Instr
-
Posts
730 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Instr
-
-
If Unknown Smurf seriously manages to start a war over this I will LOL.
-
[quote]Or even why should they?
It is not for them to entertain you. Why should they throw themselves on the proverbial sword just to keep you amused?[/quote]
Guess who else this applies to?
It is more in counterpoint to Jerdge; if your complaint as a neutral is that the game is stagnant and that no one will do anything about it, what about you? -
I like how the neutrals with 20bn warchest (trust me, I know) are just going to sit here and do NOTHING about game stagnancy.
-
delete
-
On a security level, the new forums are a major improvement. On a graphical / design level, the old forum look and layout should have been retained at least until new graphics and design choices were made and player-made alliances were given enough time to produce the appropriate pips.
-
i laughed
-
Active deletion is active deletion. Nation is gone. Congratulations Steveonia.
-
KZ; I can get all the information NPO picks up / has available for between 30 and 40 minutes a day at the present pace. In fact, I do have all the information NPO picks up; the only information I'm missing is the war data. With a faster machine I could probably cut it down to 20-30 minutes a day.
-
I trusted you...
;_; -
I'm pretty surprised that NPO is making such a big deal of Alyster dropping what seems to be a completely TOS-compliant alliance management system. In fact, I think 80% of CN, or at least the part of CN that is generally in the know, has been aware that NPO has been operating such a system for an extremely long time
These kinds of systems, by the way, are extremely common in CN and basically every major alliance worth their salt has a similar system. -
There's no anarchy warning either for just directly clicking on the confirm button, and it's not completely intuitive that you press the second button instead of the first button, so I don't see the big deal for experienced / long-term players.
It is an issue for new players, of course. -
Called it, but only had a 15 minute head start on broken opsec. Oh well.
-
This is a joke transitional alliance. Got another 7 minutes to call in my bets.
-
#mushroom would like to ask: who did you vote for last election?
-
[quote]
The life of a pheasant is a peaceful one, he's about to learn that like a lot of us from the past.[/quote]
Pheasant? Okay.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pheasant.jpg[/img] -
at the end of the day, no matter how ridiculous "it" may appear, rota is still getting the last laugh by attention whoring "itself" to death, no matter the ignomy
-
The joke is that Zeal is not funny, yet everyone is using something that is blatantly unfunny and stupid, hence it's funny.
-
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1340260057' post='2991574']
You realize he's in your own alliance right
[/quote]
Cheeky is 100-140% blitzed. -
<Velocity111> one nation blitz
<Velocity111> this is amazing
excerpt from #mushroom
Also, you should have the entirety of your coalition declare on MK -
Viluin, make a sign-up list for nation sitting and then people will get to nation sit your nation and use your nation to rogue out with your 10 bn warchest.
It's just like normal roguing, except you don't even have to do the labor of roguing. -
Bob, alliance sovereignty overrides alliance jurisdiction, by definition. Sovereignty is in part defined as having ultimate jurisdiction, thus overriding mere alliance jurisdiction and for an alliance to chase a ZI sentence into an enemy AA is a risk.
Mushroom Kingdom HAS poked its nose into TIO and CSN's private affairs, but at the same time, it is doing so because it believes that Dave93 was wrongly sentenced to ZI. It's perfectly legitimate for it to make such a move, and while this can constitute a CB, violating alliance sovereignty to chase down Dave93, especially when he has been granted asylum, is a greater CB.
Taking jurisdiction to override sovereignty leads to absurdities. For example, if MK were to chase down its ZIs in enemy AAs without permission, would the principle of jurisdiction indicate that it would then have the right to kill ZIs without the consent of the enemy AA and without granting the enemy AA any right of agency? Would its jurisdiction make it so that it would take the sovereignty of the part of the AA occupied by its ZIs?
===
I think one useful litmus test is how the situation would play if the shoe were on the other foot. If MK were eventually MKarma-ed, as is Roquentin's want, and its enemies were looking for a CB, would it be valid for MK to continue to attack one of its ZIs when one of its enemies had fled to the protection of yet another enemy's AA? -
Your target was on the applicant AA for an alliance you know that has a grudge against you and has a hair trigger towards any CBs that could allow them to declare war on you. Don't you think that's reason enough to check the peace offers and to double check whether or not that that AA is protecting that nation?
When peace offers are sent in the event of a ZI, in the majority of cases, players will open them to read the assorted whining so they can be posted onto alliance forums or alliance chats for a quick laugh. You had two attackers on the nation. You're telling me not a single one of them opted to sate their curiosity and check what the probable whining was? And not a single one of your attackers had the presence of mind to say:
"Hey, he's claiming to be protected by an alliance that is well-connected and has 4 times our NS. Maybe I should refer this to government to check if he's not lying and that alliance has actually extended protection?"
I also note that Gibsonator has already peaced out Dave93. Hey, maybe that's an implicit acknowledgement of the validity of protection. What ever happened to the peace offers anyways? Were they read? Maybe we should ask Dave93. Were they read? Or were they deleted as to cover up any possible malfeasance? -
Alliances have and retain the right to grant asylum to any member they so desire. Once asylum is thus granted, an attack on such a member becomes a violation of their alliance sovereignty. The granting of asylum in itself may constitute a violation of alliance sovereignty, but that does not compare to violating the interests of an alliance by attacking such a protectorate.
If CSN were to have declared on Mushroom Kingdom, claiming that their hosting of Dave93 was an act of war, it would have been a perfectly legitimate reason to declare war on Mushroom Kingdom. Instead, CSN attacked Dave93, despite indications being made that Dave93 was under protection, and since Dave93 was already under the protection of Mushroom Kingdom, this amounts to an undeclared war on Mushroom Kingdom. Hence, Mushroom Kingdom is only defending its interests and is not the aggressor in this case. -
No, because any reasonable alliance will make an effort to reach out to the enemy government beforehand and try to clarify things.
This may become a useful Casus Belli, however, if the counterparty is looking for an excuse to declare war, but it would provide a PR fallout due to the bad declaration reason.
If the alliance trying to instigate this war gets caught out, it will likely get trapped and attacked by both sides until the opposing forces are satisfied or have gotten a sufficient offer of reps.
Player of the Year 2012
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Dave93. For all he's done, I think Dave93 has been the most relevant player this year, not merely by giving MK an excuse to go to CSN and avoid the potential for a devastating LSF-NoR war, but also with his actions during and after the war; including simply returning to TIO mid-war and supposedly spying on MK while within the applications process.
Compared to other players, Dave93 is not a senior government member and generally has no policy say, but for that he should be commended for punching above his weight. It's not every day a "nobody" can determine alliance politics, and not merely as a lever for the powers that be.