Dilber
-
Posts
3,391 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dilber
-
-
I've always liked NADC.
-
Archon, perhaps you might want to look what AA he was flying while sanctioned. Here's a hint. It wasn't MK.
-
Honestly because they're paper tigers. Kevin's freaking bill locked, the only offensive attack they can get on me is a mercenary. Bilrow's in peace mode. The whole damned alliance is laughable.
They're going to prove they have some relevance by destroying us. Pathetic really, and certainly nothing "Grand" about it. More like the "Glowing Global Alliance".
And with a post like this, you lose a lot of sympathy.
-
I won't cite a failure on either side of this debacle and especially not SPAM as an alliance. A single member, perhaps representative of the collective, perhaps not, has made an infraction and the GGA has responded. There's no room for value judgments.
There is however lots of room for debate as to what one may call a "rational" actor in this world, for we certainly do enjoy a very special interpretation of rationality itself, one more akin to rationalizations than anything else.
OOC: I'll catch you on IRC later today, if possible. I'll enjoy this. It might be a decent thread at another point. As a note, I'm headed to lunch after this reply, so I'll continue this afterwards.
IC: While it is arbitrary, every alliance has it's own guidelines. I have perhaps a jaded view from my perch, however, it all stands. There is no uniform way to decide something, and to do so would require a convention between all the alliances. You know as well as I do that it will never happen. I personally would be against it due to taking away sovereignty from my alliance. As such, each alliance needs to create it's own standards. Not every alliance is equal. As such, each alliance can make it's own view. How widespread it is is based off the power of each alliance.
In this case, is is more likely that such events will not occur in the future? Probably.
As such, it's worthwhile.
-
OOC: I tend to disagree on that. There are certain models that should still hold. If you look at the alliances that have maintained success over a long period of time, their actions have proven consistent and rational. 1. GPA has remained neutral, and only defended their "interest", in that of their member alliances. The Orders have always acted rationally, etc etc. As such, the model still holds. It just means there are a vast number of alliances that don't act rationally.
IC: 21. I jest with that number, however, the number is all relative. The matter here isn't necessarilly the size itself, but the control of the members. A larger alliance that doesn't have control of it's members is just as dangerous, if not more so, however, a smaller alliance has to be more careful than the larger alliance because of appearances. In the end, it all comes down to the other party in what that number is. In this case, GGA decided it was representitive.
-
OOC: Rational actor is a term used in Political Science. It references a model used to describe how states should, and mainly do act.
IC: But when an alliance is that small, every member is a representative of the alliance as a whole. If you can't control your members at that small a level, then what hope is there for the alliance as a whole?
-
I believe the prior analogy still holds, Dilber. Other relations aside, the GGA's actions in this situation are perfectly characteristic of a perennial issue in our world, that is, how do we treat the individual with regards to greater affiliation of alliance. Here, the GGA is referencing the "might makes right" standard and attacking SPAM because they can. If it were the NPO, it wouldn't happen and not because of any relations they may or may not enjoy with the Order.
Now, this is nothing against the GGA. It's an explanation, not a moral judgment.
The analogy holds.
Of course, the relative power of the alliances is important. That's one variable. The one I mentioned is another. What you are referecing is the lack of rational actors in this world. I've always founded that the GGA leadership is a rational actor.
This would have been avoided had the nuker not been a member of their government, and had SPAM as a whole had better relations. If you have good relations, you go to them first. The failure on this part is not on the hand of the GGA. It's on the hand of SPAM.
-
so if one member of the NPO did something rash the entire alliance would deserve utter and complete zi. (Just referencing NPO as its size.)
We have good relations with them. Spam does not. There's more then one variable.
-
Why would you expect flaming? an alliance that fights to the end (and I believe besides GOONS you are the last to surrender) deserves respect.
Having said that.. I wish you would have surrendered sooner. It was painful to send wave after wave of unopposed bombing runs on nations that could not fight back. However none of those we engaged surrendered individually but lasted out the carnage until the overall alliance surrender. We know now not to mess with you in the future.. and will assist in your protection during the 75 day period.
King Vitauts
Protectorate of Curland
I'll flame him for comments he made, and for being very disrespectful during the war.
-
You were the ones who begged for a cease-fire and it is an out and out lie that our "entire side" violated it. Most of us abided by it, but were indeed chafing at the fact that this cease-fire was granted by our side when we were poised to defeat you. Then we would have been in a position to basically do what the Allies did to the defeated NAZI regime and Imperial Japanese empire [or like what dentist does to a rotten tooth during a root canal] -- and thus prevent the deterioration to diplomatic discourse that the Orders' hegemony has caused since.
bullcrap. We agreed on a ceasefire each time, and it was on the third or fourth one that your side cancelled the ceasefire 5 min before update and hit. We had been in the negotiation room at the time. Unlike you, I was in power at the time.
That simply is not what happened. CK declared the mission to have been accomplished with Ivan's tongue-in-cheek apology and the stifling of attacks upon LUE. Tragically, the root causes of this aggression was left intact; the hornet's nest was only whacked rather than destroyed, so we found ourselves with a larger and angrier one to deal with later.I apologize, I was incorrect. CK stated it first, and your AC at the time, Yoda, stated it again later.
8:20:59 PM: Chris_Kaos: War seems to be the only viable option.8:23:08 PM: Yoda: what you do is you knock them down and keep them down and then refuse to acknowledge their existance whilst holding them down
Translation: you lack the intellectual honesty to deal with a contrary position, so you dismiss it and hope that others will be stupid enough to be satisfied with that.No, I'm pretty certain I meant what I said. No one takes you seriously.
-
NS: 29,574.980
Age: 1/27/2006 (604 Days)
I can thank over 40 nukes for that, and turning down aid a fair bit for alliance members.
-
Crowdog was lucky I was drinking last night, and not on, because I would have made certain he would be dead.
-
lol, walford.
The last week of GWI, we were in cease-fire for what turned out to be sham negotiations. This lack of cohesion was that there was no clear objective on the side of the Allies. Democracy typically is at a disadvantage to dictatorship in that regard.Yeah. Such a ceasefire. Remember that ceasefire that your entire side broke to launch an attack on us? The reason we'll never do a ceasefire again?
During the war, I argued [and history has shown] that you do not leave an aggressive regime intact if it comes to war. In that case, it pleased NP/pO to attack an entire alliance because one guy posted offensive material and a few others laughed about it, thus ushering in a pattern of mock self-righteousness to justify destroying rivals.Your alliance agreed to attack as well, due to how horrific it was, and then hit us for in game gain. In fact, Chris Kaos was the one that suggested military strikes, as it was the only way to teach them.
The rest here is just your usual drivel. Carry on.
-
Have fun.
-
Well the nations who have attacked me will no doubt be considered enemies of the IAA unless I say otherwise. I don't have a problem with this, at least now I can say as I please.
I've informed them we'll retaliate, and when it reaches a certain point, we'll consider ourselves in a de-facto state of war.
-
They didn't have airplanes back then. A 3 week war back then = a 1.5 week war today in damage.
Not really. Remember, no one had a lot of infra. The top nation was only 10k, which makes the whole thing a lot more damaging overall. Furthermore, you had 2 ground attacks total per day. If 3 people are on you, they could have 6 on you, while you could only hit 1 or two people.
-
Bit harsh to attack him no?
Not when we've been warning him for days
-
Then let them defend you. You've been trolling us for a while, and when an officer tells you to knock it off, we usually aren't bluffing.
I most certainly am not.
-
My patience is reached.
-
Interesting, so how does this work with the secret treaties protocol that FAN announced quite some months ago?
Because if we catch it, both alliances are destroyed
-
Fine, if you think their words aren't enough.
Stop speaking here. I tire of your trolling.
-
Yes, yes it is. Can we call you the morning of the one year anniversary and re-enact it.
Who's War Dec do I turn down this time
-
Scary thought, isn't it?
-
Also, I just realized, it's been a year since I helped you coup P_C.
Is/was the UJP vs. JL a great war?
in Open World Forum
Posted
So your argument against it reshaping Planet Bob is that it reshaped Planet Bob.
Just wanted to get that out there.