Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Content Count

    4,541
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. I understand the frustration, but everyone's time would be better used without this. Just move one, maybe?
  2. TBH I side more with the original trilogy fans. IV-VI had evident flaws, some of which (special effects) were acceptable for the time and others were acceptable for a movie that wanted to give adventure, action and romance and to satisfy a large public (and not only Sci-Fi nerds); other flaws were just unredeemable. But overall it had an epic undertone which united the trilogy and which gave sense to the story. They were memorable. I'll here disagree with Crymson that the original trilogy had much of character growth/evolution - or that much more than the prequels - but that is not a flaw IMHO because an epic story shouldn't particularly develop characters, but rather represent them vividly. Which the original trilogy did pretty well. The prequels were just... I can't even say what they were because they didn't left any lasting impression on me. I confusedly remember them being excessively complicated and full of movement and details - hey maybe it's just me being older lol... - but seriously: they had a lot of "stuff" that wasn't there to support the story and that often hadn't any comprehensible reason to be there at all. they were mostly just a lot of filler with some content here and there. Jar Jar Binks had nothing to do with Star Wars, but I weirdly liked it because at least it provided a grip on an otherwise completely elusive and meaningless, supposedly "epic" story. Thanks to Jar Jar you could at least watch Episode I pretending that it was just a kids movie, and enjoy it in some way. Which is what I ended up doing to survive that situation. Episode III was definitely better, especially because Ewan McGregor (Obi Wan) finally got around his character, and even more because of the larger and more important part played by McDiarmid (Palpatine), which performed admirably. But overall all that salvaged it in the sense of being an epic story is basically what linked it to the original trilogy. I don't know if my comment makes sense... I suppose I am just trying to say that the original trilogy managed to be epic - as in telling the story of heroes that end up saving a world - despite the other factors that could have ruined it. The prequels had their epic buried under too much fluff that wasn't necessary and that just distracted the audience from the main point. I am not particularly pro the originals (save for the youth I had when I first saw them, I suppose) or against the prequels, anyway. These last are overall even decent, IMHO, especially if you don't expect them to be anything like the original trilogy and you can appreciate the special effects, the landscapes, the palaces etc. even when the script is insufficient. What I most blame Lucas for are stuff like replacing, back in the original movie, Shaw with Christensen and Guinnes with McGregor (seriously Lucas, WTF?). Or trying to force some white-knighting on Han Solo, ex-post, in a terribad and horrorific (and anyway failed) pathetic attempt at "political correctness". Seriously, Han shot first.
  3. jerdge

    the dog food video

    I wish you that you have made the right choice. The GOONS alliance has always been one I could have considered joining, but I am not sure that eating dog food is the right way... It's not the dog food itself (I doubt it can do you any harm, or even that it tasted that bad - if it was really dog food, anyway) but it's the idea of the (self?) humiliation. That part conflicts a bit with the idea of earning respect from your peers there. I might be off track, anyway, I don't pretend I understand everyone's mindset. As I said, best wishes!
  4. jerdge

    the dog food video

    Dionysus, initially you didn't want to - or so you said - but then you accepted the "challenge". Why? To not be banned on GOONS's board? What made you change your mind?
  5. Trading has always been OK, except when nuclear rogues usually get sanctioned. But no one goes after their trade partners, anyway. It should remain like that, IMHO, as having to set new trades is unfairly annoying for the uninvolved people, considering that forcing the nation at war to find new trades (even on Grey) isn't that much significant in comparison. Asking to everyone to constantly monitor what their trade partners are doing would be equally crazy. The other two are clear problems, but then I don't understand why your questions are about direct attack on the nation sending the aid. Diplomacy should be used and military action should be the last resort: in 99% of the cases the aid is just part of a tech deal and the aiding nation deserves a chance to explain/remedy before they are attacked.
  6. jerdge

    RE: Miley

    My friend, you seem to be saying that a group you labeled "American liberal feminism" and that would adhere to no morality would have decided that women "must" act like men. I'll start by asking to you how you identified that group: Do they have an association or do they gather in some geographic/Internet place, or anything like that? Or do you group them based on their behaviour? Or how does it work? Second: How can "they" adhere to no morality and at the same time decide that anyone ~must~ do anything? The two things don't seem to add up much. I have this sensation that your hit missed the strawman that you had built. And yes, condemning Thicke is condemning Miley and it's condemning Beyonce, but the point isn't about condemning the people that are on stage, it's about calling out those that selectively condemn them. You're looking at the moon when you should be looking at the finger! Note that I don't care about all these condemnations, moralism or lack of thereof, about the people you mentioned and almost all of this trash. My only comment on that is "lolshowbiz". But I am interested in your logic, that surprisingly seems rather lacking in this case.
  7. jerdge

    RE: Miley

    lolshowbiz Thicke's "music" is terrible BTW. The only good thing of Blurred Lines is the .
  8. Many new players don't stay. Find the reason and you'll likely have a solution.
  9. Certainly not, RL is much more complex and you certainly can't reduce everything to just a few factors like you would in CN. Whatever reason(s) RL countries have to grant asylum - and the US are certainly not an exception, as they grant political asylum in the tens of thousands each year - it certainly isn't just a case of generalized "return on investment".
  10. jerdge

    NG

    You can always link it if you put an alert besides the link.
  11. Ah ah that's funny Minion Rouse.
  12. While perusing the GPA in-game member list I stumbled (again, but you wouldn't know) on Wikichang of Sheldonnopolis, our "dear" long-term ghost. His feat must be made known, as you don't always meet a 750-ish NS ghost with 532 days of Alliance Seniority! (He never exited Peace Mode, and in fact he has never been in War Mode since his inception in CN. Really an hippie! ) Too bad that I can't relay to you any of his thoughts or beliefs, as he never answered to any of the PMs we sent to him... Terrible jokes aside, if you know of other extremely long-term ghosts please share your story.
  13. "You suck" / "your post/entry sucks" (and variations) are translated as: "The posts praising me/my friends are the only good ones. ... Isn't the OWF dull BTW? "
  14. Not really. The GPA does not mess with what people do in their RL.
  15. Ah ah good one! Hey Myth you know that I could provide references as well, why am I not included into that list? As for my esteemed President's invite to consider the GPA, I must warn you that we still have a gag order that covers all the IC forums and threads: if you apply you must accept the idea of keeping your mouth shut for a long while (exceptions are made but they're extremely rare and I don't see you getting a permit, anyway. Not if I still draw breath!... )
  16. Don't give them ideas, Prodigal Moon... But seriously, if the content of this entry is the reasoning behind having treaties, it's horribly flawed. Treaties don't really provide safety. I suspect that they have more to do with having something to do in peace times and with having an excuse to participate in war times.
  17. I said it was a satire but I didn't say it was a satire of you.
  18. It's very nice and refreshing to hear about a (relatively) new player's opinion on CyberNations: thanks for sharing it. I don't really care about CN that much anymore (this might change: I just have other stuff to do), but I concur that the community is one of its best traits. You just have to learn to not always take seriously all those people that drip wit in every word they type, and you'll go well! According to my experience, intra-alliance "life" is probably the best part of CN. But doing something FA-wise and getting to visit other people's forums is also something everyone should do some time.
  19. The GPA HoF announcement is too old and I left my spade at home, but I don't want you all to just have that puny little war to keep you busy... Round one of the GPA voting on her Hall of Fame saw several people take really many votes, and the race to get to the second (and final) round was really close for many of them. Alas, we couldn't carry everyone into the HoF and some really deserving names had to be excluded this year too. I am anyway pleased to unofficially inform you that we picked the twelve nominees for the second (and final) round of votes. Six of the following fine people will enter the GPA Hall of Fame this year. I am sure that some names will be recognized by many. Jericthegreat AwesomeDog Fodell Rooman33 nik718 Apriland Pippedy Azaghul Mark8240 probablamenteno Helpma jerdge I actually ran a random number generator to put these names in random order.
  20. Good read. It could lead to a lot of debates and walls of text, but for the moment I'll limit myself to the following thought. You seem to be saying that the current shift of power (if a shift will be) won't bring substantial changes in the "might makes right" paradigm, i.e. the change will be enacted through hard power. What IMHO is missing from your analysis is that the hard power that has been united against DH & co is the result of a long exercise of "soft power" (values, morals, standards, call it as you like). The tool looks the same, and it is the same, but what allowed AI & co to put it together might not have been the same process.
  21. Posts are made by a small minority that is sturdy, tenacious and - let's face it guys - a bit obnoxious. Like weed. Posts will keep raining, we're here for other "milestones". (Not to mention that the number of players is amazing for a game like this, it's just that in the past it was even more amazing.)
  22. I am not directly touching the specific incident with a ten foot pole, for various reasons, but you people have to understand that, in general, the rule about war slot filling has two conditions attached: actual attacks being made and lack of competition for war slots. The second condition usually applies for intra-AA wars, but I think we can all take for granted that being on different/not allied AAs doesn't automatically mean that everything is fine (otherwise the rule could be easily worked around). The rationale of the rule is quite simple, when you think of it. As the game mechanics limit defensive wars to a maximum of three, the war slot filling rule was put in place to avoid that players could unfairly exploit such an artificial limitation in order to attain goals that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Should any party fill the slots of any nation with the purpose of preventing others to do so, in a way that objectively effectively affects the possibility of others to intervene (e.g.: allowing someone to hit Peace Mode after just one round of war), that party's actions wouldn't satisfy the second condition for them not to be considered war slot filling. I.e. they would be punishable. Please note that I am just saying that the arguments brought into this discussion to criticize this (or any equivalent) decision are (this far) incomplete: they can't be accepted as decisive. I am not saying or implying that this specific decision was right/wrong or that this specific situation satisfied/didn't satisfy the second condition explained above.
×
×
  • Create New...