Griff Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Hopefully the days of wars being started for little or no reason are over. " Where there's a will, there's a way", Unfortunately. Also, morals in an online browser based game is just silly. Next please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 What deception are you referring to? From my stance we are simply acting as we please. We neither asked nor wanted your opinion on how we are behaving. If you don't want people's opinions, then don't create announcements which encourage people to give opinions on the content of said announcements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 If you don't want people's opinions, then don't create announcements which encourage people to give opinions on the content of said announcements And here we have a dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) We will review each nation on a case by case basis and we will not aid or otherwise assist those nations that are accepted until such time as they have achieved their own settlement.Ivan Moldavi, Dread Lord of Stromholde, Dark Lord of the Sith, Sovereign of the New Sith Order To make sure I understand this correctly (*disclaimer: I've not read the whole thread*), if a nation is sentenced to ZI by an alliance for whatever transgressions, you will allow that nation to join your ranks but not aid or assist that nation until such time that the opposing alliance deems the matter resolved? If this is the case, how is this significantly different from the status quo - where most alliances accept a nation after such matters are resolved - unless of course the goal is to interfere with the sentence of ZI itself? In which case, are you not then doing exactly what you denounced in the OP? It has never been my intention to have another alliance dictate to us how we run our affairs. It would seem to me that either A.) This is a ceremonious move which changes nothing except the time stamp of an added AA or B.) NSO is seeking to tell other alliances how they can and cannot resolve their own conflicts. Tell me where I've misinterpreted, if I have done so. I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything - just seeking clarification. Edited July 17, 2009 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 If you don't want people's opinions, then don't create announcements which encourage people to give opinions on the content of said announcements Okay.... so there are no deceptions then? I would like to hear your opinion. But only when you actually have something to say. Go home and come back when you're not just blowing out hot air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 To make sure I understand this correctly (*disclaimer: I've not read the whole thread*), if a nation is sentenced to ZI by an alliance for whatever transgressions, you will allow that nation to join your ranks but not aid or assist that nation until such time that the opposing alliance deems the matter resolved? If this is the case, how is this significantly different from the status quo - where most alliances accept a nation after such matters are resolved - unless of course the goal is to interfere with the sentence of ZI itself? In which case, are you not then doing exactly what you denounced in the OP?It would seem to me that either A) This is a ceremonious move which changes nothing except the time stamp of an added AA or B) NSO is seeking to tell alliances how they can and cannot resolve their own conflicts. Tell me where I've misinterpreted, if I have done so. I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything - just seeking clarification. ZI members can still become apart of our community (masked as a member, etc), but just not get aid or help getting them off lists. This announcement neither is ceremonial nor us telling how others should run their alliances. This is merely a policy announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 To make sure I understand this correctly (*disclaimer: I've not read the whole thread*), if a nation is sentenced to ZI by an alliance for whatever transgressions, you will allow that nation to join your ranks but not aid or assist that nation until such time that the opposing alliance deems the matter resolved? If this is the case, how is this significantly different from the status quo - where most alliances accept a nation after such matters are resolved - unless of course the goal is to interfere with the sentence of ZI itself? In which case, are you not then doing exactly what you denounced in the OP? Your first inquiry is correct. It differs however in that the nation is allowed to be a part of an alliance while serving their punishment. This allows the nation to be protected from any other outside wars such as tech raids, and there also is a chance that their terms will be mitigated as was a common occurrence during the first institution of this policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Okay.... so there are no deceptions then? I would like to hear your opinion. But only when you actually have something to say. Go home and come back when you're not just blowing out hot air. And here we have a dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge I dodge nothing, I have already outlined it here, so maybe if more people familiarised themselves with the conversation before creating comments, it would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) We may or may not grant membership to applicants under ZI pressure. Such a decision is ours to make, based on pragmatic circumstances. If they are really such terrible people, then we will deal with that. If they are capable players who are unlucky and repressed, then we will profit from that. We will even refrain from aiding these nations until their situations are resolved. It seems like a simple and clear cut policy to me, I do not understand what the griping and false bravado by some are for. Edited July 17, 2009 by Count da Silva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 ZI members can still become apart of our community (masked as a member, etc), but just not get aid or help getting them off lists.This announcement neither is ceremonial nor us telling how others should run their alliances. This is merely a policy announcement. Thanks for the clarification. My point is this: if a nation is sentenced to ZI, what's the point in allowing them join NSO before their conflict is resolved if NSO is, as you say, not going to aid or assist them? What's wrong with the status quo of waiting for the conflict to be resolved before accepting a nation sentenced to ZI into your fold? It would seem that the only value of such a move would be to influence the sentence of ZI itself (whether directly or indirectly remains to be seen). Moreover, by accepting a nation sentenced to ZI and masking them as a member on your forums, aren't you also giving that nation access to war guides? Is that not some form of war assistance? If there's nothing to any of these concerns/questions I've raised, than this announcement is indeed ceremonial because it accomplishes nothing. Which, to be honest, would be preferable to the alternative concerns here raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I dodge nothing, I have already outlined it here, so maybe if more people familiarised themselves with the conversation before creating comments, it would be nice. Your outline was stretching at best. If you really want to make a case, try a little harder. We have asked for clarification while refuting and arguing your statements, and no further evidence or structured arguments have been presented. Sorry if I don't take you seriously in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thanks for the clarification. My point is this: if a nation is sentenced to ZI, what's the point in allowing them join NSO before their conflict is resolved if NSO is, as you say, not going to aid or assist them? What's wrong with the status quo of waiting for the conflict to be resolved before accepting a nation sentenced to ZI into your fold? It would seem that the only value of such a move would be to influence the sentence of ZI itself (whether directly or indirectly remains to be seen). Moreover, by accepting a nation sentenced to ZI and masking them as a member on your forums, aren't you also giving that nation access to war guides? Is that not some form of war assistance? If there's nothing to any of these concerns/questions I've raised, than this announcement is indeed ceremonial because it accomplishes nothing. Which, to be honest, would be preferable to the alternative concerns here raised. Some could consider such assistance, we do not. Moreover one of the more damaging aspects of ZI sentencing has been removing individuals from the sense of community and participation that is so important in the cyberverse. We are choosing to allow such nations an option to still actively participate while finishing their punishment. As a former ZI-lister, I've gotta say, it's pretty boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Your first inquiry is correct. It differs however in that the nation is allowed to be a part of an alliance while serving their punishment. This allows the nation to be protected from any other outside wars such as tech raids, and there also is a chance that their terms will be mitigated as was a common occurrence during the first institution of this policy. If a nation is sentenced to ZI, it would seem that raiding would only expedite the process. As for the mitigation, are you saying that NSO will step into a conflict - which initially had nothing to do with them - to force or expedite a resolution for a ZI-sentenced nation they knowingly and willingly accepted? And should the alliance you're in discussions with ignore your attempts at mitigation, what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Some could consider such assistance, we do not. Moreover one of the more damaging aspects of ZI sentencing has been removing individuals from the sense of community and participation that is so important in the cyberverse. We are choosing to allow such nations an option to still actively participate while finishing their punishment. As a former ZI-lister, I've gotta say, it's pretty boring. Noted. And as I said, I fully recognize that an alliance has a right to accept whomever it wishes into its fold. It seems odd to suggest, though, that accepting a ZI-sentenced nation into your alliance and giving it access to war guides which will help it do more damage to the alliance with which it has a conflict is anything other than interventionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Your outline was stretching at best. If you really want to make a case, try a little harder. We have asked for clarification while refuting and arguing your statements, and no further evidence or structured arguments have been presented. Sorry if I don't take you seriously in the future. That is arbitrarily dependent on someone's opinion and is quite subjective. If you don't take my arguments seriously, then perhaps you could forgo the trouble of responding to them, and hence save me similar troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 That is arbitrarily dependent on someone's opinion and is quite subjective. If you don't take my arguments seriously, then perhaps you could forgo the trouble of responding to them, and hence save me similar troubles. I am only trying to ensure your enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anto475 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 o/ NSO o/ Ivan Moldavi I've been here nearly 1000 days and i've only seen small alliances trying to reform CN and getting rid of the old protocol, but now NSO are doing it and it's fantastic. it's definitely a good message to send out to newer nations, well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 That is arbitrarily dependent on someone's opinion and is quite subjective. If you don't take my arguments seriously, then perhaps you could forgo the trouble of responding to them, and hence save me similar troubles. You just simply have an undying hate for Moldavi. Maybe it's time to step down from your high horse. In any event, NSO is open to all Karma leaders, current or former, regardless of their status on such lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 If you don't want people's opinions, then don't create announcements which encourage people to give opinions on the content of said announcements No, see, we don't want your opinions. Because, quite frankly, they're idiotic and not supported by anything other than your misshapen and blatantly incorrect view of reality. @rooman: By allowing them to join while still being ZIed, we allow them to be part of a community and also help ensure that those exacting the ZI do not abuse their position and take it further. I would consider those to be the two biggest reasons why this is a better, more forward policy. While we won't directly intervene, it is generally the case that having someone who is even jus timplicitly standing behind them to make sure they don't get abused and trampled on helps those nations in negotiations they may be a part of. As for giving tacit aid through war guides or the like, if an alliance really wants to try to make that argument then I suppose they can, but I'm not going to take it very seriously, and I don't imagine they would get very far with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 You just simply have an undying hate for Moldavi. Maybe it's time to step down from your high horse. That is an absurd notion. Furthermore, I implore you to try and prove your claim. My main discontent with NSO is it's behaviour. Furthermore, stating that you are the reason for why so many Hegemony alliances got white peace is beyond disgusting, disgraceful and decadent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 No, see, we don't want your opinions. Because, quite frankly, they're idiotic and not supported by anything other than your misshapen and blatantly incorrect view of reality. What blatantly incorrect view of reality? You mean like saying that NSO is responsible for white peace? Oh wait no, that's what you guys think... Oh, and you shall have my opinions anyway - at least as long as you make stupid announcements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 This really isn't new. All power to you for doing it, it's a good thing, but innovative it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 What blatantly incorrect view of reality? You mean like saying that NSO is responsible for white peace? Oh wait no, that's what you guys think...Oh, and you shall have my opinions anyway - at least as long as you make stupid announcements. Stupid announcements? This announcement is spectacularly benign, and that you've managed to take offense at it shows just how far you've drifted from any kind of objectivity or rationality. Your first post here starts with this - Oh yeh? Well screw you too.This move seems to me like an opportunist grab at NPO and TPF nations still at war. I knew that we would get some random people in here trying to find out how this is some devious evil scheme, but I totally did not predict that one. Got to give you props for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 That is an absurd notion. Furthermore, I implore you to try and prove your claim.My main discontent with NSO is it's behaviour. Furthermore, stating that you are the reason for why so many Hegemony alliances got white peace is beyond disgusting, disgraceful and decadent. What blatantly incorrect view of reality? You mean like saying that NSO is responsible for white peace? Oh wait no, that's what you guys think...Oh, and you shall have my opinions anyway - at least as long as you make stupid announcements. We were the first to adopt it as policy, followed shortly by a quick succession of the white peaces to which you refer. How you choose to view such historical occurrences is your problem. Not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) @rooman: By allowing them to join while still being ZIed, we allow them to be part of a community One can frequent and interact with a community without the official AA or their war guides, yes? and also help ensure that those exacting the ZI do not abuse their position and take it further. I would think that if a nation has been sentenced to ZI by an alliance, that alliance would and should be perfectly capable of exacting whatever punishment it deems necessary. For the NSO to insert itself into a conflict with which it had not acting part, is by definition, interventionist, is it not? I would consider those to be the two biggest reasons why this is a better, more forward policy. All it seems to do is better arm nations to accost alliances not aligned with the NSO. For instance, a nation may now go rogue on three GOP nations, threaten us with perpetual war, post nudity on our site, etc... and whatever reparations we deem necessary to resolve the conflict would be tapered by the NSO, should said nation take advantage of this policy. I hardly see how that's an improvement on the status quo. All it appears to do is favor those who favor the NSO's line of thinking. This may be the conservative in me coming out, but I'd prefer to keep my alliance's sovereignty intact. I don't want, nor would I allow, our response to an offending nation or alliance to be dictated by another alliance. Which brings me to the next point: While we won't directly intervene, it is generally the case that having someone who is even jus timplicitly standing behind them to make sure they don't get abused and trampled on helps those nations in negotiations they may be a part of. Who is the NSO to police CN? Isn't this the mentality that put the NPO in it's current position? How is the NSO better suited to judge the excess of a punishment of an offending nation than the offended alliance? As for giving tacit aid through war guides or the like, if an alliance really wants to try to make that argument then I suppose they can, but I'm not going to take it very seriously, and I don't imagine they would get very far with it. I can say, for my own part, that if the GOP had identified a nation for ZI and that nation - while being ZIed - applied for NSO membership, got accepted, got an NSO forum mask and, consequentially, received access to guides which increase the damage and expense to our own nations - that would be a very real problem. There's nothing tacit about it. Edited July 17, 2009 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts