The use of Peace Mode

[potato]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1342470678' post='3010820']
This from a guy who gloated and mocked us when we lost 4/5ths of our NS fighting half of Mjolnir.
[/quote]

I did that? When and where?

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1342458252' post='3010765']
If you think I am attempting to make anyone look bad you are incorrect. I have no knowledge of what peace agreements have been offered or not offered in which I am not a direct participant (Read GOD or VE fronts).

Um, I did put my alliance leadership signatures on an agreement like I am talking about. DH/NPO war that is EXACTLY what we signed. So does that mean my overall comment and view now has value? Come on now.
[/quote]

If peace mode is really an issue for others in THIS war, then they should follow your example in the DH/NPO war.

My point is to all those people (anyone - not you in particular) who are making a big deal about what supposedly happens when alliances "hide" in peace mode and how that supposedly "makes" other alliance want to fight them again (as if an alliance can somehow be "made" to do anything they don't want to do regardless) well then - do something or offer something that makes it worth the other "side" leaving peace mode.

If an alliance having members in peace mode is so nasty to another group that it requires another war later on, then instead of trying to bait or shame them out or insinuating that if they come out it will be easier for them, both of which are obviously not working - put a real offer on the table.

Edited July 16, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Lord Fingolfin]

Now Steve, you might be rather surprised to hear that I'm one of the few Deinos members that doesn't have a vehement dislike for your alliance after Zoom pulled his various antics. I actually like Non Grata, yourself included. This stems all the way back to my admiration for the balls to the wall attitude of Poison Clan in the past, and I do quite enjoy NG's current villainous ways. MK is great at scheming and pulling political strings, but you guys put up a more entertaining show of just being evil and throwing your weight around. Plus I've always liked Zoomx3. So take this not as a personal or alliance slight, this is more me telling you that frankly you're wrong and calling out nonsense when I see it. So lets dissect this post.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342465706' post='3010801']
I have yet to see a period of time, even right after your DoW, where Fark didn't have more offensive wars on you, then you on it. Deinos is known for being pretty awful fighters, so you are just reinforcing that viewpoint bro.[/quote]

For the first sentence frankly I can't be bothered to go verify the accuracy of that, though I imagine for the first day or two we had a marginal advantage in wars declared. After that I will concede that FARK's counterblitz likely did outnumber ours. As did FARK's counterbliz on Umbrella...and TLR...which renders that fact rather useless as an indicator of poor war effort unless you'd like to comment on Umbrella's and TLR's apparent incompetence as well. FARK war coordinators are good at counterblitzes, I'll give them that.

Actually, if you would like some statistics, currently 38/86 of Deinos' wars with FARK are offensively declared, which comes out to roughly 44.2%. Oh wow, they have more than you? You suck! But WAIT! Here are the numbers for TLR, our mutual ally and the other alliance on the FARK front who is also fighting only FARK. 14/52 of their wars with FARK are offensively declared, which roughly comes out to 27%. Not only do they have 40% less wars in total, they have 17.2% less of their wars declared offensively than we do even though they have 13 more nations and 1.6 million NS more than we do. Now, I wouldn't call TLR incompetent, they're our allies, they're putting up a good fight and are known to be quite solid, hell they helped take apart FARK with you last war. And we're actually doing better than them in the area that you're criticizing us on

Point two, "Deinos is known for being pretty awful fighters". I'm sorry, did I miss a Great War somewhere along the line, if I did I offer my most sincere apologies but last time I checked this is actually the first war Deinos has ever participated in. Now, when the word "known" is thrown about usually that means that the thing which is "known" has been seen before, that this "knowing" or prediction of future outcomes is based on empirical evidence. Since there is a whopping total of zero empirical evidence about Deinos' war abilities as an alliance ( and no, however you want to spin it Zoom rogueing one of our members does not provide evidence about an alliances collective abilities) I'm going to have to guess that either you A. have a magical machine which allows you to simulate CN wars and ascertain the fighting abilities of every CN alliances with complete accuracy (in which case please do let me have access) or B. you pulled this fascinating tidbit of information out of your ass and based it upon circumstantial evidence regarding the number of moon bases we have and your personal bias against us. An alliance cannot be known for something if it has never done said thing before.


[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342465706' post='3010801']
I'm sure you have waves and we all cycled some in peace mode, but still 60% is hilarious when you consider you were almost double the nearest alliance on the winning side and rivaling MCXA even. So there is more to it than that, as we all are cycling and yet no one approaches 60%.[/quote]

Point three, lets do math! 45/117 = 38.5% Deinos nations currently in peace mode. We've been hovering around that percentage for the last two weeks or so, we only kept our sub-25k NS guys in peace mode for the first 5 days (which was why our percentage was at 60%) before sending many of them out. We were actually closer to 30% just a few days ago but several people have since jumped in to restock and recuperate. The percentage is higher than I'd like to be sure, but not notably greater than several alliances on the ~wining side~. Sorry to blow your several week out of date assertion out of the water with something like facts.


[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342465706' post='3010801']
And why do you have 4 nations in PM above 90K, nearly 50%, when Fark doesn't have a single [i]nation [/i]above 75k (54k if you only count war mode)?
[/quote]

Frankly I'm not sure at this point, though if the worst thing you accurately can say about us is that we have a few nations that wouldn't be fighting anyway thay are in peace mode well then I can sleep easy tonight.

Now, in my time I've seen great fighters, fighting against Umbrella and Asgaard and fighting as a member of TOP. I've seen !@#$ fighters, fighting against NADC, Sparta, etc. And I've seen everything in between either fighting as a member of or against. Is Deinos TOP? No. Is Deinos even Non Grata? No. Do we pretend to be? Nope. We're a mass member average ANS recruiting alliance. We have good fighters, we have bad fighters, good warchests and poor. We hold our own and we don't !@#$%* and complain about it and if FARK is trying to test our resolve and waiting to see us crack they will be sorely disappointment. Good luck to NG on all their current conflicts.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Lord Fingolfin

[Ogaden]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1342470869' post='3010821']
I did that? When and where?
[/quote]
When I queried you after you pre-empted CRAP & TTK.

[potato]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1342472488' post='3010834']
When I queried you after you pre-empted CRAP & TTK.
[/quote]

After going through my own logs, I couldn't find anything remotely related to me goading you and/or mocking you for losing 4/5 of your NS fighting Mjolnir. So feel free to share with the rest of the class if you have them.

EDIT: unless you mean those from Wed Dec 07 20:09:00 2011 who start like this

[20:09] <Ogaden> I would like to give MK props though for giving me a reason to stay in this game
01[20:09] <potato> what did we do this time?

In which I'm not mocking you for your losing your NS.

Edited July 16, 2012 by potato

[Ogaden]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1342473803' post='3010856']
After going through my own logs, I couldn't find anything remotely related to me goading you and/or mocking you for losing 4/5 of your NS fighting Mjolnir. So feel free to share with the rest of the class if you have them.
[/quote]
That was the night I began hating MK, you should be proud.

[potato]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1342474035' post='3010859']
That was the night I began hating MK, you should be proud.
[/quote]

If the previous logs are the ones you're actually talking about, you remember wrong. And I also don't really when or why you started hating us.

[Ogaden]

Your argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Fark and RIA went all out last war and fought to the last man, and in the last 6 months MK has gone around the entire world saying how terrible RIA and Fark are. Your two examples of alliances who fought "properly" last war are the two alliances you have gone out of your way to denigrate on the world stage and in private.

[potato]

I see you've moved the goalposts now after being proved wrong. That's fine.

My argument holds on personnal MK experience. We didn't fight RIA and Fark, did we? Thus fable tales of Cactuarian and Boobsbaconbeeric war heroes didn't impress us directly. TOP and NATO directly impressed us by doing some actually fighting as opposed to going "neenerneenerneener u not destroy us, we peace mode!"

Edited July 16, 2012 by potato

[Ogaden]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1342475765' post='3010872']
I see you've moved the goalposts now after being proved wrong. That's fine.

My argument holds on personnal MK experience. We didn't fight RIA and Fark, did we? Thus fable tales of Cactuarian and Boobsbaconbeeric war heroes didn't impress us directly. TOP and NATO directly impressed us by doing some actually fighting as opposed to going "neenerneenerneener u not destroy us, we peace mode!"
[/quote]
You just contradicted your own argument from earlier, but sure I'm the one who's wrong, ok.

[potato]

No, I didn't. But nice try.

I'll make it easier for you since too many words seem to confuse you: come out and play and you'll get something out of MK; stay in PM claiming it's a tactic and we'll beat the !@#$ out of you until we're bored of it (which might take a while).

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1342474899' post='3010867']
Your argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Fark and RIA went all out last war and fought to the last man, and in the last 6 months MK has gone around the entire world saying how terrible RIA and Fark are. Your two examples of alliances who fought "properly" last war are the two alliances you have gone out of your way to denigrate on the world stage and in private.
[/quote]

I can't say I've hear anyone in the last six months going around saying how terrible RIA is. Not that anyone has sung your praises either, but to claim you're the target of cyberverse wide slander is an overexageration at best. Also you're allied to GOD and NpO, persona non grata #1 and #2. Don't blame MK for a toxic FA stance that makes nobody want to play with you. That being said, hi Oggy send Delta to the OWF sometime, I miss his sprinkles. As for FARK, I can't say I've really heard people going around slandering them either, except perhaps in the context of how they were a bit of a disappointment last war and didn't put up as good a fight as expected.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1340992525' post='3000052']
Deinos: 60%
[/quote]
lol at Deinos having 60% in peace mode despite being on the curb stomping side. How are those moon bases working out for you guys?

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1342476718' post='3010881']
I can't say I've hear anyone in the last six months going around saying how terrible RIA is. Not that anyone has sung your praises either, but to claim you're the target of cyberverse wide slander is an overexageration at best. Also you're allied to GOD and NpO, persona non grata #1 and #2. Don't blame MK for a toxic FA stance that makes nobody want to play with you. That being said, hi Oggy send Delta to the OWF sometime, I miss his sprinkles. As for FARK, I can't say I've really heard people going around slandering them either, except perhaps in the context of how they were a bit of a disappointment last war and didn't put up as good a fight as expected.
[/quote]
Hi Lord Fingolfin
Delta is so inactive it's hard to tell if he's still alive or not.

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342465706' post='3010801']
I have yet to see a period of time, even right after your DoW, where Fark didn't have more offensive wars on you, then you on it. Deinos is known for being pretty awful fighters, so you are just reinforcing that viewpoint bro.

I'm sure you have waves and we all cycled some in peace mode, but still 60% is hilarious when you consider you were almost double the nearest alliance on the winning side and rivaling MCXA even. So there is more to it than that, as we all are cycling and yet no one approaches 60%.

And why do you have 4 nations in PM above 90K, nearly 50%, when Fark doesn't have a single [i]nation [/i]above 75k (54k if you only count war mode)?
[/quote]

What where did this come from, my post was from two weeks ago. First of all, [b]Deinos has less than 40% in peace mode[/b] of the 46 nations in peace mode, 29 have been there since the beginning of the war (the rest, like me have jumped to restock nukes or just recover some money in the case of lower tiers). Of those 29 nations, 22 are above 10k ns. Of those 22 nations 16 have been in range of Fark and would not have affected the outcome of the war. Of those 16, roughly 5 or 6 had to jump because of RL commitment and at least 2 were in a bad position because of varios rogue attacks. This leaves 8 nations that could be making a meaningful contribution that aren't. Actually considering some of those nations were sent to peace mode because of subpar warchests, you are left with a number that is decidedly under 6%. I've always thought the peace mode argument was not the best to make but this is just plain silly.

Second of all Fark has been focusing on us because, among other things, of the relative newness of our nations. I don't know where you got the impression that we're "known" for being awful fighters considering this is not only our first global war since the merger but for many of our nations, the first opportunity to even be in a war simply because of when they created their nations. Despite the fact that most of our lower and mid tier are facing nations that are much, much older, have the military wonders of a much lager nation and have the warchest of a much larger nation, we're not folding. In fact considering Fark is targeting our non-nuclear !@#$ tier with nuclear nations (sometimes with HNMS and WRC's) I'm surprised they're not doing more damage. I'm not saying that anything Fark is doing is wrong, and I am by no means complaining. I am saying that your accusations are relatively unfounded.

Edit: I just saw LF's post whatever.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Melancholy Culkin

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1342477572' post='3010890']
lol at Deinos having 60% in peace mode despite being on the curb stomping side. How are those moon bases working out for you guys?
[/quote]

This statement goes to show just how uninformed you are. If you can't be bothered to check a simple in game stat how can you be expected to make an authoritative statement regarding anything even slightly nuanced.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Walford' timestamp='1342459971' post='3010774']The days of reasoned discourse and true diplomacy having any value are long since past. As I had warned years ago, Planet Bob has long since degenerated into little more than a one-dimensional war game now. There isn't much need for talking under that paradigm.[/quote]
Unless you're talking of 2006 or maybe early 2007, I respectfully disagree. Sure, there are dark areas (IC: politics happening too much behind closed doors. OOC: numerical decline and "OOC attacks"), but I also remember when I was new to this game and an outsider couldn't talk openly, either IC-ly or OOC-ly, without the very concrete chance of being obliterated from the map. Heck, I [i]have[/i] been obliterated from the map with completely no support, just for not being "orthodox enough".
I also remember the stupid "there's no OOC/IC line" theory, according to which [i]every[/i] comment on CN was IC. That was not just a theory, actually, as it was actively enforced with threats and in-game actions to silence [i]players[/i].

The current debate on this board, both IC and OOC, is much more open; dissent is not immediately shot down with overwhelming force; the world is much less one-sided.
CN politics isn't dead, and in fact war is just the continuation of it with other means. Wars are almost never unpredictable because politics is the dominant factor that determines them. It's not that bad, actually.



[quote name='Walford' timestamp='1342459971' post='3010774']GPA tried that and look where it got them. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Continuum-GPA_War

Displaying an alliance affiliation is merely wearing a target on your back. <SNIP>[/quote]
Wasn't the War on Peace literally only one occasion, that involved only one neutral, years ago?
I don't think that "peace moders" would have joined some neutral group, and that they didn't because they considered it unsafe. Being neutral is actually statistically much safer than being in almost any other kind of alliance. At any rate, they certainly didn't join other kinds of alliances - which is what White Chocolate was talking of - because "having an alliance affiliation is dangerous".

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1342480554' post='3010923']
This statement goes to show just how uninformed you are. If you can't be bothered to check a simple in game stat how can you be expected to make an authoritative statement regarding anything even slightly nuanced.
[/quote]
I was laughing at what it was at when the rebel gathered those stats, not what you guys currently have it at. Although your current percentage of 39.65% isn't much better and would still have you guys at the highest percentage of nations in peace mode with the exception of one alliance, unless more have increased how many they have in peace mode after the rebel posted his percentages.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Methrage

[Walford]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1342480574' post='3010926']Unless you're talking of 2006 or maybe early 2007, I respectfully disagree. Sure, there are dark areas (IC: politics happening too much behind closed doors. OOC: numerical decline and "OOC attacks"), but I also remember when I was new to this game and an outsider couldn't talk openly, either IC-ly or OOC-ly, without the very concrete chance of being obliterated from the map. Heck, I [i]have[/i] been obliterated from the map with completely no support, just for not being "orthodox enough".
I also remember the stupid "there's no OOC/IC line" theory, according to which [i]every[/i] comment on CN was IC. That was not just a theory, actually, as it was actively enforced with threats and in-game actions to silence [i]players[/i].[/quote]
Late 2006-early '07 was when the the nation simulation -- and its attendant diplomacy and rhetoric -- was coming to an end. GWIII in the Spring of '07 ushered in the era of Might Makes Right. It also marked the peak of nations at nearly 45,000 nations. 12,000 of of them were non-aligned and that number was almost immediately cut in half. Prior to that time, they were largely left alone unless they started something. As the summer of '07 wore on, there were very few non-aligned that did not have their inboxes flooded with battle reports and recruitment messages. Those that fight back are gang-attacked and ZIed. All too often, non-aligned who resist being looted by alliances are sentenced to PZI. I was sentenced to EZI for leading non-aligned to band together in fighting back, remember?

Soon afterward, small alliances found themselves facing the same fate. Many nation rulers chose to leave the Planet altogether than be bullied into joining alliances that offered little more protection. As I predicted at the time, the victors then turned on each other.

[quote]The current debate on this board, both IC and OOC, is much more open; dissent is not immediately shot down with overwhelming force; the world is much less one-sided.
CN politics isn't dead, and in fact war is just the continuation of it with other means. Wars are almost never unpredictable because politics is the dominant factor that determines them. It's not that bad, actually.[/quote]
Eventually seedlings will sprout from the ashes, but if any grow too tall, they will be cut down. No one is exempt.

Any reduction in the number of wars for stupid reasons is merely because there are much fewer nations to offend or be offended. The damage has been done.

[quote]Wasn't the War on Peace literally only one occasion, that involved only one neutral, years ago?
I don't think that "peace moders" would have joined some neutral group, and that they didn't because they considered it unsafe. Being neutral is actually statistically much safer than being in almost any other kind of alliance. At any rate, they certainly didn't join other kinds of alliances - which is what White Chocolate was talking of - because "having an alliance affiliation is dangerous".[/quote]
The Continuum war on GPA served notice that neutrality and peace policies offers no protection against aggressive war for its own sake.

[I [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=70571"]warned at the time[/url] that as the GPA peeked through its blinds as one democracy fell after another that [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=14356&view=findpost&p=394399"]its turn would come[/url]. To remain neutral in the face of evil is to serve evil. To deny that evil exists is to serve evil.]

We can only speculate how many more nations left the Planet as a consequence as those who remained resigned themselves to join one of the blocs.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Walford

[Melancholy Culkin]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1342515426' post='3011121']
I was laughing at what it was at when the rebel gathered those stats, not what you guys currently have it at. Although your current percentage of 39.65% isn't much better and would still have you guys at the highest percentage of nations in peace mode with the exception of one alliance, unless more have increased how many they have in peace mode after the rebel posted his percentages.
[/quote]

Please refer to my other post.

[Brehon]

When we continue to refer to 2006/2007/2008 we are morons, all of us. You know what has changed? The names (outside the other comments Jerdge gave). Thats it. Lets cut the crap and acting like the time when (insert any name here) was more prominent or an alliance (put whatever alliance you want here) was in power. Get over the past and get connected to today.

There is just as much politics going around now. Maybe not the style some would like but to ignore its there is simply preposterous.

[Ogaden]

What a difference 6 months makes to people's opinions

[Illidan Stormrage]

Back to the grave this thread goes.