jerdge
-
Posts
5,860 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
11 hours ago, LJ Scott said:
The folks in the peanut gallery would like to see jerdge, neutral for over 10yrs, become one of the most prolific raiders/war mongers in the dying twilight of Bobs last sunset.
But but, that would require... effort! The horror.
(Had I the time for anything more than a brief cameo here and there, I might switch to an aggressive stance. Not as a raider, probably, unless it was to "raid" raiders - that would be fun for everyone involved.)
-
6 minutes ago, LJ Scott said:
Friend, just this once I would be willing to help you out in achieving your goals if you wish to reshape your nations range to allow you to achieve them. Who knows, maybe I'll be in a better position to join such a fine project and tap up that $100m bonus!
Friend, you're not in range (although TBH you could, say, dump ~4k of your cheap infrastructure and drop just in). Unfortunately in my position I can't openly invite anyone to attack a nation under my AA's banner, nor it would be gentlemanly of me to be aggressive towards random others, while I am wearing the GPA uniform.
(TPF non-transitional members are... let's say a temporary -?- exception to those rules.)
BUT! Let's not give up all hope, who knows what the future entails for us? I think I might have a few bucks I could afford to spend on these, er, projects.
Disclaimer: all of this joking is meant to be friendly and in jest. It's not neutrality, it's that pixel chest-thumping is - oh gawd!
Disclaimer about the 1st disclaimer: "friendly" and "in jest" should not in any way be taken as "I didn't actually mean it".
-
I feel like I have the required characteristics to join this fine raiding project but there are no TPF nations in range, what are you going to do to fix that?
-
On 11/18/2020 at 1:23 PM, Kapleo said:
Yeah, nah I disagree but I respect your view. To me, a fight is a fight. Ofc if a raid goes wrong you try to fix it through diplomacy [just had to deal with that myself] but if diplomacy fails? Well you start blasting and go down swinging.
Whatever, I was just saying that attacking someone without provocation and hoping to get away with it, and then getting smashed, instead, while maybe funny etc has little to do with honour.
Honour isn't incompatible with getting smashed but not any and every reason one gets smashed for qualifies for it. Raiding, i.e. choosing a target for plunder and with the idea of a short and profitable war at the expenses of a weaker and less prepared victim, is extremely far from being honourable - if words still have a meaning, at least.
Don't get me wrong: I understand the risk associated with the practice and mine isn't a moralistic stance - to be frank I couldn't care less about what any of you does in their free time - but slapping a moral/honourable label on raiding is too incoherent and illogic - ultimately naively stupid - to let it pass.
Just happily raid and call it for what it is, an opportunistic low-risk gamble that, if gone bad, makes you look silly, not pretty.
-
5 hours ago, Kapleo said:
There is no shame in getting flattened. Let it always be honor over pixels.
Getting flattened for raids gone wrong likely isn't what most people would consider earning honour.
-
6 hours ago, Kapleo said:
Idk, the nearest nation in range? Get creative! Anyone from Oculus would be badass. That would take balls cause it would carry a big risk of retaliation. Attacking the smaller guys? Meh, not so much.
Not to defend the DBDC, but Pacifica alone could and would flatten them and outside of Oculus there's basically no one that could pose a challenge. You may even blame the Doombirds for having done all they could to end up in this situation - they were warned, they didn't care and they tried to shoot the messengers, instead - but, now that they're into it, there's little they can do, other than polish and worship their own pixels.
-
7 hours ago, White Chocolate said:
So you're saying DBDC should turn off our secret mind control rays that Cuba and TB Raiders developed so effectively and passed on to the rest of us that force our targets to do nothing but offer peace.
I'll think about it.
Is it DBDC SOP to threaten raid targets of putting other attackers on them and/or of much more severe destruction if they fight back (or anything of that sort) - yes/no?
I've heard it being stated many many times but I never had direct confirmation/denial from the source.
2 hours ago, Thrash said:Quotewhen is dbdb gonna hit iron?
why ask rhetorical questions?
Wait a minute...
-
... (see below)
-
White knighting for WC is... well...
-
Something about being years late, dull, in such a position because of stuff, etc.
But I'll recognize the micro sizes modicum of effort put into this and I'll concede what I consider to be an adequate reply.
yawn
-
On 10/31/2020 at 11:59 AM, Stewie said:
Your 6 monthly reminder that NG are the worst
The worst at what?
-
18 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
Lol,I always mean to change it but it slips my mind.
At this point, it's more nostalgia than spite.
Even you are getting old, at last.
-
Well I really am not involved into this thus I'll comment on Lucius's terms from a general point of view. Take this as a way to try elevate a bit the discussion - or divert it? - over the specifics and the personal grievances (which I actually respect but which I'm also little personally interested into), and not as taking a position for this or that party.
When an alliance is threatened or damaged by an external party it does IMHO make sense to respond with force and, in order to subsequently transition to peace, to demand that the offender suffers consequences of some sort. An alliance which gave up deterring attacks would be more likely to then be attacked again. As the very point of being an alliance in the first place is protection, exposing itself to an higher chance of being damaged down the road would be absurd, even before and above being wrong.
With that in mind, proposing terms which basically amount to treasury drainage makes sense. If it's done without dragging it for too long, even better. When I've had to devise terms for similar situations, in the past, I've proposed forced tech purchases (not through tech deals but via direct tech levels purchase) in order to have the offending party burn a substantial amount of their treasury - I'm talking of billion-sized buyings. I couldn't thus in good conscience point my finger against anyone doing (more or less) the same. Much better than long attrition wars, forced tech deals/reparations, forcing people out of peace mode to destroy their nations, or anything like that.
On 10/24/2020 at 11:33 AM, Banned said:Hey Doom Mother, it's nice to see you on here. Unless you're here to send me to my doom for acting up again. But I already apologized to you. It's just that... those kids are over there crying for nothing, I swear it. I didn't even do anything! I just said my Doom Mom could beat up their Mom, which is true. You could! I'm gonna be grounded for a long time aren't I?
O.M.G.
-
8 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
This is a pattern, you must really like that movie... I know that I do. 🙂
-
On 10/20/2020 at 4:45 PM, Rebel Virginia said:Quote
Is the game dead yet?
The game still has just as much life in it as it did a few years ago.
Translation: yes it is.
-
Peace Works, congrats on it.
The SDI+rounds of wars thing is confusing though, I don't get the rationale of it. If my curiosity has any importance for anyone that knows how and why it was decided, I'll thank them if they'll explain it.
-
Reminder that in CN*, and since circa 2006, the power to impose one's will has always been the only necessary condition to have any nation labeled as "rogue".
(* not only in CN TBQH)
-
17 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:
[...] I know you love the sound of your own voice [...]
Hey you too do it.
And for good reason!
17 hours ago, Kapleo said:You are calling me a conman? Says the biggest liar and manipulative person ever seen in Bob. [...]
Nah, he's not even in that league, trust me.
6 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
The evolution of dinosaurs, the reason kids love dinosaurs, or both?
Great image.
-
Turetel and Grenval. Next time someone will mention Umbrae or Dark Mistress, or someone like that.
Blanket NAPs were the way to go IMHO, no irony intended. Had going solos been more popular we'd have had much more interesting action in these last twelve+ years.
-
2,533
~200 less than one year ago
~900 less than two years ago
~1,800 less than three years ago
~3,200 less than four years ago
( 1,400-900-700-200... Pleateau ~2,300 by ~2024? )
-
Having been an OWF propagandist myself in the past I can probably have a little clue about what works and what doesn't (it's not an understatement, really I don't claim to be an expert).
Also, I have no horse in this race but these shows (see below) are good for anyone's heart, they deserve acknowledgement.
With all of that in mind, this thread casts a very good light on Lucius and, by extension, TIE, also thanks to the responses this far. While many are helping openly and in rather apparent good faith, I feel that it also needs to be said that one stands tall above and beyond the others. I'm sure that his cunning way of making Lucius and TIE look good flew far over the heads of most.
Really in hardships one can often find the most precious help where they would have never imagined to find any. -
-
1 hour ago, James Spanier said:
Again I'll stake out the position that when it's the AA leader in question, there isn't much to talk about.
I basically agree with everything else you said but I don't really get this part. Diplomacy can and has historically been used to deal with aggressive and/or offending leaders. This not to say that anyone has to try diplomacy in these circumstances, but definitely to say that anyone can do it, and it does make sense.
Unless the intended outcome of an attack involves forcibly replacing the target's leadership, in fact - which is not unheard of, but still a very rare situation - eventually the attacker will sit down at the negotiation table with the leader(s) they had been offended by. In principle nothing prevents it to happen before the armed conflict takes place, too.
This, again, not to say that whoever decided to go to war in this case should have made another decision, just to say that their decision has been a choice.
About CBs in general, I'd like to point out that a CB is literally the reason for a war, nothing more than that. As long as the ones acting on it are fine with their choice, there can not be a bad/invalid CB. Decisions and actions may be bad/invalid, in which case the acting party may suffer consequences on their standing, but their CB is their rationale, a fact, it's up to them only to decide about its "validity".
As for this conflict, I don't care. It's not neutrality, I simply don't give a damn about anything anymore. I just still like logic and discussing stuff, hence this post.
-
OK Starship Troopers and - children! - the novel rather than the movie (which last isn't that bad either, anyway).
Talking of sci-fi war readings, I'd also recommend Haldeman's Forever War. But no movie for this one, only the novel (there were rumors of Ridley Scott working on it but AFAIK they're only rumors).
TPF recruiting for DoWs
in Player Created Alliances
Posted
Walford.
If your alliance can't protect you, you are unaligned.