Jump to content

Tromp

Members
  • Content Count

    1,803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tromp

  • Rank
    FOK veteran

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    the Netherlands

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Groot Nederland
  • Alliance Name
    FOK
  • Resource 1
    Iron
  • Resource 2
    Water
  1. Tromp

    RE: Miley

    American 'culture'. Yeah, truly a blessing to our world.
  2. Tromp

    WOTing on Schatt

    Wow, nice WOT there. At the very least, this should be popcorn worthy OsRavan, thanks for that. To comment on a couple of things that stood out for me: You're not the only one who thinks like that, I'd assume anyone who knows how things work around here will have (had) that thought at some point. *Note, here comes an IC comment*: > Says the above >> Is allied to MK >>> Does not compute What it comes down to OsRavan, is that you don't like the analysis provided by Schatt, and fail to refute it... Which seems to make your blood boil. You go on a long rant without making a single rebuttal. That's kind of an accomplishment, I guess, but not a positive one! To be more specific, at times I felt your argument was disingenious. For example, ofcourse everyone is playing for 'fun' (who wouldn't play a game for fun?), but to say entertainment and struggle and dominance don't combine is plain false. In fact, politics (and as such, CN - being a political simulator) is about struggle, and is about dominance. Debate is just part of the bigger whole, a means to achieve an end. That is by making your case, and as such convincing others that your frame is better than that of your opponent. In that sense, the more power one has, the more fun there is to be had. You are no different in that, and I would say it greatly explains the argument you're making here. I'll leave the rest untouched and go back to my popcorn.
  3. To say that what bros did is IC spying is not the whole story. He breached security of someone else's forum illegitimately, and from the looks of it, multiple times. Clearly, bros is no saint. It's fairly obvious this was done intentional too, as the html page Roq dropped shows bros (smugly) commenting on the stuff he gathered.
  4. No worries, we have no issues with CoJ. Sitethief was just a well-respected member of our allliance once, that's what made this all the more sensitive and probably the reason for Tim's response here. I really have nothing to say about the other arguments, so carry on.
  5. Tromp

    Ask me anything

    Some questions for you, and if you answer them please do elaborate. Would you characterize yourself as someone who plays Realpolitik or "moralist" in CN? What is your biggest achievement? What was the most influential event on your persona in CN? What alliance would you join in case CoJ wouldn't exist (/disbanded)? This is probably all for now. Good luck.
  6. Tromp

    War

    Ofcourse it does. The implication of your argument is that when you're on one 'side' because of a 'coalition' that yes, an alliance has to disregard treaties with alliances 'on the other side'. Even to the point where you'd (temporarily) consider them enemies. And I know you're not mad, quite on the contrary. I just noticed how many words you had capitalized, which, as I'm sure you are aware, gives the impression of 'screaming' on the internet. Such a wonderful retort, well done!
  7. Tromp

    War

    You sound mad bro. Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.
  8. Schatt, maybe you should use an image of Sherlock Holmes as your avatar.
  9. Indeed. At one point we were even that close we were thinking about upgrading it.
  10. Kyaris, this was a well written post, and I agree with most all of it. The Just War Theory is interesting and something I intended to write about, but unfortunately I haven't been able to yet because of RL. I'll keep this blog in mind the next time I'm going to write about International Relations.
  11. Ohh, someone call the firedepartment, it's a sick burn!
  12. Tromp

    Zanga zanga

    Love the video, thanks for sharing.
  13. You seem to misunderstand me, I have never said morality equals pacifism, although I admit I feel like it comes close at times. And honestly, I said right in the beginning that I believe there must be diversity in this world, and to narrow it down to moralist versus people who do things isn't of my doing. Ofcourse moralists are doing something also, see my reply to W_C. Furthermore, I am perfectly fine with CN, but thank you for your concern. Why don't you prove to me how I ever objected to war, or thought of it as "ebil"? Please don't return in this topic before you do, because you're not really contributing to the debate. I disagree with the latter part, but I find the rest of this quote to be true and worthy of reposting. Agreed!
  14. Before I proceed, I want to thank all of you who commented on this, mostly in a well thought out manner too! That makes writing such a text worth it. Now, I will try to answer you all, but please forgive me if I forget you or don't answer directly as I will try to focus on the main counterpoints offered by people. Here goes. And you're not alone in that. Thank you for the compliment White Chocolate, but understand that provocation is necessary to spark debate. That's all true, we're limited in the way we can fight wars and rule our nations. For those who don't want to be involved in politics and war there are neutral alliances though, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It just means the rest of the story doesn't apply to you, since this was meant for those who do participate in politics on Bob. What is justice to you is injustice to someone else. I can understand that people hold other values then mine in high regard, and I certainly don't think I can say one is better then the other (or "good" or "evil"), but what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that there is anything else besides the quest for power, even for the "moralists" among us, ingame. To quote myself from another topic on this issue: "Morality comes into play when one feels there's a need to appeal to the emotions of others. Moralists basically use the weakness of others to further their own political goals. They themselves think their cause is 'just', or even 'holy', but what moralists forget is that they, much like those who they are criticizing, are simply trying to make the rest of the world submit to their norms. Their method to gain power is thus simply more of a deceitful one." Alright, a couple of points to consider. The reason why war is inevitable for those who participate in politics (please keep this one condition in mind, because that's an important one that I included in the original text) is that politics is about wielding and increasing one's power. The probability that you'll go to war will only increase the longer you don't, as eventually your interests will clash with those of others. Only neutrals have no interests in the political game, and thus run the least of risk (yes, there still is a risk!) being dragged into a war. Furthermore, you have to disconnect justice from action. The point of this blog was to attack the idea that aggression equals injustice and is "bad", while defending equals justice and is "good". So I made the point that aggression is not per se war: it can be lots of things besides that. War only doesn't determine whether one is an aggressor or defender. This all means that there's also the possibility of justifiable aggression, and injustifiable defense. As to your example, since you declared war, they have everything to do with you. You simply skipped the diplomacy part, or more accurate, switched position of the two events in the timeline. But even before that, it holds true. It is simple, as an alliance you have to consider everyone not allied or befriended to you as hostile. The party you attacked in this case has failed to recognize a future threat to their alliance and act accordingly, so that means they have failed in their diplomacy and wielding their power. The statement stands. Yes, there are different standards as to what is a (legit) CB, not one that all can agree on. You just reinforced my point. Because of this fact, it means that there isn't something like "good or evil" that one can objectively labeled as, or a particular action that can objectively been seen as either "aggressive or defensive". We only have perception. Aggression does make the politics go round, remember the one condition I told you of earlier? In politics, it is impossible to be all defensive because you have interests you want to look after. This by definition will obstruct others in their abilities and interests, and thus is aggressive to them. Arguing is a kind of warfare. You try to master your opponent, and convince him to agree with you. For the first point, see my reply to Haf. Second, I think that isn't a wrong comparison to be quite honest, but even during musical chairs you have to put in some effort to gain what you want. You can't expect to be granted a seat don't you agree? I wouldn't argue this myself in this specific case (DH-NPO), but I think it's important to note that if you accept that previous history counts, then that's enough to say the attack wasn't "unprovoked". Third, you are making the same mistake White_chocolate did. Aggression does not equal solely violence, does not equal war. See my reply to her (I assume W_C is female). I will agree with you however that the bad label it now has is because of the history and tradition on Planet Bob. Personally, I hope that'll change, that we'll get rid of that taboo. I hear you. Unfortunately I have only experienced the Karma war of those you mentioned, but it was possibly the best time I have ever had in this game. The whole lead up to it and the climax, it simply had everything I think what makes CN the unique game it can be.
  15. !@#$, you stole my thunder Schatt. I was going to write a blog on multipolarity, with this point as the central argument. edit: my arguments are somewhat different from Triyun's and yours though. I might just do it anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...