Jump to content

Some info on Dulra


Yuri Baddic

Recommended Posts

Ironfist,

I agree with much that you say and at first I also felt this had gotten too OOC in the dislike of those who do not play the game as others do.

Schattenmann, it also is good that you pointed out again how no alliance (and I would add no nation leader) is a constant, no matter what their charters or members say. Even Azaghul rightfully pointed out that a lot of warlike characters have emerged from neutral and even pacifist alliances.

In considering many of the things said in this thread, I am reminded of the great literary debates on the how to interpret the characters (as well as the actual story) in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot"]Waiting for Godot[/url].

To those who are familiar with it, while we may think of neutrals (particularly pacifists) to be like [b]Lucky[/b], in that he seems to have figured out all of this world's follys, he has turned himself into a slave of another kind (to nation-building, infra or even simply to the bonds of his community).

All of us are just who we are, we are all multi-sided and multi-faceted, with little regard for what we think we are or what we proclaim ourselves to be. For those of us who love the intrigues and wars here, we might think of ourselves as [b]Pozzos[/b], [b]Vladimirs [/b]and [b]Estragons [/b]in the game, I think we also could be characterized just as readily as [b]"Luckys,"[/b] since all of us can get similarly enslaved in our ways of looking at what is the right or most fun way to enjoy ourselves in this fake world.

I'll close with Lucky's famous "speech," a speech you might perceive in its rapid and rambling delivery as meaningless, but he does have much to say, with his last word perhaps being the most important to remember for an application to this rather interesting discussion that developed in reaction to how two players decided to depart the game.

Lucky's speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5gU3-0giE


Tl;dr unfinished, under construction, given that it is we who give life to this game, give fun to this game, all is still possible, no one has a monopoly on the truth here. This also is an answer for you, Myth, regarding game mechanics :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 287
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333513668' post='2948124']
That's an invalid argument. Immoral and wrong are not always mutually exclusive and certainly do not need to be in order to constitute a valid reason to attack the instigator.

Non Grata's actions are wrong and they just happen to be immoral too. The premise that because Non Grata can get away with it because their allies are seemingly okay with their perpetration of this sort of behavior is not validation of their actions as being "right," but more or less that their allies are willing to accept "wrong," as being at least ostensibly or tacitly okay with these wrong actions.

Ergo, just because Non Grata is "alright," with it committing "wrong," actions and/or that they are alright with others committing "wrong," actions against them, the action is still "wrong."

Since you resign the point that the action is immoral and the general response from the party in question to the aforementioned has been a combination of "so what," "do something about it," "come at me bro," "yeah, well go eat a sack of laxative derivatives," I don't feel that any more elaboration is needed on that point.
[/quote]
Nowhere did I concede that anything Non Grata has done is immoral.

My point is that just because Non Grata considers an action directed at them a valid reason to attack doesn't mean that they consider that action to be immoral, or that they think it is immoral for Non Grata to do it to others. Valid CBs and morality are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I misunderstood then.

I thought we were speaking in context of Non Grata's action of grabbing the two slots from OBR in order to diminish the amount of damage that individual actually will receive at the hands of O.B.R. for their actions.

Ironically, this is not only wrong and immoral, but is also a valid C.B. given the intent is nefarious. While O.B.R. has and will say the right things it nonetheless is a blatant breech of sovereignty and inherently poor taste to claim ownership of two of the three available defensive slots and to not do the maximum amount of damage possible as would be done had they not been taken. For instance: Just because the issue will not expand further does not absolve the intent of Non Grata for it to do so just to spite O.B.R., as it has in purposefully not fulfilling donation deals.

Non Grata's view view that they do not take offense to those kind of actions does not absolve them of committing them, less without cause.

Edit: What a difference a word can make.

Edited by IYIyTh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1333513129' post='2948121']
Since I'm the only one to really summarize it in argument form, unlike what you put forth, I'll restate it:

If you're referring to someone else, that's fine too. [b]I'd just ask that you address these pretty substantial counter-evidence to the claim that everyone who claims GPA is pacifistic is doing so on arbitrary nonsensical reasoning and/or arguing such is or in the manner I have is a waste of time[/b].

Perhaps I would suggest you ignore those who aren't putting forth anything rather than subsist at their level and completing the circle.
[/quote]

The bolded text is without any doubt the most contrived sentence structure I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

Anyway, your original post was one of many "they're pacifist not neutral" posts. The entire post reads like you've just reached for a dictionary and told everyone what it says about neutrality, and applied it to GPA. Successful interpretation or no, I'm not sure how you're using that criticise them. Are you, even?

Instead of having an argument about what constitutes an argument, I'll just point out that my post was purely a rant about people who think they're above others simply because they play the game a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']
The entire notion that neutrals are bad is astonishing. An alliance is a sovereign thing, I'm sure most people will agree. A sovereign thing with its own ideals, beliefs, and methods of playing this game.[/quote]

Every alliance is able to scorned publicly. Not sure why you're objecting to neutrals being on hot seat.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']
A disease? Really? Like the quality of your posting, Roquentin?
[/quote]

I don't really get what you mean by this since you've deliberately misinterpreted posts of mine in the past to look coy. It seems like the quality of your posting is more of an issue. It usually contributes very little to any discussion and you're basically just entering to white knight neutrals.

In addition, it wasn't even my term, but just like Charles you're just trying to score points on me. How pathetic.

Also Omni's posts are terrible, too.

[quote]And to quote another poster I saw somewhere: "They're not neutral, they're pacifist."

That's nice. If you'd like to define them as oranges, not neutrals, go ahead. Your definitions mean nothing. Except maybe that you can effectively look something up in the dictionary. I don't know, is that worthy of praise still? In any case, unless you've joined their community, immersed yourself in their culture, and found the dead kittens in their basement, you cannot criticise their methods of playing the game. You cannot. Anything you argue will just be wasted pixels on the forum.[/quote]

Who are you to determine what people can and cannot say?

[quote]It's not even a [i]cause[/i], hating neutrals. What does it achieve? They still won't care. You still won't be the majority of CN, and your arguments will be ignored, on the whole.[/quote]

You do realize people actually are doing something about it? Like NG right now? It's not that I hate the people I hate how they act.

[quote]Go do something else with your time. Hate on the political environment. Hate on alliances that are actually playing the same game as you. Hate on something [u]relevant[/u]. Because as it stands, the neutrals are not a part of your game. It's actually borderline OOC hate. And that's pathetic. And I'm angry that I've gotten angry over this and wasted 5 minutes of my time.
[/quote]

I think it's funny.



The whole point of the "pacifists, not neutrals" thing, is that it shows you can get away with doing stuff to people like GPA because they never stand up for themselves. Schattenmann has posted to the effect saying this is a change that resulted from their Woodstock Massacre experience and I don't even think that was a logical approach to take by GPA.


[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1333510850' post='2948115']
GPA may be pacifist today, but prior to the One Vision war, GPA was actually very militaristic on the world stage. They all had nuke-themed avatars and signatures, and "Peace through superior firepower" slogans. A few had that peace symbol avatar, but the lines in the circle were a long-range bomber. Their President Kristen Marie was in treaty talks with GOONS, and while she may have gotten tossed out for it, for a time GPA was on top and they were viewed as a serious threat.

The fact of the matter is that as neutrals who were the largest alliance in the game, they contributed as much anxiety to global politics as any of the toadie alliances that were tied up in the treaty web, if not moreso through their volatility.

The idea that a pacifist post-defeat GPA is ~destroying the game~ because its 200 nations aren't going to war in wars that involve 2000 nations is idiotic. If anything, mass-recruiting neutral AAs are a bulwark against the depopulation that you all wring your hands over so often. And while players might not like those nations being cordoned-off, from a position of absolute objectivity (Admin perspective) that is better than the losses of nations caused by what other people consider "excitement."

Besides all of that, OBR isn't even neutral.
[/quote]

Also, Schattenmann, the issue is OBR has taken a more neutral approach in recent year. For instance, no real military treaties are standing at this point, and any treaties signed are designed to make military intervention a real improbability with the definition the covenant gives of an aggressive war, which is pretty terrible.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333516533' post='2948144']
The bolded text is without any doubt the most contrived sentence structure I've ever had the pleasure of reading.[/quote]

I'll have you know my sentence structure thinks highly of you and your care for it.

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333516533' post='2948144']
Anyway, your original post was one of many "they're pacifist not neutral" posts. The entire post reads like you've just reached for a dictionary and told everyone what it says about neutrality, and applied it to GPA. Successful interpretation or no, I'm not sure how you're using that criticise them. Are you, even? [/quote]

Yes. It's a criticism that they are more aptly defined as pacifists rather than being "neutral," in the true sense. A criticism because I feel they short themselves out of an added layer of security and open several doors and provide legitimate reasons for them to be attacked by carrying the "neutral," moniker.
[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333516533' post='2948144']
Instead of having an argument about what constitutes an argument, I'll just point out that my post was purely a rant about people who think they're above others simply because they play the game a certain way.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I guess you could say I was playfully complaining about the people complaining about people.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about sentence structure to begin with? I mean's that's just a way to shift to criticism to how someone is saying something, rather than what they're actually saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1333509866' post='2948108']It's not even a [i]cause[/i], hating neutrals. What does it achieve? They still won't care.[/quote]
To be fair for for what concerns the GPA, almost anyone else except me won't even [i]know[/i] it, let alone "care" about it.



[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333517235' post='2948145']Every alliance is able to scorned publicly. Not sure why you're objecting to neutrals being on hot seat.[/quote]
You're right that everyone can be criticized. You're anyway overestimating the hot seat part: it might apply to me - more because your examples about the GPA were based on a misleading recollection of events, built on irrelevant and forgettable details rather than on the real inner workings and reasoning of my alliance - than because of your (or Myth's) criticism, which I am not probably going to really discuss for various reasons (which I won't discuss either).
[i]Also holy long sentence Batman![/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1333528518' post='2948182']
To be fair for for what concerns the GPA, almost anyone else except me won't even [i]know[/i] it, let alone "care" about it.




You're right that everyone can be criticized. You're anyway overestimating the hot seat part: it might apply to me - more because your examples about the GPA were based on a misleading recollection of events, built on irrelevant and forgettable details rather than on the real inner workings and reasoning of my alliance - than because of your (or Myth's) criticism, which I am not probably going to really discuss for various reasons (which I won't discuss either).
[i]Also holy long sentence Batman![/i]
[/quote]

No, not at all. It was a historical example of people messing with neutral alliances. I know a lot of people here don't like history lessons, but yes. So Jerdge, ultimately, if a major alliance let someone like Lennox in and didn't force them to pay reps, what would GPA do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333528863' post='2948183']No, not at all. It was a historical example of people messing with neutral alliances. I know a lot of people here don't like history lessons, but yes. So Jerdge, ultimately, if a major alliance let someone like Lennox in and didn't force them to pay reps, what would GPA do?[/quote]
Enough with the off topic. I'll later make a comprehensive blog entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1333540980' post='2948215']
Enough with the off topic.
[/quote]
You aren't kidding. Since the focus of the post is pretty much over and the last few pages are off topic, I don't see a reason to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...