jer
-
Posts
1,489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jer
-
-
Ofcourse more attacks do more damage. That wasn't what I was disputing.
A mass raid is still a raid, that was the point. So, do you consider raiding bad or not? Do you accept it or not?
Because that's what we have to deal with in this particular situation.
I don't personally accept it but I am realistic enough to know that fighting all raiding isn't possible right now, because there are way too many people in favour of it. The 'arbitrary' numbers and community standards are a good balance for now, I think.
-
But we are not talking about punishment here and that is where you are wrong. A raid against a micro alliance is accepted, the vast majority of the people posting here don't see it as crime. While a raid against an alliance bigger than X is the worst crime on the world.
In that view, it is ok to raid 4 alliances with 10 members, but wrong to raid one with 40. I believe you can see what is wrong with that line of thought.
I assume by acceptance you mean people doing nothing about it, yes? In that case I'd say that punishment (or the threat of punishment) is the issue here. People do nothing about it because five members aren't worth as much as 40 (sad, but that's life).
-
Whether or not they launched 5 or 40 attacks, that doesn't matter a bit.
It is the action itself this is about. Do you allow techraiding, or do you not? If you do, what does it matter if you attack your target by yourself, or with 2 partners? I don't think so.
Also, since when do you speak for "the community"?
Why doesn't it matter? I am saying it does matter because obviously 40 attacks do more damage than 5. The idea that all tech raiding should be treated equally regardless of how it is conducted, what level of raiding takes place, etc. is overly simplistic and disingenuous.
-
Seriously how the hell is it different?
The crime is the same but the scale is very different. Obviously a crime committed on a larger scale requires a higher level of punishment than a crime committed on a small scale.
-
Either you condemn all forms of tech raid, be it against small or big alliances or you accept it. Accepting raids against alliances with less members than some random number and not accepting it against bigger alliances just doesn't make any sense
I'm not saying I'm favorable to tech raids, because I'm not. I'm against it in all forms, I just think its lame when people say "Look, Athens raided an alliance with more than 10 members! They are evil!!!!" while themselves are tech raiders and think what they are doing is all right because they only go against micro alliances.
You honestly see no difference in raiding 39 people and raiding 5? You do not need to be an expert in mathematics to understand which is the bigger crime and which warrants a bigger response. Obviously, in an ideal world we would fight all raiding and treat the small crimes in the same way as the big ones, but for now I think taking a stand at any attempt to raise the limits of acceptable raiding is a good base point to keep in place when fighting the practice. It is surprising to see someone who is supposedly against raiding in all forms criticise one of the very few standards we have as a community against raiding.
-
The OP is nothing more than an excessively wordy way of retreating back into your hole with your tail between your legs. You can whine that there have been bigger wrongs committed in the past 'til the cows come home, but it is very clear that the alliances to which you refer at the very least committed their wrongs with a basic level of competence and use of forethought. Your wrongs, however, were ill thought out and clumsily executed and fully deserved the condemnation that they received.
-
Listen, to Bob and Aimee, I realize you guys feel you deserve some sort of explanation. But, all explanations have been provided to those that deserve them. Nobody will stop you from continuing to ask, but you will no longer get answers from us on this topic. You thrive on drama and accusations and feeling you deserve to know certain things, but you don't.
Have a good day.
Meh, if you are unwilling to clear up such basic issues for proles like me, don't bring your !@#$ to the forums.
-
All questions that have been deemed relevant have been asked and answered. Again, if this doesn't suit your needs, I refer you back to that wall.
I have already said that I am not going to ignore the term that banned a ruler from certain alliances purely on the basis that you couldn't get away with it. You made the decision and I think you would've carried it through if there weren't strong alliances standing in your way.
And clearly it is still relevant to me or I wouldn't have asked it.
-
Thanks for asking such a hard-hitting, journalistic in design, question. But, as I've stated, issue is over. If you don't like that answer, I'll refer you to the wall where you can bang your head til you forget what you originally had asked.
Thanks for noticing us though.
Your inability to answer a simple question coupled with the general immaturity you have displayed makes continual probing worthwhile, so I think I'll continue on as I am.
-
This issue has been handled and is now dead. It didn't involve you, and continues to not involve you. Go get cause your drama elsewhere.
Hilarious. You were the person who made the thread to show off about being able to wield your alliance leader power stick over an individual rogue (what other reason is there for it?), so you are in no position to be upset because people are actually taking notice of how you've acted.
Also, what did you hope to achieve by including a term that banned the rogue from certain alliances?
-
As I explained previously, the intentions were not to overtake any sovereignty of any other alliance. It was to dictate to the transgressors where they could go, as punishment. The alliances that were mentioned were homes that each has had or had ties to previously. There was no malice towards the alliances involved, it only turned out to seem that way. I have never had issues against IRON, IAA, TOP or RIA's allies. Heck, we share an ally in Monos Archein. Our intentions were merely punishment towards those that attacked us. If you, the involved alliances, took offense, I once again apologize.
Also, for clarification, Erixxxx is Lord Protector of Veritas Aequitas. I am the Il Duce (government adviser). But because this situation involved my actions when I originally began VA, Erixxxx granted me permission to handle the situation. I take responsibility for what I did in the past and for the poor choice in the alliance-restriction portion.
It seems to me as though you only dropped that term because you knew you wouldn't be able to enforce it, and not because there is something inherently wrong with imposing such draconian restrictions upon a ruler over something so small as a bit of nuke roguery, so I will certainly not be congratulating you for that. Through reading your posts and taking note of your attitude I would say that if you did have the power to disregard the sovereignty of other alliances and enforce the term you would see no reason not to do so, which is a shame.
As I do not believe I have seen you provide any justification or reasoning for the restriction of movement, I'll ask now: What did you hope to achieve by including such a term?
-
I'd have a big nation too, if every time a war came around I either deserted or hid behind a hippie shield
You are awesome.
-
Oh, you're absolutely right, it wasn't just FAN that got that treatment, but FAN is the alliance everyone is rallying around now. It's the cool thing to do, like, totally.
Is it really that surprising to see that some people were quieter about supporting FAN in the past than now? Doing so in the past would simply get you into a crapheap with the immensely powerful NPO, whereas now people feel freer (to some extent, at least) to express themselves, and so you would naturally expect an increase in support for FAN. The flip-flopping phenomenon you have described has nothing to do with coolness really, it is just simple self-preservation (bordering on cowardice), and you know that a vast majority of rulers on Bob will always look after themselves first and foremost.
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with your sentiment, but if you expect a world full of brave rulers who express themselves honestly 100% of the time regardless of the consequences then sadly you are going to be disappointed every time.
-
Shoctobear is amazing. Want want want.
-
I could care less if STA wanted to come to Purple as long as it did so with out the intentions of trying to disrupt the sphere. Stickmen have done nothing but attempt to blow things out of proportion and piss in everyones cheerios that is a member of Purple Unity. If you want to come to purple and enjoy the scenery then by all means please do. OMFG and Avalon both are on purple and they interact with most of us on a friendly basis and we coexist with out trouble and with out their signatures on anything bloc wise. So really my comment was correct dont come to purple if your going to be an asshat.
Are you sure you quoted the right person? Your post bears pretty much no relation to anything I said.
I will however add that, for someone who freely bemoans the education (or lack thereof) of others, your spelling and grammar leave a great deal to be desired.
-
Fixed it for ya
I guess the joke is on you when you realise that in your own desperate, dense and rather clumsy attempt to be witty you have only succeeded in demonstrating just how emphatically it is possible to miss the point of a post when one makes feeble attempts at mockery (in-fact, with your hilarious edit you have emphasised and reinforced the point that the post was making, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that because it goes a bit deeper than simply calling someone an asshat).
In future I'd suggest that you actually take a moment to think about the post that you are attempting to deride before going ahead with your edits, lest you be made to look like a complete ignoramus all over again.
-
no we dont but alot of purple alliances are in peace and the only people getting mad are in peace so by joining our alliances will make sure you always get a senate seat and people will no longer be madits not about gaining a senate seat, it's about the means in which you obtain a seat, spamming in annoying and quite dishonourable and Stickmen is dragging its own name through the mud by doing this.
Also, why did you join purple if you didn't want to join PEACE unless there were exterior motives.
I would like to hear more from these most learned members of PEACE.
-
Congratulations Mayzie and 1TF
-
Would you consider asking someone to get to know you better a threat then?
I would consider it... hmm, let's see, ah yes... it would be too bad that you decided to shoot strongly worded suggestions instead of the usual delivery of baked goods. It turns a harmonious greeting into a rather cold and unwelcoming one.
-
I didn't
I know it wasn't you
I have long since had a policy of identifying posters by their usernames, it would be simply foolish of me to change that policy at this time of year of all times.
-
Jul 21 10:27:50 <Haf> In that case, I strongly suggest getting to know us better.
[...]
Yeah, that's us being completely aggressive from day one.
I always welcome people into my home with strongly worded suggestions too
-
It's true, Duncan King. As you can see here...
That is not the transcript of their first meetings.
-
I will just leave this here: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Continuum-GPA_War
Unless you are permanently in peace mode you are NEVER safe from war in CN. All it takes is one slip up from one of your leaders or even one of your members and you could be jumped on as the easy target with no military treaties and a lax attitude to preparing your nations, so you really have just as much of an obligation to save a warchest as any other allied nation.
-
A vote for Michiel de Ruyter is a vote for all that is right and just.
-
My warchest isnt great...though, thats because of the mass amounts of infrastructure I've been buying. So now I buy infra and leave a certain amount each day for it to build up. Dont see the point in stunting my nations growth for months on end when I can build a warchest the same time as buying infra.
You will understand why warchests should be high priority at some point. The only question is whether it is now whilst you can do something about it or later when your nation is neutralised early on in a war and unable to even defend itself, let alone assist any of your alliance-mates. Your re-growth after a war will also be severely stunted in comparison with nations that can use the leftovers of a warchest to re-build straight away.
Athens Announcement regarding Ni!
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by Aimee Mann
Your first sentence is correct (and let me say that I am sad about this, but it's the way it is... as I say there are too many people in support of raiding to close it down entirely). Your second sentence however is a crazy extrapolation on what I've said, but hey, I think I could enjoy a bully image