Jump to content

Van Hoo III

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,862

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Van Hoo III

  1. What is the most politically active alliance

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    On 6/26/2016 at 6:43 PM, XxHouseArrestXx said:

    This is such a misguided method.  Please stop.  

     

    Alliances that are talked about on Monsters Inc News are great.  Do you want to know why? Because Monsters Inc News is clearly one of the most unbiased sources of news out there. 

     

      Hide contents

    lawl

     

     

    I'm afraid that I have never listened to that program and am unaware if we've ever been mentioned. :(

     

    That does it then. We're irrelevant. Back to the drawing board, ladies and gentlemen.

  2. What is the most politically active alliance

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    Welp, this appears to be one of those threads where folks either a. nominate their own alliance or b. make a joke nomination. I shall do both.

     

    It's obviously The Bear Cavalry, followed closely by MI6. My reasoning: Our DoW on them was one of the longest OWF threads** in recent memory. :ph34r:

     

     

     

     

     

    **I remember when anything under 20 pages was considered small. Times have definitely changed.

  4. An Announcement from the Bears with Guns and Lasers

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Avakael said:

    You mean the crappy OOC joke he made a few months ago? Not great, but it barely registers on the scale of !@#$@#$ awful stuff I've had to see happen, even just in the realm of browser based nation simulator games. So I'm certainly not jumping ship on the other hundred odd uninvolved MI6 members over it.

     

    We've been told by more than one person that it was not a one-time occurrence. Either way, that issue is just one on a long list of issues we have with him anyway. If it were just that, we wouldn't be here.

  5. An Announcement from the Bears with Guns and Lasers

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, IYIyTh said:

    49 (▲8) AllianceStats_zpssxniqcmt.gif {48} (+4) The Bear Cavalry : 7.26 --> 9.43 (+2.17)

     

    This is what a micro is.

     

    Even at the same rate, 100 members you'd be only entering "simmering fart," territory.

     

    It's like things are so terrible around here people consider a glob of 50 people to be something worth a damn nowadays.

     

    58 nations isn't really a micro by today's standards. But, that's hardly our fault. lol

     

    Hai Myth. Good to see you. :D

  12. A Special Announcement!

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Van Hoo III

    57 minutes ago, berbers said:

     

    Once upon a time a valiant warrior left his AA when the AA's leader made a choice not to defend his ally from a curb stomp just because he had allies on the curbstomping side.

     

    (If you are confused because I am tired and not being clear, Hoo left RoK to defend NpO even though RoK and SF were connected to the offensive side)

     

    So Hoo, at the time you went with the ally that needed help and was hit with a shoddy CB, what changed?

     

    Sup berbers. :D

     

    There are a few differences. I was not leading RoK at the time* and didn't have a hand in Taut's decision to give VE the green light (which he later attempted to rescind lol ) to hit their own allies in Polar ... but I am leading (along with Shuru and Rampage) TBC, so the decision to go to war and against whom is partially mine. We're also already at war with MI6, so me leaving to defend someone else (or influencing TBC to change course, if that's the question) wouldn't really be appropriate or fair to our allies that we agreed to attack with or our members.

     

    In the prior situation, Polar didn't choose to go to war but were instead declared on due to RoK's decisions. VE made it pretty clear to me that had Taut said "No, that's not cool" that they either wouldn't have attacked or would have found another way. Polar was wronged (and VE as well, though they weren't attacked for it) and I could not in good conscience sit and let them burn for it, especially when the treaty had my own name on it. In this situation, NADC made a choice to fight. While I understand their reasons and am perfectly fine with it, we didn't wrong them or make a decision that caused this. They aren't being unfairly attacked, but are simply assisting an ally in defending one of theirs.

     

    NADC and TBC are on opposite sides here, but it's something we've known was probably going to ultimately end up that way. We both understand why and how this all happened and it doesn't really negatively impact our relationship.

     

    Lastly, I (for some reason) have a love affair with parenthesis today.

     

    * Had I been, obviously none of that would have happened. :P

  13. Recognition of War

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    39 minutes ago, Cazaric said:

     

    Is... is that a thing? Are we making this a thing? :P

     

    Don't worry, rolling people has a dual meaning in TBC. For example, we want to roll Chim because we dislike him.

     

    We want to roll HouseArrest/Molagbal of NADC and gowfanatic of PPO out of love.

     

    Hell, Gibs wants to roll ME one day. The feeling is mutual. :ph34r:

  14. A Special Announcement!

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Auctor said:

    All this time and no one planned to actually target Grub in the blitz? What kind of mindgames are you people playing?

     

    To be fair, Chim and Ava got into peace mode when MI6 was hit.

     

    I would love to say that this will help Polar and NADC move on from their grudges, but I know that it won't. :P

     

    What do you say when an ally attacks an ally? "Good luck"? No. "Have fun!"? No. I'm at a loss.

     

    I hope for a draw.

  19. An Open Letter to Frawley

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by Van Hoo III

    12 hours ago, Blackatron said:

     

    I'm sorry, but you are fighting an aggressive war alongside NG (Oculus) and NpO (not in Oculus likely because of one of the secret clauses to the treaty, but near enough at this point) which is specifically condoned by NPO, that would pretty clearly seem to put you in bed with them to a lot of people. (Then again I suppose the same thing could be said about R&R and TPF, look what's going on there.)

     

    I get that you have your own grudges with MI6, I respect that and your war should be quite an interesting one. I have nothing against what you are doing based on your own actions, but when you involve yourself in a war with Oculus against a known enemy of Oculus and the strongest alliance not directly tied to Oculus or Polaris. So being surprised that people others than Oculus weren't supportive when you want to attack a strong alliance that they might one day need f they are ever going to follow suggestion 2 is silly, why would anti-Oculus peeps be interested in helping you roll more anti-Oculus peeps? That would just be dumb.

     

    I think you know the problem with 2 though; even if you assume you are successful with a lot of your negotiations to ever hope to get enough NS to make a dent you would have to speak to Oculus allies, some of whom would inevitably tell.

     

    The CB used for the Invicta war them being "hostile" (no evidence), "associating with others hostile" (no evidence) and forming their own sphere, by which I assume they meant they and their allies signed some treaties over the last 6 months...

     

    How you expect anyone to actually put together something given what happened to Invicta when they weren't even trying to do anything? Oculus would be like the guys sitting at 500 infra with all the wonders squashing new nations before they even become a semblance of a threat.

     

    I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying.

     

    I said I was amused that we are considered "in bed with" Oculus. No, I'm not surprised that anti-Oc folks aren't supportive, though if I were in their position I'd be more annoyed at MI6 and the way that some of their members antagonize alliances that would otherwise be potentially helpful to their cause. As I stated, TBC were pretty much neutral but now lean more towards Oculus simply due to a relationship that has developed and due to the fact that alliances considered "anti-Oc" didn't really put forth much effort into pulling us their direction. We aren't a large alliance, but we are (mostly) well liked and hyper active ... which is exceedingly rare in today's world. As someone who had a hand (one of MANY hands involved, mind you) in building a coalition against a world dominating bloc in the past, I understand the need to not only swing NS but to also swing influential and active people/alliances. Oc did that. Those outside did not.

     

    I also understand the frustration behind trying to build a coalition large enough to take down a large bloc like Oculus, but again, I don't see how that is their fault. I didn't say that the two options I gave were awesome or easy to accomplish, I simply said that it was the only options people have and that their aren't enough leaders active or competent enough to come close to pulling it off. Since returning to the game, it looks to me like those still trying to do something mostly reside in Oculus and very few currently exist outside of it.

     

    The issue with the current state of affairs is more due to the decline of the game and not due to a single bloc, no matter how large that bloc is.

  24. An Open Letter to Frawley

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    Amusing that we were listed as "in bed" with Oculus. I doubt you'd find many members of TBC who'd agree with that and when you look at our list of allies (NSO, RIA, NADC, PPO, Fark, NATO, NG, NpO), it doesn't scream Oculus to me. Sure, we get along well with our allies who are in (or lean towards) Oculus, but that's more due to the fact that they are actually still playing the game and we aren't interested in sitting around gaining pixels until Admin throws the "off" switch. To be brutally honest (and as Keres pointed out),  Oculus alliances/Oculus tied alliances have been outgoing and enjoyable to work with. Aside from NADC, I can't say the same for those thought of as on the "other side". As an alliance who, up until now, were considered mostly in the middle ... we were a perfect candidate for any sort of movement against the powers that be, especially considering the fact that a large portion of us were a big part of Karma. I'm not saying with 100% certainty that we'd have chosen that route, but I am saying that we didn't have a "side" previously and Oculus and their friends were more interested in bringing us closer to their sphere than others were. That simply tells me that Oculus are still playing and doing something (even if some of you hate it) while the majority of the world are not.

     

    While I don't have anything against Oculus, I do find the idea of megablocs as boring and not something I personally enjoy. More power to those who do though and I'm not sure what those outside of the bloc are expecting. Are they supposed to step aside and let you defeat them? They are right in saying "Do something about it" and if that sounds familiar to you, then you were around pre-Karma because that's exactly what the powers that be said back then.

     

    For those wanting change, you only have two options. 1. Wait until Oculus eventually turns on itself and pick a side then or 2. Try and gather as much NS as you can to take them down. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough organization or drive to accomplish the latter and that does not strike me Oculus' fault.

×
×
  • Create New...