Jump to content

Shurukian

Members
  • Posts

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Shurukian

  1. Congratulations to Shurukian!  Your 1 post in this thread makes me wonder if you shouldn't have promoted Doch to 'M.'

     

    Doch, when played backwards, sounds like 'M.'

     

    Just sayin'  :P

     

    What can I say, I'm occasionally a woman of few words.

     

    Hi there HalfEmpty, and everyone else that's said hello/congrats/apologies since my last post.

  2.  

    You know I said specifically:  "Not this one", I am not accusing Mi6 or STA or TPF and I wouldnt. I have no proof for that accusation and I wont make that accusation. My point remains that the people in future do not find the scheme for exploitation. Who knows, maybe in next war, we're on the receiving end, but I would'nt want any of the IRONers to run here and there due to some extraordinary event, it applies, equally, to all of us. I'm not trying to be partisan here and due to my AA, I should'nt automatically be percieved partisan although that would be a simpler stance to adopt, in this part of the forum, we arent in war, but are colleagues in the same game and community. If my wording appeared any bit partisan, I take them back now, I'm in no way accusing anyone, but trying to discuss a way so people do not scheme this into some in-game exploitation in future. 

     

    Hope that clarifies,

     

    Thanks

     

    No worries, shahenshah. I wasn't addressing only your post there - your post was just the best to quote. It still stands that we have been getting a few angry, accusatory messages, and I just wanted to post a statement to head those off now. I understand where you're coming from, and agree that this is definitely an unexpected wrench in the usual system of war.

  3. This sets a bad precedent for future wars (not this one), since everybody knows now, DDoS the servers in middle of the war, run to peace mode. It's a dangerous precedent to set and we as a community should not passively encourage that. 

     

    Just an idea, peace mode should be disabled for 24 hours of servers being back up for nations *not* in pm already. 

     

    You're all welcome to share ways to address and minimize any unfair game-play advantages due to this extraordinary event. 

     

    I just want to quickly address this as FA of MI6. I've heard the rumors that we're somehow responsible for this, and we've gotten a few angry, "Good job, assholes" messages. I want to explicitly state that MI6 has exactly nothing to do with this. MI6, including TPF, has been greatly enjoying this war and has no reason to take the game down over it, nor would any of us be willing to step into criminal action simply to protect some pixels. That is a very serious incinuation, and I want to stop it in it's tracks here. Frankly, the nations we have in PM and have been ordering into PM are already upset enough that we won't let them continuously fight. I'm sure most of our members would sign a petition to prevent PM.

     

    This sucks for all of us. Hopefully it ends soon and we can get back to warring.

  4. Your right- odn feels a lot better about it.

    Bottom line, ODNs allies are burning for defending their allies against a foreign aggressor.

    a couple months from- odn will come out to the pointless, meaningless, world war- act all legitimate and show the world they will 'honor' whatever treaty saves their pixels.

    This is a real war- not a pre-fabricated yearly cycle- and odn won't come in. But if it's a doom digpile they will honor it and then their FA tool will be on TAR bragging how odn was the game changer.

     

    I just want to point out -

     

    Whether ODN defends STA is a decision that should be (and is) completely determined by ODN and STA, not external parties interpreting their treaty. If STA asks ODN not to engage, or tells them they will not request assistance, then that does not make ODN a bad ally - Just as it would not have make TPF bad allies if they would have been able to sit this out, as we had asked. It's a determination between the two parties, and if STA and ODN are satistifed with their relationship, then those external to them shouldn't be trying to change that.

  5. I muzzled people, see we tried. btw I refuse to muzzle people, would never do that.

    ?
     

     

    Yes, I've asked people not to post and most have been gracious enough to comply. That's not the same as muzzling, which I have never done. In my book, It's a testiment of mutual respect to ask something of your members and have them voluntarily comply. I believe in individual investment in a set-out plan. Direct bans do not benefit anyone.

  6. I fully aknowledge diplomatic overtures, but that isn't really the same as changing your persona - and your efforts are undermined by one only having to visit this forum to get a daily dose of hostility, petty spin and argumentativeness.

    Speaking for myself I really didn't care about Mi6 one way or another until far more recently than most members of Oculus; in the end really what has made me happy to go along with this is not any feeling of anger, hatred or grudge towards your alliance - but a sheer exasperation and exhaustion at the amount of bull coming through.

     

    I will fully acknowledge that we have some of the more prolific and polarizing players in our alliance - however, they have had that designation far before they joined MI6, and MI6 did not create that persona in them. The persona of an alliance and the persona of a handful of active posters are two very different things. I haven't been around longer than the past 10 months (and MI6 didn't exist in my previous 'go' on Bob), so I can't comment on whether it's 'better' or 'worse'. What I can say is that over the past 8 months we've tightened control on our diplomatic posting and removed many of our players from the OWF. I find it hard to believe that we've somehow become objectively worse during that period - and if we did, we clearly were quite well behaved prior. In my trips around Bob, it seems that the actions or percieved slights that permeated dislike for us among some alliances are incidences that have been cited as occuring in a period of 1-2 years ago. This is not something new. It is, however, something we've been working to overcome.

     

    I see your, and many other's, comments as instructing us not to change the persona of our alliance, but to change the persona of the members within our alliance. Long-time players like IYIth, mastabadey, (even though both are not currently members, they were for a while and are part of the 'argumentativeness' you are referencing), Doch, and a few others still within our doors are not about to retire to a rocking chair and begin a hug-fest on the OWF. Being loud, argumentative, and calling out the actions they see around them that they believe deserve criticism has always been who they are as a player, and I am not about to (nor am I able to, nor would I want to) change that. I refuse to negatively impact our community to satisfy the inclinations of those external with us. Our members love our word filter - because some others dislike a 'teapot' joke, we should remove that from our community? I can do everything in my power to represent us diplomatically, to guide players on how to interact and air their greivences, but I will not snuff out or muzzle personalities that are deemed bothersome. This is an issue for us specifically because of the reputation of our members and their activity level.

     

    But as I said before the war: my IRC chat is always open for honest advice and discussion.

    As is mine. I enjoy making new friends, and am very frequently bored on IRC - feel free to start a chat if you're inclined.

  7. Given the degree to which your current predicament stems from frustration and dislike of what one might call the unique Mi6 "persona", one might argue that efforts to change it would have helped/will help on both counts.

     

    You're missing the part where I have spent the last 8 months doing exactly that, with some of the most intense efforts being in our embassy on your forums.

     

    MI6 making an effort that wasn't accepted or wasn't 'repentative' enough is not the same as putting in no effort at all. For those of us that did try to step above MI6's reputation and begin the uphill battle, we understood the challenges that we were facing, and that many alliances wouldn't be receptive. But to characterize it as no effort at all is simply false.

  8. Those are completely trash stats.  No s*&^ they've gained NS - they've had well over a thousand nations do military bulking while only a couple hundred are at war.

     

    You should be comparing actual damage dealt to actual damage dealt, but that wouldn't paint nearly such a rosy picture so let's avoid it at all costs, eh?

     

    Edit: Noticed you can see that, buried at the very bottom.  Clever.

     

    Edit: Just saw Samus's post and must have viewed the sheet after it was changed. I personally think it looks good.

  9. Again, it's like Brehon lying: MI6 just doesn't have it in them.

     

    I don't think you realize how amazingly hilarious this is.

     

    MI6 apparently has an enormous amount of foresight.

     

     

    This was a much boring boring DoW than I was hoping for. It wasn't even very inventive. Oh well, to war.

×
×
  • Create New...