Lynneth Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1343055184' post='3013640'] Ah you know what, you're right Lyn. Forget it now. I would like to know though, when did I piss in your cereal cause you've been kind of angry like this for awhile at least to me. [/quote] People do things. I watch them do things. Sometimes I like what I see. Sometimes I don't. That's it. [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343056230' post='3013646'] Lyn is perpetually angry. Its the German condition :V I joke I joke. [/quote] Herpaderpa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 This is what I come back to? And you wonder why you had to practically force me into coming back and playing IC. Jeeze, people have a point...half of y'all pile onto the first war they see, whether your ally requires help or not. So much for cooperative storywriting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1343067210' post='3013693'] Jeeze, people have a point...half of y'all pile onto the first war they see, whether your ally requires help or not. So much for cooperative storywriting. [/quote] I'm so sick of seeing this argument, and I apologize for picking on you Subtle, but enough is enough. Cooperative story-writing seems to be the go-to argument on behalf of those raging against allied efforts in war, and yet, it is totally ignored by the first party when analyzing the whole issue. Would you rather have a duke it out slug fest where you could potentially have 50% casualties or would you rather bring in all your allies and only sustain 3% casualties? Just because some people have failed to do the leg work does not mean that the people that have done the leg work, and made friends and allies, should suffer the consequences of a lack of participation. Now, I'm sure the comeback argument will be, "but they're all OOC connections/blah" to which I reply, where's your proof? Get some, and then we'll talk. It's time to understand the limitations of your position in RP. Some people, because of built up strength, personality, or otherwise will always be more popular than others. This is not a perfect society where everyone is equal, some are always going to get beat up on - that's life. Continued whining for equality when no one seeks to help themselves first does no one good and only distracts from real RP. Edited July 23, 2012 by Yawoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantWatcher Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well my view is if you dont like the rules of the game, you dont play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Or you play the game and try to change the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1343043292' post='3013589'] [img]http://i.imgur.com/KN6LL.gif[/img] This threads recent trend... [/quote] At least it's fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343068289' post='3013702'] I'm so sick of seeing this argument, and I apologize for picking on you Subtle, but enough is enough. Cooperative story-writing seems to be the go-to argument on behalf of those raging against allied efforts in war, and yet, it is totally ignored by the first party when analyzing the whole issue. Would you rather have a duke it out slug fest where you could potentially have 50% casualties or would you rather bring in all your allies and only sustain 3% casualties? Just because some people have failed to do the leg work does not mean that the people that have done the leg work, and made friends and allies, should suffer the consequences of a lack of participation. Now, I'm sure the comeback argument will be, "but they're all OOC connections/blah" to which I reply, where's your proof? Get some, and then we'll talk. It's time to understand the limitations of your position in RP. Some people, because of built up strength, personality, or otherwise will always be more popular than others. This is not a perfect society where everyone is equal, some are always going to get beat up on - that's life. Continued whining for equality when no one seeks to help themselves first does no one good and only distracts from real RP. [/quote]Actually, my comeback is the fact that it's still way too much overkill, thank you very much. And 50% casualties? Talk about hyperbole. The point of the matter is some people complain they can't have a good war anymore around here--and they need to look in the mirror for the reason why. Tjheir own tactics keep people too intimidated for them to have a 'real war.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1343073906' post='3013733'] Actually, my comeback is the fact that it's still way too much overkill, thank you very much. And 50% casualties? Talk about hyperbole. The point of the matter is some people complain they can't have a good war anymore around here--and they need to look in the mirror for the reason why. Tjheir own tactics keep people too intimidated for them to have a 'real war.' [/quote] No, it is not their own tactics it is people's laziness. No one does the legwork in FA to acquire a coalition. These people that are considered the big boys didn't start out that way, they worked on it and through time built up strength. As far as overkill? If I'm in a war, you bet that I'm calling in every single ally I have that's what they're there for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343075102' post='3013749'] No, it is not their own tactics it is people's laziness. No one does the legwork in FA to acquire a coalition. These people that are considered the big boys didn't start out that way, they worked on it and through time built up strength. As far as overkill? If I'm in a war, you bet that I'm calling in every single ally I have that's what they're there for. [/quote]Who are they going to recruit in a coalition? it's not laziness, it's that if they even try to put in the legwork, they are squashed before it can get started. You say people can't oppose the big guys because they don't have the will to work for it...which is true because it would be pointless, because the effort would be halted by the very people they aim to take down before it can even get off the ground. You, you're not the problem. You're not the one complaining about being unable to have a good war, so obviously the comment was not directed at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) 1. Any OOC indications of a counter coalition are dealt with beforehand. 2. Even when outnumbering the opposite side 5-to-1, people resort to godmoding out of the blue to win. 3. If they can't win with 2, they say that the other side of godmoding and thus get the war wiped. Isn't this the usual pattern? And then people complain about the losing side not putting up a fight. Edited July 23, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1343075567' post='3013754'] Who are they going to recruit in a coalition? it's not laziness, it's that if they even try to put in the legwork, they are squashed before it can get started. You say people can't oppose the big guys because they don't have the will to work for it...which is true because it would be pointless, because the effort would be halted by the very people they aim to take down before it can even get off the ground. You, you're not the problem. You're not the one complaining about being unable to have a good war, so obviously the comment was not directed at you. [/quote] I don't mean to come off as a victim here, merely trying to express my frustration over a problem that seems to be reoccurring too often lately, so please excuse me if I tend to phrase things in the first person, it is merely a style I find better to use in a debate and in no way should be taken as me taking offense at the topic of discussion. When is the last time a true coalition was formed to counter the bigger guys? The Lavo war? If I remember correctly, that fell apart because EM refused to honor his IC agreements (forgive me if I am incorrect, EM). There are a lot more nations that are not considered part of the 'elite club' that could very easily form a coalition IC before they could be squashed. It is simply often times laziness or people revealing their poker hand too soon that enables people to continue to grasp onto power. Until such a time as people realize that coalitions do not magically appear and takes time and effort into constructing then we will continue to see complaints about those that have more land, etc. but it is not the fault of the people currently in power that they wish to so remain. It is the fault of the people who refuse to rise up and say no more. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343076531' post='3013762'] 1. Any OOC indications of a counter coalition are dealt with beforehand. 2. Even when outnumbering the opposite side 5-to-1, people resort to godmoding out of the blue to win. 3. If they can't win with 2, they say that the other side of godmoding and thus get the war wiped. Isn't this the usual pattern? And then people complain about the losing side not putting up a fight. [/quote] Here's the deal, Kankou, you say a lot of things that generally are hypothetical and therefore make it easy for you to throw out into a conversation. Let's add that to the list of things I'm sick of seeing in CNRP, so if you'd like to be taken seriously in this conversation, use facts and examples that every CNRP member can research independently and see for themselves, none of this could be faked logs - I'm talking posts in this forum that back up your examples. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but for the last few months half of your posts, in my opinion, have no merit but to inflame a situation - that is not constructive and needs to end. If you have personal issues with someone, then keep them personal, we in CNRP have no desire to trudge through endless sniping week after week. It wastes our time, and yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) 2. The use of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2961235"]physically impossible tungsten rods from launch loops[/url] during the New Guinea war. 3. The Germanic War, which [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109617"]a near-supermajority of players believe that wiping of wars for supposed godmodes which could be solved by changing posts was uncalled for[/url], and which contributed to the GM shakeup. There is also the deliberate withdrawal of a belligerent so he could be installed as a temporary GM, something quite a few people believed was against the spirit of GM neutrality and was yet again a factor in the GM shakeup. [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343077596' post='3013767']none of this could be faked logs [/quote] Shall I take screenshots from now on, or is that still too fakable for you? [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343077596' post='3013767']Perhaps I'm incorrect, but for the last few months half of your posts, in my opinion, have no merit but to inflame a situation - that is not constructive and needs to end. If you have personal issues with someone, then keep them personal, we in CNRP have no desire to trudge through endless sniping week after week. It wastes our time, and yours.[/quote] I don't consider it a waste of time. Better to get things fixed rather than leave messes be. Edited July 23, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343077810' post='3013769'] 2. The use of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2961235"]physically impossible tungsten rods from launch loops[/url] during the New Guinea war. 3. The Germanic War, which [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=109617"]a near-supermajority of players believe that wiping of wars for supposed godmodes which could be solved by changing posts was uncalled for[/url], and which contributed to the GM shakeup. There is also the deliberate withdrawal of a belligerent so he could be installed as a temporary GM, something quite a few people believed was against the spirit of GM neutrality and was yet again a factor in the GM shakeup. Shall I take screenshots from now on, or is that still too fakable for you? I don't consider it a waste of time. Better to get things fixed rather than leave messes be. [/quote] Yes, screenshots are too fakable. Either use evidence that anyone can research independently on these forums, or find a different scenario to use when making an argument. IRC is for OOC purposes with the exception of one IC channel - and that in and of itself is often times has its legality debated on. Now, to address your points, of which all relate to wars you, yourself were associated in and therefore are hardly a non-biased method of proving factual evidence. 1. With regards to your #2 (typo?): This is in no way a reflection of your OOC claims. Lynneth posted his findings in the thread and it solved that particular issue. You later posted below him without objecting to his findings, so I fail to see your issue here. 2. With regards to #3: If you look at the first question you'll find there was not a majority of players that had no confidence in the GM team, so even with one arguably (in the communities opinion) bad ruling, that does not mean there is a pattern of OOC problems. Further, the poll question states approval or disapproval of the direction, not of the decision, so it is hardly a good source to use when trying to make an argument of OOC problems. The poll did indeed show many players had strong opinions on the matter, but that in and of itself is no proof of an OOC problem. We have had a few different Mod enforced regime changes at the GM position, and for many differing reasons this does not mean that there is an OOC problem. Many players also approved of one of the belligerents pulling out of the conflict and becoming a GM, so your point is moot. Finally, your personal sniping is not a good way to get things fixed. Try to use neutral language or simply contact the GMs in private. We, the community, do not need to wade through your personal problems every day while reading the map thread, or the GM thread, or the OOC thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343080151' post='3013800'] Finally, your personal sniping is not a good way to get things fixed. Try to use neutral language or simply contact the GMs in private. We, the community, do not need to wade through your personal problems every day while reading the map thread, or the GM thread, or the OOC thread. [/quote] I do use neutral language or contact Gms, but then we always have someone people being insulting first (I had to deal with worse situations than what Mara pulled on you). All you're seeing is the aftermath exploding into the public. Just because you don't see what goes on doesn't mean I haven't tried other methods first. That being said, I like your civility. If only the real problem-makers were as civil as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 The Real Trouble-Makers. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Legion_of_Doom.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Yawoo. I'll forgive you because you are not the first person to make that claim, as well as the fact that you give me a chance to answer that question once, and once only. I made that renouncement knowing the enemy would be metagaming Oh no I didn't! and believe me and Cochin had a falling out OOC. You'll recall that Cochin was doing a mighty fine job soaking up enemy forces, and lo and behold, there were several withdrawls of enemy forces from my location after I made public the falsehood of ooc bickering . I even made spy rolls against Lavo after the fact in preparation for a very clear invasion. So no, that wasn't a case of me being lazy or not willing to follow through with coalition, it was a case of sticking ones neck out to help farther than the recipient is willing to himself. Edited July 24, 2012 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 And right after that Cochin caved in making it pointless for you to stick your neck out any farther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1343106466' post='3014154'] And right after that Cochin caved in making it pointless for you to stick your neck out any farther. [/quote]So true, but hardly EM's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Looks like Zoot is doing what he thought was out of the ACs right eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1343154940' post='3014397'] Looks like Zoot is doing what he thought was out of the ACs right eh. [/quote] Orly? well perhaps you and the "NADU" can voice a protest about it whilst I laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343155184' post='3014401'] Orly? well perhaps you and the "NADU" can voice a protest about it whilst I laugh. [/quote] Oh yes the NADU is quite horrified of you I can assure you. Though again that you just said now is also hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1343163731' post='3014459'] Oh yes the NADU is quite horrified of you I can assure you. Though again that you just said now is also hypocritical. [/quote] Do elaborate? because your dig at my policy was OOC. Please at least have the balls, as Kankou did, to address it In Character. Shammys doctrine unilaterally covered both Americas, mine is only in the case of violent/oppressive governments that breach basic human rights. So unless somebody starts genociding people or doing other frankly silly things, I have no intention of interfering in North America unless I am specifically asked, treaty obliged, or I am doing humanitarian work, such is the case in Georgia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Jesus this guy cant take a joke. Are you part German? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Your policy is just a pale copy of the Gibbs Doctrine, which specifically said the Atlantic Confederacy will intervene when an American nation does things unbecoming of a civilized nation. His protecting Isaac means he believed Umbrella to be a violet government doing aggressive invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343165267' post='3014481'] Your policy is just a pale copy of the Gibbs Doctrine, which specifically said the Atlantic Confederacy will intervene when an American nation does things unbecoming of a civilized nation. His protecting Isaac means he believed Umbrella to be a violet government doing aggressive invasion. [/quote] Its not a pale copy when Im older ICly, and the policy itself is far older, RL years old infact, I just had to alter it as my sphere got larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.