Jump to content

The Day Today - A Brief History of January 2021


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, jerdge said:

.... If you're the losing side, going after this or that of your opponents makes little sense, either you're ready to give everyone peace or you go back to the battlefield. If you're the winner you should keep people accountable, no matter what absurd e-lawyering they try to defend themselves with.

 

.....IMO unfortunately we totally screwed that up, failing to push our point of view and to get the most out of the situation. Our government didn't really raise the issue of accountability, which was one of their major mistakes IMO.

 

I totally agree with jerdge. Although I must point out GPA couldn't have fought that fight and maintained neutrality. I doubt it. 

 

Shame 

 

Just another victim of doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, Stewie said:

 

Well that explains why you couldn't identify your end goals when we asked during the summit.

 

Please let Johnny know this- we asked for a list of their grievances during our last conflict multiple times, and they never gave one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lucius Optimus said:

I totally agree with jerdge. Although I must point out GPA couldn't have fought that fight and maintained neutrality. I doubt it. 

 

Shame 

 

Just another victim of doom

Defending ourselves was totally compatible with neutrality. Trust me, inside the GPA I have always been considered one of the less orthodox about neutrality - and I probably was, TBQH - but no one even thought to raise that issue, in that situation. For everyone it was clear that our self defence was totally a neutral thing.

I wouldn't say we have been another victim of Doom either. In the end they walked away and they didn't harass us until it didn't really matter anymore. We even signed a NAP (which I obviously campaigned against, why trust them on anything regarding us?) and everything was fine and dandy for a long while... also because I hadn't been involved in anything about them.

 

To be clear: IC-ly I hadn't really anything against the DBDC and at their rise I also thought they were good for the game. But their success was based also on flawed mechanics (land and tech), not to mention the exploitation of ill-acquired huge tech levels (to beat again this dead horse: 60,000 tech levels later erased from Steeldor's count, when Cuba and many of the tech heavy Doombirds had already left the arena - what about them?) Their way of trolling in the Suggestion Box to discourage any possible fix was disgusting. Their in-game threats over OOC stuff would have been ridiculous, hadn't people took that seriously. I suppose I can console myself with the notion that, at least, their silly personal insults were not totally unamusing, albeit ultimately pointless. They did almost all that could have possibly been done to be hated on an OOC level, short of going straight in criminal territory, but despite that I never hated them. Now I would have knowingly allowed any OOC aversion to influence my IC behavior towards them.

When they threatened or damaged the GPA I simply pushed (for the little I could) for action to be taken to counter that, as I would have done with any other threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Canik said:

Not without risking extreme punishment, which indeed they may get if the enemy's side is overwhelming powerful and morally corrupt.

 

This. 

 

And the response that the alliance being attacked should not give up and let the bully escape is ridiculous, Jerdge. The real answer is that if someone jumps from alliance #1 (CLAWS, for a weird example) to alliance #2 just to start something, then they try to run back to alliance #1 (again, CLAWS, for an example) once they're done having fun, alliance #1 should have the stones to not accept them back.

 

You want to play? 

Declare war and either say it's just for funsies, take what comes your way, or post an actual CB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tevron said:

Just take a look at the TIE war and how Lucius' actions were religiously defended by his allies almost universally. Juxtapose that to how veracity's situation was handled and you can see that there are different standards of behavior from different spheres in general

 

You mean when Lucius owned up to being a dummy and took what came his way? And we all said it was good to own up to being a dummy and taking the consequences?

 

Or when veracity was a dummy and CLAWS sent him war aid? 

 

I suppose you're right that different spheres have entirely different standards of behavior. Some alliances have very little standard of morality at all. 

Edited by CrinkledStraw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CrinkledStraw said:

 

You mean when Lucius owned up to being a dummy and took what came his way? And we all said it was good to own up to being a dummy and taking the consequences?

 

Or when veracity was a dummy and CLAWS sent him war aid? 

 

Ha I forgot about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

I suppose you're right that different spheres have entirely different standards of behavior. Some alliances have very little standard of morality at all. 

 

You do realize that you're aligned to an alliance who has decimated other alliances without shedding a tear. One of those instances was because Bernekstal shared flimsy intel about a perceived plot in an nadc/sparta chatroom and they jumped all over and used it as a CB. When the defending party and the peanut gallery asked for evidence, were they given it? irony

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Please let Johnny know this- we asked for a list of their grievances during our last conflict multiple times, and they never gave one. 

You raided OC and continually provoked. 

 

Summed it up for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

You do realize that you're aligned to an alliance who has decimated other alliances without shedding a tear. One of those instances was because Bernekstal shared flimsy intel about a perceived plot in an nadc/sparta chatroom and they jumped all over and used it as a CB. When the defending party and the peanut gallery asked for evidence, were they given it? irony

 

 

I'm wondering what at all this has to do with what you quoted from me, which is, not at all ironic and completely expected. Your conversation skills have always left me unimpressed. 

 

Quote

One of those instances was because Bernekstal shared flimsy intel about a perceived plot in an nadc/sparta chatroom and they jumped all over and used it as a CB. 

 

This is irony. That you seem to be upset about this happening or implying that it is bad. Now that, is delightful irony. 

Edited by CrinkledStraw
Irony, but make it italic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrinkledStraw said:

 

This. 

 

And the response that the alliance being attacked should not give up and let the bully escape is ridiculous, Jerdge. The real answer is that if someone jumps from alliance #1 (CLAWS, for a weird example) to alliance #2 just to start something, then they try to run back to alliance #1 (again, CLAWS, for an example) once they're done having fun, alliance #1 should have the stones to not accept them back.

 

You want to play? 

Declare war and either say it's just for funsies, take what comes your way, or post an actual CB.  

The discussion was about what you do when Alliance #1 accepts them back, not about what you do when you're Alliance #1.

And if you mean: it's Alliance #1 that should... (do stuff) - that's great! - when you're not Alliance #1, how exactly do you go about having them... (do stuff)?

 

Edited by jerdge
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jerdge said:

The discussion was about what you do when Alliance #1 accepts them back, not about what you do when you're Alliance #1.

And if you mean: it's Alliance #1 that should... (do stuff) - that's great! - when you're not Alliance #1, how exactly do you go about having them... (doing stuff)?

 

Then I quite agree with you, and I apologize for the misunderstanding!

*Tips hat in jaunty support*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CrinkledStraw said:

You mean when Lucius owned up to being a dummy and took what came his way? And we all said it was good to own up to being a dummy and taking the consequences?

 

Or when veracity was a dummy and CLAWS sent him war aid? 

 

I suppose you're right that different spheres have entirely different standards of behavior. Some alliances have very little standard of morality at all.


Giving examples to prove my point that different alliances (and spheres) have different standards of behavior is accurate. That's why it doesn't make sense to publicly litigate CBs. We agree to disagree. 

 

In your examples, you're forgetting that RFI at large condemned veracity and sanctioned him. Hell, I think Argent resanctioned him recently. I for the record, condemn him as well and ordered the sanction on brown. Won't do a thing for him until we see some form of public penance, if ever. And while Lucius & TIE stood up and took their blows (and were rightfully praised for it!), the rest of the sphere pushed false narratives about how Lucius was entrapped and from what I understand nearly entered that war.

 

Really, standards of morality vary a lot even person to person, let alone alliance to alliance or sphere to sphere.

Like it's not an irrational belief to believe that we have different standards, because it's been so obviously proven and you're even agreeing with me here (even if we disagree on very specific points of morality, but that wasn't my point... I was talking about how there tends to be a lot of circlejerking before facts come out of situations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tevron said:


Giving examples to prove my point that different alliances (and spheres) have different standards of behavior is accurate. That's why it doesn't make sense to publicly litigate CBs. We agree to disagree. 

 

In your examples, you're forgetting that RFI at large condemned veracity and sanctioned him. Hell, I think Argent resanctioned him recently. I for the record, condemn him as well and ordered the sanction on brown. Won't do a thing for him until we see some form of public penance, if ever. And while Lucius & TIE stood up and took their blows (and were rightfully praised for it!), the rest of the sphere pushed false narratives about how Lucius was entrapped and from what I understand nearly entered that war.

 

Really, standards of morality vary a lot even person to person, let alone alliance to alliance or sphere to sphere.

Like it's not an irrational belief to believe that we have different standards, because it's been so obviously proven and you're even agreeing with me here (even if we disagree on very specific points of morality, but that wasn't my point...

Can you remind me what the point is of bringing Lucius and TIE up again, considering despite what you're asserting, the facts of the matter is they stood down and agreed that Lucius's actions led to what happened? Even if they "religiously defended" which is not what actually happened, the fact of the matter is the CLAWS presented a CB they accepted as valid and despite having treaty obligations to TIE they stood down.

I don't remember anywhere in CN it says you have to completely agree with someone else's interpretation of events. But, in the end, your argument here actually works again the point your trying to make. Instead of showing that there's no point in providing evidence for your CB because some of our allies thought TDE's approaching Luc did him dirty, you actually show that when you provide a valid CB and evidence behind it, even if we don't like it we'll accept it. Despite your attempts to poison the well with terms like "religiously defend" and "nearly entered the war," the facts actually show that we behaved rationally and if you all approach us with grievances we listen. Whatever happened to "actions speak louder than words"?

Yet, somehow, you've twisted it to show that it's ok to have a double secret probation where you can launch an attack on someone with no explanation and still somehow feel that you're in the right. Especially when the information you're basing your attack on are months old and you sat on it until after the treaty ended. This is particularly hilarious, considering the treaty had this stipulation:
 

Quote

3. In the event that a provocation occurs, the injured party must notify the offender, and an attempt to diplomatically resolve the issue must occur.



 

Quote

I was talking about how there tends to be a lot of circlejerking before facts come out of situations)

Also, you know how you can avoid this? By providing the facts first...like say in the declaration of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2021 at 6:43 AM, Tevron said:

 

I'd love it if you made actual points instead of just thinly veiled insults to people you don't like. The fact of the matter is it was never worth litigating this war because people were always going to circlejerk in disagreement with the CB, logs present or not. Just take a look at the TIE war and how Lucius' actions were religiously defended by his allies almost universally. Juxtapose that to how veracity's situation was handled and you can see that there are different standards of behavior from different spheres in general -- there is simply little to no reason to litigate what is considered good and bad conduct diplomatically when it is evident that hurling subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) insults at rulers who are outside of your sphere is the major substance that is offered every time. That has always been and will always remain the recurring problem for the vocal minority that dominates the OWF, especially regarding the promotion of falsehoods to push spun narratives.


Take this quote for example, an idea I repeatedly saw 'parroted' on the OWF and also in DMs that has no basis in reality.

 

To demonstrate how untrue this is, here are some quotes from the planning channel for this war:

 


The Bicycle War was never a war of extermination; if that was the goal then I don't think a single AA in the coalition would've signed up for it. Your harassment aside, we're not about driving people into the ocean. And please, treat other people decently and attack their arguments instead of them, it would really do a lot to make people outside of the usual twenty posters engage with the dialogue on the OWF.


My comments towards James are ones of disappointment because I don't actually hate him, I actually like him, or at least now, I want to like him.  He has been making that quite difficult.

And yes, yearly wars to "level" us just because you can, that's the same as driving us from the game.  Nobody is stupid enough to not see that DBDCLAWS has been antagonizing this corner of the web for a solid year, itching for any reason to level us, and then when they couldn't find a reason, they went in with no reason.  Argent, GATO, et al have been supporting and enabling the roguery and aggression of DBDCLAWS the whole while.  We've every reason to be pissed.  Peace is good, it's all that we wanted in the first place, despite the constant antagonism from your sphere that I am not holding my breath for this peace deal to bring to an end.

 

 

On 2/2/2021 at 7:01 AM, Tevron said:


In seriousness, I understood the objective rather clearly to be a bit of punitive war followed by white peace, with the hope that we could all move on but the expectation that this wouldn't happen, since it was apparent that certain people, namely Thrash, were unwilling to bury their overall grudges with RFI, especially CLAWS.

 


Punitive for what, existing?  Absent an articulated CB, that's all it was.  White peace is meaningless when you're just going to constantly harass and beat us down for having the audacity to exist.  Also lol @ "unwilling to bury grudges" with DBDCLAWS who have been antagonists for a solid year.  You're also someone I wish I could respect, Tevron, but I can't while you keep this joke going.  We can consider burying grudges when DBDCLAWS stops their antagonism and aggression.  Until then, it's a vapid and empty plea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:


My comments towards James are ones of disappointment because I don't actually hate him, I actually like him, or at least now, I want to like him.  He has been making that quite difficult.

And yes, yearly wars to "level" us just because you can, that's the same as driving us from the game.  Nobody is stupid enough to not see that DBDCLAWS has been antagonizing this corner of the web for a solid year, itching for any reason to level us, and then when they couldn't find a reason, they went in with no reason.  Argent, GATO, et al have been supporting and enabling the roguery and aggression of DBDCLAWS the whole while.  We've every reason to be pissed.  Peace is good, it's all that we wanted in the first place, despite the constant antagonism from your sphere that I am not holding my breath for this peace deal to bring to an end.

 

 


Punitive for what, existing?  Absent an articulated CB, that's all it was.  White peace is meaningless when you're just going to constantly harass and beat us down for having the audacity to exist.  Also lol @ "unwilling to bury grudges" with DBDCLAWS who have been antagonists for a solid year.  You're also someone I wish I could respect, Tevron, but I can't while you keep this joke going.  We can consider burying grudges when DBDCLAWS stops their antagonism and aggression.  Until then, it's a vapid and empty plea.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2021 at 5:43 AM, Tevron said:

 

I'd love it if you made actual points instead of just thinly veiled insults to people you don't like. The fact of the matter is it was never worth litigating this war because people were always going to circlejerk in disagreement with the CB, logs present or not. Just take a look at the TIE war and how Lucius' actions were religiously defended by his allies almost universally. Juxtapose that to how veracity's situation was handled and you can see that there are different standards of behavior from different spheres in general -- there is simply little to no reason to litigate what is considered good and bad conduct diplomatically when it is evident that hurling subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) insults at rulers who are outside of your sphere is the major substance that is offered every time. That has always been and will always remain the recurring problem for the vocal minority that dominates the OWF, especially regarding the promotion of falsehoods to push spun narratives.


Take this quote for example, an idea I repeatedly saw 'parroted' on the OWF and also in DMs that has no basis in reality.

 

To demonstrate how untrue this is, here are some quotes from the planning channel for this war:

 


The Bicycle War was never a war of extermination; if that was the goal then I don't think a single AA in the coalition would've signed up for it. Your harassment aside, we're not about driving people into the ocean. And please, treat other people decently and attack their arguments instead of them, it would really do a lot to make people outside of the usual twenty posters engage with the dialogue on the OWF.

did yall vote on this response too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mogar said:

All you have to do is be happy you get your upper tier raided 3-4x a year and you too can become a lackey to better alliances!

 

unknown.png

 

Thing is, post declaration range change we're very quiet on the raid front. And even prior to that DBDC has historically been more active in raiding than we had in recent times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJ Scott said:

 

unknown.png

 

Thing is, post declaration range change we're very quiet on the raid front. And even prior to that DBDC has historically been more active in raiding than we had in recent times.


How many non Oculus targets do you even have at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerschbs said:


How many non Oculus targets do you even have at this point?

 

If you say the Doom fishing pond is the Top 300, which is 203K NS and up then:
unknown.png

Oculus and RFI make up 68% of that tier, add us and alliances immediately tied to Oculus or RFI then that's 88% of the tier.

 

If you take out those nations in perma-peace-mode then you're left with 26 nations inside the Top 300. Of those some will be in alliances we've raided, some we've raided and decided not to raid again, or some we're yet to raid - you can't overfish the pond!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LJ Scott said:

 

If you say the Doom fishing pond is the Top 300, which is 203K NS and up then:
unknown.png

Oculus and RFI make up 68% of that tier, add us and alliances immediately tied to Oculus or RFI then that's 88% of the tier.

 

If you take out those nations in perma-peace-mode then you're left with 26 nations inside the Top 300. Of those some will be in alliances we've raided, some we've raided and decided not to raid again, or some we're yet to raid - you can't overfish the pond!

 


Oof I knew it was bad. Poor Javier, no more raids for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...