senatorhung

UM, NOT. if Noob was so interested in surrendering, why is he still attempting to lob nukes at me every day ? we have heard zippo from him about surrendering, just him running around to various alliances, from DBDC to SPATR to Green Credit Peace Organization and now ODN, trying to escape the consequences of his ill-considered actions. he made his bed, and now he gets to eat my nukes until my silos can lob no more.

if the owner logs in once or twice to 'check in' on their nation, that is completely understandable and not worth making any fuss about. however, in this case, the sitter professed NOT to have logged in, and the nation was continually active for 19 days after the sit was approved, so something does not add up. maybe i am just misunderstanding the whole purpose of a nation sit. my understanding was that a nation sit was for situations where the nation's owner is unable to login and wants a caretaker. if the situation no longer applies, and the owner can login (and has been demonstrated to login), then the nation sit should be cancelled automatically. if the situation does not exist (and i don't expect moderation to police this before accepting nation sit requests), but if it is revealed subsequently, then someone lied to abuse the nation sitting option in order to gain a possible advantage during wartime. that's cheating, even if they didn't get to take advantage of the exploit. it's like me going to a bank, and lying to get a line of credit. i can use that line of credit for leverage in future financial dealings. if my lie is exposed, even if had not drawn upon the line of credit, the fact that i was caught lying can result in my being charged with fraud (i.e. cheating). i understand that most players believe that CN is a political simulator, and dissembling in political dealings is par for the course, especially for those who might enjoy the role.playing aspect. however, lying to abuse the mechanics of nation sitting should NOT be tolerated. SOMEONE was logging in to play o ya baby's nation. Cuba stated that it was not he. if it was o ya baby, then the nation sit was allowed to continue despite the fact that the situation that prompted the nation sitting request no longer existed (if it ever did ... Cuba stated "Nation is technically active"). so, either Cuba lied in order to get a nation sit (which i don't really believe, and i don't expect moderation to police beforehand), or, what is more likely, that Cuba and o ya baby colluded to both maintain access to o ya baby's nation in wartime even after the situation prompting the nation sit was resolved (which again i don't expect moderation to police while it is ongoing). however, once this kind of chicanery is EXPOSED, i think explanations are in order, or consequences. these are the #1 and #2 nations in the game, experts in the game's mechanics. for them not to appreciate that abusing the nation sitting PRIVILEGES hurts everyone else in the game is not a reasonable presumption. an apology for letting the nation sit continue beyond the situation prompting its request is the least that i would expect, but i also expect moderation to clarify whether they have the tools to monitor nation sits and flag when the owner of the nation logs in after an absence.

okay, i wasn't sure if it was okay to post specific nations and rulers in the question forum (as was required in the abuse forum), but since the moderator did so in their response to my previous query, i will follow their lead. nation sit requested by Cuba on 17feb. approved by moderation on 17feb. no issues with this whatsoever. not asking for reasons. didn't even notice Cuba's sit request until 04mar when TBRaiders made a nation sit request. TBRaiders request was denied by moderation on 05mar, "TBRaiders, Denied, nation sitting is not for keeping nations active where the owner has quit." saw that o ya baby logged in and posted on this forum 07mar, and that rang some alarm bells, so i attempted to get some clarification on 08mar and 09mar. moderator replied to my 09mar post: "There are situations where a player may be able to post on the forums but incapable of logging in-game." agreed and if this is o ya baby's situation, again, no issue. however, looking at o ya baby's aid screen, we see that SOMEONE has been logging in to o ya baby's nation to approve the aid deliveries during the approved nation sit period after 17feb. in response to my 08mar post, Cuba requested a cancellation of the nation sit on 08mar, stating: the nation sit was cancelled by moderation on 08mar, so the situation outlined in the following 3 questions for clarification no longer exists. but it DID exist for 19 days from 17feb to 08mar. Q1: if o ya baby was ABSENT, and if Cuba had not logged in to sit o ya baby's nation (as he stated in his cancellation request), then who was running o ya baby's nation from 17feb to 08mar ? Q2: if o ya baby was NOT absent and was continuing to run his own nation, then how did the tools used to watch for nation sitting abuse not catch that he was continuing to log in ? (i am assuming here that the moderation tools would catch a third party logging in to maintain o ya baby's nation ?) Q3: if o ya baby was NOT absent, then both Cuba and o ya baby had login and password information for o ya baby's nation from 17feb to 08mar, since "Password and login sharing are part of a nation sit." but if o ya baby was continuing to login and maintain his nation, with Cuba ALSO having access and the capacity to respond on o ya baby's behalf, how would that not be considered cheating ? even if Cuba never once logged in to o ya baby's nation during the nation sit period to take advantage, the capability to do so should still be considered cheating if o ya baby was still in full control for those 19 days. i understand that the #1 and #2 nations in the game deserve special consideration, but if there has been cheating, there should still be some kind of accountability.

#36: needs to be updated to account for: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/28-read-moderation-announcements/?p=3157084 #37: days before inactivity needs to be corrected based on: http://www.cybernations.net/about_topics.asp#Inactivity_Mode

i would have posted this follow.up in my previous clarification question, but it has since been locked. in that topic, the response provided indicated that moderation can not evaluate the *reasons* for a nation sit. fair enough. i have no issues with the nation sit being approved. but here's what i am still trying to understand. Nation A is being engaged in war and Nation B is also a target. should an attacker engage Nation A *and* Nation B concurrently, nation sitter can fire back with both barrels (based on my review of the previous question topics on this situation). if only one person is controlling the nation, fine. however, Nation A asks to sit Nation B. Nation B shares login and password for their nation after the request is approved. Nation B continues to login every day and run their nation, while Nation A is always available as a 'backup' should an attacker arrive and Nation B is unable to respond in a timely fashion. the Nations outlined in my previous question potentially benefitted from this arrangement for over 3 weeks before the sit was cancelled in response to the query. i understand that there are tools available to confirm that nation sitting rules are being followed. shouldn't these tools also flag when the owner of a Nation being sat logs in ? my question is why the nation sit is allowed to continue when the nation's owner is continuing to log in. shouldn't that automatically cancel the nation sit immediately ? or are we all allowed to share each other's login and password information as long as we have an approved nation sit to back us up ? or is that option only available to special players ?

this belongs in game abuse because it is not a general question, but involving specific nations and suspected cheating (abuse of the nation sitting rules, similar to how TBRaiders attempted to nation sit a nation whose ruler has quit the game). Cuba wrote "I haven't actually logged onto his nation, nor his forum account." so, then how is it that foreign aid has been accepted this week ? and ? either o ya baby is away and Cuba is nation sitting, or o ya baby is NOT away, and Cuba should NOT be nation sitting. my additional comments regarding what would happen should both Cuba and o ya baby were declared on may have been appropriate for the questions forum, but would be rendered moot if the nation sit is cancelled in response to this abuse topic. EDIT: after digging around further in the questions forum, i found a moderator response to the double declaration type of situation here.

* Nation: o ya baby * Ruler: o ya baby * Nation Link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=166226 * Nation: ThePromisedLand * Ruler: CubaQuerida * Nation Link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=323642 according to the nation sitting topic, Cuba is sitting o ya baby's nation starting from 17feb as o ya baby is "Away Until: April 20, 2015". however, only yesterday, o ya baby posted multiple times on the OWF in response to this suggestion by Caladin. how is it that o ya baby is too busy to log in to his nation, but NOT too busy to log in to the CN forum ? or is cuba ALSO posting on the forum on o ya baby's behalf ? shouldn't this expire Cuba's nation sitting if o ya baby is NOT actually away until 20apr ? also, the first post in the nation sitting topic states that, "you cannot aid, trade, or war with/along side a nation you are currently involved in a nation sitting agreement with." does this mean that if a WTF nation declares on BOTH Cuba and o ya baby, that o ya baby can not respond to any attacks without violating the nation sitting rules ?

cuba wrote on his nation bio: ah, white chocolate, so kind to your birdie ... will you give kisses to o ya baby too when he takes over as #1 ?

wars are not politics. wars are the FAILURE of politics.

World Task Force making Doombirds cry uncle ! natio bio for [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=133446]Desconistan[/url]: and looks like Cuba will be forced to collect in [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=323642&Extended=1]anarchy[/url]. we'll see how much of his $4.6 billion warchest we can grind to dust. also thanks to this party, DBDC is also no longer a [url=http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_all.asp]sanctioned alliance[/url]. also meta.note: Nation Rank: Ranked #1 of 9,040 Nations (Top 0.01%). 9040 nations including how many zombies ? one poorly considered rule change in favour of the Doombirds and watch the game collapse. if only the game had stayed the course as a reasonable NATION simulator rather than a mediocre COMBAT simulator !

The requested URL /uploads//sml_gallery_30970_15_6706.png was not found on this server.

Cuba in red ? like the Chris deBurgh song ? here's how i envisioned Cuba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4 and TBRaiders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

well i nevah ! i got this invite to this ere partay ... but now some of the hosts are leaving the party early ???? how gauche ! now i do appreciate the opportunity to tango with Miss Cuba. never thought i'd have a chance with a haughty beauty like that, but i will endeavour to humanize her. wish i could say the same for her fleeting sisters in arms ...

thanks Gopher for all your work on this edition of Survivor. hopefully it won't be the last time that WTF reaches the podium ... also kudos to our opponents: we pulled out a squeaker over NPO for 3rd place, but it was nice to see MI6 avenge our loss to IRON in the semi.final. the final quarter of both games was action-packed !!

last time i voted PC was for Joe Clark when he ran against the Reform party in cowtown. i vote based on the local candidate more than the head of the party. the head of the party is very unlikely to return your call / email.

hmm ... i have not bothered looking at the official world cup logo ... but does anyone else thinks that looks like a facepalm ?? ;)

yeesh. at this rate ... WTF is liable to pass 60 score before IRON finally overtakes GPA ... whoda thunkit ?

Posted Yesterday, 04:59 PM TurnipCruncher, on 08 Apr 2014 - 1:07 PM, said: the ignorance displayed in these 2 posts is stunning. and i am in frigging saskatchewan. be glad that the First Nations did not treat the first European settlers the way that you suggest that those in New France should have been treated. since that one battle on the Plains of Abraham, the existence of Quebec within Canada has been an example upheld internationally of how minority rights can still be maintained with strength, without undermining the majority culture. oh, and the next Canadian prime minister will be a Quebecker.

what i have gleaned from this topic: OP: DBDC HAS WON. NOW I WILL NEVER BE #1. WHAT ELSE IS THERE NOW? misc: MUST NERF / MUST NOT NERF Dame HT: DBDC HAS WON. GOOD SHOW. EVERYONE ELSE QUIT YER WHINING. I TOLD YOU SO. so, until the land cap was nerfed from the NS calculation, DHT's path (and most of the so-called 'neutrals') to #1 lay in staying out of wars while maximizing tech. when the land cap was nerfed, the land raid tactic has become the only obvious path (to the OP) to reach #1. since half-baked ideas like knocking 'neutrals' out of the attack ranges are being floated, i will contribute my own half-baked thoughts on how the game can ensure that there are still multiple (obvious) paths to #1. 3 mutually-exclusive wonders (modelled on the moon/mars) which each provide increasing happiness over a 1-year duration (max of 5 like the mars wonders): 1. economic: (+) 2 extra trade slots (-) cap on infra for NS calculation 2. innovation: (+) 2 extra aid slots; (-) cap on technology level for NS calculation 3. annexation: (+) additional land acquired from raiding; (-) cap on land for NS calculation those caps would be only for the NS calculation, and would not cap the total of any resource for other purposes. i would also support the idea of expanding the +/- range at the top end from the current 250 to either 500 or even 750.

since you have everything centered already ... wouldn't this work ?

aye ... we are happy with the new alliance membership features. we might even try for sanction now ! oh ... wait a minute ...

thanks a bunch Gopher !

did anyone else think of uudecode when they saw that ? ah ... the good old days when the 'internet' was not just the web ...

[quote name='Lorikz Kain' timestamp='1353225233' post='3054086'] One was from IRON. [/quote] wow, they gave up on IRON overtaking GPA for the #1 spot ? will they move back if/when IRON does the dirty (sometime in 2013 methinks ... a year after gopher's original prediction ??)

[b][/b][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1348439934' post='3033434'] Uhm, IRON is moving near again... Time to engineer a new war! [/quote] i think they have recognized the pattern ... hence their relative lack of forward momentum since surpassing WTF. as long as they ignore GPA, they are already on top of the world !