Schad

Which would be why people have referred to GOP as quasi-neutral over the years. The fact that you didn't bother to know the diplomatic status of a protectorate of a major alliance doesn't make them hypocrites, it means that there are a lot of people who didn't do their fucking research.

Having had discussions with GOP about this way back in the day when colour politics were actually a thing, And they've been pretty explicit about it. Had discussions with GOP probably three years ago (when green sphere politics were still a thing) about the policy, and anyone who was on green then or in the intervening time knew their stance.

Yeah, the nature of most of these awards will be that one has to create a massive nation in order to qualify. Doesn't mean that they should be replaced by any stretch -- I too like the most-destructive award -- but it'd be nice to add a round-long award or two, as well. Most destruction inflicted over the course of the round would be terrific, assuming that it can be added; while that too has an element of 'how much damage can you do and still have roughly $2b in your pocket after each war?', and will thus be won by dealmaster every round, it'd be a great addition.

Followed by deletion at stage 6, re-rolling in the misguided believe that you'll get a little stage 3 action, before settling in for a gentle slide back through 4 and 5 before repeating the process several times.

Do not taunt, do not complain. What would we be without Mume? It is the opposite if not always equal reaction to our action, the malformed ying to our yang. Just think of the Mume-sized hole in our hearts that existed for a few weeks. Colours, less vibrant. Music, less catchy. Mume is a pinch of salt in an otherwise bland broth. It's the bacteria in your guts whose presence is somewhat off-putting when you really sit down and think about it, but which prevents you from having all manner of constipation. We all need a little Mume once in a while.

And now it all becomes clear...it's another fucking Mume plot.

There's so much unspoken political subtext here. If only someone would speak about the elephants. Let's split the difference and say that he still has his leash on, but it's largely ornamental given that he's frolicking about biting pensioners.

TE is essentially self-policed. You won't see any of those things because, first, no one in their right mind would try to enforce them, and second, anyone attempting to enforce such would be ground into a fine paste by other alliances. We as a community have rather well-tuned outrage detectors, itchy trigger fingers, and fast-onset boredom, a combination that generally leads to rather swift retribution. So fear not, that slope is not terribly slippery. We are, again, not WAPA's protectors. No more than we would be the protectors of a 150k NS alliance if someone three times their size down-declared on them, and we stepped in. No more than Citadel, TPC, OP, Warriors or others who might view such a scenario as necessitating their intervention would be. You might view it as your god-given right to bully WAPA, but it doesn't appear that many share the view...and indeed, it seems that more than a couple have been on the receiving end of similar from your members previously. And besides, this five-day war thing in TE? Yeesh. Back in my day, beyond walking twelve miles uphill to the salt mines each day so that you could afford a single nuke after a month, wars also regularly lasted a couple weeks, sometimes more. In a sixty-day round, with smaller nations. Also, a twelve-pound turkey cost a nickel and Roosevelt (can't remember which) was President, but that's neither here nor there. Point being, ain't nothing wrong with doing a bit of fighting that has some real bite to it every so often. It's fun seeing NS -- that of your opponents, and that of your own nation -- disappear and knowing that it won't be coming back a day later when all's said and done.

Either side is capable, sure; we're all blessed with the wonders of human agency and so on. But as for the more practical question of when this [i]will[/i] end, we're really the wrong party to which one should speak. Also, WAPA now have 13 members; curious what happens if/when they hit 15.

Yeah, it kinda hard to tag us as monstrous war-extenders given that PMs to the effect of "still want to keep fighting into next century for the right to be dicks to WAPA?" are met with stony silence.

Good luck, and good look.

If you really want to send a chill down the spines of the villains of TE, I believe that you're supposed to close your harbors to trading and go into Defcon 2.

In my position as official mouthpiece of GOLF, I would like to express that you are all mouth-breathing pansies who couldn't find the war button if it was in the partition of your hard drive that contains nothing but your vast library of internet smut, and that if you feel differently, declare war.

Ah, so he was a stalking horse for the ponies, as it were.

Didn't iamthey hold that position before? Congrats to The Order of the Ponydox on their new government.

Can't speak for everyone, but a fair bit of that tattling came about because someone was trying to demonstrate just how pervasive it was, as something of a blunt-force means of indicating that a great deal of people from all corners of the game hadn't the foggiest idea that they were violating any rules.

We've been told that a clear set of rules on what exactly constitutes XP farming will be forthcoming, at some point. As things stand, the guidelines seem to be "you should have known that it was not acceptable because...", so warns for all!

There is none. That's the nice thing with TE: treaties ain't needed, but if you do something that raises the ire of others, they tend to register a complaint by way of the war button.

Tip from a somewhat experienced player: you might want to check his nation age in SE.

This is confusing. Inst, you are confusing. Confusion is no long Confusion, which is confusing.

KillerCruiser still has a warchest. Therefore, they are [i]this close[/i] to bill-locking the entirety of the Alliance Formerly Known As Specify Other, you guys.

Look, it's like twins, right? They may have similarities, and you might perhaps dress them in the same clothes and give them rhyming names, but they're two separate entities. But every so often, a situation arises in the womb and one twin ends up absorbing the other. And there's no angry recriminations, no talk of "how could you do that to your brother"...it's just a thing that happens and everyone shrugs and you continue on as best you can with two underdeveloped fetus legs protruding from your abdomen.

I realize that you have previously addressed the matter -- insofar as a statement was made that the rules on slot-filling have not changed, full stop, no further explanation needed -- but I feel that something a little more needs to be issued on that front. Warnings are now being handed out, in some cases putting nations within one warn of a ban (at least with those I'm aware; there could be outright bannings, I have no idea), but by virtue of the fact that there are literally hundreds of wars waged with allies or friends involving several dozen alliances, spanning at least a couple weeks and clearly undertaken with the intention of farming XP, the no-explanation explanation would appear not to have been self-explanatory; I doubt very much that those previously law-abiding nations have taken it upon themselves en masse to commit warnable offenses, but rather took the fact that the practice was common and did not appear to be incurring penalty as an indication that it was allowable. And that likely occurred because war gaming has being allowable in the past, and [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/109060-war-slot-filling/#entry2918685]the rules as exist[/url] (that's the thread linked from the XP discussion) mention number of attacks and competition for slots, not damage, not attempts to inflict damage. Would it thus be possible to produce clear guidance as to where the line between verboten XP farming and legitimate war-gaming is crossed, or is this "we know it when we see it?" And in situations where such a large group of people have misunderstood -- rather than intentionally violated -- the rules as they stood, would it be possible to issue a general warning to the membership of the game rather than going straight to in-game warnings? Derp, title was to say 'Attacks Between Allied Alliances', but I lose words sometimes.

You stopped hitting them because we hit you. Before that, you'd launched three wars in the two days preceding our declaration. As for having less NS, it matters only if you want to wring your hands about evil people trying to foist policies on you...we've not the means for foisting, and thus have only a oh-hey-let's-keep-an-even-war-going-if-you-care-that-much-about-dickbaggery-oh-god-why-did-I-hyphenate-this position. Luckily, your alliance leader has informed us of your warchest superiority and desire to fight on, and that works for us; it is, after all, a good, evenly-matched war. The warchest bit may have been something that ought to have been discussed with the rest of your AA, but life comes at you so fast there's barely a chance to duck sometimes.

Yeah, such horrors we're trying to inflict upon you. Here we are asking whether you could stop hitting WAPA over and over with full attacks, and then threatening them if they fight back. And we're making such unreasonable demands from a position of considerable strength, except for the bit where we've had less NS than you for the entirety of the war, including at this point. History's greatest monsters.