Jump to content

Horus Lytton

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

Recent Profile Visitors

642 profile views

Horus Lytton's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. Even with the reduction of the playerbase right now, I find this pointless. AAs come and go regardless of size. AAs create spheres networking/rejecting other spheres, that size is macro-micro dynamically altered. A limitation would have no effect by the same group only splitting up and still being a part of a larger, albeit additional, subject among them.
  2. I would be fine if we could tweak out some of the little things, like this: https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org/ It may sound complicated, but hear me out: the game is currently simplistic, random events are nice, but they aren't dynamic to what you have. I want it to feel like a real nation, not little pixels. It may make Tropico look like child's play.
  3. What you said earlier was: You should realize that after my explanation, it wasn't because people refused to partake. It's obvious he didn't allow the opportunities to do so. What this is saying here is that this is an impossibility because of his part, and he chose to blame people for it. He even explicitly decided people wouldn't even step up even with a power vacuum, rather than actually proving it. Instead, he decided a preemptive vote to dissolve the alliance was more in order.
  4. He was hogging the position of president simply because he's always elected to do so with almost no worthy competition. Refusing to step down prevents fresh blood from replacing the Gov. That's why no one could step up. The people did exist, but they never got the votes. So the government remains more of the same, and if it couldn't improve, how does one expect that things will improve if people couldn't step up because of their failures? I in hindsight thought he could have stepped down, because in his role and power, was powerless to do better about the circumstances because if his obvious complaint of his lack if being able to motivate people. That was why I suggested it, since he doesn't fairly bring real competition to the table and capable of being on that level, let alone consider the contributions it would give. You cannot blame the members of the alliance because of the gov's clear failures to be satisfied with the way they run the show.
  5. Actually, no one in the GA really demanded the government do anything. We dont ask that mich except to perform their duties satisfactorily, and they did. Hence no complaint on my side. So there wasn't any break in logic at that, as that didn't occur. Since it was DS's thread, he instigated the complaint, making demands for people to do stuff. I suggested a bunch of ways to solve it without losing the alliance. What did he have to show for it? Kills off the alliance. The thing is, he asked people to step up, but when I suggested that if he stepped down and other people took over since he was clearly strained anyway, he expressed doubt rather than permitting it. He never stepped down until after deciding the alliance should end before letting that ever happen. How can a government run and function, if you kill off the body that put them there?
  6. There was a DDoS attack only just prior to the complaint. Otherwise, the forum wouldn't have been up and running and the vote implemented. The DDoS probably was a factor in cutting lines of communication and breaking the cycle, but this was not the scope of DS's complaint. (And to be perfectly honest, at the time, we weren't the only victims, I noted.) 🙄 I simply told the truth, in my perspective. Not badmouthing. You said you wanted people to step up. I encouraged that. I also said, you could have also stepped down where that may be necessary. That may entail dispatching a new government as a part of that. Somehow you refused to see to it, choosing to argue. It didn't have to mean the downfall of the alliance. Even at that suggestion, you were the one badmouthing me with that idea, later implementing a vote to disband, rather than a vote on new agreements to change the alliance. So, how in Bob did you expect people to step up after that? Did you completely lose faith in the alliance? It sure sounded like it. You conveniently forced your hand with stepping down because of the disbandment, instead of just simply letting it be. It wasn't like that had to be your only option. That's when the chips fell. What you said then, and what you did are at odds with each other. I most resented that it makes you appear to be a hypocrite after I held you in high regard, more so than you realize. A great leader would not have told people to jump ship. A great leader would not have just given up on the alliance. I had faith in the wisdom and power of the government I was loyal to in believing they knew the means to fix such problems. So much so, that was part of why I still use the AA. I don't pretend to speak for others, but apparently there is a special reason they still use the AA even today. Maybe I was lied to for believing that. Either way, I had no position in the gov, yet I cared enough to be involved in that conversation to brainstorm ways that can help, yet I was basically shut out, ultimately rejected. So, please don't tell me I didn't even try to step up. You (still) didn't try to listen.
  7. Weird. It's not a name that ever popped up on my radar. Looking at his record, he's been there after my time. And here I was thinking it was the other way around.
  8. Must be too long for me to remember. Strange. I can't say I can put my finger on it. I've been here for almost 9 years. Must have been before my time, because all the recent messages about him have nothing to do with R&R. You sure you're not thinking of someone else?
  9. All things which would have been avoidable. Shaneprice in RnR? To hear the two in the same breath is an unfamiliar reference to me.
  10. Because it was actually suggested in the first place things could have been changed, or that he could have rescinded (like I said I suggested), but it was met with an "f-you" from him. See, he didn't allow those options to be on the table with the faith that other people could have taken over. Instead, he decided to swing the axe, and quit anyway, along with people who followed. So, how was that the "right" choice, given it was available in the first place, but refuses to implement it? He didn't give the alliance a chance and instead, as leader, decided the other course of action where many had followed.
  11. Which is not what happened here, but good try.
  • Create New...