Jump to content

The Infinite Dunes

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    38

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by The Infinite Dunes

  1. Neutrality ?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283527648' post='2440424']
    Sure at the graces of the non-neutrals or the powers that be. I just don't understand why take the risk of being at the mercy of others. In essence, we allow their existence; and every once in a while people get bored and there's no one to pick a fight with except those who are defenseless (GPA knows what I'm talking about). Sure, Continuum & NPO were the "Hegemony" and evil rulers of the planet, and after Karma it's unlikely to happen again unless one of the neutrals slip [I think one of them did and almost got rolled a few months back, but I can't recall the incident].
    [/quote]And conversely, neutral alliances don't understand why alliances who enjoy frequent bouts of war insist on remaining inside the MDP web. It seems to me that people complain when they get dragged into wars that have absolutely nothing to do with them and then also complain when they can't find anyone to war with because their too worried about causing the MDP web to erupt. Then people notice the neutral alliances sitting on the side lines, outside the MDP web, but aren't perpetually at war with outside aggressors and wonder how this is possible.

    I don't take the view that neutral alliances are not attacked because they are neutral. Rather they are not attacked because they are generally smaller and untreatied. Neutral alliances aren't attacked because people think it would be taking candy from a baby. A baby with nukes. If an alliance decided to attack a neutral alliance they either look like: a) bullies because they're picking on someone smaller or who doesn't have anyone to call for help; b) weak and feeble if they have to request help from their allies because they're not doing so well in the war. Either way, the alliance is likely to lose respect in the community, maybe have treaties canceled with it and subsequently become a target itself.

    [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1283530230' post='2440462']
    Of course neutrality should be allowed, this is like say that Swiss or Sweden can't exist since they are neutral. I have no problem with neutrality what annoys me is the pacifism of the majority of neutral alliances, armed neutrality is awesome but the only alliance where it happens is FAN.
    [/quote]I take objection that you think FAN is the armed neutral alliance. I had a quick look on the stats page and the Grey Council has larger military per head in all areas except nukes. I'm mildly upset about that, I feel I should disappear back to our forums and berate our members. An average eight nukes per head is unacceptable.


    [quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1283765931' post='2443578']
    Broken Heads!

    Come on over neutrals, the grass [i]really[/i] is greener on the other side.
    [/quote]Only because it's growing in uranium saturated meadows. ;p

  2. The GRL

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    The Grey Council, whilst not involved in the main conflict, is glad that it could be part of the group that helped set this record. I think we added a total of 0.1 to the GRL...

  3. How to address infra buying

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    You are glad that other people suffer because it is convenient for you - just as I thought!

    I think this thread has served to illuminate how many people really do have that opinion, and are merely too blind or too cowardly to admit it in public. There are a few who have been quite brazen about it, such as Vladimir a few posts back. While I think it is silly to brag about one's backward self-centeredness and wanton disregard for fellow man, I have to say that at least those people are farther along the path to healing, because they are the ones willing to admit that they experience the attitude I have been talking about.

    How does your lack of nuclear weapons harm your country or cause your people suffering? I do not think you have made that point clear. Many nations, especially those that you might come into conflict with also do not possess nuclear weapons, hence, you are not disadvantage. Also, nuclear weapons can cause significant damage, so it is proportionate that the acquisition of such weapons is also significantly expensive.
    What are you, new? :huh:
    I think he means to say that you can't sell tech in the same way you can sell infra and land. If you wanted to you could sell all your infra and land in one day, but selling your tech via aid would take a lot longer.

  4. How to address infra buying

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    I sympathise with your desire to acquire nuclear status, but from my stand point these restrictions on other nations acquiring nuclear weapons are extremely useful -- I am whole-heartedly glad that they are elitist in nature. If there were no restrictions in place than any nation (new or old) could easily purchase a few nukes and fire them off without thought for consequences. Rogue nations could appear from obscurity at a moment's notice to fire off nukes 'just for the hell of it' and then collapse a few weeks later.

    No, sir, I am very glad that there are restrictions on the acquiring of nuclear weapons -- it saves my nation and its people much grief and heart-ache.

  5. Grey Council expels an aid scammer

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    All im arguing is E/PZI doesnt do anything if you know how to properly cause trouble. Sure lots of people just laid down and took their sentence when NPO handed it out but a few (FAN or Vox could be used for examples) went the spying route. if SF REALLY wanted to be a pain in the $@! to the neutrals he could probably give them a nice headache till they either give it up or he gets bored

    Might as well agree to disagree because im anti-PZI regardless of what halfass claim you make for using it

    PZI is very significant in Systemfailure's case, but not so in his second incarnation. Having shown the temerity to go nuclear rogue against us, we wanted to make sure that System would not be able to do so again for the foreseeable future. We offered a diplomatic solution then, but I don't think any of us thought for a second that System or any alliance would take this offer up. Thus, it meant we wanted ystem to delete his nation, as he wouldn't be able to delete his Manhattan Project.

    System rerolls and scams aid off of us. For which we'd probably demand the aid back or attack and attempt to damage the nation in proportion to the aid scammed. However, he also claims to be System, as such he has System's punishment imposed again. I'm not so bothered about PZI this time. In fact, perhaps I'd be happier to leave him be, so we can keep an eye on him. Perhaps periodically attacking him if he's in range until he pays back the scammed aid.

    I doubt SF could really cause too much damage to the Grey Council again. He could be a nuisance, but not much else. Being a neutral alliance I can't think of anything that if leaked would cause us problems. 6 million is nothing. It's the just the principle -- we can't be seen to be a light touch. Any attacks might be more beneficial than problematic, since he doesn't have nukes any more, as he'd be giving our nations some nice war practice.

  6. Useless Team Colors? You Decide '09!

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    There is none. The trading screen used to say this, actually, but that was an error and was fixed.

    It still does say it. Originally the grey team used to get a team bonus. But admin decided this was a bug and 'fixed' it <_< . But I think he fixed it as a post-trade submission check rather than before. The result being that if two grey teams trade then they will be told that they could get a trade bonus, but in reality they don't.

    No-Teamers are worst. Of the actual teams it's Pink by a country mile I'm afraid. (Even though I would consider them a better sphere than "grey" with only one alliance, an ANS almost as small as TOOL's lowest active member's NS, and an overall NS comparable to the CCC with twelve times the number of nations. :P)
    Meh, the main new applicants we get are those new(ish) to game. Several of our newer members have had to endure a low NS nuclear rogues, but have stayed despite such tribulations.

    And though our ANS is about that of TOOL's lowest member's NS we have the similar proportion of technology constituting our NS; and similar proportion nukes to nations; and a similar proportion of nations with the WRCs, other military wonders and military improvements. It would be my expectation that an alliance with a higher ANS would have higher proportions of these. I think that shows that we're a small, but capable alliance, that is not just surviving, but growing on the fringes of planet bob. We're an embodiment of neutrality, backing up our words with actions (or lack thereof... ), and as Mark put it, demonstrating the difference between neutrality and pacifism when we're attacked.

  11. Has the grey team trading bonus been enabled?

    in Report A Bug

    Posted

    I was looking around for trades to complete by trade circle, when I accidentally clicked on trade instead of message. Both me and the potential trade partner are on grey and when the trade screen came up it said that the in-team trading bonus was enabled -- normally is says disabled. So I was wondering if something in the game has changed.

  15. Calabria Declaration of Support

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by The Infinite Dunes

    This issue presents an interesting dilemma for my alliance. Though after much thought we believe we must remain neutral in this particular instance.

    Isn't it "grey"? o/ support
    Technically it's 'none'. However, the Grey Council, oddly enough, believes grey is spelled with an 'e'. Though perversely enough, my spell checker thinks it is spelled 'gray'... :huh:

    edit: oops, got my own team name wrong.

×
×
  • Create New...