Icewolf
-
Posts
6,113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Icewolf
-
-
Only 400 million casualties away from 10 billion war dead throughout history. Die harder little soldiers, die harder.
-
Dear Microsoft and Sony
Please develop some imagination when naming your consoles.
Sincerely
Icewolf
-
Have fun getting deleted.
I thought they just wiped the nation clean as punishment.
-
I actually was fine with him in his first incarnation. Until that is he destroyed a micro alliance and humiliated them by impersonating a competent player and then somehow managing to get them to lose a war that should have been 17-2 in his favor. He then immediately respawned as a new player claiming to be someone different and essentially repeated the same strategy. I think had the world not been too busy at war his new alliance would already have had to throw him out again because he has played the same way.
This comes down to the difference between a newb and a n00b. A newb being someone who is bad at a game because they are new to it and can be helped integrate into a community and to be a useful player. No one minds a new player with a terrible trade set, a ton of land with no infastructure and 2 guerilla camps with no harbor that has been playing 2 weeks. That player still has potential.
Winner/Tom Riddle is not that person. He is arrogance personified. He came into the game demanding to be treated like an equal. People then tried to help him recognising that his enthusiasm gave him potential. He essentially spat on that and is still insisting that he is the best player in the game, including threatening to use his alliances protector to back up the fights he starts.
For me the recognition that he is bad still dates back to when he managed to destroy 2 past micros by taking an almighty dump on those around him and using them to be victims in his arrogant bid for recognition.
From an IC perspective I have a live and let live approach that means not stamping on small alliances.
From an OOC perspective I recognise that micro alliances are good for the game and that Tom Riddle has in his past incarnation been a toxic member of any alliance. The destruction of those micros probably hurt the game a good deal. He is now already in a situation where he cannot pay the debts he racked up early on in the game and will most likely get in more fights in the near future.
-
Yeah....the world owes you jack all. Stop expecting power, influence and respect to simply be handed to you and your will do much better.
If you approach real life the way you approached this game then you are going to have a hard time learning that.
-
I have to disagree with those definitions in relation to the CN world. Given many surrenders we see do not involve terms that place an obligation on either side the distinction above does not really hold water.
Furthermore, by the definition of imposed terms alone, GPF did in fact surrender as the only terms are those placed on GPF. VE has no obligation not to re-enter the war against you. But for reasons below I do not see this as determinate of the status of the end of hostilities.
The difference between surrender and white peace in the CN world is that a surrender is an acknowledgement of defeat, whereas white peace is a decision by both sides not to take hostilities further.
Sometimes this is just because the sides do not want to fight anymore and an attachment of reps will not negate the fact it is a white peace in the CN sense-it is often an acknowledgement of wrongdoing without an acknowledgement of defeat.
Othertimes it is done to spare the losing alliance humiliation or as an acknowledgement that their destruction or reduction was not a primary aim in the war.
However the difference between white peace and surrender is quite a clear one. One is an end to the conflict and the other is a capitulation.
I do not know the facts of the GPF case well enough to comment. But the fact that there is no label in your declaration means this hinges of facts alone-and the fact that would have to be determined (and I have not put thought to) is whether or not the GPF capitulated to VE or not.
-
Is there a full list anywhere?
Also I guess more London people are more active than others?
-
The war was over them filling the slots with the intent to benefit puppets.
This was validated when a non-Ai member reported the action after the CB was issued, and the administrator took action and removed all three Umbrella wars.
This validates the CB because...well -- the CB was over them doing it with the intent to cause harm to Ai and the administrator of the game through moderation actions in essence validated that claim.
This was not the entirety of the CB -- which also included Umbrella's provocative and hostile stance towards Ai and allies for quite some time -- but...i mean... it kind of is a bulk of the "given," CB...and there isn't a conceivable way to really contest it given that Umb members lied about their IG actions (see: war removal.)
Also, you came back at the wrong time to debate a CB.
His point is not the "validity" of the CB
His point is that he is glad to see something that has spurred real discussion and debate on the forums.
-
Are you going to mark down NPO/NSO v Kaskus as a side war?
-
I have always wondered why upkeep triples after 50 cruise missiles. I mean, when has a nation ever held that many?
-
Many many CN alliances are democracies. The thing is though that dictatorship and meritocracy may not be the best way to build fun in the game but they do work. It is the same thing that everyone keeps complaining about the chessboard of CN politics causing stagnation which isn't fun. The reality is the stagnation is caused by a recognition that a certain strategy is the best way to play the game.We need more democracies. Less Triumvirates, less dictatorships more democracies.
Ultimately the winning strategy is not the one that makes the game the most fun for the ordinary player. Or at least the currently accepted orthodox strategy is not one that makes the game the most fun for the ordinary player. Read back through history and you see very different strategies which eventually fall by the wayside. Maybe a new strategy will one day arise and the world will swing back to your view of interesting. We shall see.
-
The only coup with any degree of success that was ever carried out in a major alliance was Ivan's replacement of Moo in 2007, and it lasted for only a few days. At times I wonder if it was staged, because Ivan was promptly forgiven.
The proper execution of a coup requires three main possessions: one, root admin access on the alliance forums; two, a membership willing to, in its great majority, support the usurper(s); and three, a sufficient number of other alliances willing to support the usurper(s). Under almost no circumstances will one have even two of these, let alone all.
These just can't happen. This isn't like real life, in which coups have generally been followed by mass executions and kangaroo courts. There aren't militaries or police that can be used to suppress resistance. And so on. This is a political simulator.
Edit: Note that I didn't actually read much of your post.
I did actually include all those elements in the post.
I agree that they are very unlikely to happen. The ability of members to leave is just one reason why a coup is very different in the CN world to the real world. Another is that the military of an alliance is always essentially a militia rather than a compact professional fighting force. And of course there is the key point that military subjugation is just not possible in the same way due to the inability to kill a nation without a prolonged period of fighting. Which means a military takeover simply will not happen and as I said it must be a political maneuver.
-
You know the blog that is literally right underneath yours discusses the identical issue.
-
The relative training of the guards makes a major difference. Not many schools can afford a decent trained armed guard.
Also, consider the cost of an armed guard on every school vs the cost of decent mental Health provision and investment in preventing the little switch that drives people crazy in the first place.
-
I can't decide if this makes more or less sense if I assume you are talking about the alliance and not the supreme being.
-
Mine is to break all of my resolutions (including this one) in the hope of causing a time collapsing paradox.
More seriously, I don't have resolutions so much as goals. I want my money back from the estate agent that defrauded me, I want to graduate, I want to get a job and I want to be successful in various ventures I am launching this semester.
-
I think the issue demonstrated in this thread can be summarised as follows;
-Everyone says they want fewer treaties. However there is no benefit to be the first. What every alliance really wants is everyone to be allied to them and not to others. Given you would be hard pressed to find a major alliance more than two steps from any other all cancelling treaties to achieve the aim would do is to give you less influence in the treaty web.
-Almost all treaties are standard form treaties so there is no real difference in them. Therefore no effort is made to look for the differences. I smile to myself whenever someone refers to Duckroll as an MDP block. People think of CnG as a collection of MDP's rather than a supremacy block. This is encouraged by the tendency to refer to people as "de facto members of block X"
-The lack of paper differences between treaties. there is a lot more consideration and relationship behind them. So people think "why have you agreed these rights with X because of factor Y." There is generally a lot of extra informal rights or obligations behind the scenes that are not revealed. People don't sign treaties because they think "good now they will defend us" (or if they do they are going to lose the next war) but rather because they represent an understanding that has been formed.
Given a lot of this is aimed at IRON-INT in that the implication is IRON has done something silly (although I find it surprising that INT get the blame for this...not sure how that figures...either than or they nailed MCRABT's fingers to the keyboard to make him sign). Do you really think IRON went "oh, there is an alliance, ODP plez?"
-
On the list-Russia
In reality-Romania
-
From mey personal collection this becomes quite difficult.
-The bible
-The Ultimate Student Cookbook
-What is the What by Dave Eggers
-Pinicchio
-English Legal System
Yeah beyond that....nothing at all useful.
If I can use my collection from home then most of that wouldn't be there and instead there would be;
-Bible
-Whichever of the gardening books is most useful for growing food
-SAS survival guide
-A physics textbook (from one of the various lying around)
-Michael Palin's around the world in 80 days (book form, not the TV series)
-
There are currently I believe only two countries that have no written constitution (to coin the widely used yet strangely inaccurate term). To say they have no constitution is inaccurate however. The United Kingdom has a collection of constitutional documents, the primary one would be the 1680 Bill of Rights. The fact that it has no written constitution is based on the fact that almost all modern Constitutions exist because writing down "we want to do it the way the England does it" isn't very effective. The one country you could do that was in was England, and then it could be superimposed onto Scotland and Ireland.
His point btw wasn't that the University is valueless (although its approach to recent issues suggests that it doesn't know what its values are). His point was a follow on from a discussion about how the University should deal with the online behavior of its students.
The issue feeding back into alliances is that the alliance is not defined by a charter...that is just the administrative loophole. The values are held by the members and expressed by the members rendering the outward display in a charter as unnecessary Further, in most successful and large alliances there is an umbrella of aims and values within them. Writing down the values in those alliances would be harmful as it would give one side an instant "we are right" an the otherside would mostly ditch the alliance. This is as opposed to the sides working to a common ground and building the community they share.
-
I think a great many alliances have a set of core values and it is possible to find them. The trouble is that they don't come out much in the OWF because if you do express strong moral views you tend to get trolled. Most alliances keep their character slightly hidden away to shield themselves from this as it isn't too hard for trolling to become isolation. Isolation leads to defeat.
However it is often possible to discover their values by simply going to their forums, signing up as a diplomat and digging a little bit under the surface.
It is however also true that some alliances have limited values and care only to win. These alliances are often quite successful due to the free hand that gives you to move through the CN chessboard without having to worry about your actions clashing with a morality.
It is also true that a very common trait in all alliances values are survival. This leads to a gravitation towards the winning side even if the winning side does not match your views.
(RL BIT: this is not something that is limited to CN. I was talking to my Head of School a few days ago and he asked me what the values of the University are. He then said, "trick question, they aren't written down anywhere.")
-
This can only go to bad places. Your charter is unworkable and your FA is not being run in a manner that even suggests sanity. You do not declare treaties in existence before they exist.
I'm saying this because the game needs new alliances. The game does not need trainwrecks burning to death. Your alliance needs to stop being so arrogant. There is no other way to put it.
You are arrogant enough to act as thought your assent is certain and unstoppable. It is not. Half a squadron of any of the sanctioned alliances could stop it right now.
You are arrogant enough to assume you are so great people will treaty with you and not care what you do. I think we just saw that was wrong.
Keep this up and I give your alliance 10 days. At most. With luck.
Please, for the love of trying to promote diversity and new alliances, get some humility, and listen.
-
Why are you posting that you are going to come back in 20 hours time? It makes this thread kind of pointless. I know there is a running joke in CN that for older players they always come back, and even comments about leaving being for attention. However to claim to be leaving and then admitting you will be returning really doesn't chime in well with that and really does begin to strike as attention seeking.
From the list you posted, I think you really need to review your attitudes. There is no way of saying this nicely, but currently you are on a fast track to being hated by everyone here. Ultimately you need to drop back and learn. Certain things you have done have been interesting and people have followed them for that. A lot of what you have done has been void of meaning and people have hated them for that. I would suggest you post less, drop into some small AA, and then watch for a month or two. Then think about what you want and go and do it.
When I say you need to learn these are things you need to take into account;
-What actually interests people? People here like dynamic and different things. Generally they will fight against them and stand fast for the status quo, but they like the idea that out there somewhere there is a difference. However beware. Fighting against the status quo is not new a different and generally gets ignored and trolled.
-What style of posting gets the most attention? The answer is those that are distinctive. 95% of posts are short and consist of idle chat. People like longer posts and it is impossible to assert an independent character without using them. However that does not overrule the need to be concise. Say something, but say it quickly. And don't repeat it.
-What type of character do you want to be? There are two types of high profile poster on this forum. Those that have power, and those that sit and comment (not all commentators are high profile). Currently you have been trying to straddle both worlds and act like a significant leader when you have very little backing. If you want to act that way, you are going to have to build it.
As for your political beliefs, I would stop referring to yourself as a textbook anything. It binds you to one school of thought and also prevents you from being original.
-
Ultimately you are also over egging the difference in Foreign Affairs between the Spartan approach and the IRON approach.
We don't formally sign off on a treaty. We would of course be notified of a treaty, and we of course would offer opinions on the treaty. But at the end of the day, if someone is dead set on a treaty we may not be happy with we have two options. Protest to the relevant alliance and then work around the new treaty, or cancel with that alliance.
The only difference between that and Sparta is that Sparta (reading between the lines) has made a formal declaration to its allies that if it does not consent to their new treaty Sparta may cancel on them. Ultimately I cannot see sparta cancelling a close ally for signing with an alliance it is ambivalent towards when that ally really loves that alliance and is determined. So there could also be situations when Sparta is unhappy with a treaty but signs off on it.
The difference is very slim in terms of policy. What may come out as different is the execution. IRON has a broad coalition of friends and alliances it cares for and wants to see prosper. It is less concerned with making the treaty web look nice for a future conflict or trying desperately to consolidate a position based on were people lie in the web. Such a position might last the next war or even the next two wars. In the long term though it is not sustainable and would surely lead to ruin.
From the Inventors of Halo, A New and Innovative FPS
in Tom Riddle: Inside Gamer
A blog by Tom Marvolo Riddle in General
Posted
Are randomised weather patterns that big a deal? They've been in every racing game since forever, and countless other games.
Also HALO was a terrible game. It had good marketing and good multiplayer but actual gameplay was massively inferior to other games. It always bugged me that Battlefield 2 (set in 2010 I think) had more useable advanced technology than HALO. HALO consisted of everyday technology given a pretty skin.