Zangmonkey

Minimize losses while also carrying out successful attacks? Sir, I call that "the goal in every war, ever"

I'm not going to deny that I was engaging in limited wars to gain XP. I'm asking where the line is to be drawn to differentiate this. As I said before, this is something which we were previously allowed to do.

In the system, as currently implemented, everybody is incentivized to be in a constant state of war.

Research is needed to understand the impact on generals, the cost of gaining XP, and the ease and likelihood of their assassination. If the rules were clarified into "you must launch CM's, and you must do destructive spy ops" that would be fine by me... I would still do it because I have money to burn and XP to gain.... but potentially banning due to warns because people are doing [b]something they had previously been allowed to do[/b] is unnerving.

What is confusing to me about this policy is that this "new feature" has effectively disabled things we had previously been permitted to do. As such, this "addition" to the gameplay has restricted what constitutes legitimate play... We now have less game to play than before... I just don't get it. Perhaps if the implementation details of this new feature aren't well understood then it should be relegated to TE only until it can be added as an *extension* of gameplay rather than a contraction. :(

Plenty of wargames have occurred for years which did not pursue the goal of "as much damage without the use of nukes." What was your specific criteria for reporting, since you seemed readily willing and able to identify "XP Farming?" In fact, from what I can tell of this recent round of warns, some wars were removed in which the participants were launching attacks. The possibility that such wars may be violations is ambiguous and frightening.... even in larger or peripheral "real" wars or "duels" between nations it seems that we may inadvertently run afoul of some unwritten rule. So it seems to me like enforcement of this new policy is predicated on whether or not the two warring parties are engaging each other with the entirety of their might. This is terra nova, and I think we all need to understand the limits and implications of the change. Arbitrarily issuing violations because players are exploring a brand new game dynamic is an unsettling precedent. If the intention for "earning" XP was different then let's understand the intention and discuss a better method of its allocation.... So, really, the same question stands; because it's certainly reasonable for a war to take place in which aircraft and ground attacks aren't made (because wins are improbable, or too risky) and it's certainly reasonable for navy attacks to be slowed because of the expense of ships plus the daily limit on purchases and operations. So what's the metric here? Whether or not the participants are lobbing CM's? Because, even then, I don't really understand the goal.... If we were told that wargames are ok as long as you're launching CM's plenty of people would still do it for XP Farming.... Billionaires are quite likely to take the infra damage and convert their dongs into XP.

And army only gives XP if your attack is successful.... So there are existing limits to the XP system already aimed at reducing XP for "low risk" action.... but that doesn't answer the question about the extent of war games and research.

As a recent recipient of a warning for "XP Farming" I am seeking clarification on what level (if any) of wargames are going to be permitted? Typically when people engage in war games their intention is *not* the same as it would be in a "real" war... War games tend not to involve nukes, for example. So a certain overlap inherently exists between wargames and "XP Farming" and I think the extend should be clarified. If we accept that no other "slot filling"- type violations are occurring. what, if any, war actions are permitted? May two participants exchange naval battles? May two participants exchange aircraft dogfights? May two participants exchange spy operations? If the answer to any or all of these is "no"; to what extend will "research" action be permitted? For example, Statistics collection on spy-op effectiveness involves repeated spy action (to record the range of result) which may occur without any formal war declaration. Likewise, aircraft or naval data to determine likelihood of loss and/or damage.

I'm not really concerned with GRL, though it's certainly a small part to consider. Mostly I'm concerned with the fact that alliances at war are instrumental in the trade stability of the sphere and, in fact, this is the aim of a senator: trade stability. It extends, then, that a senator interested in the preservation of the sphere ought also to be interested in the perseverance of nations within the sphere. Sanctions empower the elected representatives of the sphere to act in the interest of all members of the sphere. Sometimes this may require them to constrain some constituents. Drawn-out war drains nations into extinction, and here's a poem I wrote about it: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the sphere, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Digiterra is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

For example, the slot-filling of rogue nations....

In what ways does that differ from a nuclear war on the sphere?

I've never really understood why sanctions weren't considered valid war tactics. If it is determined that a war action jeopardizes the safety of the sphere I would think sanctions are justified. If you disagree, senators are subject to a vote.

I wasn't in Umbrella at the time, I was a Gremlin. We stood by and let GPA get slaughtered because we were weak-willed. I don't see the relevance. The point was more about treaty webs, obligations and justifications for action.

Wasn't NATO?

Umbrella entrenched their predicament through our own pretense but AI and DR had no intent to muffle the drums of war.

The real tragedy of the GPA incident wasn't that they got attacked on ridiculous premises (this had happened many times, and will continue to happen) but that good alliances stood by and did nothing because they didn't have a treaty... as if formal documents defined righteousness.

I call it as I see it which, admittedly, is perhaps not with all the data that you have. My perspective is that AI was ready and willing to collude against Umbrella, but that it wasn't something they had even thought about at first. When their friends encouraged them push us, they played their part. I don't give them enough credit to think up the quandary on their own.

I think only the dishonest or the uninformed will say that the two sides weren't provoking each other. This war, the real breadth of this war, is not about provocation but of pride's failure to see the pitfall and opportunists claiming a ridiculous marriage between "legality" and "justice." It's a facade we've all seen before and it's a CB over actions that many of the same involved opportunists have, themselves, justified in the past when it suited them. Umbrella answered a valid challenge, as expected, and AI was used as a tool to justify group action against a polarizing entity in the world.

I joined Umbrella after I was told I wasn't a "real" member of a former alliance despite going down with the ship, repeatedly, in consequence to our collective decisions. Remember those upside-down days when desertion was honorable and commitment was folly? Following that I laid low for a bit and I've been otherwise occupied with an [ahem] increased birth rate in the commonwealth... But that's ages past.... here we are now. I agree that AI didn't set the trap. Neither did BoTS. That would imply a certain level of sophistication I don't think either could wield. In fact the world is already littered with snares and pitfalls, some are set and some are natural... I was mostly commenting on who, headstrong, sprung it and who, opportunistic, responded. I wonder, whose turn is it next to be proud and whose turn to lie in wait?

This war is nothing but the Genmay BoTS incident all over again. One alliance displayed characteristic and expected arrogance and hubris; sprung the trap when they responded to being deliberately antagonized by another. Then a stream of opposition lying in wait for an opportunity to rally troops for a "legal" cause responded in kind with no intent to offer effective terms for peace. It's a trite-but-true story of the proud and the scheming. Frankly, I'm surprised [M] fell for it again.... won't be the first time I've been to ZI/ZT.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1306686084' post='2720036'] No. What gives us that right is that [b]everybody[/b] considers Ramlins 'dysfunctional', in most cases to the point of no longer considering it to really be an alliance, and supports our assertion to own the AA over yours.[/quote] Hi Bob. I meant to reply to you earlier. This is probably the only valid case presented here so far: that you do not consider GRE an alliance anymore... I don't see anything in your charter which outlines how you define an alliance. What makes GRE less an alliance than 64Digits? (Sorry HoT, nothing against you... you're just the first that came to mind ) As for ownership: I don't "own" it anymore than you do. [quote]That doesn't really help your cause, because the resistance of the Archons to him was something which delayed Ram's ascension – one major reason, I suspect, why he wanted to get rid of it. We recognised the danger he posed and worked to limit it through the legal avenues available – refusing to promote him. He, and you, wanted to remove that limit – and look what happened when he managed to persuade enough people to pull him to the other side of the fence![/quote] The archons at that time had been reluctant to promote anybody outside the original "clique" thereby making the ranking system defunct. Promotion was [b]never[/b] a weighted vote by subordinate ranks and you know that. Whether zealots and archons had identical vote-weights is irrelevant to the promotion procedure. [i]I[/i] wanted to squash weights because they made us dependent on votes from inactive members and banks to get anything done. Weighted votes or not: you and others could have done something about Ramirus [b]if only you had the initiative[/b]. You may even remember that there was an election that he won [i]solely[/i] because of vote weights. I'm not excusing my support for him in certain roles; I stand by my assertion that he was the only person at the time who demonstrated ability to organize and run internal programs when most other top-ranks were inactive. We can discuss it ad nauseum but nobody here cares. I'd be happy to discuss it on your forum if you're interested. [quote]Quite. Zero is a number. [/quote] Zing! I'll give you one: an activity-based policy for tech distribution in project AI and a more enticing purchasing offer to our providers. [quote]If I knew what manipulation techniques Ram was using on the electorate, I'm sure I could win a lot more elections myself. It is one of the abiding mysteries of the fall of the alliance how he could get people to consistently vote for him despite the clear damage he was doing.[/quote] He was active while others were stagnant. He proposed new ideas while others clung to the old ones (which many viewed as contributory to slowed progression). Obviously you will contend that the ideas he [i]did[/i] present were terrible; but that's not really my point. [quote] (His other mental game, aggravating opponents to the point they gave up and left, was less opaque.)[/quote] Granted. [quote]What it shows, more than anything else, is that faith in democracy and the democratic process is misplaced, because one person with knowledge of psychology and the amoral mind to exploit it can subvert the whole process. The fact that thirty of us are here now explicitly disavowing any support of his policies – which were put in place with far less than a thirty vote majority – should demonstrate that.[/quote] You may recall when I first applied to GRE years ago that I said I didn't believe democracies could function effectively in Digiterra. If you want to blame the people and their votes then you should focus squarely on the top-ranks who could have drawn up expulsion or rejected promotion or even [b]bothered to vote[/b] such that their weights and influence might have made a difference. Inactivity and apathy of our founders [i]initially [/i] put Ramirus in power. [quote]Yes, we did. In fact you can lay the blame for that at my feet: I was on the Dark Council and said that I would not vote for a disbandment, because it would be unfair on those who wished to remain. In retrospect that was perhaps a mistake, I gave people too much credit in terms of them being able to see what was happening and work against it. But can you imagine the reaction that disbanding what was still a 5 million NS alliance over a supposed deviation from the true path would have got? I don't think I would be a popular man in CN after that.[/quote] Lost popularity isn't an excuse for dereliction of duty. I appreciate your acknowledgement of this fact. This was the primary function of the Dark Council: to identify a rotten heart before it pumps poison to the body's extremities. If [b]you[/b] felt that way [b]you[/b] should have acted. You were entrusted, empowered and obligated to do so. [quote]I hope that you can see the light, Matthew. From your early days in Grämlins, I know that you are a good man, and I hope that you can come out from under the spell of Ramirus which you have been trapped in for well over a year now. The man is gone, hopefully his influence over you and others is too. But you will not win an argument on our assertion to control the AA, particularly not two weeks after we asserted it. [/quote] I know you have reflected on what you see as failures of "Ramlins". It would be a mistake for you to disavow each and every policy he enacted without due consideration. Do not let your distastes for one man who has left the planet solely guide the policies you set at your foundation. As for timing: it's unfortunate that I had been away and can only address it now.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1306741848' post='2720487'] Do something about it. [/quote] I am. [quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1306746388' post='2720498'] We had to make a decision and we're also not really sure you would fit into the new alliance. You were one of the main agitators in Rams powerstructure and you are partly at fault for what has happened (as many people are). We just remember you being a really long time member and there was a time when you were different and had a head to think with. The only real issue is trust here. We had the feeling you might sabotage the operation when being told beforehand. And we're not forcing you off the AA (yet).[/quote] Just because we disagreed doesn't mean I wasn't thinking. I understand your desire to keep your intentions quiet; but I'm willing to bet that none of you can name a time I leaked information or lied to you... trust isn't an issue. [quote]We dont really want to look back all that much though. The future is what counts now.[/quote] This is what I'm trying to get at on your forum. When I joined The Gremlins years ago I knew who you were and where you intended to go. Where do you intend to take it this time?

[quote name='Artigo' timestamp='1306721880' post='2720379'] How does it feel Matthew? Being in position of no power where you are either forced to submit to their terms of reapplying (unconditionally surrendering if you will), leaving all together, or being destroyed? [/quote] It feels fine. I know these people, I trust them. I'm not afraid of them because I understand their intent. Whether they'll have me or I abandon the flag I've fought under for three years isn't really the point. I'm solely interested in discussing the validity of an outside group of nations claiming the right to an AA they left and demanding all those wearing it vacate. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1306723200' post='2720386'] I can't say I agree with someone having to apply to join the alliance that they were already in that you refounded around them. Sad to see someone like Matthew PK being treated unfairly, but I can understand the reasoning behind the decision. [/quote] Precisely my point. These people are claiming sovereignty over [b]me[/b] and asserting that I have no legitimate right to wear an AA they [i]chose[/i] to abandon. Remember that I've been through the rigorous admission process already; even under the auspices of the same individuals now reforming. Many of them formed another alliance together already; they've already rebuilt a community. But now they come into a house [b]they renounced[/b] and call [b]me[/b] a trespasser. I don't understand it. It's an interesting precedent and it's even more peculiar that Digiterra is accepting of this policy.... Since my discussion here I will say that they have been very cordial on their forum. We're making good progress.

[quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1306713308' post='2720291'] My god...the old, competent government of Gre is seizing the reigns from an idiot. [/quote] These are some of the same people who allowed things to become as they were; good or bad. Most were Archons with 5x vote weights. Then, as I mentioned, they abandoned the AA one by one. So far I see a lot of good people with a lot of good intentions. That's what GRE was anyhow. Call Ram whatever name you like... don't ignore the fact that we (including these people) [b]volunteered authority to him.[/b] [quote]I don't care if it's a coup or whatever you want to call it. It will be much better for the alliance and Planet Bob as a whole.[/quote] It's a hostile takeover by a foreign force. Coups and revolutions come from within. [quote] Everyone should stop complaining and go home, it's ridiculous at this point. Gre is making a comeback, deal with it. [/quote] I'm glad to see them back, working together and trying to build something. They're all capable people. What I'm contesting is their authority to order all members out of a sovereign AA without any diplomacy. HellAngel simply says they don't care. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many of you are tolerating this precedent solely because you hate some nation which has left the planet.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1306697198' post='2720162'] Sigh... there's another one of Ramirus's lines. When was it you said you weren't one of his disciples? [/quote] On the contrary. I very clearly stated that I strongly supported many of his positions. Contrastingly, you may recall that I refused to be aggressive with TOP despite your actions and Ram's opinion. This was such an issue that I invited internal trials for treason. Luckily it never [i]officially[/i] came to war between GRE and TOP (despite [b]your and Ram's[/b] personal efforts). [quote name='SiCkO' timestamp='1306697349' post='2720166'] I'm pretty sure you aren't in any position to get anything more than a number of nations piled on you. If that constitutes as victory, I'm quite sure a number of people would be more than willing to oblige you. [/quote] I'm in a perfect position to have good discussions with old friends to understand their road-map and intent. I have no interest in power or war-victory (and in good measure, because I am unlikely to secure either). Above all this group calling themselves GRE is a community; I just take issue with their approach here. I will continue to discuss it with them. It would be a mistake for them to blind themselves to the [b]sum[/b] of their errors which led here; even though it is convenient and easy for them to blame Ram. They are intelligent enough to know this.