Jump to content

OsRavan

Members
  • Content Count

    466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OsRavan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Ravanmchl
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Orange Defense Network
  • Nation Name
    OsRavania
  • Alliance Name
    ODN
  • Resource 1
    Uranium
  • Resource 2
    Spices

Recent Profile Visitors

1,024 profile views
  1. Ohh I meant to comment earlier too. This quote is in a nutshell exactly whats wrong with this place ((OWF and all its attached places). Someone posts some BS, such as schatt does. If you DONT respond, the talking heads will go 'ohh you agree with him you were scared to contradict.' If you point out the blatant BS nature of the comments, you are "trying too hard" and must be lying. In other words, in this particular venue no one actually cares what you say or don't say, its just propaganda circling propaganda. And people wonder why theres a lack of intelligent conversation in this venue heh.
  2. Also. I almost forgot. ::amused::. The root of all schatt's angst and hate that he refers to in his post. YEARS ago, ODN made CoJ apologize for threatening our protectorate in the war. He's been butt hurt ever since. I suspect he didnt want to do it, but his coalition twisted his arm. Who knows. But yeah the irony is thats the root of all this heh.
  3. no schat you really are obsessed with me. In the thread I said very clearly I oppose eternal wars and reparations. That is it. Not wars in general. So lets look at your BS claims none of which show odn trying to get reps or eternal wars: In his perverted part in a perverted play, he directed the forces of ODN in enforcement of peace terms in the DH-NPO War which included $2.427 Billion in reparations ($1B from Legion alone), and a month long extended war against the top tier of Pacifica. Uhh yeah. Hate to break it to you, but that wasnt ODN. In fact I said at the time getting reps was a mistake. So not sure what you are smoking. I can't control soverign alliances. All I can do is control my own actions and opinions. In the Dave War, ODN itself demanded an extended war of top-tier MCXA nations. Uhh yeah. We demanded a week of war iirc in an even duel of ten nations versus ten nations. Thats hardly eternal war. Ohh the horrors clutch your pearls. In the TOP-C&G War, ODN stood shoulder-to-shoulder with its allies and coalition in demands for reps totaling over $1 Billion and tens-of-thousands of tech (most of it blood money to GOONS), and 40,000 tech from Legion. Wasnt in charge of ODN then. ::;considers::. a lot of odners felt justified in that due ot the pre-empt. But what the hey. Before my time. So.... should I take your post to mean you are impressed with how consistent I am in never demanding reps or eternal war?
  4. Or I might counter there are both ic and ooc forums to recognize that different people play the game differently. Or for that matter whatever the game was intended to be, clearly people have fun playing it ooc and can make that work.. .since most cn players go that route. If we were voting by what most people consider the best way to play this game, I dont think IC would win. That said, if you want to be an elf or a dwarf, have fun. But why am i expected to have to play as you do? Thats ridiculous. If you don't want me to judge you as an idiot for roleplaying (which is fair, I shouldn't do that) then you can't judge me as not 'really' playing because I dont bother with it. In other words.. there are two ways to play this game. And there are two approaches to how followers of those ways interact. Either we can BOTH respect each other... which means IC people respecting and understanding some people dont like IC... and their view has as much merit as yours. And respect means not implying that im playing it 'wrong' or not getting as much from it as you are. OR... alternatively we can both disrespect each other and mock/insult the other group and claim our approach is better. If you want respect youve gotta give it.
  5. heh, I consider myself a strong 'anti-moralist' and one of the things im most proud of in this game is actually the role I played helping to undermine what I considered an idiotic philosophy. Note... I dont consider myself 'lulz' (though they are preferable to me compared to moralists). In fact, I reject the notion that the only two options are lulz or moralists. A lot of that has to do with my definition of moralism in CN. My definition (and its just my personal one) does not revolve around having morals, instead it involves trying to FORCE those morals on the game and other alliances. So, for example. ODN has a very strict honor code when it comes to how we handle other treaties. You might say we have 'morals' internally. However, we don't act as though our personal morals are the 'right' ones for all of CN, or that everyone has to adhere to them. If someone takes a different view on... say democracy. OR allies. We may not feel like interacting with them much, but we aren't going to try and punish them to bring them in line. A moralist to my eyes, would be say.... someone not approving of foul language and trying to enforce language standards via going to war with those who use foul language. Or, deciding that "fighting neutrals is wrong" or say "tech reading is evil" "OOCness is bad" and rather than simply *having* those opinions try to force the community to accept them as set standards. Once you try to *make* everyone follow your moral view points, you went from being irrelevant to me to being an ass that needs to be dealt with. I reject the notion that any alliance in this game has the authority to tell me and mine what I can and cant do... or what makes me 'bad' or 'good'. If you want to *FEEL* that way go right ahead. If you want to try and make me adhere to your code... well... ::grins;: there's where we have problems. So take people's issues with DBDC. I've no problem personally if you would never do what they are. To each their own live life as it is right to you. But in a game like this, to clutch your pearls, act horrified, and then demand someone be 'punished' for playing the game in a way you dislike.... that i found asinine. And in terms of IC and OOC. If you want to play IC its no skin of my nose. But again getting back to the moralist view point, I find it eye roll worthy when people start complaining that others arent playing IC and try to act like it should be required in the game. I find IC play childish and silly and irrelevant to the mechanics of the game. I'm not alone. You can disagree fully, and I expect we can all go on happily for the most part. As long as you dont expect me to actually engage with you in any IC way, that's fine. I will say though, some people (not as many these days) take the IC thing to a level that I find concerning from a mental health stand point. By that I mean they say (or in some cases do) awful things that would be rejected by real life society but dismiss it as 'i'm just roleplaying' as though that somehow gives them some carte blanche to be an ass. IF you are an ass in game, you are an ass. I dont care if its your "character". You are responsible for your own actions, and your 'character' is simply a facet of your personality you are amping up for entertainment. Heh I remember someone in CN ranting nad screaming at me I would go to hell for being jewish, and I killed jesus and blahblah blah. And then when I put them on ignore and decided to have nothing else to do with them outside or inside the game, they were shocked I was judging *them* as a person poorly... after all it was only their 'ruler' who said that. That sort of attitude I find idiotic. Anyway my thoughts.
  6. Whats a poor decision though? ::shrugs::. Different alliances have different goals. Take cng (which btw isnt disbanding heh). If our goal was simply to always be on a winning side... frankly that's pretty easy to do. I assure you that in both equilibrium and in this war we had he opportunity to switch sides, and would have been welcomed with open arms. Heh, and all the people trashing us now would have nodded their heads sagely and talked about how we made the smart call or already paid our debts, or had no debts, or something. Thats how CN works. The other side is twisted and convoluted in propaganda until they no longer remotely resemble reality, and the people on your side can do no wrong. Annoying, but the way it goes. Anyway, back on topic. Success or failure depends on goals. CnG made the conscious decision with much open discussion that while winning is nice, it's not what our ultimate goal is. Our goal is a personal code and set of principles that we feel are important. No one else has to share our code... its personal. And our actions will reflect our efforts to live up to said code. I actually think it annoys some people a ton when you act in ways that hey dont deem 'smart'. And sometimes an alliance is just filled with idiots, I grant you. But sometimes they just dont care about what you do, or prioritize things the same way.
  7. Unless losing has become a requirement for 'really fighting a war' Im not sure how you could classify bi polar or say dave war as not 'really fighting' for ODN considering the 60% ns loss in bi polar or the fact that on our front of dave we were actually out numbered. And besides having if not the most close to the most wars in dave also lost about 30% of our ns iirc.
  8. ::waves to nintenderek:: Its OsRavan by the bye, with an A. ::grins:: You should at least spell the name of the person you are attacking correctly! Only polite
  9. ::grins to hereno:: excellent! Agreement is a plus. Hows SL doing by the bye (thats your alliance right?)? Purely based on numbers, you guys seem to be doing a great job this last month.
  10. Actually I specificaly said "Nothing YOU say about what CnG thinks or wants matters actually. Other than being irritating to read (ill give you that). " It doesnt *matter* in that you are actually affecting what we do. But I at least find it annoying to read. *Obviously* I find it annoying or I wouldnt have written a giant wot on the matter. That doesnt mean make my larger point irrelivant. Also.. what the hell does spying have to do with anything I typed? Hell, what does *MK* have to do with anything I typed? You are making my point for me D34. Namely that you are arguing and debating for PR reasons and political agendas as opposed to anything based on reality. If you really want to know my thoughts on spying or MK spying you can ask me and ill answer you happily. But again, what the hell does it have to do with the topic of this blog? The problem here is that it doesnt matter what anyone types on the OWF (on either side to be fair) the *Response* is some generic canned campaign slogan such as the above.
  11. no schatt, I never open them with any intention of discussing them with *you*. A subtle difference. Im happy to debate with anyone else. But I learned a long time ago that 'debating; with you tends to be you looking for ways to score points as opposed to an engagement on the topic of hand. Wittness for example me making a long post about the need to stop fitting alliances into categories for political reasons and to stop acting like you are an expert of other alliances when you have nothing to do with them. You respond with a snide aside and then attempt to act as though my point is wrong by debating over the idea of friends greater then infra.. which is essentially irrelivant to the larger point I was making. I dont really care if you do or do not like the term friends greater than infra. To each their own. I dislike debating with you, because you arent actually interested in what I have to say (and to be fair, im not all that interested in what you have to say at this point) so much as you are in figuring out how to try and attack whatever im saying.
  12. ahh schatt. Way to side step what i was actually posting about with some irrelivant randomness. ::Grins::. Just what this blog needed.
  13. Also less painfull to read. ::grins:: But if im making my hypothetical dream scenario, it would be filled with *debate* and *discussion* not PR. It is a subtle line (im being serious) and easy to cross over when people get heated. But there is a difference. And good discussion should leave room to accept that the situation is complex and no one is completly right. It would also help us actually understand where other alliances are coming from and how they see the game, which I find fascinating.
  14. Well theres a difference for saying 'i dont like you cause x stance or x war' and 'you think/want/believe x'. The first is reasonable the second is just annoying. Nothing YOU say about what CnG thinks or wants matters actually. Other than being irritating to read (ill give you that). Because YOU dont matter to cng. Sorry to be blunt, but its true. Nor does 'popular sentiment' (meaning a crew of owf trolls) matter a fig to anyone in cng. Our allies and friends opinion do. If you are actually trying to convince us to change our approach to the game, trolling on the OWF is not the way to achieve it. Having an open discussion where you are also prepared to accept you were wrong about some of our motivations is the best way. Call me contrary, but when i have to read posts like yours, my reaction is to thumb my nose at you and keep on going with a grin on my face. And thats not getting into the sheer lack of logic of your statement. Since almost every alliance in this game has had a treatied partner on the opposite side in a war, and I dont see you going on crusades against them. Why? Because this isnt actually about int or odn or how we treat our treaty partners so much as it is you trying to deride and insult alliances who have an in-game position you view as opposite to your own. The sheer hypocrisy of you pretending to be hounding int for not defending lsf (and the rest of cng for who knows what, im not even sure) due to you being some sort of noble crusader for the greater good... while you ignore anyone who had a divided treaty web but agrees with your general political outlook. Well the hypocrisy is enough to choke on. Why arent any of these allies on the other side being yelled at for not backing *us* up? Ohh yes.. because YOU *think* they will be on the side you want and *think* cng wont. Bah ::head shake:: seriously go back and reread your comment and you'll realize that people on both sides of the web make similar accusations about every alliance in the game. And that doesnt mean any of you are right, it means its mindless PR. And this is just my personal opinion, but for *me* theres nothing more annoying in this game then a sanctimonious preacher spewing out NEGATIVE hate on an alliance for the "good of the public" or whatever your excuse is. Notice people never seem to spew out *positive* things for the good of the public. ::snorts:::. Do you honestly think that alliances are so incapable of judging us on their own that they need YOUR help to tell them the 'truth' about us? Seriously.. the fact that you honestly think of yourself as some sort of public defender is so bizarre to me. Who asked you to defend them in the public? Who needs you to? Hate us. Roll us. Whatever. But kindly dont subject me to preachings about how noble and brave your friends are and how cowardly and honorless I am, because frankly it insults my intelligence. Ill stop now so i dont keep ranting about the sheer level of hypocrisy and thoughtless moral certitude that your comment reaked of.
  15. Source: The Predictable Unpredictable Treaty Name [insert Here] Decided to make a blog post rather than derail poor iron and int's thread further. Cause my eyes were rolling so hard reading some of that thread they were threatening to roll right out of my head. Warning, incoming WOT: (all quotes trimmed for length reasons) Addressed to: And everyone else criticizing my bloc and alliance in this thread. To answer all of these in one big bunch. What I find amusing about all this rage is, forget for a second whether you are right or wrong (you are wrong for the record though ::grins:. Why exactly do you care? Why is it any of your business.. whether cng is 'scrappy' or 'true to the cng spirit' 'blindly following mk' etc? That’s a rhetorical question though the answer imo is ‘to score political points.’ I always roll my eyes when the peanut gallery with no connection to us proceeds to lecture my bloc on what we REALLY think, WHY we think it, and WHO we are. I mean honestly. Do I go around telling you what your alliances REALLY think? Are you required to like us? World would be boring if everyone liked each other. But I find it a bit ridiculous to engage in an argument that essentially amounts to "we know what you truly believe better than you do." Really, the only ones whose opinion carries real informed weight to us is CnG and our allies. I can't help but point out to many of you who are trolling in this thread that you and cng actually have allies *in common.* And for most of the rest of you when we dont have allies in common our bloc is allied to alliances you seem to respect and admire. That’s almost a given considering said treaty sprawl. Now im not a fan of treaty sprawl, it DOES cause problems and isn’t always smart politics. I won’t argue that. But putting aside the political issues for a second, said treaty sprawl means one of three things. And please this is key imo. 1) These allies of ours are on both sides of the web and in almost every major bloc (including ones you admire). They deal closely with us and have the most to lose if we were real politik backstabbers or lackeys. Do you think they are all great IDIOTS and dupes and thus they cant figure out cng's 'true nature'? Are you saying they are all fools and pawns for the masterful cng propaganda machine? 2) Are you saying *THEY* are using *US* for real politik reasons? That they know our true nature (as you describe it) but think to get some corrupt benefit from have treaties to us? How dastardly! 3) Or maybe (just maybe) some of YOUR extremist propaganda is just that... extremist propaganda. And our allies took the time to get to know how various cng alliances think, ticks and function. They put aside preconceived notions and came talk to us. And saw something worth respecting there and to all of our mutual benefit. Considering the quality and intelligence of some of the alliances... on both sides of the web... tied to CnG I tend to doubt 1 and 2 is whats actually going on here. Say what you will about cng’s allies they represent the greatest minds on bob on ALL sides. I know reflective thought is difficult in this community. But come on. Lets put on our common sense hats. Since when in politics, life, or anything are things black and white? Good and evil? I eye roll at those people who neatly divide things between good people (those who agree with them) and corrupt scum (those who disagree). Seriously. Is it so difficult to imagine that CnG might just be what it says it is? A decent bloc that means what it says but just happens to disagree with you on some things? I never understood this tendency on Bob (on BOTH sides) to demonize people who are your rivals/potential enemies. I much prefer to treat my opponent with respect on and off the battlefield. Note, this doesn’t mean you have to LIKE us, agree with our choices, or anything else. Hell, you want to roll us? That’s fine, I can respect it. I think its fair to say “CnG did x, y, and z. I want you rolled and will try to do it.” That’s totally cool. What I DON’T like is when people go “You don’t really believe in fiends greater than infra” or “you really THINK y… I know this cause I know what YOU think and what your motivations are… better than you do.”\ *I* always stuck up for xiph in public and in private. I like the guy a lot, even if I get the sense im not his favorite person these days. One of my biggest regrets is politics doesnt let us talk much anymore without devolving into argument. He is one of the smarter leaders out there, and genuinely a good person despite the propaganda. A fun person to have on your side, and a tough enemy. Much respect to xiph even when we disagree on everything (as we often do!) I’ve always felt it the height of stupidity to start hating someone because of the political climate. Xiph and I may end up sparring on the battlefield, but that doesn’t diminish my respect for him. So to some up my mega wot. The world isn’t black and white, good and evil. Stop trying to force everything into those categories. Respect that you will never know a third party as well as the people who are allied to them or *in* said alliance/bloc. You don’t have to portray someone as evil corrupt scum in order to disagree with them and want to fight them. I personally still adhere to the Friends Greater than Infra Policy.. and im far from alone in CnG. And when the time comes, CnG will do the best we can via *all* our allies. Doesnt mean we will be perfect. But we WILL do our best, and you cant ask for more than that. If our allies are not satisfied with said best, they will move on. If they are satisfied they will tell us so. And that will be between us and our allies not the peanut gallery.
×
×
  • Create New...