DeletedUser10416
Guest
No surprise this came about then...
DeletedUser13539
Guest
In a way it was for me.
DeletedUser
Guest
We assumed TSN would split after losing the WW race so not a surprise for us either.
DeletedUser10416
Guest
Yeah, can imagine it would have been. It's not often your main leadership uses its members then splits and runs when things aren't going there way....
DeletedUser
Guest
Really? Because as the wonders were not a factor, you must have a really good crystal ball
can i borrow it?DeletedUser
Guest
Haha not exactly what happened but we can debate the issues in-game shall we?
DeletedUser
Guest
I called you guys having some kind of split soon after you started taking in all kinds of junk and disloyal members... leaders with bad attitudes and annoying personalities... I assumed you would stay together for the WW that you were all trying so hard to win, but once you lost, you would have no need to be together. I don't think anyone needed a crystal ball to realize you were a group of players that wouldn't stay together long.
Myrddin Emyrs
Phrourach
DeletedUser10416
Guest
Lol, love you Steve
DeletedUser
Guest
Fair play to you, very..... unique.
DeletedUser
Guest
TSN was a terrible idea. The leadership was horrific. The membership requirements were to loose. The geographical logistics were ridiculous. It was bound to fail.
DeletedUser13539
Guest
It could have continued to work and was working. None of these issues were of any consequence except for the membership consumption that went well beyond any scope of the imagination. As far as leadership goes it was top notch......the only drawbacks were personality conflicts and whether someone is mature enough to discuss/work issues out, not manipulate individuals painfully, methodically and slowly to ultimately get what one wants. geographical logistics had the least to do with what happened. Each geographical area could sustain themselves just as they could before any merge as their own entity. What really happened behind the so called walls is only for you to speculate and holds no words of truth or insight into the matter.
Lugosi
Strategos
Oh Hello . . . . Ghost Pirates Recent Activity
DeletedUser
Guest
Leadership (as a whole) was terrible, I was one of the MANY leaders for a short time so I know.
That is not "top notch" leadership. That is terrible leadership.
Geographically, yes, each area could sustain themselves but that is actually the problem. They couldn't do much for anyone else in the alliance. This creates separation and conflicts of interest.
DeletedUser13539
Guest
and how long were you a leader there may I ask? Not too long from what I recall. And you were one of the first to jump ship none few days later when Andrew came back.....that is not leadership, that is follow the leader. Leaders stick it out, you do and lead by example or you don't and fail; or follow.
Leadership and people can work things out, it is called communication; some have the skill and some don't, but it does not mean someone is a bad leader. Character and the way someone goes about leading is also not taught, but a gift and you have it or you don't. Not all leadership were the best, but we make due with what is handed to us, right?
Who cares if there are many leaders? Makes no difference really, unless you make it one. One learns to adapt, listen, collaborate and work together or one just does not have the capability to do so and will cause waves. How these waves are handled make or break leadership, but this alone also does not determine if someone is a bad leader.
You agreed with my point that "personality conflicts and whether someone is mature enough to discuss/work issues out, not manipulate individuals painfully, methodically and slowly to ultimately get what one wants", so I do not know why you are trying to argue with me.
It makes no difference if a group is geographically able to help another part of the alliance. If they can sustain themselves fine, you set up goals for the region and oceans so that they line up with the alliances overall objectives. This is one reason you are in a particular alliance, because the goals match what you individually would like to accomplish in the game and help the alliance in the same. Another part are the ideals, morals and general foundation and beliefs, desires and government structure an alliance has. Players choose this as well. Maybe they would like to be told what to do in more a dictatorship style, or quite possibly they like the democratic style. Each have benefits, it is all how one steers the ship.
Seperation and conflict of interest under the circumstances you are suggesting can happen, but it must not.
Leadership and people can work things out, it is called communication; some have the skill and some don't, but it does not mean someone is a bad leader. Character and the way someone goes about leading is also not taught, but a gift and you have it or you don't. Not all leadership were the best, but we make due with what is handed to us, right?
Who cares if there are many leaders? Makes no difference really, unless you make it one. One learns to adapt, listen, collaborate and work together or one just does not have the capability to do so and will cause waves. How these waves are handled make or break leadership, but this alone also does not determine if someone is a bad leader.
You agreed with my point that "personality conflicts and whether someone is mature enough to discuss/work issues out, not manipulate individuals painfully, methodically and slowly to ultimately get what one wants", so I do not know why you are trying to argue with me.
It makes no difference if a group is geographically able to help another part of the alliance. If they can sustain themselves fine, you set up goals for the region and oceans so that they line up with the alliances overall objectives. This is one reason you are in a particular alliance, because the goals match what you individually would like to accomplish in the game and help the alliance in the same. Another part are the ideals, morals and general foundation and beliefs, desires and government structure an alliance has. Players choose this as well. Maybe they would like to be told what to do in more a dictatorship style, or quite possibly they like the democratic style. Each have benefits, it is all how one steers the ship.
Seperation and conflict of interest under the circumstances you are suggesting can happen, but it must not.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
christshippie said:
I really would like to know what brought you to that conclusion. You were a leader for maybe over a week or so, from the very beginning of the formation of TSN it was apparent that 56th were displaying little or no commitment to the alliance that they had been part of forming.
With the notable exception of Marauder the leaders from 56th were either MIA or told to stay behind in 56th in case things didn't work out. The fact that Andrew was in VM during the formation of TSN turned out to be an incurable nightmare considering none of the other leaders from 56th were willing to make a move until he returned. It resulted in causing huge setbacks in the area. There was hardly any communication from the 56th leaders.
Both Virus and ES had wanted to drop all pacts and NAP's entering into the merge but we agreed to a pact with TW-S at the request of 56th. Instead of actually helping us to move the alliance forward and communicating with us and your people you decided instead to collude with our so called ally to move over to their alliance and take as many former 56er's as possible. This in turn put a massive strain on our pact with TW-S since many people throughout the alliance wanted to attack TW for their behaviour. When we broached the subject with them of poaching our members they spouted a ream of horse manure about how we had stolen their allies (meaning 56th).
By the time Andrew got back from VM the 56th Phalanx end of the merge and our pact with TW-S was in tatters thanks to the behaviour of the 56th leaders in place in TSN (not counting Marauder). Rather than roll his sleeves up and try to resolve things Andrew went and had a huge completely unprofessional rant at all the other leaders and sent our inflammatory and misleading mass mails saying that TSN was going to war with TW-S. After being put in his place he left the alliance in a sulk claiming that he was leaving the game, of course he just joined TW-S instead.
Any leadership problems we had back then frankly were resolved once Andrew and his fellow 56th leaders had left, after that we all got along very well and the alliance thrived. Unfortunately things took a turn for the worse during the WW race and many of the leaders time was impeded with rl issues. As a whole though while we were all very active the leadership in TSN was a joy to be a part of and I still consider many of the leaders and players in Schizo to be m8's.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm not even going to bother correcting christshippie on his misconceptions, if thats how he remembers it then fine, couldn't care less, but thats not how the majority remember it at all.
Just commenting to echo the following sentiments;
Likewise Seth, likewise indeed.
Just commenting to echo the following sentiments;
Likewise Seth, likewise indeed.
DeletedUser1594
Guest
Yu-Gi Ohhhh !!!!!!
DeletedUser
Guest
Its Lego gino, not yu-gi oh....
DeletedUser1594
Guest
oh. my bad. guess i should stop watching the original language version online. my language droids need a software upgrade.
Eggo !!!!
Eggo !!!!