andrewSproston
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by andrewSproston
-
-
An interesting idea for sure...
However, I feel that any alliance will decided to go to war on one side or another and then look into how it can be achieved. Some will claim that some small slight means that they have to go to war, others will use an 'rogue' attack on a alliance as a tool...
Basically if people want to fight wars, they will use any excuse to do this...
The you have people going around saying... oooh your MDP doesn't cover that because of X Y & Z! Why are you declaring war!?!?
There seems to be some 'moral' tag to MDP's which are not really relevant.
-
Anyone know CONs forums?
They attacked me for recieving aid in wartime, 3 days ago, and have since surrendered. I would like to speak with their government about this.
Confederation of Organized Nations (CON) - #CON (Notice:irc://irc.coldfront.net/CON) - S - R
-
Hum...
People always see Order oppression, I have yet to feel this even after fighting them (well GOONs actually) in GWIII.
If anyone has proven that you can come back from being crushed it's the Orders... ironic really
-
Are you serious? You are suggesting that these alliances disband? What does that do exactly?
Well it certainly would be daramlicious if Moo & Sponge did that all at once.... Imagine the outcry
-
One of the main points would be for people to stop changing their AA at random, especially if people use this to hide as a POW.
There was an idea once that would have improved the way alliance's worked. Don't think anything was made of it tho.
-
Yeah I understand that. It's the weird way this community is where everyone assumes everone has an ulterior motive. Actually, being a POW is oddly liberating in CN terms, can post more freely than if you're in an alliance. I suppose I DO have an ulterior motive mind you.
The nuke thing is possible, the guy only has 2k strength mind you. I'm just amused at the "send infra" part of it most of all
lol Yeah the infra part is quite amusing... unless his opponent is thinking of removing it via CM's? :lol:
I sorry to say I don't have an ulterior motive, but maybe I can make one up....
erm.... I want to have you as my POW?
Or maybe this is a snide way to recruit members
haha
-
If I posted the names people would say I'm trying to score some kind of PR point or trolling the particular alliance. Alluding to the comments above, what with me being unaligned and all I'm not gonna say anything that gets me onto a ZI list, since that seems to be being thrown around like confetti these days. Mostly, it may have already been sorted out, so it would serve no purpose - I'm talking about the generalities rather than the specifics of this case, especially as some alliances won't attack members of disbanded alliances.
But since you asked - Alliance: Aquatic Brotherhood. Member - Count DeFeo, person wanting to surrender - Lord Doom.
Well sir, the only reason I interjected with my opinion was that I wanted to head off the inevitable "not real without screenshots/corrobration". Without the name's it may seem to some that you are just making something to get bad PR on 'the other side'. Also it may have been that Lord Doom had done something specific that warrents a different surrender, such as a nuclear first-strike, which someone already said would have different terms.
I do not support one side or another and all genuine POW's should be protected and treated with respect. I was just seeking clarity on the matter.
I also do not condone the perma-ZI'ing of any nation, but that's just me
-
So wait, from now on not just leadership, but anybody active on the forums can be sent to ZI because his opponents disagree with what he said during the war?
Way to kill off the community.
Indeed you may well be correct, but from what I have seen and heard this seems to be the reason he is on a perma-zi list.
Putting the El Bruc case to one side. I would argue that ZIing 'trolls' is not neccesarily a bad thing. It may be that these 'trolls' and their highly critical attacks on members actually work to the detriment of the community.
For example if we had someone, during a war, to be spamming all the forums with nonsense or 'nasty' things about the opposing side. It may cause some people to move away from the comunity and the game.
-
Humm... It's seems that no-one learns from history, there were comments made by a LUEr once and then some laughed, and then made an 'appology' thread. That started GWI, and the matter was seen as heinous, I fail to see the difference between that incident and this.
At the end of the day OOC attacks are not acceptable, GOONs should 'man up' and accept that they will take flack for this. If this is fair or not I do not know.
-
\m/ had another guy being told his attacker would only accept surrender under the conditions listed here, despite the attacker's alliance (not NpO or Legion) presumably sending him the same spam message they'd sent me.
(removed the names in case this has already been sorted out privately, the fact we disbanded since makes a difference too I suppose). "Send me everything in your nation or be destroyed!" is a new one, I have to say. Especially the demands to send infrastructure and land
I assume this isn't this particular alliance's policy - but there's clearly a general problem here with POW- treatment.
Humm...
The only problem with removing the names is that the 'other side' can not investigate the issue and reply to your point. In fact without names it is very hard to verify your claim.
-
What was this talk earlier about "war crimes...?" Sounds like there might be something to that here.
I think that your percieved incessant trolling is what has got you onto a Perma-ZIlist.
I'm not involved in this war and have no reall opinion on you, but I think that this is why you are being targeted.
AS
PS. I have used percieved as I have no comment to make on if you are a troll or not
-
It might be a good idea to include in terms involving military aid (defensive or aggressive) who decides peace terms for alliances and POW's and how those are managed between treaty partners. I'm not just referring to confusion in the present situation, but it also seems to have been a rather thorny sticking point during GW3. It's like not having an exit strategy.
Humm... I agree on this point, although you would have thought that the terms would have been delivered by the 'attacked' alliance. So if Alliance X is attacked by Alliance S activating Allianc Y's MDP, then if X&Y gain victory then it would be Alliance X who would dictate the terms.
Although clauses such as;
X In the event of either signatory being attacked, and the attacking alliance surrenders it will be the attacked/most suffering (bugest NS lost etc...)/senior (say NPO treaty with a smaller alliance)/alliance Y alliance that will dictate the surrender terms.
Or some such thing.
-
But How will you defend yourself with no Tanks,CM's ?
There are those who will protect their friends from rogues without the need of treaties
AS
-
Humm.... nukes seem a little underpowered now, there is no real need for not using them. Perhaps this should be changed by Admin?
-
Updated 2007-09-14.
Coming up tomorrow or Sunday as time permits.
A scholar and a gentleman sir!
-
A good bit of JL nation strength comes from alliances around 1.1 and lower. FAR too many of these alliances simply tell their alliance members to "hey attak \m/ and goons nations". Because of this, there are MANY wars that aren't even fought by them. When they do fight, they're usually extremely underexperienced and are crushed.
I'd say around ten million NS is comprised of these alliances, give or take a million.
Really Sir?
I would beg to differ, a lot of the alliances under 1 million NS are not dumb and not trained in war... you may be right some cases, but you can not say the majority, or even a significant minority, will be.
Mpol a great, as ever, piece of work. Sitting this one out on the sidelines does give you a different perspective.
-
that's a lot more military
And a lot more being killed
UE... any chance of seeing a The Unjust Vs Targets graph, like you had for WUT Vs Ageis?
Great job!
Coming Clean
in Global Politics
Posted
Pure flaming...
And yet no evidence is forth coming
Poor Pacifica... if only she was what she had started out to be... Franco's Spain must be turning within his grave :angry: