ktarthan
-
Posts
1,615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ktarthan
-
-
[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330035535' post='2927006']
You do not stay at the head of the pyramid for as long as MK has through several crises by handing out daisies.
[/quote]
Okay then, so you just like to assume things are true because you think they probably are. -
[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1330032510' post='2926974']
MK certainly has never let that stand in the way before? If posting only with complete knowledge becomes the standard then there will be 90% less posts on this forum.
Also, I would think he is pretty close, whether by accident or design.
[/quote]
Do you have something in your teeth? -
[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330029993' post='2926948']
I am not super well informed about the comings and goings of the current power structure because I have been inactive and Polar has been at the bottom of the totem pole for years.
So it was more of a catchall "and other things I may have missed" type deal, and not a "AND OTHER THINGS TOO HORRIBLE TO LIST", or something similar, situation.
[/quote]
So you have no problem calling someone out for terrible things that you don't actually have any knowledge of. -
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330026065' post='2926891']
How could I forget? It was one of the greatest time periods for GOONS, a nice target rich environment ending in a modest amount of reps.
[/quote]
You're welcome. -
I like this treaty which is a thing that I like.
edit: more concise redundancy -
[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1330019401' post='2926791']
With the understanding that this information should trickle down, and that the policy is easily found by nations who make a reasonable effort to research the nations from which they are purchasing tech (and their alliances), I see no reason why ignorance should be an excuse.
[/quote]
Ignorance is in fact a perfectly good excuse, and UE themselves have acknowledged this with their (completely brainless) refund procedure. -
[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1330016867' post='2926735']
UE has made a reasonable effort to make their new policy known about.
[/quote]
No they haven't. Posting a policy in a place that is not necessary to view in order to send a tech deal to a UE nation isn't a "reasonable effort" by far. -
[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1330006550' post='2926603']
It's OK to treat them as they like to, I don't get what has to do with treating people the way they [i]don't[/i] want to be treated in, anyway.
[/quote]
That was in the context of the golden rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself". It's a pretty good rule until you come across people who enjoy being treated in a way that others would find unwelcome. If a masochist treated everyone how they wished to be treated themselves, well, they'd probably rack up some assault charges. -
I'm okay with this.
-
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329949569' post='2925769']
Since literally everything that MK members have stated publicly has been proven to be the exact inverse of the truth, should we just start assuming your denials are admissions?
[/quote]
You sure got us!
Also, RIA is a good aliance. -
[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1329947105' post='2925735']
What happens if [i]your member[/i] approaches a member of an alliance not on that list and agrees to a tech deal, do you still feel they have the right to renege on any agreement made? In this instance the agreement would not be unsolicited but the party in question may not have been approved by your government.
[/quote]
This has been covered in the thread; this policy only applies to unsolicited deals, period. As much of a problem as I have with it on the whole, they at least had that much foresight. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329945852' post='2925725']
We will attempt to rectify the flaws and errors present in a timely manner.
[/quote]
The entire policy is a flaw. Scrap it. Teach your small nations not to accept aid unless they're supposed to. [i]Everyone is happier.[/i] -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944620' post='2925702']
What I'm saying is that in honest mistakes, we [i]may[/i] forward the refund elsewhere, we are simply under no obligation to do so. Obligating ourselves invites abuse.
[/quote]
1) This is not made clear anywhere in the policy or in the application process. In fact the application form explicitly states that refunds will [i]only[/i] be sent, in cash, to the nation who send the aid.
2) If this is added to the policy, it's still not enough. You [i]might[/i] not intentionally cause economic harm to innocent tech buyers who were unaware of your policy?
Edit: And even if you forward the refund elsewhere, the fact still remains that you wasted 10 days of the buyer's slot. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329942868' post='2925681']
How we handle things is up to the discretion of us. The refund policy is as it is to prevent malicious abuse; If we offered to redirect funds, the lot of you would flood to us just to lock our aid slots up as needless middlemen (Bear in mind that two of UE's aid slots are also wasted in this action). Honest incidents can be addressed, at our discretion, in a more friendly and helpful manner. Malicious attempts to abuse this and lock up our aid slots will not be entertained.
[/quote]
What I'm saying is that if there is a nation who legitimately didn't know of your policy and has a valid claim for a "refund", they have no reason to want to do so. They have all the economic incentive to just let UE keep the money. If they go through the refund process it will use up [i]at least[/i] 10 days of a slot which is equal to ~33 tech, or ~$1M. This is on top of the 10 days that the initial aid takes to expire, which totals ~67 tech (~$2M) in losses that are a direct result of this policy and of no fault of the buying nation. If they don't do the refund (which is their best option), they're then out ~33 tech (~$1M) plus the initial ~$3M.
[b][i]This policy has the potential to cause unnecessary economic harm to completely innocent nations.[/b][/i] -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329939236' post='2925652']
We will make a good faith effort to fulfill valid refund applications, but we cannot guarantee this if a malicious attempt is made to abuse this policy and flood our forums with refund requests. The refund process exists primarily for parties who either (a) were caught up in this transitional period or (b) make unsolicited aid offers without being aware of this policy. We have no intention of screwing innocent parties of their money.
[/quote]
Alright let's talk about the refund policy.
Let us assume an innocent nation that falls under (b). Let us also assume the best case scenario for everything involved. That nation has used up an aid slot for 20 days with a net zero gain. If he immediately finds a new seller, that deal will have effectively taken 50 days to complete.
If the buyer says nuts to the whole refund process and eats his losses, sure he'll be out $3M, but at least his aid slot opens up 10 days earlier. Any buyer will tell you those 10 days is absolutely more valuable than a measly $3M.
UE has created a policy where an innocent [i]victim[/i] is better off if they don't pursue the recourse offered in that same policy. Either whoever wrote it and the people who signed it are completely brainless, or they're intentionally trying to cause strife. Calling it a refund is a joke, as you've already stated that it's not unreasonable for a nation to have not known about this policy to begin with. -
[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1329934963' post='2925624']
I am thoroughly enjoying watching everyone reading into the Worst Case Scenario of this Policy when UE has made it clear that they do no wish to 'rob' people of their money. They used this announcement and policy to simply discourage people not on the White List from sending them offers so that they can avoid any sort of entanglement that involves the thievery of other people's money.
Not that I expected anything less from the OWF.
[/quote]
"Reading into the Worst Case Scenario" of a policy is how you evaluate its worth. If a policy has a Worst Case Scenario that is unacceptable and not accounted for, then it is not a valuable policy. Sometimes that Worst Case is not readily apparent and excusable, given the subsequent amendment of the policy once it is known. The issues with this policy, however, are totally obvious regardless of its intent. -
[quote]
United Equestria takes no responsibility in informing every individual state outside of our borders, and trusts that interested foreign governments will perform the due diligence to inform their member states of our new policy.
[/quote]
This is, in short, the reason why this policy will fail. Unless you do your due diligence (hint: this thread is not that), this is nothing short of advocating stealing.
Scenario: A nation is a member of an alliance not on your white-list. They don't read the OWF. They don't check their alliance's forums more than once every couple weeks because they're busy with other things. In the meantime they send a tech deal offer to a UE nation which they found by random, which is met with no message, but the offer is accepted. Under this blanket policy, you just stole this nation's money.
Edit: The refund policy doesn't mean jack. Aside from the completely inane usage of slots, and the fact that there's no indication of the actual criteria UE uses to refund the aid, and the fact that there's no promise of expediency in the refund process (time is money, friends), if someone doesn't know about this policy they won't find out about the refund application until after the aid they initially sent has expired. At which point there's no guarantee that it'll stay on their aid screen to be screen-shot as is required in the process. -
[quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1329870490' post='2925314']
Follow the Golden Rule my friends.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12)
"Do to no one what you yourself dislike." (Tobit 4:15)
I agree with the OP. The issue I have is that people sometimes forget that the person on the other side has feelings too, and you just might ruin their day. Be decent toward people, in this game.
[/quote]
What about Masochists? -
[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1329814995' post='2925049']
I think the line was drawn by admin. He prohibited Viceroys overtaking CN Forums by receiving admin access.
I think you can apply that on this case. Spys that sign up at foreign alliances do so as an IC action. They IC answer the interview questions, give their nation data, go through the academy and want to be an IC part of the community.
bros however had OOC tasks. He maintained Forums and updated them. There is nothing IC when it comes to that. Admin, with his ruling, explicitly labeled !@#$@#$ with the Forums and the database as OOC action.
[/quote]
As far as I know, bros didn't do anything malicious to the forums or database themselves. I guess you can disagree with me, but I think that accessing/intentionally gaining information that is restricted by IC conventions can only be considered an offense IC. Regardless of the method used to access it (as long as it's legal).
Think about it this way: The only reason the info bros took was considered confidential is because of the game, so why should he be reprimanded anywhere other than the game? If I wanted to start a member's only gaming forum, and someone told me not to trust bros to do it because he had previously used his admin access to view information privy only to ~members of a Cybernations alliance he was not a part of~ I'd probably laugh in their face.
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329821692' post='2925062']
No, actually I don't have any trouble at all. That's why I commented on your interaction with it.
[/quote]
Alright, consider my memory hazy. Remind me of my personal interaction with the IC/OOC divide.
[quote]
Well, nevermind the potential pending biodad litigation
[/quote]
When the subject of litigation over the biodad thread came up, bros (and other leadership, I'm assuming) took the wildly unpopular (within MK) route and complied with the request to have the thread deleted.
[quote]
fooling around with peoples forums in an illicit manner isn't something that shouldn't be encouraged OOC as being "okay," because their actions happened to benefit them IC as well they still have some very OOC ramifications, like how it wouldn't make sense to encourage or to have bros host anothers forums or handle any sort of sensitive personal data.
Forums are still very much Private property.
[/quote]
I think I've stated my opinion on this fairly well above. Unless bros has taken actions that can be considered malicious from an OOC standpoint (I don't much care how he got the info, as long as it wasn't illegal) then I'll maintain my opinion that it should only have IC ramifications.
People not wanting bros to admin their forums where they don't want him to see the information? Completely justified.
People trying to paint every thing that bros is involved with in a negative light? Completely unjustified. -
[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1329785023' post='2924862']
Actually it's not part of the game, it's a service provided at someone's expense about the game.
[/quote]
That's like trying to argue that treaties and politics in general aren't part of the game. Technically you're right but it's not a good point because for a large number of people, the politics are what we actually "play". "The game" is everything that has been built around the literal [i]game[/i] of CyberNations. Forums and IRC channels have already been established as valid "IC" references, so I think it also follows that they can be considered part of the game's canon. -
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329783846' post='2924856']
As far as I am aware, there is no available spy op in CN that gives me access to the UPN database.
[/quote]
There's also no spy op in CN that lets me pose as a new member in an enemy alliance, gain membership masks, and feed information back to my real alliance. I'm pretty sure that's still considered part of the game. -
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1329778566' post='2924794']
Well, you would know when/where the distinction is appropriate I guess being the authorities on it etc.
[/quote]
Do you have trouble differentiating between a person and their AA? Given that you replied to me with the plural "you", I'll suggest you work on that before you comment on [i]my[/i] interaction with the IC/OOC divide.
[quote]
Also, I have an objective OOC opinion that a web-master should never act as one has in bro's' instance.
[/quote]
What actions has bros taken that should be condemned OOC?
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329779292' post='2924800']
Registering on the fungus forums is an in-game action? News to me.
[/quote]
That's kind of the point. Bros committed an act of in-game spying. There's no need to drag that anywhere but the game. -
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1329775229' post='2924770']
This should be an excellent opportunity for bros to offer more technical assistance to all the people registering on your boards.
[/quote]
In-game actions, say hello to out-of-game opinions. -
Legion still has to keep its head above 200 members for 10 days. Surprisingly though, it looks like Deinos has a more tenuous grasp on that magic number; 7 nations >20 days inactive, whereas Legion has 0. If Deinos hadn't picked up 4 new nations just today, they'd have already dipped down to 199.
The contest for the 12th sanction spot is proving to be rather entertaining.
Worst Leader Ever 2012
in Open World RP
Posted · Edited by ktarthan
[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330072570' post='2927409']
More like I have been exposed to enough sausage making to know how sausages are put together without standing by the assembly line to take notes.
[/quote]
Sorry but "Ardus is a bad leader. Trust me, I know how to make sausage. And it's not by handing out daisies." isn't going to sway many votes.