Hyperbad
-
Posts
1,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Hyperbad
-
-
They do own the land...
They own some of it. Another building next to the address most in the headlines is a Con Edison building with a lease extending into the decades (I forget, 70 or 90 year lease) with the option for buying the premises. The purchase of land from Con Edison would have to pass a state board review (IIRC) in order to finally go through. I don't believe there's much doubt that they'll be able to purchase it but there's a small group lobbying to block it so the community center as presently planned doesn't get completed.
-
So long as you don't give her a toothbrush you should be okay.
-
Does this have a point besides you saying middle names?
I think it's a list of sucky middles names that presidents have had. List should be longer.
-
Again?
-
April 7th? Newb.
I'm the 10th oldest nation in the game.
Old people, they never stay in bed like they're supposed to
-
The Greatest Generation with my first nation which was active until Jan 1 2007.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showuser=1872
Joined 7-April 06
Generation Pacifica/Pax Pacifica with my second nation.
Generation Vox with this one.
-
Man, for what I saw and unless I'm highly mistaken you and your gov turned a simple problem who could be fixed in 3 minutes in a mess. I had found myself in the same Rush Sykes position and it would be solved in the first query, after the nation who got scammed informs you about the problem it's your responsibility fix the matter as fast as possible and one of the reasons of the proof doesn't exist anymore is because you failed to do it.
I disagree with the notion that an alliance should by default pay out for any claim made about tech scamming against any member. The alliance with the accused in my opinion holds no responsibility to fix anything unless evidence of a problem actually existing can and is presented. They lay the claim, now prove or provide evidence for the deal going sour.
Thus, you're saying that FAR members can get away with scamming people as long as they delay by enough such that the transactions clear. All that's needed is for them to say that they didn't do it.
Sounds to me he was just saying so long as it can be properly investigated (hence his complaints about the tech being a month old) then he's willing to work with you. If however it's impossible for him to conduct it due to age and deletion then he doesn't see how one could reasonably expect him to make a decision in the accusers favor. The end effect might be that tech may not be sent but that's because he doesn't see anything to support the claim being made. It's a reasonable position to take even if he hasn't been phrasing it in such a manner. The only reason IMO for this particular mess tech should be paid - despite my believing Rush - is because Panda looked into it earlier and came to the conclusion it was owed. Fernando should have confered with Panda before making the decision. Had Panda not looked into it though then Fernando's decision is the proper one.
You could, alternatively, step back and realize how absurd it would be for the MoFA of Athens to randomly pick a nation in FAR and accuse him of being a scammer just for !@#$% and giggles. You also could try to be more polite when you're dealing with a situation like that. Even if you didn't believe Rush, you come off as a jerk.More absurd things have happened. Additionally the fact it might be absurd doesn't remove the possibility for mistakes to occur or scams to occur by the person making the accusation or for such an open policy of giving tech out to any one who lays unsupported claim could encourage those who might scam in such a manner. I can think of a number of ways in which someone who claims to be a buyer might do so. Frankly, I don't see why one should assume a position of guilt by the seller when it comes to this.
-
I wish to add to "IMO sellers as well as buyers should really be saving proof of their transactions in this game." that it's far easier to provide evidence for a positive and not possible to prove a negative, though taking screens every 5 days of your aid screen could remove doubt unless they cry it was shopped out.
Ultimately it was nothing more than a number of mistakes by yourself and FAR's government. It's nothing to lose sleep over. I do believe that taking anyone's word is a bad idea and someone should look into it just to see if either or both stories are plausible.
-
It's really a tough break. Both sides could have handled it better. You really should have taken screens of the aid and unread messages prior to bringing it to their attention and with any others sent after. Panda should have done some preliminary investigative work before sending the message out to the would-be seller in the event any aid offers were deleted as a result of receiving the message. Fernando also should have conferred with Panda if he didn't. Great ignoring or merely not responding to Panda's message (if what you say is true) should certainly work against him.
Really, it could have gone more smoothly and if all Fernando did is ask "did you send tech" and "are you sure?" then there probably wasn't enough questioning.
IMO sellers as well as buyers should really be saving proof of their transactions in this game.
-
Yes, you did. That part was really only in passing though.
-
FreddieMercury, I think you would have like AstroNest then. It had the Space Empires ship design sort of customization. It also had a unique take on the end round thing. The top 10 players could start a project at any time. Once started I forget how the end of the round was determined but the rest of the game could decide whether to fight with the top 10 players or fight against them. If you knock them down (was it one or five of the top 10?) then the project is stopped. So it really left the end of the round up to the players. The revival project is titled Neo AstroNest. Unfortunately it doesn't look like it will go anywhere though as it's been years since the website popped up.
With CN I think some declining community interest will occur over the next several years especially as it ages if nothing new is done but the biggest risk to the game is if something occurs in admin's life requiring his attention to be focused elsewhere. There will be a time however when comunity interest could become barely existant if nothing new is done. That simply has to do with age, been there done that and others innovating where admin stopped.
-
You must get bored easy.
It wasn't so much a question of whether I was bored or not as seeking to find elements in games that I hadn't seen before. Others were just to see what the spin offs were like.
It's a pity Earth 2025 is dying out.It's actually dead. Jolt shut it down and might shut Utopia down. NukeZone was one spin off from that game and Mars2025 is another.
-
I think the question here is how many nominations may one make?
-
It should have been added as a RL event in the Zombie Survival Guide
-
Because you didn't list a proper protector, IRC server or colour sphere. It also didn't look particularly professional. Some raiders asked you to tell them if you were protected, you answered in a roundabout way and people called you out for it.
This happens whenever someone makes an announcement like yours. However, most of the micro alliances around at the moment are more professional in their DoEs. Perhaps threads like yours helped them
Basically this; you didn't conform to the norms of how other players think you should do it. On the other hand the more recent attempts made by others had a little more effort at appeasing their concept of what’s professional.
-
You got me. I thought thottbot.
-
Hyperbad, the issue though is finding someone that both parties trust and is indifferent to the situation. On a personal note, I'd trust Tyga to mediate any dispute between Silence and another alliance, but I very much doubt everyone agrees with me (as lovable as he is).
As for whether people can be in an alliance and be able to not be influenced by any bias towards that alliance, they do exist. Just requires a certain mindset, to be able to step back and detach yourself from your alliance (if that makes sense).
Finding someone both parties trust is the easy part. it's the indifference or their being objective enough. If necessary you can always get two people both parties trust whose bias is only slight but going in the opposite direction and resulting on their better use of rationale to come to a settlement.
-
You're better off just finding someone both parties trust and appears indifferent to the situation. Not all would find the same people trustworthy, respectable and dependable so an official label just wouldn't work. It's best done on a case by case basis as the involved parties feel necessary.
-
What you said is certainly true- but by not having restrictions TOP can stay fully militarised if they want to- or they can go back to a peace time level. It's their choice and it reduces the restrictions on their sovereignty.
Indeed but I was responding to the comment of demilitarization in terms being a step back. While its use has traditionally been that of a punishment the effect can easily make it a benevolent act if the intent were to differ. I see it as possible means for stepping forward; moving beyond punitive terms and helping to heal wounds by encouraging the rebuilding of nations. If mandated as a requirement then it would be counter productive for it would look as a violation of sovereignty. If demilitarization were optional then it would be looked upon more highly. Still, even if required, its benefits are not lost and terms which help the defeated rebuild no matter what the actual intent is are by far more preferable then those which actually cause harm.
-
Independent Republic of Orange Nations - I haven't dealt with IRON since DarkMistress was handling their foreign affairs.
While I found her pleasant to deal with, the truth is that I didn't believe a damn word coming out of her mouth. It was all weasel-words and platitudes, which are completely lost on someone like me. Give me the straight goods or don't say anything at all.
I think my perception of IRON underwent its greatest change the moment they signed up for the Continuum. After that, I simply thought of them as yet another alliance that had decided to kowtow to the NPO. I never had any reason to change that opinion, and I know I'm not the only one who subscribed to it.
That's because at start, they were kowtowing to the NPO. The debates amongst membership about whether they should start signing MDPs rested on the fear the members had of being rolled next. The members (and some council members at the time) felt buddying up with the NPO would protect them from such a fate. There were however a small minority which felt a genuine affection for the NPO. After the treaty was signed the relationship, the intention might have evolved into something else (remember, that was years ago I'm talking). It's logical to deduce that the more time you spend together and closer you work together either you're repelled or attracted. I'm not sure IRON ever had a full grasp of what the NPO was about early on either.
-
Military restrictions are embarrassing. Unless you feel there is a chance that they will turn around and attack you- there is little point in imposing them.
Maybe, but that doesn't remove the benefit for those receiving the term particularly with the length of time some terms of surrender remained in effect. If terms lasted only a month then there's an argument demilitarization might be more costly then remaining militarized, based upon the cost to rebuy all of it minus the difference in bills. Over a prolonged period of time however they're desirable for the losing party.
-
The original terms had no demilitarization in them. This was an attempt to distract people from the fact that their offer is about 1/3rd of the original terms presented to them.
I personally agree with not having demilitarization terms. So these terms are a step backwards in more ways than one. Instead of coming up with a reasonable counter offer they give us this crap.
It's actually in an alliance's best interests to have demilitarization. Lower bills from a lack of military and uninterrupted growth for members that would otherwise fight tech raiders or rogues means more money put into rebuilding. The harshest terms one can place on another is full military being mandatory but that just puts them in a position where they could concievably do a lot of damage in a first strike if they wish to go full suicide mode.
Between terms involving demilitarization and those without, I'd take the former and try to extend it as long as reasonably practical. Depending on other terms you could even still import tech thus improving your capacity to wage war when ever you remilitarize.
Because letting them buy it entirely through tech sellers doesn't punish them at all? Cash is nothing, I'm sure TOP would agree to reps of 20B in a heartbeat, cause realistically it would be super easy for them to pay off. Tech is where it hurts them.
(And for all you paranoid $%&@ers out there, I just pulled the 20B out of a god damn hat to illustrate a point, please don't start debating it)
What about provisions prohibiting importing of tech to member nations while allowing them to act as buyers for C&G? It would keep them leveled while allowing C&G to catch up. Its effects might be less then if it were TOP's own tech but do you think it might be acceptable to either party as a compromise?
-
I’m curious as to how exactly these figures were drawn up. I’ve seen a number of attempts at explanation but by no one that I personally recognize as a government member but my knowledge there is dated. It could conceivably help the case for these kinds of terms if some insight was provided to the general public.
That aside, I’m seeing a number of different arguments presented by either side, some employing semantics and others searching up old wars that the victors were in to conduct comparisons. The argument I see as being most disingenuous is where if those being offered these terms reject them and proceed to fight a prolonged conflict akin to VietFan that their technology would be reduced to a point where they no longer do damage as they originally did. Meanwhile they would be incapable of growing despite the apparent victors being capable of such, albeit more slowly then if at peace. While it’s true the issue with this argument is how short sighted it is. The focus is on the one group you’re presently in conflict with without consideration that others will grow while you’re hampered and the politics could begin to unfold as old or new differences crack open into fissures. A concerted effort could of course conceivably offset this trend of tugging every which way. What will happen though if this moral outrage by a number of parties were to materialize into a trend? What kind of treatment would be received or expected if such a policy were followed and you were finally among the vanquished? How would you expect or wish others to read your words and actions? Based on Bob’s history now, how do you think they will?
There’s a trend in Bob of looking back at actions and words then doing comparisons and judging based on hindsight. The momentary views of events are typically different from that which is held when viewing in hindsight. A dilemma arises when you’re going against the grain, Bob’s new found moral compass, by increasing the volume of reparations to new heights. The treaty web certainly is structured to be in the assumed victor’s favor but we’ve seen lines in the web snap under pressure before. What is there to assure that your view of these terms being acceptable will be shared by others down the road and is that a risk worth taking?
While one may receive some sort of satisfaction out of damaging terms being issued to their opponent it can do a great disservice despite any advantage to your statistics it may give. Those numbers may incite rage down the road or be viewed at as simply being understandable and in a case of the former it would only serve to delay the inevitable.
-
Yes, it is most probable the majority would be of the same cost as market value, simply because that's what they paid for it. They do have the potential to use those lowest in tech for the cheap tech in order to save billions, assuming a time frame with some leeway.
Questions: Dealing With Bullies
in Thoughts of a Prince
A blog by Prince Imrahil in General
Posted
Bullied from 3rd grade into highschool at first I resisted and fought back. My father and sisters also used to tease me a lot so by around 7th grade though I just grew exhausted from always having to defend myself and withdrew myself. I started to ignore every one and at first it was difficult, particularly in 8th grade. In highschool it was easier and I gained some confidence in my superiority over them. At that point I stopped responding because I wasn't going to play their game. At this point some lost interest in bullying me, it just wasn't "fun" to them because I wouldn't respond like other kids were. On the other hand, some were afraid I was going to either go on a shooting rampage or blow up the school and possessed a list of those I wanted to do away with thus treated me well or with indifference solely because of that. I always found this whole thing to be rather amusing myself.
That isn't to say it was easy. I was an emotional/psychological wreck for years after highschool to the point of doing and trying some things I deeply regret. Since some people who took part in it I atually considered friends at one point it made it very difficult for me to develop a bond with anyone or simply socialize and from this angle still has some kind of impact on how I interact with others. If you would have asked this question years ago I could have given a case study of myself as I sat in contemplation often trying to figure myself out.