Vhalen
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vhalen
-
-
Excuse me... are you insulting a member of my HC?
:jihad:
I believe he's insulting actions and methods. Now, if your HC member is using them, I'd say he's chosen to insult himself.
I'm sick of your passive aggressive nature. Its really just sad. Step up and say what you really mean.Well, sometimes forum rules prohibit this.
Chrol...you asked me to fight you...you told me to 'give it my all'Sounds like he meant as long as it didn't hurt.
I'm glad someone outside our walls is as interested as I am in the change in voice of Polaris that I've seen as of late.Correct me if I'm wrong, but Polaris just got a new leader, didn't they? Change your emperor and tell me everything's going to be the same. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Well, here's a little repeat history if you want to call it.Polar attacks FIST for a fairly good reason security and impersonation. Everyone get's upset for the weak CB and disregard to treaties and cancels treaties with Polar.
Now...
GGA and Valhalla attack Hyperion even weaker CB with no diplomacy disregards treaties hmm......
Let see who got the brains to finish the process.
You're talking to the wrong crowd. Seems like zombies have better odds to meet your braaaaaains criteria, lately.
3) GGA wants to do something to stall the ZI Peace Pact put forth by Viridia, and by flexing their muscles, they can put forth a thinly veiled threat to those that sign it saying "we will still declare war on the basis of a Perma-ZI list.Well, if they'd signed the pact and then declared this war, maybe it'd matter. This way, it just makes them look more foolish.
No, you are not. So do not assume a position of the GGA.Yeah, wipe the egg off your face! That's theirs.
No, we would destroy you ourself and anyone associated with you.Self-destruction's one way to go, I guess.
-
Treaties don't mean jack. Where there's a will, there's a war.
Brilliant! As of this moment, Longitude/Latitude views all treaties, now and forever, as null and void. Feel free to attack each other, ladies and gentlemen.
[/sarcasm]
Still, makes me wonder who the bullies on the block are going to fight once everyone else wanders off, disgusted at war declarations citing, "We just wanted to. Politics is dead. Please sell all your soldiers so we can't loot you, shoot your nukes at our banks, and delete to inactivity, because we aren't going to let you do anything else."
Would you be shocked if no surrender terms were offered until they were? Seems there is no limit to the depths GGA can plunge.[OOC: Forums acting up for anyone else? Keep getting threads with unread posts even though I read them all]
Wouldn't surprise me at all, though some people might start thinking they're getting too big for their britches, and they might start finding allies disappearing in the future. Doesn't much matter to me, though. I'm just here for the show.
-
edited per Vhalen's request.
Er, I think someone got crossed up as to whose request, because I don't recall asking for any editing.
The third line does paint those who use P/E-ZI in a bad light no matter how much you want it not to.I see things a bit differently. Perhaps the act itself paints you in a bad light, and you'd just prefer to keep the room dark?
-
I admire your skill at dumping a large number of logs and hoping no one will read them, but please, try to make a point. So far I'm not seeing one.So, what you are saying is that you didn't read the logs then?I read most of them, and am working through the rest. So far, they don't say anything that isn't already known. Please try to make a point, using exerpts from the logs as evidence. Just dumping a bunch of blabber makes you look silly.
You should write a book, I'd buy it. You're one of the best storytellers I know.
I read the logs and saw the point. Seems to me it's pretty obvious if your reading comprehension is above a second grade level, unless you consciously choose not to understand.
I was able to gather some information from these logs. Something I gathered was that Hyperion willingly offered to toss these members who unknowingly engaged in a tech deal with someone they didnt know was a perma-ZI target.At leasdt thats Hyperions side of it. Id like to see what makes it 'knowngly aided a perma-ZI target'.
More attack targets if it reads that way.
Post those logs again and get blasted. Once is enough, for the love of Admin!Uh oh, Josh...why'd you have to go and quote them?
-
And some types of alliances relies on others to get their dirty work done for 'em.
Because certainly nobody could spin things to accuse 95% of Bob of this.
Necessary logs are necessary. Tl;dr?Was that really necessary? As far as I can tell with a quick skim, there's nothing in there anyone cares about anyways.No kidding. I was sorely tempted to quote the entirety of that just to point out how idiotic posting the entirety of it was.
He supports them because that's what Allies do. >.>I believe the implication was that maybe he supports them because that's what puppets do. Though, I could be mistaken.
For the 80,000th time since this game started - if you're gov, you represent your alliance. Always.Then you shouldn't state your personal opinions.Always is a dangerous word, especially with people like me running around. Like, if you SAY it's your personal opinion, I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to have anybody with any sense at all think it was alliance policy. And, frankly, some things are obvious. Like, if someone in alliance government said, "I like bacon and eggs for breakfast, but my cholesterol prohibits me from having them too often," it doesn't mean the entire alliance a) has high cholesterol, B) necessarily likes bacon and eggs, or c) even eats breakfast.
Oh, and to you, the reader, I wouldn't waste my time replying to that last bit. I'm clearly rambling. Hopefully it helps keep all the forum-reading from getting too serious, though.
-
Jeez, just edit the line already, we know how we feel and he then can feel ok with how we feel. win-win
Well, I think probably amendments to a document of this sort would have to be approved by the signatory nations in some manner. I'm not sure of the procedure, as I tend not to concern myself so much with such minute details.
Well you've definitely been acting petty and vindictive throughout this thread.Whether this is true or not, let's try to keep personal snapping back and forth out of this thread. There's enough conversation to wade through here already, without having to sort that stuff out of it.
-
I think not editing may compromise the friendships of the writer. I would hope that those signatories who really do have respect for their allies that practice p/e-ZI will look into getting it changed.
I think that the writer need not worry about "straining friendships" over this. If someone's only your "friend" so long as you say and do whatever they say, that's not really friendship at all, and nothing's lost by the relationship being broken.
Also, for those complaining about the wording of the document, last I checked, you're free to write up another document with more specificity and detail if you feel it will alleviate some of the arguments stemming from the wording here. I say this knowing the likelihood of that is fairly low, since the people nitpicking the wording tend to be the same people opposed to the general idea of the ZIPP, who are therefore the least likely to want a "more acceptable" version.
-
The notion of ZIing every new nation just because 'they could be rerolls' is idiotic, and not a one person has suggested anything remotely like it.
I wonder of Jonathan Swift had similar retorts, or if the literary public back then was capable of understanding that he was intentionally exaggerating in order to make a point.
Anyway, congratulations to every alliance who's signed this so far, and I hope the list keeps growing.
-
I think every alliance can decide whether to have a permanent / eternal ZI list or not, I am not sure if a treaty is necessary for that, since it is an internal issue not an external.
But then again, you have every right to create / Sign such a treaty.
I don't think it is a PR stunt though, but I think that FAN adding to the list of signatories could be seen as a PR stunt and I wouldn't oppose that.
Unless you think that the OP will try to refuse someone who tries to sign, I can't see how adding FAN, when they try to sign, is anything more than being perfectly fair in the ZIPP's approach to everyone, across the board. It would be a political statement NOT to add someone who signs.
EDIT 2: Now if I could ask friends of mine currently bickering this out in public to take this to private channels and sort this out, that'd be mucho excellent. You're all better than this.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. There's more than enough to read here simply among the on-topic arguments, without adding in all the petty little sidetracking ones.
First part needs to be taken out as Admin already said he'd go across re-rolls himself.Second part is blatantly call ing anyone who practices perma-zi across re-rolls a horrible, evil, person.
How are people stil lsuprised that detractors would be pissed at this? I think it's a huge slap in the face myself. A holier than thou attitude which I frankly don't appreciate.
Admin is free not to sign the treaty, then. Although, I'd argue that simply by involving himself, admin goes OOC, and his outlook on this subject cannot possibly be unbiased, as he's the one who has to determine who gets banned.
It is well known that FAN nations are deliberately left to be deleted so that re-rolls can be created expressly for the purpose of spying, not just on MHA. Therefore MHA was harmed by the creation of this nation as it was specifically created to do harm to MHA.I've heard this and a couple of others arguing that re-rolls are "a threat" to their enormous alliances/blocs/etc. If this is so, then it follows that new nations are a threat, as they could possibly be re-rolls. Therefore, perhaps you should introduce a policy of EZI on all new nations as soon as they exit peace mode. You know, for self-protection. It's really the only safe way!
-
OOC: Signing treaties vowing not to engage in certain practices IS playing the game. Heck, even if it was just a lame grab for PR, it'd be playing the game more than just trotting out 6 MDPs.Then obviously our personal definitions of playing the game differ. That's hardly something I can prove you wrong about, as much as I could try
Apparently treaties aren't part of the game. Good to know; it just got a LOT more dangerous out there now that they're all null and void. Still, I can't help but wonder why everyone keeps making so many of them.
I am quite aware of what the treaty is about. Although, you do draw attention to another ambiguity within it that I have not touched upon. It attempts in one breath to ban all (using Viridian terms here) 'Eternal' ZI, while at the same time leaving room for the practice of Eternal ZI to continue (article III). If the treaty itself recognizes that 'Eternal' ZI can sometimes be practiced upon re-offenders, then this all comes back to the attention-grab. As I and others have stated previously, all major alliances already practice the policy of watching attempted 'fresh start' re-rolls before attacks commence. Attempting to mobilize a body of people for the banning of 'Eternal' ZI while at the same time leaving the door open for the policy's continuance has no benefits whatsoever other than in the public perception.I think it's pretty obvious that article III is intended to permit higher than typical levels of action to be taken against rerolls that continue to cause trouble, rather than to invalidate the entire document. It takes a great deal of fingers-in-ears-humming-"I-can't-hear-you" to think otherwise, I'd say.
-
That would be like..*Hypothetical* NPO joining a Bloc, that none of there allies are going. I think allies should work towards the same goal. So if One alliance works towards no Eternal ZI, the allies arent going to work towards Eternal ZI'ing. I don't know. IT was a diplomatic decision mostly, IMO.
By the way, Welcome to CN if your new. If your a re-roll hi. And if you just realized CN has a forum but has been playing for awhile, lol hi.
Well, I'd say it'd be more like them signing a NAP with someone their allies don't have one with, since there doesn't seem to be any sort of "We'll all kill anyone who Perma-ZI's," clause here.
Nah, not really that new (something like 8 months, but I'm not looking right now), not a reroll. I've known about the forum, just seldom get off my butt to post. I've just had some time to kill lately.
Who can possibly disagree with the consumption of babies? That's simply immoral. Everyone knows that babies are one of the four food groups, along with tears, cake and pie.King HordeOfDoom II condemns any nation that prevents citizens from exercising their inalienable right to eat babies.
Well, of course babies should be consumed. But I'll have to take all possible action against you if you even DARE not to deep-fry them. Any other method of preparation is simply absurd.
No, it's not.AT&T has been tracking IP addresses since the '70s. Yes, the 1970s. Please learn something about network security.
Ah, but with malicious intent? Sorry, I didn't know I had to spell everything out in big colorful kindergarten letters.
It is one thing to RP being overzealous and aggressive, which some of my members do very well. But to accuse some nebulous and vague "people" as being that way OOC is quite another. Unless you have any proof of such thing, I respectfully suggest you hold your tongue in that regard.OOC: I'd suggest that (before someone assumes this to be a blanket statement, not everyone, but a fairly large percentage) people who enjoy being an a**hole that much actually are.
IC: Tsk, tsk, don't censor me, or I'll eat your babies with A1, and give your restaurant a bad review in the LongLat Gazette.
OOC: Also, I used nebulousity and vagueness because I'm not a big proponent of personal attacks. Only a guilty party would take personal offense to such a statement on behalf of himself. (I understand your interest in defending your alliance, but quite frankly, the majority of the behavior I was speaking of was in OOC forums in the first place. You'll forgive me for not digging it all up here, but I'm not reading 30-some pages of dreck twice, when the majority of it was hardly stellar composition the first time.)
My respect for Polaris has been very much on the rise as of late. That said don't be so hard on Andromeda their reasons are their own and the fact that they have vowed to cease the practice is plenty of progress regardless of whether their signatures actually grace this treaty.I for one didn't mean my comments in regards to Ephriam & Andromeda as attacks. More in the nature of playful ribbing. The way things happened in regards to them came off as rather embarrassing for them, but I'd say the reaction has more than exceeded what was necessary by now.
-
EphriamGrey didn't want to pressure his allies into putting it up there, Because Allies work as one unto the same goal. If his allies want to Eternal ZI people, He can't be against it. Wouldn't that mean your against your allies?
Sure he can. If your allies want to eat babies, you can go right ahead and feel that it's abominable, unwise, or heck, just unsanitary, and oppose such things, without being opposed to your ally. One can decide how to live one's own life without making such decisions for others.
-
I don't think you'll get that, because by putting their name to it, they might as well sign it. You can make some pretty good inferences from the thread, though.
Well, I meant it'd be interesting for a list of people whose alliances have a similar internal policy, but for whatever reason don't intend to sign. I saw several such statements. It'd be easy enough to just list them together for reference.
I mean no disrespect to my allies, but it's hard not to jump to that conclusion based upon the wording and the fact everyone who is signing this already had a policy like that in place.It would be different if this was actually going to change something, like that think of the children or whatever treaty from way back when that pretty much made nukes banned from use by all sides during war. This may very well do that, and if it does then that'll be outstanding, but I don't see it changing anything, atleast not now, and atleast not without further support from all corners of planet bob.
If it sets out to ban the practice then I'll give it some props, and if it succeeds then I'll give it even more.
Everyone who signed didn't, so assuming any truth whatsoever in global/alliance politics (I know, dangerous assumption), it's already made a difference.
Here is admin's opinion from the thread in Moderation:
PermaZI is NOT cyber stalking; re-rolls are known only if they do the same stuff over and over and if they brag about it, which the ones who get caught do. I know the summer is boring and there is a massive need for drama in CN, but overreacting and making a practice that has been in existence for over two years into something that it IS NOT, is not the way to do it.
Start a war
Ah, but tracking IP addresses IS cyber stalking, and given the type of stellar individuals that far too often speak for your alliance on these forums, it sounds like you have exactly the sort of people who will zealously, aggressively, without governmental instruction or consent, go out of their way to engage in that sort of thing.
-
You know, I would be interested to see a list of nonsignatory alliance with internal policies in concordance with the spirit of this pact, appended beneath the signings, if just as a reference.
-
You completely misunderstood me.
Well, it's hard not to, when the comments you were referencing weren't public (though, I did say "majority" and not "entirety," so semantically I "mostly" misunderstood you). Anyway, having glanced at the conversation you posted further down, it doesn't really look all that much like blackmail to me. Maybe misunderstanding is contagious.
Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled discussion. I don't really want to sidetrack things (well, not much anyway).
-
It has been touched on in this thread already, but this treaty really doesn't amount to much. Sure you guys won't practice perma ZI but your allies do/will and therefore, even if you aren't outright attacking the re roll nations, allowing them into your alliance as a new member would unnecessarily strain your relations and therefore would not happen. This treaty is effectively neutered by your other commitments.
As has also been said, this is the first step. I only fear that the first step will also be the last.
It means plenty. It's similar in spirit to a Geneva Convention. Nobody's required to sign it, but count on being less respected than those who do. And for those of you about to say, "I don't need your respect," don't bother. You don't have it, and odds are you don't deserve anyone's. (Nobody in particular intended by this comment, just that entire mindset.)
Hell I'm not talking about 1 nation Hoo. Say 3-4 different nations drop the TPF AA and hit you. Not all at once but one after another every 6 days. Then they re-roll and TPF builds them back up. You signing this says you really couldn't do anything but lose most of your nation.Well, I'd say in this example, that TPF would be complacent with supporting terrorism, and therefore the problem would eventually take care of itself when TPF gets attacked for it.
I would never join an alliance that signed this. If they are that willing to forgo their duties to protect their alliance now then why should I beleive that they have the will to protect me?o/ warm and fuzzy sounding theories that have major flaws when put into practice
I don't think I'd care to join an alliance that hasn't signed this, or at least have the same policy in place. If they are that willing to forgo morality for the sake of "protection" against, quite frankly, non-threats, why should I believe they have the integrity to do right by me?
Alliances who choose not to Perma-ZI people have no need to publically announce it. This treaty serves no purpose.A good deed is much more effective if it's seen, as one done in secret cannot be emulated or admired.
I am pretty sure the problem here is that you and I have different meanings for a "treaty". A "treaty" defines relationships between two or more parties. Perma-ZI is purely an internal process, so a treaty is not an appropriate way to enforce that. The right way to do it would be a charter amendment or some similar process.Two or more parties: "The signatories" and "Bob at large."
Plus, treaties really don't mean that much, lately. Some pretty high profile ones have been disappearing recently, haven't they?
Perhaps the signatories are against the practice, and this treaty is a public representation of the commitment to stop it?I fully support this treaty.
QFT, well stated.
You don't get to the top and stay there by becoming complacent because "we're there! par-tay!" One gets there by improving upon the techniques used to get there.OOC: there is a joke about someone asking a world renown violinist "why do you practice so much? aren't you are already the best in the world?" to which the violinist simply laughs and responds "how do you think I got here?"
Certain parties might just shoot all the other violinists.
It'd be cool if people would stop trying to blackmail to sign this. You know who you are. Go ahead and post whatever logs you have.And for the record, NPO didn't ask or force us to remove our signature and in fact advised us not to remove our signature on their behalf. The only people who have any true idea as to why we pulled our signature are NPO, VE, and us. The rest is just speculation, and our removal of our signature is in no way a slight of VE. Ardus will still uncomfortably accept huggles from me.
I don't think the majority of the comments against you were intended as blackmail, simply pointing out how foolish you and Andromeda came off looking given the public announcement and immediate withdrawal of same. The sort of thing that makes it onto political comedy shows.
-
2. you can't ruin this game. stop trying. join regular CN.
But regular CN is already ruined, so it doesn't need the services he's providing.
-
Not sure how many alliances would accept you when you duck and hide in peace mode while most of your other fellow alliance members fought and died, while you sat back in peace mode. Whats that say about your alliance loyalty. What good are you to any alliance for that matter if you wont defend yourself nor your alliance. Have fun trying to convince you next alliance that your usefull. Just my 2 cents
Well, considering we were informed well prior to the war declaration that CIS had disbanded, there was no issue of alliance loyalty. Most of the "fellow alliance members" who "fought and died" were just unlucky enough not to have logged on and reacted between that announcement and the first attacks.
Heh, CIS can still be attacked as an alliance but they can no longer be defended as one. Jokes.Technically, no. They can only be attacked as a collection of individuals under a defunct AA. Much like one can't attack the Confederate States of America now, but they could go ahead and attack South Carolina, Georgia, or whatever.
Attacking those who have surrendered and want to move on only kills the game for those players and thins our community. Continue this and soon, we'll all be losing interest (well, more so than some of us already have) and moving on out.QFT. As long as all the top alliances are sleeping in the same bed, all the wars are 20:1 odds, and any complaints about it are met with attacks (both "real" attacks on nations or verbal ones in forums) CN is going to move generally downhill, lose membership (especially the "good" people), and get more unpleasant. It's already happening, and it won't get better until something changes. I can't say I know how to change it, but I can recognize the problem. Frankly, it's in the admin's best interest to figure out a way to head off the downward spiral, because less people means less donations. It's money out of his pocket.
Great War
in Alliance Politics
Posted
Well, if you promise to hit a preset kill limit and self-destruct, I'll sign on.
Not one-sided enough yet, apparently. Thus we wait.
Yes, as we all know, tech deals are an atrocity on par with any humanity has ever committed, and as such, not ot be condoned. In fact, I'm sure any alliance can declare on any other, and be totally justified, so long as a tech deal is going on.
Come now, you don't need thumbs, aslongasyoudon'twanttohitthespacebar.
And honestly, you don't really need an opinion either. Just borrow someone else's.
OOC: We have. It's called Dune. Probably too long for some people, and not enough pictures.
Well, from what I can tell, according to FAN, they'll be involved as soon as any of the major players they've infiltrated are (albeit, perhaps not quite as openly as you'd like).
This is pure genius.