Jump to content

Max Power

Members
  • Posts

    860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Max Power

  1. Xp can be disabled, but it hardly qualifies as do farming, since it will all be real damage incurred. As to strength ranges, most likely under 50k, 50-80k, 80-110k, 110-140k, and 140+. Anything substantially under 50k is going to be too hard to manage.

    Lux why are you hijacking my thread (and concept)?

    I can totally see people tweaking their nations to 79,500 NS, etc. right before the games start, like boxers making weight. Would be cool.

  2. Shouldn't the TOP/Polar treaty be the ultimate proof of letting bygones be bygones? The terms TOP et al. imposed on Polar during WotC, the terms Polar et al. imposed on TOP during Bi-Polar, and the terms TOP once again imposed on Polar during Grudge are probably the harshest outside Karma. If even those can be overcome, why are we bringing up age-old problems here?

     

    As it pertains to current discussions, I hope all turns out well without anyone having to be excluded from playing our glorious political game.

  3. Love spirited small alliance members who stand up to tech raiders! Reminds me of my CN early days. Go kent detective.

    If any post could possibly show the lack of hatred in this war, it's this one. Best of luck to BDF developing its future and to Riot Society for whatever role it plays in that. Hope the fighting's fun and the peace is profitable.

  4.  

    Actually, if you read it carefully, he is simply refuting what the OP put forth. The last line is the clincher where he states it is not an "employer-employee" relationship but instead it is a "retailer-customer" relationship, which is pretty accurate.

    So we're in complete agreement then.

  5.  

    Ok, since you asked nicely...

     

    1) Your section 1 is false as your only argumentation to support your idea is a weak example about overpaying cooks.

     

    The first flaw in that example is that no employer overpays his employees, not because otherwise they would have no money for surveillance, but because it would cut into their profits. Employers do not employ people because they are so nice persons, they employ people to get a return from their investment. They aren't going to pay 70k if they can get the same job done for 20k, and get 50k extra for cars, women, beer and other vices.

     

    The second flaw in the example is that very often, paying your employees better gets a better return. Specially if they are qualified personnel. A good cook will expect to be paid more than a bad cook, because a good cook will attract more customers to your restaurant and thus increase profits.

     

    But the real, basic flaw in the example is that you have accepted La Marx false premise, in the sense that Tech-Dealing equals an employer-employee relationship and not what it really is, a retailer-customer one.

    So we're not even e-lawyering anymore, we're actually RPing corporate HR? Just when you think the OWF has jumped the shark to its maximum extent...

  6. @bcortell:

     

    Depends on what you consider Plan B to be, i.e. whether an attack on NATO can be construed as a de facto attack on Plan B as a whole because ultimately TIO loses allocable NS out of the deal. If NATO and TIO are sufficiently joined at the hip, which the combination of their pre-existing MDP and the Plan B treaty makes them at least on paper... It's like if someone hacked into a bunch of bank records that include wiping the balance of someone's account who was about to give you a substantial gift, with the full knowledge that's what was happening - sure, your house hasn't been directly assaulted, but your interests have been injured enough for you to rightfully perceive hostility against you.

     

    "for some other purposes" ...well I don't see any other possible purposes here. I'm looking at TIO's Wiki page now and I can't find a single TIO MDP ally that could possibly be of concern to TOP.

  7. Oh joy, we all get to sit around the campfire and analyze a treaty!

     

    Oh hello. So sorry if this took a while, but I've been a bit busy..

     

     

    According to article 4 of the Plan B Accords, TOP managed to declare on TIO when it declared on NATO.. even if they tried to avoid us for some reason.

     

    TIO hereby acknowledges TOP's declaration of war.

     

    TIO also hates R&R for filling Skippy's slots >.>

     

    PS: I'm sorry if you don't find many targets TOP. We have been taking a look into your peace mode strategy.. so far, it's quite boring :/ You should bring out your nations to play with and I'll bring out mine ;)

     

    Sure, those AA's (the other signatories) consider themselves at war. It says nothing that indicates an external AA is DoW'ing all three when they DoW one of them. 

    The second part doesn't say "declaration of war on TIO". According to the aforementioned Article 4, a declaration of war on a Plan B signatory is all that is required for TIO to recognize hostilities against the greater integrity of the bloc. Much as in any MDP treaty, as Centurius rightfully noted, this entitles TIO to act according to the customs of our world. In the case of this specific treaty, which is a bloc treaty with a stated supremacy, clause, TIO has every right to intervene in defence of NATO. Nowhere did TOP declare war directly on TIO, but that is irrelevant. What TIO's announcement effectively says is "we recognize TOP's declaration of war on the greater entity that is Plan B, and we therefore take military action". While I agree the wording is sloppy, and DDL would have been better served to write "managed... on Plan B" rather than "managed... on TIO" in the first part, I can't fault the spirit behind this announcement.

     

    In short, this is a situation TOP could reasonably have foreseen when declaring war on NATO, based on both the MDP nature of the NATO/TIO treaty and the bloc/supremacy nature of Plan B. That said, I'm sure TOP foresaw it and didn't mind. Happy warring.

  8. You handled things well and respectfully. We like you.

    However other nations, including but not limited to those hiding in ROMA, are legitimate targets.

    This is just about the right time to inform you ROMA is our ally's protectorate.

     

    Who did you spy for? I'd also like to remind you that ROMA is a protected AA. Don't touch.

    Seems our cordial acquaintances in CCC agree with us on this.

     

    ROMA should have known better than to harbour runners from a war. Any alliance knows runners are fair game.

     

    So, ROMA has a chance to expel them before we get out of Anarchy and can declare on them. Ball's in their court.

     

    Do we look bovvered by "protected"?

    ROMA doesn't have government, an IRC channel or forums. It's a storage tank. It can't "know" anything.

     

    If ROMA-related issues surface with your alliance, feel free to PM White Chocolate in-game. She's the one in tJL/SC who handles most of the ROMA stuff.

  9. I could not be more unhappy to see this.

    You declared, though, so clearly you aren't that unhappy.

     

    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=115036
    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58593
    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58591
    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=2065

    While it is certainly not a common occurence, it isn't a "one-off" thing. You can have white peace in which someone on the winning side must exit the war. The crux is that Sparta was not willing to do so.

    While winning but not on the winning side, NoR vs. WF in PB-Polar comes to mind.

     

    Did you think we didn't know this was coming if we did not accept recent terms? No hard feelings to those on the other side, but terms were still detrimental to some of our allies still fighting.  Preferably, it is hoped to leave the battlefield in a way that does leave allies exposed to potential more harm. only a small request on our side would have resolved this thing.

     

    a slippery slope that NATO & Co. are willing to continue walking. Sad to see so many good alliances on both sides have to tear each other up over such trivial and petty beginnings, but that is what BoB is reduced to these days. Enough is never enough, and the high road is now overgrown with weeds and brush.

     

    Good warring to all involved o/

     

    Stay classy OWF o7

    Just a solid post right here.
     

     

    Damn TIO and NATO must be badass. It's over now that MHA entered.

    So true.

×
×
  • Create New...