animea90
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by animea90
-
-
Savage, please dont insult Hoo. You were not around the same time as him and he is a very rational nonegotistical character. You have to be if your going to build up a small alliance into a digiterra power.
Hoo, I am happy to hear your still in the game, I enjoy reading your posts and Vox would really enjoy having you.
-
As many have noted, I have indeed returned to Planet Bob after just two weeks of retirement. Yes, that was a very short hiatus ... no, I do not regret it.
Some people will claim that they know the "real" reasons for my departure. Those same people will force me to make them look foolish in this very thread should they choose to go down that road.
Yes, I am talking to you. The individual who just typed what they feel is the wittiest comment ever and is about to be backhanded right off of the forums. Before proofreading your post, please ask yourself "Do I really know what happened (if anything), or am I just speculating and making a terrible mistake here?" This will undoubtedly cause you to either instead type "Hey, welcome back" or to type nothing at all ... your call though.
Now that I have that out of the way, I simply feel that I have more to accomplish before exiting. While the brief time off was invigorating, it is time for me to return and continue to leave my mark.
Sadly, I will not be returning to Ragnarok. I have left that fine alliance in very capable hands and I am proud of their ability to move on without me. I'm afraid that chapter in my CN career is now closed and it is time for me to seek new challenges.
I have already been offered a few interesting opportunities, but I honestly do not know what I will do just yet. Perhaps I will join a tiny alliance and have a hand in establishing it's identity, join a mid-level alliance and see if I can help guide it that last step, or even start a new alliance and see if I can do it all again ... I am still weighing my options.
Either way, you are not rid of me ... not just yet anyway.
Note: I have already contacted the mods about my ruler name.
If you want to join a fun alliance and guide it to success Vox Populi is always an option.
-
That's not an oversimplification, that is outright fact.
According to the terms and conditions they can ban anyone at anytime for any reason or no reason. They have chosen not to get involved in these situations unless there is evidence of extortion or harassment. Regarding your comments on the OOC punishment, you could not be any more wrong. If a player commits and out-of-character attack on this forum or ingame, it is the sole purview of the moderators to decide the punishment merited and to enforce said punishment. Players have no place in the discussion. Please note that this is my (quite educated) interpretation of previous rulings and precedent and is in no way intended to be an authoritative view on moderator policy.
While I agree to this, the players have a legitimate claim to punish OOC attacks that happen outside of mods jurisdiction(The IRC for example) because there is no other authority in place to punish the offender.
-
Vox is not even two months old. A bit early to judge their true efficacy, no?
In cybernations prolonged guerrilla warfare is not possible. You are either able to beat the enemy in the first few weeks or you will not win.
-
The only reason revolutions in CN fail is because they add an element of 'stealth' that usually encourages most sane people to ignore the hell out of the idea. Maybe if would-be freedom fighters would step out of the shadows and state your intent and goals to the public, the big bad NPO would give you a high five.
I think that is what Vox Populi did and we all see how well it worked.
-
Most RL revolutions involve a smaller less equipped group of revolutionaries fighting the larger main government. The revolutionary force will rely on stealth and guerilla tactics to kill the main government forces.
Real life has no equivalent tactic. You cannot kill the leaders of the main government, nothing stops people from following the same leaders they have for the last several years. Stealth tactics are largely limited and cannot do enough damage for a smaller hidden force to use effectively. Terrain is non existant in CN. The smaller force has no advantage other than the first initial attack, which can quickly be stopped.
Revolutions are not possible as the larger force will almost always win.
-
ask a girl about that
Frankly I am not sure how your name is not a naming violation.
-
you can only prove i spied away ONE nuke
Well that is a terrible counter argument.
-
It holds an inherent negative connotation.
I prefer "guerrilla warriors".
The reason terrorism has a negative connotation is because it usually involves death and destruction of property to achieve its ends. Vox is doing this to the citizens of nations. From an RP perspective that is terrorism.
-
No, it isn't. *Sigh* Hear you nothing that I say?
We are social revolutionaries seeking to break down the barriers to freedom of conduct in a world bound by cultural constraints crafted by a ruling class to protect a ruling class.
The two are not exclusive. You say you are trying to break down the barriers created by the ruling class. You do so by violent means(war). By conducting war upon the ruling class, you hope they will become afraid enough to give in to your demands.
Terrorism is not an inherently bad thing. The American Revolutionaries used terrorism to convince the British to surrender.
-
But Vox Populi is a terrorist cell. Isn't the entire purpose of your organization to strike fear into the hearts of those who want to maintain the current world order? You do so by violent means(war).
-
Given your quote, I assume that line is the only part of my post that you read. Honestly, I often wonder why the rest of us bother waste our time on you.
And to address your first sentence, if the GGA is as much an alliance as Vox is, this announcement (like so many of your alliance/group's threads) is completely obsolete, and the OP is a liar.
Or you know, the OPs post was satirical. I mean believe or not people do post non serious posts in this forum.
-
Here's a solution: Go to the pulpit and ask The Lord to clearly define what is and isn't an alliance within the rules(i.e. types of acceptable government, etc... I would but I already got a warn for my shenanigans).
Edit: Fixed by request.
he did, and by his definition Vox is an alliance.
-
IC: The nation of Cottonwood's population at the amount of discussion going on over a very simple issue. GGA is a duplicitous, honorless alliance willing to bend any of their own commitments to fit their situational morality.
OOC:
From the Game information index. Vox fits all of these requirements. Once again, Admin himself verifies our position. Q.E.D.
edit:fixed quote
OOC: This post appears to prove that Vox is in fact an alliance. Quoting one or two vox members saying they are not an alliance does not over ride the words posted by the games Admin. He would be the ultimate authority on any CN related event.
-
I've been debating this in my head for a while and I'll throw out my stance on a certain issue. I'd like for this topic to be respectfully debated so that I may get more perspectives than just my own.
As we all know, when you join an alliance, you are expected to defend it against enemy threats. Whether that means a member was attacked by a raider, rogue, etc. Or if you head to war. But I've also seen people quit alliances or have been told to quit alliances when the alliance goes against their personal beliefs or ideals.
In my opinion, that is the wrong way to go about it. If war is called, you should never leave or delete just because the war is against your ideals. You were given protection by every member, even if you had different thoughts about certain alliances and subjects. To not repay that by defending or warring with them when the time is called upon doesn't seem right in my mind. I can understand participating in the war and leaving when it is done when you don't agree with the alliances views. That seems like the correct way to go about it. But if you only fight in wars as a member when you believe in it, then you should be in an alliance of one, where you are always following your ideals.
What are your thoughts on this? Also, I hope what I'm trying to state is clear. If not, I'll have another go at explaining it.
This is true to an extent. The problem is that alliance members rarely know anything about what is going on in the higher ups of their alliance. Many times in war, someone can see an alliances true colors or learn things from CBs they would not have otherwise known.
When people realize the alliance they thought they were in does not exist, then they no longer want to stay in their old alliance.
-
Being a member of an alliance makes you responsible for it's actions, so that you are not allowed to surrender without any damage taken can be justified, though it may be harsh, it will make people think twice about "being able to jump ship unscathed if things goes downhill".
I find this in itself ironic, because most of the time the membership of the alliance being declared on has no idea they will be attacked until it is too late. At least 90 percent of Hyperion did not know they were aiding Chickzilla until they were already declared on, told to leave peace mode and accept ZI.
So the membership of an alliance is responsible for actions they do not know about?
-
Id call it retribution on those who seek to avoid it
ZIing all the members of an alliance which is only in a war for treaty obligations is retribution now?
-
To the best of my knowledge, these sorts of terms are in some way negotiated with the losing alliance's government. I'm not privy to everything, but there really isn't anything stopping a losing alliance from at least bargaining to avoid this term if they abhor it. 'Don't bomb our peacemodes, they were doing what yours did. Howabout we add 1,000 tech, $10m, and get you Cubs tickets?', for example.
Except they were not really negotiated. The Continuum had this stipulation in individual terms well before they were giving alliance wide terms. They said any peace mode nations will be attacked for twice as long.
-
Let's skip to the real politics of this.
These terms are coming out because it's quite obvious that if the alliances in question are allowed to rebuild back to where they were, and were able to recover diplomatically, then lead a war against those currently in a position to cripple them forever, they would not offer terms allowing reconstruction to their own foes.
They haven't in the past. Why should they get them now?
This is just pragmatism. When someone is a clear threat, and you have means to kill them, you don't shoot them in the shoulder so they can recover fully and come after you again. You shoot them between the eyes so you won't ever have to worry about facing them again.
Are you trying to say that a group of alliances which you outnumber 5:1 in NS and members poses a clear threat to you? Especially alliances who are just in the war because of treaty obligations(Mushroom Kingdom)
-
Everyone ignores the guys in PM ~DURING~ the war, exactly as you said, they help you win, people might throw a "hippy" comment every now and then, but no one really cares about the guys in PM while the war's on.
Meanwhile, as I have bolded, once it's over, the coin flips, if they're surrendering, the ones in war mode will likely have very little if anything left. So who has all the money/tech that everyone wants? The ones who were in peace mode. Is it just a way to get some extra stuff after the war's been decided? Of course it is.
If this were the case then it would be much easier and much more effective to ask for reps from peace mode alliances. You could get much more tech and cash. There is no reason the peace moded nation would have to be attacked.
-
They aren't civilians, they are enemy nations/soldiers (whatever) in hiding and are still targets in the war.
Also what's the point of a war if you aren't going to destroy your enemy? Letting them rebuild right away/go unharmed makes the war kind of pointless.
The point of war should be to force a redress of a particular grievance one alliance has with another after all other diplomatic measures have failed.
For example, Hyperion was aiding Chickzilla and was declared upon for failing to provide logs. Hyperion got surrender terms which including apologizing for what they had done and offering reparations, but if I remember correctly all nations in peace mode were still considered targets until they had stayed in war mode for an extended period during which they would be completely destroyed.
-
Your analogy is flawed because those nations that fled to peace mode definitively do not resemble "civilians".
Why not? Excluding a few forum trolls which could easily be handled on an individual basis, what is the difference between a nation who remains in peace mode the entire war and a civilian?
-
Peace mode bankers allow for a quicker rebuilding time
So its okay to kill civilians because after the war is over they might help their alliance?
-
I would say the best thing a spy can get is attack information. Looking up who is going to attack who gives the enemy a good head start.
For the love of Cyber Nations
in Open World Forum
Posted
I dunno, we might need to lower our treaty numbers, that way we can get a war started... Oh wait