Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by jerdge

  1. [spoiler]Good Jerdge
    This has nothing to do with DBDC
     You have mouthed one of the phrases I find most disturbing.
    this is just a game
    Truly throughout the time I have been on Digiterra I have seen  that phrase used, to justify all measure of poor behavior and down right nasty attitude.
    What do you think that actually means?
    I see the same in my daily life when we engage in game play.
    It is just a game.
    What is that supposed to mean? If there is one place where fair gameplay, etiquette and sportsmanship should matter, it is IN A GAME.There is nothing real to "win" nor gain.
     Stop saying that.
    You wish to justify behavior unacceptable in a RL environment because "it is just a game" . It does not.
    We are not required to reveal and revel in our basest behavior because " it is just a game."
    You are not some crazed warlord or miniature Machiavelli you are what you are behind the keyboard, you impress no one with your bravado or machismo in a an online game. This is just a game.
    This is just a game and frankly, I wish those who power game or wish to act out their lousy fantasies by crushing new players or smashing the civility of play would actually get it through their heads. THIS IS JUST A GAME> you have no need to act out your worst side. Being a Richard with no RL consequences is lazy and amazingly easy. Try a real challenge, try to win with honesty, etiquette and fair play. Then you might have accomplished something.
    This is just a game.
    Dame Hime Themis[/spoiler]

    Hime, I agree that game ethics and fair play are important when playing games, however I was talking of another thing.

    When talking of the game from an out of character point of view in game morals have no weight, or at least they shouldn't. You can say that CN villain narratives are too often poor (I'd agree) that villains too often expect an easy time in their wars (probable) thus the tough guy attitude some of them have is ridiculous (I personally have no hope they realize it, but it's true) etc.
    The OOC rationalizations some are displaying here about what they're doing are hilarious to read (although, only if you find them terrible as players, I guess), and pathetic, but their in game morality (or lack of it) have nothing to do with that: bringing them up makes little sense.
    Furthermore, not because some are making an ass of themselves, everyone participating in game is equally bad.

    In short, you can't claim that being the villain in a game is bad. You can claim that reaching certain levels of bad at being the villain in a game is awful: on that I agree.

  2. Daily reminder that this is an OOC forum.

    While it's funny to see you people talking of in game morals like it was actually immoral not to have them, this is just a game. Blood Pack can certainly act without in game morals and/or ethics, that should not be a problem for anyone here.

    Some people thumping their virtual chest here, and calling out people for peace mode etc are of course equally ridiculous. Get a grip. :)

  3. I would have never thought that I would have ever found myself defending Branimir, but you gals and guys are nitpicking. Yes he said "from your high horse", that probably was inaccurate, but hardly offensive and certainly not worth posts over posts about it. Jesus Christ, I mean, he's Branimir! A bit of harshness is his trademark (that was even quite nice compared to other posts).

    Then again, Asa's reply was also exaggerated: calling "lies" Branimir's story was unwarranted. However, again, he's Asa! Not really known for being the nicest (or the most up to date) diplomatic individual in CN.
    He went through some statements and claims and Branimir's one was caught in the middle... think of it as collateral damage. While to some (and especially to Branimir) it's rather obvious where B stands, that's not obvious for Asa (whose thought will undoubtedly be "why should I care at all where he stands?")

    I'll also go out on a limb to say that Branimir's advice is also generally actually good, and this case doesn't make an exception. Manners and who you go talk to matter a lot. It doesn't apply here - the WTF aren't interested in doing anything with anyone else - but that doesn't make it bad advice.
    I think that it's worth appreciation and that it deserves courtesy.

    Then of course none of you will care about all of this, which you're quite entitled to do... Carry on then. :)

  4. At times I feel like I am the only one that understands both Asa and Branimir. Neither tends to usually be particularly nice, but that doesn't mean that they're interested in dumbed down provocations for the sake of it. Not at all.


    On topic: JMD might have been trying to inject propaganda in the OWF, but that doesn't change the fact that this OOC discussion could have been interesting. Much respect to Prodigal and Sigrun for at least trying. :)

  5. It would have been clever to make a double cross April Fool and actually disband, but that would have required to disband the alliance, which would have been unfortunate.


    Wishing you success would be inappropriate for me, DS, but you know you'll always have that special spot in my heart. Especially a few of you: you know who you are.

    To the whole AA: congratulations on staying around. It's always nice when people find a home they like and they keep maintaining it through thick and thin. :)

  6. [...] Y'all are the dark knights of this game, the evil badasses (nearly) everyone fears, and it is just so bizaare to see you try to play the victim. Even OOC? [...]

    Are you really still surprised when you realize what OOC distances some people can travel, over this silly game? And here I thought you were an hardened CNer... :P



    [hr]On topic: my previous question was to try understand if the DBDC had asked for peace and the "mean" WTFers were really refusing* to negotiate an end for the war. As the answer was that it was just a case of parties not agreeing on the terms, I don't see how this situation is any different from any one of the other countless wars that, before ending, were still ongoing (Lapalisse comes to mind!) My interest for that debate is thus basically already over: nothing really new to think about.


    I am certainly no authority to determine who should make the bigger concessions in order to end the war and it's a bit funny that so many think they instead have that authority. Just watch the fireworks, or ignore the issue in case you're not interested!

    If you're instead involved you may consider have the decency to keep your IC propaganda in the IC forums (although, hey: it's just the "drooling around" kind of indecency, not really the "harming others" other kind, thus feel free to continue with that extravaganza, if that's your cup of tea.)


    The OP may be JMD trying to "subtly" rouse a resistance movement or maybe he is really interested in the "Big Boss" dynamics. Judging from his post history I am personally inclined towards the latter, but it's a matter of opinions. The subject would make for an interesting discussion, TBH, but apparently people prefer to assign the victim/perpetrator roles, let "make believe" morals and propaganda flood every corner of the OWF, thus I doubt we'll ever have an honest discussion on the subject.

    It is what it is.



    * Which to be clear would be 100% in their rights to do, the situation considered: any player can play the game as they want, in my book, as long as they respect the rules and they also try to be fair. The DBDC are big boys and I don't really think anyone can seriously claim that they're the hopeless victim held in permanent warfare by a much stronger group of players. Stress on "seriously".

  7. No, I ignored you because this question has been answered on a number of occassions. I have even directly quoted Asa in the past saying they had come forward about white peace and still denied that peace was ever offered. It has always been on the table. WTF has the ability to end the war, but they choose to fight on. This argument is hilarious and futile.

    Ah OK. You got me confused when you said that the WTF would have been "keeping the DBDC at war". It seemed like you were saying that the WTF was refusing to consider discussing any deal to end it.
    I now see that you instead meant that the WTF just didn't agree with the specific offer the DBDC had made to them.
    Thanks for your explanation.

  8. [...] If you were a big boy you would have let it go. If DBDC kept you at war and you asked for peace you might have a lot of people supporting you. You're the one keeping DBDC at war, and as a result your combatants grew. [...]

    Did the DBDC ask for peace?

  9. Older players always lobbied to keep the seniority advantage, thus this isn't a game for new players. Especially if these want to try something different from the mainstream ways - join an alliance etc. - which are basically the only viable option.

    Stupid design? I'd probably agree, at least to some extent, but it is what it is. The people that said it years ago got tired of repeating themselves to no avail.

    Leaving the game is probably the right choice. Have fun in your next game. :)

  10. You can see this in two ways: as in advance communique to later justify intervention and thus try control PR damage, or as fair warning that shows that you're civil and accountable.

    I applaud consistency and transparency. As part of an alliance that has what many would call maybe the most "redundant and unnecessary" treaty of the history of CN - on which they would be wrong - I can understand the effort to make Kaskus's statutes more consistent, and the exercise of them more efficient, even if the doctrine is apparently superfluous.

  11. The confluence of events that would have to take place to create an even war(even if everyone wanted it....) are astronomically unlikely to occur anywhere, much less here.

    If that's off the table the universal use of ground attacks is off the table as well. It is what it is.

    Players (that last) tend to be rational thus, without balance, they'll enact the tactics which give them the best outcome given the circumstances.

    One way to tackle it is to force players to use all the war mechanics, no matter if beneficial to them or not, if they want to use any. This solution is for game designers that believe in the expansion of the masochistic player market.

    Another way would be the novel idea of bringing back balance into the game, by fixing the obvious disparities that plague some pairings at the top and at the bottom end of the NS ladder.
    Any time any idea is proposed to either end, unfortunately, we have stakeholders that extensively complain about having to renounce to some of their advantages. A minority even goes around blackmailing people with threats of in game harm. We're thus full circle and back to square one: some mechanics remain neglected and people complain about how boring it is, blaming everyone else for "incompetence".

    (In the end it's what I have been saying since at least 2011: CN War Is a Lie(tm). :) Sorry Ray... :P )

  12. People want to maximize the damage dealt / damage taken ratio and/or difference and, to that end, "turtles" happen when a side is outnumbered either in nation count or in actual strength (not NS), with the latter happening only at the top end because of the 250 rank range rule.


    If we had more even wars and/or a more even top tier and/or it was (much) faster to rebuild/get to the top we'd probably see many more Ground battles.

  13. I know that GPA top tier is mostly either turtling or in peace mode. I have posted about this myself in this thread in response to the post made by the rebel.


    The point of my post (that one to which you responded) was that GPA top tier is less powerfull then the WTF top tier was before the current war. The fact that GPA top tier is turtling desn't change this. Actually, it makes it easier to attack them, as the turtling nations are either in anarchy or they can be anarchied immediately, reducing GPA ability to make counters (to mitigate this they keep reserves in peace mode all the time). Of course by turtling they deny possible attackers any direct profit (except XP) - but this doesn't make them stronger.

    You probably give us too much credit, it's basically just one objective surrounded by a lot of inactivity/disorder... :D


    But thanks. :)

  14. The false premise being that there was any higher level of discourse to begin with.

    I disagree, strongly, but even just the potential for such a level of discourse is sufficient as a premise for my reasoning.


    It's an important distinction, for even GPA (or its members, more accurately --) does not take a neutral stance on world events from time to time.

    Any recent significant example? I'd be surprised if you could cite any but admittedly I'm not all-knowing.


    Additionally, merely being neutral in a given conflict or event does not indemnify the rest of the world against potential acts of harm from said entity.
    I have a hard time levying sympathy for folks who by definition offer no support to others in affairs and also in part do not necessarily forsake the use of arms against others.
    All credibility over a debate of sorts over just and warranted attacks go out the window when said alliances never offer it in return for others.

    Being neutral for several years is rather different from being neutral for select conflicts.
    Peaceful parties aren't pacifist: no one should be surprised if they react in arms when attacked.
    I don't get what sympathy has to do with any of this. I'd say that there are parties that you can trust not to meddle with your affairs as long as you leave them alone, and parties that will instead come knocking to your door regardless of what you do. It's also plenty of parties that you can not trust. Then you're free to have sympathy for whatever of these you like most, that's a personal choice... it's not politics.

  15. Pacifist, peaceful, neutral, isolationist and non-interventionist all have different meaning.


    Problem is, too often the debate loses sight of the meaning - and here I am not anymore talking of just discussion over "neutrality/neutrals" - and it just devolves into bickering and poor PR strategies based on and because of semantics. It really is an impoverished attitude that is responsible for much of the deterioration of the level of discourse.

    Cheap discourses drive quality discourses away, leading to short sighted and Pyrrhic dialectic "victories" that eventually just bring all of us to the worse possible payoff in the game*.


    (Also senile grumpies etc. - please disregard and carry on.)






    * [ooc] "The game" refers to game theory, not to CN. [/ooc]

  16. I always suspected that you didn't actually read my posts... or maybe you just don't understand them?  If you need help I am happy to break out the crayons again.

    For being one that makes contentless speeches you surely stand out: lately I hear mentions of you every other day!

    (TBF at times you're redundant. That and the crayons... Natural born teacher, probably.)
  • Create New...