White Chocolate

[quote name='Fantastico' date='20 February 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1266699578' post='2194077'] I am afraid I do not see one interest all of us share here on Planet Bob, but I am open to being corrected. [/quote] I can think of one or two, but I need more nukes and a much bigger alliance before feeling comfortable enough to say it in public

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='20 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266698056' post='2194056'] I think the reason that people want to kick lumps out of each is because they do know each other, [/quote] It's comments like these that keeps my popcorn popping.

[quote name='The Feather' date='20 February 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1266687280' post='2193786'] The reason this won't work is that this game is built on war. Tensions build, politics get scrambled and every few months someone starts something. And it's not like anything bad happens as a result. Sure, pixels are lost, but this isn't like in real life where wars have serious consequences. So very few people on Planter Bob will be motivated to try and prevent war. And those that are already have gone and joined GPA. [/quote] Or they join some other alliance (and there are actually a few of us) that prefer to stay out of conflicts as a general rule. Yes, that's a plug. I admit it Best of luck to both sides of this conflict. Keep it up as long as you like, (although everyone in Lander Clan has gone to bunkers just to get out of the nuclear winter) and those of us who are not involved will sell you tech - or buy it from you - when you're done.

This is surrender: "I surrender." Everything else is that which was agreed to as part of the surrender, regardless if it's white peace, reparations or the alliance(s) surrendering baking a batch of chocolate chip cookies for the alliances surrendered to. Surrender is on side admitting defeat. If no one admits defeat then there is no surrender. Then it's something else, whatever the parties agreeing want to call it (or not).

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1266519437' post='2189980'] The current state of Cyberverse morality is similar yet different to that, favoring a more aggressive approach from what I can tell at least. [/quote] Agreed. An aggressive approach in this situation I think is counterproductive. It creates resentment and could possibly backfire and bring the opposing alliance to the other side completely. Which makes me question if it's actually really about getting one to stop "aiding an enemy" or simply using intimidation for some other reason. (i.e. show of power, because it's fun, to try to bait the neutral into taking a side in the war, because if "called" on the behavior by others, the excuse "it's an act of war" justifies everything). If it were truly about stopping the behavior the "common practice" would be to deal with such issues between alliance leadership. No one in US has received such messages but our friends who are involved gave me plenty of warning regarding their war plans. Personally, if there were a mistake made and one of our members received the same messages I've heard about, I would have considered no longer being neutral.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='18 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1266541242' post='2190743'] The variance alliance communities can be quite diverse. Shop around. If you can't find one to your tastes, create your own. Most people recommend agasinst doing this when you are new, but realistically, all you need is a couple of friends and the ability to think critically about the requirements of alliance building. Most people that start new alliances tend to be doing it to gain power or authority. This rarely ends well. If you can find a little help, and there are plenty of people who would be willing, you can create your own community. It's not necessarily [I]easy[/I] but it's not actually hard either. [/quote] I did that, for a year and 9 months. Here is some quick advice IF you are as insane as I. Friend, besides ALL of the above, the big issue is time. This is true for anyone. However, to do it as someone new (which was my situation) there are a million unwritten rules to learn. You better have a high learning curve. And in terms of people acting childish - believe me, you WILL have people treating you (and your alliance) in less than respectful ways (and here I am making an understatement.) Thus, you have to be able to deal with that in a constructive fashion (well, to keep your alliance going for a year and 9 months, you will )

[quote name='Mykl42' date='18 February 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1266537217' post='2190569'] Is this a BS game based upon who you blow [/quote] There is certainly some of this here, as in any given social situation. [quote name='Mykl42' date='18 February 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1266537217' post='2190569'] or a game based upon what you can do? [/quote] Depends, what can you do? I'm not being sarcastic. What kind of nation do you want and what do you have to offer a group that would help you get there?

[quote name='savethecheerleader' date='18 February 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1266478074' post='2189188'] Pretty please? It would do wonders for my environment. [/quote] Top marks in my book. I agree 100%.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1266540964' post='2190729'] Second, since declaring war on us, you have wrecked a lot of our !@#$, there's no denying that we have been weakened by this war (as have you, but you started this, we don't owe you a god damn thing) and naturally we want our stuff fixed, and we want you to pay for it. If someone were to break something of yours you would want compensation for it, like if someone crashed into your car, you'd want the money to get a new car. [/quote] Good points. Sounds a lot like the arguments against tech raiding that I've made and seen other people make.

[quote name='martinius the great' date='18 February 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1266515382' post='2189868'] Definitely, anyone who entered the war through MDPs will get white peace, for they have done nothing but honor their treaties. [/quote] I'm glad that you believe as much, as it's better than nothing. However, I also take it you're a fan of the treaty web?

Well done.

[quote name='Vilien' date='17 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1266460471' post='2188634'] Tech deals get suspended during war time. Deal with it. [/quote] either by putting up with it or choosing to go against "common practice" and see what happens. Making a case on OWF may very well be a part of the plan I don't know this, pointing it out.

[quote name='Comrade Craig' date='17 February 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1266471456' post='2188981'] It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period. -Craig [/quote] Absolutely, it is legitimate as a tactic. But, from a tactical perspective, is threatening individual(s) who are, providing either money or technology to an enemy, wise? The general view seems to be yes (or people just don't question it). I find the odd as I can imagine at least some situations where it could backfire.

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258'] One possible argument I've heard is that aiding your enemy would impair your war efforts. [/quote] Why is it that the "common practice" here has been to threaten people who are financially "aiding" (be it a business transaction OR actual war time financial help) one's enemy and thus potentially bringing them into the war (which I would have thought is something one wants to avoid)? Given that same situation, I'd say "okay, well if alliance B is going to be the "tech farm" of alliance "A", then we will get our own and do the same." From a pure strategic standpoint, at least assuming a close war as far as numbers and strength goes, wouldn't an opposing side want to avoid possibly having more nations fight militarily on the other side? I mean, suppose alliance "C" tells alliance "A" "stop or else" and alliance A says no?

[quote name='Baldr' date='17 February 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1266465762' post='2188786'] If you want to be neutral, you'll either stop dealing tech, or you'll find different buyers who aren't at war. [/quote] Nice advise in theory. However, with the treaty web - when the alliance wars are in full swing, good luck finding buyers who are NOT at war. If Planet Bob could have "little" alliance wars involving two to five alliances and keep it at that, this probably would be a non-issue.

Very glad to see peace. Congrats to all.

As amusing as drama can be, if that is all it is about, keep it in the smokey back rooms and go there if you want it. If it involves some unwritten rule that I'm going to have to follow, teach our members about - etc., I want to be consulted. I don't think I should have to spend all the time I'd otherwise have for other duties hanging out in some smokey back room to have that right either.

This statement is meant completely neutrally, I know nothing about the above situation one way or the other. It is my personal opinion based only on what was stated in the original post. If an alliance's primary purpose (i.e. it's actual "mission") is to be a safe haven for nations that want to tech deal and live in peace while tech dealing with whomever AND it's not involved in the current conflict on either side AND it has regular tech deals with alliances on both sides, (or would if they asked) then I personally do not have a problem with it. In fact, if this is the case then I'd argue that the war is interfering with that (hypothetical) alliances business - not the other way around.

Hail peace! Glad to see this.

Best of luck and happy hunting to NAC.

Someone needs to update Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-lawyering I also looked for a definition of the term on the CN wiki (which I expected to find more in line with what you are saying) and did not find one. How is that for E-lawyering

[quote name='Lord n00b II' date='10 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1265863799' post='2173931'] As one of the 5 people not involved in this war... Radioactive green pixels are more romantic. Therefore, everyone else should make my pixels radioactive green. Thanks and good night. [/quote] As number two of the five people not involved in this war , I think it's a great idea. However, I'm willing to give a donation/CN cash to the OP (or a person of the OP's choice) for March if the OP convinces any alliance of 20 members or above that has any nukes left (even 1) AND is still in the war on that date to agree NOT to use them on Feb. 14, 2010 and also follows through with the agreement. The alliance doesn't even have to announce it before the date (I would not, that's for sure) - just prove it after the fact. There - putting my dongs where my mouth is

Well written. I say that being neutral as far as the war goes. All I personally think it's about is people wanting to war. If it were about freedom to or freedom from, then I have no doubt the leaders of the alliances who are powerful enough to bend the treaty web to their will and determine such things would come to a compromise. If the brave men and women leaders of the various countries in these alliances were tired of the war, then they would make that clear to their leadership in one fashion or another. I've eaten all my popcorn now. Thank you all for a good show. I'll check OWF now and then to see if the party is over yet or not.

[quote name='Viluin' date='08 February 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1265684637' post='2169600'] I think you mistake me for that "other" guy. [/quote] I apologize for my mistake. I still like the comment

[quote name='Sam Winters' date='09 February 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1265728214' post='2170569'] This is a game that is only fun around wartime, [/quote] Only? You're free to have your opinion and I get what people are doing here. On the other hand, speak for yourself about what is and is not fun. No wonder I'm having a challenging time finding someone to take our Minister of Foreign Affairs role!