jerdge
-
Posts
5,860 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
We believe that acronyms are good when they really represent the Alliance.
The Alliance for Happy Evolution And Defence is really about happyness, evolution (of both Nations and CN) and defence. Though we admit that "forgetting" the "for" doesn't make it a "pure" acronym... But this shows that we aren't perfect either...
-
If so I apply, 3mil plox!
If you ever thought we could try to recruit in this thread, you are badly mistaken, dear sir.
[OOC]Actually, my Alliance is too little for give aid on a regular basis; also, we're currently aiding only active members.
I was just thinking in a general sense.
[...]
But, you know what? Just in a middle of explaining my thoughts I realized that this issue isn't worth all these words: probably there will be just a few cases of mis-placed aid, if any. Sometimes I'm just over-meticulous...
And, it's late here (something that strongly suggests to go to bed
)[/OOC] -
OOC: Is it not standard policy for any alliance to ask an incoming member their past alliance history? If it isn't, this is a good time to start....
[OOC]I believe it is standard. But an applicant can lie or "forget" about it, and that alliance can be not in a position they can really check it.[/OOC]
-
[OOC]What is really missing is a list of these prisoners (or, a link to it if it already exists).
Not every Alliance can be expected to know every member of Legion, and a Legion "refugee" that got foreign aid just after escaping/going out of Peace, and just before being spotted by the NPO, will become a headache for the ones that aided him.[/OOC]
OOC comment is OOC.
-
-
To: jerdge From: HeroofTime55 11/12/2007 3:06:04 PM Subject: Foreign Aid Offer
A foreign aid offer has been submitted by HeroofTime55. Please review your Foreign Aid screen to accept or deny this foreign aid offer.
Thanks!
I must remember the 64digit Alliance for good
... -
Wow those are... Well, perfect. How'd ya do it, out of curiosity?
Thanks!
First, I figured out what the font was, trying several using MS Word (it's Century Gothic).
Then I put an enlarged version of your original pic into Word, and I put three text boxes over it, adjusting size and spacing of the font until they matched. By the way, I think that the "original" 's' wasn't evenly spaced, compared to the others (it was too near the 't'); in my one all the letters are evenly spaced.
Then I took the biggest screenshot of it I could, and I pasted it into the GIMP. Note that at this point the picture didn't have those big white borders.
With the GIMP I took the colours of your original pic and I used them on the shapes I had.
I enlarged the pic (somewhere about 10,000x5,000) and I looked for imperfections. I have to say that the '6' looked very bad on its borders, so I basically cut it out / re-painted it using a "fading"/shading border.
(I admit that the '6' in the biggest pic isn't that 100% "perfect", but anyway nobody will actually use a 4500x2400 flag and it goes ok when downsized).
Then I realized that the vertical-horizontal proportions weren't correct (probably Word's fault in enlarging the original...); but with the GIMP it was easy to correct this.
Then I downsized the picture, adjusted the white borders and... It was done.
By the way, if you don't have another program already, I suggest you to download the GIMP and use it for resizing your flag (use the cubic filter, that does better).
But I'm still gonna pay ya the 3 mil. Those are even more exact than mine, though I might end up using mine in the end.Well, I have two Aid slots open...
And I would be proud if you used the flag I realized 
. -
-
I like the 3rd one.
Number 9 is also similar almost identical to that... Am I to understand that you like it more without the "[r]-embroidery"?
Also, I have some time to explain the simbols I used:
-
Angry skull: it represents the "Rage", and also the control over the fear of death. It's also a threat against the Alliance's enemies.
-
Eagle: it represents the superiority of the Alliance; it's also a noble, fierce and fearless animal. Finally, when coupled with the skull, is over it: to represent both that the Alliance dominates death, and that the pride of the Alliance is over its fierceness.
-
Half Life logo: self-explanatory!
-
Angry skull: it represents the "Rage", and also the control over the fear of death. It's also a threat against the Alliance's enemies.
-
Here are my proposals ("small" 400x250 versions - original ones are 1280x800):
1. 13 kB
2. 14 kB
3. 20 kB
4. 11 kB
5. 38 kB
6. 26 kB
The explanations (in quasi-random order):
- I tried to stay "vexillologically" correct. These proposals are actually possible to realize as real flags, I think. They're not that simple to look "bare", anyway.
- The base colours are taken from the [R]age board. The green is somewhat difficult to match with those greys, but I tried my best.
- All the flags are quite dark, to be in tune with said board.
- All the six proposals are based upon a similar design (horizontal stripes); it's a design I never tried before and I wanted to see what it looks like.
- Proposals 1 to 3 are all based upon a shield design, with one or two symbols in it.
- In the 1280x800 images, the eagle and the skull use only the pure [R]age board colours. However, the present reduced images are not as "pure", as they have been made applying a cubic filter (or the images would have looked too sharp: I tried it).
- I wasn't in the mood of using the "[r]" monogram at this point, but later it came in again (see below).
- Proposals 4 to 6 have been made thinking to the Half Life origin of Rage. They're even more simpe than the first three.
- While I didn't like the idea of using the "[r]" as a main symbol, I later realized that it could be used to mimic an embroidery. That is what led to proposals 5 and 6.
- I'm currently working on a couple of proposals that add the embroidery to the shielded versions.
- I'm quite short of time, but some suggestion can still be inserted in the other few proposals I may come up with.
I hope these proposals encounter some favor: I did them with a bit of dedication...
["Nov 11 2007, 01:37 PM" EDIT]
Other three proposals (basically, the 1 to 3, with the embroidery added to them):
7. 23 kB
8. 24 kB
9. 29 kB
[/"Nov 11 2007, 01:37 PM" EDIT]
(Further edit: corrected the displayed file size of images 7, 8 and 9.)
- I tried to stay "vexillologically" correct. These proposals are actually possible to realize as real flags, I think. They're not that simple to look "bare", anyway.
-
If you don't want to fight ever, I'd recommend GPA (the central aspect of the alliance is that they won't fight,) but they're on the bad side of some other powerful alliances right now, so they might not be a safe haven for very much longer.
A list of "Neutral Alliances" can be found here: CN Wiki page. Most of them are a nice group to stay in, if you don't want to fight.
Also, what Ditocoaf wrote here above is true, but also keep in mind that those "some other powerful alliances" have stressed they're not going to attack the GPA anytime soon (unless something new raises in the current political landscape); thus, I don't recommend to outright skip the GPA option, if you like the idea of being Neutral.
-
Thanks for reaffirming our Protectorate status.
And, congratulations about the professional way you IRON make everything you make.
We're again confirmed that we found the best friend we could have!
Cheers to IRON!
-
You're not wrong, monkey theory. I also think that high tech aircraft require more Tech (and less Infra) than Nukes, but as it is now in game it's too much unbalanced. The fact is, that I mentioned the Blenheim, that is not even a jet, and not the Tu-160: that was done on purpose.
I didn't want to fully bring in the requirements for Nukes, but since you mentioned them... I personally believe that the Tech requirements should be raised (to somewhere around 150-200) and a huge Infrastructure level should be required also. The 5% requirement doesn't make much sense, instead.
And/or, the airplanes Tech requirements may be lowered a bit, but shall not be brought back to what they were before the update (that were surely too low).
One way or the other, Nukes less advanced than the Blenheim = bad.
-
I'm unsure about the tech level that should be needed for each type of aircraft. However, when you need more tech to build a Bristol Blenheim than what you need to build a Nuclear weapon, something is wrong.
(I know that nobody with 75 Tech has really the opportunity to buy Nukes, however... It still sounds wrong.)
-
The Alliance for Happy Evolution And Defence wishes to signify its congratulations to all the signatories of this pact.
Please pardon us if we also publicly express special congratulations to our good friends of IRON, that (as always) demonstrated that they are among the best of this planet.
As we see that this strong and unmatched block can lead to a stable and peaceful situation for many Nations and Alliances, we also wish to thank the OV signatories for the positive effects this will have, on the path towards global peace.
King jerdge of Gaela,
Provisional Autocrat of AHEAD.
-
Congratulations to both signatories for this pact.
-
Here are my proposals ("small" 400x250 versions - original ones are 1280x800):
1. 13 kB
2. 14 kB
3. 20 kB
4. 11 kB
5. 38 kB
6. 26 kB
Not feeling to make this post too long, I'll add my explanations at the end of this thread, instead.
Also, the old version of this post (for reference):
I "reserve" this post to add later my work.It will take some time, though.
I hope this ends better than the Swarm's one (that never saw a winner...
). -
If one replies into this thread and says that s/he cares, s/he's in contradiction with the title the OP chose.
If one replies into this thread and says that s/he doesn't cares, he's in contradiction with her/himself.
Thus, the only way not to incur in contradictions is to go off topic? This farewell is evil!
(j/k)
-
Thank you very much for the congratulations.
We will try to surprise you with our positive ways!
-
We, King jerdge of Gaela, AHEAD Provisional Autocrat, wish to thank the IRON government, and every single IRON member they represent, for the trust they are honouring us with, with this treaty.
Shall this be the beginning of a long and nice friendship!
We also must add that, should IRON need it for any reason and ask us for it, we will feel obligated to come to their assistance, at least with our full diplomatic resources.
From this moment on, AHEAD takes the formal commitment to be always friendly and corteous towards IRON and IRON members, no matter the circumstances: an AHEAD member shall always be a good friend of an IRON member.
-
We're much pleased to announce to you:
The IRON-AHEAD Protectorate Pact
In recognition of friendship towards one another and in the hopes of cooperative and peaceful growth, The Independent Republic of Orange Nations (Hereafter referred to as IRON) and the Alliance for Happy Evolution and Defence (Hereafter referred to as AHEAD) do henceforth enter into the following protectorate treaty and agree to its terms.
Article I
Neither signatory alliance shall initiate acts of aggression against the other signatory of this treaty. This includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: Tech Raiding, Wars of Aggression, Spying, or Flaming/Trolling by one signatory toward the other.
Article II
Should AHEAD or its members come under attack by a hostile force, IRON is obligated to come to the defense of AHEAD. AHEAD is encouraged, but not required, to defend IRON should IRON come under attack from a hostile force. IRON is also encouraged, but by no means obligated, to provide financial assistance to AHEAD when AHEAD is in a state of war. IRON is not required to defend or support AHEAD if it can be proven that AHEAD initiated aggression toward another alliance or nation.
Article III
Both signatory alliances agree to share any information they learn that conveys a possible threat toward the other signatory.
Article IV
Should either party wish to cancel this agreement for any reason, they must notify the other signatory through diplomatic channels. The treaty is binding for an additional 72 hours from the time of the notification of cancellation. Article I will remain in effect a further 7 days after this time.
Signed for IRON:
bay102174, President of IRON
Shan Revan, IRON Secretary of State
Dark Mistress IRON Deputy Secretary of State
Bill N Ted, IRON Minister of Defence
Marechal Raphael, Deputy Minister of Defence
Heft, IRON Council
Meterman, IRON Council
James, IRON Council
KevinH, IRON Council
Signed for AHEAD:
jerdge, AHEAD Provisional Autocrat
Phatz, AHEAD Minister of Foreign Affairs
AHEAD wishes to issue a special thank to Heft and Dark Mistress, that handled the negotiations in a kind and professional way.
-
Thanks for your replies.
The problem is when I need to contact somebody that is on esper...
-
Hello!
I can't attach at esper. My IP is banned, and it has been banned before I ever attached to esper. Note that I'm supposed to have a dynamic IP, but for some reason my ISP (almost?) always assigns me the same IP (banned on esper.net).
After having used the channel esper.net provides to handle this situation, I found that my IP is banned by SORBS. The reason is that somebody had a virus, and they sent out spam emails, from said IP. Of course, I'm in no way linked to that spam (my PC is clean from that, and was anyway off at the date/time the spam occurred).
Trying to have the IP un-banned at SORBS didn't work, even if they are fully aware that it's a dynamic IP (in fact, they routinely ban dynamic IPs, I guess because the people can always bypass the ban "using their ISP e-mail smtp server..."). Contacting esper.net about it didn't work either (they simply ignored me).
I really don't understand where's the point in banning from IRC dynamic IPs, for spam e-mail. It just randomly hits innocent people, it has nothing to do with IRC misconduct, and has nothing to do with effectively detering/stopping spam (on e-mail or elsewhere). Anyway, believing this doesn't help me.
Any idea, anybody?
(Note also that my IRC is fine on synirc and coldfront).
-
[OOC]
I disagree. There are plenty of people who criticize others here without anyone getting attacked.Thanks for having replied to my post.
Please let me point out that I wrote "almost always", intentionally using the "almost" adverb.
Also, I can't pretend I have more experience than you; but, please let me quote Josef Thorne, another character I can't compare to, in terms of knowledge of this environment:
Speaking as a man who frequently arranges punishment in-game for things said on these forums, I'd advise you to bite your tongue.There are no rules to protect you from those stronger than you.
To mantain my point, it suffices to say that just "speaking" brings to the weak the tangible risk of being attacked.
To have a climate of fear, there's no need that every (civil) criticism gets punished; it suffices that these punishments are common (or only "not uncommon").
[/OOC]
.
).
12 Million Dollar Flag Contest
in Open World Forum
Posted
5 + 10 = 15