Some info on Dulra

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333474419' post='2947890']
1. Admin decides if the rules of Planet Bob have been violated and those who violate them are subject to punishment. Not everyone ultimately gets punished for a variety of reasons (e.g. lack of sufficient evidence), but those who do like Derwood should know better.[/quote]

Your entire premise of him "doing it wrong" is based on the fact that you think he's in the wrong for attacking Hime Themis for fun, not the rule-breaking. My entire point was that there is no wrong way to play this game. You play as you want. To tell someone they're playing the game wrong is just you being pompous.

[quote]
2. Within the player community cultural norms have developed over time, thus there are concepts of "good", "evil", right and wrong, what is considered sufficient punishment based on the level of transgression, what constitutes an appropriate or inappropriate theme for a nation or an alliance, etc. Indeed, alliances like GOONS depend on being perceived as being "evil" as part of their persona, GPA depends on people generally having disdain for the attacking of neutrals, and so forth. Those who violate perceived cultural norms are subject to having those violations pointed out and as we have seen time and time again, are tried in the court of public opinion. There are also those like Schattenmann that fancy themselves to be "professional" commentators on world affairs.

If there is nothing wrong with playing "evil" as you insist, then there is nothing wrong with people pointing that evil out to the world, making you look foolish for being hypocritical, or even organizing alliances against you and removing your pieces from the game board on the basis that eliminating evil is good. You can't insist that people allow you to exist and then attempt to restrict their words/actions simply because you disapprove.[/quote]

It's fine to point out evils or hypocrisy in an IC sense (which everyone, including myself have done), but telling people they're playing "wrong" in an OOC sense means that you're inferring that your playing style is superior over theirs. The reality is what I enjoy will be different than you, Yuri, Hime Themis, or any player in this game. People are perfectly fine playing the game as "being evil" and will expect to be called out on it. Being that this is an OOC forum, your comments come off as condescending like "I am the better player, you can only have fun if you play my way!" which is a tad ridiculous.

[quote]
tl;dr - If you insist on donning the black hat, people will root against you. Karma is a !@#$%*.
[/quote]

Which is fine... in an IC sense!

[Monster]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1333478317' post='2947916']


And you believe everything Impero tells you?
[/quote]

I mean, he did show he was engaged in the situation in the interests of GPA once there was a standoff when Lennox switched to Crimson Fists. If he corrects me on what happened, I'll gladly eat my words, but I have no reason to doubt the account he gave of the events, or at least what I remember from it, but usually my memory hits the bullseye.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Roquentin

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1333439192' post='2947736']
I was MoFA and I was knee-deep in all the negotiations. VE was not contacted or involved
[/quote]

Just as a point of clarification, we were involved to an extent. However, in your defense, within the room that was set up for the matter I believe our involvement was kept just between your president, vice president (could have been MoD), and us. I don't 100% recall the details and don't feel like looking it up, but I believe what we did was limited to making it clear that we would respond in force if UINE (might have been someone else, I forget) attacked you guys for hitting the rouges if they failed to pay reps.

It should be noted that GPA did not seek us out, we sought them and the party on the opposite side of the aisle out, and our reason was purely to protect our interests in trades when they were faced with an imminent and unwarranted attack. I don't see it as a blight to them whatsoever, since it was something we would have done whether they liked it or not as I wasn't about to see half our trades put in jeopardy for a couple of laughs.

Edit: I think you may be thinking of a different incident or something. Found our log post on it, Loriean was MoFA and we also sat in on the final negotiations to 'witness' Lennox's ultimate agreement (600 tech) so he didn't try to pull some garbage afterward.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Il Impero Romano

[Monster]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1333427738' post='2947678']
The whole point of this game is that there are many different ways to play it - neutrality, isolationist, bloc building, tech raiding, tech dealing, rogue attacks, what have you. They're all within the means of the game (i.e. not rule breaking). Different people take pleasure in different activities. People being neutral enjoy it (for reasons I understand, but disagree with), and Yuri obviously got fun out of the rogue attacks. So I ask - who are you to say what is the wrong way to play? What makes you, ChairmanHal, the bastion of CN to decide what is the right and wrong in this game?
[/quote]
He was RoK gov during Karma, surely you knew that.

[Monster]

No, he left a few months before.

[Kowalski]

Yeah that wasn't really the point.

[enderland]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333360298' post='2947246']
Didn't she post her damage reports when she fought a rogue before? Can't be too much more than it was then.

Oh, I see arexes has entered the fray. Heh. It's CoUNT all over again.
[/quote]

CoUNT rouged people for IC reasons, not OOC reasons.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1333479339' post='2947920'][spoiler]Just as a point of clarification, we were involved to an extent. However, in your defense, within the room that was set up for the matter I believe our involvement was kept just between your president, vice president (could have been MoD), and us. I don't 100% recall the details and don't feel like looking it up, but I believe what we did was limited to making it clear that we would respond in force if UINE (might have been someone else, I forget) attacked you guys for hitting the rouges if they failed to pay reps.

It should be noted that GPA did not seek us out, we sought them and the party on the opposite side of the aisle out, and our reason was purely to protect our interests in trades when they were faced with an imminent and unwarranted attack. I don't see it as a blight to them whatsoever, since it was something we would have done whether they liked it or not as I wasn't about to see half our trades put in jeopardy for a couple of laughs.

Edit: I think you may be thinking of a different incident or something. Found our log post on it, Loriean was MoFA and we also sat in on the final negotiations to 'witness' Lennox's ultimate agreement (600 tech) so he didn't try to pull some garbage afterward.[/spoiler][/quote]
Whops, it seems that I forgot your involvement, Impero. All I found on our forums about you is an eight lines long IRC log between you and Loriean (but she might have cut it) though, which I now remember to have read at the time (October 2010), but which I then forgot of; as it was just chapter three (ITT) of the GPA-Lennox saga, which ended a few months later (IIRC), I'll consider myself excused for having forgotten about that.
As far as I remember UINE and CF didn't consider Lennox much more than a ghost anyway, but I haven't the time to check right now and I am not 100% sure of that. (I didn't even remember of UINE before now...)

Edited April 3, 2012 by jerdge

[berbers]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1333447433' post='2947763']
Apparently OBR couldn't handle getting enough wars on them when they had enough time to properly fill their slots and stagger them.
[/quote]

OBR isn't held to your standard of timeliness, it wasn't your call to make.

[quote]If I really wanted to bodge their war effort I would've declared on GS right after they declared on OBR, wouldn't you think? [/quote]

Who knows really, it was a #$@% move, especially the guy who has 2/3 slots filled by NG.


[quote]But to be completely frank, OBR can try to do what we would do in the same scenario. I just think it would unwise of them to do so.
[/quote]

I used to think George Clooney's oscar acceptance speech was the epitome of smug, now this sentence has taken the cake. I hope OBR eventually has a part in your downfall.

[kriekfreak]

You mistake us for other people that actually care.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1333485317' post='2947973']
I used to think George Clooney's oscar acceptance speech was the epitome of smug, now this sentence has taken the cake. I hope OBR eventually has a part in your downfall.
[/quote]

I hope so too.

We'd see how effective lances are against nukes.

[Artigo]

Perhaps we can finally cross daggers

[Monster]

Oh god. That has potential for abuse.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Artigo' timestamp='1333490824' post='2947994']
Perhaps we can finally cross daggers
[/quote]

I could use a good sword fight.

[Phineas]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1333485469' post='2947974']
You mistake us for other people that actually care.
[/quote]

Arrogant, yes. Indifferent, no.

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1333499962' post='2948040']
I could use a good sword fight.
[/quote]

Some rapier wit here.

[Stewie]

[quote name='Manis B' timestamp='1333461945' post='2947822']
It seems NG is actively looking for targets to hit. Though I'm thankful I was consulted before they hit our protectorate.
[/quote]

We don't want another botched raid on our hands...

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1333501561' post='2948052']
Some rapier wit here.
[/quote]
[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/uploads/av-49747.jpg[/img]

fitting (also more words)

[mattski133]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' timestamp='1333499962' post='2948040']
I could use a good sword fight.
[/quote]

let us gingerly touch our tips, sir.

[Ironfist]

The entire notion that neutrals are bad is astonishing. An alliance is a sovereign thing, I'm sure most people will agree. A sovereign thing with its own ideals, beliefs, and methods of playing this game.

Jerdge pointed out earlier that there isn't a cap on nations joining the game. If there were, [i]some[/i] of the arguments in here would hold. However, any amount of people can join the game. It literally makes no difference if tomorrow 1,000 people joined CN and decided not to get involved with politics, or even announced their existence on the OWF. No one would know unless they looked up the new group of nations. The game would continue in the same fashion. Believe it or not, Admin created the game to be played as a game. Neutrals are still playing the game. They've just removed themselves from the "political" forums that were created [u]extraneously[/u].

A disease? Really? Like the quality of your posting, Roquentin?

And to quote another poster I saw somewhere: "They're not neutral, they're pacifist."

That's nice. If you'd like to define them as oranges, not neutrals, go ahead. Your definitions mean nothing. Except maybe that you can effectively look something up in the dictionary. I don't know, is that worthy of praise still? In any case, unless you've joined their community, immersed yourself in their culture, and found the dead kittens in their basement, you cannot criticise their methods of playing the game. You cannot. Anything you argue will just be wasted pixels on the forum.

It's not even a [i]cause[/i], hating neutrals. What does it achieve? They still won't care. You still won't be the majority of CN, and your arguments will be ignored, on the whole.

Go do something else with your time. Hate on the political environment. Hate on alliances that are actually playing the same game as you. Hate on something [u]relevant[/u]. Because as it stands, the neutrals are not a part of your game. It's actually borderline OOC hate. And that's pathetic. And I'm angry that I've gotten angry over this and wasted 5 minutes of my time.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Ironfist

[Schattenmann]

GPA may be pacifist today, but prior to the One Vision war, GPA was actually very militaristic on the world stage. They all had nuke-themed avatars and signatures, and "Peace through superior firepower" slogans. A few had that peace symbol avatar, but the lines in the circle were a long-range bomber. Their President Kristen Marie was in treaty talks with GOONS, and while she may have gotten tossed out for it, for a time GPA was on top and they were viewed as a serious threat.

The fact of the matter is that as neutrals who were the largest alliance in the game, they contributed as much anxiety to global politics as any of the toadie alliances that were tied up in the treaty web, if not moreso through their volatility.

The idea that a pacifist post-defeat GPA is ~destroying the game~ because its 200 nations aren't going to war in wars that involve 2000 nations is idiotic. If anything, mass-recruiting neutral AAs are a bulwark against the depopulation that you all wring your hands over so often. And while players might not like those nations being cordoned-off, from a position of absolute objectivity (Admin perspective) that is better than the losses of nations caused by what other people consider "excitement."

Besides all of that, OBR isn't even neutral.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Schattenmann

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']
A disease? Really? Like the quality of your posting, Roquentin?
[/quote]

Ouch!

I actually think I have it figured out. He's been emulating an old GGA leader. "I am cybernations!"

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1333443493' post='2947752']
Looks like an apology to me.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']
And to quote another poster I saw somewhere: "They're not neutral, they're pacifist."[/quote]

Hi, I'll assume you're referring to me.
[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']
That's nice. If you'd like to define them as oranges, not neutrals, go ahead. Your definitions mean nothing. Except maybe that you can effectively look something up in the dictionary. I don't know, is that worthy of praise still? In any case, unless you've joined their community, immersed yourself in their culture, and found the dead kittens in their basement, you cannot criticise their methods of playing the game. You cannot. Anything you argue will just be wasted pixels on the forum.

It's not even a [i]cause[/i], hating neutrals. What does it achieve? They still won't care. You still won't be the majority of CN, and your arguments will be ignored, on the whole.

Go do something else with your time. Hate on the political environment. Hate on alliances that are actually playing the same game as you. Hate on something [u]relevant[/u]. Because as it stands, the neutrals are not a part of your game. It's actually borderline OOC hate. And that's pathetic. And I'm angry that I've gotten angry over this and wasted 5 minutes of my time.
[/quote]


Since I'm the only one to really summarize it in argument form, unlike what you put forth, I'll restate it:

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333439890' post='2947742']
I've always disagreed with the GPA's definition of neutrality and I've seen it appear here again.

It is more akin to pacificsm in its C.N. practice than it is to actual neutrality. Actual neutrality implies that an actor, while not aligned in any shape or fashion will refrain from hostile action so long as it is left alone and either has no military alliances or relationships with any actors at a given time or towards all in general. Yet, it is also tacitly implicit that a neutral party would also seek to wage war or fight to maintain peace so long as it is in its own interests, which is a fairly large caveat that in and of itself implies it is an actor that could be morally and reasonably be attacked if it grew too powerful before it could act on that implicit ability and/or natural threat.

Therefore, with the GPA's historical Declaration of Neutrality (in the drive to obtain as many signatures (Wishing for it to be signed by all and any alliance,) as possible as if to validate "neutrality," (or pacifism, as it is virtually a NAP,)), the composition of membership, attitudes (some refusing to buy Military improvements, wonders,) and ideals (general objection towards violence,) of G.P.A. in addition to its (aside from a slip in diplomacy or inevitable targeting depending on one's frame of reference,) and actions it is more apt to claim the G.P.A. is pacifist more than neutral.

O.B.R., however, conducts diplomacy in ways that would lead me to believe they are more "neutral," in its true sense in building relationships with particular alliances even if military alliances are not their aim, while GPA's diplomacy is tasked to prevent minor issues becoming large flareups (pacifism.)

I just sort of have been confused as to the vehement scoffing at the "p," word as it certainly seems more applicable. Because when accepted it defeats the argument that the G.P.A. can be attacked with moral cause due to its implicit threat if it is considered pacifistic and generally of nonresistance, rather than just a neutral party that in theory only refrains from acting due to a lack of gain to be had from doing so rather than a higher moral cause.

That said, this is a game, people are going to do whatever and technically there are no real definitions once we're inside so none of the above really matters anyway.

Carry on.
[/quote]

If you're referring to someone else, that's fine too. I'd just ask that you address these pretty substantial counter-evidence to the claim that everyone who claims GPA is pacifistic is doing so on arbitrary nonsensical reasoning and/or arguing such is or in the manner I have is a waste of time.

Perhaps I would suggest you ignore those who aren't putting forth anything rather than subsist at their level and completing the circle.

@Schatt: That's a pretty large caveat. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] From what I've always seen the entire world has treated G.P.A. in the manner of my definition of neutrality. I guess my point is that neutrality isn't the kind of term for the sort of diplomatic and ideological agenda the G.P.A. has pursued throughout its history and leaves them more prone and open to attack than accepting the "p," word.

As for "ruining the game," the game mechanics are more of a problem than anything else. There is plenty of resources for new lifeblood (not limited to rescinding all hiatus' extended to players no longer with us,) and invasion alliances who could thrive in a newer world. The simple fact is that a lack of warchest/et al caps make players able to ascend into absurdity while leaving new players hopelessly behind. G.P.A. isn't a problem insomuch as a scapegoat. Too many cooks, not enough kitchens with adequate supplies. It could be fixed but it won't be anytime soon.

Edited April 4, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1333446467' post='2947762']
I think Non Grata has been consistent in their stance that they will do onto other people what they are not alright with others doing to them.
[/quote]
There's a difference between an action being [i]immoral[/i] or [i]wrong[/i] and an action that gives the target of that action a valid reason to attack the instigator.

Non Grata is "allright" with others doing those things to them as long as they are willing to face the consequences.

Most complaints about Non Grata's "hypocrisy" fail to understand this distinction.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Azaghul

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1333513148' post='2948122']
There's a difference between an action being [i]immoral[/i] or [i]wrong[/i] and an action that gives the target of that action a valid reason to attack the instigator.

Non Grata is "allright" with others doing those things to them as long as they are willing to face the consequences.

Most complaints about Non Grata's "hypocrisy" fail to understand this distinction.
[/quote]


That's an invalid argument. Immoral and wrong are not always mutually exclusive and certainly do not need to be in order to constitute a valid reason to attack the instigator.

Non Grata's actions are wrong and they just happen to be immoral too. The premise that because Non Grata can get away with it because their allies are seemingly okay with their perpetration of this sort of behavior is not validation of their actions as being "right," but more or less that their allies are willing to accept "wrong," as being at least ostensibly or tacitly okay with these wrong actions.

Ergo, just because Non Grata is "alright," with it committing "wrong," actions and/or that they are alright with others committing "wrong," actions against them, the action is still "wrong."

Since you resign the point that the action is immoral and the general response from the party in question to the aforementioned has been a combination of "so what," "do something about it," "come at me bro," "yeah, well go eat a sack of laxative derivatives," I don't feel that any more elaboration is needed on that point.