Qaianna
-
Posts
692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Qaianna
-
-
Seems weird how tech raiders have prompted reactions from first us, then VE, and now TORN. Despite what some may say, those aren't exactly the minor leagues of Planet Bob. Even STA's had vultures going at them.
Kind'a curious if MHA's next on the hit list. Or if the Red nations are about to be treated like target practice. Seems like the fashion among those with..um..what is it they have?
-
I think my BAC rose a few points just by reading this. Good luck, you two, and don't forget the designated diplomat.
-
Forgive my lack of skill in quoting a quote ...
'B. The CNSF are soldiers and as such will use a soldier’s tool of war. Nuclear Weapons are permitted in a first strike basis in any case of war except for Application wars.' --Article 2, section 2.
This term has gotten other alliances in some trouble before, especially when applied with gusto. Be careful out there ...
..then again, I get the feeling that you've been here a bit longer than me, so you likely know what you're doing, but I guess given the PR fallout (among other kinds of fallout) when it came to tossing nukes, it got my attention.
First I've heard (not like that's a great accomplishment, telling me something new) of the 'dead man's boots' method of joining an alliance.
-
So, what are they supposed to say, "oh sorry we can't remove him from the alliance because our admin isn't on"?
I wasn't in on the negotiation, but I'm pretty sure that if this were raised as an issue, time would have been given to address it. And Degenerate 108 did mention that seven days were given anyway ...
-
Yes, and they proved that there are a hell of a lot of people out there that would love to see a move away from the status quo. They also helped rid the forum of the worst of the mindless hailing that went on and generally gave everyone some damn good drama during the war.
Unfortunately, with that drama came some hard feelings. Some folks (such as myself) have only met them in the form of their posts, which to some inspired drama, to some inspired debate ... and, sadly, to some inspired rage. I will admit in my darker moments I allowed myself to dream of going from 'launch cruise missile' to 'borrow a couple of Mjollnirs and SMITE!'. Of course, what didn't help was some representatives would replace mindless hailing with mindless jeering of anything they saw, and that I'll admit coloured my opinions. Hopefully, tempers can cool for those of us who are quick to them.
I do have to admit, this was a rather unique time and manner to start getting acquainted with the world at large. Still trying to understand the point raised about getting along with one's enemies despite war. Hopefully wars can move away from 'DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE'--Sun Tzu I think said something about the subject, regarding letting your enemy have an escape route so they don't just wig out and go berserk since they're gonna die anyway.
One last thing ... Rebel Virginia, you mentioned that you were no longer in an alliance. Did something happen that I missed? Could've sworn you were hanging out with this bunch of guys who liked wearing Guy Fawkes masks and spraypainting Vs all over the place ... who were they again?
-
Something to avoid is trying to woo nations that are already in an alliance. This I've only seen in discussions that consider it to be, at best, dishonourable. It seems to invite scorn, ridicule, disrespect, and (potentially) armed reprisal.
-
I've seen this sort of concept before, at least as far as recognising other alliances.
Of course, you may end up in a bit of hot water, depending on how you recognise other alliances. Also wasn't quite able to interpret what recognition meant in the certificate, and wondered how that would extend to a humble little group I'm a part of ...
-
OK ... I know I keep hearing how it's unlikely random chance would bring this about, but considering how often I manage rolling snake-eyes on d20 (hint: more often than 1 in 400), I have to ask this.
I've logged into my nation from two non-my-normal-address locations, both public wifi style things. Assuming EnemyNation5 logs in on one, is there a way for anyone to figure out this's happenned before cheatflags start appearing all over the place? Also, if EnemyNation5 keeps trying to declare war on me, who gets the flags?
Also have lost the bit that says how long it takes for in-game cheat flags to go away, if ever.
-
Tyrannical overlord? Please. I served under Prodigal Chieftain for nearly a year. He was not tyrannical in the least. He allowed free speech, allowed alot of freedom, and how many wars can you name that he started? He never dragged the GGA into a huge punishing war. The post-PC era has had far, far more wars than he could ever hope to have started.
I'm going to take a guess that you didn't serve under him, and only know of what Bilrow and Derek have fed you? If you weren't around, don't make claims about something.
By 'huge punishing war' I mean 'the kind of war where you get the tar beat out of you'. Imagine a 4-man alliance trying to take on Mushroom Kingdom just to look cool.
I admit, most of what I know of the situation is from the information given by those who remained after that coup. Still, the point stands that it seems that the only ones here who decry the coup are the ones who suggest such actions are for the betterment of the world. Namely, when a leader loses the respect of his or her people, then said leader must be deposed by said people. Remember, just because you have a fancy title doesn't mean you're no longer people.
And as mentioned earlier, the length of tenure does do something to skew the war figures. My point there was that nations would not want to end up in a war to satiate the egos of their leaders, and those who saw conflict with NPO that way acted. As it appears they were making friends there, is it wrong to stand by your friends?
-
A coup anniversary, funny.
It's not without precedent. In one way, anyone who celebrates the anniversary of a revolt/revolution/overthrow as the birth of their nation/alliance does the same thing.
And I find it odd how Vox Populi supporters are snarking here. Doesn't Vox Populi, you know, SUPPORT the overthrow of tyrranical overlords and those who would put their egos over the needs of their people? The sort who would, say, drag their fellow alliance members into a huge punishing war just to sate their own lust for relevance?
Or did I get the goals right the second time? It's so hard to tell.
-
Good luck. One thing I'd like to point out, though.
The header says it's an MDAP, although the body of the text says otherwise. The body and the OP byline say it's really an MDOAP, so that's how I'm sure most folks will see it if they read the whole thing, but you may want to clarify for those of little patience.
-
[ooc] This is an interesting point and I'd actually agree with you. However it's a bit naive for CN: many alliances (IIRC GGA included) started wars and/or took/triggered decisions of extreme global importance over OOC issues. Unfortunately the OOC/IC distinction is almost always blurred and "no one" actually behaves like your reasoning would imply. Hence alliances need policies on OOC attacks.
(rest snipped)
Yeah, I understand that. My main concern is this bunch of guys called 'Mods' who don't like it when we talk too much about OOC. They scare me.
-
No. Just no. The charter of an alliance should be one of the alliance's most sacred documents. With out that charter, the alliance is nothing. Even us in Vox have a set of rules we live by. Your bloc should not take priority over your charter. If it does, then I question why you have a charter in the first place.
As an outright enemy of Vox (just in case you didn't notice I was flying GGA colours) ... where's the Vox rules? If no charter means the alliance is nothing, could we see Vox's so we know it's an alliance? Might help clear up the whole 'is it an alliance' questions.
If it doesn't meet that definition ... the scamming guide posted earlier suggests that AA isn't really a consideration of who really is in or not, since it advocated changing AA at whim to meet needs, regardless of actual intent of the nation; AA as a way to fool others into sending aid suggests that AA is devalued by the one doing such as a true way to identify. Given that guide, and no way to determine if Vox actually refutes that or not (what makes Vox posts official? Who says what's real and what's just someone trolling?), the established structures end up having to use their own guidelines as to what really counts. And if your movement is to change the establishment and who makes the rules..mind making a bit of a better case for it?
And if that earlier quote isn't Vox official policy..who decided that it was or wasn't? As a 'voice of the people' group, people have to go by what ends up said. And if there are many voices saying many things, others are left to their own devices to figure which is truth if they see what seem to be contradicting terms. And if someone's organising those voices so they say one thing..well, if we know who it is, we can at least know 'X says this is Vox policy', so that we know that the folks following Y's dialogue are at odds with what's really going on. That's the case however X's authority was granted (election, acclaimation, Hand of God, some woman in a lake lobbing scimitars at a guy pretending to ride a horse, whatever). Knowing who's in charge helps that--as well as helps reinforce the idea that terms that apply to alliances and their governments do apply.
OOC EDIT: Since 'OOC' doesn't exist, a rule of 'No OOC attacks' technically doesn't exist in an IC sense.
-
Hail Failure! The spirit of ... um, something.
-
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.
As far as keeping nations in peace mode, it seems that part of things stems from them again escaping the consequences of their alliance's (and thus their brethrens') actions. Thus, the idea that other nations should pay for leaving their alliance-mates out to dry. Sounds noble in theory, anyway. Whether it actually is depends on your point of view.
The phrase 'for the duration of the war' suggests these aren't traditional banks but rather people who are hiding for the duration. A bank still has to come out of peace mode to send aid, which does leave a slight window for attack (although there are likely ways around this), so that might be where that sentiment comes from.
I'm still new at how surrenders work, so don't say this is policy, but this is a rough guess at how it goes.
-
Sweet announcement. Treaties at their best make sure there are no misunderstandings between nations, and this one serves that purpose exactly.
Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order
in Alliance Politics
Posted
Wow. Um ... what do we have to do with this treaty? Aside from thinking 'neat, NPO has another treaty'. Which we are allowed to do, by the way.
And I think NPO's opinion of the whole ordeal with the OoO was that factors in NpO weren't all that happy with continuing things, either. There are limits to everything; it could be that one party had a demand that the other could not conscionably meet. It could be both.