BrJLa

Is this how I found out I got traded?

Man, last war you took so much pride in how you were just freelancing on the Polar side. All I know is Pacifica likes fighting. We broke a pretty good record lately for the most wars declared in a day. That's the stat I'm proud of.

Man, it's seriously not that hard to have a favorable damage ratio. Be motivated to be on at update. Check in multiple times a day. Be a little clever. Managing your deployments helps. That's it. Most rulers are not that motivated to be good at war. Running around punching people who don't care as much isn't that impressive.

Last war, NpO insisted that just because their coalition wanted reps didn't necessarily mean Polaris cared about reps. Just because our coalition wants to hit Polar, that doesn't necessarily mean NPO cares whether we hit Polar.

Hmm. My recollection is that the message early on to all our allies was, "You have to peace out, you have to peace out, you have to peace out, we can't even begin to discuss how NPO will get peace until all its allies peace out." Which then turned in to, "Let us be clear. NPO is not getting out without terms."

To his credit, he successfully anarchied all three of them.

Congrats ODN and NATO.

Yeah, you probably don't belong on the list. They're in an entirely different league.

Danaerys is the very worst. Tywin is second worst. Malkavian is third worst.

Tywin will PM you an essay on the subject, but here's a link to read up on it in the meantime: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/120605-what-is-neo-imperialist-moralism-an-lnn-special-investigation/

Tywin is the village idiot, and politics don't really work like that on Bob. Politics here revolve around the wars we have once or twice a year, and what you think of the powers that be, and what you think about how different alliances have conducted themselves in both recent and ancient history. And it takes a long time to figure things out, because people refer to different alliances and blocs and events, and it's hard to keep track of who likes who, and who is pissed at whom because of what. You should get some recruitment messages. Check them out. Find an alliance that seems like it has active membership, and that has a vibe along the lines of what you're looking for. Lay low for a while, get involved with your alliance, learn how the things work, pay attention to what's happening with the politics. Then, when you have a better handle on things, you can always apply to a different alliance if you figure out there's one out there that better embodies what you're looking for.

A protest against alliances that can offer active membership, resources, allies, and sound advice on how to develop your nation?

Less than 10% of an alliance's nations staying in peace mode doesn't seem like the kind of egregious behavior that would warrant punitive terms. Farrin's offer was responsive to what your side claimed their concerns were about these nations (that they were a reservior of NS and tech), while preserving what we insisted was important to us about these nations (their ability to send cash aid).

*cough*bull shit*cough*

Hurray for peace. o/ Farrin and the NPO leadership o/ NPO's allies, and to our allies' allies, who stood by us o/ To the nations and alliances I fought - it was great fun. It's great that you're permanently positioned to demand reps when you're on the winning side, and to call it hypocrisy when and if you lose. But as the most butch, tough-talking proponent for reps in the entire war, maybe you should delegate the hypocrisy policing to someone else?

I don't think it's picking up damage from defensive wars.

Congratulations!

Polar's like Tettaglia, and TOP is Barzini.

Wait, weren't IRON and XX among the loudest voices insisting DH needed to go down in the run up to the last war? And wasn't it XX who disregarded our coalition's plans and forced our allies to come in on the opposite side?

Well, obviously we wouldn't sit it out. Obviously, the whole war planning on the oA side anticipated we wouldn't sit it out. But we didn't join the war because we owed the oA coalition a certain level of engagement, or a certain level of damage. There is no "your debt to the oA Coalition hasn't been paid", unless you accept that the purpose of the war was to accomplish something other than what the CB was ostensibly about. I guess I just don't know what the horse shit is about. The war planning anticipated NPO would have to join on the NSO/NG side, and the oA coalition-building was built on the premise that you would draw NPO in, then make NPO pay. You've been going on since early December that the war couldn't end until NPO was isolated. If y'all are pissed about Eq, say it's about Eq, so that when this war is over we can all agree the debt has been settled.

Yeah, right. NPO doesn’t have an obligation to take a certain amount of damage to anyone except the allies it came in to defend, and the allies that came in to defend it. And I don’t hear them complaining . There’s no obligation to the other side to take any damage at all. We could have just sat out. There’s no claim on the other side for an amount of damage NPO owes it. You can demand claims because you’re in a position to demand claims. But there’s no rationalization for how beaten down NPO needs to be before the war can end that doesn’t have at its foundation a desire on the oA side to see NPO beaten down. There’s no “how beaten down NPO has to be” that proceeds from the premise of what this war is supposed to be about. But I don’t know why the oA side doesn’t just cop to it. You’re hacked off about Eq, don’t like NPO generally, and NPO has to pay. Then forcing terms on NPO at least makes sense, and the horror of forcing terms on an alliance that came in on an MD goes away.

I don’t get this corny semantic argument. The name “reps” isn’t what makes the concept of reps offensive. These terms are offensive for the same reason reps are offensive (at least, to the extent reps are offensive – they’re equally as non-offensive if you’re not offended by reps). People use “reps” as a shorthand for punitive surrender terms. The offensive thing isn’t that it takes value away from one alliance and gives it to another. It’s that it makes big wars that everyone participates in less viable. That’s why they’ve fallen out of favor.

It seems to me that like with Baghdad Bob, or the government spokesman for North Korea, or like with Pravda during the Cold War - if you have Tywin on your side, you're kind of de facto the bad guy. You can tell, simply by having Tywin, that you must be on the side of evil.

I'm glad NPO doesn't generally maintain a huge presence on the OWF, but I'm glad to see an official pronouncement on how we perceive the state of things. o/ Farrin

Congratulations.