Some info on Dulra

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333420120' post='2947615']
Dame Hime Themis: Keep being a beacon of hope on a sometimes bleak planet.
[/quote]

ahahahahaha

That was a good one. Nice, Hal.

[Derwood1]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333420120' post='2947615']
I'm sorry but when I saw the source of these remarks, I laughed so hard I strained a rib muscle and had to stop reading the thread in order to get some Advil.

Derwood: You're better than that, man. Seriously.

Dame Hime Themis: Keep being a beacon of hope on a sometimes bleak planet.
[/quote]


Hal your not, man. Seriously.

I have absolutely nothing against Hime, I was just looking forward to some fun to watch to counter the current boredom around here, that is all.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333420120' post='2947615']
I'm sorry but when I saw the source of these remarks, I laughed so hard I strained a rib muscle and had to stop reading the thread in order to get some Advil.
[/quote]
That the comment is coming from someone in GOONS is what makes the comment so funny. Funny when their members complain about tactics they use against others being used on them.

[the rebel]

Well that was fun to watch while it lasted, back to our lives.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

What would rolling neutrals even do to make the game more interesting? The war system is terribad and most wouldn't even put up a fight worth having.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333391089' post='2947375']
Neutrals are bad and it is better to do basically anything than be a neutral pretty much. Passivity is the worst thing in this game and the "bad guys" at least offer a villain rather than talking about "right" and preaching certain values while not doing what it takes to enforce them. That is a non-moral argument, or maybe it does have a moral tinge, but it's not resting upon that foundation.
[/quote]
I have a hard time believing that your criticism of neutrals comes from anything else but being mad that they won't join your personal crusade to avenge perceived personal slights.

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333401558' post='2947423']
OBR and other neutral alliances in this world are neutral because they exclude themselves from the community at large, and the rest of CN hates that because the community is the only thing keeping this world intact. Neutrals leech off the collective efforts of the rest of us and have the ability to return to the community at any time without having to suffer the consequences of playing what many would consider a game of thrones. GPA, OBR, WTF, etc are all massive NS sinks that serve no purpose but to drown the world in inactivity, whereas the rest of us are actively playing the game. Neutrality is a crippling disease on this community.
[/quote]
I disagree with this. The rest of CN can ignore the neutrals while we play our game of thrones and not be any worse off for them existing. They aren't "drowning" anything but a few relatively meaningless statistical indexes. If all the neutral alliances ceased to exist tomorrow, activity wouldn't go up.

I would even argue that neutral alliances help make the game of thrones more interesting, by providing an outlet for nations that don't want to participate to stay out of it instead of infecting non-neutral alliances with their pacifism and desire not to fight wars. Right now there are a decent number of people who should be in neutral alliances that aren't, whose biggest concern is their in-game stats, and who place a drag keeping their alliance doing anything risky that would jeopardize those stats.

When I first joined the game, I joined GPA because I just wanted to learn the game and build my in-game nation without getting caught in major alliance wars that I knew nothing about. Eventually, I moved on to a non-neutral alliance, as have many others. To be honest I had other reasons for leaving GPA, but as a consequence of having been in GPA I knew more about the potential choices, and had a handle on the game, once I was picking which non-neutral to join.

[Heft]

It's hard to condemn the neutrals when they clearly aren't missing out on much of anything anymore.

[Biff Webster]

They certainly complain less about how bored they are than all these hardcore pro CN gamers do.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1333425271' post='2947661']
They certainly complain less about how bored they are than all these hardcore pro CN gamers do.
[/quote]
haha nice1

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Derwood1' timestamp='1333420326' post='2947620']
Hal your not, man. Seriously. [/quote]

That's a pity. I respected you once as a worthy adversary even if you did reach down in NS pretty far to attack in war once. Still, respect is a two way street and if you are unwilling to give it, so be it.

[quote]I have absolutely nothing against Hime, I was just looking forward to some fun to watch to counter the current boredom around here, that is all.[/quote]

Attacking Hime took no courage and didn't really serve any purpose except a "haha gotcha, knocked you off the top spot." It is boring in and of itself. Hime blows large chunks out of the attackers, "oh my we've never seen that before!" Yes, we have already. I recall Hime even posting the damage results from the nukes.

Want to impress me, rebuild Golden Sabres and turn it into a going alliance, don't mock their memory by going rogue under their flag. Go after Yellow senate seats. Make FAN work for it.

Better yet, be professional and don't cheer on people who are doing it wrong.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333427271' post='2947673']
Better yet, be professional and don't cheer on people who are doing it wrong.
[/quote]

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?

[Monster]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1333422794' post='2947638']
I have a hard time believing that your criticism of neutrals comes from anything else but being mad that they won't join your personal crusade to avenge perceived personal slights.
[/quote]

You haven't been reading then. I have never expected neutrals to do anything for me. They won't do anything for themselves, why would I expect that? It's more that neutrals allow themselves to have their rights abrogated due to their pacifism. People like jerdge pontificate against stuff you do, yet do nothing about it. Or Hime's Civility thing.

Here goes: Artigo said if someone provided sanctuary a specific color sphere to people roguing NG, they'd get rolled.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Roquentin

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1333426861' post='2947671']
haha nice1
[/quote]

Yeah, it wasn't too bad.

[flak attack]

The hilarious thing about this thread is the number of people complaining about the neutrals doing nothing while in an alliance that doesn't do anything but cause treaty web problems that prevent wars themselves.

Edited April 3, 2012 by flak attack

[Enamel32]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333427271' post='2947673']
Want to impress me, rebuild Golden Sabres and turn it into a going alliance, don't mock their memory by going rogue under their flag. Go after Yellow senate seats. Make FAN work for it.

Better yet, be professional and don't cheer on people who are doing it wrong.
[/quote]
NO U CHAIRMANHAL! THAT TAKES HONOR, OR SOMETHING.


Good response Hal, I agree entirely.


[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]
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?

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.

[IYIyTh]

So let me get this straight, Non Grata is just lobbing one or two CM's at you a day while those you have transgressed are permitted only one slot?

Edited April 3, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Dr Beefstupid]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333420120' post='2947615']
I'm sorry but when I saw the source of these remarks, I laughed so hard I strained a rib muscle and had to stop reading the thread in order to get some Advil.[/quote]

Whoa, what? I actually agree with something ChairmanHal said? Something must be wrong with me.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1333420120' post='2947615']Dame Hime Themis: Keep being a beacon of hope on a sometimes bleak planet.[/quote]

Oh, there we go. All is right in the world.

[Monster]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1333430683' post='2947699']
NO U CHAIRMANHAL! THAT TAKES HONOR, OR SOMETHING.


Good response Hal, I agree entirely.



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?

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]


You do realize Yuri stated his motivation was the fact that he didn't want to invest more time in the game, right?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333407543' post='2947488']Were you GPA gov in late 2010? If so, how did you not know VE was involved? He paid reps because it was a condition for him being in Polar when he ended up going there.[/quote]
I was MoFA and I was knee-deep in all the negotiations. VE was not contacted or involved, although I can't exclude off the top of my head that they asked what was happening and that we told them - we tend to treat anyone with courtesy (unless they're aggressive with us), as anyone we have contact with can confirm.
Lennox joined Polaris and he agreed to pay reparations - Polaris decided to condition his membership to that, [i]without[/i] us even needing to ask. Just like every other alliance I have experience of (NSO, GOONS, MK off the top of my head), Polaris handles their rogue incidents with professionalism and composure.
As Lennox had previously abused his NSO membership to convince a few more NSO members to attack us, the NSO also agreed to pay us reparations to get those members of theirs back, without further trouble on our part; IIRC it was me and RV which settled that down. I later decided to waive said NSO reparations, which were modest and not worth our and NSO's time.
Just after having paid the reparations, Lennox attacked us again, he was insta-booted from Polaris and his nation was then reduced to rubble. Our objective was to ZI and bill-lock his nation (three chances with us were enough), but he just deleted, (to my knowledge) coming back with that VE-Lennox-Dajobo-Polaris spying incident.
At that point I issued an internal policy, about us not bothering about him anymore, as his deletion was equivalent to ZI and bill-lock. I called that "his fourth chance" with us.
I doubt you can find anyone in CN which was or is more up to date than me on the whole GPA-Lennox relationship, save maybe Lennox himself (which AFAIK is not in CN anymore).



[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333411278' post='2947509']They're playing a game that we (anyone not in a neutral alliance) have created for them.[/quote]
Admin! Is it you?

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333411278' post='2947509']Do you not understand that the politics, culture and communities of non-neutral alliances have directly contributed to the state of the world today (that state being not-dead)? Whereas the neutrals have provided nothing to further the world, every other alliance has at least contributed its NS in some form, whether to win or lose. The game neutrals are playing "as they see fit" remains fit because of the sacrifices and the initiative of the rest of us. As long as neutrality exists in CN, a select group of alliances will continue to leech away a larger share of this world's NS, where it will rot and decay and further deprive the real players of their means to play the game.[/quote]
Ah aha hahah hahah ahahahah
*gasp*
Aha hshshaa hiihi oh my god

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333411278' post='2947509']For all intents and purposes, that seems like an ideal way of forcing several hundred "players" back into the community at large.[/quote]
The last (and first) time the GPA was attacked hundreds of players just left the game. But don't let facts get in the way of your nonsense.

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333411278' post='2947509']What exactly is the difference between a group of nations that do nothing but collect meaningless stats, and a group of people who aren't playing the game? There is no difference. The game is defined by who does what with their accumulated NS; not doing anything with it means not playing the game. Escaping to neutral territory is like stepping out of bounds for a free, penalty-less break. Growing up in neutral territory is no different than a player joining the game and on day one, having XX,XXX amount of NS (which would take far longer if he or she was playing in the actual community).[/quote]
Try to decide yourself, either neutrals are ruining the game or their game is just like not being here. You can't have it both ways.
But I find it interesting that you want to encourage people to play the game by restricting their choices by force. It's very dumb of you to imagine that a game with less choices would attract more players.

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1333411278' post='2947509']For every massive nation in OBR or GPA or wherever, that's one less nation that the community can benefit from. The game cannot be played if everyone is not contributing.[/quote]
Of course this is stupid (and you know it). For every nation in OBR or GPA there's one more nation in the game. CN hasn't "nation slots", you know, everyone can create a new nation no matter how many of the existing ones are neutral.



[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333412926' post='2947525']Except if you violate Switzerland's sovereignty, they'll actually do something. Like I said, it's far more pacifistic in this game than armed neutrality. If I was hiding people who are blowing stuff up in Bern, they'd have a real issue with it. Hell, especially if it wasn't hiding and it was an open invitation.

It's one thing to be neutral, another to be a doormat.[/quote]
[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333413868' post='2947537']The thing is, even if you roll neutrals, they won't do anything and won't even want revenge. They'll agree to any terms once you've grinded them down and be neutral towards the people who rolled them.

A lot of them will quit definitely once simcity is no longer a viable option, so it won't force them into the community.[/quote]
Attacking the neutrals might be politically expedient, but with the way the war system is set it can't be economically convenient - I am sure that you of all people have a good idea of that. These aren't the WoP times anymore.
I can't talk for the other neutrals, but I can assure you that a mass attack on the GPA, while almost assuredly victorious (and as such maybe not that glorious), would not improve the stats of the attackers. You're anyway correct that a lot of players would leave the game for good.

[jerdge]

([i]You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text[/i])



[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1333417403' post='2947571']I look forward to the day when the neutrals defend their neutrality.[/quote]
For the GPA that day is today. We are going to stay out of everyone else's business like usual, and that's what neutrality is about, and how you defend it.



[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1333422794' post='2947638'][spoiler]I have a hard time believing that your criticism of neutrals comes from anything else but being mad that they won't join your personal crusade to avenge perceived personal slights.


I disagree with this. The rest of CN can ignore the neutrals while we play our game of thrones and not be any worse off for them existing. They aren't "drowning" anything but a few relatively meaningless statistical indexes. If all the neutral alliances ceased to exist tomorrow, activity wouldn't go up.

I would even argue that neutral alliances help make the game of thrones more interesting, by providing an outlet for nations that don't want to participate to stay out of it instead of infecting non-neutral alliances with their pacifism and desire not to fight wars. Right now there are a decent number of people who should be in neutral alliances that aren't, whose biggest concern is their in-game stats, and who place a drag keeping their alliance doing anything risky that would jeopardize those stats.

When I first joined the game, I joined GPA because I just wanted to learn the game and build my in-game nation without getting caught in major alliance wars that I knew nothing about. Eventually, I moved on to a non-neutral alliance, as have many others. To be honest I had other reasons for leaving GPA, but as a consequence of having been in GPA I knew more about the potential choices, and had a handle on the game, once I was picking which non-neutral to join.[/spoiler][/quote]
This man knows what he is talking of.



[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333428466' post='2947688'][quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1333422794' post='2947638']<above post>[/quote] People like jerdge pontificate against stuff you do [...][/quote]
I have talked against many things, but none of them was ever done by Azaghul. He is one of the best players of this game, hands down, and I am perfectly sure of the correctness and fairness of any of his actions.
Please don't ever put words against him in my mouth, I take offence at that.



[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1333430541' post='2947696']The hilarious thing about this thread is the number of people complaining about the neutrals doing nothing while in an alliance that doesn't do anything but cause treaty web problems that prevent wars themselves.[/quote]
If everyone was neutral (which doesn't mean "pacifist") CN would be a much lively place. If anything, all the complainers should think of going neutral themselves.
I suppose that doing nothing and pointing one's finger is easier, anyway.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1333422794' post='2947638']
I have a hard time believing that your criticism of neutrals comes from anything else but being mad that they won't join your personal crusade to avenge perceived personal slights.

[/quote]

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!

[quote]For the GPA that day is today. We are going to stay out of everyone else's business like usual, and that's what neutrality is about, and how you defend it.[/quote]

And no, that isn't being neutral at all.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[IYIyTh]

I've always disagreed with the GPA's definition of neutrality and I've seen it appear here again.

It is more akin to pacificsm in its C.N. practice than it is to actual neutrality. Actual neutrality implies that an actor, while not aligned in any shape or fashion will refrain from hostile action so long as it is left alone and either has no military alliances or relationships with any actors at a given time or towards all in general. Yet, it is also tacitly implicit that a neutral party would also seek to wage war or fight to maintain peace so long as it is in its own interests, which is a fairly large caveat that in and of itself implies it is an actor that could be morally and reasonably be attacked if it grew too powerful before it could act on that implicit ability and/or natural threat.

Therefore, with the GPA's historical Declaration of Neutrality (in the drive to obtain as many signatures (Wishing for it to be signed by all and any alliance,) as possible as if to validate "neutrality," (or pacifism, as it is virtually a NAP,)), the composition of membership, attitudes (some refusing to buy Military improvements, wonders,) and ideals (general objection towards violence,) of G.P.A. in addition to its (aside from a slip in diplomacy or inevitable targeting depending on one's frame of reference,) and actions it is more apt to claim the G.P.A. is pacifist more than neutral.

O.B.R., however, conducts diplomacy in ways that would lead me to believe they are more "neutral," in its true sense in building relationships with particular alliances even if military alliances are not their aim, while GPA's diplomacy is tasked to prevent minor issues becoming large flareups (pacifism.)

I just sort of have been confused as to the vehement scoffing at the "p," word as it certainly seems more applicable. Because when accepted it defeats the argument that the G.P.A. can be attacked with moral cause due to its implicit threat if it is considered pacifistic and generally of nonresistance, rather than just a neutral party that in theory only refrains from acting due to a lack of gain to be had from doing so rather than a higher moral cause.

That said, this is a game, people are going to do whatever and technically there are no real definitions once we're inside so none of the above really matters anyway.

Carry on.

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

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.

Edited April 3, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1333433810' post='2947715']
You do realize Yuri stated his motivation was the fact that he didn't want to invest more time in the game, right?
[/quote]
Ahh, I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, or how it relates to my post, but it's possible I misread something.


You mean in regards to not having enough time to create another golden sabres? I personally don't care about the Golden Sabres, I just don't see the purpose, honor, or lulz in roguing Hime.

[Commander shepard]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1333440414' post='2947743']
Ahh, I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, or how it relates to my post, but it's possible I misread something.


You mean in regards to not having enough time to create another golden sabres? I personally don't care about the Golden Sabres, I just don't see the purpose, honor, or lulz in roguing Hime.
[/quote]
You care too much

[IYIyTh]

Who are we to judge? We all spend a lot of time on a game that even admin himself states he did not expect to last very long.
It is what you make of it.

I for one don't mind anyone going rogue for fun, just as I don't mind other people wanting said person held accountable and rightly so for their actions.

Both are right, both contribute to everyone's fun.