jer
-
Posts
1,489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jer
-
-
[quote name='potato' date='01 April 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1270134373' post='2243755']
Oh I get it. I just assumed you were implying a lot more of meaning than what you actually meant. Because pointing out "this is your new catch phrase" has very little sense and adds very little to the topic at hand. Unless you just wanted to play Captain Obvious and increase your post count.
[/quote]
I'm pointing out that the overuse of such catchphrases is sad, nerdy and annoying. -
[quote name='potato' date='01 April 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1270133403' post='2243728']
No need to repeat that sentence over and over again. What everyone is trying to tell you is that we never claimed to have "just made it up". It's been used here and there for ages, as well as the words "the" or "is" or [i]famous[/i] sentences like "Do something about it" or "please TOP, don't betray Grämlins".
[/quote]
Clearly there is need as you apparently still don't get it. I have not said that you are claiming to make it up, simply that it is your new (as in [i]the most recent[/i], again, I am not claiming that you invented it) catchphrase of choice. What's so hard to understand about that?
I don't know why you're bringing up other famous one-liners but for what it's worth I hate them too. It's no better than when NPO used to storm threads with o/s. -
[quote name='Epiphanus' date='01 April 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1270132954' post='2243719']
Or, it's just a common phrase used by humanity for at least the better part of the last 100 years....
[/quote]
The point was that it's a new catchphrase for you guys to use, not that it's something original that you've just made up. -
[quote name='Drai' date='01 April 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1270132355' post='2243702']
Wait, Deal With It is new?
[/quote]
It is to me.
To reply to your edit, if it has something to do with LUE then I guess it was last used a long time ago. The point was that it's a new catchphrase for you guys to use, not that it's something original that you've just made up. -
[quote name='memoryproblems' date='01 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1270125153' post='2243599']
Well, Archon's nation has an alliance seniority over 1300 days, if you don't care about it, whats the big hold-up? You have enough time to do the change here in your forum profiles, whats holding up doing it in game?
[/quote]
You didn't notice that MK is Planet Bob's nerd corner? Of course a good portion of them would care about something like that. I'm kinda surprised that you didn't catch on when their geeky hoards developed the practice of foaming over various catchphrases and that smiley so they can all feel like part of a cool kids' club.
Reading this thread, I see that a new easily repeatable phrase has cropped up, 'deal with it'. Awesome guys, you rock!
[img]http://nerd.ocracy.org/img/nerd.png[/img] -
Congratulations
-
Not in range
-
It's funny how most of these names are from a bygone era, it almost seems as though the days of the personality in alliance leadership are a thing of the past (and this feeling is certainly not shaken when noting the number of large, bland and faceless alliances knocking around these days). Is personality now considered too offensive for high level government, or too dangerous, or what?
-
[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='24 March 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1269404571' post='2234926']
You know they're going to just respond with tons of this right?
[/quote]
You forgot to mention awards, pretty sure that was one of the latest easily repeatable geekisms to come out of MK. I will save them the trouble of responding...
yet another award
There, it's done. -
[quote name='Shodemofi' date='24 March 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1269401678' post='2234856']
What he's saying makes sense. He's criticizing the decision of NATO's to put their members through finding entirely new trades for no reason at all. He's right to say [b]it doesn't make sense.[/b][/quote]
Indeed, moving spheres for no reason at all doesn't make sense... the logical assumption to make would then surely be that they have a good reason for moving. Suggesting that they have no good reason but moved anyway is just a laughable smear attempt really.
The firm assumption that there is is 'no reason at all' for an alliance to move spheres may be great for attempting to paint NATO's leaders as bumbling, foolish, incompetent, etc etc, but it is also a view that completely ignores the foreign affairs considerations of existence on a sphere. You have to work with the alliances on a sphere if you want trade or senate cooperation, which could be more difficult than is desirable if relations aren't as good as they could be. What team you are on dictates who you have to work with in these situations, so it clearly does have an impact on foreign affairs. That's just one example to illustrate that there are more reasons for moving sphere than going from a smaller one to a larger one for trade purposes, and that it's not as simple as +1 happiness is +1 happiness, wherever you go.
I really think questioning the sincerity of his criticisms is a valid thing to do when he insults the alliance in the very same post. It seems to me as though he's seen a NATO topic and decided to attack it whatever the content. Fine, but he should at least be open about it, instead of dressing his grudges up in faux-concern for the alliance's members. -
[quote name='Trace' date='23 March 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1269384642' post='2234531']
Oh man. We didn't even have to enact a doctrine or something. But seriously, moving sphere's (especially to ones of nearly identical size) is such a joke. Team sphere's have so little impact on Foreign Affairs these days, that the only reason would be to move from a smaller one where trades are hard to find, to a larger one. If your intellectual minds really feel that the 100 extra nations blue has will help...well, then I'm stumped.
[/quote]
Maybe they just want to be as far away from you as possible. But seriously, you are slagging them off for making a decision that, as your own argument states, has little or no impact whatsoever. If you are so stretched for anti-NATO material that you have to resort to criticising them for decisions that have [i]no impact[/i], you know you are scraping the barrel. Why don't you do us all a favour and save your time and typing until they do something worthy of criticism (and insults for good measure too, since I see you were compelled to include those too).
I guess what I'm saying is, if you have a real problem with NATO come out and say it, and then be done with it. Don't scrabble around in whatever announcement you find trying to score cheap points that were never there in the first place. -
[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 March 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1269050529' post='2230827']
You add nothing to this planet except stats.
Congrats on four years of nothing.
[/quote]
As opposed to the marvellous feats that other alliances have achieved? Feel free to list them and we'll do some analysis, but I'll make the argument that by contributing nothing to the current status quo of Bob, GC is making our world a better place simply by virtue of not making it any worse. By refusing to get involved in the mongfest that is the political elite of CN (and therefore refusing to even validate it, let alone add to it), GC is making a positive contribution.
Thank you GC, and Happy Birthday
-
This is a sad day for creativity and originality in pips, stupid democracy
-
[quote name='Ellis' date='17 March 2010 - 07:43 AM' timestamp='1268812117' post='2228110']
Plainly, 8 is the best and most unique option, but if you're trying to be serious, 4 would be best.
[/quote]
CN is serious enough as it is
It would be rather refreshing to see an alliance do something a bit differently, even if it is on this very small scale. -
[quote name='kriekfreak' date='16 March 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1268752108' post='2227311']
So when are we making announcements on the OWF entirely meant for our owns alliance? Isn't it smarter to do this on your own forum? Or did you mess up the title of this communication bulletin?
[/quote]
I assume it's just a typo (for/from). It would be interesting(ish... well, more cluttered at least) if an alliance decided to just do away with the idea of having their own forums and used OWF for the menial internal announcements instead. Wonder how the rest of us would react?
Hearty congratulations to the new members of govt, etc. -
Yeah, has to be 8, for originality points if nothing else. Rectangular pips are just boring.
-
[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='13 March 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1268512520' post='2224631']
Then why even say anything?[/quote]
It may have slipped your attention, but the question has two available answers: yes [i]and no[/i], and I am perfectly entitled to justify my no vote just as others are with their yes votes.
Besides, I wasn't being intentionally malicious, and if you saw my post that way then you have misread it. It's nothing personal against any of the geek squad, I just wouldn't be comfortable handing over such a large part of forum administration to members of the community who I've never even spoken to. As said above, the recent hackings and stuff have shown what lengths CN drives some people to, so I think it's wise to exercise caution. -
No because I do not trust you.
-
will you be here in another four
-
[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='05 March 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1267797905' post='2214833']
Those days are gone. But Mushroom Kingdom have a claim to the "Mushroom Kingdom" AA, don't they? And joining a PoW AA is endangering all the PoWs in the game.
Sovereignty and PoW protection are some of the most important, long-standing and agreed upon principles in this game. The right to $%&@ about to protect yourself has long been questioned.
I'd like to see you try and stretch out your argument here.
[/quote]
How is joining a PoW AA endangering all the PoWs in the game? -
It's not cowardice, they are doing what they can to help their war effort. It's pretty sad that you seem to want to go down the road of punishing the (heavily outnumbered) opponent simply for doing what it can to war effectively. What next, sanctions for using peace mode? Sanctions for using nukes?
-
[quote name='TheNeverender' date='04 March 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1267741053' post='2214078']
It is always hilarious to see people argue back and forth on this topic, fairly reliably, each war. If I had more time (and no life), I'd actually keep a record of each person's stance and their relative position in the war, and see how it changes from war to war. Then again, we all would already know the outcome of that.
[/quote]
I am fighting on the opposite side of TOP in this war yet I disagree with this new definition of a rogue that has been used to justify the possible sanctioning of their nations. Does that fit with your obvious outcome?
Maybe you could attempt to answer some of the questions raised here instead of wading in and patronising the entire debate by declaring it as partisan, biased, etc. as though it's impossible for anyone other than yourself to have any principles. -
[quote name='tamerlane' date='04 March 2010 - 05:30 AM' timestamp='1267680830' post='2213439']
Perhaps you'd like to tell me how IM supposed to know that they aren't going rogue? Oh oh.. because its a war tactic we're all supposed ot assume their intentions.
Sorry I don't share your sympathy for those who jump from their AA but Ill make it quite simple. Sanctioning a nation who jumped AAs is not the same as starting a sanction war, there is a huge difference. The difference being the sanctioned nations are not hte ones who stuck in their AA, they are the ones leaving it. Easy, right?. Implying that its something far grander than it is, like a" sanction war", is ludicrous and food for the silly trolls who have been so eager to blow things out or proportion. Next time hun,please spare me the melodrama.
[/quote]
Of course I can tell you that, it's pretty easy. If they started fighting for a specific alliance, and they continue fighting that war, then they are continuing to fight for that alliance. Changing the AA on it's own is not an act of leaving a war, it never has been, and it never will be. It's not a case of assuming their intentions, but looking at the facts and making a reasonable judgement.
It just looks like you are making up lame excuses to sanction people in the hope that you will avoid a sanction war; you get a few free shots off yourselves at these 'rogues' (and their trading partners) with reduced risk of retaliatory sanctions against your own nations. It is pretty telling that instead of backing up your actions properly you have to repeat the same flimsy AA = rogue lie that you just made up, and then resort to branding anyone who disagrees with it as trolls and melodramatic. indeed. -
[quote name='tamerlane' date='03 March 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1267654853' post='2212997']
I am implying that anyone leaving an AA has removed themselves from the war should be considered a rogue. You don't get to claim immunity from sanctions/raiding/whatever just because you didn't "officially" (whatever that means) leave your alliance. You want to be considered part of the war? Stay in your AA. You want to be sanctioned or raided? Leave and see what happens.
[/quote]
You know full well that they aren't rogues, so please don't treat us like idiots by completely changing the definition of what makes a rogue just to fit your purpose. Someone who starts fighting a war as part of an alliance and continues fighting that same war is, shock horror, still a part of that war, and not a rogue (regardless of what happens to the AA). It'd be better if you were just honest about it and said that the changing AA war-tactic is inconveniencing you in terms of declaring new wars and/or calculating the amount of damage you're doing to the alliance and you want to punish this.
The New Grämlins
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted · Edited by Aimee Mann
All of the crying from the ex-Gre in this thread is just classic. You old guard folks were outmanoeuvred by fresh blood and now new people are in charge, it happens. Really, how long have you been bawing like babies about this stuff now? Seems like every time Gre are brought up on these forums you wade in telling anyone who'll listen how upset and sad you all are that the alliance is moving on without the beloved founders, yawn. Man up and move on.