yggdrazil's Shade

The word... HUH? comes to mind. This is a silly-putty type stretch.

Draconian: Is not open to interpretation,nor is it based on perspective.

Oh really? I was unaware of this. What exactly is the benchmark for when something is "draconian" or not?

Aggressor: Thus any alliance with less than 50% offensive wars is no longer an aggressor. P

lol

yes, let's completely ignore all political aspects of the game

Oh really? I was unaware of this. What exactly is the benchmark for when something is "draconian" or not?

The definition

Attempting to argue that C&G are someone responsible for this is a joke. We didn't like the NpO-\m/ war and tried to stop it from starting. Then we tried to end it. Then we got attacked.

Yeah...we're winning so that makes us the bad guys.

EDIT:

From wikipedia: Draconian as an adjective in English qualifies a rule as being of great severity, deriving from Draco, an Athenian law scribe under whom small offenses had heavy punishments.

Welp, Athens believes TOP's attack to not be a small offense, so the punishment isn't draconian. This should end all arguments. :3

I don't know who you are, but the sheer intellectual dishonesty of your post indicates that you should, as a minimum, re-evaluate your position as the leader of a simulated nation.

Your entire argument is based off a number of definitions which you have simply invented on the spot. You fail to even provide sources or references for your positions; the best you can scrounge up is some half-baked logic which runs contrary to common sense and traditional interpretations of events. In some cases you blatantly contradict yourself, adding to the generally pathetic nature of your attempt. My personal favorite is this:

"Draconian[sic]: Is[sic] not open to interpretation[sic],nor is it[sic] based on perspective.It[sic] means exceedingly harsh or very severe"

In one sentence you claim that "Draconian[sic]: Is[sic] not open to interpretation[sic]". In the next sentence you proceed to define "Draconian[sic]" using totally subjective terms.

In short, you are a moron.

Preempted attacks with a defensive purpose is not aggression.

yes it is lol

So there are only two kinds of reps, no reps and draconian reps.

Yep, that makes sense.

I don't know who you are, but the sheer intellectual dishonesty of your post indicates that you should, as a minimum, re-evaluate your position as the leader of a simulated nation.

Your entire argument is based off a number of definitions which you have simply invented on the spot. You fail to even provide sources or references for your positions; the best you can scrounge up is some half-baked logic which runs contrary to common sense and traditional interpretations of events. In some cases you blatantly contradict yourself, adding to the generally pathetic nature of your attempt. My personal favorite is this:

"Draconian[sic]: Is[sic] not open to interpretation[sic],nor is it[sic] based on perspective.It[sic] means exceedingly harsh or very severe"

In one sentence you claim that "Draconian[sic]: Is[sic] not open to interpretation[sic]". In the next sentence you proceed to define "Draconian[sic]" using totally subjective terms.

In short, you are a moron.

If harsh and severe are subjective terms, which come from the definition, how does an intellect of your perceived dimensions carry on a conversation or write something with hope of conveying understanding. Words are clearly defined, if not we have no hope of understanding each other. If this is moronic, then I embrace the term.

yes it is lol

It's ok, they yelled, "Surprise!" first.

Aggressor, n

Definition: attacker, instigator

Antonyms: retaliator, victim

it's funny though, because it's TOP and co who are the victims of their own aggression

tl;dr: My opinions are facts because I say so

Oh really? I was unaware of this. What exactly is the benchmark for when something is "draconian" or not?

Let's start with having an alliance pay more tech than it has

Let's start with having an alliance pay more tech than it has

That's not what the definition says. The definition has no numbers. You're now applying your own subjective logic to the objective definition. YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR.

This topic, lol.

That's not what the definition says. The definition has no numbers. You're now applying your own subjective logic to the objective definition. YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR.

This topic, lol.

It says something overly harsh.

Charging someone something they don't have is harsh in my book. Sure it's subjective but saying that it's not harsh is also subjective.

If harsh and severe are subjective terms, which come from the definition, how does an intellect of your perceived dimensions carry on a conversation or write something with hope of conveying understanding. Words are clearly defined, if not we have no hope of understanding each other. If this is moronic, then I embrace the term.

Wow. This is amazing. The definition of the word harsh, severe or draconian is not subjective. The word is simply a way of conveying a meaning or thought IE; something is draconian because it enacts a punishment that is overly harsh, or whatever the definition is. How that meaning is put into practice however, IE, what the base line to determine if something is overly harsh, draconian and so on however is subjective, and subject to so many variables, I'm not going to list them. The fact that you either don't understand this incredibly simple concept, or are willingly pretending you don't doesn't make you look good, nor strengthen your argument.

But for a little fun, what constitutes hot? 20 Celsius? 30? 50? 5 degrees over ambient? 20% over body temperature? Clearly, unless hot is specifically defined, it's impossible to communicate it.

The "logic" contained in the OP is some of the worst I have seen in this game.

Wow. This is amazing. The definition of the word harsh, severe or draconian is not subjective. The word is simply a way of conveying a meaning or thought IE; something is draconian because it enacts a punishment that is overly harsh, or whatever the definition is. How that meaning is put into practice however, IE, what the base line to determine if something is overly harsh, draconian and so on however is subjective, and subject to so many variables, I'm not going to list them. The fact that you either don't understand this incredibly simple concept, or are willingly pretending you don't doesn't make you look good, nor strengthen your argument.

But for a little fun, what constitutes hot? 20 Celsius? 30? 50? 5 degrees over ambient? 20% over body temperature? Clearly, unless hot is specifically defined, it's impossible to communicate it.

A child might say hot for some of the parameters you state. Adults might give sweltering for others tepid,muggy or arid. Then there are adjectives which also help us clarify.

Oh man....

Notice how they are called "offensive wars" and not "aggressive wars." "Offensive wars" are wars between nations. "Aggressive wars" are wars between alliances. There is an important, and obvious, distinction. Just because an alliances gains the upper hand doesn't mean they suddenly become an aggressor.

Oh man....

Notice how they are called "offensive wars" and not "aggressive wars." "Offensive wars" are wars between nations. "Aggressive wars" are wars between alliances. There is an important, and obvious, distinction. Just because an alliances gains the upper hand doesn't mean they suddenly become an aggressor.

My dictionary gives aggressive actions as one of the definitions of offensive.

My dictionary gives aggressive actions as one of the definitions of offensive.

Your dictionary doesn't play CN.

Your dictionary doesn't play CN.

Correct, but English is the language of the CN.

Correct, but English is the language of the CN.

If only facts were the subject of this blog.

I dare to dream.

Since I'm a curious fellow, who do you believe is responsible for this war? (not for the duration of the war, the fact that we're still at war, or the fact that you don't like the terms)

If only facts were the subject of this blog.

I dare to dream.

Since I'm a curious fellow, who do you believe is responsible for this war? (not for the duration of the war, the fact that we're still at war, or the fact that you don't like the terms)

Language is the subject of this blog.But I will answer-all combatants.

I'm liking this whole draconian terms thing. We'll apply them to some other alliance the first chance we get.