Jump to content

Haflinger

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,300

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Haflinger

  2. Haflinger

    A small proposal

    By Haflinger,

    For the Love of God, Think of the Casualties! Convention
    Preamble.
    The undersigned alliances, wishing to prevent the de-escalation of conflicts into peace mode, and the horrifying devastation it brings to casualty counts, proudly commit to the For The Love of God, Think of the Casualties! Convention.
    Article I.
    Each signatory joins this Convention individually, as a unilateral solemn commitment to its principles and intentions. This document does not constitute an alliance or pact between the signatories. All alliances are encouraged to add their support to this document, irrespectively of the status of their diplomatic relations with other signatories.
    Article II.
    The signatory alliances pledge never to enter peace mode against any enemy, unless said enemy enters peace mode against them.
    Article III.
    A. Any use of peace mode against a member of a signatory alliance is regarded as peace mode against the whole alliance. If demanded by a mutual defense treaty, said attacks may be considered as peace mode against other signatory alliances as well.
    B. If the peace moder is a member of an alliance, and said alliance does not promptly expel said member from their ranks, the whole alliance shall be considered the peace moder.
    Article IV.
    Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting the scale or form of rightful peace mode retaliation, from the moment the enemy launches the first peaced nation until the formal cessation of hostilities.
    Article V.
    Should a signatory alliance violate Article II, their membership of this Convention is automatically revoked. Other signatories are encouraged to abandon diplomatic ties with the aggressor.
  5. Haflinger

    Bloc vs. Block

    By Haflinger,

    A political grouping with a number of different actors in it is normally referred to as a bloc. For example, a voting bloc.
    A block is quite a different thing, and much easier to explain. This is a picture of three blocks.

    Please stop confusing the two.
  6. Haflinger

    Disrespecting Marines?!

    By Haflinger,

    Since when is it disrespectful to soldiers to use their images in what is essentially a wargame?
    I'm referring to the apparent controversy over Iwo Jima images being used in an alliance announcement.
    People might want to look at these: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/33492 http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37875
    The same images are used.
  7. Haflinger

    FAN-Legion relations

    By Haflinger,

    Yes, you did !@#$ on practically everyone. And I take it from this that you're saying you tried to make it up to everyone.
    So I guess I missed the delegation you sent to Legion to apologize to them for supporting threats of OOC criminal actions against their members in GWIII?
  8. Haflinger

    For Galerion

    By Haflinger,

    I know where your signature image comes from.
     
    You should try to act more like Guts and less like Casca. And realize that Junka is more than a little bit like Griffith.
     
    For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, Galerion knows. Also you can read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Berserk_characters
  9. Haflinger
    This is absolute nonsense.
    There are plenty of real-world examples of friendship between nations without a treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Friendship_of_Nations http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa...58/p39958-1.php http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa...6/p252366-1.php
    Please... do a little reading before accusing people of making up terms.
    There's some academic controversy over this topic, but there's clearly support for the idea of friendship between nations as a principle of political philosophy.
  10. Haflinger
    I collected the aidscreens, war screens, and spy screens connecting to Sedrick before the alliance war began, and sorted them all in chronological order.

    That's the hard evidence. It shows that Sedrick was a happy member of TENE, selling tech to Ragnarok, on the afternoon of August 4th. Something happened between 3pm and 6pm; in roughly 3 hours Sedrick has become an MHA applicant and is being targeted by a TENE nation for spy attacks. A bit over 48 hours later, Sedrick responds by launching a war against TENE, while still flying the MHA affiliation, and then just a bit over 3 hours later he's unaligned and launches a second war.
    A little bit over 20 hours later on the 7th, Ragnarok attacks him while he's flying the NSO affiliation. Incidentally his alliance seniority date is 8/7/2010 8:46:31 PM, which means that RoK attacked literally 3 hours after he'd joined the NSO AA.
    The aid is sent by NSO 40 minutes after Sedrick is attacked.
  11. Haflinger

    Hey Sardonic

    By Haflinger,

    I noticed your declarations of war reasons. It looks like it was your intention to quote Harbinger. Was this because he was the guy who lost the war in Mass Effect 2 despite having massive odds in his favour?
    I'm really not sure videogame villains are who you should be going for as a model, they have a nasty habit of turning up dead.
  12. Haflinger
    Once upon a time, you guys signed a treaty with IRON.
    The relevant sections follow.
    Preamble:
    We, the alliances of R&R and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations (hereby referred to as IRON), sign this pact in essence of orange unification, friendship, and stronger bonds of faith through security, defense, intelligence, and finance.
    Article I: Mutual Defense
    A declaration on one signatory through military means is considered an attack on both signatories. A 24 hour notice will be given to the other signatory alliance to respond to the aid of the defending alliance. This does not chain to outside MDPs which are only linked to one signatory and not the other.
    Grämlins attacked one signatory, not citing any outside MDPs. Your treaty is activated, and you have no conflicting obligations to any other parties. Going to do something about it?
  13. Haflinger
    This is remarkably common.
    My feeling it is due to the rather hostile environment that the forums have become. When I first started playing CN, in the summer between GWIII and the Unjust War, the forums were not terribly difficult to keep up with. Mostly back then I read them to keep up with Valhalla's antics; that was the summer of Wedgie's reign of terror in Purple.
    People argued, but there wasn't that sense of incredible bitterness that permeates the forums now.
    Back then, there were plenty of sycophants, as there are now, but back then sycophancy mostly took the form of posting nice things about your idols, whereas now it mostly takes the form of slamming your idol's enemies.
    It worries me that we seem to have taken up Josef Thorne as our model for posting.
  14. Haflinger
    On January 24th, the Mushroom Kingdom, as a part of Doomhouse, declared war on the New Pacific Order. On January 26th, two days later, a group of alliances countered with the bulk of their higher NS nations in peace mode.
    At the time of the counter-declarations, the following Mushroom Kingdom nations were in peace mode, and have been in peace mode continuously since then.

    Infrastructure: 8,999.99 Nation Strength: 67,404.359
    Infrastructure: 15,500.99 Nation Strength: 65,616.456
    Infrastructure: 8,999.99 Nation Strength: 63,699.764
    Infrastructure: 6,519.00 Nation Strength: 58,192.410
    Infrastructure: 14,999.99 Nation Strength: 58,102.175
    Infrastructure: 9,000.00 Nation Strength: 55,522.049
    Infrastructure: 8,500.00 Nation Strength: 54,875.510
    Infrastructure: 7,999.88 Nation Strength: 53,639.213
    Infrastructure: 12,800.00 Nation Strength: 47,921.759
    Infrastructure: 13,200.00 Nation Strength: 45,901.637
    Infrastructure: 8,985.00 Nation Strength: 44,763.277
    Infrastructure: 7,999.99 Nation Strength: 43,353.797
    Infrastructure: 8,500.01 Nation Strength: 38,327.437
    Infrastructure: 4,999.99 Nation Strength: 24,911.970
    Infrastructure: 5,999.99 Nation Strength: 18,893.492
    Infrastructure: 3,999.51 Nation Strength: 18,467.470
    Infrastructure: 3,999.99 Nation Strength: 13,812.370

    Total non-fighting NS: 773,405.145
    Total non-fighting infra: 151,004.32 (24.55% of MK's total infra)
    Also notable are the following nations.

    Infrastructure: 11,000.00 Nation Strength: 85,275.072 Peace Mode Since: January 31st
    Infrastructure: 9,372.96 Nation Strength: 71,738.382 Peace Mode Since: February 1st
    Infrastructure: 6,295.30 Nation Strength: 39,382.694 Peace Mode Since: February 3rd
    Infrastructure: 5,020.57 Nation Strength: 51,511.033 Peace Mode Since: February 15th
    Infrastructure: 8,250.00 Nation Strength: 55,261.337 Peace Mode Since: February 16th
    Infrastructure: 755.11 Nation Strength: 15,994.357 Peace Mode Since: February 21st
    Infrastructure: 8,239.99 Nation Strength: 49,976.957 Peace Mode Since: February 22nd
    Infrastructure: 1,000.63 Nation Strength: 15,755.810 Peace Mode Since: February 24th
    Infrastructure: 6,999.99 Nation Strength: 45,616.257 Peace Mode Since: February 22nd
    Infrastructure: 3,999.99 Nation Strength: 20,988.909 Peace Mode Since: February 26th
    Infrastructure: 5,499.99 Nation Strength: 22,839.251 Peace Mode Since: March 1st
    Infrastructure: 1,306.13 Nation Strength: 10,213.243 Peace Mode Since: March 1st
    Infrastructure: 1,206.33 Nation Strength: 13,695.084 Peace Mode Since: March 1st
    Infrastructure: 1,008.45 Nation Strength: 12,970.908 Peace Mode Since: March 1st
    Infrastructure: 1,003.28 Nation Strength: 18,528.428 Peace Mode Since: March 1st
    Infrastructure: 8,000.00 Nation Strength: 33,202.290 Peace Mode Since: March 3rd
    Infrastructure: 1,999.99 Nation Strength: 8,476.072 Peace Mode Since: March 3rd

    Yes, Stumpy, bros, and Zuli are all hippies. I'm sure they're chafing just as much as I am.
    Stop trying to pretend you're not ordering your people into peace mode, MK. And that includes the obvious banks (over 10K infra and under 1K tech? NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD FIGHTING NATION).
  16. Haflinger
    This ... is rouge.

    This ... is a rogue.

    Please do not get the two confused, or I will be forced to start producing images that combine the first image with pictures of nuclear explosions to go with the next time I hear someone discussing nuclear rouges.
  17. Haflinger
    I have noticed that there is a universal distaste for "bandwagoning," however, the definition of this phrase seems to vary from individual to individual.
    Some people use bandwagoning to mean the exercising of optional military clauses to aid another alliance in wartime.
    Some people use bandwagoning to mean attacking an enemy which is already under attack without a treaty requiring such attack.
    Some people use bandwagoning to mean joining a war late, after the initial round of attacks, even if there's a treaty requirement to do so.
    Some people use bandwagoning to mean joining a war when there's no treaty connecting the alliance or nation(s) joining, even if they're joining on the losing side.
    The last meaning is the reason for optional military clauses. Optional military clauses serve no purpose whatsoever except to prevent alliances from declaring war on people who enter a war to support their friends. They do not require anyone to do anything, and do not set up any treaty obligations. They are part of the legacy of this war on bandwagoning.
    It is thus ironic that they are now referred to as bandwagoning clauses by some people, given that this ideology of bandwagoning is the reason that they exist.
    I think this dislike of bandwagoning misses an essential truth. The reason curbstomp wars can be calculated in the manner that they are is because people feel bound by the treaty web. If they do not have a treaty to an alliance under attack - even if they like that alliance and would prefer to defend them - they are not willing to take action, not because they are cowards, but because they feel it is immoral to enter the war without a treaty.
    This is a problem, and is one of the ways in which Cybernations gameplay diverges dramatically from the real world. In the real world, people agree to alliances during war. In both World War I and World War II, the United States did not enter the war until late in the proceedings. Should they be criticized as a bandwagoning force? In both wars, their support was decisive in determining the final victor of the war.
    I would argue that alliances should be allowed to declare war for their own reasons, and not be attacked for declaring war without a supporting treaty already in place from before the war began. Respecting the sovereignty of alliances to determine their own values is a step towards both making the game more interesting (as the politics will become more complex, and the treaty-web probably a bit easier to decipher) and more realistic.
  18. Haflinger
    That is NEW's alliance graph.
    NEW has 69 nations out of 158 in peace mode. Roughly half the alliance is in anarchy, presumably largely due to nukes.
    However it is clear they are not getting mauled.
    Meanwhile, FEAR and UFF, the alliances who entered to defend them officially, are getting destroyed.
    Much as I hate to admit it, at this point it seems clear that the deal PC and iFOK made was sufficient for their ally to win this war. The alliances of International, TPE and Fark do not have the necessary firepower and coordination to bring down NEW.
    NEW's going to get the white peace they want. It will probably take a long time and there will be a lot of damage on both sides, but they'll achieve their mission objectives, and they don't care about damage anyway.
    Meanwhile FEAR, WFF and Europa continue to be the punching bags of ODN and Sparta.
    FEAR and WFF - Get out. Your ally doesn't need you. They're going to win. If your members want to fight for NEW, let them do the same thing as a lot of Poison Clan members are doing, and let them join NEW for the duration of the war.
  19. Haflinger

    Ramblin'

    By Haflinger,

    I still have some regrets over how Coldfront appears to have become the standard IRC network for Cybernations. Not because I liked Esper, well, I didn't. Both networks are tiny. It seems to me that if we were going to put in all the effort to get everyone to switch networks and all, we could have tried to find a larger IRC network, one less prone to netsplits and other such problems.
    I'm also not really a fan of Chanserv. But we could all be using Dalnet, and the Chanserv dependency of many CN users would still be sated. At least then we'd be on a network where 90% of the load isn't coming from CN users.
    Of course, I'm oldschool IRC, so in a way Coldfront brings back memories of my youth, when IRC networks constantly netsplit due to servers going offline when the admin's RL bosses came into the room.
    Also... apparently the blog avatar isn't the same as the main forums avatar. Looks like it might be the forum photo entry. Oh well, just gives me an excuse to finally make a photo and upload it I guess
  20. Haflinger
    I've been tracking Red nations not flying the NPO AA for a bit now.
    April 18th: 1592
    June 11th: 1288
    June 17th: 1259
    The debate is on as to whether Revenge and Moldavi, both now effectively suspended, were good or bad for the Red Team.
    In OOC terms, I actually have no opinion. You'd expect something of a reduction anyway, given that the number of total nations is dropping pretty fast at the moment. But still, tracking the numbers might prove interesting to some people.
    This kind of person at least.

  21. Haflinger

    Reminiscing

    By Haflinger,

    I used to post quite a lot on these forums. There were a few reasons for this; the main one being that early in my CN career I was on the winning side of a couple lopsided wars and found myself bored to tears by them. I decided it would be more fun to try the other side, and you know I was right. Probably why I'm still here, but CN warfare against the odds is actually pretty fun. I'm also a fast typer and good at coming up with controversial remarks, especially crazy-sounding but technically plausible conspiracy theories in a jiffy too.
     
    I was reading the forums today and I realized that the last alliance Invicta fought against back when I was in high government had finally disbanded. Invicta's still here, although I'm not in it anymore. Anyway that was TOP, who we fought against way back in Karma when I was Vice President of Invicta.
     
    Still, my favourite posts were the jokes. I didn't make that many of them here on the big boards as I was too busy trying to start wars, preferably ones which would last a ridiculous amount of time, most of the time. But I did make some jokes. Here are links to my two favourite posts of mine:
     
    This was during Karma and there was an idiot in Invicta lower gov. I was VP and decided against a detailed rebuttal, instead treated the whole thing as humour. I love this post.
     
    The Rebbilon were a bunch of crazy anti-ODN rogues. Invicta and ODN were allies at the time and I had a lot of fun making fun of them. They were pretty dumb. I love this post too.
     
    I had some fun here over the years, but I never did find the war I wanted. Now my warchest is totally out of control. Oh well. 😎
  22. Haflinger
    There's a rogue hitting one of our few remaining tiny nations right now.
    This is from his nation screen.

    Yes, it appears his soldier count is higher than his supporter count.
    He must have maxed his soldiers, and then sold infra.
    Does he not know we can aid soldiers to his target?
    He may find himself wanting to buy some troops back in the coming days...
    Anyway I'd never seen a nation with negative citizens before.
  23. Haflinger

    Roleplaying

    By Haflinger,

    This is a concept foreign to many CN players.
    Let me summarize it for you.
    Roleplaying is where you pretend to be someone else while playing a game.
    For example, members of the New Sith Order pretend to be Sith, or followers of the Sith (I hate the prequel films and don't really understand the whole Sith idea because I haven't watched most of them) from the Star Wars universe while playing CN.
    They are not actually Sith. This is roleplaying.
    Recently, there was an incident where the alliance sent a number of messages in the game to another alliance. Some people said the messages were disrespectful.
    One person, evidently confused about the meaning of the word roleplaying, said that the messages weren't disrespectful because the Sith were roleplaying their evil personas.
    I replied to him, but snipped that little nugget out, which was inappropriate on several levels, not least because it was a discussion of roleplaying in an IC area, i.e. where roleplaying is actually done.
    The biggest way in which it was inappropriate though was gross stupidity. If I choose to roleplay a disrespectful person, and then in an IC forum, someone accuses my character of being disrespectful, it is the height of foolishness to say "No, I was just ROLEPLAYING!" Given that's what everyone is doing there to one extent or another.
  24. Haflinger
    For all you logdumpers out there, or just people in general needing to transfer text anonymously: PLEASE DON'T USE SCRIBD.
    Use !@#$%*. It's way better, because it doesn't lock the text inside a Flash applet. You can just copy and paste it.
×
×
  • Create New...