Jump to content

greenacres

Members
  • Posts

    1,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    greenacres
  • Alliance Name
    Pax Corvus

Recent Profile Visitors

881 profile views

greenacres's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. The writing's on the wall here, guys. We're all sitting in the same boat waiting to be rescued, talking into a little box or radio or what have you, hoping that someone will hear our suggestions, and in some cases our pleas. We do this because we think we're going to be heard, we assume that there's someone on the other side of that little box or radio, taking note of what the people want and are in need of, but there's no one on the other side. There's no one listening to your ideas, and it's been that way for a long, long time.
  2. The time needed to build a nation is detrimental at this point. It takes about 20x too long to build up to a decent size to keep new nations involved in the game. Older nations have the advantage of billion dollar warchests to rebuild, and people want to get involved immediately or quickly, and not necessarily through an alliance (by that I mean, even though alliances are a necessity, most people don't get involved beyond simply applying and then doing as they're told. Politics isn't an interest to most people that are left) Make infrastructure dirt cheap(1/20th what it is), make technology dirt cheap(1/20th what it is), but make militarization more expensive (10x what it is now). That way, actual wars cost more, but rebuilding is cheaper. It would also make start up aid that much more worthwhile, and if someone can get to 5000 infrastructure off 15 million in aid, they may stick around to use it. It doesn't matter if it throws off older nations, they've got billions saved anyway. That or just enjoy the ride until the end.
  3. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1311467711' post='2762428'] TAA had a right to take their time and make the proper decision. They told you, as a fellow protectorate, in confidence, what they were mulling over. You then threw them under the bus by forcing the issue. I guess to suck up to NG or something. A rather pathetic move, but if you really want to be such a leech in the shadow of NG, it can't be helped. You sacrificed all trust anyone might have in you or your alliance. For what gain? Nothing. Nothing at all. Considering the speed with which NG has shown it is willing to throw it's "protectorates" in the trash. [/quote] Really? All trust? It's a wonder why anyone even listens to you anymore using your own logic. Come on now, quit it with the !@#$@#$ sweeping generalizations.
  4. shut the $%&@ up, and stop trying to be an e-lawyer.
  5. Congratulations to two fine alliances coming together to form what appears to be an even finer alliance.
  6. [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1300380658' post='2667815'] You post from a position that is opposite my own, therefore you are my enemy. [/quote] I'm like beanie sigel here.
  7. [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1300380562' post='2667810'] No one from the NPO government has stated that these terms are unfair so what is your point? Only your side has been crying about nations being in peace mode. Only your side cried about it when the NPO delivered it to FAN so long ago. FAN didn't cry about it then, just as NPO is not now. Shedding light on an apparent inconsistency in policy and fraudulent ethos isn't the same as crying. The OP is more or less an emo statement about how Pacifica broke MK's heart (and maybe read her diary or something) and how even though junior high and high school are over and they are both sophomores in college on opposite coasts, MK still pines after NPO and still carries around a secret rage over being dumped. Does MK cut itself too? [/quote] My side? *checks alliance affiliation* I don't have a side. I think the NPO is the best community planet bob has, or at least that I've ever been a part of, but I'm not going to sit here and say that these terms are unfair, given who these alliances are, and their history with the NPO.
  8. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300379923' post='2667794'] This is silly. First of all, GOONS1 was right there sniffing NPO's butt and giggling maniacally to help disband or jump any alliance NPO asked, VE included ([19:15] <Ardus[MK]> Back when I was an enemy of GOONS, there was no Mercy Board. There was just "you're $%&@ed" [this is [u]factually incorrect[/u], there has always been a mercy board, but it illustrates the point]). [i]Polaris[/i] had NPO by the balls in the run-up to the UjW and Polaris tap-danced on GOONS's and Genmay's faces, not NPO. Besides, new GOONS literally goes bananas if you start making comparisons to them and GOONS1, so they have no claim on UjW drama; they've gotta own that they are the same alliance or they've gotta keep it consistent. MK got it's revenge in Karma, and a year of money to boot. Your simpleton justification for this curbstomp also fails to account for alliances like CoJ and Legion, a Vox splinter and an alliance that NPO kicked in their teeth, and then placed under a viceroy to prevent disbandment and keep the reps flowing. If it is the case that this is more payback for crap that happened in 2007 and 2008, then why should any of us even bother ending this war? If war is not the solution to greivances, so you jsut get more war as soon as you've had a chance to get some money back in your pocket to be taken again, then why give into that tribute system? We won't. [/quote] Again, boo hoo. I'm crying on the inside. I really am.
  9. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300374249' post='2667722'] Eternal war one of the 2 choices you are forcing on them [/quote] You don't see how turnabout is fair play in this case? Do you forget what they did to FAN? Or the original GOONS? Or Genmay? Or NoR/NV? Or LUE? The NPO once gave terms that were strikingly similar to an alliance they were at war with, it could have been GPA, I don't remember, but the terms were literally "come out of peace mode and fight for xx time and we'll discuss peace then." This is fair play.
  10. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300371087' post='2667666'] They have the moral high ground because the slate was wiped clean after karma. NPO were attacked for no reason and are to be kept in peace mode as an alliance or beat on for a month-AFTER THE END OF THE WAR. The reason they were attacked? People thought they were going to enter the war. Well the war is over and now they have been told they need to take a month long beat down for doing nothing. The war is over, there is no reason to keep them at war any longer besides personal vendettas that were apparently cleared during karma. Now they want just one more beat down before they deliver on the promises they broke 2 years ago. They might not be historically moral but they have the moral high ground now thanks to the lies and actions of DH/PB. [/quote] Boohoo, cry me a river. Same tactics they used to use on other alliances. Again, boohoo, it's so sad.
  11. [quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1300366084' post='2667619'] I believe that this card has been overplayed during the Karma war; you can’t use it for ever, or if you want to try adding something original. For the matter in hand, DH propose a path for us to achieve peace, we feel that it is not in our best interest, so we (kindly ) reject it. [[i]OOC: I liked the cartoon; it seems a rather accurate description of the father – child interaction OOC[/i]] [/quote] You do realize that every alliance that's attacking you, is an alliance that the NPO either once forced to disband, forced their former selves to disband, or tried unsuccessfully to force to disband? You can't rightfully claim the moral highground and hide behind the karma war nonsense when you haven't paid for your crimes against these alliances. They're using your own tactics against you, I suggest you humble yourselves, realize how $%&@ed up your own tactics were, and just be genuine in your response to those alliances.
  12. I'm not going to read the entire thread, but has it been pointed out already that the NPO once served up almost the exact same terms to someone they were at war with? I hope no one is crying about these terms and saying they're unfair/unprecedented
  13. I shouldn't be commenting, but I felt this needed to be said. During times of war, whatever you do within the confines of the game, and only within the confines of the game, is acceptable. The objective is to win, and failing that, the objective becomes "Do as much damage as you possibly can" and that is all that matters. Goldielax is missing the point entirely, and what he's saying is actually flat out wrong/a lie. Poison Clan is getting nations from other alliances, even sleeper nations from their protectorates, but that doesn't matter, because the only reason you're posting this is because you didn't think of it first. Poison Clan has used this tactic for a long time, and you know what? It's a good tactic, and this is war. You are at war with Poison Clan, and you're expecting people to follow some invisible rules of warfare that exist only in your own minds. The only thing that matters in warfare is the outcome, anything you do (outside of OOC !@#$%^&*, and if you even consider that, you should be strung up by your !@#$@#$ nuts) during times of war, is fair game. You want to spy? Spy. You want to trick people into surrendering? Go right ahead. You want to get nations from your direct allies to join in your fight? If they're willing, let them. What Poison Clan is doing is absolutely, 100% fine, you're just complaining because you didn't think of it first. This is like people complaining about the whole peacemode tactics thing (which, let's be honest, has never been successfully used to win a war.) You just want something to complain about.
  14. [quote name='Affluenza' timestamp='1295964840' post='2600059'] There is no end game... Everyone has said things are stale...and that certain alliances were not using their positions to effect change for the greater benefit of bob... Post-conflict a precedent will have been set and nations and alliances will once again be able to act upon their feelings of dislike for one another rather then bottling it up or trying to fabricate cb's against one another to win PR. That was essentially the problem...every war needed to have a solid cb but would have to also pass the PR test... [/quote] I understand that, which is why I think it's about time people started wars simply for dislike, rather than trying to manufacture something (even VE $%&@ed that one up, they should have simply said "we don't like NpO" but whatever), but .. what's your overall goal here? Disbandment? Do you just want to knock NPO below a certain NS/Member count? I'm more than a little confused, because wars like this really have no practical end, or at least, they have no need for a practical end, so I was curious as to whether you guys had set a hard or soft goal for this war.
  15. On the one hand, I've been saying for years that, the best reason for war is simply something along the lines of "$%&@ you, I don't like you guys" so, I can't say anything bad about the reason for this war. I mean, that's basically what you guys are saying to the NPO. On the other hand, I can't see what your overall goal is, so it's a bit of a headscratcher. What's your end game for this? When does it stop?
×
×
  • Create New...