Some info on Dulra

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333439890' post='2947742']

I know you're just trying to score political points (kind of shamelessly, in a contrived manner) in this (OOC,) forum, but it would be nice to see some sort of presentation of argument or debate.
[/quote]

If I cared two hoots for political points you would see me supporting the current powers that be and well, you don't see me doing that.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1333441903' post='2947747']
If I cared two hoots for political points you would see me supporting the current powers that be and well, you don't see me doing that.
[/quote]

You'll have to forgive me then. I saw the one-liner as out of place amid a general flow of debate and conversation which I interpreted as doing all but that.

Carry on.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333442020' post='2947748']
You'll have to forgive me then. I saw the one-liner as out of place amid a general flow of debate and conversation which I interpreted as doing all but that.

Carry on.
[/quote]

Your apology is accepted.

[IYIyTh]

What apology?

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333442249' post='2947750']
What apology?
[/quote]

[quote]You'll have to forgive me then. I saw the one-liner as out of place amid a general flow of debate and conversation which I interpreted as doing all but that.

Carry on.[/quote]

Looks like an apology to me.

[Marneus Calgar]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1333443805' post='2947754']
Well that report on them was handled quickly. I'm hopeful that all other reports from now on are handled as fast as this.
[/quote]
I do hope so. There's reports there from over a week ago that haven't been touched.

[berbers]

Did you get permission to attack the rogues or is it ok now to jump in on rogues if you feel like it?

Edited April 3, 2012 by Keelah
Removed rule breaking quote.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1333446219' post='2947761']
Did you get permission to attack the rogues or is it ok now to jump in on rogues if you feel like it?
[/quote]
I think Non Grata has been consistent in their stance that they will do onto other people what they are not alright with others doing to them.

[kriekfreak]

Apparently OBR couldn't handle getting enough wars on them when they had enough time to properly fill their slots and stagger them. If I really wanted to bodge their war effort I would've declared on GS right after they declared on OBR, wouldn't you think?

But to be completely frank, OBR can try to do what we would do in the same scenario. I just think it would unwise of them to do so.

[Iosif]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1333446467' post='2947762']
I think Non Grata has been consistent in their stance that they will do onto other people what they are not alright with others doing to them.
[/quote]

Non Grata really has been consistent in their stance that they have never claimed the moral high ground, which is both applaudable and honest.

[Hime Themis]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1333447433' post='2947763']
Apparently OBR couldn't handle getting enough wars on them when they had enough time to properly fill their slots and stagger them. If I really wanted to bodge their war effort I would've declared on GS right after they declared on OBR, wouldn't you think?

But to be completely frank, OBR can try to do what we would do in the same scenario. I just think it would unwise of them to do so.
[/quote]


Gentle Persons

Kriekfreak is correct that he has done more than toss some CM which we appreciate. I would however suggest that this jump in was more opportunistic than helpful and I think he is honest enough to admit that as well. We had nations set to jump in in concert with my nuke attacks yesterday to make sure we had a stagger. Those slots were taken in by NG without consultation. It is their right to do so and they at least did not ruin the stagger.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

[Manis B]

It seems NG is actively looking for targets to hit. Though I'm thankful I was consulted before they hit our protectorate.

[Shaka Zulu]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333406705' post='2947475']
The issue is, you continue to insist it's not viable. Take the NAMBLA case for example that was a little fun Rayvon and someone else had. You were entirely reliant on VE's muscle because you weren't going to do anything to UINE about it and avoided any hardline stances. So if they had just told you to sod off, it'd have been VE being the reason any action would be possible.
[/quote]
I have not read anything after the above post, so maybe you already answered. What are you rambling on about? As a matter of fact, why do you ramble so much. Just ramble ramble. On and on and on.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1333424879' post='2947655']
It's hard to condemn the neutrals when they clearly aren't missing out on much of anything anymore.
[/quote]

Pretty much this.

I'm of the belief that neutrals are fine, as long as there is only one neutral body. Having multiple neutrals just seems dumb.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1333466657' post='2947848']
Pretty much this.

I'm of the belief that neutrals are fine, as long as there is only one neutral body. Having multiple neutrals just seems dumb.
[/quote]

Different people have different beliefs on what it means to be neutral. Only allowing one neutral body is similar to not allowing neutrality, it still boils down to setting yourself up as the judge of how others choose to play the game.

The GPA or TDO as an organisation may be perma-neutral, but they have played a huge role historically in allowing for war. After each major war many nations that would otherwise be lost to us gather as refugees at the doors of the neutrals, and gain there the time and space to rebuild and rethink. Without that option each successive war would have been even more unbalanced than has been the case. For those that claim to want more wars to denounce neutrality for their own failure to produce is infantile and pointless.

If you want people to abandon neutrality, try to give them an attractive alternative, rather than simply denouncing them for how they choose to play.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1333430683' post='2947699']
But by promoting the rogue attack on a neutral, are you not forcing your views on a nation who has no interest in war? What makes you the bastion of CN to condone such an action as just? [/quote]

There's a difference between promoting and tolerating. Like I said, everyone is open to play the game how they want. If someone wants to go rogue when they quit, they have every right to do so. It doesn't make it inherently right, or wrong. If that's how they get enjoyment out of their last days in this game, they can engage. It's like playing Starcraft back in the day and joining a 7 humans vs 1 computer (aka the "comp stomp") where all the human players ally up and expect an easy victory against the measly computer, but one player backstabs at the end of the game and destroys the rest of the human players just to grief them? It's kinda like that.

I'm quite sure Hime Themis understands the risks of being the #1 nation. That will naturally make him a target for rogues, and I'm sure he's accepted that with the way he builds his nation.

[quote]
ChairmanHal can speak for himself, but it didn't read to me that he cares in the slightest about the rogue attack one way or the other. All it seems he is saying is that the move was clearly done to make a show, but it was frankly unimpressive. BOB has been there, done that in terms of attacking leading nations. If you want to make a show, do something impressive. Everyone cheering on the rogue attack just looks jealous of the stats.
[/quote]

Since the beginning of this game in 2006, there hasn't been much change to CN in terms of mechanics. When you leave either you fade way (like several thousand players already have), or go out with a bang. So everything that you can do, has been done. Everything will be a "been there, done that" in that aspect too because what new things are there to do?

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1333467982' post='2947860']
Different people have different beliefs on what it means to be neutral. Only allowing one neutral body is similar to not allowing neutrality, it still boils down to setting yourself up as the judge of how others choose to play the game.

The GPA or TDO as an organisation may be perma-neutral, but they have played a huge role historically in allowing for war. After each major war many nations that would otherwise be lost to us gather as refugees at the doors of the neutrals, and gain there the time and space to rebuild and rethink. Without that option each successive war would have been even more unbalanced than has been the case. For those that claim to want more wars to denounce neutrality for their own failure to produce is infantile and pointless.

If you want people to abandon neutrality, try to give them an attractive alternative, rather than simply denouncing them for how they choose to play.
[/quote]

I fail to see how any of this refuted my point that a single neutral body could still serve this purpose. It's even more preposterous that you followed this up claiming I want people to abandon neutrality, which I have neither stated nor implied. I specifically said I'm quite happy with [b]a[/b] neutral body.

[Monster]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1333439709' post='2947740']
You read my mind.

Roqat: Hello GPA, you have nice stats
GPA: Why thank you
Roqat: Want to follow me in my own crusade against MK?
GPA: No thanks
Roqat: You are a MK lackey!



And no, that isn't being neutral at all.
[/quote]

If you are parroting Azaghul, you are doing it very wrong. Now point to me where I ever had the expectation of GPA helping me? They're doormats. Like Myth said GPA is pacifistic and not really neutral and so are most neutrals. Now where did I make any points about them being an MK lackey? In order for them to be an MK lackey, they'd have to be remotely connected to MK. If I say ODN is an MK lackey, it is warranted. The correct term would be VE protectorate.


[quote name='Shaka Zulu' timestamp='1333465005' post='2947841']
I have not read anything after the above post, so maybe you already answered. What are you rambling on about? As a matter of fact, why do you ramble so much. Just ramble ramble. On and on and on.
[/quote]


It's off-topic so I won't discuss it in depth. It was a situation in 2010 where people tried to extort low amounts of tech from GPA nations to show they wouldn't do anything about it. They did attack the people doing it because they weren't in an alliance, but if they had joined an alliance, nothing would have happened and the only reason Lennox paid reps was because Polar made him as a condition for joining.

I don't really get how labeling it as "rambling" is supposed to mean anything. I mostly post to get my points across and make my stances clear. If I want to call someone on a particular thing, I generally will, no matter how many paragraphs it takes.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Roquentin

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1333467982' post='2947860']
The GPA or TDO as an organisation may be perma-neutral, but they have played a huge role historically in allowing for war. After each major war many nations that would otherwise be lost to us gather as refugees at the doors of the neutrals, and gain there the time and space to rebuild and rethink. Without that option each successive war would have been even more unbalanced than has been the case. For those that claim to want more wars to denounce neutrality for their own failure to produce is infantile and pointless.
[/quote]

They've historically gathered useless war deserters. With the addition of trade choices in this game those nations are now completely useless. They were not even needed back in the day because we had so many more players.

TDO used to have over 400 nations and a sanction and have now slipped into complete oblivion. It's a cess pool of inactivity as evidence by their lack of numbers and whopping 13000 posts on their off-site forum. Since they attracted so many war deserters and have so little activity it is clear that they lack even internal organization or cohesion as you would see in a non-neutral alliance.

These are the players that play just because they see their numbers grow and would quit en masse at a moment's notice once those numbers dwindle.

[Monster]

Exactly.

Like WTF has very minimal organization internally, which has even been stated by people there. There's a distinction to be made between people like AGW who just didn't sign treaties but would fight hard if attacked, but WTF is the case example par excellence for a place where war deserters go.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1333427738' post='2947678']
The whole point of this game is that there are many different ways to play it - neutrality, isolationist, bloc building, tech raiding, tech dealing, rogue attacks, what have you. They're all within the means of the game (i.e. not rule breaking). Different people take pleasure in different activities. People being neutral enjoy it (for reasons I understand, but disagree with), and Yuri obviously got fun out of the rogue attacks. So I ask - who are you to say what is the wrong way to play? What makes you, ChairmanHal, the bastion of CN to decide what is the right and wrong in this game?
[/quote]

Nice try, but...

1. Admin decides if the rules of Planet Bob have been violated and those who violate them are subject to punishment. Not everyone ultimately gets punished for a variety of reasons (e.g. lack of sufficient evidence), but those who do like Derwood should know better.

2. Within the player community cultural norms have developed over time, thus there are concepts of "good", "evil", right and wrong, what is considered sufficient punishment based on the level of transgression, what constitutes an appropriate or inappropriate theme for a nation or an alliance, etc. Indeed, alliances like GOONS depend on being perceived as being "evil" as part of their persona, GPA depends on people generally having disdain for the attacking of neutrals, and so forth. Those who violate perceived cultural norms are subject to having those violations pointed out and as we have seen time and time again, are tried in the court of public opinion. There are also those like Schattenmann that fancy themselves to be "professional" commentators on world affairs.

If there is nothing wrong with playing "evil" as you insist, then there is nothing wrong with people pointing that evil out to the world, making you look foolish for being hypocritical, or even organizing alliances against you and removing your pieces from the game board on the basis that eliminating evil is good. You can't insist that people allow you to exist and then attempt to restrict their words/actions simply because you disapprove.

tl;dr - If you insist on donning the black hat, people will root against you. Karma is a !@#$%*.

[Monster]

Good and evil are determined by the cultural mores of the time. At one point, DH was believed to be evil and then eventually the hyperaggressive stereotype became cute and endearing. See: responses to DH preempt on Maroon alliances when compared to DH-NPO, which was ironically more legit.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333470537' post='2947869']It's off-topic so I won't discuss it in depth. It was a situation in 2010 where people tried to extort low amounts of tech from GPA nations to show they wouldn't do anything about it. They did attack the people doing it because they weren't in an alliance, but if they had joined an alliance, nothing would have happened and the only reason Lennox paid reps was because Polar made him as a condition for joining.[/quote]
Considering that you evidently know nothing about those events, as evidenced by this last post and by all your previous ones on the subject, you can't certainly discuss it in depth.

I honestly don't know why I am replying to you at all, anyway... I guess I'll soon stop to bother.

[Monster]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1333474890' post='2947896']
Considering that you evidently know nothing about those events, as evidenced by this last post and by all your previous ones on the subject, you can't certainly discuss it in depth.

I honestly don't know why I am replying to you at all, anyway... I guess I'll soon stop to bother.
[/quote]

My source was Impero, who was engaging with GPA people during the thing. That's when he revealed VE had a unilateral defense pact over GPA. You said you didn't know about it, so I don't know why you're talking down to me.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Roquentin

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1333470444' post='2947868']
I fail to see how any of this refuted my point that a single neutral body could still serve this purpose. It's even more preposterous that you followed this up claiming I want people to abandon neutrality, which I have neither stated nor implied. I specifically said I'm quite happy with [b]a[/b] neutral body.
[/quote]

Then you need to re-read the very first sentence in my post. Different people have different ideas of what it means to be neutral. Back in the day GPA may have almost had a trademark on neutrality so that IRON had to use Independent instead, but inside the GPA there were ultimately multiple incompatible visions as well. The Grey Council are a very old neutral alliance as well, and OBR is something related as well, but the vision of neutrality each implements is different. So what are you going to do? Make everyone in OBR join TDO, even though they scoff at democracy? Force the Grey Council to disband into the GPA, or vice versa? Do you have any idea how incompatible the cultures involved are?

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333474968' post='2947901']
My source was Impero, who was engaging with GPA people during the thing. That's when he revealed VE had a unilateral defense pact over GPA. You said you didn't know about it, so I don't know why you're talking down to me.
[/quote]

And you believe everything Impero tells you?

Edited April 3, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir