Hyperbad

When the stat collectors just give up. [quote name='Locke' date='21 February 2010 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1266768761' post='2195075'] Umm...unless it kills all money, you'll have no bills to pay in the first place so you can't be bill locked. [/quote] If I recall correctly (probably not it's been years since I've seen it mentioned and that was when it was first used) you get a screen saying you were admin bombed, the damage and can't do anything for your nation.

The use of the term has evolved from when it was first injected into the game's politics where it meant a mutual withdrawl from conflict without either side requiring concessions of the other or making any themselves. At present it's seen more wide spread usage as a term meaning no material concessions as a requisite for peace but that other types of concessions may still be required or asked of another party. Types of non-material concessions include but are by no means limited to a party agreeing to not re-enter a conflict; not to aid a party in said conflict and to decommission military for a given amount of time. Interestingly enough it has not yet applied to a case where two engaged parties both make some concessions and I suspect that's due to the way in which the game mechanics operate when at war. What we have here is simply an evolution of language in a political setting due to a desire to push a certain image by using the aura a phrase gives off or simply using it because of the impression those making decisions get of the term when they see it. It is possible the phrase is read as simply peace being made available with rather modest or innocent terms instead of the more draconian (dark) types of terms but that's just speculation.

[quote name='Organic' date='17 February 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1266388032' post='2187209'] Ah, the United Mahouts of Epicaricacy. I remember them from the CE raid. UTOPOS is dead. Anyways, always take basic precautions when playing games, especially ones as intense as this. Use newly generated e-mails, completely random [b]passwords saved either in your browser[/b] or in a text file somewhere, use nonsense answers to security questions, etc. [/quote] Re: bolded If you're saying what I think you are, absolutely not. Clear out your cookies, temporary files and what ever else every time you sign off and right after you visit and log into important websites like your bank. Spyware and other such programs can be found on a wide variety of websites right down to shopping markets or social sites and while they won't likely target your gaming accounts there are some programs running around that will hijack e-mails (at the least) from their original owners to send spam out to others. Thus far the program targets only a few websites with free e-mails but it's still relatively new. In the event people use laptops, I would also advise against them saving them in a text file in case someone steals or otherwise finds your laptop should you lose it. Last thing you would want is someone getting access to all of that personal banking information and anything reporting important like that.

That's akin to skipping the arraignment and going right before the grand jury to decide guilt or innocence, not going to reference such as a codified book of law. At the time certainly there was a lot of assumption on their part and that hasn't changed. However, if it's being truthfully relayed in the thread Neverender posted by those he had an "on the level" chat with then their previous assumption was correct: C&G would have gotten involved if CC jumped in for NSO against GOD thus making the whole uproar over the CB moot. They were caught off guard when they were going to roll. Cops assumes an entity outside of the fray with an impartial view coming through to handle the situation and restore order. Rather what we have here is Londo and Archon attempting street justice and in the process both sides receiving far more wounds then necessary. Street justice by the very term and what it means is contrary to any form of legitimacy so far as we've been speaking. Now, don't mistake me, I'm not saying they can't do this or don't have the right to. Everyone has the right to do whatever nad all that jazz. What I'm saying is that in doing it, the claims made about the other sides psychology have now become apparent in themselves with claims they're doing it different but really, right now, it's not. There comes a point where when the aggressor wishes to stop, wishes to end their act of aggression but what were the defenders say no, we're not going to let you go. That's when the roles get switched and now since C&G wishes to keep CC in the war after they showed a desire for peace, C&G and their friends have become the aggressors in this conflict. NpO was a wilcard, through. TOP and IRON weren't sure what stance would the Order take in case of global war between them and CnG. The war between NpO and \m/ led them to think that they could attack CnG and the NpO would back them up. I didn't fail to notice anything. I was summing up what's been happening in a real life sense since the initial set of conflicts began with regards to the controversy over the still ongoing war between CC + C&G. None of what the war was originally about that has any sort of impact on what kind of illegal act this would be classified as in the real world - the topic of our debate. However, because you wish to bring it up, the second line of yours just goes to show that the other side suffers from the same sort of paranoia. If they felt so threatened one would think they would have manufactured an event or at the least take such an action before. There certainly has been occasions where a war between the two sides would have occurred, specifically with TOP lined up against C&G. An example of the paranoia the C&G side experiences there are a number of posts throughout this forum by a number of individuals (though by no means the majority) where they consider TOP's actions in the Karma war of no nuclear war as something set directly at harming C&G that they may have a better post war position. Just like with TOP's reaction, there probably is some sort of legitimacy behind the view but if their intention was to tear down C&G there have been many more opportunitiest until now. That isn't to mention you're picking and choosing only a single one of their reasons for war as if there couldn't be more then one. They named more then that in their DoW. The picking and choosing reasons is just another example of paranoia. C&G and their friends aren't looking at the reason for this falling out nor are they looking to fix it but are acting out of their own paranoia now. What's there to feel pity for or sympathy with? I can understand how both sides feel but I'm not going to root for either side and say they're perfect when they're not. Both sides screwed up, bad. Both sides are paying for it. One side has expressed a desire for this to end and the other hasn't. If it was ended, only then could we see if it could be avoided again or if the feelings for both sides would remain. I don't doubt they were trying to stop the war from escalating and it's unfortunate that such news never reached TOP, IRON and the rest of CC. I find it disingenious to blame them for wishing to escalate it though as everything up until that point certainly looked as if the war was going to last and peace wasn't attainable. By the alliances originally involved's own testament provided in these very forums, even peace came about suddenly. Without TOP and IRON being notified of the talks even taking place let alone that a settlement was being reached, I don't see it as very reasonable saying they had an inherent desire for it to become larger but I suppose that's something we have to leave to them to explain.

Oh, you didn't. I did indeed have an idea as to what you meant but your picking a metaphor which simply doesn't work (ie. didn't have anything to do with this presently conflict) had me wishing to confirm or correct it prior to responding in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding due to your apparent lack of ability to state your thoughts with clarity. For an act to be illegal there must be a legitimate reference with which one can be prosecuted for. Nothing of the sort exists in the world of Bob and thus the principle you claim to be stating (ie. engaging in an illegal act) doesn't quite work here. That isn't even commenting on the many different illegal acts in real life do hold punishments which vary widely. Some situations which differ in only details also come up where that small difference no longer makes it an illegal act. Hence the importance and usefulness in using situations which match up not only in principle but in the type of situation and act themselves. That new comparison - murder - also falls short for it implies killing C&G was their intent. I've seen nothing suggesting a desire to dissolve C&G, its member alliances nor anything of the sort. Rather what we have is one great big melee; basically a gang assault. They wanted to help their old friend Ivan but saw Archon, Londo and their buddies in the C&G gang just down the block watching their friend, who also was in the gang. Knowing that they're watching and how they've traditionally rolled together Crymson and his friends in the CC gang decide to walk right up to Archon then swing one across the face and kicking Londo in the stomach. Understandably they're bewildered, they couldn't believe someone had the stomach to bring it to them and with the adrenaline rushing they just want blood. They knew they would have gotten involved if Cymson tried to get their buddy off Ivan but can't believe they wouldn't follow the norm. The norm is obviously would have (based on how they got involved) led to your opposing gang getting jumped from behind by you while they tried to help Ivan up. Those who started the fighting peaced out and went their separate ways. We have TOP/IRON now willing to go their separate ways with C&G but the later want to continue the fight, making more of it then it needs to be. Now it's become a feud without cause that couldn't be settled. Soon as the finger starts pointing to the moon and not mars.

When it comes to how the two entites were stacked up C&G members would be joining against them, thus in this war you were a threat. If you wish to take it out of context of this conflict and then use it as justification for continuing this war against TOP to eliminate them, you've now gone full circle where you should be able to understand TOP's motives outside of this war if those sentiments were present enough to cloud their judgement in this war. Essentially you'll be doing the same as them at its core - engaging in conflict to eliminate a perceived threat. The threat to you could very well be argued as limited to this war or others where you two are lined up against each other by matter of how the chips fall. That peace was offered at all by TOP blatantly runs counter to your claims and makes you appear about as paranoid as you claim they are no matter what you think of their motives for it. There's plenty of answers to that question but obviously none of them will be satisfactory to you or anyone else when all that's wished for is blood due to your own paranoia rather then an understanding and moving beyond these regretful circumstances. I called you on a situational comparison which doesn't compare and you go on to make a joke out of it and refuse a serious response as to what exactly you wished to convey. I'm more then willing to discuss events based on their merits but for you to cop out in such a way is quite simply ironic.

They were going to join the war in support of their allies and those they were in agreement with. In the planning stages determined weakening those lined up against them should get involved to be the better way to go about it. Peace was declared shortly there after with those initially involved unbeknownst to those who joined just a bit earlier that night. How isn't an "oops, my bad" scenario?

The closest thing to robbery in this game is a tech raid. It doesn't make sense how this war or how it started could be construed as one. If you're going to make a poor attempt at real life comparisons please at least spell out where the similarities lay.

With regards to the present situation I think you summed it Bob, though it probably could have been phrased a bit differently. It's most unfortunate that some people are picking and choosing your words in replying rather then understanding everything in this entry and the context with which everything occurred under. Everyone is jumping to conclusions based on their personal beliefs, thoughts or assumption are or were and disregard what anyone else's are or were. They also like to bring out only one of the two stated reasons for TOP/IRON/etc. declaring because of their own emotional state because they feel wronged. Nobody here is saying that they aren't wrong; quite the contrary they were. However, it's been widely recognized as a mistake as a mixture of poor strategy and out of poor communication. Both sides have done it wrong.

[quote name='helstrm' date='15 February 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1266284278' post='2183866'] The part that sucks about this is the authorities will not do anything unless the hackers actually use the information they gained and cause financial issues or obtain credit ect.. There are so many hackers out there that the authorities only get involved if there is a substantial financial loss.[/quote] Even then, most authorities have their hands tied due to issues regarding jurisdiction. My recommendation is to not go to local authorities but contact a federal organization or bureau in regards to the crimes and see if there's anything they can prosecute on that level. That your only way of really getting anything done. Local authorities have much more limited means and if the person resides outside of city or state lines they can only ask for assistance in the investigation from those in the area. Such assistance isn't required or even likely. Also you go federal first because once you make a report, you can't make a duplicate, no matter with what agency. If it's international, then nothing will be achieved. It'll just die with who ever you report it to. [quote name='helstrm' date='15 February 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1266285197' post='2183917'] If you passwords were not the same it is more likely that your e-mail account was compromised. With that the hacker could have submitted all the forgotten password requests they needed. I actually use a separate gmail account for gaming and online forum registrations. Then another for RL accounts. [/quote] They could have also used certain other (rather easy) methods of obtaining the information beside forgotten password or password guessing. One doesn't need their e-mail account to do so but yes, it is probable they simply did forgotten password. I doubt they otherwise would have known about his membership to the number of other sites unless he advertised it some how. Still, with the amount of information available to us over the internet, one could probably do forgotten password based off real life information you got through surfing. That's why my answers to those questions never actually matches what the question is asking. An example being if it asks what high school I went to I'll put down Muro 128. It being random increases the possible answers exponentially.

The clarification that no terms have been discussed and clarification of your perspective is understandable given the false hoods, assumptions, and misreading of member sentiment as reflective of leadership. I'm sure it's appreciated that it's finally been giving an initial thread of its own instead of being lost in the middle of mega threads elsewhere where it likely wouldn't even be glanced at. However, it feels as though neither side in this dispute is really trying to understand the other and like C&G is becoming paranoid (if they weren't already) of their opponents. When one party reads the other side's commentary I see one often refer to their own insider knowledge. The other side doesn't have that benefit, hence everyone seeing themselves in this present position. I don't really know what either side expects of open and honest talks here or in private. It seems very much like everyone made up their minds even before this war and this war simply is acting as evidence to both sides on why they're right. I don't honestly think there is anything either side can do to make the other understand how they feel. The only way that relations may be mended is quite probably by simply putting this behind you all and working on the lack of communication to avoid such issues down the road but no one seems willing or able to make that little bit of effort. Then again maybe some do but they simply lack a support base for making it on a wider scale. Either way, I'm happy I'm not an involved party here simply because of the thick headedness all around.

What about a good previewer; any recommendations?

Is there going to be a test on this? Good stuff, would read again.

[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.

There's a difference between believing yourself to have a debt (the question of this blog) and being unwilling to assist when it's believed to be necessary or just where possible.

[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.