Jump to content

Krashnaia

Members
  • Posts

    652
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Krashnaia

  1. I miss an "DBDC should roll the Neutral Menace" option.
  2. Good luck at the civilian life, Kem. Condolences to Houston. o/ NPL
  3. o/ We salute you, Sir Admiral Bob We'll send the best fake double of our President to represent Krashnaia in the State Funeral.
  4. I prefer to refer to myself as a "compassionate conservative".
  5. So, you use a communist currency... ;)
  6. Note that I did not mention any specific names. I leave that to each one's own mileage. ;) You may also note that I scorned every one of my categories. Mine isn't a rant, but a light-hearted contribution.
  7. Alliances here aren't divided over that kind of political issues. Divisions are mostly over old grudges, petty revenge, beating down the competition, abusing the weak, and similar edifying values. There are a few alliances themed around similar values to those you listed. They don't apply them on the international arena, but at least you can roleplay them in the inner life of the alliance. ... Regarding ther internal structure, alliances around here stand at some variable point between the following two extreme archetypes: 1) The Flock of Sheep: An alliance made up mostly of players with little-to-no in-alliance activity. Ruled by a shepherd with some level of delusion of grandeur, assisted by a variable number of shepherd boys and dogs. Most of them tend to have a democratic structure, but it means little: unable to think by themselves, the sheep will vote just as the shepherd says, like in real-world democracies. This archetype tends to be synonymous with big alliance, decadence and poor war performance. But not always. Even sheep can develope an spirit de corps, and some have grown sharp claws. If the flock has an effective goverment structure, their mass tactics can be quite effective. 2) The Band of Brothers: An alliance made up mostly of active players who provide a lot of inner-life to the group, ruled by a primus inter pares. Some are dictatorships, most function as meritocracies, some work as democracies. It doesn't mind, because the players are hasty to express their oppinions, and the smart ruler will take them into account. This archetype tends to be synonymous with small aliance and great war performance. But not always. Some of those groups can develope a "God Complex", and end up as buffons when they finally get what was coming to them. Others may degenerate into death cults, masochisticaly happy to be rolled together all over again until they fade into nothingness. ... Few alliances are perfect examples of one of those archetipes. Even the best bands of brothers will drag along some sheep, and most flocks will have a sizable, active band of brothers running the place. ... Regarding their foreign policy stance, alliances fall within one of the following types: 1) Neutrals. They are above the whims of the political game, and do not get involved. Good if you like to watch the lawn grow, or your alliance just collapsed and you need some vacation time before deciding where to go next. Bad if you want to enjoy the militar and political aspects of the game. 2) Schemers. They are here to "play the game". They seek to dominate Bob politics and be on the winning side of wars - at least, for a while. When on top, they are prone to "might makes right" mentality. When beaten, they are prone to play the moralist card. In any case, they tend to develope Delusions of Grandeur. 3) Raiders. They like to portay themselves as mighty warriors who thrive for combat. Truth is, they are mostly schoolyard bully-wanabbes who like one-sided battles and depise a fair fight. They are prone to develope God Complexes. 4) Bros-before-hoes. These alliances have two main objectives: Survival, and Take as many casualties as possible for their allies. Not necessary in that order of preference. Yep, their objectives are contradictory, but Bob is a complex place. They are prone to degenerate into Death Kults. 5) Rogues. They have taken too much. Bob has broken their minds. They thrive only to break the game, or just go out with a bang. Some of them are able to overcome the illness and became functional members of the community again. Most do not, and fade away into their madness. The good thing is, if you end up in this category, you aren't prone to develope any mental ailment, because you are already crazy. You can only improve! ... And that's basically all you need to know in order to start. If you want to know more, read about "Global Wars" in the Cyber Nations Wiki. Reading the wiki entries of some alliances may help you decide where to go first. But know that you are likely to run through many places before finding your home. PS EDIT: Good work, Walshington. Great read. :)
  8. Take my money and kick the alpha males in the butt, Mogar. Don't forget to talk me again in 10 days.
  9. Mmmh... So, apparently, Rush left high gov because he can't tell a girl she looks fine in those tights. I suppose he has given up on dating, too...
  10. [OOC] And it worked so well, that the US-EU free trade agreement that was about to be signed, got stalled instead. Nice job breaking it, NSA. Anyway, I don't remember to have said that nations in the real world do not lie to their partners. But, well, if you believe that we here have to behave like real world nation leaders, then maybe we should start with not using nukes as main ordnance in wars. ;) [/OOC]
  11. Strawman fallacy, I see. My argument is that you don't lie to your partners, not that you don't deceive the enemy. Moral issues apart, lying to your allies leads to mistrust, losing allies, and making new enemies. In the long run, it leads to alliance leaders forced to retire, and to alliances rolled, isolated, and, in the worst cases, disbanded. However, feel free to play this game as you like. [OOC] This is an IC forum, but you insist in giving OOC examples. Of course, in my understanding of how the "real" world works, the primary enemy of any nation goverment (be it US, UK, or almost any other) is their own people. Thus they lie and deceive them. But that is hardly related to my point: you don't lie to your partners. If you want me to elaborate further about these aspects of how "real life" works, move the conversation to the appropiate section of this Forum. [/OOC]
  12. To the general public, sure. That's how politics in this socio-economic system work. To their own team, no. And to their superiors (you know, the guys paying for their runs), even less. Again, just because your lot behaves that way, doesn't gives you the right to generalize. The position you are in, is a clear example that lying to pals is not smart. But we're going in circles. The thing I really find funny, is that within the span of 15 pages you people go from quoting the Bible to defending cheating on friends as a necessity of Bob politics. Please feel free to resort to had hominem attacks as much as you like. They only reveal your own lack of arguments. ;) ... And hi, Rush. I have never been in an alliance that lied to me, and (not here, in other places) I've led very succesful alliances who not only made it to the top, but stayed there and won the game, whithout resorting to cheating allies or lying to my membership. The fact that you believe so firmly in the necessity of foul play on your own people in order to succeed, is only indicative of the inmature understanding of social dynamics around certain circles of this Planet. And the reason why some alliances manage to succeed in the short run, but end up dogpiled shortly thereafter. Call me "poor soul" or anything you like. I'm comfortable having surrounded myself with people I don't need to keep watch on. Respectifully Me.
  13. Or actually know real politics from the inside, unlike you. People who lie to their close pals don't make it very far. You can't make it to the top alone. People who publicly brag about how they think lying is the way to success, make it even shorter. But, hey, you come from the alliance that has been regulary curbstomped for the last 4-5 years. And when you got your chance to stablish you back as a dominant force in Bob, screwed up spectaculary. And here you are again, curbstomped, nerfed... you can't even hold your moralist farce for more than 15 pages before showing everyone how low are your standards. You are someone to give lectures about how to do politics right, sure. :rolleyes: I didn't come here to claim the moral high ground. But given that your lot has first played the marthyr, citation of the Bible included, then started bragging about how do you lie your ass off all over the place, and how do you believe in the necessity of lying to allies, friends and foes alike... ...yep, I think claiming the moral high ground is an inevitable conclusion. I'll ignore the rest of your trolling, if you don't mind.
  14. I supose NPO is not the only alliance that thinks it's Ok to lie to allies. Your own alliance shares that view, by what you have written. And I suppose it's common practice among the people you have been friends with. But that doesn't gives you the right to generalize. I know realpolitiks can led you to stoop so low... but you have to draw the line somewhere. And lying to friends is... well below that line. It doesn't ends well, as NPO's current predicament shows. In any case, if lying to everyone, even close friends, is how your pals conduct themselves out there, you should tell them to please stop trying to claim the moral high ground.
  15. Well, I think this post pretty much sums up why Pacificia and her pals are stuck in their current predicament. - You admit that NPO was lying to everyone, and that such behaviour is their normal modus operandi. - You state that lying to allies is, not only a necessity, but the right thing to do ("I would respect them less if they had not"). So, what we have now? Your sphere isolated because none of you can be trusted. The people NPO lied to, seeking payback. And on top of that, your pals are now playing the victim and pretending to have the moral high ground. I value your honesty here. I do not think that lying to friends is the way to "play the game", but at least you admit it openly, instead of attempting to feed us !@#$%^&*. If I may give you an advice, dump the people who think lying to friends is right, and stick to people who do not screw their partners. You may not win all the wars, but, hey, it's not like your way has allowed you to, either.
  16. I'm fairy certain that TLR was not among them, either. So, everything you are "teaching" Auctor about, applies a lot better to your situation.
  17. Moralism is that thing people who lose a war resort to, until they get back to the crest of the wave and totally forget about it.
  18. That's the magic of Moralist Posturing. It lets you justify your unjustificable acts. I mean, the League of the Righteous is already talking about imposing reps on us in the future, like it we had taken reps from anyone. When we find ourselves paying thousands of tech to them in the next war, it will be all our fault for forcing people who prefer to sit a whole war in PM to not use FA for three months. Anyway, if there is something that's Comedy Gold about this war, is reading NG and their traditional close yapdogs taking a moralist stance. You know, the guys who used to make sigs with slogans like "$%&@ your Rights" and all that. Before finding themselves on the losing end, of course.
  19. The agreement specifies that it affects nations who remained in PM from the beggining to February 1st. If some nations who doesn't fall under those conditions are on the list, your alliance should object through the appropiate channels (it's fine if you want to write it in the OWF, but IRC tends to get the job done more efficiently). I know that at least 2 or 3 of those nations popped out of PM after the agreement was reached. I suppose this took longer than expected and our coalition had enough time to wreck them. I personally think they should be extempted from the terms, but I'm not the one calling the shots (if I were, you wouldn't be taking terms to begin with). In any case, if NPO had fought with all they had, instead of reserving a significant amount of their firepower, today we would be reading just a protocolary surrender with no terms (unless you found the idea of surrendering morally reprehensive and insisted on turning the war into an occupation conflict).
  20. No one who entered this war in defense of an ally has got any terms. Because sitting in PM for the entire length of the conflict isn't exactly my definition of "entering a war", much less "in defense of an ally".
  21. About time! Congratz on peace, see you next war, and all that...
×
×
  • Create New...