Jump to content

Poyplemonkeys

Members
  • Content Count

    1,708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Poyplemonkeys

  • Rank
    I got no strings...

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Poyplonia
  • Alliance Name
    None
  • Resource 1
    Rubber
  • Resource 2
    Marble

Recent Profile Visitors

482 profile views
  1. We didn't underestimate PC's fighting ability, in fact it appears we overestimated that Simply underestimated the lengths to which they would go in order to escape the beat down they've been receiving.
  2. You want an alliance to disband? Make them. Would love to see some people try and force some of alliances with less than 50 members to disband. Good luck with that. D34th is particularly amusing because he appears to have included an alliance with less than 50 members in his original list before stating that all alliances that small should die
  3. Let's have a look at some of the facts involved in and around the war declared on Polaris by Viridian Entente. (1) Lennox holds a grudge against Polaris due to the way events transpired during the BiPolar war. (2) Lennox approaches a member of Polaris that he knew saw him as a close friend, and could thus easily be led into trusting him. (3) Lennox joins VE and is waived through the academy process because Impero knew it was Lennox, as evidenced by the logs used in the DoW. (4) Screen shots are then sent by Lennox, to Dajaboo, that do not work. Dajaboo says that they do not work, but at no point in the logs provided actually requests that they are re-uploaded to an alternative hosting site. (5) Within the space of a single day Lennox does a complete 180 and instead of wanting to spy on someone, he comes over all moralist and turns himself, and Dajaboo, into VE in the process. All of these facts were available to Impero before he declared war on Polaris. I believe that nobody in possession of this set of facts could logically come to any conclusion other than this was a deliberate attempt by Lennox to draw Polaris into a war due to his long held issues with them unless they are either mistakenly, or deliberately, being incredibly obtuse. So no I'm not claiming this was a set up by Viridian Entente, the way things happened makes that highly illogical and unlikely, but rather a setup by Lennox, a rather obvious one too, and Viridian Entente must have known this was the case. Can you blame them for rolling an alliance they and their friends have a long held distaste for, given this opportunity even knowing it's a set up by a third party? It's a long held precedent in this Cyberverse that alliances pay for the mistakes of their leaders, and there can be no denying Dajaboo made mistakes more than once along the line, whether maliciously or otherwise. To go further along that line would involve moving away from facts and into the realms of he said, VE said (he said: I thought it was a joke, VE said: you told him to spy on us), which I don't intend to do. I'll leave the arguments for just or unjust to to many ongoing threads about the war. Just wanted to explain why it's my belief that either Viridian Entente is incredibly dense, or they proceded with this war knowing Polaris was set up by Lennox. So to answer the original question, I guess Viridian Entente was a bit peckish, but it was Lennox who truly had the appetite. If you believe any of the 5 things stated above are incorrect for whatever reason let me know... If there are solid facts that didn't come to light in the DoW please also let me know.
  4. Bring it pipsqueak. I promise I'll write a wall next time for you Proportional in size to the number of tech sellers you find me ofc.
  5. I sent one GOON money and he deleted 20 days later God damn noobs
  6. Poyplemonkeys

    Tech Dealing

    I'm finding tech deals fairly difficult to come by for various reasons, including a bit of laziness. Someone sell me tech you $%&@s
  7. Hey go easy on me and try to ignore the horrible writing style and concentrate on the horrible things I'm saying instead. I'm not like Doitzel/Schatt/Archon who can actually write, make sense and ensure people enjoy reading it regardless of content. That's why this is my first attempt, I've tried to avoid inflicting this upon you until now This is something that has reared its head in recent times due to the NEW situation that’s going on. Now I’ve seen people write things like these, avoiding mentioning specific names, in the hopes that they can inspire objective debate on the subject at hand, but it always devolves into debating the current situation that has inspired the question so I’m not even going to try. I’m talking about this because of NEW, PC, iFOK and whoever else is involved by now. The main thing I’ve been thinking about is the ‘e-lawyering’ that goes on regarding which clause people are using to enter a war, specifically whether you consider the war as a whole, or each individual front when judging whether your declaration would fall under the ‘aggression’ clause or the ‘defence’ clause of your treaty. Personally I believe, and I also think that precedent supports this opinion, that each front should be taken as a separate entity. It seems to me that this being how things were widely regarded in the Cyberverse was the main motivation behind the large number of ‘non-chaining’ clauses in treaties today. The way the vast majority of the optional aggression clauses that I’ve come across are written states that the alliances have the choice to join the treaty partner in an aggressive war that they declare, joining onto the war declaration basically. This seems to fall down when no war is declared by the ‘aggressive’ alliance such as when alliances join in on the other, defensive , side of the war. To tie this back to the current situation, NEW launched an undeclared and aggressive war against the remnants of DF (henceforth known as DF for ease) and it is quite clear that on the NEW/DF front anyone joining the war would be using the optional aggression clause. Again on the other side it’s quite clear that INT and TPE have entered in defence of DF in declaring war on NEW. Due to the non-chaining clauses iFOK and PC have no obligation to defend NEW and I doubt many people will claim they do, however I’ve seen several people defending their decision by saying the treaty calls for optional aggression and they have chosen not to activate that clause. This implies that NEW are in an aggressive war against anyone defending DF which simply doesn’t hold any water for me. You can declare a war on NEW by activating a defensive clause, you can declare a war on NEW because they were the original aggressors, but you are declaring war against them, it is a defensive front as far as NEW are concerned. This is the exact situation the non-chaining clauses are written for, to ensure you’re not obligated to go to war in situations like this and, as stated above, the majority, if not all, optional aggression clauses in treaties I’ve seen don’t legislate for when an alliance isn’t actually declaring a war. You don’t have people later in the war, five or six fronts removed from the original declaration, activating their optional aggression clauses to come to the defence of their ally who chained in to defend their ally against someone who chained in to defend their ally against someone who…. You get the point. Would things be different if PC and iFOK were one front removed from the main war? If NEW and FEAR were in reversed situations would they be saying they weren’t activating their optional aggression clause against ODN because they would be on the same ‘side’ as the original aggressors even if it was ODN declaring war? The only way I can envisage that working would be to see the ‘sides’ of a war as a single entity. NEW were the original aggressors, regardless of the situation anyone declaring on that side of the war is declaring an aggressive war and anyone declaring on the other side is declaring a defensive war. Difficult though because you’re still going to have to break it down to individual alliances rather than declaring war against a ‘side’ otherwise you’ve hundreds of broken NAPs/NA clauses littered about the place. $%&@ this !@#$, my writing is a mess and so this is incredibly difficult to follow no doubt. Unless treaty activations are based on individual fronts I’m of the opinion we will end up with !@#$%* micro wars going forwards, restrained to only a few fronts, and that’s as good a reason as any to avoid it right? Besides, the treaty web is way more likely to explode this way, and everyone has the option to do whatever they like “obligated” via treaty or not. PS: Poison Clan needs better treaty writers (I enjoy the irony of my criticising someone's writing after this mess as much as you no doubt will), obviously the spirit of the treaty is what matters and so the non-chaining clause would apply, but it was written stupidly and this is the 2nd time PC have broken a treaty on a technicality because they were written inadequately.
  8. and the one time I've had to request peace for a nation once they joined the applicant AA of my alliance at the time it was rejected. Flow chart needs a bullet point saying that some or all stages are dependent on how much GOONS likes you
  9. Yes that one. Sorry we're not privy to all of your private conversations pal.
  10. I loved the standard survivor the most of all of them, although the special ones coinciding with real life events are great too but alone. Particularly enjoyed the one with qualifiers beforehand as it gave many more alliances a chance to enjoy the ASR.
  11. I accidentally clicked your profile and it always intrigues me when people visit my profile for seemingly no reason, so I decided to save you some intrigue and pretend I visited your profile to declare my love for you.

    Yeeaaah.. sooo... how's tricks?

  12. What the deuce?

    Also,

  13. I highly doubt there's anyone truly neutral out there that could take on such a position without imposing their bias on the negotiations. Either through their alliance affiliation and wanting to see their allies or friends come out on top or through personal bias. Everyone out there has an opinion on whether reparations are deserved, or acceptable in various situations. For example could you trust someone who doesn't believe in taking reparations from an aggressive war not to be biased in the discussions, no matter what their relation to the alliances in question are? The only way around that, that I can see, would be to have a panel of people from different backgrounds in the game to work together on finding a solution. Yet while that might be effective in producing less biased decisions, they would be extremely hard to enforce. It's a nice idea but I can't see it ever being effective in the Cyberverse.
  14. How are you buddy? juust passing through :)

×
×
  • Create New...