Indignados DoE

[La Marx]

The manner of your exit, attempting to sneak off to another alliance after surrendering and then conspiring to steal aid made sure that an example had to be made. You stole from the Party and have been sentenced to ZI, once you hit Zero Infrastructure you shall be left to your own devices. On your reforms you where told numerous times they could not work , in order to reform something of this magnitude you would have to control all the tech sellers independent, in our alliance and in other alliances. Forcing INT alone to implement the policy would damage us, this was explained to you first reasonably but then your stubborn refusal to see said reason pushed people against you. This is your hole, you dug it yourself.

All of which was arranged by INT's double agent. If you read the logs Hereno posted, you will see that, as my adviser, there is nowhere where he categorically states that what I am doing will lead to my complete destruction. Where does say there will be reprisals, it is in the unstated context of trying to find an exit where there won't be. And if you read the logs he didn't post, his logs with Baron Terror, you will see that he was scheming to allow for my maximum destruction, deliberately asking and prodding me to a certain position. That is the whole nature of Hereno's betrayal. If you even want to talk about any of thisproperly, it has to be in the context of the entrapment arranged between Baron Terror and Hereno. Did I want revenge on INT? Yes. Did I plot with the advice of Hereno to steal aid? Yes. But that was entirely Baron Terror and co's plan, it just worked better than expected because I was happy to put aside the risk of being called "traitor" to sate my lust for vengeance on the clique who expelled me.

[OOC: Where the logs are supposedly "incriminating" etc, or where i reveal a sufficient self-consciousness to make my claims dubious, they are simply OOC.]

My nation has already sustained, due to my own self-mutilation, more than 20 m loss in infra. The most INT can do is raid my small bit of tech and cash.

Implementing my policies in INT would not have damaged INT, it would've damaged soultaker's pride alone.

There will be no revolution in digiteria until there is a revolution in INT first.

 

Edited December 23, 2013 by La Marx

[JohnGulager]

How is Buckaroo not in on this action

[sir pwnage]

Implementing my policies in INT would not have damaged INT, it would've damaged soultaker's pride alone.
 

 

See, you say you have experience on this planet, then you say things like this. Let me break it down for you:

 

A very significant portion of damage during wars is done in the upper tier. In addition, funding FROM the upper tier is what causes a great deal of the damage dealt in the lower tier. The upper tier more than the lower tier is the deciding factor in MOST wars. And even in wars where the losing side had an advantage in the upper tier (EQ), the presence of a strong upper tier still had a dramatic impact on how the war played out. From this we reach the conclusion that having superiority in the upper tier is of the utmost importance in fighting a war.

 

Now, wars in the upper tier are, by and large, decided by who has the advantage in technology. More tech = more damage, and the person who wins is the person who does the most damage. Other factors like warchests and numerical superiority can factor in as well, but a nation with 10k tech and any amount of money is a serious threat, whereas a nation with 1000 tech and 5 billion dollars is just an annoyance. So from this we conclude that having more technology is beneficial to an alliance in times of war.

 

So let's look at your proposal. You would have us do 12/100 tech deals. Which means that, with full slot efficiency, an INT nation would be taking in 600 tech per month, or 7200 tech per year. For that tech, the INT nation pays 864 million dollars. Now, that's far from terrible in a vacuum, but this is not a vacuum. Other alliances do either 6/100 deals or 6/200 deals. A nation doing all 6/100 deals at full efficiency gets 1800 tech every two months, or 10,800 tech per year. That nation would pay 648 million dollars for that technology. A nation doing 6/200 deals gets 1200 tech per month or 14,400 tech per year. This nation sends out 432 million dollars per year. Now, let's take INT and two hypothetical alliances with similar stats, the only difference being that we do 12/100 deals, alliance B does 6/100 deals, and alliance C does 6/200 deals. Let's say each alliance has 80 nations, 40 sellers and 40 buyers, all of which are active. After a year, alliance B's upper tier, the tech buying nations, have 216 million more dollars EACH, and 3600 more tech EACH. Across the entire alliance, they have 8.64 BILLION more dollars, and 144,000 more tech. Alliance C will have 432 million more per nation and 7200 more tech. Multiply by 40, that's 17.3 billion more dollars and 288,000 more tech. These two alliances have a considerable military advantage on INT at this point, and in a fight with them, we would lose. Hard.*

 

But wait! You say. Our smaller nations would be bigger! See, that doesn't actually matter. After they were done ravaging our upper tier, alliances B and C would each be able to down declare on these built up tech sellers. They would have an even larger technology advantage, massive amounts of cash on hand, and would have just gotten done with a pretty easy fight against our upper tier. In addition, they would be able to send out money and soldiers to the smaller nations in their respective alliances to aid in those nations' fights. Our nations would be outclassed at every turn, and we would be defeated.

 

In addition, as has been mentioned, under your plan nations would not remain sellers for long. So after about 6 months, suddenly instead of a nice 40/40 split of buyers and sellers, we have a 60/20 or 70/10 split instead. Now what? We can't operate at full slot efficiency due to a lack of sellers, which means we take in even LESS tech per month. We could try to buy from other alliances, but most alliances are looking to increase their seller base, not let other people access it. Keeping full slot efficiency with that kind of ratio is almost impossible without a highly dedicated economic team working literally every day to find sellers. Even then, we would probably need a GOONS-Umbrella-esk relationship with a lower ANS alliance to maintain high aid slot efficiency. All of this means that we're going to be even MORE disadvantaged in a time of war.

 

The point of all of this is that yes, your proposal would harm INT. It would directly inhibit our ability to fight in wars in our own defense or the defense of our allies. It would cause us to take more damage each war than we otherwise would. It would cause us to deal less damage to our enemies. Your idea is bad.

 

 

 

*All of this assumes a magical land in which seller nations have Disaster Relief Agencies. Shhhhh.

[Cataduanes]

That is quite a response Pwnage, look forward to Marx's counter...if there is one.

[Dochartaigh]

How is Buckaroo not in on this action

 

Buckaroo should recruit him for his second in command...

[Alexio15]

 

Keep digging that hole your going the right way  :lol1:

[Mr Director]

Buckaroo should recruit him for his second in command...

Tolwyn should come back and recruit both of them + Rota. Edited December 23, 2013 by Mr Director

[soultaker]

Exactly what pwn said, which oddly enough is the same thing I've been telling you la marx. Lets see if you listen this time, doubtful.

 

 

Implementing my policies in INT would not have damaged INT, it would've damaged soultaker's pride alone.

 

My pride is INT so they go hand in hand.

 

 

Keep digging, I'm sure you'll find an AA to protect you at your current pace of showing how you just like to bend the truth, fabricate things, and blame others for the things you have done.

[Londo Mollari]

Just before the execution, Yezhov was ordered to undress himself and then was brutally beaten by guards at the order of Beria, the new NKVD chief, just as Yezhov had ordered the guards to beat and humiliate his predecessor Yagoda before Yagoda's execution only two years before.Yezhov had to be carried into the execution chamber semi-conscious, coughing and weeping uncontrollably.

[Malik Shabazz]

Deleted.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Loki Laufeyson

[Mogar]

Sort of Related, but you probably should have a DRA/FAC months before you stop tech selling.

[Neo Uruk]

o/ Indignados!

Haha, this guy. Congrats on "hailing" someone who's actively tried to $%&@ over not only a coalition-mate, but an alliance on the same front you bandwagoned onto. Edited December 24, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[x Tela x]

Haha, this guy. Congrats on "hailing" someone who's actively tried to $%&@ over not only a coalition-mate, but an alliance on the same front you bandwagoned onto.

It's okay to hail because lolcommies. :)

[La Marx]

While Sir Pwnage makes his case well for making INT the best military power that it can be, I have already made it clear that my thesis does not concern military effectiveness or even military aas. My claim is for communist aas true to that word, not militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

[Mr Director]

While Sir Pwnage makes his case well for making INT the best military power that it can be, I have already made it clear that my thesis does not concern military effectiveness or even military aas. My claim is for communist aas true to that word, not militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

And how, pray tell, do you expect anyone to take your thesis seriously if it damages the military stregnth of any AA that implements it. Even commies need guns.

[Helbrecht]

While Sir Pwnage makes his case well for making INT the best military power that it can be, I have already made it clear that my thesis does not concern military effectiveness or even military aas. My claim is for communist aas true to that word, not militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

So it is ok if you end up creating a state (alliance) that is true to the communist way (in your opinion) but pisses its pants and then dies at the first shots being fired in its direction? Not very good for the long term chances of the proletariat i think. What is the point of building a structure that cant survive where earthquakes are a norm?
 

Even the little red book or whatever it is that you live by will need to be amended if the physical reality of the universe you reside in, is not the same as that in the universe where the original author resided.

[gunzzz]

I think you should be a true commie and always have your nation (and nations in your AA if there are any ) always in anarchy...

[sir pwnage]

While Sir Pwnage makes his case well for making INT the best military power that it can be, I have already made it clear that my thesis does not concern military effectiveness or even military aas. My claim is for communist aas true to that word, not militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

 

 

 

Your AA sounds lame. Also, I fail to see what's so Stalinist about our direct democracy. Just because we all think your ideas are idiotic doesn't make us Stalinist. You're the one who tried to sign a non-aggression pact with the Germans.

[Gingervites]

While Sir Pwnage makes his case well for making INT the best military power that it can be, I have already made it clear that my thesis does not concern military effectiveness or even military aas. My claim is for communist aas true to that word, not militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

What you aren't realizing is that tech sellers and tech buyers are already equal. You are making a case where there is no basis. The tech seller is just as important as the buyer, so everyone is equal no matter the ns(minus the inactives who don't do any deals). Remember, without the sellers there would be no super large nations. 

 

but you are a selfish person and want more money for your own personal gain, not to help your fellow alliance-mates. Not very communist of you at all. This isn't about being "truly communist" or not, this is about you wanting to inflate your own stats and crying when you don't get your way because your ideas are stupid. 

[La Marx]

What you aren't realizing is that tech sellers and tech buyers are already equal. You are making a case where there is no basis. The tech seller is just as important as the buyer, so everyone is equal no matter the ns(minus the inactives who don't do any deals). Remember, without the sellers there would be no super large nations. 

 

but you are a selfish person and want more money for your own personal gain, not to help your fellow alliance-mates. Not very communist of you at all. This isn't about being "truly communist" or not, this is about you wanting to inflate your own stats and crying when you don't get your way because your ideas are stupid. 

If I were as selfish etc as my critics and slanderers claim, why would I have advanced a thesis against the gears of destruction, that would necessarily grind me to dust. Because I really don't care about pixels. My interests are more noble than that. The persecution and evisceration of my nation - which some have called "stupid" - is the result of nobler intentions. Maybe nobility is folly to scoundrels. But that's because scoundrels are immune to the logic of alturism, and when they see it they call it selfish. Even the logic of ZI is justified either with utilitarian egotism (a warning to deserters) or chauvinism (honour, prestige, ein reich ein volk blah blah blah).

No, the claim that they are equal is purely formal. 

If Int were actually democratic, it wouldn't have its leadership handed around a cadre of little more than a dozen comrades.

[Cataduanes]

I think you should be a true commie and always have your nation (and nations in your AA if there are any ) always in anarchy...

That would be more in tune with Anarcho-Syndicalist views than a Communist one :P

[berbers]

 militarist Stalinist banana republics run by emotionally unstable pixelophiles.

 

While I do not agree with La Marx's methods, his definition of INT is spot on :P

[Cataduanes]

 
While I do not agree with La Marx's methods, his definition of INT is spot on :P

Haha indeed! Shame on you INT!

[Onikujo]

The International hereby changes their flag and name to be more suitable to our current ideology.

The United People's Banana Republic.

 

...No but really, how can someone keep saying the same things over and over when they are pretty clearly wrong. INT is the most democratic alliance that I know of, and I've been to my fair share of alliances.

 

OP is mad, this seems to be all.

[Cataduanes]

Now there is a flag and theme I can get behind!