Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Content Count

    4,541
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. White Chocolate isn't wrong: when a party you're in a deal with is involved in a war it isn't really easy to remain neutral whatever you do. Unless you made it clear in advance that you will suspend any deal until hostilities are resolved, which is what all people should do IMHO (to save everyone's time - and blogs!)
  2. jerdge

    WOTing on Schatt

    FYI being neutral is serious business... On topic: I don't dare insert myself in this discussion (or the wall-o-text mass could reach the critical point), but I'll have you all know that I have been reading it with great interest.
  3. jerdge

    You can say NO.

    Isn't that kind of my point? OOC cultural aspects can (and should) influence what's acceptable or not in the game, and people may also be unwilling to uphold relationships, if they're unacceptable for OOC reasons. good joke Do you mean that they have jurisdiction on off-game stuff? Do you know what "jurisdiction" means? What you do isn't nothing. exactly: nobody is going to say anything on the forums, they'll do the harassment on IRC because they cant get in trouble for it(unless it's in #cybernations) Seen from another angle, that situation works in favour of my vision: this place is an haven where OOC offenders are forced to shut up or to play by the rules of civility. That's a powerful weapon in the cultural battle to "occupy" this medium to defend one's vision. Occupy CN ITT! Save for the references to the MK, we're starting to agree here. I disagree with the place he decided to discuss that, and I partially disagree with his vision (see above), but I respect what he cites as his OOC motives.
  4. That was a good read, My Dear Shantamantan. Thanks!
  5. jerdge

    You can say NO.

    HoT very recently extensively referenced an (in)famous episode of OOC attacks against now gone players (quotes in the spoiler for the curious of you). I personally don't think that discussing the topic of OOC attacks in that thread was a good idea (not that it's HoT that started it), but I think that continuing to discuss OOC attacks is necessary. Simply put, the game staff has no jurisdiction over what happens off game and away from these forums, and at the same time we can't expect that everyone plays with fair play and respect. Either the players care, and they take the matter in their own hands, or no one will do it. But don't get me wrong: I disagree with the solution that HoT has been proposing with his posts, as I strongly believe that in-game means can't by design obtain anything in Real Life. You need to convince the players that avoiding offences is important, and you have to build a culture that it's intolerant against abuse. Moreover, a lot of players in every alliance barely follow most of what happens (IC or OOC) and they have the right not to be held guilty, and not to be harassed, because of what others did. Even if in-game means worked, and even if we could accept to harm innocent bystanders, what body would be in charge of "administering punishment", anyway? The treatment may be worse than the disease! Sorry for insisting (it's only every now and then, anyway ), but there are no shortcuts. Those that care about this issue should learn two things: that they can safely say no, and that they can help awareness spread. My humble personal experience shows that being the change is possible: although discontinuously, I have been an "annoyance" for hegemonic powers since 2007, and - what's more relevant - I've never feared to clash with "powerful" OOC offenders. Whatever the reason and despite the occasional threat, my fun and even my pixels are intact (and pixels are way less important than self respect, anyway). Say no to OOC attacks. You can. Credit - E. B. Sylvester ITT [ooc] Of course not, the only way to push someone out of the game nowadays is to harass them IRL until they flee to regain some sense of sanity in their personal lives. There's no need for war! [/ooc] Source: A Very Special TLR Birthday But that's a technicality and most certainly not the reason they left. [ooc]Obviously IRL takes precedence over the game, and these two were tormented endlessly while their daughter was missing and pretty much just because the guy they found had a nice looking car. They continued to be harassed IRL for a long time, Archon even deleted the threads to remove the evidence in case of litigation, and ultimately the two were run out of the game because MK would have never stopped harassing the piss out of them. And every single alliance who continued to hold a treaty with MK during and after that incident is equally responsible for enabling that savage, mob behavior. I will never forgive MK for what they did, and I absolutely believe they deserve to burn. Not just burn, eternal war. And every time they cry "Viet-MK!" and demand peace from "oppressors," everyone should point their fingers to the "bio-dad" incident and reply "No, up yours." Cancer doesn't deserve to be spared from endless rounds of chemo until it is totally and finally dead.[/ooc] Source: A Very Special TLR Birthday [ooc]I view what they did as, essentially, an unforgivable sin. There is no redemption for what they did. I'm OK with some of their members being granted peace on a case-by-case basis as long as they vacate the AA, but that alliance has fostered some of the most truly IRL immoral, illegal, unethical and downright evil activities. I disagree on the need to dive OOC as an acceptable avenue for "pushing the envelope." This is a !@#$ing online spreadsheet simulator, the object of which is to press buttons to make the other guy's numbers smaller. That is absolutely in no valid view of ethics an acceptable thing over which to IRL harass people over however many months it took before Kait and Hoo decided that it was better to leave and eliminate the never-ending harassment in their personal lives. This is a !@#$ing game. And MK is a cancerous tumor of a community that transcends the realm of this game to assault and harass players IRL. Maybe half of MK outright earned the right to be put under EZI, as I view anyone committing OOC, IRL harassment of this magnitude should be. As a counter example, take GOONS, an alliance I legitimately like a lot in an OOC sense. They are always pushing the envelope, but they do it pretty much entirely IC, which IS a valid route of pushing the envelope. They're my in-game opponents and oppressors, but OOC I truly love what they are doing, because it's the valid way to play the bad guy. GOONS brings something to the game, not to people's IRL doorstep.[/ooc] Source: A Very Special TLR Birthday
  6. Thanks for the interesting comments, which probably show that I didn't make my point clear enough. I am not against the treaty web and it's OK that leading alliances have a big pull on everyone else. My issue is with that large majority of alliances that accept to be always with their hands tied not because of how they tried to place themselves in the web - which would be logical - but because of the way someone else engineers the chaining of their treaties for the next war. Us "hippies" aren't here for war, but it's sad that "all" the other people people that wait for months to get some "combat fun" are then manipulated into giving up what little "freedom" to choose was left to them. Even if it's to end up fighting on the same side, people may think a bit more out of the box (basically: what Roq said), and make it their choice to do so. Anyway, whatever!
  7. Source: NoR declares war on LSF Let's look at Prodigal Moon's post as players, i.e. from an Out Of Character POV. This game's politics is largely dominated by the needs of coalition-level warfare, which isn't good or bad in itself. However, I find it silly that coalition warfare is so much engineered with "treaty chaining"... A hits B and not C, to trigger what D, F and G do, while C and D pre-empt Z to prevent F and X to assist Y. How can this sort of Mikado be even slightly funny? As I will likely remain neutral for another long while (probably until the end of CN) I can just ignore the issue and have fun eating popcorn (which I'll definitely do), but you treaty-hoarders might want to think a bit more about it. When you don't know which side you'll be on in a coalition war, because your choice doesn't depend on the (good/bad) CB, or on the (friend/foe/indifferent) initial combatants, or on your interest, but just on the order that will be followed in the declarations... Sorry for you, but that means that something went really wrong. I am not talking of the "movers", which quite obviously pull the strings, but of the other people: this isn't the only way, you can choose another path as a few (too few) others already did/are doing. (Sorry for not citing any specific example, but any example would cause arguing because of the people named and not because of its meaning. I thus chose to just avoid making them.)
  8. I don't use mIRC but I installed it just to check it for you... What Zoomzoomzoom said is your best choice IMHO. I found a bunch of channels already listed but it's quick to delete them all (shift-select, click "Delete"). You probably want to check "Join on connect" for every channel you enter and also to check "Enable join on connect" in the mIRC Favorites dialog. I have no idea what "Pop up favorites on connect" does or may do, but it probably doesn't hurt to just try it. I didn't find anything in the settings that seemed to control the order in which the channels come up, though. I'd assume they are loaded in alphabetical order (which I guess isn't bad to then quickly retrieve the one you're looking for, especially if you normally join a lot of channels). I normally use chatzilla (Fx extension) which does allow you to order the channels, which I find to be user-friendly and which - unlike mIRC (from CNET) - didn't cause my AV to go hysterical about "riskware" (and even ask for a reboot after having removed the culprit) when I downloaded it. If you're a Fx user you might give it a try...
  9. I'll start by saying that slander and insults have not much to do with free speech IMHO.
  10. jerdge

    When I was a kid!

    I used toy soldiers more similar to these. They were a lot of fun to play with. There are probably some hundreds still there in my old home in some box. That was really a lot of years ago.
  11. My entry: "he's criticized for something that's not the content of his posts". OK I already won this, you all know it. Please send the 50 tech my way and save us the hassle, will you?
  12. jerdge

    Military Arts

    Darn, I knew that Adblock was going to cause harm at some point in time.
  13. Really well written! Good job.
  14. If you want to make your answer more complete you can also elaborate on the "embraces" part.
  15. I will decline to comment...
  16. I read and appreciate it. Let's say that it wouldn't be the most intelligent thing of me to get into that discussion as well.
  17. QUOTES PART 2 Considering that you evidently know nothing about those events, as evidenced by this last post and by all your previous ones on the subject, you can't certainly discuss it in depth. I honestly don't know why I am replying to you at all, anyway... I guess I'll soon stop to bother. Just as a point of clarification, we were involved to an extent. However, in your defense, within the room that was set up for the matter I believe our involvement was kept just between your president, vice president (could have been MoD), and us. I don't 100% recall the details and don't feel like looking it up, but I believe what we did was limited to making it clear that we would respond in force if UINE (might have been someone else, I forget) attacked you guys for hitting the rouges if they failed to pay reps. It should be noted that GPA did not seek us out, we sought them and the party on the opposite side of the aisle out, and our reason was purely to protect our interests in trades when they were faced with an imminent and unwarranted attack. I don't see it as a blight to them whatsoever, since it was something we would have done whether they liked it or not as I wasn't about to see half our trades put in jeopardy for a couple of laughs. Edit: I think you may be thinking of a different incident or something. Found our log post on it, Loriean was MoFA and we also sat in on the final negotiations to 'witness' Lennox's ultimate agreement (600 tech) so he didn't try to pull some garbage afterward.
  18. QUOTES PART 1 Now you will surely think that I am shocked at this revelation. The issue is, you continue to insist it's not viable. Take the NAMBLA case for example that was a little fun Rayvon and someone else had. You were entirely reliant on VE's muscle because you weren't going to do anything to UINE about it and avoided any hardline stances. So if they had just told you to sod off, it'd have been VE being the reason any action would be possible. I guess your lack of seniority is showing itself. I don't have the logs on me at the moment. They were both somewhat involved. VE knew and cared about it and was in communication with GPA the entire time. Lennox went under UINE's protection with Crimson Fists and initially didn't want to pay reps.
  19. Disclaimer: I am a known government GPA Cabinet member and a former GPA President, thus you can probably assume that my word carries a bit of weight when it comes to the Agency. I am anyway handling this affair from a player's POV rather than from an IC angle, and I can't currently really talk on behalf of the GPA, anyway, thus this isn't an "official" stance. Specifically, none of this blog entry has been arranged in the GPA. (This disclaimer isn't really one of those "I don't want any responsibility" ones. It's just me explaining where I am coming from with this entry.) Source: Some info on Dulra My and Roq's exchange started with his reference of some NAMBLA incident, which would have involved Rayvon and in which the GPA would have been reliant on VE's "muscle" to solve some situation with UINE (and Lennox). The GPA wouldn't have done anything and would have avoided any "hardline" stance. Relevant posts will follow in the first two comments (too many quote tags don't fit in one entry). I'll start from the end, by addressing that last question from Roq: I can't answer for the GPA, but I can tell you that it would certainly depend on the situation. This is IMO is valid for any and every alliance which found themselves in a similar scenario. It is a known fact that the GPA has for long been little involved with the rest of CN, but consistently friendly with anyone she had some contact with; the Agency also has no mutual military treaties. All of this means that the GPA has little interest and no attitude for offensive campaigns, and also that she should never expect to be able to win alliance-wide wars. When openly provoked others may go for a military solution because it's their interest to do so, because they don't know how else to deal with the situation or just because they think it's the best way to make their point. The GPA would probably go through the diplomatic route, which would involve a lot of talks. I don't believe that there are many scenarios in which war is really necessary to explain to people that harbouring rogues isn't a good idea, thus I can finally answer to Roq that I don't think that the GPA would find it impossible to solve any other situation like the one he mentioned. According to my experience, people are reasonable and professional in handling such cases without any sort of unneeded confrontation. If the GPA really found herself being openly and intentionally provoked by another major alliance, through a rogue or in some other way, the issue would probably be bigger than just the excuse used to try trigger something. The matter is too vast to be addressed with a general solution, anyway: all I can say is that ad hoc solutions would have to be found for each case. Back to the discussion on Lennox's story, I'll try to avoid writing a long and nitpicking reply, but I'll just resume the main historical events. They're boring, but they show why I was irritated by Roq's recollection and interpretation of them, thus I consider it necessary to recall them to close that part of our debate. On 26.07.10 Lennox, a NSO member, spied away a GPA nuke. When contacted, the NSO government immediately denied having given any authorization. The GPA asked for a modest reparation (the nuke cost), which came out to be conflicting with NSO's policies about reparations. A negotiation then began over what measure had to be taken to correct the wrong, eventually ending with the NSO declaring that they wouldn't have protected nor helped Lennox if the GPA had attacked him. After a few days of wait, the GPA eventually decided to not attack him. I was Assistant MoFA at the time and I had access to the documentation (but I had been on vacancy). On 13.10.10 Lennox, another 2 NSO members and a Gondor nation attacked GPA nations, citing "NAMBLA" in their war reasons. Lennox tried to extort 2 tech levels in exchange for immediate peace (lol). The NSO booted Lennox and Gondor booted their member. The other two NSO members (one of which was Rayvon, pretty much unknown to me at the time) had just been cheated by Lennox; they peaced out and the GPA reached an agreement with the NSO about reasonable reparations (which shipment was never actually requested, and which I explicitly waived a couple of months later). Government members of a few alliances contacted the GPA offering support (you'd be surprised to know what alliances contacted us, but I won't make their names here). From the limited mention of them on our forums, VE was also aware of the situation, but I have no evidence of them offering support at that point. Lennox and the former Gondor member moved to the NAMBLA AA and continued to fight. After three days from the intial attack Lennox started asking for peace, at the same time moving to the Crimson Fists AA, at the time a newly created UINE Protectorate. Lennox should have been CF's government, but that was stalled while we were looking for a solution in terms of appropriate reparations. I think that Exodus was too involved at some point, but don't quote me on that. AFAIK Lennox joined Polaris only after having concluded a peace deal with the GPA (600 tech as reparations). The former Gondor member also peaced out with an agreement to pay 400 tech; this second peace was brokered by Polaris, which the other former rogue joined too. At the time I was still AMoFA. On 07.12.10 Lennox again went rogue against the GPA, again under the NAMBLA AA. That time he tried to extort 200 tech. We got some shots at him while he was on his way out of CN. At that time I was the GPA MoFA. Bottom line, while several parties offered support in case things became big, the GPA continued to pursue the rogues and to civilly talk with every alliance involved. Whatever support anyone might have promised, the Agency didn't use it to strongarm anyone into doing anything. It was a novelty for me to know that VE approached UINE explaining that they they would have responded in force in case they military protected the rogues against us, and I only now learn who was the non-GPA witness at the conclusion of our negotiations with Lennox. I don't anyway think that any of that should change much of my vision of how we conduct ourselves when we have some foreign issue to solve; especially as VE's declarations of unilateral protection weren't much a new thing at the time either, but there's no mention of them in any of the hundreds of posts and query lines I can dig on our forums over the whole Lennox "saga". I anyway apologize to Roq for having implied that he didn't know what he was talking of. I still believe that his interpretation of how the GPA operates, with or without external support, is wrong, but I acknowledge that the pieces of news he was building his interpretation over were basically correct. I was wrong on that, and I shouldn't have talked down to him. I guess this is a lesson for poor old me to not trust my recollection of details...
  20. jerdge

    The "real" Coffee

    I forgot to add: sugar kills it taste.
  21. jerdge

    The "real" Coffee

    Pressing on the handle might break/loose it in the long run. You could also close it too tightly and later have to apply a lot of force to open it up again (operation which too can compromise the handle). The "Moka" coffee pot requires loose coffee, which you usually put in the filter using a teaspoon. Any kind of "pre-packed" filter is a big no no.
  22. jerdge

    The "real" Coffee

    On the other hand you can drink more Arabica coffee without assuming too much caffeine, or drink the same amount and assume less caffeine (some people should avoid/reduce the amount of caffeine they assume). Anyway yes, the Arabica preference isn't "universal", it's just how I like to drink it. I can live with Robusta drinkers...
  23. jerdge

    The "real" Coffee

    Because it tastes better... (It's subjective, I know.)
×
×
  • Create New...