Written by AquaTheAdmiral – November 28th, 2016

Sirb0ss [/u/Sirboss001] is perhaps one of the more interesting and controversial figures in recent CivEx memory. Famous for his work in the former Republic of Mandis, and later the his grand scheming, Sirboss may be one of 2.0’s best masterminds in the political aspect of the game. We talk to him today about his thoughts on 2.0, his plans for 3.0, and the political aspect of a Civserver.

Q: How long have you been a member of the CivEx community, and what nations/organizations have you been a part of? Have you played on any other Civservers?

I have been a member of the CivEx community for jusssttt over a year, I remember joining in late September of last year. I spent my entire time (aside from my first 15minutes on the server) as a part of Mandis, and I never left or renounced my citizenship. My original spawn was actually just outside the gates of the University, and thankfully I was within chat range of Shmads and Haisuke. You could say I was born and raised in Mandis, and you’d be right.

Aside from CivEx, I have played on SovAscending, but that’s about it. Another server, Athery’s Ascending, has some aspects to it that are similar to those of a Civ Server, I’ve played on Athery’s for 5 summers in a row now.

Q: What was your favorite part of 2.0, and why?

People might expect me to say the Olympics, but honestly my favorite period of time on CivEx was fall/winter in Mandis. Before Crossroads and the newcomers, it was just Shmads, Conman, Manic, Haisuke and I. It was sort of like a family, we were close knit, there were no arguments between us, and that little community of ours is really what I think back to when I reminisce about Mandis. Occasional oceanic sails to the UOS, the building of Port Hercules, the collaborations in the Capitol, those really are some of my favorite memories from 2.0. When I fought for Mandis, that was what I was fighting for.

Q: Which aspects of 2.0 do you feel should be in 3.0?

Almost all of the aspects.

Q: What are your thoughts on 3.0? What improvements or differences are you hoping to see?

I’m really excited to see 3.0, though I’m very hesitant as well. 2.0 was a very well known poor launch, and I think we’ll see a stable and solid launch with 3.0. With that, I think we’re going to see a lot of sudden development, and a tremendous amount of instability for the first few weeks or even months. That’s not a bad thing – 2.0 was too stable, and it ended up making the server boring and dull. However, I’m really not sure what to expect with 3.0, and it could go any which way.

I hope that 3.0 is a server that has infrequent but significant wars, I hope there’s a greater degree of real trade, I hope there’s maybe a little more cooperation, and I hope people really dive into what it means to be a nation state more. 2.0 was lacking in new ideas, I think people only ventured outside their comfortable styles on rare occasions, and I hope to see 3.0 as a more fully committed server to the idea of Civilizations.

Q: When did you decide to leave 2.0, and why? A majority of players started leaving around four months before the server ended officially – why do you think this is, and how can the admin team prevent the server dying out like last time?

I left 3.0 when I was pearled by Mandis Government. I committed treason through some really complicated means, and it’s too much to get into now. Essentially I became a triple agent, attempted a coup, and almost created a great southern empire with Posey and Bonkill. It got kind of crazy, and then spiraled into failure. I still believe that had I succeeded, CivEx 2.0 might have lasted and been interesting a bit longer.

Q: Do you have any plans for 3.0? Anything you’d like to share?

Heh, heh, well I’m not disclosing much mostly because I don’t have much to disclose – I believe that Civ Servers should be more adaptive planning than preplanning. That being said, I have a few ideas. Definitely, an Olympics, maybe a Hunger Games, and I’m certainly interested in doing some good old-fashioned empire building.

Q: In your opinion, what makes a successful and powerful nation?

The best nations are fun ones, the most successful states are hardworking ones. Good luck trying to have both in your nation though.

Q: Which pre-launch nations (if any) have gained your interest? Would you consider joining any of them?

Oh jeez, this is the question I’ve been dreading, mostly because I have friends in many of the most prominent nations right now, and a lot of them want me to join theirs, and I don’t have the same sort of faith in all of them.

Well, I’m a bit interested in Irongrad, they might emerge as the next Arcation. I have faith in their leadership, but I think they’ve recruited too broadly, and the sheer mass of newfriends making up their ranks will lead to instability and fragmentation.

Victoria seems great on paper, though as I’ve said I have reservations about how much they will actually get done. I hope Victoria does well, it has a lot of brainpower behind it, and it has potential, but it’s too early to tell.

Dorado/Dorito seems to be gaining momentum, but it’s too early to see how it’ll pan out. It needs strong leadership, and I’m not sure if that’s what it has at the moment.

Veria is interesting because it hasn’t tried to have the subreddit presence of others, but it has the population and player chops. Could be a surprising frontrunner going into 3.0.

Nandar might be more relevant in this iteration than last time, Nasaghast has been putting in more effort than before, and might be able to pull in a solid player base with novel ideas.

[Kingdom of] Empire of Bone seems a bit unorthodox, but that might win it points in prominence and relevance.

N9NE will obviously do big things, but the question is if Bonkill will be able to break out of being a one man nation.

Q: What is your ideal form of government in a Civserver?

My ideal form of government is a large one. I know that contradicts with my irl Libertarian values, but seriously, ministries and offices and such are fun, as long as they’re not taken too seriously. I think that getting people involved in government makes them feel more important, more likely to stay, and more likely to have a good time, and that’s why I advocate for larger ones. That being said, dictatorships/oligarchies in which the top level of government is made up of irl friends and is impenetrable to anyone else in the system are by far the worst out there. Republics I think work nicely on Civ Servers, as long as elections don’t give the people too much power.

Q: What are your thoughts on player conflict? Are you hoping there will be significant differences from 2.0’s style of player conflict in the new iteration of CivEx?

I’ve heard some rumors about prisonpearl being removed, if so I’m interested to see how that will change the battlefield. Other than that, like I said previously, more fighting is good because it raises the stakes and makes people more willing to get engaged.

Thank you for having me!

I’d like to thank Sirboss for taking his time for the interview with us today. An interesting figure in CivEx’s history, perhaps with 3.0 just on the horizon, his plans will come into fruition this iteration.