Letum

"You are all dumb, no offense" A *very* mature debate tactic.

All the members of NDO I've seen so far are not people we would have any issue with in SE tbh.

This is the first time in many years I have ever seen someone describe Caladin as "boiling over mad". I get that you don't like it but you should handle rejection like a gentleman. You are on the side with the military advantage and war is fun, what is there to be upset about?

Congratulations Mi6.

But see, we are talking about *this* round, not an alternative timeline with different starting conditions. Our decisions are based on these current conditions, so trying to pick our actions out and transplant them into a different context makes no sense, because a different context would likely mean different actions. If every alliance is subjected to bill-lock and anarchy, then how are they managing to go around and keep everyone else in bill-lock and anarchy?

To be fair, SNX inflicted 2.25m NS of damage of NPO, representing a third of the total damage NPO received. Which isn't stellar but isn't really that horrible either.

It is such a tragedy sometimes that evil seeks to dress up its actions in white, saintly robes and perversely twist the very concept of morality in order to gather more power to itself. You claim to promote equality, yet interestingly it seems that some people are more "equal" than others. You have constructed a system where an alliance half your size would be open season, but a peer capable of being a threat is subject to a set of special rules - rules that reduce the "threat" to a small number of powerful alliances, allowing them to form a cartel of carefully orchestrated and regulated "matches". And of course, should there be any ideological challenge to that cartel, "equality" doesn't have to apply to them any more than it does to the "weaklings" that aren't big enough to be part of it. It is, of course, a very logical system. And I am sure also a very fun one for many "insiders". Yet like all cartel systems that seek to promote insider interests at the expense of outsiders, it is also a poison that rots away at the world. For the good of the community, I would sincerely urge you to abandon it. But if you wish to continue lecturing about the concept of "fairness" from a position of immense strength and privilege, feel free to continue doing so. This war will be fun either way.

And I am sure it is also in the spirit of such equality that both wars you have found yourselves involved in see yourselves with a large NS advantage.

I don't know what evil twisted code you live by sir, but in my book threatening to use military power as a tool to make others subservient to your ideology is morally reprehensible. How about you just enjoy the rapid wars that this world is made for? We're enjoying it and we're the ones who are outnumbered here.

Why exactly would everyone joining up to roll us ruin the round? It'd be a fun fight.

This is mildly pleasing.

This normalization was long overdue, and there were countless hours, events and people that brought things to this conclusion. It's been one of the most interesting rides I've seen.

Thank you. The potential for self-replenishing, experienced and numerous practice targets for our young nations is tbh something that under some circumstances I'd be willing to pay a price to get. Assuming you are able to deliver, this is a very welcome engagement.

If you would kindly keep ypur twisted perversions to yourself tks.

Why should I concern myself with WTF and DBDC - both alliances which are perfectly nice to me - when I have people such as yourself standing before me and responding to innocuous philosophical criticism from members of my alliance by claiming that we will be the "next" to be rolled for the provocation of being on what you consider the "wrong" side of the previous war? Not that I consider you as an individual to be plotting to destroy me or some kind of threat, but the more you keep on spewing justifications for an aggressive agenda against the Order, the more you define yourself as being in opposition to us - without NPO even having to do so much as lift a finger. And the more you choose to define yourself as being opposed to me, the further down the "list of things that concern me" you push people like DBDC and WTF, who have made no such aggressive remarks upon the Order. Which I believe is probably self-defeating on your part, since I suspect some of the reason you are trying to be confrontational with the Order is to force us to choose between bad PR and a course of action more favourable to your own goals. If so, I would suggest you re-evaluate. I prefer to see the world as consisting of many stages. Seeing it with only one, massive, stage risks blinding yourself into thinking only what you have a role in is important, and ignoring everything else. Everyone is the star of their own story, but there's as many stories as there are stars in the sky. Also personally, I prefer Dilber.

Well, if going by your logic we have to be "next" for the "provocation" of being part of last war's coalition, then parts of the "Nascar Coalition" made the "provocation" of rolling & imposing silly terms on the "NSO Coalition" of the Disorder War, parts of which had made the "provocation" of messing up the war ending and rolling the "Competence Coalition" in the Equilibrium war, parts of which made the "provocation" of rolling SF/XX & Allies in the Dave and Grudge Wars, parts of which helped roll NpO/NPO in the PB-NpO and DH-NPO wars, and so on and so on to the beginning of everything. The composition of the sides changes greatly in each war, of course, but the point is that there will always be some core people in a defensive coalition that someone will have grudge against due something that happened in a past war. So I find it hard to take all your posturing about people being left along seriously when in the same breath you also suggest a huge chunk of alliances should be rolled merely for having a standard CN war history. Ultimately it boils down to classic human tribal dynamics. We divide down into set little groups and label anyone belonging to a different group as "others". They are on the "other wide", the "wrong side", the "enemy side", the side that contains someone who did something to us in the past and that taints them all by association. And it is a classic tribal mentality to only apply the benefits of whatever moral standards and rights one holds to "your side" only. The "others" will simply get what is coming to them - and sometimes it is the sad reality that the people who champion morality and kindness the loudest for "their" grouping are also the ones who will be the cruelest to "others". How do we define "bad reason"? What you perceive as a "play" in which we are "supporting actors", I perceive as a "sideshow" in which we are not even "in the audience" for because we're hard at work on our own goals.

It is a good example though that, for all the nice sounding talk about alliances being left alone unless they offer some "provocation", that provocation is in the eyes of the beholder. Each beholder has a different concept of how they might have been wronged. For some, the blame entire state of the world not being to their satisfaction can be neatly laid at the feet of a few alliances that they can conveniently "roll" for that "provocation". Pacifica is a popular choice for that. We'll all be "next" at some point. That'll show DBDC.

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.

It's an even split actually, though that does depend on how you decide to count disbanded and merged alliances. Not that it's a particularly relevant point. I don't think Fark is generating any particular "precedent" here in what is a pretty minor sideshow to a sideshow. They have a "right" to such action, and whilst their choice of target can be questioned form a perspective of fairness and effectiveness, they don't really have any obligation to be fair to anyone and they are accountable only to themselves in terms of whether it produces results or not. If I was on a losing side of a war, I might very well consider the possibility of getting more lower tier targets just to piss in the other side's soup. Of course, whether it'll have any positive effect in the end in terms of intimidating other micros without big sponsors (you might need a bit more effort than making an "example" out of just one micro) or whether it's just creating drama (and bad relations) for nothing is something we'll all have to wait and see.

Oh, it definitely will be forgotten.

Of course there's sides prior to the start of the conflict. People assemble coalitions by getting key players on board in the weeks or even months running up to a conflict. It's not just a matter of someone firing randomly and hoping the treaty chess falls their way. (Usually at least).

Alliance of the Year DT Most Powerful Alliance Umbrella Best Military NPO Best Rookie Alliance SNX Most Powerful Bloc Aztec Best Flag NATO Most Active Alliance DBDC Most Honorable Alliance RIA Best Diplomatic Team Umbrella Best Economic System NPO Best Recruiting Staff Atlas Best Propagandist Scariest Alliance DBDC Best Alliance Growth IRON Best War Flag Best Forums Alliance Most Likely to Succeed in 2015 GPA Most Immoral Alliance Most Controversial Alliance Mi6 Player of the Year Roquentin Most Powerful Player Best Alliance Leader Most Controversial Player Letum Best Player Sig Best Player Avatar Best Poster Nicest Player Funniest Player LordofDarkness Most Active Player Tywin Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2015 TheWarrior Best New Addition to the Community Most Hated Poster Best Declaration of War (Alliance Topic) Best Declaration of War (in-game war screen) Best Wall of Text Best OWF Topic - Hershey-Nascar War Stats, powered by RI5 Biggest Controversy Funniest Event Most Entertaining IRC Channel Best Treaty Announcement Umb-NPO Worst Diplomatic Move Best Player Quote Best IRC Log Largest E-Peen Best Villain Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit) Best WaterCooler Thread Worst Alliance NPO Worst Sphere Worst Poster Most Annoying Poster Biggest Mouth Biggest !@#$ Quietest Power Player Bob

Damn double post

Just because NPO is not fighting out of malice, does not mean that we are fighting for no reason. It is a very narrow minded concept that people must only fight wars to "settle scores" or "get revenge". It makes wars boring and repetitive. The NPO is simply fighting because it benefits us and our political grouping. Who is on the other side of the battlefield is irrelevant. We will fight anybody, anywhere, anytime with the same level of industriousness, and we will be equally happy to shake hands with them afterwards and walk away, whether we win or lose. I do not believe in revenge or grudges, and if I ever resort to extraordinary harmful actions, it will be because it is intended to create a better future, not to "get even" for the past. If we keep screwing each other over because we were screwed over before, this game will devolve into something ugly and everyone loses.

At the point there have been more wars where people claim there isn't much left to preserve their NS for than the other way around.