Jump to content

Rush Sykes

Members
  • Content Count

    3,325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rush Sykes

  1. So no real reply. Gotcha. You agreed with me.. What reply was needed? I was just pointing out that agreeing with me, is contrary to the "cause"(whatever that is).. that so many people have begun speaking of.
  2. You're pretty much a moron. We had been planning that hit on SF for literally months. You can choose to, or not to, believe that. You can either accept the truth, or bathe in ignorance, either way, Im ok with it. And to answer your question, yes, we still hated CSN. Yes we hate GOD. We were all pretty MEH on R&R (save INT), but in war, business is business.
  3. Good grief Gibs, 3 more posts like that, and you will become a damage to the "cause"... tread lightly sir.
  4. I commented in an earlier OWF thread about the use(misuse) of the term lapdog as it applies to the politics at large of CN. It is almost as if people refuse to see reality. In every conflict, there are two sides. No more, no less. Even if you have 15 distinct spheres of power, a conflict comes down to two sides. 95% of all alliances will choose one of the 2 sides and fight (the other 5% that want to pretend to be above everyone else on honor, will foolishly help no ally, by fighting for all allies on all sides.) Whether or not you are a lapdog, is by and large determined by what side you fight on. Alliance 1 choosing to fight on side A, will be a lapdog to the central alliance on side A, regardless of what their own political goals and agendas are. It is literally impossible, in the eyes of EVERYONE on the losing side, and in some of the eyes of those on the fringe of the winning side, for an alliance to have supported a move, because there was a clear and measurable benefit to THEM. It can ONLY be that it was because alliance X said jump, and you said "how high?" It is further, impossible, for such a relationship to exist, that simplifies the political goings on of the world, so that a group of several alliances can all clearly see a path that is superior to them, versus another path. TLR (athens, et.al.) supported VE's war on Polar because we were lapdogs of MK. We then supported TOPs war on Polar because were lapdogs of MK. We then supported MKs war on CSN because we were lapdogs of MK. It is not possible, in the eyes of those in alliances on the losing side that we supported VE's war on Polar because... quite frankly, we hated Polar. It is not at all possible we supported TOPs war on NpO because... we hated SF. And last but not least, no way did we support MKs war on CSN because ... well.. are you ready for this? We still hate SF. It can only be lapdog syndrome, it cannot be separate alliances sharing the same set of enemies and working together to kill those enemies. People, at the end of the day, are very disinterested in who is, or is not, a lapdog. People care only about the perception from which their alliance currently sits. There is a massive segment of the player base on the other side right now, that eagerly await an AI led rolling of MK and friends. Literally, all of you are, by your own definition, sitting awaiting the opportunity to lapdog yourself out to them, so that they can finally do for you, what you all failed so miserably at for 3 years, and that is putting up any sort of a challenge. Certain segments of prominent alliances on the other side, whom absolutely hate everything there is to hate about Duckroll, sucking up so hard to them right now, that it is even funny to folks in Duckroll gov, trying to maintain a smile on their face as they hope to get themselves close enough to Duckroll to ride the coattails if Duckroll makes all of their dreams come true and finally slays the beast that is MK. Hypocrisy in CN is a grand thing. We all do it. I have done it. Every last one of you have been doing it. And until the day that this world is no more, we will continue to do it. Why? Because none of this is real. It is a game. And when you play a game, you get freedom to do as you choose in that game. Carry on lapdogs, wannabe lapdogs, and lapdogs to be.
  5. i lol'ed rawr Ironically, Im ok with secret treaties. But activation of an ODP.. without the D... is funny to me. At the end of the day, I didnt give 2 craps about UINE or AiD... I just found the whole situation to be massively amusing.
  6. Not overly shocking, but I felt like R&R's hit on UINE was complete and utter BS, as they had no legitimate in. It really was one of the things I found most laughable in CN history. UINE and AiD have an issue (at this time, AiD have no tie to R&R at all, none)... things happen, an agreement is made between UINE and AiD to a resolution. In the meantime, AiD signs an ODP with R&R. UINE renegs (or has ridiculous numbers of delays in living up to their end of the bargain).... and magically, R&R hit UINE through an ODP with AiD. Someone show me where UINE hit AiD? I dont see it. Its funny in contrast with the LSF-NoR nonsense. UINE renegs on an agreement that was made BEFORE any AiD-R&R treaty existed. R&R then activates optional defense (lol) to roll UINE. And the people on R&Rs side view this as a great thing to do. When INT gov (the full gov, after hearing cases from both sides), decide that LSF aiding rogues, then basically telling NoR to eff off, constitutes LSF aggression, thereby making support optional, they get roundly trolled. Lesson: retroactive ODPs(without even an attack happening, unless you want to dive DEEP into the ocean of hypocrisy and say that UINE reneging on a deal counts as an attack...LMAO) > oA's. Oh CN, How I love you.
  7. What exactly would an alliance do that would...So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."The IC-OOC line that's so blurred needs to be a lot sharper. It's fine that people have made OOC friends in the game, but the blur needs to be removed. It's certainly possible to dislike people IC and like them OOC, or vice versa. In my opinion (I may be totally wrong) wars really aren't all that interesting after the third cycle or so. Yes, alliances that continuously smack down smaller less-connected alliances (or scaled up, the larger coalition that keeps smacking down the increasingly smaller coalition) are a blight on how fun the game can be, because wars end up being tedious instead of interesting. I think that we're pretty much all in agreement that the big thing that makes this game entertaining is the war aspect, but it's really only a lot of fun when alliances have something more at stake, such as differing political ideologies or a longstanding rivalry, instead of just warring for the hell of it. That answer does not address the point you made of what can be done "to make things more interesting" within the political simulator. All I see is "end wars sooner," which is nothing "NEW" and could be achieved nearly every war if alliances on the losing side would a) stay out of Peace Mode and b) not refuse to use words like "surrender." The onus of that lies with the defeated party.
  8. What exactly would an alliance do that would "make things interesting." Its a no-win situation at the alliance level. If you pursue relationships with alliances whos interest align with yours, but are not the loudest voice in the group, you are a lap dog. If you pursue and sign new treaties with people who are shifting around to your way of thinking, you are "destroying the game by adding to the treaty web mess!" and the alliance you are signing with are "cowards because they are changing sides." The problem is not, IMO , that we dont play the game as a political simulator, its the there are massive mechanical limitations to the game of the political simulation, and because we are all OOC entities, we all blur the IC-OOC line to suit our own whims. This too detracts from the ability to simulate politics. If Nation A of alliance XYZ is at war with Nation B of alliance 123, and nation A has 25 nukes and nation B has no nukes, not only do we cheer on nation A for nuking (which I am ok with), we reward him for it, and we seek out nations B's to nuke. And we do this at the individual nation level while arguing at the alliance level, which alliance entity is most close to satan for their disgusting war of aggression. Its innately hypocritical, but it is the game we are left with. So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."
  9. My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.Wait...You couldn't care less about people playing IC, but you explain what should or not be "part of the IC reality of Bob". Why should we take your angle on role-playing as superior? People can legitimately associate "class" and "honour" to whatever they please.Celebrating war, combat and even (what for us modern people are) atrocities, at the same time condemning disloyalty, isn't intrinsically incoherent: during the history of humankind there have been countless RL groups and cultures that practised atrocities and praised loyalty. Atrocities are also often committed without the public being really informed/concerned.Just think of terrorists and Nazis. Or consider that attacks that were bound to kill civilians have been justified/rationalized (and even cheered) even in modern democracies (WWII - or all recent conflicts, for that matter).OOC originated "class" and "honour" aren't arbitrary either: it's just that a game's "make believe" can't be completely invented from scratch, and people pick or discard RL concepts as they see fit for their own amusement. This is "as it should be because it's a game". There is a reason RL correlations to CN fail 100% of the time. I will let you reflect on the why's and why not's of that.
  10. My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.
  11. Its like you missed the whole point. If you want to claim classy or honorable, then do so in EVERY facet in the IC portion of the game. Call out your allies when they fail to punish a member nation who nukes a nation that has no nukes, or has not nuked 1st. My references are all to the use of the word in the IN CHARACTER sections of the game. Maybe you have a difficult time separating the 2. But IN CHARACTER, if you can turn the other cheek while your alliance, or an ally has someone who would commit such an atrocity , and you fail to be outraged over it, then you cant exactly be outraged over ANYTHING. That you can ignore this in an IN CHARACTER section is a clear example of allowing the OOC sense of morality permeate the game.
  12. So, I give this speech every war, and I will give it again, because its really become a pet peeve of mine. Lets start with IC-OOC. World Affairs and Alliance Announcements are in character. That means, of course, that as you post there, you are expected to post as the leader of your nation within the game. Why is this important? Well, to me it seems simple. We allow, in this IC forum, people to spew nonsense about a classy war declaration, or an honorable war declaration, or that any particular alliance or bloc is acting with honor. To a man, every alliance in this game, in war time, will jump at the chance to, and encourage members to, nuke nations whether they have nuked you, or even have the capability to nuke you. On an individual basis, nobody ever really takes note of who is doing this, and I am o.k. with that. I trust we will all concede that EVERY alliance does it, and encourages it in this world. Now, do not get me wrong, I am not here to suggest that nukes should not be used, even in this example. My issue simply lies in the painting of ANY alliance (because we all do it) as "classy" or "honorable" in war. That a member can nuke another nation for 6 days, and kill 300-400K troops, and 20-30K citizens through loss of Infrastructure, and do so as per the instructions written in his alliance's war guide, and still be deemed to be "classy" or "honorable" , seems to indicate the permeation of an OOC sense of honor permeating the IC forums. If IC, you are to hail an alliance who you KNOW will order and encourage nuclear nations to nuke non-nuclear nations (and they ALL do it), then it seems to me that you would, IC give up any claim to outrage at the way a war may start. If you are to talk about class and honor in the game in an IC forum, fine, but be consistent, and expect class and honor, and express outrage at the lack thereof in EVERY instance, or simply stop talking about class and honor, especially in war time. Why? It does not exist in this game, and it never will exist, and thats the way it should be. It is a game. End Rant. See you again next war.
  13. Quality blog right here. Those GATO thugs are pretenders, and the whole world needs to know this. Thank you Roquentin Jr.
  14. Rush Sykes

    War

    Come on Tromp. You know me better than that. This blog has nothing to do with following treaties. This blog has everything to do with "you are dishonorable because you hit an ally of an ally, but we are strategic for putting you in that position." Its a nonsense way of masking and hiding, that the moment you sign on to side a or side b of a conflict, you empower your coalition to put every single one of your allies on the other side, in the worst position possible, but there is no dishonor in this. Its a stupid double standard. And, it is NOT a new stance for me. I preached it straight MKs face in \m/-NpO, and you know I did, you and I talked literally EVERY day back then. This is nothing new for me, and Im not mad. I am ODNs friend and ally, and I am here to say the "RAWR ODN HITTING MHA DISHONORS SPARTA" tag line is flipping stupid.
  15. Rush Sykes

    War

    War. It is what it is. Its not meant to be pretty, its not meant to be honorable. We are in such a poor shape on planet Bob that we literally hail people who follow their treaties as honorable. Stop it Planet Bob, just stop it. The job of a military in a war is to win. You win by killing people and breaking things. Friendships, treaties, all of that nonsense aside, you have two sides in a war. If you are not the same as a friend, you know what that makes you? An enemy. It may sound brutal, and the reality does not lend itself to pretty propaganda pieces about how alliance A is stabbing alliance B in the back by attacking alliance B's friend. Its ok that you are on the other side. And its ok that you let the coalition on your side use your friend on the other side to pick and choose entry points that specifically cripple your friend on the other side's ability to help their friends that they are fighting on the same side with. In this situation, you placing your friend on the other side in a bad position to help your side gain an advantage is STRATEGY. Its not dishonorable at all, not ONE IOTA, to be part of a planning channel, that SEEKS to put your friends on the other side in a bad position. You maintain your honor in this. But then, your friend on the other side decides that they want to do what they can to help the people they are fighting with, on the same side, to do the unthinkable (win a war, SHOCKING ISNT IT), and they decide that they will not let an ally of an ally cripple a war effort, so they do the unthinkable, and hit an ally of an ally. They are treacherous. They did not allow their friend on the other side, to enable their friends on the other side to make their decision making about who to hit difficult. This is not strategy, this is dishonor. And should incite rage. Stop it planet Bob, just stop it. HOW DARE YOU TRY TO WIN A WAR. This just in, doing what is best to win a war is horrible. News at 11. Oh yes, and while we are talking about Sparta talking about honor. The morning before ODNs horrific pre-empt on Spartas ally in MHA, Sparta gov approached Olympus. About getting a blanket peace on the olympus front. Why you ask? So they could...are you ready for this.... hit ODNs ally in MK. Honor, indeed. Stop it planet Bob, just stop it.
  16. Nobody gets more jollies out of seeing his name in lights than JGoods!
  17. You know Xiph... For all the minuses that I give you for being in SP .... I give you a massive +1 for the suggestion of removing tech as foreign aid completely... I have long been a proponent of such a move, and made threads about it, and been roundly criticized for it. The other suggestion Id add to yours is limiting(in a sense) warchests by adding an increasing happiness penalty for each day you have... say.. more than a $1 billion surplus. Why? Citizens would not love a government who didnt spend money on them. It would force people to buy more infra, it would mean the loss of infra in a war is MUCH more severe because of its level costs.
  18. Rush Sykes

    Sup Polar?

    I love NSO, but I dearly want to punch many of them in the face for being the alliance that kicked off the "we wont ask our allies to defend us, despite that they HAVE to by treaty, and its politically OK if they dont defend us because we didnt ask" era. It has warped and bastardized the meaning of mutual defense. The reason CnG doesnt suck, and the other side does? We took beatdowns for years with a smile on our faces, didnt e-lawyer out of commitments, because its all part of the game, and the cycle. The sphere at present that are using this 'Legion hasnt asked for help" tag-line are playing the "if we wait long enough, we can change the political climate:" game. The best way to change the political climate is man up, impress someone, and possibly get new friends out of the deal.
  19. To be brutally honest, it would all depend on who hit who 1st. Whoever GETS hit will have lots of anarchies, and the hitting side will have MASSIVE odds the 1st week of war, as the defending side would not be able to declare many defensive wars. So they will face lots more 3v1s and 2v1s.
  20. This is a cute dig D34th, but it is incorrect. I tried.
  21. Yes, but prior to 2008, CBs came rapidfire, as 50K players with larger alliances were more willing to take risks. You actually had people who would do things that actually created a CB. The problem was, the community decided that one of these need to be present into eternity, because *gasp* Admin Forbid "I dont like you and your alliance" be used as a reason for war.
×
×
  • Create New...