Jump to content

jerdge

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,855

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jerdge

  1. Request to The Legion's Leadership

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    The Legion should try be consistent with its own regulations (and they might be doing it, as far as I know, I didn't check).

    If they instead decided not to care anymore, well, that might hint at how bad this game has become.

     

    In other words, as Lucius is suggesting, it's maybe better to look for another, better game.

  2. Doom Loves GPA

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by jerdge
    typos, clarity

    DS and then DBDC evidently joined to help their allies and to get some action, maybe also to loot something (The DBDC people didn't loot anything and they probably knew it well in advance).

    They called it "defence", I see the point in challenging that choice of words but ultimately what matters is that alliances are free to do whatever they want and to call it however they want: what happens on the ground, and the consequences of it, matter more than the label slapped onto them.

    (In this specific case war was effectively recognized when me and Bundy found ourselves agreeing, in a private chat, that we were at war with each other. The GPA public recognition of hostilities came after that. Anyone can do whatever they want with this piece of information.)

     

    The GPA retains some capacity to defend itself, some of us indeed have a significant amount of money and enough stubbornness to use it.

    Just so that the next time people won't need to do spy ops to find the "obvious", my nation for one has enough money to fight until the lights of Bob go off,  however far in the future that may happen.

    I don't however think that any of this influenced anyone's decisions, I imagine that our opponents didn't want to keep us in a prolonged fight we were not interested into, mainly because at this point everyone knows everyone, and nobody wants to be too dickish towards their neighbors/acquaintances/friends. Also, they're not that active either, they could definitely do something else with their time.

     

    I agree with JA that the general entertainment would benefit from stuff being properly announced, however most of us don't see the point anymore / are lazy/uninterested... it is what it is.

     

    Last but not least, Neutral Menace ITT.

     

  3. Doom Loves GPA

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Velocity said:

    You’re the one who said GPA would surrender..
    I’m going to quote you directly, here, so hold your breath in argument.

     

    ”and Imma keep blasting until GPA is dead or surrenders”

     

    ”I told GPA the terms are disbandment or EZI for every member”


     

    And as a fun side poke, your adamant stance that GPA recognizing that an act of war was performed against them somehow being GPA issuing a DoW:

     

    ”GPA issued an alliance-wide DoW on my allies”

    You're literally arguing that stuff, that's not healthy.

  5. the nation of nuke inc is no longer a nation of hypocrisy.

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    6 hours ago, firingline said:

    I gotta hand it to you jerdge. Every opportunity for this to de-escalate, you manage to do something stupid that extends the conflict. I was hoping going into this I could get at least a couple weeks of solid casualties. Thanks for making sure that happened!

    You're welcome!

    What do you mean with "something stupid", anyway?

    I'm a bit slow, I might need some guidance to get the full nuances of your prose.

  8. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Ninja R said:

    Yeah, my bad, dude.  I didn't mean to remind you of the reality of a situation or anything like that.  I think being indifferent toward the truth is something you should focus on in the future....however short that might be for you.

    It's just that your "logic" didn't add up.

     

    There's no truth anyway. None in general.

  10. Declaration of Intent to Respect Neutrality

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by jerdge
    typo

    As stated from the beginning, the GPA wasn't interested into any war (more below) and we were just recognizing that one had been declared against us, or that was how it looked anyway.

    Then, regardless of how different people feel we had reached that point, the war was undoubtedly real. Still, as I said, the GPA isn't interested into war.

    I was contacted by Jason8 and informed that they wanted to end it. Since we weren't interested into continuing something we're in general not interested into, it would have been just a bit weird not to quickly find an agreement over it. That's how we got to this announcement, which text wasn't agreed upon beforehand but which overall reflects also our views over this conflict: it can be wrapped up.

     

    I think that Kashmir signing the GPA DoN would go a long way to re-establish mutual trust, which admittedly recently has been compromised.

     

    Then, what do I mean with the GPA not being interested into war? Well the Agency would have been disbanded years ago if it wasn't for the stubbornness of its current membership, that decided and still wants to just continue to exist until the lights go out. However most of us, basically everyone but two or three, is totally inactive in normal times. War interferes with our desire to not have CN on our daily schedules, we prefer not to have it. It's an off game issue and as such no in game dynamic or reason can affect our dislike for what we perceive as a waste of our time.

     

  11. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:


    @jerdge Has GPA ever held an aggressive alliance accountable? Beyond the context of warring defensively?

    Not that I know of. Once a conflict is over, it's over.

     

    2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

    Over the years they’ve allowed themselves to be a risk free target. Perhaps it’s the price for neutrality, fine, so why recognize hostilities with the aggressor?- are they not afforded the same freedom of choice as GPA?

    Everyone is free to do whatever they wish. Freedom means responsibility and consequences.

     

    We too are free to follow our rules, according to which we formally recognize hostilities with an alliance affiliation in order to inform people that, to us, they're collectively responsible for the hostilities they started. This too entails responsibility and consequences.

    I feel that clarity and transparency serve us better in the long run.

  12. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Ninja R said:

    This is outright nonsense.  You decided to give Kashmir the benefit of the doubt *after* you decided not to give them the benefit of the doubt and made this declaration.

    And then, UH OH!, you expected Kashmir to do absolutely nothing after you made this declaration.  I'm not entirely sure why you expected that, but it's what you did. Then you pretended you really wanted diplomacy all along.

    These were your decisions.  We're just reacting to them in ways you don't like.

    Listen, I didn't give your latest posts a second look, they earned my indifference. Life's too short to waste time on trash.

    If and when I'll find a post of yours worth of a serious response, you'll get a serious response.

     

    3 hours ago, kerschbs said:

    Lastly @jerdge, this would have been a lot more interesting if your alliance didn’t roll over and die. I didn’t expect much else, but good lord at least have enough of a backbone to defend yourself. 

    The war just started.

     

    30 minutes ago, Thrash said:

    Jerdge, do you have people who know how to war and coordinate? I've been quite bored as of late. I could use some burning pixels.

    Some know how to fight, some don't much, most probably don't care.

    The GPA has been closed to new members for a long time and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

    But thanks for your offer, I know that it's just your usual kindness, I appreciate it.

  16. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ninja R said:

    Well, that was a convenient update, wasn't it? You went on at length telling the world in general over multiple dispatches: greenpeace's stance on government members' actions speak for the entire alliance.

    Now you're backtracking on that stance. Is it greenpeace policy to *not* recognize government members' actions speaking for the entire alliance now?

    Regardless, .gov already recognized your recognition.  They get to decide when that changes, not you.

    It's GPA policy to consider the other party's explanation of what happened worthy of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate things.

     

    Then you have Kashmir telling us that they're not going on an offensive and they need to talk with SW, and then send three more attackers two hours later.

     

    I'll let you work out by yourself who backtracked and who's being aggressive here.

  18. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    46 minutes ago, firingline said:

     

    Uh-oh, someone is starting to realize they might have made a big mistake!

    Neutral cowardice etc. I even already hid in Peace Mode! Appalling.

     

    But seriously, a good talk and some jabs are the only thing maybe left here worth spending my time into. I'm sure that, you or someone else, it will be worth it.

  20. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Ninja R said:

    At first:


    But then:
     

    In other words, you know the alliance wasn't "invited," whatever that means, but you're still going to hold the entire alliance accountable for it because of the actions of one "government" member who literally hasn't been actively leading or in a decision-making capability for months.  

    But you didn't know that because you didn't bother to ask. And hey, you don't have to ask at all, but this is a lot of high talk and false civility to pretend you've got a great justification for recognizing hostilities and ramping up some drama.

    You're right on that one, and in this regard, your opinion sucks because it's based on nonsense.

    Kashmir attacked, the GPA did not. To this moment, the only Kashmir nation at war with GPA nations is SirWilliam's, Kashmir's Owner, and he's the aggressor.

    Yes, Kashmir is responsible for the actions of its Owner.

    We haven't escalated anything, we have only publicly clarified where we stand. Then people, you included, started to cry because of my big threatening words.

    There's a saying about not going into the kitchen if you can't take the heat, but this is on par with not being able to take the heat of the kitchen's refrigerator.

     

    It's true, anyway, that I didn't came to Kashmir's servers to say the same things I posted here. Not wanting to spend more time then what was strictly needed played a role in that, along with the intent to timely publicly clarify what was happening and our views about it. I knew that Kashmir would have had the opportunity to have its say, anyway, which in fact it definitely took advantage of.

    If it made a difference, I apologize, I'm not known for being infallible, for sure. But, does it make a difference? Is Kashmir willing to disown SirWilliam's aggression?

    Since it was needed to make a point about it, Kashmir might want to also explicitly explain its stance about the issue.

  21. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Jason8 said:

    Thank you for the clarification.  I may or may not have Kashmir nations prepare for war and I may or may not support SirWilliam.  SirWilliam's membership in Kashmir gives Kashmir legal justification to defend SirWilliam if Kashmir so chooses to.  The GPA's aggressive posturing in the matter makes me believe that peace is not and was not ever an option in this situation and conflict escalation, not mitigation, is the only goal of GPA's government, including yourself.

    These aggressive moves toward war by the GPA may or may not be noticed by the Kashmir government and may or may not be responded to in a way that GPA may or may not like.  What will happen and what we'll be doing is yet to be seen, obviously I'm not going to share it here.

    According to your post actual attacks don't matter, while saying that an alliance is responsible for the government members it chooses is an aggressive move.

    At the same time, those attacking without provocation are those that you would be "defending", and from those they attacked, on top of it.

     

    I mean, you have the allies and the activity (more than us for sure, at least) and the firepower, I don't know why you thought that you needed to conquer some souls here. Boredom? But if you go for it, make a freaking effort at least! It's embarrassing to see such "logic" fall flat on its face at the first step you try to take, and I can't believe that this is the best you can do.

     

    This trainwreck of post of yours notwithstanding, the GPA is always open to diplomatic solutions, it has always been like that, it will always be. Yawn. I don't even know why I need to say it.

  22. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    43 minutes ago, Jason8 said:

    Since you're recognizing the hostilities between GPA and Kashmir and Doom Wolves, does this mean that GPA will be declaring wars on Kashmir nations not currently involved with the conflict?  Or will Kashmir have to post our own Recognition of Hostilities and make an offensive push in order to expand this conflict?

    This is the first I've heard of GPA having any issues with Kashmir.  You'd think with an acting President that's as vocal as GPA's, I would've heard something about it before the OWF post.

    SirWilliam is government in Kashmir and, although incorrectly, he cited DWs in his war reason. Al told me that Kashmir wasn't invited.

    When a government member of an alliance intentionally attacks the Agency, without provocation, the GPA holds the entire alliance responsible for it.

    Our recognition of hostilities covering the whole of Kashmir provides the Agency with the legal justification to initiate aggressive military action, or other hostile measures, against any Kashmir nation. It doesn't necessarily mean that other Kashmir nations will be involved in combat due to our intervention.

    What will happen and what we'll be doing is yet to be seen, obviously I'm not going to share it here.

     

    SirWilliam didn't approach us with any issue, he simply declared war to support, without request, DW's aggression. Or he's just opportunistically intervening for his own personal gain and he just put together the first excuse he could come up with. Whatever the case, not that I really care, he didn't talk with us beforehand.

    Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, however I feel that, by providing this recognition of hostilities, we're being waaay more diplomatically considerate and respectful than SirWilliam/Kashmir.

  23. Recognition of hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by jerdge
    UPDATE 2

    As a consequence of recent coordinated attacks of Doom Wolves and Kashmir nations, which include members of the leadership of both alliances, the Green Protection Agency hereby officially recognizes that a state of war exists between itself and the aforementioned groups.

     

    UPDATE 2: Kashmir decided that they wanted full war, after all.

     

    (This thread can also serve as question time, should anyone be interested in asking anything.)

     

    jerdge

    GPA Acting President

     

    You can't have an idea of how little time I have for CN. Sorry for not having included our flag.

     

×
×
  • Create New...