scottimus prime
-
Posts
79 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by scottimus prime
-
-
I have pigs/sugar.....will send trade offers immediately.....will change colors as soon as people start accepting....
I don't check the forums often, so please message in-game (my current circle fell apart after over 600 days so I'm glad I found this) -
bump, 3 slots open
-
aid sent....
-
aid sent....(also your link does not go to your nation)
-
3mil sent
-
Very simple offering...I pay 3mil, you send 50tech.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=226229
If your nation is older than 90days I will pay cash first, (aid code "now u o 50 tech")....just send me a pm in-game and I'll send the money
If your nation is younger than 90days I require tech first, send it to me with aid code "now u o 3mil"
I am a member of TDO, so please no nations at war...I will not knowingly send cash while wars are active...
**PLEASE ONLY COMMUNICATE IN GAME, I DO NOT CHECK THESE FORUMS VERY OFTEN -
(bear in mind that this question comes from someone not particularly versed in treaty politics)
Can someone explain to me why \m/, PC and us (NpO) reaching a peace is considered a bad thing? I know that many were upset when we attacked, but I thought we were always quite clear that we had no intentions of taking this thing a day past the terms being met. I had thought we were also relatively clear that we hoped it would stay between us and \m/ and PC, even going as far as getting agreement from our allies to stay out unless more "combatants" entered the fray. I know that we love out allies but how do we keep a war going after the "enemy" met the terms we set forth if we do not immediately do as advertised and peace out with them? (Note the lack of reps, requirements, and stipulations on the cease fire)
I'm not asking this as a defense of the peace...I'm literally confused.
-
The GRL needs to be pushed up. I will be honest, I am strongly advising my Triumvirate to not even consider peace until \m/ has exhausted every single ounce of fighting capability, not 100% sure they will listen.
Not exactly Sun Tzu but I have to admit, I like your tenacity
-
Just so its clear, NpO is declaring on \m/ because some \m/ members used naughty language?
if by "used naughty language" you mean adopted a policy of tech raiding small untreatied alliances with no hope of mounting any defense solely for tech and lulz then bragging about their abhorrent policy while daring the rest of Bob to do something about it?.....then yes, naughty language is the cause
-
Imagine how much differnt things across our planet would be right now if Grub had walked into Alterego's thread with this approach rather than the "clock is ticking" approach.
Also imagine, if you hadn't been bullying smaller alliances for tech and this wouldn't have happened
imagine if your thoughts on "anyone can attack anyone for whatever reason they want" applied to us and you hadn't blown up the forums whining about how wrong we are
imagine if we were an alliance of just 30 that stood up to you and how this thread would be about how those brave but stupid polar nations should "know their place"
imagine how quickly this could be over if you would agree those small alliances should be safe from raiding...you know, really safe... like your upper tier nations in peace mode?
imagine the GRL in a week if you won't
-
Props to you PC on stepping up for your allies...I guess we'll do this and see where it leads
-
(scottimus prime @ Jan 21 2010, 08:55 PM) *
So basically, don't stop one crime if you can't stop them all?
More, don't stop crime if you'll only stop it when it suits you.
I'll stop any crime I can, when I can.....I hope you do the same.
-
And if this is all about stopping \m/ from being oppressive or w/e then why are PC who actually have a long history of similar behaviour not facing the same punishment?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of \m/ and they've brought this on themselves but you cannot tell me this war is about stopping oppression or any of that crap and expect my to buy it.
So basically, don't stop one crime if you can't stop them all?
-
If only it was that simple. Grub took that option away from us a long time ago.
Grub expressed his issues, you all taunted us and dared us to do something about it......he then went to you right before the end to give you another chance to resolve it and some of your alliance crossed some major lines with your gov still not willing to evaluate your policy. Your policy of assaulting dramatically smaller alliances for personal gain is against our policy of letting smaller alliances get attacked for personal gain. Throw in some bragging about assaulting the aforementioned smaller alliances for personal gain, some begging us to stop you, some betting we wouldn't, and some racist slurs and voila...
at no point, including now, do you not have the option to make this stop...
-
(Triyun @ Jan 21 2010, 03:00 PM) *
The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves.
If you don't have the authority to do so, I believe that's called being a vigilante, which is a crime in and of itself.
And we'll stop as soon as the Bob police show up and sto....um.....wait....we have Bob police?...wait....no we don't....um....carry on then
-
The arguments for Polar side is its not okay for thieves to oppress others.
The arguments for \m/ side is it is oppressive to stop thieves.
I wonder which side most rational players would agree with.
Probably depends on who you are allied with and if you have ever been the victim of thieves
-
My mind after separating all this horse!@#$ feels like ive been watching Jersey Shore for 2 full hours.
I feel comfortable speaking for all of Polaris when I say we wouldn't wish the Jersey Shore on anyone including \m/.....that's just uncivilized
-
I would certainly have behaved differently! I would not insult and berate someone who is only looking out for a community that they love to be a part of. When an alliances behaviour affects the entire community, and my ability to enjoy the game, I will be concerned. And when that alliance treats my concern with such disrespect, I will certainly want to do something about it.
Not many can say that they have ever seen BNW handle herself in a crude manner...
-
Yes they do, did you miss our Nuke count
Not missed at all, I know it's hard to believe but we were fully aware of your nuke count when we entered this.....some things are more important than the infra from 800 nukes
-
Lusitan, that is both an awesome reply and good math.....a doubly good post!
-
Remember when 1000 nukes meant something?
They still mean 150,000 infra right?
-
I have a smallish, inexperienced alliance full of warmongers with just over a 1000 nukes. Not a hyperpower, but a loose cannon just the same.
I love you Ivan.....I might sig that
-
Yeah, it would be something wild if MK or Polar had to break that treaty. It would force Sponge to fight the Alliance he once ruled. Epic.
That is not something that any of us want.....Sponge is still respected greatly
-
Thank you. And I am not trying to say NpO's views are necessarily wrong, I believe you really do think you're doing the right thing. But it's not the path I would choose, and I think it's not the path my alliance would choose. If an alliance is getting curbstomed and they really didn't do anything to deserve it, the community should act. But if it's their own fault, or if they really can handle it themselves, we should just let them do it on their own.
I think that is a fair and civil way to state your point. We both probably just disagree about which of those 2 situations this was...thanks again for an intelligent discussion
Black 3BR Trade Circle
in Trading Harbor
Posted
I have now changed colors, notices to resend trades (you have to cancel and resend to start the color bonus) have been sent to the people I'm already trading with in the circle....
Just sent 24hr notice to my existing temp trades that I am dropping and will begin sending offers to the new circle members tommorrow
looking forward to stability!