Jump to content

[POLL] Do You Want Dial Up War to End?


Artifex
 Share

[POLL] Do You Want Dial Up War to End?  

232 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want Dial Up War to end?


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 11/21/19 at 09:24 AM

Recommended Posts

In answer to the OP I'll fight for as long as it takes for Coalition A to be defeated. I'm always thirsty for blood, and the Guinea Pigs are always hungry. I don't particularly care how Coalition A is defeated, it can be by their own admission or by the rolling going on for so long that they cease to be relevant. I also don't care if it takes 2 months or 2 years. War is the only time this game is remotely interesting anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AtlasZX said:

To date, the 55% of 2019 (158 of 292 days) was spent in a state of global war for the majority of the alliances... 

Look on the bright side, one day when people talk about "The Great War", you can tell your alliance mates you were here for it, and regale them with tales about the days when the game didn't entirely suck.

"It's true.  All of it.  The Black Knights.  Guardians of the Galaxy.  They're real."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Didn't BK start out as a t$ protectorate? You sure seemed content to ride our peens to glory back then. To be fair, considering how BK turned out, I guess we did completely and utterly fail at teaching you how to be competent at literally anything so it looks like there's some room for improvement there. Thanks for pointing that out.

cute-obama-you-mad-meme.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Because you wanted to bake your cake and eat it to? You hedged your bets on t$ protection, and that’s not worth much. 

Did they not defend Terminus Est to the fullest extent possible? I don't see how you can possibly say that's not worth much, what's not worth much is your honor after hitting us while negotiating but I guess you'd already lost that anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malleator said:

Thank you Inst and Gudea for answering my question of war length. I wouldn't be surprised if most who voted, "No," shared your desires for the war to only last 1-3 more months.

No problem....anytime, man.

The next vote you should put up is for the creation of two alliances - Thunderdomes A & B. This way, all the players that been around since the Crucifixion on Cavalry can hash out their differences.

Let's see......any ideas for the first match-up? Given the friendly banter in this thread, let's start with Boyce the Great vs. Aragorn, Son of Arathorn!

And look up Seb to handle any handicapping and handling the bets! Like the good ol' days....ah yes.....a day of gladiatorial combat in the Colosseum!

 

P&W SK Flag Small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Malleator said:

While I can't help but think a lot of people have voted no in bad faith, such as to maintain a good negotiating position or to suit some other agenda outside being honest, I'm still surprised, "No," has such a high percentage, as I thought truly most would want the war to be ended currently. I suppose I've misjudged, but then again, many of those who voted, "No," do hold some sort of authority in an actively engaged alliance, so maybe I'm correct in my first hunch? Regardless, many reportedly don't want the war to end.

Well, it's not what I was expecting, but so far people seem to want this war to continue.

To those of you who voted, "No," how much longer do you want this war to go on for?

Perhaps I should have specified, "Do you want the war to end right now?" in the question. That was indeed the intent of my question.
Perhaps this will be PnW's first eternal war?
Can such a thing be sustained?
Is that what the people want?


First, how long do I think will it go on for? For the foreseeable future. I'm not saying in two months, nor three, but possibly even longer in 4-5 months time or more. The longer this goes on the more grounded everyone seems to be in their side, as shown by the forums themselves. Will it be eternal? No, it will end one day, just not any day I can realistically see, at least for now. Can this be sustained? Sure, Politics & War will go on with or without The Dial Up War happening in the background or the forefront, it's simply a matter of what's going to happen next while this war continues. Is that what the people want? I'd say the poll so far has shown that people do want this to continue, whether or not this changes only time will tell. The entire issue with this is that most people can get a good idea of how the peace talks are going (i.e. they're not going anywhere) but they have no direct outlet to view or listen to these talks. We have many claims here, and I'd like to see or hear the conversations going on both sides to either further verify what I (and others) have speculated or to perhaps expand on what we already know. The forums are 95% shit flinging and 5% actual substance when it comes to the complete truth at this stage.

But how long do I want it to go on for? I want it to go as long as possible without getting boring. I'm still able to log in everyday and burn or steal pixels, so therefore I'm quite satisfied as this stage with my production at least, but I doubt this entertainment will last forever, but then again it's what? 3-4 months in and I'm still getting loot. So maybe the outlook isn't so bad.

Edited by Rygus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sphinx said:

You're really not adding much to the conversation with your posts. I already know what I want and what Colo B wants, but until such time as KERCHTOGG admits defeat we'll continue this war.

EDIT: And yes I know people are butthurt about it, but you know what you need to do to get out of this predicament. Down-voting or complaining about it on the OWF wont help you. 

What are you complaining about?

  • Haha 2

deebo_sig_6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Didn't BK start out as a t$ protectorate? You sure seemed content to ride our peens to glory back then. To be fair, considering how BK turned out, I guess we did completely a utterly fail at teaching you how to be competent at literally anything so it looks like there's some room for improvement there. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think he meant more that your protection is less scary than usual because you have stuff to lose and the people that hit TEst don't have as much.  Tbh, nothing changed about BK in terms of the issues you have with them now so you might be right you failed or something, though.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2019 at 11:02 AM, Big Brother said:

Didn't BK start out as a t$ protectorate? You sure seemed content to ride our peens to glory back then. To be fair, considering how BK turned out, I guess we did completely and utterly fail at teaching you how to be competent at literally anything so it looks like there's some room for improvement there. Thanks for pointing that out.

BK always were syndisphere’s illegitimate stepchild. Don’t hold it against them.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Madden8021 said:

It was kind of rigged and also, Democracy never works in P&W, from polls to alliance elections. It's always been proven to be rigged and or fail. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you believe every other sort of decision making process utilised throughout PnW isn't rigged?  

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what's going on but war is always good.

On 10/25/2019 at 7:07 PM, Charles the Tyrant said:

Do you believe every other sort of decision making process utilised throughout PnW isn't rigged?  

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kadin said:

I have no idea what's going on but war is always good.

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

The point I was making is that every alliance in effect serves and is based on the interests of these in leadership within that alliance. Elections or not, the same principles stand, it's basically members agreeing to serve the interests of these in power in exchange for a benefit be it economic advantages, security, etc.  Would be foolish to think though that non-democratic alliances somehow aren't affected by self-interest to the same extent as democratic alliances.

Do you think someone who isn't well liked by the alliance's own members can get to power in any AA? Even if such a person did, the alliance would quickly lose members via voting with feet.

All alliances have democratic principles in place since members can come and go and lend their support when they please. You don't need elections in order to have popular sovereignty after all.

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

The point I was making is that every alliance in effect serves and is based on the interests of these in leadership within that alliance. Elections or not, the same principles stand, it's basically members agreeing to serve the interests of these in power in exchange for a benefit be it economic advantages, security, etc.  Would be foolish to think though that non-democratic alliances somehow aren't affected by self-interest to the same extent as democratic alliances.

Do you think someone who isn't well liked by the alliance's own members can get to power in any AA? Even if such a person did, the alliance would quickly lose members via voting with feet.

All alliances have democratic principles in place since members can come and go and lend their support when they please. You don't need elections in order to have popular sovereignty after all.

 

I was mainly referring to formal democratic processes and institutions such as elections and elected offices designed for the purposes of representation. These things are highly impersonal and restrict the membership to a passive role within the alliance. Even if you encourage them to actively participate as well, they will not be as easily motivated to do so because they have a lazy passive alternative readily available. Of course anyone can leave if they want, and leaders have to be tolerated by the members, but the post I responded to was an answer to someone specifically calling out elections.

 

My governing philosophy has long been that the membership IS the alliance, and the role of leadership is to shepherd and guide them in such a way that the alliance grows and strengthens itself. If you want to call that Democracy, then fine, but to me it is rule by the competent and those willing to work. You asked, "Do you believe every other sort of decision making process utilised throughout PnW isn't rigged?" My answer is that, if all systems are rigged as you seem to believe, then it would be best for the system to be rigged in favor of those members who produce results and those leaders who can get the most out of the crew they're given.

 

Now that I've said all that, I gave your post another read-over, and it seems we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of alliances. Members and leaders both serve the interests of the alliance as a whole, and both benefit from the success of their alliance. I don't agree that alliances only serve leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kadin said:

I was mainly referring to formal democratic processes and institutions such as elections and elected offices designed for the purposes of representation. These things are highly impersonal and restrict the membership to a passive role within the alliance. Even if you encourage them to actively participate as well, they will not be as easily motivated to do so because they have a lazy passive alternative readily available. Of course anyone can leave if they want, and leaders have to be tolerated by the members, but the post I responded to was an answer to someone specifically calling out elections.

 

My governing philosophy has long been that the membership IS the alliance, and the role of leadership is to shepherd and guide them in such a way that the alliance grows and strengthens itself. If you want to call that Democracy, then fine, but to me it is rule by the competent and those willing to work. You asked, "Do you believe every other sort of decision making process utilised throughout PnW isn't rigged?" My answer is that, if all systems are rigged as you seem to believe, then it would be best for the system to be rigged in favor of those members who produce results and those leaders who can get the most out of the crew they're given.

 

Now that I've said all that, I gave your post another read-over, and it seems we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of alliances. Members and leaders both serve the interests of the alliance as a whole, and both benefit from the success of their alliance. I don't agree that alliances only serve leadership.

Members gain some form of collective benefit from being in an alliance which can include better access to aid or security from raiders etc. In return these members are expected to serve the interests of the alliance's leaders. It's a simple and general way of looking at it but it's fundamentally true. I don't necessarily agree with it but it's just the reality of most alliances ( I'd say arrgh being a notable exception in this sense). If the leaders of an alliance start to act in a manner which results in the benefits of being in an alliance for its membership not being worth it then the members will naturally and eventually move on. In that sense all alliances are democratic to an extent since all leaders are held accountable in some manner ranging from elections to voting with feet.

My original point though is that all alliance governing decisions are ultimately decided with reference to the interests and wishes of that alliance's leaders. We can argue about the strengths of meritocracy but if someone in say a low gov position is extremely talented, it will not matter how talented they are if they disagree openly with upper gov on say FA direction or some other major decision. Their opposition will likely preclude them from further advancement until they start to espouse the party line therefore supporting the notion that the interests of an a core leadership are maintained and supported. Basically, merit is only going to get you so far unless you are on the same bus as upper gov. It's probably a significant factor in why we see so many micros form. Up and coming talent with different ideas and vision from that of the older gov wish to take an alliance in a different direction but can't do so due upper gov denying them the opportunity eventually leading to the formation of new alliances. It's probably one of the biggest handicaps we inherited from CN in that regards with reference to the traditional alliance leadership model since it doesn't allow much flexibility for up and coming talent.

The style of government does play a part, however, I'd say who is in gov plays far more of a role than the style of gov. If you have an elitist clique of leaders masquerading as a meritocracy and compare them to an alliance which has a more collective-based decision making process filled with talented people ( such as say tS which had a triumvirate but made a point of including its old guard in collective decision making during its early days) then the alliance with the better talent will naturally prevail regardless of governing structure. If you have an extremely talented gov in a democratic AA then they will naturally be a  good AA regardless of being a democracy. Similarly, if you have good gov in a meritocracy, they will do well , but a bad gov in a meritocracy is never going to do well regardless of being a meritocracy or not.

Tldr: members follow leaders as long as it suits them ( as they rightfully should). Loyalty is a two way street and leaders in all alliances make decisions which suit their own ideas and interests.

Typed on phone so grammar might be a bit off.

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Like 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everyone who doesn't answer "yes" is lying.  Months long wars get monotonous after a while and also stagnates the politics of the game.

The issue, as always, is that neither side wants to loose face by backing down in peace talks.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Almost everyone who doesn't answer "yes" is lying.  Months long wars get monotonous after a while and also stagnates the politics of the game.

The issue, as always, is that neither side wants to loose face by backing down in peace talks.

Or I'm perfectly fine continuing the war :P 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.