Conquer Club

Basically, you're saying that people enjoy playing with set groups (a.k.a. clans, steady groups, etc.). They tend to play other clans or the public--but as a team. There's more total conversation between 6 people in a standard game than between people in a 3v3 and within each team. By implication (?), strangers on a team talk more than friends on a team. All of that's unknown, but I won't stop you. Therefore, clans reduce conversation. Okay. If there were no clans and no team games, would there be more conversation? (Think about deadweight losses. Would as many people join CC and play if there were no team games, no clans, etc.? Presumably, no, so I don't see how you're correct on this).

RE: strategy discussion, the generation of knowledge which is due to the existence of clans would not have occurred without clans. Therefore, your paragraph about imagined losses to the community overlooks basic cause-and-effect. People's behavior changes with different incentives. If the benefits of your strategy were distributed to everyone, then you would lose the benefit, so why bother telling anyone about it? If it's distributed to your own friends, then you can largely retain the benefit (this is why patent creators are given monopolies, or at least it's why company's retain trade secrets on their goods). So, when you remove the clans, you remove the incentive, and you won't get the otherwise imagined dispersal of information. Same goes for eliminating clan forums dedicated to other types of conversation.

Clans aren't killing the strategy forum nor other fora. People behave differently in the two environments--e.g. many people don't like talking in the General Forum because it's the General Forum--and not a more personal place. Your criticism fundamentally assumes that people behave exactly the same, regardless of circumstance. This allows you to imagine alternatively similar outcomes, but you're not realizing that such outcomes wouldn't have existed without clans and team games.

Your argument is similar to saying, "if Canada was only a 100% socialist country, then we'd get the same or higher GDP." You can't assume the same outcome when you change the rules of the game.

Dukasaur wrote:I'm not sure if team games are a community builder. Team games led to clans, and clans led to many of the best players disappearing from the general population and locking themselves in their clan fortresses.

Games are filling up a lot slower because there are fewer people. Restricting their choices would temporarily force them into some of the unfilled games, but in the long run would simply drive more away and exacerbate the problem.

I challenge the assumption that variety is a disease. Risk is at its core a pretty dull and simplistic game. It doesn't take long for someone to get sick of it. Multiplying the number of different settings and maps on CC allows someone to find new ways to enjoy it and staves off the boredom much longer.

I agree about the Resign button.

I don't like round limit games either. Unfortunately, they are indispensible for making tournaments run on time. Before round limits, tournaments would get hung up for months waiting for 1 game in a round to end, while everyone else in that round had finished their games and was waiting to move on. That still happens to some degree, but the situation has improved vastly. I wouldn't want to go back to the way it was before.

It is a problem that players in round limit games stop playing about half-way through and start stacking. I've suggested that instead of final troop count, the winning should go by your final deploy, so that people keep fighting for bonuses all the way through. Other people have suggested other fixes. Bottom line though, is that while round limits are not ideal, they're better than nothing. Nobody benefits from a hung jury that drags on through 75 rounds.

Conquer Club was the only game I've ever encountered in my life that didn't have real time live chat on the same page as the games. Not one of several, but quite literally the only. (Edit: that's admittedly a small sample. Other than CC, I've only played WarOfConquest, Nodiatis, Pogo, and Project Entropia. Still all 4 of those have real time global chat, so 100% of what I've seen.) The social aspects of gaming are the most important part of it, and although the forums and the old Live Chat did fill the gap to some degree, they required you to make a choice between playing the games or going on to the forum and socializing. Being able to do both at once is a crucial step forward. If you want to disable it, that's your right, but I think participating in the community in real time, without having to leave the games, is putting it on the right road to healing.

Donald Fung wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:9804!

Are you the new Gillipig?

Anyway, 9807. The recovery begins!

3 extra players! woohoo!

It's largely a joke. We've had bigger false recoveries than that, and the decline resumed. Still, nobody knows when the real recovery will begin, and every little blip refills my cup of hope.

1) Based on both of your observations, it seems clear that clan games lead to more activity, albeit internally rather than to the general community. Also, both of you agree that it takes lots of efforts for new and casual players like myself to join a clan. Based on this, the solution would be to create even more clans by focusing more on team games so that even the average player, not those who have played 5,000+ games, can join a clan and compete with other clans. In a perfect world, an experienced clan member could take on a new clan member as an apprentice and teach them the ways. Obviously, this is only ideal but we should be moving more in that direction rather than separating the experienced from the new by introducing complex settings and maps and only creating communities for the experienced players. Also, as BigBallinStalin stated, people are more comfortable speaking in smaller groups where they know everyone will take their ideas with respect rather than posting in a general forum where they might be bashed for their unique strategy. Without clans, there would almost definitely be a much lower aggregate post count, even if it means a higher one for the general forum.

2) As I said, taking away options would obviously involve a sacrifice. But why keep the options that only cater to a few and drive away masses?

3) There are other ways to get people hooked onto a game. Change doesn't always have to be about adding, adding, and adding stuff that do not fit well with many games. For example, I think tournaments are a good way to get people hooked. And definitely community. At least even if you believe subtracting will hurt due to the sacrifice of veterans, pls don't add anymore settings

4) Glad you agree with the resign button. Really hope this will be implemented soon.

5) Although final deploy might solve the problem of stacking, I feel like that will greatly benefit the players going last because it is a lot more easier to knock off a bonus than to knock off a troop count lead. The player going last would simply have the 'all-in' mentality while other players cannot. Not the fairest solution. My proposal was a reduction in point gain and loss if the game ends by round limit rather than elimination/objective. This could become a good encouragement factor for the leader to continue playing in hopes of double the points.

6) I get the point of the global chat but there needs to be some fixes. It is blocking the (x) button when viewing maps. It is an entirely different color from the rest of the site so it looks ugly. Also, instead of real players chatting, I've seen the bot on more. That is kinda lame and sad.

And Dukasaur, I knew that was a joke No need to explain.

I like Donald Fung's point which was basically that the standard game of Risk is a great thing, CC innovated with team games and that, therefore, CC should concentrate on team games as that is what makes CC excellent.

However I would say that CC's policy has been to do exactly what Donald Fung said. CC has concentrated on team games and we can see that in the focus on clans, the expansion of settings/maps etc.

And yet site numbers have dropped consistantly!

The reason is that CC originally had two plus points...

1. The basic game of Risk (a casual pursuit).
2. Team games (lets be honest NOT a casual game at all).

The diversification of settings and maps, the creation of clans, medals etc, add-ons like BOB (and they are all linked) were all done to improve plus point 2, yet either had no effect or directly worsened plus point 1.

The solution (and there is one you know and the site is starting to feel its way to it) is to now focus completely on plus point 1, the game that casual players want to play.

Yesterday I wrote to bigWham about an idea directly, though there is no reason why I can't share it here. I suggested that CC open up 6 player standard games, only on the classic map, on an unlimited basis for all freemium players (though premium players would play in these games as well).

This is the fastest (and the simplest) way I can see to both increase the numbers of players playing (which would surely go up significantly) AND also help cure the site's other fundamental problem, that the site has stopped being a place where one can easily pick up a good game of Risk.

I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken? Take for instance when I have seen a dice pattern emerged in my games. In regards to over 500 1v1 games, and especially in the past 3 months , in 80% of the games my dice tend to fail early and persists through to at least mid game. If correction did happen, it is timed for after the game is lost.

I found that this is in stark contrast with my opponents whose dice alternate between good and bad rolls. In their case, the correction tend to happen randomly but not in my case. Another observation is my good early dice happen so rarely (like less than 20% of my games) .

If the dice is random, how does one explain such a pattern? The dice seems to be following a plan.

If I am asked what is one thing that can undermine this website, then at the top of my list should be the growing perception of a broken or rigged dice. The computer can be instructed to read a different dice file for a certain stage of the game and then from a different dice file at another stage to give a false impression of dice parity.

If you think that the above is not unreasonable, then consider the possibility that CC is already hacked into by someone. If the website can be undermined like this, no wonder people will want to leave.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(Think about deadweight losses. Would as many people join CC and play if there were no team games, no clans, etc.? Presumably, no, so I don't see how you're correct on this).

Presumably, most people don't learn about clans, etc., until after they join, so I don't see it impacting their decision to join one way or another.

BigBallinStalin wrote:RE: strategy discussion, the generation of knowledge which is due to the existence of clans would not have occurred without clans. Therefore, your paragraph about imagined losses to the community overlooks basic cause-and-effect. People's behavior changes with different incentives. If the benefits of your strategy were distributed to everyone, then you would lose the benefit, so why bother telling anyone about it? If it's distributed to your own friends, then you can largely retain the benefit (this is why patent creators are given monopolies, or at least it's why company's retain trade secrets on their goods).

Why do chess grandmasters start chess schools, knowing they're creating future grandmasters who one day might kick their ass? Why do the writers of scripts like Assault Odds release them to the public rather then keep their secrets to themselves? It's because many people -- certainly not all, but many -- value the improvement of the community over the improvement of their own particular competitive advantage.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Your criticism fundamentally assumes that people behave exactly the same, regardless of circumstance. This allows you to imagine alternatively similar outcomes, but you're not realizing that such outcomes wouldn't have existed without clans and team games.

Your argument is similar to saying, "if Canada was only a 100% socialist country, then we'd get the same or higher GDP." You can't assume the same outcome when you change the rules of the game.

You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I'm willing to admit uncertainty, but you'll dig your heels in and maintain that you have positive and certain knowlege that clans and team benefit the level of activity.

Donald Fung wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Games are filling up a lot slower because there are fewer people. Restricting their choices would temporarily force them into some of the unfilled games, but in the long run would simply drive more away and exacerbate the problem.

I challenge the assumption that variety is a disease. Risk is at its core a pretty dull and simplistic game. It doesn't take long for someone to get sick of it. Multiplying the number of different settings and maps on CC allows someone to find new ways to enjoy it and staves off the boredom much longer.

2) As I said, taking away options would obviously involve a sacrifice. But why keep the options that only cater to a few and drive away masses?

If that was indeed the case, then I would agree with you, let's make the sacrifice now! But, and this is of course a really big But, I don't think it's at all proven that the masses are being driven away by variety. If I go to Baskin-Robbins and buy chocolate-chip mint, I am not in the least bothered by the fact that someone else is buying peach sherbet.

The number of game types on offer at CC is very much like the number of flavours of ice cream at Baskin-Robbins, or the many types of toothpaste available at your drugstore, or the 120 channels available on your cable TV box. The more varieties of product there are, the more people are satisfied.

The problem is that the market needs to be big enough to assure a reasonable turnover rate of inventory. That is why stores in smaller towns generally offer less variety than stores in larger cities. In that sense, unfilled games on CC are very much like unsold goods going dusty on the shelves of a store, and yes, there is a problem. But the unsold goods are the symptom, not the cause, and so are the unfilled games.

Have you ever gone to the drugstore to buy Colgate toothpaste, and gotten so offended by the sight of Aqua-Fresh on the shelves that you couldn't take it and had to leave? I didn't think so. The Aqua-Fresh isn't the cause of the problem, it's the fact that the store isn't attracting enough people. We need to make CC grow and increase the size of the market.

Donald Fung wrote:3) There are other ways to get people hooked onto a game. Change doesn't always have to be about adding, adding, and adding stuff that do not fit well with many games. For example, I think tournaments are a good way to get people hooked. And definitely community. At least even if you believe subtracting will hurt due to the sacrifice of veterans, pls don't add anymore settings

Absolutely agree about the tournaments, which is why I run so many of them...

And the community, which is why I work so hard on the Dispatch to advertise community events..

As far as adding settings, I don't think they're doing any of that in the short term. Right now the emphasis is mainly on fixing the interface to be more modern and less clunky, and to attract new people.

Donald Fung wrote:4) Glad you agree with the resign button. Really hope this will be implemented soon.

No idea. There's been a push every now and then to get it implemented, but there's a strong and entrenched lobby that believes resignation is unsportsmanlike, and they fight tooth and nail against it whenever we get close. So, no idea when or if it will happen.

Donald Fung wrote:5) Although final deploy might solve the problem of stacking, I feel like that will greatly benefit the players going last because it is a lot more easier to knock off a bonus than to knock off a troop count lead. The player going last would simply have the 'all-in' mentality while other players cannot. Not the fairest solution. My proposal was a reduction in point gain and loss if the game ends by round limit rather than elimination/objective. This could become a good encouragement factor for the leader to continue playing in hopes of double the points.

Yes! I like that idea.

Donald Fung wrote:6) I get the point of the global chat but there needs to be some fixes. It is blocking the (x) button when viewing maps. It is an entirely different color from the rest of the site so it looks ugly. Also, instead of real players chatting, I've seen the bot on more. That is kinda lame and sad.

It's a work in progress. I'm sure it will improve. There are other features like Panel mode that really sucked when they were first introduced but now (eight months later) are working pretty good. BW does most of the programming himself, so there's only so much he can do at once, but it's pretty impressive how much he has gotten done.

The bots are only there to create the illusion of activity during periods when there is none. As real people come to chat more often, the bots will fade into the background. They might even be eliminated completely.

Mr Changsha wrote:Yesterday I wrote to bigWham about an idea directly, though there is no reason why I can't share it here. I suggested that CC open up 6 player standard games, only on the classic map, on an unlimited basis for all freemium players (though premium players would play in these games as well).

This is the fastest (and the simplest) way I can see to both increase the numbers of players playing (which would surely go up significantly) AND also help cure the site's other fundamental problem, that the site has stopped being a place where one can easily pick up a good game of Risk.

That's actually a good idea. Certainly worth a try.

narutoserigala wrote:I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken? Take for instance when I have seen a dice pattern emerged in my games. In regards to over 500 1v1 games, and especially in the past 3 months , in 80% of the games my dice tend to fail early and persists through to at least mid game. If correction did happen, it is timed for after the game is lost.

I found that this is in stark contrast with my opponents whose dice alternate between good and bad rolls. In their case, the correction tend to happen randomly but not in my case. Another observation is my good early dice happen so rarely (like less than 20% of my games) .

If the dice is random, how does one explain such a pattern? The dice seems to be following a plan.

If I am asked what is one thing that can undermine this website, then at the top of my list should be the growing perception of a broken or rigged dice. The computer can be instructed to read a different dice file for a certain stage of the game and then from a different dice file at another stage to give a false impression of dice parity.

If you think that the above is not unreasonable, then consider the possibility that CC is already hacked into by someone. If the website can be undermined like this, no wonder people will want to leave.

Seriously, you are mid-ranged brig. playing shed load of farming 1vs1 and you are blaming the dice?

"Oh..woe is me! I've already rigged the game so that the fools of an oppositon have no chance. Why must these damned dice still add one element I can't always stack in my favour?"

For some strange reason I've always been supportive of farmers. However farmers who complain about dice....?

Mr Changsha wrote:

narutoserigala wrote:I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken? Take for instance when I have seen a dice pattern emerged in my games. In regards to over 500 1v1 games, and especially in the past 3 months , in 80% of the games my dice tend to fail early and persists through to at least mid game. If correction did happen, it is timed for after the game is lost.

I found that this is in stark contrast with my opponents whose dice alternate between good and bad rolls. In their case, the correction tend to happen randomly but not in my case. Another observation is my good early dice happen so rarely (like less than 20% of my games) .

If the dice is random, how does one explain such a pattern? The dice seems to be following a plan.

If I am asked what is one thing that can undermine this website, then at the top of my list should be the growing perception of a broken or rigged dice. The computer can be instructed to read a different dice file for a certain stage of the game and then from a different dice file at another stage to give a false impression of dice parity.

If you think that the above is not unreasonable, then consider the possibility that CC is already hacked into by someone. If the website can be undermined like this, no wonder people will want to leave.

Seriously, you are mid-ranged brig. playing shed load of farming 1vs1 and you are blaming the dice?

"Oh..woe is me! I've already rigged the game so that the fools of an oppositon have no chance. Why must these damned dice still add one element I can't always stack in my favour?"

For some strange reason I've always been supportive of farmers. However farmers who complain about dice....?

Well it sounds like he wants to play RISK like you play a skill game, and if he does it's only natural that he'll complain about the dice, a "no dice" option is probably what he would like. Seriously though if he really wants to play a game that is about skill he should consider Chess instead. RISK is a dice game.

All this coming from Donald Fung, someone who starts tournaments, abandons them and then doesn't revive them upon his return. What an inspiration!

Dukasaur wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:Yesterday I wrote to bigWham about an idea directly, though there is no reason why I can't share it here. I suggested that CC open up 6 player standard games, only on the classic map, on an unlimited basis for all freemium players (though premium players would play in these games as well).

This is the fastest (and the simplest) way I can see to both increase the numbers of players playing (which would surely go up significantly) AND also help cure the site's other fundamental problem, that the site has stopped being a place where one can easily pick up a good game of Risk.

That's actually a good idea. Certainly worth a try.

this was suggested way back in the lackattack days all the way through to present decline days... it seems logical, but nobody is willing to try it... they would rather add more bells and whistles and lose more than they gain... makes no sense... as has been said before, instead of screwing with the basic RISK game, they should have brought in other basic games like chess, checkers, etc, to expand the customer base.. the current biz model is driving customers away... they need to open the classic map up, reign in the site upgrades/settings and seek to expand into other board games on the site... however, the addition of the new amazing global chat seems to have solved all the sites problems... *cough*...-0

narutoserigala wrote:I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken?

Because the average score for your dice rolls in 3.51.
One tends to remember the bad rolls, and forget the good.
The rolls will go in streaks, that's the nature of randomness. You would also see a different pattern if you were the only one rolling dice; but it's confused by other people. If you had your own dice, the evening out of score would happen more quickly.
Or perhaps slowly, as it's random

Please don't believe Changsa about me being a farmer

For instance I did invite him to a challenge and he declined for what reasons I cannot remember (perhaps scared?) Hehe. Which farmer does that? Moreover I am usually the host so that players who join are very experienced serious types. These aren't noobs and they can play.

I won't be surprised if at least 30% of them end up beating Changsa if he had the "*****" to play them on 1v1. Seriously!!!

from 9,989 to 9,817 in less than 10 days... the great fall continues... global chat was not able to stem the tide or undertow, if you will...-eJn

narutoserigala wrote:I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken? Take for instance when I have seen a dice pattern emerged in my games. In regards to over 500 1v1 games, and especially in the past 3 months , in 80% of the games my dice tend to fail early and persists through to at least mid game. If correction did happen, it is timed for after the game is lost.

I found that this is in stark contrast with my opponents whose dice alternate between good and bad rolls. In their case, the correction tend to happen randomly but not in my case. Another observation is my good early dice happen so rarely (like less than 20% of my games) .

If the dice is random, how does one explain such a pattern? The dice seems to be following a plan.

If I am asked what is one thing that can undermine this website, then at the top of my list should be the growing perception of a broken or rigged dice. The computer can be instructed to read a different dice file for a certain stage of the game and then from a different dice file at another stage to give a false impression of dice parity.

If you think that the above is not unreasonable, then consider the possibility that CC is already hacked into by someone. If the website can be undermined like this, no wonder people will want to leave.

so why do you think you get consistently bad dice? did CC program the dice to be bad for you because they hate you?

according to your overall dice rolls (last 5 battles rolls has too small a sample size for it to matter) you have very slightly better luck than your opponents...

somehow Changsha has been right so far...we hit 9804 and then bounced back up to 9815 right now. Never dipped below 9800, despite getting close.

clangfield wrote:8) As with 3,4,5,6 - it's all about variety. Skill levels and requirements differ; I can't see how removing option makes the site more attractive to a wider audience.

I agree 100%

This thread is the demonstration that is a lot easier to point problems than to solve them. Having too many options is a problem that comes as a side effect of appealing to a larger audience. Removing the added options just brings us back to the starting point without solving anything. What needs to be done is remove the overwhelming effect of too many options withut removing the options themselves. An "advanced options" screen or something similar is the solution.

narutoserigala wrote:I was a premium member before but decided not to renew. Though I have been asked why, I did not wish to reveal the true reasons. Now I could very well be the next to exit CC. Here is the last straw, I am sick of being defeated by the CC broken dice.

How can any reasonable person still believe that the dice is not broken? Take for instance when I have seen a dice pattern emerged in my games. In regards to over 500 1v1 games, and especially in the past 3 months , in 80% of the games my dice tend to fail early and persists through to at least mid game. If correction did happen, it is timed for after the game is lost.

I found that this is in stark contrast with my opponents whose dice alternate between good and bad rolls. In their case, the correction tend to happen randomly but not in my case. Another observation is my good early dice happen so rarely (like less than 20% of my games) .

If the dice is random, how does one explain such a pattern? The dice seems to be following a plan.

If I am asked what is one thing that can undermine this website, then at the top of my list should be the growing perception of a broken or rigged dice. The computer can be instructed to read a different dice file for a certain stage of the game and then from a different dice file at another stage to give a false impression of dice parity.

If you think that the above is not unreasonable, then consider the possibility that CC is already hacked into by someone. If the website can be undermined like this, no wonder people will want to leave.

If I understand what you are saying it is that when you win it is because of strategy and when you lose it is the fault of the dice? I checked your recent history and here is what I found:
You are 30 - 16 in your last 46 singles matches. You played many games against good opponents but your only take away is your dice are broken. Are you suggesting you should have won even more than 65%? Or could it be that you have been quite dice lucky? If we go back further you are 55 - 30. Does that result also reflect your bad dice?

owenshooter wrote:from 9,989 to 9,817 in less than 10 days... the great fall continues... global chat was not able to stem the tide or undertow, if you will...-eJn

Give it time. I think Global Chat was the single biggest element that CC didn't have and other games did. I think it might have a very positive influence.

As far as the numbers, we're still upticking a bit since Isaiah reported 9804 yesterday...


I also think the new Mission Profile window looks excellent!

I've got a theory... What if we are the cause of the decline because of threads like this? Any smart user would stay away from a website with stuff about the Great Decline splattered all over it. So if we stopped all of this crazy talk and reporting these numbers, they may start to go up. Embrace the newcomers as a community, don't scare them off with nonsense and complaints.

Just a guess. Kumbaya.

JamesKer1 wrote:let's keep our heads in the sand instead of trying to figure something out.

Just a guess. Kumbaya.

um... ok... nice to see a suggs mod come in here with the same sort of sugg that helped to get us to where we are now... great plan...-el Jesus negro

owenshooter wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:let's keep our heads in the sand instead of trying to figure something out.

Just a guess. Kumbaya.

You are a fantastic person, great plan. Thank you for all you do for CC. -el Jesus negro approves. Kumbaya

Thanks, means a lot!

JamesKer1 wrote:I've got a theory... What if we are the cause of the decline because of threads like this? Any smart user would stay away from a website with stuff about the Great Decline splattered all over it. So if we stopped all of this crazy talk and reporting these numbers, they may start to go up. Embrace the newcomers as a community, don't scare them off with nonsense and complaints.

Just a guess. Kumbaya.

I disagree. I think discussing a problem honestly helps find the solution.

Now, to some degree optimism is contagious and pessimism is contagious, that much is true. It's the reason why trends are difficult to stop once they start. Nonetheless, stopped they can be.

Dukasaur wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:I've got a theory... What if we are the cause of the decline because of threads like this? Any smart user would stay away from a website with stuff about the Great Decline splattered all over it. So if we stopped all of this crazy talk and reporting these numbers, they may start to go up. Embrace the newcomers as a community, don't scare them off with nonsense and complaints.

Just a guess. Kumbaya.

I disagree. I think discussing a problem honestly helps find the solution.

Now, to some degree optimism is contagious and pessimism is contagious, that much is true. It's the reason why trends are difficult to stop once they start. Nonetheless, stopped they can be.

Discussing it, sure, that's good. But making a comment about it in every thread is a little over-the-top... That's what I was mainly referring to

JamesKer1 wrote:Discussing it, sure, that's good. But making a comment about it in every thread is a little over-the-top... That's what I was mainly referring to

Most of the topics on this page of the GD don't refer to the decline. There are probably some Suggestions topics that refer to it, and every once in a while a Off Topics item that does.

In fact, I am not even sure every comment in this is about the decline.


--Andy

JamesKer has only lived through the Great Decline; it is all he knows. To him, this is normal CC.

I envy the naive.

Army of GOD wrote:JamesKer has only lived through the Great Decline; it is all he knows. To him, this is normal CC.

I envy the naive.

Actually, that describes most of us. CC peaked in 2009, so technically the Decline began either late in 2009 or early in 2010. That means for someone like me who joined late in 2010, decline is all we've ever known. And by now with turnover, post-2009 members are a clear majority.

I do envy people like you who joined before the Decline. It must have been really cool.