Jump to content

White Chocolate

Members
  • Content Count

    1,957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About White Chocolate

  • Rank
    Alliance Leader
  • Birthday June 18

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Land of Confusion
  • Interests
    Role-playing, Native American issues, reading, poetry, etc.

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    New Pacific Order
  • Nation Name
    Lander Clan
  • Alliance Name
    CLAWS
  • Resource 1
    Gold
  • Resource 2
    Coal
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Midnight
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    Total Party Kill

Recent Profile Visitors

1,978 profile views
  1. Lord Windmark is being “chummy” because NpO is an ally. Try not to jump to conclusions. One is supposed to treat allies with respect, especially in public.
  2. This is an example of the type of statements that Junka makes now and then that have always amused me. It can be read ironically or as literal, depending on how one feels about LPCN. In other words, he is either saying "If I really messed up all the time, I wouldn't be the leader" or he is saying "I got put into a leadership position - man was I foolish to agree to take it." Reader's choice.
  3. Having a good honeymoon.

  4. Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. Leonardo da Vinci

    1. Mogar

      Mogar

      It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things.

      Leonardo da Vinci

    2. Lord Hitchcock

      Lord Hitchcock

      "The early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse who gets the cheese."

    3. Franz Ferdinand

      Franz Ferdinand

      "There is a wisdom of the head, and a wisdom of the heart."

      - Charles Dickens

  5. You've already done things like roll GPA during Woodstock. Having done that, now you can enjoy be the "good guy." You do it well too.
  6. This is one of the reasons I like you, Lord Hitchcock, you ask questions that most "newer" nations have but never ask in public and therefore rarely get a variety of good answers needed to understand. I joined in June 2008 and after two full years of witnessing the "cycle of violence" that happens on Planet Bob, I started looking for the answer to this as well. Here is what I've found. The reasons can be put into three categories: A. Strategic. In other words, that which is most helpful for "winning" (i.e. being the hegemony) the game. This includes things like enough time to rebuild, time for the "behind the scenes" politics to be sorted out, and also (because it is a part of "making your case" in order to gain military and economic support for your side) when the side in the winning position has a "casus belli" (meaning a "justification for war") that the people needed to back them will accept. In other words, when one side or the other has enough strength/backing to be sure of a "win." B. Real Life: When do the "powers that be" all have time. It seems odd, I know, but entire wars have been avoided or at least postponed because one leader of a necessary alliance had something more important in real life to do. Also, this is major wars tend to start and/or end around around major holidays. C. "Tradition" and/or Habit: If it has worked for most people in the past, why change it? This is also affected by A and B (above) - it takes less time to do the same thing over and over each year than to actually plan something new and different AND it is a formula that if successfully repeated maintains the power for those who have it. Knowing this, what next? Simple - if you want something changed then what you have to do is find a reason to change it that benefits/is argued in terms of benefiting one of the above. Then you will be far more likely to have success. On the other hand, avoid arguments that go against the above and/or argue against changes that you don't like by stating how they go against any of the above.
  7. Actually, we had planned specifically to avoid this war. You all have made it very clear that in your own minds the word "surrender" is equal to defeat and the words "white peace" are equal to victory and that there is no room whatsoever for reason in this matter. That is exactly the type of cluster$%&@ I want Doom Kingdom to avoid. However, YOU went and posted this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/127194-a-report-from-under-the-desk/?p=3400446 for some reason of which I am not aware. I'm sorry Lord Hitchcock but a log dump is a very traditional casus belli and in this case Doom Kingdom has decided to "do something about it." We discussed options and decided to request sanctions in response. Our allies (including Atlas) were very helpful. This isn't about your "Dream War" - it's in response to your log dump. Seriously, IF we intended to take an action in support of the Dream War, we would of gotten involved long ago.
  8. Popular opinion isn't necessarily against the war, it's against hearing about the war over and over and over. At this point, the side that can be the most quiet on the OWF wins.
  9. is there implicit authority for the people we send to make posts on Twitter? I need a formal e-lawyer opinion. If so, we are doomed. Seriously though, i like the essay. I will comment more when time allows.
  10. Nice blog post. I remember thinking similar things as a micro/small alliance leader. Not saying I agree with all your points, but they are interesting and arguable regardless of my position. I don't necessarily agree that World Wars "aren't personal." Getting involved to help a treaty partner can be personal even IF one isn't directly tied to the initial conflict. On the other hand, I understand your point and I've seen it in action, including complaints from membership about "why should we care about this war again?" My advice in that regard to micro's or otherwise is "don't sign M level treaties with any alliance that wouldn't motivate the membership to get involved regardless of the reason." I.E. if they aren't worth fighting for in every instance, don't promise to do so. There are such things as "non-chaining clauses" and there are always optional military treaties. Both large and small alliances can use them. Whether or not one gives up rights for the perceived security it provides is a matter of choice. Both large and small alliances have the ability to exercise choice.
  11. White Chocolate

    The 'C' word

    Best wishes. I hope everything works out for you for the best. Get well.
×
×
  • Create New...