Jump to content
Cooper_

A Problem For Discussion

Solutions  

70 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Edward I said:

I watch that movie for Alan Rickman. The fact that it has Bruce Willis is just extra.

Alan Rickman is the best. Most definitely.
 

 

24 minutes ago, Edward I said:

There are two main issues here.

First are the "solutions" themselves. It's not that I don't understand them, it's that don't I think there's a single understanding for most of them. I'm not going to endorse something that will get used as a vacuous talking point later on, especially since some of these aren't much more than vacuous talking points to begin with, even in their best-articulated formats.

Second is the notion on which the question is implicitly based. I don't think it's reasonable to decide what the metagame will be in committee. I have no reason to respect whatever outcome the vote here produces, and I don't expect anyone else to respect it either if they feel they can achieve a better outcome through other means.

Discussing the metagame can be quite productive, which is why I didn't bring this particular point up when it was still just a discussion. Pretending that a vote on anything less than a concrete, well-defined course of action is meaningful, though, is just silly.

I appreciate the further explanation. This is actually more clear for me. Thanks

Both points I can definitely see as an Issue. Especially in a blind Poll where no one knows where anyone else is voting. I'd argue that it would give an idea of who might be willing to work with who on certain issues, even if they don't entirely agree with each other on the means to the end, but the blind poll threw that out of the window and short of asking everyone how they voted, which would be a pain in the ass.

I think having an idea of where people stand on the endgame gives an insight into where the focus for planning needs to go. Even if it's arbitrary at best. I wouldn't take this vote any more serious than I would a Survey from a company about which brands I like, agreed, but I feel it gives us a direction of topic to come up with the well-defined course of action. Like section three, where the majority believe outreach programs, like the one for GPWC, should be a priority in order to bring new people into the game. That could be a good place to start discussion about what people think needs to be done in order to start something like that. Obviously not everyone has the ability to @ here a 30k person Discord server, but a discussion and a concrete plan can take place off the idea of that that is an idea most people can get behind.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, given the fact that endorsing such an open ended subjective based option, if used later as a tool to state there's "buy-in" because I voted for it, is something I'd prefer to not get into. At this moment a NoTA option is ideal given that while I may agree in principle with some things, I'd rather not be beholden to some sort of "surveyed" outcome. Where specific proposals have been made, and it deals with the mechanics, I can and will vote for it, but if it's subjective "survey" like questions, I'd like to skip it/ NoTA please :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edward I said:

There are answers to all four questions which are so nebulous that they're essentially meaningless, but question 2 is particularly bad. None of the "solutions" is remotely enforceable and most of them are so ill-defined that I'm not even sure what's being suggested. (To see why, take the verb in each answer and tell me what a specific, consensus definition of it would be in this context.)

Rather than claiming a false mandate from a fallaciously-constructed vote, include a "none of the above" option to see how many people disagree with the premise in the first place.

Yes, as @Pasky Darkfire said I'm just the middleman allowing us to vote on all of y'all's ideas.  And as I've stated before not all of these are solutions, in a direct form that is.  Rather some of them are conceptual as I explained in the post above yours that can prompt a discussion about solutions.  Right now all of the sides are beyond the point of discussion, so just acknowledging that we might share some common values is literally a step in the right direction.  I've had conversations with you personally along the same lines where I listen to you to understand your viewpoint and values, attempting to find some place where there is common ground.  Solutions are ideal (and some of those choices are genuine solutions), but just realizing that maybe we all have a distaste for toxicity or share an interest in something else is good too.  Maybe afterwards we even find those solutions.

As for the "none of the above," I honestly feel that everyone can like at least one thing if not then choose the lesser evil and make it clear here in our discussions.  No one should be claiming any mandate or political purpose here, and if they do I'll call them out (as I already have if you'd like to check my post history).

1 hour ago, Edward I said:

Second is the notion on which the question is implicitly based. I don't think it's reasonable to decide what the metagame will be in committee. I have no reason to respect whatever outcome the vote here produces, and I don't expect anyone else to respect it either if they feel they can achieve a better outcome through other means.

This vote has no weight besides showing the views of the community.  You are welcome to vote, not vote, support the result or disavow the result.  In the end, I just hope you just take a look at the results and do with it as you will.

 

1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Both points I can definitely see as an Issue. Especially in a blind Poll where no one knows where anyone else is voting. I'd argue that it would give an idea of who might be willing to work with who on certain issues, even if they don't entirely agree with each other on the means to the end, but the blind poll threw that out of the window and short of asking everyone how they voted, which would be a pain in the ass.

The blind poll was purposeful because there is conclusive evidence that public voting changes people's views.  I'm taking a class right now in college about public opinion and polls, and Australian ballot is the way to go to avoid the effects of social pressures.  Also, ideally I was hoping popular support would be a good place to start, but I can make the voters name public with the check of a box.  Give everyone a day or two to finish voting, and I'll consider it.

14 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nevertheless, given the fact that endorsing such an open ended subjective based option, if used later as a tool to state there's "buy-in" because I voted for it, is something I'd prefer to not get into. At this moment a NoTA option is ideal given that while I may agree in principle with some things, I'd rather not be beholden to some sort of "surveyed" outcome. Where specific proposals have been made, and it deals with the mechanics, I can and will vote for it, but if it's subjective "survey" like questions, I'd like to skip it/ NoTA please :P

This is kind of why the results are blind.  But also you can quote me on this: no one is being forced into anything here.  You're not beholden to anything besides what you agree to do as I've said in different words above to Edward

 

Also, as a note to everyone please get as many people to vote as possible.  Members, gov, leaders or even unaffiliated players are all welcome and should vote because ideally we want as much diversity and numbers of people as possible.

 

Edited by Cooper_
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a suggestion: Crack down on intentional efforts to mislead and confuse people. This includes discord posts telling new people to do things they really shouldn't, forums posts like this telling people that a major party in the current war has surrendered, fake nation page info, and even scenarios such as alliances/players deliberately brainwashing new players or a situation where people are merely being sarcastic, but that might not be understood by a newbie who knows nothing about big alliances or game politics. I'm a fairly new player myself, and I've been surprised by the amount of this that goes on in this community.

Edited by Changeup
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hope said:

then why bring it up at all? you never sound particularly worried. in fact, you treat it as a good thing.

in my original post i even said “EMC used to flex IQ deletions” which you acted like you had no idea even happened, and now you say that you both did it then and now. so, buorhann, which is it? do you treat people quitting the game during these 3 month+ wars as a good thing or a bad thing? because many people on your side are all “woe is me” now that they’re the ones facing the consequences of it

There's a pretty big difference in using it as a talking point or making jokes about it like Leo has done.

I treat it as neither.  It happens.

You're being overly assumptious.

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I mean I think a viable solution would be to lose an improvement once a day or so if you have more improvements than infra, with mil and power being last priority.

How do you come up with the exact opposite of what we’re trying to solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching a person who was fighting with me get killed by someone with a 13-city advantage, I'd say that working to avoid large city mismatches in war is a major priority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For @Cooper_ @Akuryo @Mad Max @Sir Scarfalot

15 hours ago, Mad Max said:

Trust would be needed in general to even have an adult conversation on the matter. Trust is what delivers a dialogue - if both sides don't have trust in each other, both sides wouldn't be reluctant to sit down and hash out end terms. Big talk this war has been the idea that the aggressiveness would just boil over again into another war or political engagements post war to drop the 'hegemony' of IQ from the game and be the dymanic heroes in the world creating minispheres.

How about it. This is fundamentally wrong. You do not need trust to talk to someone you have differences with.

Let's take a simple example. Grumpy despises and has no trust for Guardian. Assume Grumpy hit Guardian in a 1v1 war. Guardian ends up completely wiping the floor with Grumpy to the point that they can't even fight back, You are staying that at that point it's a matter of trust to come to the table and discuss peace. This is wrong. If one side is unwilling to come to the other for talks it would be a matter of pride, not trust. You do not need to trust them to have civil discussion.

Another example. Let's say my girlfriend does something to completely lose my trust. If she wants to make amends, is that going to stop her from coming to me for a civil discussion? If I want to make it right, is that going to stop me from "hashing out my terms." Trust actually has nothing to do with having civil discussion when you are required to have it. 

You actively work with someone at work and you don't trust him. Are you just not going to talk to him despite having to? As players of this game we have to talk, whether each side likes each other or not. Not having trust is a mere excuse to avoid the reality in-front of you in this case.

7 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Incidentally, I'd like to acknowledge that there's not really been any single event that's broken trust; what matters is the perception of broken trust. IQ believes what they believe, EMC believes what they believe, and whoever is actually right is irrelevant to the decision making process of either.

Yes, this is merely a false perception. Where has it stemmed from in the first place? I personally would like to know.
Trust has nothing to do with a difference of beliefs, as those are mere opinions. What is clear to everyone is that it's the difference of opinions that has postponed peace talks until now. Just as Scarf said, Memesphere has their beliefs as KERCHTOGG has their own.
What's even more funny is that something commonly and openly implied is this, "One side will give in eventually." Now when that is openly implied or said, it becomes a competition to see who will outlast who. That in itself extends the conflict by a lot, not to mention discourages talks because it gives a semblance of weakness at that point/in that mentality. 

 

9 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Most often this is achieved through more inter-alliance communication, which is a strategy that TKR has attempted to employ recently, including with you guys although y'all don't talk too much :P.  Maybe it's idealistic but I wouldn't call it naive to have more conversations between enemy factions where people actually hear each other out before moving to walls on the OWF.  

I'm not calling conversations between alliances naive. What I'm calling naive is blaming the lack of communication on trust. It's like saying you won't talk to your mother because you don't trust her, but you need to talk to her because she's the one who has been and still is taking care of you. There is nothing that has declared one side or the other can't be trusted for the fulfillment of peace. All the precedents of the past clearly say that if peace was achieved and discussed it would be upheld in a proper manner. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Khai Jäger said:

For @Cooper_ @Akuryo @Mad Max @Sir Scarfalot

How about it. This is fundamentally wrong. You do not need trust to talk to someone you have differences with.

Let's take a simple example. Grumpy despises and has no trust for Guardian. Assume Grumpy hit Guardian in a 1v1 war. Guardian ends up completely wiping the floor with Grumpy to the point that they can't even fight back, You are staying that at that point it's a matter of trust to come to the table and discuss peace. This is wrong. If one side is unwilling to come to the other for talks it would be a matter of pride, not trust. You do not need to trust them to have civil discussion.

Another example. Let's say my girlfriend does something to completely lose my trust. If she wants to make amends, is that going to stop her from coming to me for a civil discussion? If I want to make it right, is that going to stop me from "hashing out my terms." Trust actually has nothing to do with having civil discussion when you are required to have it. 

You actively work with someone at work and you don't trust him. Are you just not going to talk to him despite having to? As players of this game we have to talk, whether each side likes each other or not. Not having trust is a mere excuse to avoid the reality in-front of you in this case.



 

I mean, sure, in a real world where people can be adults your opinion of the matter makes sense. However, this is not only NOT a real world (PW), but everyone acts like children mostly bc they are still just that. You can continue to add real life examples and how it SHOULD work, but you'll still be wrong when it pertains to this specific war and this specific group of people.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Khai Jäger said:

Yes, this is merely a false perception. Where has it stemmed from in the first place? I personally would like to know.

Trust has nothing to do with a difference of beliefs, as those are mere opinions. What is clear to everyone is that it's the difference of opinions that has postponed peace talks until now. Just as Scarf said, Memesphere has their beliefs as KERCHTOGG has their own.
What's even more funny is that something commonly and openly implied is this, "One side will give in eventually." Now when that is openly implied or said, it becomes a competition to see who will outlast who. That in itself extends the conflict by a lot, not to mention discourages talks because it gives a semblance of weakness at that point/in that mentality.

Whether the perception is false or not is irrelevant; where it stemmed from initially is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the perception exists, as perception and perception alone is what decisions are based on.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Khai Jäger said:

I'm not calling conversations between alliances naive. What I'm calling naive is blaming the lack of communication on trust. It's like saying you won't talk to your mother because you don't trust her, but you need to talk to her because she's the one who has been and still is taking care of you. There is nothing that has declared one side or the other can't be trusted for the fulfillment of peace. All the precedents of the past clearly say that if peace was achieved and discussed it would be upheld in a proper manner. 

I'm actually saying the converse.  The lack of trust is to blame for a lack of communication.  We might be sharing different definitions of trust because from my vantage point it's a reliability to follow through on one's words.  In order to build up that trust over time, consistent communication is needed.  I think this is a basic tenet of FA, or at least it has been the fundamental nature of my own conduct.  

I'm not talking about fulfillment of peace.  I don't think too many are concerned with upholding of terms rather the fact that we can't have real conversations across enemy lines because of a lack of an implicit understanding of genuineness and good faith.  

Overall, what I'm saying is that I don't think we are disagreeing rather arguing on different points that aren't necessarily related.  If you got a different definition of trust, that is all fair, but this is the context and definition that I was using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 11:28 PM, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Even if you take your statement at face value, look at the reaction NPO got when they helped coordinate a massive new entry into the game. Rather than being applauded they were derided for "cementing a foothold blah blah blah". It's very convenient to complain about game health (not you personally), until it doesn't benefit one's side.

All they do is press "declare war" and "buy city" at the orders of NPO. They don't interact or play within the community and it was revealed they are being sheltered because of "toxicity".

You don't have to shelter someone if you know what you believe is the best thing. Whenever you shelter you bring in a system of control akin to a slave and master.

Many people disapprove of NPO importation because it only serves to divide the game more, make it more monotonous and less fun; thereby driving away several players who don't like monotony or absolute rule.

I'm not saying NPO is at fault in player base loss but tactics described above are employed quite frequently over the course of the war which indicates a strong correlation.

Edited by Deulos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deulos said:

All they do is press "declare war" and "buy city" at the orders of NPO. They don't interact or play within the community and it was revealed they are being sheltered because of "toxicity".

You don't have to shelter someone if you know what you believe is the best thing. Whenever you shelter you bring in a system of control akin to a slave and master.

Many people disapprove of NPO importation because it only serves to divide the game more, make it more monotonous and less fun; thereby driving away several players who don't like monotony or absolute rule.

I'm not saying NPO is at fault in player base loss but tactics described above are employed quite frequently over the course of the war which indicates a strong correlation.

ec4.jpg

:smug: doesn't exist on this forum, so just take it that whenever I post Saber here, its my smug emoji response. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioning Saber without invoking the Fate Alliance Camelot.

foai6q5txquy.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

-Snip crazy photo size

:smug: doesn't exist on this forum, so just take it that whenever I post Saber here, its my smug emoji response. 

Smug.jpg
Are we willing to tone down the sheer size of the thing tho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 11:14 PM, Kastor said:

This is a radical idea but...

 

remember when Alex removed the ability to have max improvements and max military when your infra was shot? Add that back, which means its harder to hold people down. Incentives getting new players, and makes it harder for one alliance or one tier to dominate long-term.

It's there, but for anything other than ships, you're not going to notice it until you're down to an average of 600ish infra per city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Smug.jpg
Are we willing to tone down the sheer size of the thing tho?

Smug.jpg

 

Doesn't bring out her best smugness like a bigger saber no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Doesn't bring out her best smugness like a bigger saber no?

Yea my big saber makes me feel pretty smug too

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Yea my big saber makes me feel pretty smug too

Smug.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Yea my big saber makes me feel pretty smug too

giphy.gif

3 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Yea my big saber makes me feel pretty smug too

giphy.gif

(Yes I quoted it twice on purpose)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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