Jump to content

lamuella

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,586

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by lamuella

  1. New Frontier

    Posted

    OK, I will answer both of your questions:

    "Are you trying to compare UPN refusing peace until NpO got out to that?"

    No.

    "If so are you suggesting that backing an ally is now a disbandable offense?"

    No.

    I was trying to define the difference between "forced disbandment", where an alliance has no choice but to disband, and "refusing terms", where peace is on the table but refused because a term is unacceptable to them.

    At no point did I mention UPN

    At no point did I mention NpO

    At no point did I suggest that "backing an ally" is a disbandable offense

    At no point did I suggest that anything at all was or should be a disbandable offense

    At no point did I say that deliberately attempting to disband an alliance was an acceptable course of action.

    I'm slightly at a loss to associate your reply with my post.

  3. New Frontier

    Posted

    forced disbandment is possible, and does happen, but only under certain circumstances.

    Not every alliance that disbands while at war was forced to disband.

    A forced disbandment is one where:

    1) the besieged alliance is offered no potential path to peace

    or

    2) The besieged alliance is offered only a path to peace that would largely cripple or fundamentally change the alliance.

    An alliance that refuses a surrender term, leading to the war being continued, is not being forced to disband by any definition, unless the surrender term they refuse is impossible or near-impossible to achieve.

    Claiming that an alliance is committing forced disbandment because you didn't accept a peace term that it was within your power to conform to is like saying that the library is forcing you to go to jail because you refused to pay your fines for two years and eventually they called the police.

    Feel free to keep fighting if you find the offered terms unfair and you think you can negotiate better, but recognize your own part in such a choice.

  11. Sardonic

    Posted

    Chron, you don't have a clue about art. Sorry to say that, but it's essentially true.

    You posted a Jackson Pollock as an example of art so bad you refer to it as "turd". The same Jackson Pollock regarded as one of the three or four most important artists of the twentieth century, one of the creators of abstract expressionism and fractal art.

    The criticisms you level against art of this kind were levelled against every new artistic movement that differed from the mainstream. They were certainly levelled against the impressionists, and impressionist art is now regarded as being some of the most important and beautiful art the world has ever seen.

    You're making the mistake of confusing things you like with things that are good, and things you dislike with things that are bad. You seem to make this mistake an awful lot.

  14. Penkala

    Posted

    I agree with Astronaut Jones here. If the purpose of the reps is to bleed the other alliance, that's a punishment more than I'm comfortable with. Ask the rest of GOONS gov about how wary I've been about pushing the envelope too far on reps.

    With that said, I do still view them as having a corrective as well as a restorative function.

  15. lamuella

    Posted

    The winner gets no rights that the loser doesn't give. If the loser says no, then the only thing the winner can do is continue to war. That might scare the stat whores and the newbies of an alliance, but anyone who's been around the block once or twice quite frankly doesn't really care all that much. Hell, they might look at it as a good time to reroll for better resources.

    The winner can force nothing upon the loser that the loser doesn't agree to. In that vein, the winner is really at the mercy of the loser. Funny ole world that way, isn't it?

    things that the winner can force on the loser:

    Nukes

    Cruise missiles

    bombing runs

    ground attacks

    spy operations

    navy attacks

  18. lamuella

    Posted

    for the record, I was in the first GOONS. I was also in Browncoats when we were betrayed by our own government, and expected to pay reparations that were considerably higher than this (when alliance size is taken into account) after the Bubblegum War. I didn't moan about the reparations, in fact I coordinated the repayment efforts.

    I've asked for reparations, and I've paid reparations. Asking for them didn't make me a horrible thug. Paying them didn't make me a bleating victim.

  24. admin

    Posted

    are we talking most destructive in terms of raw numbers, or most destructive in terms of damage done versus total nation size?

    A lot more nukes are falling this war because 1) it's weapons free and 2) a lot more nations have nukes now. Not only are nations on average bigger than they were before, but there have been twelve more months for people to buy Manhattan Projects. While there are still people joining the game every day, the average nation size is still creeping up, and the path to nukes is easier than it has been before.

  25. Sardonic

    Posted

    as fond as I am of Polar, and I think I was always one of the people most in favor of them, I do sometimes wonder if we missed a trick not talking to Mushroom Kingdom and other similar alliances when we were re-forming. It was certainly one of the things that made people most skeptical about us to begin with, and one of the things we've had to fight hardest to overcome.

    However, back when we were putting the idea together, our biggest and most overarching concern was purely and simply not getting rolled. I'm sure Salithus and Sardonic will back me up that we were almost certain that within a week of re-forming someone would be attacking us, and our vision of success was "It's been a month and we're still allowed to exist". I think we wanted to be able to say, essentially, "The people who loathed us the most don't have a problem with us coming back".

    That said, I do regret not talking to MK and Umbrella, who have become two of our closest friends, and I do regret not talking enough to IRON and ODN, who I think felt that we ignored them.

    A word should be said here about timing, because we exhibited some of the most exceptionally... interesting timing I have seen from an alliance. Although we all still played the game before we reformed the alliance, none of us were political highrollers. We kept tabs on the world, but only in a general sense. We seriously had no idea that within a night or so of us forming, one of the people we signed the protectorate with would get rolled. I know at the time many people that I deeply respect thought we were a catspaw of the NPO, thrown out there as a good will gesture. I hope we've proven otherwise in the last 10 months.

×
×
  • Create New...