Ostrogothi

[quote name='Amossio' timestamp='1345296312' post='3023128'] You don't know me, I wasn't always in umbrella, furthermore I don't speak for umbrella on here. I never stated that NPO owed me anything at all, I never even asked anything from them. As an umbrellian we are allowed a great deal of freedom, in terms of expressing our opinion, which are based on our own perception and not necessarily what our alliance speaks for. Some of us have very different views on certain alliances but it does not reflect what our alliance as a whole generally moves towards or seeks, if it did I assure you we'd be rolling everyone for no reason. [/quote] If you weren't speaking for Umbrella, I take back what I said.

[quote name='Amossio' timestamp='1345293232' post='3023121'] I for one forgave them a long time ago, TIO changed my perception of cifica. [/quote] You will think this is cherry-picking. But what exactly did NPO do to Umbrella that would require your forgiveness? I don't recall you opposing anything that NPO did back in the day, and [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Continuum-GPA_War"]sometimes[/url] at least you went along with their plans. The NPO might have wronged many people, but they never owed you anything.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1345282032' post='3023103'] And after all they did to NPO what did you?[b] Attached [/b]your alliance to their power sphere are started to enable them to allow the same type of things to happen with another alliances. Funny right? [/quote] Attaching is not the same as joining.

[quote name='Kushakistano' timestamp='1341887373' post='3007624'] I surrender to Sparta. [/quote] LOL IRON should ZI this guy.

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1341677085' post='3005966'] From the Valhalan perspective: At the end of 2011 Valhalla had started exploring the idea of a merger internally. Our activity levels were becoming worse and worse every passing election and those of us in gov were burning out. Rather than have Valhalla stagnate and die a slow death, we were looking at pulling the plug. A couple months ago BAPS and Oly started talking about a merger of their own. Baps and Oly are our two closest allies. This reignighted the merger discussions within Val, and we decided approach Olympus and BAPS to see if they were open to a menage a trois. [/quote] Never though Valhalla would ever face activity problems. But best of luck for the future!

A question from someone not in the know: why was this necessary?

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1341496919' post='3003921'] So what do you expect? It's no secret MK's power reign is slowly ending, as it was no secret for Pacificas, or [i]whoever[/i] you feel is in power. [/quote] This is not clear to me at all. Then again I'm not really politically savvy

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341386154' post='3003277'] Wars are usually fought over something. If a war is fought to destroy/weaken an alliance, there's no need to admit defeat. If a war is fought over disagreements, like someone aiding rogues/bad tech raid/poaching/insults and war was triggered because one side refused to admit they were wrong, the admission of defeat is important. [/quote] Admission of [i]guilt[/i] is different from admission of military defeat.

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1341229824' post='3001729'] Bring back Viceroys and the good old days... Am I rite?? -- Seriously, voted other though. Personally when an alliance loses I'd rather people just say "well done, congratulations on beating us" and people head off on their way. Not white peace, but a rep free surrender. [/quote] What is the difference though? I always found it silly to make people "admit defeat"- what is the point of that? I mean almost always in CN the end result of a war is plain for everybody to see. It shouldn't matter to anybody that the defeated party might someday later claim "strategic/spiritual" victory or any other kind of crap. OOC: Some of the most decisive victories in history technically ended in white peace.

This is awesome.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341169553' post='3001272'] Sarcasm? Or did hell freeze over? [/quote] No, VE's just on the losing side.

[quote name='Cotillion' timestamp='1340993832' post='3000059'] then it sounds like mickey leaks with mickey being a word for penis in case you were not aware is this what you really want? [/quote] sounds appropriate.

Wait. You have been in a one man alliance for 200+ days? How come you haven't been ZT'ed yet?

In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles to political change is that it take so long to recover from a losing war ( and reps only worsen the situation). I can only think of two alliances that lost a war(I mean actually lost, not surrendered after 3 days) and later grew back to their pre-war strengths- Polar after WotC and IRON* after BiPolar, and in both cases it was only possible because they sat out of a global conflict in the middle. If one month of war takes [i]years[/i] to recover from, people will obviously lose interest. EDIT:* I just remembered that the same is true for the rest of Duckroll.

[quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1340914864' post='2999549'] @Ostrogothi: Please tell me more about how the total amount of damage that three nations can receive is the same as the damage one nation can receive. Seriously, yes, he is turtling, but he is still nuking them (and before too long will be so low on infra that his damage received will drop a lot), so Umbrella should definitely be well over 2:1. If he had a proper warchest (hello Vladmir Stukov), then he could probably do better than even 3:1 damage given:damage received. [/quote] Okay, let's assume that the nukes Hellas receives and sends out do roughly the same amount of damage(reasonable since Hellas and Wilmark Republic have roughly the same amount of tech). On top of that Hellas will be hit with 6 GA's, CM's and air attacks and those fighting him will receive two each(unless he is turtling). Even if we assume Hellas's GA's cause the same amount of damage as his opponents( unlikely since they all have more infra than him- Hellas will probably lose most of his GA's), the damage ratio is already below 3:1. BTW this is the first round of war, and Hellas still has(or had) a lot of infra to lose. Also, Vladimir Stukov caused so much damage because he had a huge tech and wonder advantage over everyone he was fighting, which is not the case here. Is it possible to do better than 2:1 damage? I don't know, I have never fought at his level nor have I done the math. But at this stage of the war and given his opponents, doing 3X the damage you receive is logically impossible.

[quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1340893845' post='2999329'] Being in a 3 on 1 war should mean you are doing 3 times as much damage to them. When you aren't even doing twice the damage to them... Nothing to be proud of. [/quote] This is incredible . I can't believe you seriously think that. Oh wow.

[quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1340865321' post='2999199'] I remain quite proud of this. Though IIRC there were even shorter wars than our 15-hour run with THL. [/quote] I think [i]technically[/i] the Maccers incident was the shortest war ever, since ODN recognized hostilities and surrendered in the same post.

[quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1340833322' post='2998713'] I don't always applaud Superfriends posts, but when I do, it's because they inspire self-owns such as this. [/quote] When someone tries to act wise and mysterious, I ask them to clarify their position instead of trying to score cool points. Though of course I understand it's a radical concept in CN.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1340826635' post='2998582'] A person (pessimist, conspirist, ???) like myself would say that that due to the history of NPO and MK/DH, the latter could see the mutual treaties as a power grab by the former. As for this being posted before the VE DoW... C'mon. IRON probably knew NPO was going to go in due to TLR and NG getting hit at this point. More likely it was discussed before NG got hit. [/quote] If they did know, why would they attack Sparta? IRON has far more wars with Sparta now than with LSF. And clearly IRON could've comfortably handled both LSF and VE at the same time. Also, if they did peace out with LSF just to free up some 40 odd war slots, they could have instead just called in one of their many allies who are not even involved in the conflict yet. In short, VE's DoW on NPO shouldn't be a great concern for IRON, and in the unlikely scenario that it is, peacing out with LSF wouldn't have substantially changed the situation.

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1340822218' post='2998519'] I think they're an interesting part of the game. Everyone is too nice post Karma. [/quote] You are entitled to your opinion. But to me, paying reps post-Karma and post-BiPolar was boring as hell. If I was an alliance leader and I had a beef with someone, I'd rather settle it in a more professional manner, like nuclear war. Of course if the alliance refuses to fight and everbody escaped to Peace Mode, then that would be a strong reason to impose reps.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1340819240' post='2998478'] Might want to go read what he posted again. He said opportunity to roll ex-foe [i]due to VE/NPO[/i]. Which kind of negates your whole point of him referring to LSF, since that sideshow started long before VE/NPO was yet a possibility. [/quote] Actually I missed that part. Then again, I wouldn't have dreamed in a hundred years that he was referring to VE.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1340821866' post='2998509'] Look at the current war. SF was deemed a potential threat a while ago and everything was done to provoke them.. Then they finally attacked them for basically no reason other than being deemed a potential theat. If NPO is deemed a potential threat and this action would result in a victory (DH would be stupid to not analyze this) I sincerely believe a few allies would be thrown under the bus/take damage in order to neutralize this threat. I don't know what the results of the MDP web analysis is as I am too lazy to check it .. but if not today, NPO will either be rolled at a later date or, as MK has shown they like to do, used to roll a previous ally that NPO dislikes (ex. VE) as long as it results in more security for MK and it's direct allies. Edit: tl;dr don't be naive if it gives them more security they will do it.. If they don't do it, it will be for tactical reasons .. Not some moral reason "oh I don't want to put my ally in a tough spot" [/quote] But your last sentence answers the rest of the post. It makes no tactical sense for MK to destroy NPO, because due to NPO's relations with NG and TLR (and TPF's ties to CnG), they will either stay on the same side as MK in any potential conflict or at the very least remain neutral. There is absolutely no reason to think NPO is a potential threat to MK. Why would IRON go peace out with LSF to prepare fpr this scenario when there is no reason to even consider the possibility of it arising? Regardless, this thread was posted before VE's DoW, which puts a massive hole in your argument. [quote]This conversation is beyond my ability. I think I have clearly stated what I meant, if unclear please PM me.[/quote] That little side conversation between me and smurthwaite was worthless in every sense of the word. So don't worry. EDIT: Regarding the supposed bad blood between IRON and VE: I was an IRON member for a very long time, and the last time I remember VE being brough up in our forums, everyone was cheering them to destroy NpO.

[quote name='smurthwaite' timestamp='1340820054' post='2998484'] You inability to see what he was actually saying, doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility you took in posting your Ad Hominem. In fact, I think your argument is more based in a general ignorance of the history of planet Bob, rather than an intentional logical error. [/quote] It is...how do I put it...[i]cute[/i] that you think I carry some great burden of proof every time I call somebody on the internet dumb. As I said before, Yes I think what he posted was dumb. Yes, I know that if a person says something dumb, it doesn't mean he [i]is[/i] dumb. No, I am not going to give you a step-by-step analysis of why what he said is dumb. And I ceratinly don't give two hoots about the difference between "dumb" and stupid". Also, trust me I know quite a bit about the history of Bob. So instead of profound speculations about why my argument(sic) is fallacious ( never mind the fact that you are [i]assuming[/i] that my argument is fallacious and then trying to find a reason why), if you have something to add to the actual [i]content[/i] of Smurf's post, let's hear it. Otherwise, nobody here is interested in listening to somebody's whining because they chose to read a post on the OWF like a legal document. Jesus Christ. [quote]I never claimed what Smurf wrote was correct or incorrect[/quote] So you do have nothing to add to/ back up Smurf's post. Glad we got that out of he way. [quote]I'll point you in the right direction(s). First, it isn't a false dilemma, as it is merely a speculation on one possible motive, rather than an emphatic claim. Had it been a claim as such, it would have been an example of either/or reasoning, which is sometimes called a false dilemma.[/quote] Then I take it you can differentiate between an assertion, an inference, a speculation and a casual remark. Why are we having this conversation again? [quote]As for your use of the word dumb, I simply pointed out that it was the wrong word for the intent you have indicated as it's use. [/quote] See above. [quote][occ] Honestly, I am unsure. I would have to go back to my college logic texts and look. I would guess that there is, but as I am posting during down time in summer school, I don't have time to double check at the moment. I will do so this evening though, as you have piqued my interest. [occ] [/quote] Good so you can now give an [i]official latin name[/i] to the fallacy that you have committed. Sometimes that helps with internet Aristotles. It just strike me that instead of all the insane posts on the OWF, you chose to target my post with your deduction machine, and I chose to humour you. Then I realized what that made me. So now I bid you Good Day(if you are indeed in the western hemisphere).

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1340819334' post='2998479'] English is not my first language so I apologize of you didn't actually understand but I think you are being intentionally obtuse here: I obviously meant VE.. Irons peace with Lsf allows them to hit VE due to their MDoAP with NPO ( if they ask for help).. Moreso I think that IRON peaced out incase some of VEs allies pull a bipolar and switch sides for a chance to beat down NPO now... If they chose to do that they could bring C&G against IRON due to the Lsf/int treaty in order to cripple NPOs potential power base.[/quote] I am not being intentionally obtuse. I did not think you were referring to VE for an obvious reason: check out when this thread was posted and when VE's DoW was posted. Furthermore it is downright silly to think IRON would peace out with LSF because of there is a remote chance the VE 's allies pull a BiPolar, given that there is absolutely no reason to suspect it. [quote]Edit: but IRON peacing out LSF stops this from happening, and gets them PR points in the process. Anyone who actually thinks they are doing this to be nice is retarded. [/quote] Uhh, yes it is retarded to think IRON is doing something nice. It is far more reasonable to think IRON is preparing for the near future when the alliances that have maintained a cordial relationship with NPO for quite some time suddenly want them dead and switch sides, throwing many of their allies under the bus.

[quote name='smurthwaite' timestamp='1340815701' post='2998433'] Literacy 101: Inference. Most nations begin emphasizing this skill for students at about age 10, as that is when studies show the brain has the capacity to use it. Smurf never claimed that LSF was an ex-foe of IRON. Your inference skills have failed you.[/quote] I never claimed that Smurf [b]said[/b] LSF was an ex-foe of IRON, but it sounded like Smurf did indeed think so, because I couldn't think of any other reason for him saying what he said. There is no deduction involved here, atleast not in the rigorous sense. [quote]Modification: I forgot to enlighten you about the egregious logical fallacy. Argument Ad Hominem. That is Latin, "to the man," sometimes translated as "attacking the man." Here you have committed a fallacy by misusing the adjective dumb (I believe you mean stupid and not mute), in a rather lame attempt to belittle Smurf, rather than to point out his error(s) in his logic, [b]assuming of course there are actually errors and you aren't disagreeing for no purpose other than to disagree[/b]. Rookie mistake. I'll forgive you, this time. [/quote] I am no expert in philosophy, but I do believe that bolded part is called a false dilemma. Yes, what Smurf wrote has errors. No, I am not going to explain it to you with a flowchart, and yes, I called him dumb with no intention of actually taking the pains to prove it based on some axiomatic system with mathematical rigour. BTW is there a name for the fallacy of mistaking a statement for a deduction? EDIT: changed quote tags to bold