The Energon Pub

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Anarchy worked perfectly fine for eons before a system of government every existed, and no one ever complained then. Mostly because they'd be killed by the far stronger less whiny members of the society.

By definition, human society has never lived in anarchy. Even apes have a social structure with status and hierarchy.

Actually, you just implied that when you mentioned the far stronger members of society dominating the weaker ones...

Caelus wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Anarchy worked perfectly fine for eons before a system of government every existed, and no one ever complained then. Mostly because they'd be killed by the far stronger less whiny members of the society.

By definition, human society has never lived in anarchy. Even apes have a social structure with status and hierarchy.

Actually, you just implied that when you mentioned the far stronger members of society dominating the weaker ones...

Anarchy by it's very nature is about freedom without restrictions. However when it comes down to large groups of people the strong always call the shots. For example the movie Doomsday. The first city (the Mad Max one) was more or less Anarchy. But they had a leader. Although you can't really say that the system they had was a structured government. The other town (Medieval throwback) had a structured and ordered society. But given the choice between the two I'd take the Mad Max town. I love me some Mad Max. Oh and the chick with the facial tattoos and piercings was DO WANT.

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Caelus wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Anarchy worked perfectly fine for eons before a system of government every existed, and no one ever complained then. Mostly because they'd be killed by the far stronger less whiny members of the society.

By definition, human society has never lived in anarchy. Even apes have a social structure with status and hierarchy.

Actually, you just implied that when you mentioned the far stronger members of society dominating the weaker ones...

Anarchy by it's very nature is about freedom without restrictions. However when it comes down to large groups of people the strong always call the shots. For example the movie Doomsday. The first city (the Mad Max one) was more or less Anarchy. But they had a leader.

I believe you and I are using different operational definitions of anarchy then.

Because whether it's simply might makes right, will of the crowd, or a single leader, I'd still say that wasn't anarchy. Someone is still limiting/restricting your freedom, even if it isn't in an official capacity. Hence why I'd still consider wolf packs, lion prides, and whatever groups of gorillas are called to be nonanarchistic (is that a word?), even though the predate our modern concept of government.

What you're calling anarchy I would just call ineffectual government.

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Galvatron Supreme wrote:I'd like to see the ability to create invite-only missions and arena battles so that we can fight specific people/teams. That would open a whole new world of possibilities.

Yeah possibilities for people to run another team and set both up to feed each other XP. It's far too easy to exploit. And is a terrible idea for that reason.

Sorry, I tend to like to think most people are honest, lol. I was thinking of tournaments and direct combat with "enemies".

Unfortunetly, this game was plagued with the kind of cheating that that would inevitably invite, so, as much as a lot of us would like to see that kinda thing, it aint gonna happen.

Caelus wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Anarchy by it's very nature is about freedom without restrictions. However when it comes down to large groups of people the strong always call the shots. For example the movie Doomsday. The first city (the Mad Max one) was more or less Anarchy. But they had a leader.

I believe you and I are using different operational definitions of anarchy then.

Because whether it's simply might makes right, will of the crowd, or a single leader, I'd still say that wasn't anarchy. Someone is still limiting/restricting your freedom, even if it isn't in an official capacity. Hence why I'd still consider wolf packs, lion prides, and whatever groups of gorillas are called to be nonanarchistic (is that a word?), even though the predate our modern concept of government.

What you're calling anarchy I would just call ineffectual government.

Perhaps. But I'll let Steve-O explain it.

That video's NSFW because of language, but it basically puts into words what I'm failing to articulate.

Galvatron Supreme wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Galvatron Supreme wrote:I'd like to see the ability to create invite-only missions and arena battles so that we can fight specific people/teams. That would open a whole new world of possibilities.

Yeah possibilities for people to run another team and set both up to feed each other XP. It's far too easy to exploit. And is a terrible idea for that reason.

Sorry, I tend to like to think most people are honest, lol. I was thinking of tournaments and direct combat with "enemies".

It's ok. I tend to think that people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.

i would like to see a very innovative concept i've seen on other sites... working links and tabs... why do we have alt mode and minicon links and wait?

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Galvatron Supreme wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Yeah possibilities for people to run another team and set both up to feed each other XP. It's far too easy to exploit. And is a terrible idea for that reason.

Sorry, I tend to like to think most people are honest, lol. I was thinking of tournaments and direct combat with "enemies".

It's ok. I tend to think that people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.

And they are.

There's also the issue of "elitism".
Of course there was the Challenge Arena ...

True anarchy, just like every other utopia society doesn't work because nothing is geared that way. People are not inherently good, nor do we look for equality. People look for a leader. That leader then dictates the rules and behaviors, taking away the anarchy.

It's kinda like saying to be Emo, you have to be different and non-conformist, and act like every other Emo.

I don't want to be the voice of reason here--because we all know how weird that sounds coming from me--but I think this is a thread about features, not social interaction.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I don't want to be the voice of reason here...

To that, there is only one response.

What about assigning leaders of the factions to manage the forum user groups so that each can (a) kick out those players who switched at the reset and (b) add those in who go through the control panel and request access and are part of the faction. Seems like a quick win to get all the community interacting as planned.

OS - doing that would take some serious burden off of you and the other key moderators to manage forum access.
A Squishy amongst the Autobots in IACON only goes so far...

Wingspan wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I don't want to be the voice of reason here...

To that, there is only one response.

What about assigning leaders of the factions to manage the forum user groups so that each can (a) kick out those players who switched at the reset and (b) add those in who go through the control panel and request access and are part of the faction. Seems like a quick win to get all the community interacting as planned.

OS - doing that would take some serious burden off of you and the other key moderators to manage forum access.
A Squishy amongst the Autobots in IACON only goes so far...

because the assigned leaders would not neccasarily be the actual leaders. just putting someone in charge deosn't make them the leader, if they're ineffective or wield they're powers badly the masses will reject they're leadership and they're authority will come straight from the banning powers, which then puts them in position that they either become isolated and ostracised from the community they are meant to be leading when they use them in a situation the community deems unacceptable, or they become puppets of the actual leaders and then it's an unnecassary level of beauraucracy.

Here's a good one!

For missions to automaticly start once it has the max amount of entries.

Wingspan wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I don't want to be the voice of reason here...

To that, there is only one response.

I walked right into that one, didn't I?

Con-Con wrote:Here's a good one!

For missions to automaticly start once it has the max amount of entries.

Old idea, that has been rejected repeatedly, for both practical and role playing reasons.

In short, not gonna happen.

what were the practical reasons?

I honestly cant remember, but they were good ones, I can asure you.

Well, good reasons by this place's standards.

how about the ability to fight your faction in the arena.

you cant argue preds and cons wouldn't fight amongst them selves for heirarchy/bragging rights. Maximals/bots battling themselves as training exercise.

probably build in a "you cant fight against yourself" thing so you cant level atonomously... or leave it out and have a hardcore group that hates each other..

klimkcoC wrote:how about the ability to fight your faction in the arena.

you cant argue preds and cons wouldn't fight amongst them selves for heirarchy/bragging rights. Maximals/bots battling themselves as training exercise.

probably build in a "you cant fight against yourself" thing so you cant level atonomously... or leave it out and have a hardcore group that hates each other..

I hate the arena.

but IIRC seibs(the site owner) was adamantly agaisnt factions fighting themselves in the arena.

but i would much prefer to keep the arena the way it is and supplment it with Burn's challenge pit, which he hopefully will be along to explain in full any moment now.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN RPG MODE OF USE CONTROLLING OUT TRANSFORMERS IN THE ARENA!!!!

how exactly would that work?


i mean, at most TFs have 5 options in battle; use Tactic A, Tactic B, Use weapon, Kick, & Punch. and for most of the time you'd want to use your most powerful attack, which would generally be the tacti you've invested most in, and then it's just a case of lather rinse repeat.

Tammuz wrote:because the assigned leaders would not neccasarily be the actual leaders. just putting someone in charge deosn't make them the leader, if they're ineffective or wield they're powers badly the masses will reject they're leadership and they're authority will come straight from the banning powers, which then puts them in position that they either become isolated and ostracised from the community they are meant to be leading when they use them in a situation the community deems unacceptable, or they become puppets of the actual leaders and then it's an unnecassary level of beauraucracy.

Fair enough; then alter the request to having already approved moderators assigned as group admins so these faction differences can be resolved. Bureaucracy is certainly not the goal.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Wingspan wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:I don't want to be the voice of reason here...

To that, there is only one response.

I walked right into that one, didn't I?

Yeah, slightly. At least I didn't Rick Roll you.

Hellraiser44 wrote:I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN RPG MODE OF USE CONTROLLING OUT TRANSFORMERS IN THE ARENA!!!!

I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE GIVEN THAT IT'S A FORUM GAME. AND IF IT IS POSSIBLE IT'D JUST BE A STANDARD TURN BASED RPG. I SEE NO POINT IN SPECIALLY CODING A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE GAME DIFFERENTLY FOR NO REAL REASON. ALTHOUGH, YES, IT WOULD BE PRETTY COOL. CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER!!!

Wingspan wrote:At least I didn't Rick Roll you.

I didn't either.

You know you're going to click it anyway. But if you liek the animu it's called Boku no Pico.

I would like to see a 2nd tactic added to Gadgets. Repair alone is just not practical. At the very least, Strafe should be added.

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Wingspan wrote:At least I didn't Rick Roll you.

I didn't either.

You know you're going to click it anyway. But if you liek the animu it's called Boku no Pico.