Hyperbad
-
Posts
1,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Hyperbad
-
-
[quote name='Puppet Master' date='09 February 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1265760437' post='2171470']
Yes because as we all know you can simply create an alliance and roll. One now days need a protectorate from a larger alliance to survive tech raiding and thats the very least of the troubles facing a new alliance.[/quote]
The difficulty in creating and leading an alliance is played up quite a bit. To create one is very easy in fact, all you need is an alliance affiliation. Growing into the type of alliance you had in mind can be problematic however, depending upon the theme chosen, developed atmosphere, and projected image. Protectorates are also relatively easy to come by. There's a number of alliances out there willing to sign whether out of the goodness of their hearts or more likely because it benefits them.
The most difficult part with forming and leading an alliance is in deciding what you want the alliance to be like while in the process of creating it. If you've been around for a while however chances are you'll have some idea as to what you want.
[quote]To get into leadership of an alliance that has been around for a while has already been addressed earlier by Matthew. Also we all follow at times and we all lead at times, currently I am following.[/quote]
That can certainly be difficult if an alliance doesn't have elections. If it does though you would be surprised how easy it is to get support for a campaign. You might not win off the bat but you would see what kind of support you and your policies have then can work from there. The bigger issue is with alliances that possess a structure which allows cronyism to thrive. Those alliances you likely won't make any headway thus are better off just leaving. -
You get tired of eating popcorn because you've eaten it so damn much.
-
[quote name='Puppet Master' date='09 February 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1265756347' post='2171351']
I am not against war, however I feel it must be fought for a good reason. As this war continues on with no end in sight, I would like to think that others will being to question why we are fighting this war and if those who got us into this mess deserve our undying loyalty. I would like to hear others thoughts on this matter, and your personal view of alliance leadership, either your own alliance or of all alliances as a whole.[/quote]
It can be a difficult thing to decide what to do when you're conflicted between loyalty and dedication to your alliance and a sincere belief that what they are preparing to do or already in the process of is contrary to the alliance's best interests. If I'm opposed to something my alliance is involved with or simply considered I'll openly state so and even flirt with the line going towards insubordination in my objections. That one becomes so adamant about their view I find is something to be embraced and not silenced. It shows genuine concern and care, that your heart truly is committed to the organization and its other members. I'll even state a dissenting opinion from any alliance I'm in on matters directly pertaining to us, regardless of what my government's view is. Why is this? It lets the whole of Bob know that we aren't mindless robots but we do have discussions with varying opinions being presented and are more then willing to admit decisions didn't come easy and we recognize there is the possibility what we're doing is wrong.
One first and foremost needs to make effort in finding the right home for them. To minimize clashes I tend to avoid alliances joined at the hip with others. I also avoid alliances with a different philosophical perspective from the one I wish to practice. Disagreements are inevitable. It's a rare thing for the circumstances surrounding events to be black and white in Bob thus one should not be rash and leave at the first sign of disagreement.
I have seen my fair share of incompetent or lazy leadership just as I have seen leadership which simply has made a mistake or bad decision once in a while. When the former two are most common in an alliance I'll attempt changes but if unsuccessful will simply leave on good terms. With the later I'll stay and give them the benefit of the doubt that they learned from it. I don't really care to get involved in alliance governments any more [OOC: Been there done that for far too long before CN] unless personally requested but by relevant discussion it remains possible for me to have some sort of influence on policy with the hope that maybe I at least presented a different perspective for government to consider when coming to a decision. -
[quote name='junkahoolik' date='09 February 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1265755913' post='2171340']
what you peps fail to notice is that if GRL wasn't capped it would result in no ground attacks not just bill lock for everybody
[/quote]
So you raise the cap to 25 or 40 instead of just removing it (unless people want a reset). -
[quote name='thaone' date='09 February 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1265752657' post='2171229']
The option I would choose isn't available.
I'll explain: Over the years I've gathered quite a lot of diplomatic masks at various alliances around the cyberverse.
So when leaving FOK for a temporary stint in STA, it never occurred to me to ask everywhere to de-mask me.
After a month or so I became interested in an old thread I and some other FOKkers discussed months prior in the Gremlins embassy. So I logged in there and checked the thread.
It wasn't really shocking, but it could have if FOK posted an important notification to their allies in there.
[/quote]
Similar; I could have though I didn't care enough and had/have no reason to. I stopped playing back in spring/summer of 2007 and when I returned in spring 2009 I found out I was still masked as a diplomat on some forums. Needless to say I laughed, [i]hard[/i]. -
Voted 60-65. I don't imagine it'll go much higher. Most of those involved have already been hit by nukes unless I'm mistaken. Really, I expect each global conflict of the sort to experience higher GRL then the last simply because more nations will have MPs.
[quote name='Heft' date='09 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1265741386' post='2170898']
Not like anyone is collecting taxes anyway (or at least not anything worth preserving). Might as well uncap it.
[/quote]
Wouldn't the lower citizen count impact how many soldiers one can train/buy though or is the daily cap fixed to base citizens? Must admit, I never really paid attention to that. -
[quote name='joracy' date='07 February 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1265583160' post='2167540']
But beside the fact TOP preemptively hit us, it's the same. Clearly; we are just as evil.
[/quote]
I prefer equally delusional. No one here is really evil. -
They might have struck first but the sentiments expressed aren't really anything different.
They might even say you're proving them right with all the talk going around about what a peace might be like or otherwise knocking them down. Other posters are right to say both sides are a bit paranoid and the only way to rid each other of worries is to show there's nothing to be afraid of, that you won't needlessly harm each other. Anything further is illogical except if you actually want to knock each other down and do harm to them. If you wanna just go at it then by all means. Just don't make like it will actually help the paranoia on either side. If anything it will probably just cause resentment and a desire for a rematch. -
Senate seats are pretty over rated any way. The only real use they have is the team message. There's too much of a taboo on using sanctions in war and if needed on a rogue it's generally easy to obtain one by diplomacy.
-
[quote name='Seoul' date='06 February 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1265508647' post='2165711']
I don't really know. Is it usually ok?
[/quote]
Raids are a sort of a hot topic but more so because of the organizing behind larger raids some have done. An individual nation raiding alone doesn't stir much up. If you don't want to get pulled into a lot of conflicts I would recommend an alliance withminimal treaty connections. A useful reference to check out treaty connections can be found [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=46911]here[/url] and one kept a bit more up to date [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Bob_Janova]here[/url].
I would also recommend looking at the wiki pages of those alliances you're curious about. For further information about them do a search on the forums for them. I would also recommend reading on the significant conflicts in the past as they can give you a brief history on the political landscape and how its evolved. It will probably be a bit overwhelming at first but take your time with it. -
[quote name='Seoul' date='06 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1265506315' post='2165649']
Ok. Maybe a little bit? I also don't know how to war with people.
[/quote]
What's your opinion on raids being conducted for land or tech? Some alliances expressly prohibit raiding by their members while others either simply allow it or encourage it by organizing larger one. -
[quote name='Seoul' date='06 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1265500615' post='2165387']
Well, I have a mom and dad, so I don't need people to care about me. Sorry Fizzy!
I want to join an alliance that can teach me how to grow my nation strong. It has nice friendly people to talk to also.
I don't want the alliance to be tiny, because then they are probably all like me and don't know anything.
[/quote]
Some of what will help in proposing alliances for you to look into is what your perspective on the use of war is. Do you wish to be involved a lot, little or not at all (if possible)? -
[quote name='The Thief' date='06 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1265499977' post='2165356']
Nope, you're probably thinking of five-year olds on speed. Not quite as bad.
[/quote]
ahhh, my mistake. -
[quote name='The Thief' date='06 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1265491946' post='2165145']
When world-changing decisions are made by five-year olds on meth.
[/quote]
I thought that was the case normally. -
[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='06 February 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1265443326' post='2163987']
It is absurdly hilarious, that we all THINK the same thing about situations when it is convenient for us to do so, and we all bemoan the SAME situations when it is in our best interest.[/quote]
You had my interest here then totally lost it after it seemed as though the content of your post wasn't going to follow your introduction. Rather the rest of your post appears to have degenerated into a rant against TOP rather then a self reflection followed by a request for others to do the same, which is what I expected. -
[quote name='D34th' date='06 February 2010 - 04:14 AM' timestamp='1265447647' post='2164102']
We honored ]all of our treaties with [b]both sides[/b], nobody can't claim that we are chosing an ally over another now, also we are defending GR and then canceling on them, you canceled on us and supported the winning side. You did what you did to save your infra, we did what we did because we care for what we believe not for our infra. See the difference? Principles =/= Cowardice
[/quote]
eh, your leadership agreed to a NAP of conveniece with TOP's leadership for the purpose of conducting this war and backed out of it in support of others. I'm not certain I'd say you honored all of your treaties unless you wish to say those officially announced in long winded prose are treaties and what was said isn't a treaty but a simple agreement. Semantics really doesn't matter here except in trying to rally people to a side with propaganda so we'll. Either way, no matter what you wish to call it, your word would have been broken. One can not deny NpO allowed itself to slip into a no win position and no matter what you would take some heat once Grub made that assurance.
It does come off a bit as something to boost relations with some of your closest allies, or at least keept them from deteriorating too much after recent events so as to maintain some degree of influence. That isn't to say it's the case but merely how it looks to outsiders due in large part to a lack of knowledge with regard to the discussions NpO membership and its leadership has had since the start of the conflict. It's become difficult to place the NpO with what exactly you believe, what principles you are upholding and why now if they were the same ones your leadership was prepared to toss aside before. It's things like this where I refuse to make any sort of definitive judgment because no matter what, unless one is a member with proper clearance we will never know exactly what reasons you have. I feel in large part alliance decisions are driven by a number of different considerations and any one claim will still have a void of information within it. -
[quote name='Nizzle' date='06 February 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1265436351' post='2163419']
So...which side is now the most underhanded?
I mean, just out of curiosity.
[/quote]
If only I had a digital camera I'd take a picture of some cards laid out as if the game War was played and war was caused by double sixes with the face up cards at the end of war again being double sixes. Alas, I opened my pack of cards (which I've had for a decade unopened) in vain. I have nothing with which to take the picture. I sure wish someone else would do it for me
I think the picture would speak well as to the general all situation. -
[quote name='Godwin' date='31 January 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1264975742' post='2148426']
Leeroy vs. the Dragon Whelps certainly has a nice ring to it.
[/quote]
That would work if it was just TOP but Pals4Life would be better, tried to organize it but it didn't go quite as planned or hoped. -
[quote name='CptGodzilla' date='31 January 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1264997054' post='2149494']
Or they will be lucky next time and get someone like me, who doesn't care about the general community and their faux moral standards.
[/quote]
I was responding to someone who presented just such a perspective as you. I merely pointed out other possibilities and what the potential consequences of such a perspective might be. I do concede the more likely outcome of the two presented thus far is what you propose. I'm sure there are many just as incapable as yourself of containing your emotions, your rage, and acting based upon objective reasoning. The most likely is that they'll be given terms no different then otherwise.
[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1264997592' post='2149521']
IT has been stated that part of the reasonign behind the term was that some feared Caffine had left Echelon simply to take heat off Echelon when terms negotiations came around. The fact that Caffine began inquiring about being able to be in gov the moment he rejoined Echelon is only proff that this was the case.[/quote]
It certainly proves his having an interest in being government. How does his expressed desire of wanting to jump right back into a government seat upon his return along with Caffine inquiring about the term in question prove that Echelon hasn't made an attempt to follow the term? It certainly allows for it to be a possibility but your entire argument right here is about Caffine and his actions and statements then the jump to Echelon making no effort. At the least to make it plausible (note that I haven commented to the effect they didn't break it prior to this) support the notion with something Echelon's government did to show it felt indifferent to the term before reaching (or stating) your conclusion.
[quote]Looky here, Caffine goes and spends a couple months in the Ronin Halfway House where he's magically reformed, tada, now he's back in Echelon and wants gov eventually, and kazam, here Echelon is saying they'll do just that.[/quote]
Yeah, this announcement is what, several months later and stating he'll have a minor seat some time in the near future? It certainly proves Echelon's intent never to follow the term up until now. There are far better arguments for your point posted in this thread you could use and I would be in agreement to a degree.
[quote]Silly. The body as a whole are surrender terms. No one talks about surrender term. It's a matter of jargon. The document as a whole is "surrender terms" and if one part of the document is violated then the whole thing is collectively trashed.[/quote]
Precisely why I was seeking the clarification, to see what kind of jargon you would be using here as the same way you and others phrase it the meaning could also be taken that there were more then one terms violated. The jargon can get confusing particularly with little to actually work with and put into context to figure out how you would differentiate the two. With such lacking I ask.
[quote]No it doesn't. The statement that "Caffine has been acting as gov in everythign but name, anyway" makes any argument about which of its titles Echelon defines as government or not, since they acknowledge that he has been government.
[/quote]
I've seen an RIA guy state that but I haven't seen anyone from Echelon say it. The RIA guy also said they knew about it and spoke with the other signatories to see if there were issues and they never brought it up with Echelon. Echelon apparently feels deputies aren't government members thus why would an advisor (something Caffine admitted to doing) be considered one? I'll check again later though to make sure I didn't miss an Echelon member say it. -
I don't know what's more hilarious. The bickering in this thread or that the term was actually used. Silly humans.
Yes this was a good move for internal affairs principle, bad in execution.
Yes this comes across as opportunist whether it was intended as such or not. This is being announced during the midset of a major war which has potential to escalate further where those who put the terms on you have their forces committed.
No, they should not have agreed to the term if they disagreed with it and should have negotiated for the lifting of the term.
Yes he could still be government in other alliances even if Echelon's surrender terms were kept.
Nothing was accomplished by it and nothing is accomplished now by people focusing on the terms and the method Echelon chose to be rid of it. Who ever is slighted and did the slighting may wish to contact each other in private to work it out.
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1264945125' post='2147468']
But you can't just say 'Well actually, we signed these terms but we don't believe in them any more'.[/quote]
Sure they can and the OP supports such a notion. The illogical thing though is doing something like this and expecting there to be no consequences.
[quote name='James I' date='31 January 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1264945446' post='2147472']
edit: By the way, you used your sovereignty to sign those terms, so don't use that argument. If you agreed to this for all eternity, then I guess you're bound to your decision.
[/quote]
While I don't disagree over their having used sovereignty to accept the terms willingly, they did by doing so surrender sovereignty and have now reclaimed it.
[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1264962105' post='2147929']
The manner in which this was done is indicative of Echelon's continued pre-Karma mentality even if Caffine has moved on.[/quote]
I'm not sure making a decision to reclaim by unilateral action ones own sovereignty previously signed away can be used as a sound basis for saying it's indicative of a pre-Karma mentality.
[quote name='Schattenmann' date='31 January 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1264975880' post='2148436']
Caffine hasn't even been in Echelon all that long. His AA seniority is 83 days, that's less than 3 months. The minute he rejoined Echelon, he started trying to join gov again--as he has admitted by saying he asked for the term to be rescinded "several months ago". Echelon has not even made an attempt to follow the terms. And that's why the term is necessary. Boom, Caffine waits til the coast is clear, then biggity-bam he's back in Echelon and he's back in gov being Caffine again.
[/quote]
Echelon not making an effort to follow the term of Caffine being barred from government would indeed be a good reason to keep it, but not a reason as to why it was necessary in the first place if that is your assertion (I don't believe it is but just to cover that base).
I also note you state terms as opposed to term and wish to ask (because I've seen others type the same) if that's a typo or there are other violations you wish to assert.
Lastly, Caffine trying to become government isn't the same as Echelon disobeying the terms. Rather it's an indicator that he wishes to be government and acknowledges a road block. The way you go about asserting Echelon hasn't made an attempt to follow terms is by saying he's government in all but name now and for however long. This becomes problematic because of the semantics involved. I'm sure you have seen just the same as I have what is considered government varies from person to person, organization to organization. To some one must have actual power. To others they merely need to be an advisor. To another group carrying out tasks for government would be considered it. A fourth group might consider anyone capable of voting for government officials or legislation to be government themselves. I'm sure there are other possible definitions and they're not all or even mostly out of a desire to "e-lawyer" things but out of experience with the usage of the term and sort of impressions those it's used on give. Thus it's pointless to argue and since no definition of the term was given by those issuing the terms then the meaning of what defines a government position is left entirely up to them to decide.
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1264988786' post='2148951']
Well, all I can say is that if I were at war with Echelon in future, I'd know that they wouldn't stick to their surrender terms and therefore I wouldn't give them any. [i]That[/i] is why you don't just decide that you're not going to stick to your terms; the next time you get rolled (and considering the personalities you're putting back at the top, it will be sooner rather than later) you might well not get any, because you can't be trusted to keep them.
[/quote]
Or they may get white peace because giving them terms is useless and PZI (or was it EZI) is something I hear is frowned upon by the general community.
Also, don't equate one term to all of their terms not being followed. As has been stated the others were. It was a very specific kind of term which is not being followed now. -
o/ RV
Burn the temples of Justitia to the ground.
Hush you, no one's touching my Great Temple
-
Having to outsource for help, eh?
Honestly, I just can't be bothered to sell down for a clown.
-
I grow curious. I've seen some comment on TOP being a bit paranoid that there were some actively seeking to destroy them and that they won't be pushing for an end any time soon and in fact wish for it to go on because of the manner in which this war was extended or launched. A question to those with such a perspective (as I readily acknowledge most if not all are rank and file members): would that not feed into their paranoia where as a "white peace" would put some nerves at ease and such an over reaction less likely to occur in the future? While TOP appears to have caused a self fullfilling prophecy the perspective presented by some individuals also appears to be self defeating. The result of this not only will heavily impact the politics for months to come more then it already has but also the mindset the different alliances and individuals feel and express. That kind of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me.
-
Since I posted it in the previous thread I'll post it here for good measure (though your refusal to carry over nominations doesn't make sense to me) much as I doubt it'll get any votes, I doubt many others will: Pwnani War
Flag Creation
in Player Created Alliances
Posted
What about a good previewer; any recommendations?