ChairmanHal

I'll make it easy for you. We were pissed at NPO. Beyond pissed actually, and for good reason. We'd known for a while that the Karma faction ready and setting up a trap. NPO was warned. NPO blundered into it anyway. What you linked to was a cancellation notice. It was notification to NPO that we were done with them so far as the future was concerned. What you are not mentioning is that we had every intention of entering the war anyway, it was just a question of where we would be entering the battle. No one on the Karma convinced anyone on our side of the war that they had to fight. Mushroom Kingdom and company sold the lie that the assembled alliances listed in that link were somehow cowards intent on hiding in peace mode until NPO was ash and only "shaming" got them to come out and take their medicine. The truth is that we simply didn't want to fight the war on Karma's schedule. That's it, the truth. If you don't buy it, I honestly don't give a flying fuck. It was years ago and is no longer relevant to current politics.

I was there for the truth from TPF's side of the war, perhaps it is you should try again.

This old urban legend again. :rolleyes:

Indeed many are the days that I wake up and wonder what Thorgrum is posting this morning so that I know what to think about Planet Bob. Too bad his avatar sucks.

This is how to properly surrender on the OWF. This is how to appear as a braying jackass on the OWF. Some of you should note the differences and tailor your comments appropriately in the future.

Already had this discussion with Caustic. It was a treaty that should have been cancelled by Valhalla long before that point and that was Valhalla's fault. I'm no longer with Valhalla, so if you are looking for someone to defend them, I suggest you start with their forums. They don't seem to come around here very often any more. See above.

See above. As a company man I mostly kept my silence about what went on during that war behind the scenes. I look back on it now with a fair amount of disgust.

Then you don't remember the ODN I remember. They were the originators of the "tactic" and have been criticized for it over a period of years. In more recent times they seemed content to ride along whenever there was a fight, but very often the fights they have been involved in involved being part of a larger coalition that had an advantage. It would be counter to utilizing politics over friendship not to show up and fight in such circumstances. Valhalla used to be the sort of alliance that showed up for its friends whether the fight was a winning one or a losing one. They were fortunate to be lead by people who were FA masters that knew how to make the best of bad situations--indeed, several Valhalla treaties and new friendships stemmed from losing wars. When Valhalla reformed, that magic was lost.

Actually the treaty with NG was also a MnDoAP, but that is not exactly what I was referring to in my remarks. Not just to Polar but also Mi6. Both ODN and Valhalla have found themselves in situations where technically they could simply ride back to the barracks and sit out wars, but it was then and continues to be perceived as an act of an alliance that wants to avoid war whenever possible and makes them look like politicians, not friends. I recognize that sometimes winning on Planet Bob involves being political and sidestepping a conflict or entering a conflict on a side that is in your best long term interest even if it doesn't appear to be a good move in the short term. But more often, it involves moving toward to the sound the guns, knowing that you're probably going to be losing some serious NS in the process. That is what STA is doing now, and that deserves a tip of the hat by everyone and as this thing winds down, generous terms at the end.

Hopefully the past couple of major wars, along with the current conflict, will put a stake in the heart of non-chaining mutual defense, optional aggression treaties. They have become ODoAPs with fancier script in the header, nothing more, and enable this sort of ODN/Valhalla type behavior.

Well I'll be damned....I'm impressed. Have fun out there, tigers.

Presumably the game is backed up to tape or to some other media and it would therefore require some effort to reconstruct an accurate record of all aid transactions, but it would by no means be impossible. As for Lyricalz, I've never noticed any errors in its records of aid transactions. If someone has confirmed an instance where it failed I'd like to see it. Here's a point to ponder...if you receive a tech bonus for a nation referral, and that nation later is deleted as a multi, shouldn't the tech also go away?

I think that's the thread unless someone else wants to avenge old shit from two years ago. Good luck and have fun, Kashmir.

That's crazy talk. :awesome: It will only do what the nation rulers allow it to do. TPF: If any alliance can take a pounding at very long odds and live to tell about it, it is TPF. See you on the flip side.

NPO doesn't play dumb. They treat you like you are dumb. Oculus PoW? Really? <_<

At the end of the day, if you had fun...

It's kinda you that doesn't get it. NPO has left a bloody trail of former allies behind them through Planet Bob history since almost the beginning. The question isn't "why would we want to burn for that?", the question is why did TPF think they would be treated any different than anyone previous? When NPO is done for you, expect a shallow grave.

See you around the halls of academia, Stewie. We rarely agreed on much here on the holodeck, that is what made it interesting. ;)

What may or may not be true of a bit over .5% of nations is nice and all but that doesn't correlate to the other 99.4%.

As someone who has done more than his fair share of raiding, and someone who has more or less campaigned against wanton raiding of players to ZI or near ZI, unlike some of you I'll be brief...shocking I know. 1. There is now and has always been a certain percentage of players who pop in, raid people until they get bored and quit. We honestly don't need them around. 2. There is now and has always been a certain percentage of players who pop in, start building up their nation, get a couple dozen alliance recruiting messages--some warning them that they'll be raided unless they join a substantial AA (something larger than 5-10 nations), ignore the messages and warnings or waffle too long, get raided, cry and quit. We honestly don't need them around either. Why? Odds are they were going to delete anyway the moment someone was mean to them even if they joined an alliance. 3. Alliance war does not on balance help with player retention. Every chart of player numbers shows exactly that. 4. Peace of all sorts does not on balance help with player retention. Every chart of player numbers shows exactly that. 5. It would be nice, if as a matter on common courtesy and respect for your fellow man if people who raid stopped themselves short of raiding someone to death. In addition to the people mentioned in #2, you also have a small percentage of people who are on the fence about staying with the game and if they are raided to dust they will quit and never come back. If they are raided and survive, however they learn their lesson and find an alliance they like quickly and stick with the game long term. Those people we want to try to save. 6. Getting a bunch of teenagers (mentally or physically or both) who come here from FPS games to understand that concept, that is allowing your raid victims to live, is a very difficult thing to do, and requires older hands to provide guidance and instruct said teenagers. I won't pretend to tell everyone how you make that happen, but it you want to continue to ensure the glide path to zero nations eases a bit further, then people need to do something.

Clearly an Update Blitz is coming. :war:

At least no one went full Elmo. Moving slowly back to topic, we shall see soon enough if all this was much(?) ado about absolutely nothing.

I've tried clearing my cache and cookies and reloading the page from scratch, but the errors persist. Funny thing is that they didn't start until this past week.

I'm having some issues with icons displaying incorrectly. Example can be seen here: Issue seems isolated to the Firefox browser. Page appears to display normally in Safari and Chrome.

Statements like this have me reaching for the Advil...800 mg should take the edge off. :facepalm: