jerdge
-
Posts
5,858 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
When I first endeavored on this project on more or less a whim I had just a handful of supporters and quite a few detractors.
Eheh, I actually clearly remember Planet Avril in awe at your return, with everybody walking on their neighbour and on his mother to run and shake your hand...
Congrats, anyway!
[Edit:typo]
-
Understandable and reasonable.
Good luck to both parties: one day you'll find yourselves together again, hopefully.
-
Ah, I'm sorry: this is one of those rare occasions in which we're in such a list...
-
Good government.
Congrats to all the elected.
-
Trying to understand this whole affair made my head spin way too much (I'm not that much intelligent, after all).
Considering the relatively small importance of that treaty cancellation - Athens and TSI obviously feel better one without the other, anyway, no matter what happened - I'll vote for the lizards (the serious option we should all be worried about).
On the other hand, OP, poll and thread deliver: well done dude!
-
Interesting, and congrats. Frienship is still possible, nowadays!
(Friendship is moral, put this in your sig etc.)
-
I am sorry for CON's troubles, but at least their members have the opportunity to join another great alliance.
What is the reason to claim ownership over the "Confederation of Organized Nations" Alliance Affiliation, anyway?
(Haf, if you don't want to say something, just don't say it...
) -
Eheh, like we didn't know...
Welcome back.
-
Duncan, you did the right thing.
Should you face any future in-game problem because of what you did be sure to talk with the Moderators: they may be able to help you. If they can't ("no smoking gun") I'd be glad to be of help: feel free to contact me at your leisure.
-
Trying to offend others to not be able to come back sounds a bit as egotistical to me (not to mention that it is quite ineffective: I have been told that using proxies on alliances' forums and on IRC is so cheap nowadays.)
One could try to work on his lack of control, and to actually be a "Great Man"?
However, I would have no qualm to pay my respects to LoweAlpine, but on the other hand I actually never heard of the guy before today! I'll thus indulge in avoiding myself the otherwise inevitable ridicule...
I can instead pay my respects to Francesca for her being so selfless, and she doesn't even need to leave to get them!
-
I appreciated the honesty and transparency of this announcement.
I am however not sure that I understand the use of arguing over what wasn't perfect, but was in the end acceptably resolved. Maybe I just don't understand and that's all.
Congrats to everybody that can now consider this story over (the MHA included!)
Good luck for the future, IRON... Ferro Credo!
-
Nice read. Happy Revolution Day!
-
For some reason I continue to like anything that is posted by Buds The Man... Interesting Article 5, by the way.
Congrats to both, but especially to the BTA.
-
(04:45:12 AM) Sakura: <15 members and no protector=not an alliance.
Considering that your alliance later surrendered to them, you were probably wrong?
Face it: they are were an alliance and they were able to prove it to you, with facts.
Your ill-conceived criterion didn't save you from your PR and political debacle: you'd better learn from your mistakes or you'll be doomed to repeat them over and over.
-
Quality is quality, thanks for it.
Very generous of you to protec... Buahahahahah! ... Eheh sorry, I can't say this with a straight face.
But I am sorry for the mule.
(Also: bad Ejay, bad!)
-
Well done, Doitzel Elyat.
-
jorjor110, your intentions are good and I support them.
I don't wish to embarrass CG with "useless" moral support, though, thus please don't add my name to that list.
-
In any terms I am correct a treaty is a contract and I would like you to show me any context where breaking the terms of a contract is considered a legitimate means of canceling it.
As PC said (albeit "unofficially"?) that they don't support IS's aggression against CG, and as (thus) arguably they weren't informed about it (at least, not "reasonably" before time), one would have thought that the very common clause about sharing information would have made IS the party guilty of having broken the treaty.
However, the entire point is moot as - as funny as it is - PWN has no info sharing clause, thus it's perfectly legitimate for a signatory to throw around its allies' weight without having talked with them first (well, probably it's not in line with the spirit of the treaty and it's not healthy in the long run, but still...)
-
If we would be in the state of mind that we'd never give peace to them, no matter what, we couldn't discourage any destructive action against us by the threat of violence. As long as one doesn't go to the extremes in terms of violent responses (such as warfare), one has the ability to discourage certain destructive actions such as ghosting/scamming by the threat of violence.
Thank you, now I got it.
-
Since when is Invicta small?
Appropriate question. I was thinking of the military/non-military/unclear support, but I badly worded that: now it's "amended".
Thanks for your implicit correction.
-
Yesterday, with a non unprecedented action, Internet Superheroes started an (apparently) non-motivated attack on Crimson Guard, taking advantage of CG's lack of "documented" treaties, apparently hoping to crush a weak victim.
IS already got the explicit "just in case" promise of military support from Poison Clan, AFAIK their strongest direct ally, while CG collected promises of moral non-military support only, with the only possible exception of other very small parties.
I personally don't believe to the theory of the "tech raid":
- IS hasn't an history of organized tech raids on whole alliances;
- It has already been stated and not denied that IS adopted non-raiding tactics and techniques (in opposition to its own policies on raids), using blockades, spy ops against nukes, etc;
- IS didn't use any "typical" reference to the attacks being raids, in the 16 War Reason of their update blitz, whereas 10 out of 12 of its previous war declarations against other parties include some reference of that type;
- Crimson Guard is a 10+ members alliance with evident political ties, and not an ideal raid target: the "CN community" already showed its discontent about the aggression.
- Despite the difference in Nation Strength, this attack won't be "profitable" for IS: they're going to lose a lot of infrastructure and to eat some nukes.
I'm thus left to the political reason.
As IS didn't bother to inform the community about the aggression, one could think that it's a questionable political reason that they would be ashamed to share with the public. However, being the IS the IS, I don't think that this is a good explanation either. I also don't believe that IS has any specific reason of grievance against CG in itself, otherwise they would have aired it to the public, as it would have been their interest to do.
The only left option I can think of, to justify IS's "silence" over this matter, is that there's some sort of conspiracy behind this conflict, with its objective being someone or something different from CG.
I can imagine wars against a "random" party "just to state a point" (about war itself, to change the political landscape, to shake and a provoke, etc) but again I can't imagine IS doing it (at least, not without being vocal about it).
I thus conclude that this attack is probably a conspiracy to hit someone else. Not counting the small parties linked to CG, and not counting the NPO - that is not formally linked to CG, and is anyway very well protected - the only other party that I can imagine to be the target of this action is the NSO, that not so far ago issued a "global ODP" doctrine (the new Moldavi Doctrine) and that was recently involved in a (very discussed) war against RAD, treaty partner of IS.
Of course, I can't know the level of involvment of anybody in this (alleged) conspiracy, if any. In fact, there is no "hard" proof that this conspiracy actually exists. Assuming that it is more than a mere hypotesis, anyway, it looks like it has been clumsily executed and that not "everybody" was informed in time: PC's statement of support might have wasted it...
Finally, my take on this issue.
If I was responsible of an alliance with ties with IS I'd work to cut said ties ASAP. They've shown a lot of irresponsibility, in my humble opinion, and they're going to be a liability and an headache for their entire existence (that admittedly, might be not "so much" long). If there's a conspiracy behind this, I'd also go around asking questions, and cutting ties with everybody that had or participated in that "great" idea.
This isn't the way to pursue one's political goals: not only such an attitude would be very questionable, it is guaranteed to bring a bitter doom in the long run...
Thoughts?
- IS hasn't an history of organized tech raids on whole alliances;
-
While ghosting and scammings may be legitimate tactics in war, it is a legitimate strategy to ZI those who do that to us. Our strategy wasn't to destroy them forever and ever and ever, and thus it gives us some answers available for the most common question - "what are you going to do about it?"
Others may rather talk and discuss reparations all they want, but I prefer blood over blood money.
I agree that ZI is a legitimate strategy to discourage others to ghost and scam you.
The discussion was about Ghosting+TechScamming being or not an aggravating circumstance that warrants ZI. The answer is obviously in the eye of the beholder, as ti involves an evaluation based on one's values. I'd say that protracted warfare isn't necessary when there are more peaceful means to be indemnified by, assuming of course that the other party agrees to them; you say that you prefer blood; both stances are equally "legitimate", I don't think there's much to discuss over that.
I also didn't understand your sentence about the answers available, but don't feel too compelled to explain if it's a secondary issue (I may even never return to this discussion...)
-
Ghosting an affiliation and attempting to scam aid, as exemplified during the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, is a legitimate tactic in war, especially under impossible odds. I fail to see why, exactly, it warrants additional punishment, though I imagine that there is more than one reason, at any rate.
My congratulations to the Global Defence Initiative on their achievement of peace.
TBH I was going to talk in disagreement with your statement - GDI and Vox were quite different cases - but when I tried to write down my arguments I realized that they were weak. In fact I basically agree that ghosting and scamming are legitimate tactics in war.
I don't know (I didn't checked) how big the three nations involved are, but in case their ZI implied a prolonged state of warfare (say, more than another round of wars), I'd try to work some other kind of peace, instead (e.g.: reparations for what has been scammed, if anything).
The sum of Ryan's actions may warrant an harsher punishment for him - maybe having him pay all the reparations would do.
Or maybe not. Nothing about this case is up to me, anyway...
-
The Huns, you've found a faithful friend that won't abandon you in times of need: congratulations.
)
Embattled Primarchy of Independent Citizens rides again
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
jerdge struggles with himself, to wish Lord Boris good luck...
Struggle lost.
Well, whatever. I may even like it, one day.