Shodemofi-NPO

The forums are back up, link: http://siberiantigeralliance.com/forums/index.php

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1298361437' post='2641561'] This war is NOW at a 2:1 ratio. Toward the beginning, it was far more even at earlier points. That 2:1 ratio exists because of damage dealt and surrenders, not because we brought twice as much ns in to start. [/quote] I agree, that's what the bit about cowards at the end of my post was about. Edit: To clarify, the cowards refers to the people who surrendered, not to you guys for bringing more NS to the fight.

[quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1298355445' post='2641487'] On a Facebook game I was head of intel for a few wars and one where I had friends on both sides getting pounded (left former because of the side they took in the war and didn't want to be a spy) and sent out messages to alliances on the side I was with asking to not attack those who wanted to stay out. Point is that maybe there could be an option where players who don't want to fight but stay in the alliance could be on the list and not be attacked after promising not to aid the combatants. [/quote] Except no one wants those sort of people in their alliance. If you aren't willing to fight to defend your alliance, why should they allow you to stay? Not to mention that would be hopelessly complex.

Congratulations RIA

[quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1298338974' post='2641204'] This is not the same war at all. It is alot more even than any other war has ever been. There is no curbstomp, just everyone getting beat down, except those nations who have no one to fight. [/quote] Great War 3 (and maybe Great War 2, I don't remember) was/were much more even. This war is at almost a 2:1 ratio in NS and score, not as large of a curbstomp as usual, but I'd still say a curbstomp. The cowards who bailed from the NpO side the first chance they got are the ones to thank for that. Edit: Looking back the CN wiki page for GW3 made me lol. Initiative Cumulative NS 3/19 34,609,999 Cumulative NS 4/07 35,687,000 Aegis Cumulative NS 3/19/07 32,317,422 Cumulative NS 4/07/07 10,797,000

This war is no more of a holocaust than any other major war has been...

*Shrug* If he wants to quit, let him quit. It's just a game. Good luck Vlad.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1298050461' post='2637631'] Tsk tsk, 14 deserters. [/quote] Tsk tsk, 27 deserters.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1297899821' post='2636093'] This is news to me (but admittedly I don't know the Sanction rules much). Is there a written rule about that or is it just tradition? [/quote] I have no idea what he's talking about. For the most part, the system is automated, so I'm not sure how they could not be "allowed" to be sanctioned.

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1297856842' post='2635551'] Um thanks for pointing out the obvious Shodemofi, I love being condescended to by people. I'd say it's pretty rare when the smaller side inflicts more damage than the larger, which is clearly why it's not "stupid" to point it out. Unless you want to give other examples to the contrary. [/quote] Actually it's pretty common later in wars when there are 3 nations nuking a nation once a day while he can nuke all three of them each day.

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1297839433' post='2635411'] Good to see that the Viridians and co. actually lost more score yesterday than the Orders' side. [/quote] I'll go ahead and beat the people from VE's side as saying that's a stupid thing to say because 3 points matters more to a coalition of 270 points than a coalition of 420 points.

Good luck, TOOL!

CN Holocaust is a terrible name, not because of a perceived lack of respect, but because it is in no way specific to this war. Every major war has hundreds of millions of soldiers dying, the casualty count is probably highest in this war, but the next war will inevitably be bigger simply due to the strength inflation in this game. What will we call the next war? The Bigger CN Holocaust? It's an idiotic name. I would even prefer something like the "Everything Must Die" War because it references something specific to this war. Although it's a bad title too, it's wordy and specific to one side, which is a bad idea. This is why people are so annoyed when everyone keeps trying to call each big war "Great War" X. If we call every war a Great War, no one will every remember what you're talking about. GW1, 2, and 3 only work because they refer to essentially one conflict and were the first major wars CN had really seen. Names like "The Unjust War" are best because no side takes offense to them and it's clear what war is being referred to.

None of those names are very good. I'll keep waiting for someone to come up with something good, thanks.

It's about time for MHA to declare in this war. Maybe this will remind them.

You seem to be trying to show how not-mad you are a little too hard Sardonic.

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1296092491' post='2603838'] So what gives you the god forsaken right to remove our own rights as being 'moralists' as you so proclaim. Nothing does, this infact proves you are just as corrupt or in reality, evil as NPO was during the 'Hegemony' or 'Old Hegemony.' This 'right' that you proclaim to have is given to you by the power of the twisted treaty web, strong military and political competence and the final piece to it, this war. You used this war to become the 'New Hegemony' and with this power, you can do what you please. EZI is no different the PZI, if you do PZI, your likely to EZI as well. With this power, you will NOT control how you use it, you can not decide that you will not EZI, but still pillage alliances of their tech for your own bidding or fight off the moralists and rule the game. No, that will not happen, power corrupts, you will soon find yourselves to be NPO, but even worse off. Your lust for power will not end here, no, certainly not. You will seek more, punish the 'infidels' and crush the opposition. You are imposing your 'beliefs' upon us, and that good sir, will lead to your demise. You are nothing more then extremists with a hand full of power. The day that we start letting others dictate our own beliefs and values... is the day when Planet Bob shall self implode. [i]However[/i]... I for one refuse your [i]beliefs[/i], I for one refuse your [i]corruption[/i], I for one refuse your [i]evil[/i], I for one, refuse your [b][i]Hegemony[/i][/b]!!!! I will not bend to your demands, I will not bend to your beliefs and I most certainly will [b][i]NOT[/i][/b] bend to your power! I will however, refuse you your rights to power and fight it whether it be on the political arena or the battlefield. For freedom, for honor, for the true Karma. Down with the New Hegemony!! I will [i]win[/i] and I shall be [i]free[/i]. [/quote] Ok, now I'm a fairly anti-MK person, but this post was either a pretty good job of trolling or you're delusional. Regardless, you're undermining the credibility of people trying to argue against MK.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296029806' post='2602426'] How is this hypocrisy? We are not criticising the NPO for complaining about being attacked. I think you might need to look at a dictionary before brandishing about buzzwords. If the NPO beats us, I fully expect them to try and force the sort of reps we pushed on TOP. Seeing as this is the same thing, it's only fair. [/quote] This has nothing to do with what you're saying, it has to do with what you're doing. "Way to attack someone who isn't involved. I heard about this, but I must admit, I never thought you wouldd actually go through with something so ridiculous." -This is trace criticizing TOP's decision to attack someone who isn't involved and calling it ridiculous. MK attacked someone who wasn't involved. Trace called attacking someone who wasn't involved ridiculous. You attacked someone not involved. I don't know how else I can say this. "TOP has absolutely no valid CB for entering this war" -This was used as an attack against TOP (Please don't try to argue he was just stating a fact or something). A GOONS member called out TOP for attacking without a CB. GOONS is now attacking without a CB. "You guys have always been paranoid, sad to see it come to this" -An Umbrella member saying it's sad that TOP was so paranoid they attacked MK. Umbrella is now so paranoid they attacked NPO. Are you so blinded by your AA that you can't see the hypocrisy from all three of these quotes?

There are charts in the Amazing Sanction Race and in the blogs whose links are on the right side of the forum index.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1296018518' post='2601997'] You have it exactly backwards. Our MDoAP is with Nueva Vida. NV have chosen to activate the oA part of our treaty and we have agreed to this. Through NOIR, we have an ODP with Sparta. We're not engaging Sparta at all. Nothing is broken. [/quote] Oops, I misunderstood. My bad, carry on.

Well, let's look at this rationally. By not defending NV, you are breaking your treaty with them. By attacking Sparta you would be breaking your treaty with them. What it comes down to is whether you'd rather break an ODP or a MDoAP. You chose to break the MDoAP. Strange choice, but it's up to you I guess.

[quote name='Janosik' timestamp='1296016670' post='2601913'] You're afraid to criticize MK? People are afraid to criticize MK? Read this entire thread, and then we can chitchat some more. Name the alliances MK has attacked. Then list the alliances NPO has. Really I'm serious. I'm too lazy to make MK's propaganda, you do it. Oh and I don't follow external links, I don't want to be linked to porn. kthx [/quote] Sorry, the options aren't just "good" and "as bad as NPO," there is space between those, in fact.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296016250' post='2601885'] Yes you do. Otherwise I can just accuse you of creating strawmen [i'm accusing you of doing that, btw]. We were angry when TOP attacked us, and so we gave them punitive reparations. The NPO are free to do the same if they win [no one in MK would say they don't have a right to be upset]. We would only be hypocrites if we complained when the NPO gave us punitive terms for an act of aggression. [/quote] Seriously? Look at the sig above your post. You would be hypocrites if the quotes in that sig of Doomhouse members complaining about the TOP attack could be applied 100% to what you just did. "Way to attack someone who isn't involved. I heard about this, but I must admit, I never thought you wouldd actually go through with something so ridiculous." "TOP has absolutely no valid CB for entering this war" -Admittedly that was a GOON, but I assume that by defending MK you're defending them as well. "You guys have always been paranoid, sad to see it come to this" -Umbrella this time.

Well said Schattenman, you've expressed my sentiments as well.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1295999740' post='2601237'] But but but if people change their minds you can't call them hypocrites! [/quote] *sigh* do we need to start posting examples of MK members calling alliances hypocrites for changing their minds? You know those are out there. You are hypocrites. Just accept it and move on.