muffasamini

Thank you for your support GDA. Do not let others say your have no spine, for a spine you certainly have. You could have easily kept those cancellations and saved your pixels. I salute you.

It is unprecedented bieng offered terms for your surrender less than won day into winning a war, and then being amicable to accepting them knowing what the future held. KARMA in no way wished for those peace talks to work. They wanted to attempt to "pay the NPO back" by committing the same shameful acts they perceive us as having committed themselves.

Your the one that spied on them.

No. Negotiations had ended. He was a MEDIATOR, not a member of either party. Also, you believe wrong, these "negotiations" took place, and failed, earlier than the attacks, which only started and were ordered about 10 minutes till update. The war deceleration in OWF was a courtesy. There is no international law stating that wars dont exist until announced in OWF. All parties involved in the war knew about it already.

The NPO is firm in its resolve against spying. Schills is the only one here wheeling and dealing private logs. This obvious entrapment to entangle Ursarkar is silly, deceitful, and stupid. [OOC]Its a trap![/OOC]

Whut? Where you enjoying 4/20 too much?

I'm not understanding whats contradictory. Between the two statements, it seems pretty easy to piece together what happened. Peace talks were held yesterday, they obviously hit a complete wall, in which niether party (that includes OV) could agree or accept resolutions that didn't lead to war. The NPO then met OV today to check that OV was really going to be unyielding in its decision. Upon this bieng confirmed by OV, attacks ensued. I see nothing contradictory or underhanded about this. In fact, what seems odd is since OV would have to have known that steadfastly clinging to their spy would lead to war. Then, when met with ultimatum, the day after peace talks failed, and an obvious military build up had occurred, they still stayed firm. They had to have known they would be attacked immanently (this update or next) for doing do. So the true question is, why was OV asking for war?

Already posted this earlier

Saying that we declared war during peace talks, and realizing that we declared war the moment we realized they weren't going anywhere is very different.

Sorry to be off topic by bieng on topic, but why exactly is a repost of a convo about an international, off-site, not in game radio OW AA material?

Why is this in World Affairs?

"Comrade" Schattenmann?!? I was thoroughly dissapointed this week. It so, well, pedestrian. Even I could have realized these common, unexciting things were going on. Everyone knows the big nations didnt get to fight the jarheads. And only six members leaving for an alliance the body republic has no qualms with, how bourgeois. Wheres the sex? the lies? The SCANDAL!! Tut tut.. losing your touch! Looking forward to next weeks (hopeful more stimulating) issue, yours truly, ~Muffs [edit: just a minor detail my dear]

No. Secret aid would be a terrible idea. Yea, sure, it would hurt the NPO because guerrilla groups could be funded. But it would make large alliances no longer accountable for their actions. Why fight a costly war yourself when you can fund proxy wars with no one knowing? Helping the little guy does not help a game! It has to be balanced. For instance, tech scarcity is great, because how cheap tech is for young nations is balanced by old nations desire for it. Forcing alliances to be held accountable (like having trading public) keeps inter-alliance conflicts real, and game changing. Furthermore, enemies need to be able to be crushed. Trust me, use NS as an example, if war has no meaning, things cant change, and change is what your after. Once again, just trying to overthrow the NPO is not really what your looking for, and beware to not use long term harmful practices to achieve short term goals I do like the idea of limited land. Wars are usually fought out of desire for limited resources. Hence, most of conflicts have roots in senate seats. Currently, land is an unlimited resource. What if land were treated like senate seats or tech? Just limiting land would simply give another advantage to big alliances. What if land got more and more expensive, not by the more you bought, but by how much land was owned in a color sphere total, would give small alliances in empty spheres lots of easy growth, while making larger dense alliance need to push out for more room.

Actually, I think its exactly the opposite. The high cost actually ensures that when an alliance is defeated in war, they are effectively removed from the landscape. They dint just spring back immediately as if nothing happened. And, it ensures that things move so slow no alliance has a window to suddenly shoot up and dominate the game. If all nations/alliances werent really severely set back by war, then everyone would be super strong, war would be pointless, and the game would be boring.