Jump to content

Letum

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,646

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Letum

  1. Lord Hitchcock

    Posted

    Nations need a certain amount of time to recover post war to a level similar as before it (recover infra and warchest). This can be something like 6-8 months depending on the nation. Add to that that wars are 2-4 months long themselves , and you have a yearly schedule.

    Having it more often than that would mean nations perpetually getting smaller.

    The only real alternative is having smaller wars more often where it's not the same people fighting.

  2. PrincessKitty

    Posted

    The most popular game in the world has hundreds of millions of players and billions of fans - yet it is also hundreds of years old and technologically involves nothing more than kicking a round object.

    The quality of a game isn't down to fancy graphics and tools, it is about enjoyment, and enjoyment can come from lots of places. In CN, it comes from the communities, the player interactions and the chaotic complexity that is created when everybody's plans and goals crash together. In other games it can be about the story, about the quick gratification of achievements, about the competitive tournaments, about the stunning environments, about the depth of characters, about anything really.

  4. Duke Nukem

    Posted

    I stand up suddenly, realizing my legs are still beneath me.I had been having these weird dreams lately,

    Give the reader context. Why is realizing your legs are beneath you significant? Why are your dreams weird and how is that relevant?

    wondering the difference between the reality I see with my eyes, and the reality my brain creates for me.

    As mentioned, this should probably be reformed to better conceptualize the difference between what is there and the evidence of said existance generated in our brain.

    The majority of the world is so convinced that the world their eyes show them is ultimate reality. The truth is that what we consider reality is just a bunch of neurons firing back and forth at each other to paint us a picture of our surroundings.

    "The majority of the world" and "the truth is" are too absolutist statements, and don't really work for this kind of thought provoking peace. The basic question you are asking here is "What is real?" so ask it.

    If this is the case, then isnt our brain also creating what we deem reality? If this is the case, then why cant dreams also be considered real?

    Probably best rephrased to talk about whether you can distinguish neural transmissions created by external stimuli from neural transmissions created by your own brain.

    Dreams, while perhaps not psychologically relevant, do allow us a modicum of freedom that we cannot find in what we deem ultimate reality. In my dreams I am a bird, flying high, and thinking only of the wind in my face. In my dreams, I see my beloved, beautiful as she is, as we hold hands till oblivion. In my dreams, I am the President of the United States, holding the world in my hands. In my dreams, I see my mother as breathtaking as she was before her illness, and her sage words comfort me. So, I ask this question, why cant dreams be reality?

    This cuts short, and stopping at this point sounds like wish-fulfilment i.e "I feel unsatisfied with life and I wish my dreams were real".

    You should probably go on. You could expand on it by talking about what makes you believe dreams aren't real, questioning the validity of those beliefs, and the interplay of logic and perception in creating our reality.

  6. The Zigur

    Posted

    Sorry, I wasn't aware that 9m of NS damage was caused by men that fought without honor.

    This war continues because the Polar coalition is targeting us, not because our allies want to defend us from damage (which is the entire point of an alliance - if people should just give in and "accept a damage quota", then there would be no point in calling in allies in the first place since the damage quota would be achieved faster without them.)

    Then again, for a coalition that publicly beats up its own alliances like Valhalla that question their decisions, I guess the concept of allies defending us out of their own free will and being free to make their own decisions at anytime they want might be a bit difficult to understand.

  7. The Zigur

    Posted

    Has it perhaps passed your mind that our allies are here because they want to be, not because the NPO is forcing them to?

    We are not preventing anyone from ending or leaving the war. The Polar coalition is, by trying to cripple the alliance our allies are fighting to protect. The idea of "well, if you just give in and die there will be nothing left for your allies to protect" is silly.

  9. Schattenmann

    Posted

    Why are you so obsessed with NPO?

    Yes, we ended a war early over everyone's head - but now your coalition has teamed up with the very people that they wanted to "keep fighting", so I can't imagine the concept of peace itself is such a grave offense.

    Yes, we shouted and cursed and forced people into a specific line of thinking. But how much damage has us "shouting" caused to you, to your alliance or your coalition? Does it kill of your NS or your members? Does it harm you and your national interest in such a way that demands retaliation?

    Actions speak louder than words, and what the NPO has actually *done* rather than said involves trying to *stop* conflict. We tried to *stop* a war on DH tied to *stop* a war on NpO. I don't suppose you would rather have us the other way around, a gentle-speaking and consensus-driven alliance that ruthlessly tries to destroy everything in its path, and if it happens to harm their allies whilst doing so, all be damned?

    It is one thing to lay criticism on the NPO for our genuine foreign policy mistakes. It is quite another to act as if we are some kind of reps-imposing, alliance-disbanding, viceroy-installing hegemon out to destroy everyone.

    Who has NPO tried to actively and purposefully harm here? (Other than its mistakes backfiring on itself and its allies)

  12. Bob Janova

    Posted

    It's actually not about reputation or being afraid to be seen as the "evil NPO". We've had to actively resist a lot of external pressure for us to impose harsh terms - it's safe to say most of us believe we can impose them without any real consequence.

    Our negative reaction to reps is much more instinctual - having gone through those very precedents you've stated, the NPO (or at least, a large part of us) has come to really dislike the whole grudges and forced crippling payments bonanza.

    Further, we have repeatedly and plainly stated that we take no issue for the "pre-emptive" attack by FARK and FAN, given our public declaration of support and intent to fight.

  21. HeroofTime55

    Posted

    Incorrect, you exercise your sovereignty in the signing of the treaty. Sovereignty isn't the right to do whatever you goddamn please.
    An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behavior are reserved as being outside its control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SovereigntyDepends on how one defines sovereignty. But, in a nutshell, I think it is. However, we give it up all the time - starting with joining an alliance. Which is - as I look at it - an implied Mutual Defense and Mutual Aggression Pact with the other members of your alliance.
    When you sign a treaty, you are making a promise to do something. If you then violate that promise, in a way you're violating your own will, you're violating your own control over your alliance by going back on your decision. In sort of a crazy paradoxical way. So when you break a treaty, are you extending your sovereignty, or violating it, by violating the sovereign decisions you made in the past? Yeah, figure that one out.

    Or even better, are the sovereign decisions you made in the past standing in the way of your ability to make sovereign abilities now? Would you be able to make a time machine to go in the past and stop yourself from making those sovereign decisions? Would inadvertently killing your past self be a limit on your sovereignty because it would also make your future self vanish?

×
×
  • Create New...