Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bigwoody

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Great Pwnage
  • Alliance Name
    The Order of Righteous Nations
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

Recent Profile Visitors

2,258 profile views
  1. bigwoody

    Update on my issue

    Prosecute/sue moar. I'm serious, if someone did that to me I'd make an example of them. But if you're happy with the resolution, all good.
  2. You two need to have a rap battle or something. Still, you won this round.
  3. Make it rain (latinum)

  4. ii. bigwoody was on the list previously, and is still currently Dear Leader of TORN, however, the Triumvirate now seems to be the actual leadership position of the alliance since their switch to the current government system. You're sharp, this is correct.
  5. Wow, well said. I actually learned a few things about IRON-Gre relations I did not know before.
  6. Disagree. IRON and DAWN are better than Gremlins, and they'll act it.
  7. bigwoody

    Aut Callout

    lol TE duels are worthless...you're basically saying you're afraid to eat an infra loss. Actually, this whole back-and-forth is worthless.
  8. bigwoody

    Hey there, R&R.

    Well that would explain this blog entry, certainly.
  9. bigwoody

    Hey there, R&R.

    I haven't said a damn thing other than that IRON and R&R's relationship is their own business only. My point was... You absolutely are...note that you had to throw in your own "informed" party lines. For the record, I feel pretty safe in assuming that Haflinger does not speak for IRON here, so those saying they aren't doing themselves much of a favor can also save it.
  10. bigwoody

    Hey there, R&R.

    You and Halflinger are the same person on different sides. Save it.
  11. bigwoody

    Hey there, R&R.

    Somehow I imagine the relationship between IRON and R&R is the business of...IRON and R&R.
  12. That is true of many alliances. Sparta comes to mind as an alliance that tries to impose reps to try and appear strong, Ramlins may be acting with similar egotistical motivations. The other drive is some view reps as a "threat elimination" tool (CnG comes to mind at present, NPO in the past). Ironically, it is very much the opposite.
  13. For clarity, the implication was that my views were directly proportional to my power at any given moment. And given that this stance of mine has been around since the WoTC...this is not a recent thing.
  14. I have noticed lately a fair number of people not understanding my views on reparations in this game, and why I believe that anything more than light reps are damaging to the game OOC, and a bad tactic IC. So whether you're out to cover your own $@!, or looking out for the health of the game, listen up! IC: The Cycle of Revenge A primary rallying cry of the Karma War for most was to "bring an end to the era of crippling reparations." Of course, the war ended with some of the harshest reparations in history, with the claims that past actions of those alliances were justification for the "punishment." The STA, for example, has claimed that if they ever find themselves at war with Valhalla, they will impose reparations to recoup those imposed on them by Valhalla in the past, no matter the circumstances that bring them to war. These are examples of "Revenge Reparations". Punishing an enemy now for actions you could not retaliate against before. Following their lines of reasoning, many alliance members (most notably in MK) find my claim that I wish to end this cycle inconceivable, as they themselves would not choose to do the same. They do fully expect that I would act as they do, roles reversed. My claim is thus spun as one of self-preservation, not principle. It follows, then, that it is worth explaining why that is not the case. I fully believe, based on bountiful observed evidence, that imposing harsh reparations imbues in your defeated foes a deep-seeded hatred that may only be relieved by inflicting a similar blow upon you at a later date. Perhaps, in an IC way, not wanting to dole out any more than light reps, usually none, is good policy as it does little to inspire a drive for revenge in your beaten foes. Conversely, crippling reps doom you to the same treatment someday. A tale from one of my favorite RPGs, Lost Odyssey, conveys this well: Think about it. OOC: Lower Reps = More Wars This is simpler. If you believe that war is good for the game (if you don't you are wrong), it stands to reason you should encourage it. Light reparations let us stretch our war legs far more often, while still encouraging political work to make yourself a winner (recovering would be actually harder with frequent wars). Further, much of the schoolboy emotional crying over this game seems to be a result of community destruction resulting from wars of elimination. Conversely, you have those who demand a pound of flesh to satisfy their own egos and self-importance. I assert that more frequent, less crippling wars will be healthier for the community at large. This is up for debate between reasonable minds, but I believe it.
  15. bigwoody

    NFL Draft

    There is no way Seattle takes Clausen. On your board, we would probably take Eric Berry.
  • Create New...