Hyperbad
-
Posts
1,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Hyperbad
-
-
5k tech at 100 tech for 3 mil is $150,000,000. Also, my alliance gave an estimate based off of damages received and what we came up with was not set in stone, as I told quite a few people. Perhaps people should wait until the talks are done before you throw a hissy fit.
I'm sorry, you're right. I'll adjust the post accordingly.
-
You've put your decimal in the wrong place, methinks.
Nope, it's actually in the trillions for value. Remember, in total we're talking over 600,000 tech. As a reference to, I edited the post you quoted. In double checking after the other posted commented I did the math wrong in my head. I got IRON's stuff correctly.
-
Uh, you might want to take a look at that math again.
Note, the monetary figures is the market value of the tech at 3mil/100, not how much it costs to buy tech. Though it is important to note that a significant amount if not the majority of their tech will likely come from what they got in tech deals however seeing that it doesn't prohibit intra-alliance aid transfers then if it were ever to have been accepted they probably would have just bought up cheaper tech to send out.
Edit: I got IRON's right
-
After reading the above I became curious what this would be worth according to the market at $3mil per 100 technology and who would be receiving how much. Not to be an apologist but please take into consideration when reading this that C&G is comprised of.... *counts* .... seven alliances.
=TOP=-
C&G: $9,000,000,000.00
Sparta: $750,000,000.00
Dark Fist: $226,050,000.00
Brigade: $150,000,000.00
Resistance: $150,000,000.00
Nemesis: $87,000,000.00
Total: $10,363,050,000.00
-=IRON=-
C&G: $4,500,000,000.00
Sparta: $450,000,000.00
Fark: $180,000,000.00
Grämlins: $180,000,000.00
Total: $5,310,000,000.00
-=TSO=-
C&G: $1,200,000,000.00
GATO: $300,000,000.00
Genesis: $150,000,000.00
OSA: $150,000,000.00
Ronin: $150,000,000.00
Total: $1,950,000,000.00
-=DAWN=-
C&G: $300,000,000.00
Grämlins: $180,000,000.00
IAA: $150,000,000.00*
Fark: $15,000,000.00
Total: $640,000,000.00
-=TORN=-
C&G: $300,000,000.00
IAA: $150,000,000.00*
Total: $450,000,000.00
Total from defeated: $18,563,050,000.00
-=Receipients=-
C&G: $15,300,000,000.00
Sparta: $1,200,000,000.00
Grämlins: $360,000,000.00
GATO: $300,000,000.00
Dark Fist: $226,050,000.00
Fark: $195,000,000.00
Brigade: $150,000,000.00
Genesis: $150,000,000.00
IAA: $150,000,000.00
OSA: $150,000,000.00
Resistance: $150,000,000.00
Ronin: $150,000,000.00
Nemesis: $87,000,000.00
* Denotes the term is split between the two designated parties and payment can to the best of my knowledge be divided as they so wish. As such it's counted for both of them to reflect the unlikely possibility of either of them paying the entirety of those stated reparations. Also note that this was kept in mind when coming up with totals and the number was only counted once for the receipient and in the grand total in reparations if terms were accepted.
For an easier read on tech I present the below as well
-=TOP=-
C&G: 300,000
Sparta: 25,000
Dark Fist: 7,500
Brigade: 5,000
Resistance: 5,000
Nemesis: 2.900
Total: 345,400
-=IRON=-
C&G: 150,000
Sparta: 15,000
Fark: 6,000
Grämlins: 6,000
Total: 177,000
-=TSO=-
C&G: 40,000
GATO: 10,000
Genesis: 5,000
OSA: 5,000
Ronin: 5,000
Total: 65,000
-=DAWN=-
C&G: 10,000
Grämlins: 6,000
IAA: 5,000*
Fark: 500
Total: 21,500
-=TORN=-
C&G: 10,000
IAA: 5,000*
Total: 15,000
Total from defeated: 618,900
-=Receipients=-
C&G: 510,000
Sparta: 40,000
Grämlins: 12,000
GATO: 10,000
Dark Fist: 7,500
Fark: 6.500
Brigade: 5,000
Genesis: 5,000
IAA: 5,000
OSA: 5,000
Resistance: 5,000
Ronin: 5,000
Nemesis: 2,900
* Denotes the term is split between the two designated parties and payment can to the best of my knowledge be divided as they so wish. As such it's counted for both of them to reflect the unlikely possibility of either of them paying the entirety of those stated reparations. Also note that this was kept in mind when coming up with totals and the number was only counted once for the receipient and in the grand total in reparations if terms were accepted.
Annnnnd now I'm curious about past wars so excuse me if I disappear for a bit.
Edit: I apologize, the format got screwed up when I hit submit. You'll all have to make do. Additionally if I made any errors in the above please feel free to point it out and I'll edit the list accordingly.
Edit: Massive fail here. I forgot to convert for 100 tech when doing the math. My sincerest apologies to anyone my error may have shone a negative light on.
-
Yes, we have it. In Planet Bob we have the Forums, more or less our "international community".
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.
And, at this point of the debate, the lack of legitimacy of TOP/IRON's DoW is beyond doubt. Because no one, not even the leaders of those alliances, attemps to defend the legitimacy of their DoW. At most, they try to justify their illegitimate act, but don't contest the illegitimate nature of the act itself.There was no Casus Belli, and everyone acknoweldes that.
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.
So Londo and Archon call the cops, and Crymson goes to jail for agression. That's how Law works. "Crymson, you acted like an idiot and now you pay que consequences". If Londo or/and Archon sues him, he gets to pay a fine, and maybe serve a time behind bars. And you can call Londo or Archon an hypocrite or a cynic if you like, but Law, legitimacy, are in their side. They have full right to act like they did, and the Society acknoweldes it. End of the story.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.
Anyway, what you wrote is rubbish.In your description of the conflict between the NpO and \m/, you fail to notice that NpO had ties with CnG - ties that have led them to actually DoW TOP in the present conflict. CnG was more interested in NpO and \m/ white peacing out, than escalating the conflict and losing the ties with NpO due to the stupid minor point they where arging with \m/.
TOP and IRON, on the opposite, had been willing to beat CnG from long ago. That has been acklowelded by their leaders. "They were a threat and so we wanted to blood them dry and destroy all they stand for".
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.
So, you can see, that in the NpO-\m/ conflict, CnG was actually attemping to stop it and prevent it from escalating, while TOP and IRON wished to fuel it into a Global Conflict.TOP and IRON did push the button. Time to pay for your free agression. Next time, try to act like a civilized guy who is part of a civilized world, instead than like a cavernicole in the jungle or a gang leader in the Bronx.
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.
-
Sorry for overestimating your ability to comprehend a metaphor. Won't happen again.
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.
Your explanation is as simple as both the burglar and TOP/IRON engaged willingly in an illegal act; breaking and entering a house to rob, mass attacking an alliance without any CB whatsoever.The nature of the illegal act is pointless for the methapor. But I can use a murderer instead of a burglar if that helps you comprehend it better, as a murder is closer to the intentions TOP/IRON had ("bloody up" Complaints & Grievances when they are weak to disable them as a potential threat).
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.
But anyway, the nature of the crime is not the important point here. Look at the moon, not at the finger.Soon as the finger starts pointing to the moon and not mars.
-
Your argument might hold some water if it didn't completely disregard factual accuracy.
1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat
2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat.
3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.
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.
4. Why in the $%&@ would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants?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 was about to answer you seriously, when I realized that the nosense you just wrote can only mean you were just following up my joke by pulling a Chewbacca defense.
You almost got me. Congratz!
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.
-
So wait, has TOP et al offered peace and reparations for damages? Because otherwise I don't see why anyone in their right mind would let them off with white peace. This isn't one of those 'oops, my bad' scenarios.
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 cops catched a burglar who attemped to rob at my house.
At the trial, the burglar's lawyer arged that I was as bad as his client because I called the cops instead of offering a White Peace. Thus, I was a cynic, and his client deservered to be set free.
TOP-IRON, you hired Johnnie Cochran, didn't you? How long until you try the Chewbacca defense?
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.
-
Is there going to be a test on this?
Good stuff, would read again.
-
While I can understand the feeling that you don't owe your alliance anything and that it is presumptuous of your alliance to expect you to devote yourself to their causes and needs, I will point out that without this sort of feeling of doing what you can for your alliance, even if they haven't provided you with everything you ever wanted, the alliance will never be the very best that it could be.
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.
-
Yet, is it really necessary for people to go out of thier way to make statements of approval or disapproval JUST to make sides on an issue?Necessary, no. However it is in ones best interest if you seek honest discussion for it avoids misunderstandings and undesired implications.
If you are not involved, why must you state your opinion about it?For honest discussion usually, to correct inaccurate statements or to uncover things about the events which transpire of interest to ones self.
Does it help at all?Having an uninvolved party point out issues can help either at that moment or later down the road after events have long passed by causing one to reflect on their actions and statements. One doesn't necessarily care about helping an issue if they state an opinion however. There are far more one can do besides making a public post, all of which are far more efective.
The person who has no treaties, but his friends come to his aid. Are they warmongers or loyal comrades?Depends on the meanings used and the circumstances surrounding their involvement, including their reasons.
Does doing something about it actually solve anything?That depends upon the issue and parties involved as with what steps were taken. Some things can cause things to boil over while letting some things slide shows sensibility and can keep other parties from feeling threatened.
-
An alliance typically exists for the benefit of its members, for mutual protection against clear and present threats. Through this common goal friendships are made and communities develop. Someone has to take on the responsibility of making the important decisions and vital daily operations in order for it to be effective. Should the members grow complacent then they will be ill prepared to deal with any threats. If others are more eager to take up the reins of power for the betterment of the whole then I see nothing inherently wrong with others sitting in the background, provided if the time comes where you must defend a fellow member you do so. Quietly leaving after having done nothing openly and actively is perfectly acceptable provided you have held that willing mindset. That alone is a payment to the cause, the purpose your alliance has thus no debt remains upon your departure unless you explicitly stated one such as owing money to a bank. Anything beyond the original purpose of the alliance which your bring is merely a bonus given to the whole and it ends when ever you wish it to. To my knowledge virtually every alliance in this game only operates here even if members come from elsewhere. Once an alliance becomes a community which operates wings in different games then there might be more required of its members and that merely depends upon the conditions of your joining.
I owe nothing.
-
We are not going paperless.
There is one significant alliance with only 1 treaty and guess what, they used that treaty to enter the fray.
It only takes one to start a trend thus only one having done it - and recently - shows nothing. More time is needed to see if that picks up. Personally, I think there will be fewer treaties held by some alliances but others will pick more up to balance it all out. I don't really see any significant change here. I miss the days games where alliances were decided by leaders, known to all and things were decided mutually or if unilateral action was taken, it was a given you were on your own.
Why?
So you can see your ally being shot to hell and can easily say: "I don't have to defend him, our treaty is Non-chaining."
Despite what any wall of text says, you don't have to defend anyone if you do not wish to. People are afraid they'll receive negative public relations for making a decision on their own rather then following blindly. Being friends or allies is not an unconditional thing but rather requires a close and working relationship. Frankly, it is my perspective that if you get into a conflict and know your ally or friend doesn't agree with your decision or they were simply never consulted then you should expect to fight on your own and accept your fate as you chose to make it by getting involved.
No, every treaty should be chaining. If your MDP ally is being destroyed you should defend him.Really, it all depends upon the circumstances. If they didn't heed warnings or showed open lack of regard for you then clearly there is no reason to defend them. An alliance is an agreement between you independant political entities typically formed for mutual benefit and in such a circumstance it might not be beneficial in the short or long term to get involved. It could do very well for humbling them when they were getting out of control rather then enabling them by just tagging along. More to the point, an alliance has obligations for the protection of its members above other alliances. Thus if it's in their benefit then sure, get involved, otherwise I see no reason to endorse an act you might be principally opposed to.
I think the concept that treaties chain is one of the things to be done away with as is this blind obedience people clamour for. If you're really going to get involved in everything together then there is little sense in attempting to project an image where you maintain any degree of independance.
-
Originally I saw great potential and enjoyment in writing up treaties. Prior to this game (I first joined in 2006) I was doing (forum based) nation sims for about 5 years but my interest was dieing. I'm here now because sad as it may be I have nothing better to do with my time.
In previous games I played both the benevolent leader with an interest in world peace and the interventionist type plotting to take over the world. What makes games interesting or just plain fun is tension built up over time with the potential of boiling over into all out conflict but the tension being over legitimate disputes which can be solved but not to eithers benefit or liking. This game lacks the potential for those types of disputes due in part to any real semblance of geography. It takes a strategic element out of it and focused sense of urgency, fear or despair. If one so wishes in this game it's actually quite easy to achieve never ending peace due to the simplicity behind the issues of dispute. One disadvantage this game has is the very little room for manuevering in game with regards to grievances. By no means is it the fault of admin because of the complexity involved in coding things with such potential. Still, the simplicity and straight forwardness in methods to deal with things in game removes an element which otherwise could revive any fun people have.
The game isn't really built for full out war to be a common occurrence but for it to be the climax of long held tension. I think this is reflected by the community by a lack of any real care or concern and reckless and rashness, for the most part, being typical. I don't really see it changing and while recklessness can be refreshing, that's only truly in the event of cautiousness or overly so is the norm.
All in all, I'm really bored. You see a lot of the same type of behavior and attitudes from individuals to alliances with little deviation.
That's just my initial thoughts though.
The Official Terms Given To TOP/IRON/TSO/DAWN/TORN
in Ejayrazz's Blog
A blog by Ejayrazz in General
Posted
Yeah, I did forget to do the conversion for 100 tech. My sincerest apologies to those my error may have shone a negative light on. I've made corrections to all relevant areas (I think, point me out if you see another error, it's late, I'm tired, there probably is one).
Yup and they don't need to spend all that many billion on tech. They could get tech cheaper with internal aid still permitted. Doing it from 0 tech and buying up to 50 the real cost is $5,609,296,000 for 345,400 tech @ 812k per 50.