GearHead
-
Posts
832 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by GearHead
-
-
Please don't sink to their level. I would hope that such things become bannable offenses if they go too far, but it'd go a further OOC level, where people would try to find evidence of an "OOC attack" to try to get banned.
I may disagree with some people in CN. I'd talk !@#$ about them all day. But in the end, I still consider all my IC opponents as friends OOC. If everyone were on the same side, there would be no 'game'. Enemies make the game interesting, win or lose. Hate them all you want, it's part of the drama. But please respect their personal lives.
If they want respect in their personal lives, then they should consider respecting others' lives first. kthxbai.
-
OOC tech raid them?
Yeah, we'll call it that. Just to make it sound better.
-
Let me know if any of them live in my area. I'll be happy to give them an "OOC" visit.
-
That right there just made my day. I applaud your humility to post of your experiences and also your talent to at least not make yourself look like a complete fool in front of everybody else.
*cheers*
Encore!
-
Non-chaining is regarding wars caused by a signatory following another treaty. This iFOK/PC thing has nothing to do with anti-chaining clauses. I'll explain.
An anti chain clause comes into effect when an ally follows a treaty partner into war, and is counter attacked as a result of this. For argument's sake, we'll consider these treaties as MDPs.
So, if you have three alliances: Alliance A, B, and C. Alliance B is allied to both A and C, but Alliance A is not allied to C. Alliance A goes to war for whatever reason. Let's just say this alliance is defending his ally. Alliance A gets counter attacked and Alliance B joins in defense of Alliance A. Now, Alliance C's MDP with Alliance B has an anti chain clause. As a result of this clause, their defense of their ally (B) is regarded as optional because Alliance B is only involved in the war because of treaty chaining (this is where the name of the clause comes from
).So as you can see, this situation does not apply here, as NEW's involvement had nothing to do with any of its other treaty partners - it was completely on its own accord.
Now, whether iFOK and PC's claim of NEW's war being aggressive is legit or not, that's a completely different argument that I won't get into. One could even argue that even though their attack on DF was aggressive, PC and iFOK are still required to back them up if counter attacked, since the oA clauses do not specify if the signatories should be obligated to be involved in this situation. There are different viewpoints on it and some would not view what happened as acceptable. This is evident in the fact that FEAR and WFF declared war in defense of NEW, while iFOK and PC sat out due to not wanting to partake in the Aggression clause. Personally, I probably would have called it Aggression too, and told NEW to pay up or shut up, but that may just be me. Edit: Actually, I probably wouldn't have been this harsh, or probably wouldn't be able to weasel out of it either, but I will tell you one thing: I wouldn't sign with an ally so stupid to put me in such a situation in the first place.
Hope I helped clear some stuff up.
-
You're a very neat person who I always thought I should get to know more, Mia. I will say that lurking in #tool without your presence there seems different.
-
Team Penka...oh wai....Auctor!
-
So was his name Rob Holmes by chance?
-
You really need to get a sense of humor.
Actually, he might be serious. I mean, it's completely plausible considering MK and Athens nations refused to trade with NATO nations before NATO moved to Blue...
They were smart before, but not anymore.
-
Well then, Voytek, you're denying facts proven by much more than high school students. And for the record, it was a genuine apology. And I honestly didn't know posting a very unassuming post in a blog would stir up the emotions of somebody. Gosh, I'm naive.
Anyways, perhaps I should use a different anology, assuming there is some lack of choice that you seem to imply.
There are fat kids, skinny kids, short kids, stupid kids, and even smart kids who get bullied and commit suicide all the time. Do they have a choice about who they are? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do you see people making crusades wearing shirts saying "being fat is cool"? No. Look, just like you, I condemn bullying - of any sort. However, I believe there is a reason schools have authority figures in place who can not only counsel a bully victim but also put sanctions in place in order to punish the offenders and hopefully alleviate the situation. Past that, there are legal authorities who can get involved, because bullying is nearly synonymous with harassment, which is an offense.
The world we live in is tough, Voytek. Thankfully in democratic societies such as the USA, there is a way to get help. This help is pointless, though, if it's never used. In conclusion, if you want to make a difference, instead of spending 15 dollars on a T-shirt that you'll wear once and never wear again, lobby your school district or other local representative to initiate an anti-bullying campaign in your local schools. My school has anti-bullying posters all over the place, and even had an event this year speaking out against cyber bullying. Do your local schools do this? I guarantee it'll be worth the effort.
-
Woah woah woah, it's not time to throw sand yet...
Yes, I am one of "Those People" who know that there is no proven gay gene and that it is indeed a choice.
Do I discriminate against them for that choice? No. Do I support people bullying them for that choice? No. Would I buy another shirt and wear it for a day for some people who committed suicide? No.
Sorry if I offended anybody here. Didn't know it was that easy.
-
"a few gays"
haha yeah just a few gays. not even a big deal really. only a couple of those homos.
I suppose you'd also be willing to wear black in memoriam of the emos who commit suicide too.
-
While I really don't agree with wearing purple to school/work because of the suicides of a few gays, this guy is nuts. All he really had to do was contact his boss privately and say it was against his moral values to wear purple in memoriam of a few homosexuals. Instead, he posted it on facebook for all his friends and friends of friends to see, and ended up offending a large number of people. Unnecessary.
Yeah, he'll probably lose his job.
-
Haha, funny story. Thanks for sharing. I'll now think twice before ever thinking about posting a video DoW.
-
TFD had no representation in #stratego and anything you received was second-hand.
Thank goodness, I'm so glad not to have been affiliated with you goons (pun unintended). What an embarrassment.
There is no coalition--or am I at war without knowing it?--so you receivd no coalition information.Oh-ha. You're right, it was hardly a coalition - it wasn't worthy of being called one. But if I read it wrong and war wasn't where the intended destination was, then please describe to me what exactly you were intending to make out of that situation there.
If you got some half-assed information from somebody in the channel, then get your head out of your butt and take it up with them. Better yet, ask them what the hell they were doing talking to you to begin with.Hm, you might be right, but perhaps you should seal up your own holes before thinking about typing up that last sentence there.
It is the regard for decorum of the alliances in #stratego that prevented GOONS from being a smouldering wreck at this time. If we had any intention of going to war without a good in, the war would be on, and GOONS's piss-poor members that can't handle more war than you get in one techraid at a time would be deleting by the dozens just as they did the last time SomethingAwful.com faced a real enemy. Anyone that believes they've been given the full logs through these blogs is an idiot, GearHead, or that there was one channel, or that the full logs are even on !@#$%* is stupid. So, my friend, if you're concerned about getting half a story you'd better rely on more than Sardonic's sardonic commentary. If "stupid" wasn't my pet peeve, the irony of you decrying "WCE" for giving you bad information while relying on Sardonic's variety show as good information would have me cracking up. Grow a brain, and start thinking for yourself.
Okay Schattenmadd...I mean...whatever, I think it's probably time for a timeout. Don't let this hate consume you; we'll need your energy for the next time we're planning on rolling GOONS.
I never said I was given full logs, or any for that matter. But seriously, this was all I needed to see to know that I was lied to, maybe in the interests of getting our support, or...I dunno why else I would be lied to. Any little bit counts, right? Seems like a stupid idea now, but it sure doesn't surpass some of the stupid ideas I saw you guys blabbering about.
I've always respected you, Schatt, and I think I still do, but next time you guys get a channel with 10 different alliances together, at least have a reason for them all to be there.
Sardonic, good work. I think you know that I more than anyone can appreciate a good swiftboating, and you have outdone yourself. I hope that whichever governments decided it was a good idea to post logs on their forums against all reason and directives in the channel now understand their error. Don't get too confident or bold in your own claims, though, my friend, lest you actually try to take on half the world in your hubris; as much as you feel you know who we are, we now know who we are as well.
He's good at that, isn't he? And judging by the pure geniusness of a few people in that channel, I think trusting them not to ruin the "secrecy" of the discussions was a brilliant idea.
All this aside, what I'm actually upset about is how poorly this was done. I'm not GOONS' biggest fan either. Do they need a bloody nose? Certainly. Thanks to you, however, the chances of that happening anytime soon are diminished. Go make a fool of yourself somewhere else, but please don't make GOONS look good.
-
I was under the understanding the situation was entirely different. Boy, was I lied to. Next time I say I'd be happy to be on that side of the war, I'll ask for the proof of the bloody CB.
For those wondering: I was told GOONS had approved a raid on a normal UPN member just to see what would happen. Wasn't told that the "member" was actually an applicant who was only a couple days before a nuclear rogue, or anything else.
I'll fight any time against a serious atrocity, but please don't try to make an atrocity out of nothing. Most likely you'll put off more than just the fence sitters. You'll put off people that would probably be on your side too.
Thanks for clearing this up, GOONS. Poor show WCE.
-
Percentage gain!
-
When I had that problem, I just grabbed Dad's twelve-gauge and shot him in the leg. Didn't bother me again.
...or is that what we're trying to stop here?
-
Was looking for free online strategy games on google while at school. Two and a half years later, I'm still here.
-
It's interesting. Most sanctions are alliance-ordered; normally when you're a diplomat going around requesting sanctions, you're much better off hitting IRC and talking to alliance gov than you are PMing senators directly. This sometimes leads to problems, as in the case of MHA ordering a Blue sanction on RV at Sparta's behest a little while back.
Yes, a senator is a member of a team, and should respond to the team's needs; but a senator is also a member of an alliance, and dutybound to serve that alliance's interests. This usually doesn't lead to conflicts of interest, but as you point out it can.
Invicta solved this problem in as far as I know a unique way. The Senator position, when we held a senator, was considered a cabinet position. The senator's job was to decide which sanctions to grant and remove. So, all our sanctions were alliance government ordered, but at the same time were actually decided upon by our senator.
When I was a Purple senator, I removed far more sanctions than I placed incidentally. At the end of my last term as a senator, there were no sanctions at all on Purple, something I'm still proud of. This state lasted for a few months. I placed a total of one sanction during all my terms, against a nuke rogue hitting STA.
I see. Interesting story, something I didn't know. So, did every sanction go through Invicta Govt before that structure change?
@ SCY: Fair enough then.
-
I agree completely that sanctions should lack any hint of political influence. However, I highly doubt that anything of the sort will ever be achieved.
Exhibit A: MCXA. I did not realize first of all that their Senator had to get a sanction approved by the Govt of the alliance. That right there begins to bring politics into it. A Senator acts on behalf of his team, not his alliance. The fact that he wears his alliance's name while up there is merely a bonus and allows that alliance the convenience of having their own Senator up top to perform duties for them. Second of all, I did not realize that they based their sanctions on who is asking (aka political influence). I'm actually rather shocked to see the logs you posted, as I thought better of them before.
So I guess if somebody who I regarded fairly well such as MCXA can introduce political influence to their privilege, I suppose pretty much anybody else can too. 
Exhibit B: GOONS. I don't have a paragraph to write about them because I'm pretty sure we all would expect this behavior from them by now. They're basically the dictionary example of an exception to idealism and honor.
-
Go SMF!
Great work, MP. 'Twas an interesting read.
-
Actually, there are 4 blue alliances in PnL.
Honestly, I would love to see another successful BLEU bloc. A good majority of TFD's treaties are on the blue team, and there aren't any Blue alliances that we don't like.
That said, I don't think many are willing to put in the effort (or screw up their treaty webs) just to be friendly with their fellow teammates. Diplomats? Sure. Blunity bloc? Sure. Low level treaties? Sure. Color wide MDoAP/MDAP? No way. And I don't blame them either.
-
Well Bob, I have to agree with you once again. Nice read.
So I guess if somebody who I regarded fairly well such as MCXA can introduce political influence to their privilege, I suppose pretty much anybody else can too. 
Non-Chaining treaties* need to end
in R3nowned's Blog
A blog by R3nowned in General
Posted
Before non-chaining treaties was the era of mass cancellations. End result was the same, just different method of achieving it.
Arguably the mass cancellation tactic was much more volatile and made bigger waves in the political environment, but as alliances nowadays prefer to keep their friends, even if they end up on the wrong "side," non-chaining clauses have been inserted.
imo. ^