton of FA shit). The protectorate treaty is there as a big red emergency button if disaster strikes, but their ability to resolve things on their own is something I prefer to encourage. Protectorates who make some pretty regular issues will usually find themselves dropped by us if it remains a pattern. There are limits to what we would have our protectorates sign in terms of treaties, usually relating to cross-bloc treaties, but unlike the old IQ, I don't believe that my protectorates are supposed to be fighting for me on the battlefield because of their treaty with me. 


    TLDR: The training wheels are off, but we're watching to catch them if they fall down. Just don't make a habit of starting shit.

    • Upvote 2

    Upgrade from current game rules

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, ENKI said:

    Game rules upgrade suggestions.

    • Seems the WAR aspect of the game is very slow and suggest that being a SIM player is fitting for the game.  Currently you have to wait (2) hours per (1) turn of MAP - I would suggest that the Turn base be (1) hour per Turn, not (2) hours.
    • Spying is very limited and limits the use of spies in general.  I would say we should be able to use spies as many times per day as you like but only up to (3) times per nation being spied upon per day.  Spies should also be able to stay in an opponents city, increasing intel or sabotage as instructed until recalled.  Expose factor to be checked daily.
    • MAP is limited to a max of (12).  I would suggest that there is NO limit to the amount of MAP you can store before using, provided you use them with in the WAR time line.
    • Currently there are limited amount of TYPE attacks you can do:  Land, Air, Sea, Missiles.  I would suggest that we be able to do combinations;  Land-Sea, Land-Air, Sea-Air, and the massive Land-Sea-Air.  Each providing benefits and levels of MAP cost per TYPE of attacks.
    • Currently there are only (3) slots for Defense per Nation.  I would suggest we increase this to 6-10 depending on the Nation size that is being attacked.
    • Nations should be able to be re-enforced by other nations, enhancing their defense capabilities/score etc.  Not to be used for extra power attacks.
    • Nations should be able to attack other nations anywhere in the world, provided they complete a particular project that gives them world mobilization ability. Perhaps a Turn base amount could be applied for travel time of the military assets.
    • Submarines are not include in the game, i think they should be.
    • Mining GOLD, SILVER, COPPER should be a resource for trading value on the world markets.
    • Possible STOCK MARKET could be created.  Giving players more things to do then a baseball team.
    • If sports are going to be introduced to the game then various sports should be presented.  Alliance leagues and world leagues could be created.  Bringing up interest in doing sports events. 
    • Bio-Weapons could be created.  A thought.
    • City cost seems to go up the larger you get.  Why? (other then limiting the amount of cities one can possess).  I think cities should cost the same, from the first city to the last.  Growth of the city should cost more as you increase the size of the city.  Thats understandable. 
    • Special military assets should be in the game, provided you complete particular projects etc. (example:  Stealth bombers/fighters, Special weapons for troops, or special munitions that do more damage).
    • Projects:  Spy satellites, Tactical satellites could be produced.
    • Military assets:  Troops, Tanks, Planes, Ships could be power/defense enhanced through training projects and experience on the battlefield etc.

    These are just a few things on the table i think would improve the game Tremendously.  Games should be medium to fast pace and keep the players active throughout the game.  The game is more into in city building and chatting among players.  Feedback on my suggestions are appreciated. 

    I'm not exactly fond of a lot of these ideas, I think. Most of them reduce counterplay, and make being on the defense as unfavorable as it possibly can. Multiple measures, the MAP stacking, increased MAP gain, and increased defensive slots result in the side that's blitzing being nearly guaranteed a win in a war. As well, changes such as attacking nations across the world are already present. The issue with that though is who you can or cannot attack is determined by score, rather than physical location. The addition of coinage resources doesn't really seem to add anything major, and functionally acts as just another form of cash. Stock market and leagues are.... well, I think questionable in their impact for things to do. As for city cost... It's a measure done to prevent massive snowballing by older players and give new players a chance to catch up. If you keep the city cost the same, then longer term players would be able to spam out cities like no tomorrow, completely outpacing newer players. For a frame of reference, I have a net income of like 8 million dollars a day in tax revenue. If cities cost the same as they did for brand new players, 100k, IIRC, with a day's income, I could build 80 cities, whereas a new player could build fewer than 10 when you combine in the daily log in bonus. As for projects,  we have the spy satellite already, and what would your tactical satellite provide? 

    The proposals I do agree with though are some features with attacks and unit modifications. Alex himself did have an idea on that a while back, IIRC, with stuff like gas masks for soldiers to protect them from bioweapons at the price of needing small amounts of resources when being recruited and the ability to have bioweapon missiles, which would do massive soldier damage, but lose infra damage. As for the attack types, well, it's an old refrain, but planes need to either be nerfed or get competition from other theaters. 

    I think a reason why I don't really like a lot of the listed prosposals is because A) I like the game pace as it is, being a little more drawn out so you can plan things out better and not win solely by bumrushing, and B) because I don't really see a need for the additions, in particular the coinage metal and submarine additions. 

    • Upvote 1

    Mission Accomplished

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Emperor Ice said:

    It's not as if their leaders can push the big red button for them.

    In terms of disbanding the alliance, they actually can. The leader can just kick everyone else from the alliance before removing themselves and disbanding it. Whether or not the membership will reform it, is another question, but yes, the leader can just red button it themselves.

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted · Edited by Quichwe10

    1 hour ago, John Q Listener said:

    And now we have moved to the logic chopping stage of the conversation, have we? I put forward my thesis in the OP and subsequent posts, none of which have been clearly addressed or refuted. All that has been put forward since is a lot of not-my-faultisms, and grr Co B. When will a Co A & Co leader come forward and take responsibility. I hope it's soon.

    On 12/6/2019 at 5:39 PM, John Q Listener said:

    Hello all,

    As a Co B line member (and someone not in gov), I'd like the leaders/negotiators of Co A and t$ (whatever it is sorry) to consider the line members of Co A. Through the admission of many Co A posters on this very forum, there is a concern that some Co A players are not having a good time and might consider leaving the game. As a Co B member, I agree, I too am worried about the welfare and wellbeing of Co A players.

    My plea today is for the leaders/negotiators of Co A/Syndicate or whoever else, put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members. There has been a lot of posting recently about the allegation that Co B is deliberately strangling the game and making people quite, but I think that this is really just spin and displacing the responsibility of Co A & Co to act in the best interest of their members. 

    Please post below if you also agree that Co A & Co should consider the welfare of their alliance members, thanks.

    Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game entirely. 

    These points were mentioned several times on the first page of the thread. First by Filmore, who stated that KERCHTOG had surrendered to Coalition B, and made reference to the leaked logs of internal IQ channels that showed leaders of Coalition B purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to have more and more Coalition A members delete. This is the very fourth response to your OP in the thread. Charles the Tyrant also makes reference to said leaked logs several posts down, to which you respond as such:

    On 12/6/2019 at 6:02 PM, John Q Listener said:

    Thanks for making a sexually suggestive remark, it positively adds to the discussion here. Also, thanks for gaslighting me.

    You are minimising the responsibility of the Co A & Co leadership here. This thread isn't about Co B, it's to highlight that I don't think Co A $ Co are considering their own members, but your opinion has been noted...

    We are indeed thinking of our membership right now because we are attempting to make peace with IQ. And yet, you decide to go, well, anything you say does not matter because you don't think we, Coalition A, is actually doing anything, and that any criticism of the current peace progress, where IQ refuses to speak to us whatsoever, is gaslighting you and shifting blame away from Co A. 

    Partisan later comes into the thread and makes his own response, on how t$, a part of Coalition A, is unable to get peace, and makes reference to leaked logs that have IQ gov members continue to give us the runaround. 

    The second page begins with multiple people attacking Partisan and blaming him for why t$ and its allies have not dropped out of the war. In response, Partisan points out that we are still trying to reach peace in private, that their doors are still open to IQ negotiators. He then makes reference to  logs showing that IQ leadership has stated that they wish to destroy and punish t$ aligned coalition members as to why they have not sought separate peace. 

    You quickly then drop back into the thread with:

    On 12/6/2019 at 7:30 PM, John Q Listener said:

    Very interesting how the Col A & Co posters in this thread have demonstrated the very sentiment that is damaging the game for Col A line members. Sad!

    and:

    On 12/6/2019 at 7:40 PM, John Q Listener said:

    How are you not damaging the game by your actions? You've been posting in a lot of threads about how the current situation is completely not of your doing, and how it's all [insert person/coalition here] fault, but you haven't taken ownership of your responsibility as part of the executive team of your alliance. What about your members?

    Both of these show a complete lack of willingness to actually read a thing and understand what is happening. Rather, it is vastly more apparent that your only purpose here is to continually blame Coalition A for every issue that has happened in the peace process, contrary to your opening attempt to appear as if all you wish for is honest and open discussion. You do this again on the start of the third page of the thread, once again stating, "think of the membership!". 

    Pausing here for a moment, and actually assuming that you had been in earnest, something that has been shown to be patently untrue in this thread, you ask us to peace out for the sake of our members. And, again, you give us no direction on how to do so. Peace through private channels and behind closed doors have been halted, turned away, or rejected. The very ways you keep telling us to go through for peace do not exist. Sardonic attempts to defend IQ by saying that he is sure that continued statements by IQ that they wish to see Coalition A rendered entirely defunct from the game itself mean absolutely nothing, and that we must persuade IQ negotiators to give us peace in order to do so, a defense you upvoted. 

    This brings us to a new issue, in that, how do we persuade IQ's negotiators to come to the table with us? We are defeated, and we have admitted as such, meaning that we cannot apply the pressure to force negotiators to the table via sheer military force. Economic force is not present, as all major alliances have incredibly large reserves to keep themselves going in the war. Appealing to the goodness of their hearts did not work, and by the comments of their leadership when they are in closed quarters, will not work because they seek to inflict more war upon us. The avenue we were left with was to appeal to Coallition B's membership, that they perhaps may push IQ negotiators to speak with us at the peace table. And, that now appears to have put far too much stock in them, as we can see by this very thread.

    Continuing on in the thread, you then post this: 

    On 12/6/2019 at 7:54 PM, John Q Listener said:

    Is Col B so powerful that they are making it impossible to surrender? It does seem really weird that Col A & Co keep saying they want to surrender but then they haven't yet? Why aren't they thinking of their membership?

    Again, you purposefully state, "think of the membership", and ask why we can't surrender. Much like sex, it takes two to tango here. Do you perhaps think that the victim of a serial killer is able to simply surrender to the serial killer, and the serial killer, who's just there to murder them, will actually agree? For peace to happen, both sides must agree to stop fighting the other. Coalition A wishes for the fighting to end. IQ evidently does not. That being said, I would predict that you would merely ignore this in totality, in order to continue to troll and shitpost. 

    It is by page 4 then, that we begin to see you speak about the terms, and how they were leaked. 

    On 12/7/2019 at 1:21 AM, John Q Listener said:

    Ummm weren't there terms leaked? Are these Schroedinger's terms now, and they exist/don't exist at the convenience of the author.

    Fighting from beige mode is now an emerging strategy, apparently.

    As I explained to you, we had not been given the terms by IQ, so we did not know of them beforehand. After those had been leaked, IQ has refused to speak to us and give, confirm, or deny any further terms. DivineCoffeeBinge then comes in and tells Coalition A must give terms to IQ in order for peace to bring them to the table. Once again, we run into the issue of IQ refusing to speak to us, and a new issue in which, apparently, we're completely changing the original peace process. However, this is very easily explained by the logs that were leaked. That is, that IQ does not wish to peace with us. They would rather force us from the game entirely. Divine then comes in later that very page, and states that "the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms". Surprise surprise, this runs into the issue that, we're not setting terms. We're ready to receive them. It just so seems that IQ either does not have the terms, is not willing to give the terms, or just doesn't wish the war to end, the latter of wish would be supported by previously mentioned leaked logs. 

    After that is where I step in, and attempt to explain once again my perspective on some things. @Edward I steps in with his portion on the infeasibility of minispheres. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to give you a response worthy of your own here, Edward, but with the concern of how to counteract too large groups, Rose's forward looking direction was to be a free agent that would be able to pick their own fights, and also to help keep the minisphere concept alive. This belief was a very large part of their joining of the current war, in order to prevent more people from making plans to attack other minispheres at their weakest or during a fight. I really only saw this war as an effort to be the first stress test of the system for how it would be enforced. Unfortunately, the IC/OOC and amnesia criticism was fully born out by NPO joining BK's side. But, before that, you had people who had previous working relations with each other fight each other for something that was all in fun and relative good cheer. And, this is where I'd probably chalk up so much anger stemming from here, because it was basically a time where defeat was seized from the looming jaws of victory. The system had had it's first war between people who'd known each other, the system had responded back to someone who attempted to abuse the system, and it had almost been working once again until NPO engaged on behalf of BK.

    Heading back into @John Q Listener's shitpostings, page six more or less was a series of shitposts until you once again moan that no one is accepting blame, and I explain as others did before me the situation at hand. Your subsequent posts just kept ignoring every single thing that was said to you, and continuing to blame Coalition A for not peacing out. It's actually here that you start going, "lalalalalalala everything I don't like is Hitler spin!"

    Coffee then comes in and goes, well, how does making it public help you, to which, our response is, well, nothing else worked, so why wouldn't we give it a shot, as well as explaining in more detail how it takes two to peace out.

    After that, you return:

    3 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

    This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

    What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

    The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

    1 hour ago, John Q Listener said:

    I appreciate the really detailed response here, however, this is still just a lot of spin. The facts have been well established, it is now just a case of hopefully Co A & Co's leadership being willing to authentically engage in negotiations in the next round.

    Any failure to achieve peace is completely on Co A & Co. 

    Once again, you refuse to listen to a thing that we have said, and continue to deflect and make your own assertion that it is Coalition A's fault for why no peace has been reached. Finally, I ask you to offer a rebuttal to the arguments that have been made, only to have you respond with faux offense, claiming that nothing you said was argued against, and that once again, Coalition A must take responsibility, while completely dodging my offer to actually discuss things honestly. So, with this, we have stated our issues, why they exist, and that we are unable to do as you so desperately wish us to do, only to be received by deaf ears.

    @Supreme Master Joi, I'm afraid that my hopes of honest discussion grow exceptionally dimmer the more time I spend in these forums. 

    Edit: 

    6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

    I do enjoy the hypocrisy your coalition spouts. You vigorously said that a couple of high ranking members of your coalition wanting to do the same at a point when the war hadn't been decided wasnt an overall view/goal of your coalition. Yet here you are once again trying to pin the words of a couple high ranking members of coalition B as the overall goal of the war. While there is no evidence I possess to back up my words, I would 100% bet in every single one of those past wars, someone of high ranking in those coalitions said at one point that they wanted to disband/destroy another alliance. I could point out how many tried to drive NPO out of the game in the early years. 

    Like ive said in previous posts, Coalition B will start talks once Coalition B are ready to. You offering to surrender doesn't automatically lead to peace. 

    I suppose this also gives us another issue on how we'd be able to think of the members.

    • Upvote 1

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted · Edited by Quichwe10

    11 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

    I appreciate the really detailed response here, however, this is still just a lot of spin. The facts have been well established, it is now just a case of hopefully Co A & Co's leadership being willing to authentically engage in negotiations in the next round.

    Any failure to achieve peace is completely on Co A & Co. 

    Then if you know better than I, then exactly lay out what facts you claim to know. Coalition A's leadership would greatly appreciate knowing what facts a member of but a single alliance in your coalition knows about the peace process that we do not. 

    Perhaps you could once again go over how a refusal of your side to offer the remainder of peace terms is apparently the fault of ours?

    If we are truly discussing this, then outline for me what parts I have said are false, what parts are spin, and why they are as such. 

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    58 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

    I believe that it is normal to agree to each term sequentially, so this is not unreasonable.

    Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail.

    3 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

    This is a bad faith argument, and you know it. All you are trying to do here is to deflect responsibility from Co A & Co.

    What continues to be difficult to understand is whether the terms exist or not. Currently there are about three narratives running through this community; the terms exist and were leaked, the terms don't exist because Co B won't give them, and it's unreasonable that the terms are negotiated sequentially. The level of spin present by certain bad-faith actors here is making it more difficult for peace to be achieved.

    The saddest thing is that it seems a small percentage of line members from Co A are starting to believe the false narrative espoused by some of their leadership.  

    As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes to give us because IQ has refused to speak or issue any terms to us. The feeling of unreasonableness is because the style in which the terms are being presented sequentially with the demand that the next term will not be seen until we agree to the presented term is because it is either unprecedented or so far out of the norm that it is unreasonable. All wars previous have had all terms be listed and given at once, without the demand that a term must be agreed to before another is given.

    I must express my disappointment here with how fully people on the forums seem to ignore any words that have been written, and immediately chalk it up to bad-faith actors when grievances have been aired in public because nothing that has been done in private has gone anywhere. 

    • Upvote 4

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    12 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

    Weren't the terms leaked?? Do you have the terms or not? The terms seem to exist and not exist depending on what's convenient at the time.

    Firstly, the only terms given to us from that list was that the war ended, and that there was a NAP, both of which are no brainers since it's a peace treaty. No other terms had been given to us at that point in time. Those leaks were rather from an internal IQ leadership channel that Coalition A was not privy to. Since then, IQ has deemed it fit to refuse to confirm those terms or issue terms to us in the stead of the leaked terms. As well, IQ has repeatedly told us that there are ten terms in total, of which only 6 were mentioned in the leak. So no, we don't have terms. 

    Poll for Downvotes

    in Orbis Central

    Posted · Edited by Quichwe10
    Edited for Mad Max's portion

    11 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

    The karma system overall is fine, but downvotes were definitely being used by a small group of bad-faith actors as a (in their view) means of fighting back seeing as they lost a major war. Maybe in the future downvotes can be re-added but right now I am unsure whether this will be possible.

    Eh. I view their usage of downvotes as stating their hefty disagreement with what has been stated. Merely being on the losing side of a war should not mean that one loses the right to voice either their displeasure at less than stellar actions done by their opponents, nor to correct continually and demonstrably false statements. Coalition B itself made mention way back during the beginning of the war when they were on the ropes by planning to mass downvote Buorhan's posts, though that in of itself was also done to attack his total forum Karma to get a rise out of him. That incident right there, as well as Joi's statement on Karma are prime reasons why I favor rather the dissolution of the Karma system instead of the downvote.

    5 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

    Backlash of this removal is pretty much expected and shouldn't of not been expected - remove the whole damn thing. Remove the ability to favor a post, remove the ability to be like 'hey I need attention upvote me'  or 'downvote me bc I need attention'  - then you'll get that trash out of the community. This will likely take some pressure of mods as we definitely got a ton of reports for people downvoting their OP. I even got fricking warned for downvoting multiple posts that I wasn't a fan of - yes a warn for downvoting. 

    Remove the whole system.

    Wait, when did this happen? What was the reasoning given behind this?

    A plea to consider Co A line members

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    1 minute ago, John Q Listener said:

    This thread is really disappointing to me, because I was really hoping to provide an enlightening experience to some of the leadership of Co A & Co who frequent these forums. Instead, this thread was hijacked by people with either no skin in the game or for some reason aren't willing to see how the Co A & Co leadership are damaging this game and their members. Very sad.

    According to the thread, we are being criticized for not not giving terms to Coalition B good enough for them to want peace, and that it's not the job of the victors to tell the losers what they want from them. Speaking as an alliance leader in Coalition A, it takes two to peace, and Coalition has made its opinion clear that it does not want peace enough to tell us what terms they demand of us. 

    Poll for Downvotes

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    Just now, John Q Listener said:

    I think the removal of the downvotes is a very good thing. 

    Would you perhaps mind elaborating on your reasoning behind it? And, what would your opinion be on the elimination of the totaled karma system compared to that of the downvote?

    Poll for Downvotes

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Supreme Master Joi said:

    Hey, it's okay Thalmor - I'm just explaining what *I* think the reasoning is behind Alex's change to the forums. I'm intentionally not leveling any fingers at any specific posters.

    I personally didn't enjoy the experience of getting downvoted for being a new member with potentially inflammatory/ignorant opinions, but there are clearly some users out there that have been gluttons for the things.

    Being able to gauge whether a post is unpopular is a useful tool for testing the community waters. Having a reputation statistic for "unpopular posters" is a little trickier, however, due to the political nature of the PnW game itself. If there's a statistic that can be manipulated to hurt someone's "social score" for a tangible political advantage, then someone in this game is going to do it. 

    Personally, I'd be fine with Downvote reactions making a return, but perhaps only if they weren't actually tracked on user profiles. Just keep Downvotes on the posts themselves, not on the users.

    This is definitely a suggestion I would agree with, the return of downvotes, and the removal of the totaled karma system. 

    • Upvote 1

    Poll for Downvotes

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Supreme Master Joi said:

      If I'm reading this right you seem to have answered yourself already with the part I bolded above... nonetheless:

    The removal of the Downvote button means that people have to actually work out their frustrations and criticisms in a format that can actually be dealt with cooperatively in a social medium.

    Reacting with a bland, simple "NO" to a post from someone you dislike has no context other than negativity. If you disagree with something someone has said on the forums, now you need to contribute to the discussion, preferably in a constructive format. The only way understanding can be created between two sides on a debate is through honest and open discourse.

    Judging by the previous two responses above you, I must confess that honest and open discourse is a bridge too far. 

    That being said, in regards to Downvotes... An issue with having everyone be forced to do that then makes it so that there is a great deal more clutter around the thread as a number more of people voice their disagreement, and than others will just shake their heads in private and then say nothing. There is little wrong with honest and open discourse, but I must ask you how many people you think will scroll through every page until the very end and read through it all.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.

  I accept