RevolutionaryRebel

You literally thought that I was selling out an alliance when it wasn't even in the war at the time. Or rather, you thought that it might damage my reputation. Either way, glad to see you eventually accept peace.

It's always nice to know that you have more cojones than a respected alliance. If you want to put your aid slots to good use a the very least, let me know.

W9nderful. I'm s9 happy y9u have f9und the light 9f truth within y9urself. N9w j9in me in tagging 9ur discussi9n with righte9us warnings, as we c9nsecrate y9ur disadvantage in the h9ly annals 9f Pr96lematics.

Where is sardonic, who are these goon dopplegangers and what have you done to the real gov?

I was not recognising them before it was cool.* *well, okay, you've been at it for longer than me but whatevs Thanks for reminding me I owe you a soup can in the face anyway, GOONS!

What you mean to be saying - seeing as the dogma you speak of was and is entirely a contrived excuse for keeping and defending supremacy at the time, is that the art of using drivel as a pretence for controlling world politics was encouraged by NPO. Without NPO, there would have been others in a similar mould and in fact, there were similarly-driven alliances. The problem with your entire frame of mind is that you are making a false correlation between the nebulous pretence of 'hegemony/stability' and the vibrancy of earlier times. The relationship was anything but causal, and I recall distinctly the manner in which folk were driven from the game even back then by ridiculous policies of conquest, extortion and avarice. The world prospered in spite of NPO, not because of it, and if anything, NPO's slide from supremacy inspired a period of fleeting cosmopolitan freedom. Policies are a product of their times, and ultimately, as the world shrinks, so too must we reject concepts encouraging stagnation, which is the true end product of 'stability'. The way to salvation comes through acceptance of oblivion; by recognising and accepting chaos as a force essential to quality of life. Through chaos comes change, action, life and pleasure. Without these gifts, the world itself would stand still forever, trapped in its own hubristic mantras. By reviling chaos and entropy, we deny the truth. We deny ourselves the freedom to be happy and to experience everything the world has to offer. Even back then, the very existence of chaos and the efforts to suppress it gave the world meaning. Nowadays, we see another wave of attempts to stifle creativity and diversity. As diversity is lost, so too is culture and the joy it brings. Without joy, there can be no pleasure and without pleasure, all things die. Embrace chaos, mortal

only the bold can understand it

Drama and channelled emotion can be a good motivator, I'll have you know. Even as a current resident of blue it's good to see old-style cooperation going on. Good luck.

I recall when Finnish Commie was an commie senator. If INT had retained its status from early history, they probably would've been involved here. Sadly, things seemingly didn't go as planned after I visited (2010). Instead, well, you know. Things happened. ODN and SLAP are INT's last remaining orange allies and while there's still folks there I like, many/most aren't any more. INT aren't the only ones excluded and if you feel strongly about this, then I look forward to INT using this an excuse to pull its way back to former strength and force these dudes to take notice. You need motivation and taking your non-involvement well is a very good idea, I reckon.

You are !@#$@#$ moron if you think that 'Francoism' led to those real-life concepts being applied to cybernations. They're products of game mechanics, and inspired by reality. There is no ownership over such things. There are simply conventions and while normative, are not by any means something to write essays on. Unless you're studying human behaviour within a closed system.

And that's one reason why DBDC isn't the biggest, only or even the most serious problem of CN. It's just another way of playing the game and while holding a monopoly does limit things up top, it isn't a permanent state of being and those members that enjoy their alliance, it keeps them in the game, too. Overcoming DBDC is a feasible challenge for those that really want to. It's also simple and safe to just sign an agreement with them and stop caring about anyone else. Maybe one day, DBDC members will get bored of their alliance (again?) and do something different. Maybe DBDC will run deathmatches between themselves to stave off boredom if targets disappear. In any case, without tech-sellers, economies falls apart. In that sense, alliances like Doom Squad, or the DT Probe AA are the future. Alliance Colonialism could take off as the number of sellers subsides due to a lack of new nations and abysmal low-tier retention. New wonders may placate the elderly, but to the new, they're anathema. The Alternian Empire overcame structural weaknesses and fragility early in life by signing a tech exclusivity contract. Securing favourable tech pricing encouraged selling to specific buyers and while our buyers paid more, the profits kept them selling regularly and reliably. We sustained an average slot usage between 55 and 70% over a period of ~10 months despite poor internal activity. The level only declined from early this year due to unrelated factors, but if implemented by any alliance with active gov, it was a successful model worth emulating. Ultimately though, the collapse of the minnows will force supplication to higher powers (ooc: donation dependence) and those that refuse to do so will be swept away on a tide of Cash Money. (OOC: OP was/is just annoyed that people aren't doing things the way he wants and wishes the world obeyed his ludicrous dogma so posting in here makes his grievances seem relevant or even sensible. They aren't.)

the overall message is pretty accessible I reckon

They can throw it around all they like. This war started because I was tired of CN and wanted to have fun. In all honesty, this has been more rewarding than meaningless peace; the only disappointment is that you really think I'll be changing my stance on not-paying-reps-to-terrible-people. I won't. You can threaten it all you like but ultimately there is nothing you can do. Stonewall talking about becoming a viceroy on irc was amusing. Letting him try would be worth it just to watch him get banned. Everyone knows where this world is headed; some of us simply don't have the balls to accept oblivion. To delete is bliss. To clutch aimlessly to the flotsam discarded by a sunken ship. To reject release from the hellish land of a laughing, apathetic god. to hold onto hope where none remains. That is the hallmark of the truly incompetent, and it does not surprise me that you fit into this category. These days are the days of chaos; where time itself lays to ruin the hopes, dreams, idle fantasies and the pride. The only escape is into the abyss of stagnation, waiting for a salvation that will never arrive. I have done my time in that abyss and there is no reason why I would humour a mongoloid in exchange for a return. You spend your life alone, finding succour only among the dregs of this e-society. Among the lamentable, you are confined to befriending the lowest among the low. Throughout this, the fact remains that you are worthless, as we all are in time. What boon do you gain from the approval of wretches? There is none to be found and on the day of your deletion, you will hear the laughter of a hundred thousand dead rulers, mocking your dedication to futility. And you will join their chorus as they sing their siren song, calling to all that would still tarry from their fate. The graveyard of your nation shall be visited by none, but in time, the freedom of death shall end all regret.

You are literally one of the worst aspects of cybernations and I will never regret not having to see you, your posts or your nation. That's why you're at war in the first place. Still, let me know how that poaching campaign of yours is going.

That would be CA. While they probably didn't need to wait 5 days to declare, I'm sure he and turboswag will keep having fun. when he gets tired of being punched-down maybe some folks'll start reconsidering previous peace offers.

Only a reasonable person would conclude that at a certain point, the level of investment required for a younger nation to reach the 'top' exceeds a sane level. Newcomers aren't interested in investing years of effort into obtaining even a fraction of the strength of DBDC, and meeting their membership requirements is definitely something that requires years of effort. I definitely don't blame anyone that looks up to them, but I have better things to do than stargaze.

If the world was vibrant, DBDC wouldn't exist. The decline of the community is the cause rather than the consequence of its rise,and is pretty much a sideshow for anyone not in range. Their presence discourages nation-building, but so does the increasing list of wonders - favouring established nations over newcomers. This is an insurmountable barrier to replacing overall losses. They're not the problem, but they're not a solution either.

People are still posting here? You have made turbo a happy, happy man.

You know, that's pretty much the point. I didn't go into this expecting an easy win. I was expecting to take some nukes to the face from the beginning and certainly didn't expect anyone to assist myself. While Stonewall preoccupies himself with inactives, he blows the money and support that could've gone to attacking LPH. Meanwhile, Methrage's regrowth is stunted, preventing him from buying himself any further from the war, or continuing those aid drops of his. Unprovoked does not mean unjust (a difference you completely ignore), and despite having witnessed methrage's stupidity over the years, communicating with him directly is far more painful than this war will ever be. Given this thread devolved into insults days ago, I have no intentions of continuing to make intelligent dialogue here. Smurf dislikes me due to my reaction to his 'game' last year. Good for him.

Just as long as nobody confuses 'understanding Kashmir' with condoning any actions of theirs in the past, present or future. Or approval of that alliance model, to be honest. Giving players too much freedom can have negative consequences, particularly when not everyone has a similar perspective, but if it works, good for them. Diversity and expression are valuable assets that benefit everyone. You wouldn't believe how many people make this mistake. I have had some contact with stonewall and while we will never be on the same page, I now have some understanding of him on an individual level. Doesn't mean I won't disagree with him, as I have here. Knowing isn't the same as believing.

In truth, a rogue is whatever anyone thinks it is; it's a label for many different things (almost overwhelmingly negative), making it almost worthless without an understanding of what the labeller actually means. So in other words, you despise anyone that doesn't act in the way you want them to, or chooses to act in ways not prescribed, or spoon-fed to them? That would render alliances and their members nothing but machines, following orders. These definitions are personal; not everyone hold the same convictions, or ideas as you do, but rather than attempt to understand differences, some would rather hold fast onto their own. Defending others without a treaty makes people like methrage flip out, which is entertaining. Why? Because they immediately become defensive and vulgar, foaming about 'unprovoked attacks' and 'raiding', since they need to invent labels to overcome their myopia. I can accept my mistakes, but rather than accept his, he projects them onto his enemies. I'm pretty sure that the attacks were not made on behalf of the alliance as whole. You'd realise this if you read what's actually been said, and looked at the war screen. They were both explicitly told by their alliance-mates not to continue. LN can 'recognise' that as a full-scale conflict, but they haven't thus far. Probably because they know what the consequences would be. So, your misunderstanding of Kashmir's actions and structure(whereby individual members have more sovereignty than the norm), leads you to draw false conclusions, like this one; ... because you fail to recognise that disconnect between Kashmir members, and the alliance itself. Which is clearly why they peaced-out. Had they continued, things may have been different. Fortunately, some people actually back things they say up. Like this guy. Statements in that thread clearly show that LN not only chose not to regard LPH as an alliance (hence why I brought it up earlier, to highlight the hypocrisy of demanding recognition while refusing it), but stated that they considered themselves at war with LPH members. LPH engaging after a DoW is pretty understandable, in my book. I get the deal; you're defending methrage publicly because you're his 'ally', irrespective of 'right' or 'wrong'. There are many cases where this happens, so I don't hold it against you. Your lack of decorum does however highlight the folly of seeking positive spin on the OWF. some people just don't appreciate dialectics..

Rey, thanks for that link. I forgot why I specifically refused to recognise LN as an Alliance, and you found it for me.

There we go again. 'Raid'; another cheap, emotive word. Opportunism is okay when you engage in it, and not for anyone else. :rolleyes: And yes, the same failed rhetoric. "shame on you for interrupting our crusade to ZI rey, we'll make you pay", etc. And then, there's the reflex 'oh, if they accuse us of something, we better accuse them of doing the same thing, without any form of proof'. Grudges are only bad, when you're not the one holding them, right? :rolleyes: As painful as you think this is on my end, the more you act like a child, the more worthwhile it is from my perspective.

Well, yes. Compare the words, 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist'. While both involve civil strife, one is 'good', while the other is 'bad'. But things aren't black and white; most of the time, things end up in the middle. Now, I'm sure that Kashmir occasionally messes around, nobody is a saint. However, in this particular situation, the rationale why certain Kashmir nations involved themselves was due directly to the fact that LPH was being rolled by LN, without assistance. LN's original attacks on LPH were opportunistic. Is it possible Kashmir members did things in the past you don't like? Yeah, but I don't think it's relevant. While I am resigned to the fact of LN being composted of paranoid members that will treat any war they have as an 'existential threat', I hope that you'll eventually avoid following the same path.

The use of the word 'Rogue' implies a lack of control, or ill-discipline. It also seems to depend on context. For instance, if an ally is attacked and your alliance decides not to go to war, should individual members honour the treaty or not? According to your definition, they would be 'rogues', but surely, wouldn't that be an honourable thing to do in context? OOC: I was involved in an instance like this in a past life waaaay wwaay back during the GATO-1V war. Ancient history now. CPCN didn't defend GATO, but individual members decided to support them anyway. The question is; are there causes that may give individual nations a reason to fight without the protection of an alliance? If it's with good intentions, is roguing 'good'? If these nations say they are fighting due to the ongoing conflict between LN and LPH (which was strongly in LN's favour before our involvement, then a peace deal would end their involvement. If their cause for war was simply to attack for the sake of attacking, then that would become immediately obvious, and they wouldn't have anywhere near as much support.