Rose's Surrender

[Roquentin]

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.

 

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 giving the decline in membership since the last war.

 

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. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Roquentin

[Cincinnatus]

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.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Night King

[Prefontaine]

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?

 

What if the one defeat was Alpha's multiple month suicide fest against tS? Would you fault members who left Alpha after that? 

 

Also thanks for the praise to TEst. Solid leadership can only take us so far. We've got some kick ass members.

[Prefonteen]

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. 

 

Actually, I was on a hotseat following my Cynic mishap. If i'd led us into a losing war by making strategic mistakes following that, trust in me would likely have eroded to a point where it's likely that i'd have been asked to step down. Accountability is important. Activity and involvement amongst members is great in a lot of way, if channeled right. When it comes to mistakes and dissent however: The pressure to perform is higher as well, if only because there are so many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak

 

In terms of attitude and weird notions.... Not once in my gaming career have I seen anyone so consistently bring up "the activity of the opponent" and "the opponent wanting to win" as the primary reasons for literally everything. Activity, however you look at it, is a good thing. Good for the alliance(s) involved. Good for the game in general. You're literally achieving nothing by trying to use that to mask your own inadequacies.

 

'winning is everything'..... Are you referring to Eumir's trolling? Because frankly, we you're the one making a big deal out of that stuff while arbitrarily attributing that fictional motivation to any entity that no longer wishes to affiliate with you. The world is not black-and-white. There are a lot of reasons why one may want to flip over to our side. Can consistently losing be a factor? Certainly. Can it also have to do with other intangibles? Certainly.

[Cincinnatus]

What if the one defeat was Alpha's multiple month suicide fest against tS? Would you fault members who left Alpha after that? 

 

Also thanks for the praise to TEst. Solid leadership can only take us so far. We've got some kick ass members.

 

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.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Night King

[Prefonteen]

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.

 

 

 

This, pretty much. After Impero demanded my resignation in private, I put my faith in the hands of the rest of govt initially. They backed me up. At that point I had govt pose the exact same question to the member body at large while I remained uninvolved in the internal discussion. A poll was held following the discussion. Membership decided that I should stay on for various reasons. It was made very clear that I could not afford another mistake like that though.

 

tl;dr- accountability.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Partisan

[Cincinnatus]

Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.

 

Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.

 

Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.

 

Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.

 

Against rose I think we (tS) at the time had 40 or 50 members, I think it was a high 40 (48 is coming to mind for some reason).

 

After the TEL merger we only had I think a membership in the mid 30s. Both tS and TEL before the merger had membership accounts around 20 and not all of the TEL members merged into us.

[Roquentin]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

You've had no problem referencing it in previous posts, but fine.

 

It became #1 with the Sparta merger, however. It wasn't random chance, but it wasn't exactly an overnight success. TEst has always been competitive for a smaller member count alliance and that has mostly come from having a fairly stalwart memberbase that has spent a lot  of time together. It's been a staple in many realms. Years long relationships also figure into that success and they have their merits as well. I think Prefontaine's relationships from Guardian helped a lot in making the Sparta merge viable.  The point was that it's not something everyone can replicate if they decide one day they want to act as an elite alliance. I'm not disregarding the effort, but there are circumstances involved that aren't replicable for every alliance. 

 

See the thing is not everyone agrees with your definition of responsible leadership.

 

It really depends on what the definition of trying to remedy things is. I know for a fact UPN tried to fix its military readiness after the last war and they put the work there. The issue here is, your complaint is they didn't wish to reach an accommodation with an enemy many in their alliance do not like that has harmed them as well and you have the expectation and that is the mistake you're highlighting("attacking the same alliances). This specific type of valuation is the one I find problematic. The best interests of an alliance can vary on a case by case basis. Remaining true to the values your alliance holds can be more important than avoiding war if you might lose. If it was just one or two leaders, would Hans have won his election? No. He was voted in and his stances were known.

 

So basically external actors offering their opinions of what an  alliance should do with their leadership backfired? You don't say. How ironic you guys keep trying it, though.

 

Here's the issue: you guys keep twisting a realistic assessment of the statistical state of a particular grouping as tears and then chalk that up to being all that we've done.  Basically, it's your end all be all argument. "You guys are salty." There's a real problem with the fact that you essentially want this to be an echo chamber and you don't like dissenting viewpoints and perspectives. Any grievance  is just crying. Maybe instead of the politics and war forums we can call it "Syndisphere Forums". When you guys are upset about something, it's legitimate. When anyone else is upset, it's just whining.

 

I'm not really sure where I blamed anyone else? I've consistently admitted the reason we lost is because we're not as active as a group. No one on our side has denied your side is more active.  You guys are doing what you want to do.  Basically, here  we are at the "git gud" argument stage, again. There's only so much you can do with what's left over and pretending efforts weren't made/haven't been made is disengenuous.

 

 

 

Actually, I was on a hotseat following my Cynic mishap. If i'd led us into a losing war by making strategic mistakes following that, trust in me would likely have eroded to a point where it's likely that i'd have been asked to step down. Accountability is important. Activity and involvement amongst members is great in a lot of way, if channeled right. When it comes to mistakes and dissent however: The pressure to perform is higher as well, if only because there are so many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak

 

In terms of attitude and weird notions.... Not once in my gaming career have I seen anyone so consistently bring up "the activity of the opponent" and "the opponent wanting to win" as the primary reasons for literally everything. Activity, however you look at it, is a good thing. Good for the alliance(s) involved. Good for the game in general. You're literally achieving nothing by trying to use that to mask your own inadequacies.

 

'winning is everything'..... Are you referring to Eumir's trolling? Because frankly, we you're the one making a big deal out of that stuff while arbitrarily attributing that fictional motivation to any entity that no longer wishes to affiliate with you. The world is not black-and-white. There are a lot of reasons why one may want to flip over to our side. Can consistently losing be a factor? Certainly. Can it also have to do with other intangibles? Certainly.

 

What if it had been VE/Rose attacking you before you could get more of your pieces for your sphere ready and you lost? Would it have been blamed on you?

 

I haven't really been saying activity is bad. You're either not reading what I've said correctly or deliberately misinterpreting it. It is merely a frank assessment of why you are able to win.  It's to your credit, but it's not something easily overcome. We tried to overcome it using a specific method and it didn't work. We never had the type of statistical mass on paper to make it up, either as we would need  a higher ratio than we have.

 

I'm not attributing fictional motivations to anything. You plaster the forums with it and I've heard it verbatim from alliances. "we just don't want to get rolled anymore, "I thought being allied to X would lead to our destruction long-term." Those are just the most blatant examples. Even people on your side have admitted people got tired of losing.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

So this thread is 22 pages of Roquentin crying about their defeat, and justifying how the sneak attack that failed due to incompetence was the best option they had?

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Roquentin]

So this thread is 22 pages of Roquentin crying about their defeat, and justifying how the sneak attack that failed due to incompetence was the best option they had?

 

 

except you missed the part where it was your side bringing up NPO's current situation first, which lead to the derail. I've merely offered the reasoning for our course of action. If you don't like them, I can't help you.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

except you missed the part where it was your side bringing up NPO's current situation first, which lead to the derail. I've merely offered the reasoning for our course of action. If you don't like them, I can't help you.

 

You don't need to help me, pal. I'm doing quite fine. Focus on helping yourself and your alliance instead :*

[Foltest]

Outside of political reasons for not doing, I sort of wish NPO would just blast their allies for ruining what should've been a won war. NPO has had consistent performance throughout, but their allies have dropped the ball as per usual.

 

 

 

To answer someone's comparison from page 17 or 18 - Mensa is a "godtier" alliance because they actively cull the shittier members from their ranks. Just like NPO tries to do. Just like BK, tS, TKR, and any winning alliance try to do. BK, TKR, NPO, and tS have high member numbers because of their competence and cultural attractiveness.

 

So next time someone says "well we can't do anything about inactivity" - how about stop trying to make your alliance look like it's not suffering when you're publicly repeating that it is. Kick the shittier and be a 40-50 man competent alliance instead of being a 70-90 man AA relying on inactives. Any arguments about "muh members" or "muh effectiveness without 100 meatshields" just point to mensa as the best example of what quality vs. quantity truly means.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Raymond Reddington

[Auctor]

The posts along the lines of "LOLOL NPO IZ CRYEN" would be make a lot more sense in a context where certain boohoodlers weren't wringing their hands about our use of game mechanics everyone else has 1) used and 2) has equal access to. Or if the stated rationale behind levying the reps wasn't literally spilt pixels.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The posts along the lines of "LOLOL NPO IZ CRYEN" would be make a lot more sense in a context where certain boohoodlers weren't wringing their hands about our use of game mechanics everyone else has 1) used and 2) has equal access to. Or if the stated rationale behind levying the reps wasn't literally spilt pixels.

 

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

[Roquentin]

Outside of political reasons for not doing, I sort of wish NPO would just blast their allies for ruining what should've been a won war. NPO has had consistent performance throughout, but their allies have dropped the ball as per usual.

 

 

 

To answer someone's comparison from page 17 or 18 - Mensa is a "godtier" alliance because they actively cull the shittier members from their ranks. Just like NPO tries to do. Just like BK, tS, TKR, and any winning alliance try to do. BK, TKR, NPO, and tS have high member numbers because of their competence and cultural attractiveness.

 

So next time someone says "well we can't do anything about inactivity" - how about stop trying to make your alliance look like it's not suffering when you're publicly repeating that it is. Kick the shittier and be a 40-50 man competent alliance instead of being a 70-90 man AA relying on inactives. Any arguments about "muh members" or "muh effectiveness without 100 meatshields" just point to mensa as the best example of what quality vs. quantity truly means.

 

Well, who could we really blast here? The leaders did what they could. If people are just so out of tune they don't follow orders that are sent out or don't see the game as a priority in terms of showing up, I can't really blame the leaders. I personally know someone in one of the participating alliances and they were so tuned out they didn't know it was happening until I told them and then when they did get on, they didn't launch any wars and logged out.

 

Mensa has a strong community that knew each other from Erep and 52 members isn't that large of a portion of eUSA, I don't think, so it's their very best. They can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't disagree with the sentiment you have here where having standards for members is important, but purging just on its own doesn't make an alliance better and we don't really do it since it's not as beneficial to us and they don't really waste our resources. Maybe you like you said it'd give the alliance a better statistical representation of itself, but that only goes so far. Even though Mensa is very competent at fighting, they wouldn't be able to fight the world alone.

 

edit:

 

 

 

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

 

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Roquentin

[Sketchy]

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

 

How do you know they are crying? Are you sitting next to them?

 

I suspect you may not be telling the truth!

[Auctor]

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500. 

 

This isn't some esoteric math. Give me number of cities and infra per city and I will calculate how many days it would take to recover the reps.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

 

On the contrary, what you just said is completely silly. Do you think NPO is causing more damage to the other side by prolonging the conflict? That's false. And given that it's false, you are hurting your position in the long term as well as the short term.

[Auctor]

On the contrary, what you just said is completely silly. Do you think NPO is causing more damage to the other side by prolonging the conflict? That's false. And given that it's false, you are hurting your position in the long term as well as the short term.

That's actually not what I said. I can actually direct you to what I said. It's the exact same post you quoted.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That's actually not what I said. I can actually direct you to what I said. It's the exact same post you quoted.

 

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Sketchy]

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

 

It was clear you are just stupid.

 

(inb4 another professionally offended baby reports me because he can't read)

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sketchy

[Auctor]

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

 

 

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

 

Here you go.

[Foltest]

Well, who could we really blast here? The leaders did what they could. If people are just so out of tune they don't follow orders that are sent out or don't see the game as a priority in terms of showing up, I can't really blame the leaders. I personally know someone in one of the participating alliances and they were so tuned out they didn't know it was happening until I told them and then when they did get on, they didn't launch any wars and logged out.

 

Mensa has a strong community that knew each other from Erep and 52 members isn't that large of a portion of eUSA, I don't think, so it's their very best. They can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't disagree with the sentiment you have here where having standards for members is important, but purging just on its own doesn't make an alliance better and we don't really do it since it's not as beneficial to us and they don't really waste our resources. Maybe you like you said it'd give the alliance a better statistical representation of itself, but that only goes so far. Even though Mensa is very competent at fighting, they wouldn't be able to fight the world alone.

 

edit:

 

 

 

 

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500.

If you depend on someone like you mentioned to be a part of a blitz, or cover a certain target, etc - it becomes a problem with your war effort, even though they are a convenient farm for resources.

 

When you only end up declaring 35 wars when you almost have 100 members, just another example, is embarrassing. It has political ramifications. People don't want to forever be in a shittier AA, nor do people want to team up with someone who has a losing record.

 

 

I know we're doing our argument thing in this thread but if anyone, including anyone on our side, reads this I hope they pay attention. Collecting a hive of inactive members is not good for your AA, nor is it good for your coalition, and it's not good for the game.

[Auctor]

Amen. I die a little inside when one of our applicants says they shower. I know that's 10-15 minutes 2-3 times a week they won't be online and we'll be vulnerable.