Rush Sykes
-
Posts
3,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Rush Sykes
-
-
I agree, this war has at least started it, perhaps in time the rest of the cyberverse will realize it's the most honorable way to end a conflict.
I have no idea why those top NpO nations had to send out so much tech, looking at it from a military perspective it would cripple Polaris for quite some time after the war, since their upper tiers would be punching bags to just about anyone in range of them, so it would prevent them from being a threat to the alliances they were at war with for quite a large amount of time, though if it did have something to do with being in peace mode I would find that to be hilariously ironic.
It IS the old leaders responsibility, since no one who is currently in government in IRAN was in government then, I don't really think we should be held accountable for the actions of those we replaced, if we are than the War of the Coalition was a legit war, since that was NpO getting beat down for Sponges actions, and I'm waiting for those on your side that you're allied to to start the cycle of paying back reps from that war, if they do then I'll be happy to as well. Grämlins did pay for their tech, TOP did not, and I just listed the alliances from Citadel that were in the hegemony, OG shouldn't have been part of that group, and you're correct I was arguing two different points, it gets difficult when you have to argue with 3 or 4 people at the same time.
Im pretty sure Grub felt that exact same way. What did that get him again?
-
I wasnt asked to show instances were Karma was united behind abuses. They dont exist, but some parts of the grouping did behave contrary to what the majority wanted.
The argument that people cant be forced out of the game was countered by you can make it so they are severly restricted. I will adapt that Karma argument for this.
Its not on the OWF and I wont name names. You can chose to believe me or not on this.
Staying silent in these threads or allowing posts that are absolutely against what an alliance stands for wasn't as good as approval but without some clear disapproval it appeared to some on the H side it was acceptable to some of Karma at least due to the sheer volume of people calling for them
We were treated quite well in relation to terms by most of the alliances at war with us.
@Tyga: Im not going off to dig through every thread of the last month for quotes etc. If you really believe there has been no abuses on the Karma side then you will not be convinced. Some of your own side have given out about the behavior of some on your side.
Do people STILL not get that Karma has no structure? No Central Government. No Forums. No established guidelines. All we have is a collective desire to end the hegemony and put an end to the practice of 300 Million NS vs 50 Million NS wars. Will these be achieved? Who knows...Probably not. But you simply cannot put a blanket judgement on that which does not fit under any blanket.
-
wat
first off, your post is pretty lulzy because I've personally paid out over 200 million for reps to make sure CDS wasn't PZI'd post GW3, and then again post UJW, I've been on the losing end more than the winning end, and never accepted reps while on the winning end except in one case where it made sure the guy I accepted reps from didn't get ZI'd for nuking, he gave me the tech back that his nukes killed and went off on his merry way.
a) well then you might want to get on Grämlins, TOP, and almost every other alliance that has won a war, ever.(I admit I don't believe STA has accepted reps before, and I respect Tygaland greatly for that, I wish more alliance leaders would learn from his example)
B) TPF has always been an ally and a friend to me since GW3, they always will be, I stand by my friends and want the best deal possible for them, last I checked it's what you should do for your friends, I may not have the firepower that Grämlins/TOP have and used to make sure OG got white peace, but I can express my opinion.
c) I know damn well TPF is not going to surrender anytime soon, doesn't mean I don't want them to have white peace when the war ends.
I'll repeat, once you convince your allies in TOP/Grämlins to send their 40,000 tech back to NpO, I'll be happy to send back every unit of Tech IRAN got from the same war.
And I will repeat, when TOP/Gramlins lose a war and they or their protectorates come here bawwwwwwwing that they should get white peace or else the victors are just like what they fight against, then I will tell them. Im pretty sure you wouldnt find a SINGLE TOP or Gramlins member that would say if, God Forbid, they DID lose a war, there should be no terms imposed on them.
-
When TOP, Grämlins and the rest who also took tech reparations in that war pay back their reps to Polaris, I'll be happy to, they got harsher terms than even your alliance did, since I don't recall your terms forcing your top 25 to screw over their nations for the rest of the time their nations exist(sending out every unit of tech from their top 25? I'm only at 2300 tech and I would hate to have to waste the amount of time it'd take to send all of that out and then rebuy it all).
Here is a thought...Lead by example... Go to the IRAN trium and suggest they give the tech back in good faith. See how far that gets you. Next, go to TPF and ask them to give back their reps received in the last war in exchange for white peace...see how far THAT gets you. Then, when all that has failed, come back to this thread and continue to tell Karma they are just like the Hegemony.....????....PROFIT.
-
Mogar's suggesting white peace for pretty much everyone, and saying that if this happens and the reps from WotC get refunded, he'll happily join in. You might disagree with his proposed solution, but he's being logically consistent.
Funny thing about that stance, its real easy to take the stance as you describe it, word for word, when you totally know that there is a 0% chance of success. This is about the singular issue of him campaigning for white peace on TPFs behalf. It is illogical to a) be in an alliance that has accepted reps....b ) be blindly loyal to an alliance that has handed out harsh reps...and c)castigate the winning side of the current conflict for terms that have not yet been delivered while the alliance he is arguing for repeats over and over again, they are not surrendering. And his being present in IRAN for WotC reps is irrelevant. This is not about HIM , this is about the alliance that was, and is. If he cannot let Karma pass on MHA being part of it because of their past ties to ~, then his lone voice cannot equal total dissent and repentence for IRAN imposing reps on a decimated alliance.
-
Uhh... OG fought with the Hegemony side.
I know this...The point still stands. They are not falling all over themselves in every thread crying because the remaining hegemony alliances will likely not see white peace.
-
The key factor being whether TPF gets the same sort of terms they dished out. There is a lot of daylight between white peace and the terms the Continuum meted out. But I guess you need to ignore that for dramatic effect.
Karma never said everyone would get white peace.
This is the part that nobody seems to get, no matter how many times we repeat it.
-
Ok, I'm waiting for you to call out your friends in OG, TOP, and Grämlins forgoing along with the crowd, and to give Polaris her tech back.
The obvious difference is that TOP, Gramlins and OG are not suggesting White Peace for the most criminal of the hegemony alliances.
-
Supposedly you want to be better than your enemies, at least that's what the word on the street is
, I'm not going to defend their past actions, that's up to them to do, I will express my opinion as to what I feel they should get for terms, and I know that mhawk's TPF != Slayer99's TPF, although right now trying to convince anyone of this is like trying to say Assington wasn't Sponge's puppet during the War of the Coalition.DING DING DING...Called it.
-
I'm not talking about you. You are demanding TPF get white peace because they got beaten down good. Considering TPF's (and OPP's) penchant for picking clean the bones of defeated alliances after they are beaten down (as badly or worse than TPF's current beatdown), why should they be given such leniency?
This is where he will say "because Karma is supposed to do things differently"
-
Perhaps you can provide a list with evidence of each accusation? For the less perceptive of us in the Cyberverse.
The more Tyga posts, the more I grow to like him. Im glad hes on our side.
-
I think if what you are looking for is an apology from hegemony alliances then I dont think you will get that, at least not here. Politically nothing will be the same once this war has completed change is inevitable it will be up to each individual alliance what direction they wish to handle their FA. PZI/EZI not all members of alliances ever supported this while there was a time for its use ,the game has moved on from that, and hence I think youll see those types of sentances go to the way side. I think your statement that very little will change politically is nieve for in order to survive in this game you must be willing to change and evolve regardless whether a war was involved or not.
Im not looking for an apology. Those examples I gave were the easiest examples. Im interested in what was learned politcally by those on the Hegemony side.
-
I think Haflinger is building up to another attempt to pull off the "Karma is as bad as the Hegemony" with half twist in the pike position.
Degree of Difficulty....3.0
-
Please explain how taunting TPF is somehow equal in severity to NPO sentencing peace mode nations to perma-ZI. This so-called 'excuse' that Karma is using - that we are not as 'bad' as the New Pacific Order - seems perfectly valid considering we are not employing any tools to specifically punish those individual peace mode nations for the policy of their alliance. I do not believe people were inherently opposed to Pacifica previously taunting their opponents about peace mode; taunts, insults, and so on of various degrees are expected during times of war. It is the fact that Pacifica had the audacity to make those insults, coupled with heinous consequences for the peace mode nations, and now use the exact same tactics to hide from reprisal. As Tygaland has stated previously, pointing out someone else's hypocrisy does not make you a hypocrite.
You have it all wrong, havent you paid attention? They all hated it, its just that none of the had the cahounas to speak out against it. Being on the losing side will do that to you.
-
You make a lot of assumptions in this that I think are wrong. First of all I don't think the karma phenomenom, in which a massive coalition forms to counter an aggressive move, will be a common thing. A lot of things led to Karma. Second, you should know well that the hegemony will not seek to re-establish itself through open war but with backdoor politics. Third, if anything, this war shows harsh terms WORK, Karma is full of alliances that were spared and given terms they could recover from. The alliances that got harsh terms and I mean harsh terms like Legion, GATO, NADC, \m/, etc are either disbanded or joined their attackers.
Harsh terms WORK? It can be argued that MK leads this Karma revolution, as they, at least strengthwise lead C&G. Did you not see the terms they were given last war? They were among the harshest I have ever seen. Athens terms as well, for their size, were VERY harsh. Yet, a few months later, here is C&G at the forefront of this revolution. The terms that were intended to "work", only emboldened and bonded C and G. They failed, and as such, there is not a signatory of C and G that would not unquestionably die for the others. I love them like they are family. Bottom line...Harsh terms create a dangerous resolve.
-
So you're suggesting that people learning respect is minor? Seriously, for any alliance, one important note is the idea of respect for one's enemies as well as one's allies. I know perceived lack of it has caused me pause in posting opinions at times out here. One lesson I learned pre-war was that my opinions can be rather quickly devalued and dismissed by others who dislike what I have under 'Alliance Affiliation', as opposed to merely being wrong or naive.
I'm serious about the whole 'increase respect worldwide is good' bit. Do you honestly think anyone could say those things you were hoping for and not get backlash? And I'm not talking about from their allies.
I understand your intent was not to cause trolling; however, the topic itself does lend itself to aiding that effort, whether you wished it or not. Sorry to have to say that.
On a side note ... as a member of a surrendered alliance, I'm learning a few things about how one can handle defeat (it's a new thing for us). As well as ideas on what to do next time war comes around and we end up giving terms.
I would suggest that one should not NEED to "learn" respect. If one lacks respect from day 1, then one is doomed.
-
Yes the point is to have fun Doitzel. Part of that fun is overcoming challenges. Kinda like what just happened.
No, I said that one of the points of playing a game is to win the game, in this case become stronger than your opposition. I also said that both sides can and will use whatever they can to gain an upperhand, as we have all seen. Some of these practices (like EZI) are not right because of the nature of this being an on-line game. When a side uses these questionable practices, they will eventually be called out on it, which has happened.
I am not claiming EZI was right while certain hegemony alliances were using it, and NATO never had anyone on a EZI list. Chickenzilla was as close as it came and the last go round, which was the only one while I was in power, he was the one attacking NATO nations and we responded.
As for my only interest being to save my own $@!, please show me where I said that. See in character, I am a different way than I am OOC. Since this is an OOC part of the forum, I responded as such. Oh wait thats right, you probably fall under the group that doesn't want any one to change, you want to have a group to damn forever. If we don't change, you troll and roll us, if we do change it's only to save ourselves. Ah well, can't please everyone.
I wont try to speak for Aimee Mann, but the next to last sentence of your reply that says "if we do change, its only to save ourselves."....at the very least merits serious consideration. Alliances who lose wars, only claim to have learned their lessons after the war. It can reasonably be argued that they learned their lessons and "changed" only because it was the only way to end their conflict. One would ask, if you had the epiphany in the middle of a war that taught you the lessons that you needed to learn, what stopped you from learning those same lessons say...a month before the war? You have to admit, at the very least, the "change" in the losing alliances can only be determined to be genuine or not as time passes, and it is basic human nature to be skeptical.
-
Okay, but how often does that happen... really? And once again, where is the fun in being able to do anything without any lasting punishment?
Why does a lasting punishment have to be PZI? If the offender is so bad, and he has not learned, he will make the same mistakes, and will pay the price over and over and over again. Team colors have senators...use economic sanctions. Use the naval blockade to economically deter him to change. To basically say "we decided that you can no longer play this game" amounts to little more than internet viagra for the PZI-ing faction.
-
Speaking as a member of the Initiative, the only possible political lesson we might have learned would be "don't support your ally if they look like they're going to lose". I'm glad we happened to skip class that day.
How about "Maybe we should counsel our allies in a stronger tone when they are the ones making mistakes."
This is a game played by humans to simulate humans. Goodness the imperfections can only be exponentially modified. But. from a strict FA view, does it make you a good ally to either....A) support your allies before their destruction, even when what they are doing is inherently wrong, and will eventually lead to their destruction.....or B ) take a strong stance WITH your allies and make it clear that what they are doing is indeed wrong. See, it is my view that if you accept an ally, you should also accept a friendship. It, at least to me, is a mandate of BEING a friend, to help your friends when they need help, play devils advocate when they are wrong. If your best friend goes on a killing spree, you may still love them as a friend, but odds are, you arent going to be inviting them to dinner until you are convinced they have changed.
-
So you shouldn't be held acountable for your actions? You put a lot of effort into your character and if you get in the position of being PZI'd, you should be let off because of dedication to your persona? What is the point of this game at all if all that is possible is a slap on the wrist? Sure peolpe get PZI'd when they are in the right, but the reverse it true too. If you get in the position where you get destroyed it was in part by your own actions. You are perfectly free to fight it or to start over, but it makes no sense to simply be let off the hook.
We put people in jail to rehabilitate them into law abiding citizens. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. PZI precludes the possibility of a person changing. Look in the real world at Mohammar Qaddafi. He was on the CIA's assassin list. Has he changed? I guess him and his creator are the only ones who know that for sure, but the world exerted stenuous diplomatic pressure on him, and now Libya is ALMOST called a friend. PZI is a horrible thing. At the end of the day, we are all people sitting a computer trying to have a little fun.
-
Except that, in this game, nations do not really function like nations. Alliances are nations. Nations are people... sorta of. So when you PZI a nation you are essentially killing or imprissioning a leader. PZI on an alliance would be like what you said. But alliances are allowed to (quite frequently) get new leaders and rebuild.
In that case then...does this make independent nations akin to homeless people?
In truth, you are right, the line between nation simulation and gang simulation(for lack of a better comparative) has been irreperably blurred in the game. But my point about the innocent perpetual killing of civilian just because of where they reside, stands. And within the framework of a game that is intended to simulate an alternate world geopolitical universe, I find the use of PZI to be inherently criminal.
-
EZI, no. I personally have no issue with PZI though. Think about it... lets look at an IRL example... Hitler's Germany. It was, essentially, ZI'd. Then rebuilt. But there is one crucial difference; no Hitler. But if Hitler was some immortal being that could simply collect taxses from his bunker and never be destroyed, would the allies have eventually said "Okay, lets stop and let him rebuild." No of course not. Due to the fac that a leader cannot be "killed" in CN makes PZI somewhat necessary. Why should your IC self be allowed to do whatever he/she wants and expect to eventually be able to come back? Some people may warrent removal. But, if they want to make a new persona, and come back as a new leader, then they should be able to.
While that point is valid, I find the logic behind it to be completelty flawed. As an in-character forum, this discussion should be about the PZI of a sovereign nation, not a single individual entity. Every single unit of infra killed in a P-ZI situation(an attack against an IC leader of a nation), kills innocent civilians within that nation. And to declare that every single time new citizens move into this state, they too, will be killed....is (IC) barbaric, and in any world setting could, and should, be considered criminal. Is war necessarry? Yes. Many, MANY times. OOC:(Admin should, in my opinion, allow....say every 30, 60 or 90 days..something like that....a nation to change its ruler name should they so choose, to "represent" a possible regime change and allow the OOC persona to change reflective the "revolutionary" ideals of what the new regime represents. If the OOC player want to remain viable and able to play this game, then he, too, would be forced to change.)
Just my 2 cents.
BAH..Edit...I dunno why I was thinking I was in World Affairs. Ignore my "As an in-character forum" statement....God someone remind me to drink caffeine before I post.
-
All very interesting replies. I suppose that what I was hoping to see, from a personal standpoint, was someone in a major surrendered alliance to say something like "we learned that there is a true distates for PZI/EZI, and looking back, I really wish we had never engaged in such behavior"... or something like "keeping FAN perpetually at war was not the most brilliant of political moves"....Or that "we were kinda arrogant for trying to be part of a community that sought to tell other people who, and how, they could play this game and position themselves politically"
All of the lessons learned appear to be of a personal nature, respect being the most important of those. Perhaps increased activity for all alliances in the aftermath, this will be a fantastic thing. Politically, though, it seems little will change. I do hope I am wrong.
-
Let me preface this by saying that I do not intend this thread to troll any alliances that have surrendered. This is a serious question that I would like to hear some answers to. Feel free to answer or not to answer.
The common thing with surrenders in this war, and with all wars in the past, is that the surrendering alliances always claim to have "learned from their past mistakes." My question is a simple one, what exactly is it that you feel your alliance has learned?
, I'm not going to defend their past actions, that's up to them to do, I will express my opinion as to what I feel they should get for terms, and I know that mhawk's TPF != Slayer99's TPF, although right now trying to convince anyone of this is like trying to say Assington wasn't Sponge's puppet during the War of the Coalition.
Attention "The Phoenix Federation"
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Did a TPF member seriously say that? Have you not paid attention to the past several wars?