Vhalen

I think people just need to get over the name "Karma" and realize it's not a factual representation, based on dictionary definitions. I suspect NPO has nations not geographically located on the Pacific, too. Heck, I think we could spend quite a while pointing out dictionary definition inaccuracies in alliances and blocs, and it'd accomplish about as much as this last page or so. It might be a fun game, actually, but I don't think it's quite on topic for this thread.

So, as an extension of this, preventing any alliance from existing is not a violation of any right, and therefore not wrong. Thus, should Karma want NPO to disband, it's perfectly acceptable behavior? (Not advocating this, by the way, just find it amusing that this argument naturally seems to flow that way.)

Let's just say you've seen everything worth reading.

Well, he sort of has to. It'd be far more embarrassing if he were on this list too, wouldn't it?

I distinctly remember Gramlins being hailed for this instead of the more standard "just give us tech" reps most other alliances had, in the War of the Coalition. Interesting, hmm?

Well, if they turned down a pure offer (I won't claim knowledge), then I can't say it's too surprising the next one, with the war growing more unbalanced, wouldn't be quite as good. 2500 isn't really anything, honestly. The lower-NS nations (just the ones with under 100 tech) ought to be able to churn through that in just about one aid cycle. So that's what, 4 aid cycles for 4 alliances? On the other hand, I notice no military decom requirements at all. I'm not going to bother checking what kind of nukes/navies/etc SSSW18 has, but that's something.

Frankly, I'm opposed to the use of words at all, in formal context. We should just draw pictures. Grub probably still has some crayons left over from the last war.

One could argue that since the term is generally understood to mean what they're talking about, then in this sphere (OOC: CyberNations) it has an additional definition. It happens all the times with words, after all. Do you think "ball" meant "pitch outside the strike zone" before baseball? This is all a silly semantic issue that has no real bearing on anything.

First off, I disagree with this proposal. However, I feel that this moral outrage to basically every term suggested is ridiculous. Is it immoral to defend yourself? Look, people, some kind of terms will be enforced at the end of this. I doubt they'll be draconian, but I'd be shocked if it's "disband military and get white peace" either. Planet Bob cried out, "Enough" and there needs to be an exclamation point. Edit: HeinousOne, I'm not specifically targeting you with the "moral outrage" comment. It's just a common theme, and I decided to address it here.

As opposed to a uni-polar world where one alliance acts against basically everyone else's self-interest? Sounds like an improvement, chaos or not. And if I know your doubletalk, you'll be hailing yourself as a prophet (though that's not at all the proper word for what you described) regardless of what happens, because actual facts have always seemed largely irrelevant to your arguments. I think blocs develop for multiple reasons. You want to group everything together and say "their own interests," but that's kind of obvious. I doubt there are many who join a bloc specifically to screw themselves over, after all. Friendship/good relations, common interests/goals, and so forth are good reasons, and while they bind the signatories more tightly, they don't necessarily do so with a hegemonic goal. "Because if we don't get in line, the bully will eventually target us" is not. "Because if we don't join this one too, it'll work against us," is paranoia. Obviously, people are more than willing to opt out once they want to work against you, so "bloc as security" is a fiction. A bloc has to have something more to it than cold, calculating self-interest, because the participants are people with emotions, and eventually pure logic isn't enough to hold them together. (Also, what Sponge said about the alliance and the bloc is quite valid. It's similar to the nation to alliance relationship, to a point. What you're getting has to be worth what you're giving up. How much security is worth being a foot soldier for someone whose policies you don't agree with?) See, Vlad, you go around saying "we're in all these blocs for self-interest," but you don't actually look around you while you're writing. At some point, being decent people and recognizing that you're part of a larger community was more in NPO's self-interest than bullying others. In that regard, Pacifican leadership collectively failed even by their own standards. By pursuing a neverending chain of offensive wars, often for minor or trumped up issues, just because you could, you actively worked against your own interests. I feel bad for you that you can't seem to grasp this, but you brought it on yourselves. Consider it a lesson in Francoism, from Bob at large. NPO would do better with new leadership who are capable of learning this lesson. As to the second paragraph, you automatically assume that multiple groups have to either be at each other's throats or in bed with each other. There ARE different levels between those, though I expect NPO political thinking says otherwise. And thanks for the link, but I have better things to do than go back and reread your redefinings and doubletalk. Heck, I have better things to do than post this, but I've already written it.

(OOC) Heck, I was asking for that last war. At 5, it's barely inconvenient. At least TE goes up to 10.(/OOC)

Is it? Can't more than one power attempt such a thing?

I was going to write a longer reply to this, but ES pretty much summed it up. The Vox movement represented (and created) a dynamic swing in public opinion. Without it, even assuming a secret cabal of leaders with brilliant plans and whatnot, there wouldn't have been the general public dissatisfaction necessary to bring things to a head quite like this. Feet would've been drug, plans postponed, and Hegemony spies would've almost certainly picked off one "secret cabal" member after another. Like them or not (I doubt they care), Vox put revolution on the fast track.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Although Vlad likes to force others at the point of both a pen AND a sword. Oh, no, it's not imperialistic to build an empire. *rolls eyes* Actually, I might agree to some extent, on this one. It is directly opposing the imperialistic objective to make so many people dislike you so much that this sort of thing happens. You're right. The empire was a fluke. You were really self-destructive! Maybe someone can get you a therapist. Edit: (OOC) Frankly, I'm not paying all that much attention to things this time around, so don't expect much in the way of back-and-forth from me. I know it's disappointing, but I just have other things I'd rather be sinking the time into right now, than reading and rereading this sort of thing.

Well, they've sort of set the standard, as far as that subject goes. It'd almost be rude not to. CN history shows that's exactly when you're supposed to kick them. Then you get to make outrageous demands!

Taken care of.

I guess I don't really care all that much one way or another. I just thought it'd be a bit neater and cleaner. I don't view sanction as particularly relevant, anyhow.

Why don't we start a new "TE Round 'X' Sanction Race" thread for each round, so the old ones can drift away into the forum graveyard and the new ones can be so many pages shorter?

It's short for "Alabama," and you can see "Roll Tide Roll" in his avatar. (This response is assuming you were serious and not joking. It's hard to tell sometimes.)

I was your friend before you were famous. Plus, I don't want anything. Wait...bring beer.

At first glance, the new wonder prices seem much more in line with what people may be able to spend. We should see more than a few purchased this round.

He said he was having fun. That seems to be his goal. Since he's achieved it without all that extra work you guys put in, the argument can be made that he's better than you are.

Wonders just aren't worth their price. I'm sure several of the higher nations (especially in money-earned) could have bought one, had they wanted to. None of the economic ones will ever recoup their price, so they may as well not be there. I'm not sure that any of the military ones warrant the price either, as most of them are just outclassed (per price) by purchasing units/g.camps/barracks/etc. SDI might possibly be worth considering toward the end of a round, especially if you have high income and infra, except that it requires you to trade in half (at least) of your improvements to build it. Fact is, if admin wants wonders to be more than a curiousity in TE, they'll just have to come down in price again, even if it means reducing their effects as well, in some cases.

Well, I think it's presumptuous to start changing the duration before we see what the total duration feels like. For all we know, the most exciting stuff might happen on day 85.

Yeah, I agree that wonders are far beyond considering at this point, and with a rough guess at future growth, probably remain out of reach regardless of the next 30 days, unless someone just builds one for the sake of having a wonder. Any financial wonder is simply garbage, as it can never hope to recoup its cost within the remaining time frame. Theoretically, one might consider a military wonder, but I suspect it would also be a misuse of funds. I understand that in SE, wonders are typically started around when you start building the less helpful improvements, and that in TE, we're not likely to get enough slots to start on intelligence agencies and churches. Keeping that in mind, if it's desired to have wonders in TE, their cost/balance needs to be reconsidered, if not similar to how Dendarii suggests, somehow.