Positive brainstorming

[nik718]

Technically speaking, I do not think that declining number of nations is such a big issue, because 21k is still a huge number. Heck, even if it would be 5k, it would still be good enough in case most of the nations are active, healthy players.

Here are few of ideas which I support:

1) Update nation activity on log-in/log-out, not on collect!

2) Remove the IP restrictions for an ACCOUNT and scale them down to TRADE slots, FA slots, WAR slots and SPY slots. This way, different people could actually run their nation independently from family network, work network or big student networks. Just make a script which does not allow trades, FAs, war and spy "slot filling" with nations on a same IP. Even if someone circumvent it somehow, next time they "hit" the same IP (log-in process), just automatically cancel ALL of their trades and FAs with a script, and lock their trade/FA slots EMPTY for a 30 days of "punishment" cool-down period. In case of war slot and spy slot filling, kick the violator into the 30 days peace mode. Do not practice strict nation deletion policy, rather impose repression which will "teach" players the rules.

3) Do NOT delete nations because of inactivity, rather strip them of their trades, FAs and war connections with other nations and "freeze" them in "inactive mode". Next time they log in (maybe in 3 months), let them resume their nation with 0 days of inactivity and 20 days of bills. Make so that inactive mode can be triggered only via script at 25 days of inactivity.

4) Do NOT allow bill locks by, for instance, removing wonder upkeep for a nations of less than 1000 infra.

5) Put protections for new nations. Free 30 days of no war in war-mode for all new nations.

6) Education of new nations - remind them of community and AA significance every 5 days if AA = None!

7) Slight gameplay mechanich adjustments I'd like to see:
- limit the collections by giving a happiness penalty when money reserves are over 500M, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B.. etc.
- introduce peak infra and peak land figures - 50% cheaper infra and land if under peak reached value for each nation.
- allow haste of a wonder cycles for money; for instance, if one wants to build wonder on 29th day - 1M additional cost, 28th days - 2M additional cost, 27th day - 6M additional cost, 26th day - 10M additional cost, 25th day - 15M additional cost, 24th day - 24M additional cost, 23rd day - 31M additional cost, etc.

Edited August 30, 2010 by nik718

[sir pwnage]

To help newer nations catch up: Nation rank %/2 = discount off of infrastructure. This way new nations get something like 45% off infrastructure. Also, when old nations get beaten down they go down in ranking, so they get get a higher reduction and can rebuild easier. Everybody wins, yes?

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1283159441' post='2435638']
Buying technology from other nations? I'm shocked at the amount of reverse-raidism that's prevalent throughout this community.
For shame, game killer.
[/quote]


Vanilla and Voytek, I asked for positive brainstorming, not sarcasm. Please.

[AirMe]

I agree with Admin that the change needs to come from us the players and no where else.

Alliances need to draw more lines in the sand and stick to them instead of moving the lines.

There needs to be less alliances thats for sure but I understand why a lot of alliances stay around, holding on to that dream.

The only alliance that doesn't seem to care who is tied to who is NSO and they will poke just about anyone they can with a stick if it will cause drama. You may not like them but at least they have done things to keep people interested.

Less treaties. It is ok to have a lot of friends....but you don't need a treaty with all of them. Perhaps it took me too long to realize this given I am at least partly responsible for at least 60% of MK's treaties. In Ronin we are probably at our treaty limit. I can see 1 or 2 more alliances that we would ally but there is no reason to over do it.

-----------------

At least we are at a point where 99% of players who were driven out of the game no longer need to negotiate themselves off of ZI lists if they want to continue. IE: Brookbank, Lady Dakota, Warrior Concept, Starfox etc.

[AirMe]

Oh and another suggestion, ban all automated programs that various alliances have. Go back to doing it all "by hand" like we used to.

[HeroofTime55]

Among the suggestions for technical fixes, I think the one that has the most capacity to retain players is a method of avoiding deletion if someone, for example, goes on active military duty for many months, or whatever reason. Very few are going to want to come back when their nation is gone, and the methods currently used are merciless.

A 'stasis' mode could be implemented, whereby you place your nation in stasis for so much time. Your nation is completely frozen. You must be in war mode to enter it, and for 25 days after entering stasis, during which time you can't leave, nations are free to attack you (and you can't respond, being in stasis). This makes you rely on your alliance for protection, and eliminates any incentive to abuse the system. After the 25 days are up, your nation simply disappears from view, but all the stats are saved for the time you choose to restore your nation, and they aren't deleted (And your trades still exist and can be canceled by the other guy; the links to your nation are removed and it reads that you are in stasis). This also totally eliminates the need for nation sitting.'

A technical fix like the above would help alleviate a separate and relatively small problem, but the core problem remains the political methods employed by those currently at the top. They are simply too afraid to start something amongst themselves because they think NPO is going to come for them in their sleep, they have the mentality either that they need to "save their resources" for their imagined "Second Coming of Satan" or they are afraid of an opportunistic attack should such a war occur (The latter of which would never happen after the events of BiPolar for fear of a repeat). Nothing else is the root cause of the stagnation, this is it. This, and the massive reps, but the massive reps are more of a manifestation of their fear; They've literally stated a need to "keep them down and out" for their own "security" - this is a direct admission of intentionally stagnating the game now that they are at the top. The same people who are members of alliances who perpetuate this, come here to complain about the stagnation. But you will not see Archon, Xiphosis, Van Hoo, or any of the other leaders responsible for this mess post here, and you won't see them whine, because they know they've caused it. Any one of them has the power to fix this mess, simply alienate the other half of the so-called "Super Grievances," you don't even have to declare war, and the entire game gets more exciting for every single player. But they won't, out of fear.

This discussion, unfortunately, won't change much about the game. It will play out as it will play out. Eventually, those aforementioned leaders are going to get bored, or one of them is going to see an opening, or something, and eventually things will change for the better. But it is an incredibly long way off. I would estimate at least one or two years.

Edited August 30, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[jerdge]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283203031' post='2436107']Among the suggestions for technical fixes, I think the one that has the most capacity to retain players is a method of avoiding deletion if someone, for example, goes on active military duty for many months, or whatever reason. Very few are going to want to come back when their nation is gone, and the methods currently used are merciless.

A 'stasis' mode could be implemented, whereby you place your nation in stasis for so much time. Your nation is completely frozen. You must be in war mode to enter it, and for 25 days after entering stasis, during which time you can't leave, nations are free to attack you (and you can't respond, being in stasis). This makes you rely on your alliance for protection, and eliminates any incentive to abuse the system. After the 25 days are up, your nation simply disappears from view, but all the stats are saved for the time you choose to restore your nation, and they aren't deleted (And your trades still exist and can be canceled by the other guy; the links to your nation are removed and it reads that you are in stasis). This also totally eliminates the need for nation sitting.'[/quote]
A "stasis" mode is a feasible idea (other games have it) but there's no need (and it's unfair) to leave a nation open to attacks with no chance to respond. To prevent abuse you can just make the "stasis mode" be not shorter than the current limit for nation sitting, which is 70 days.
For example, if one puts his/her nation in stasis, there won't be any way to have it back before 90 days.
A "stasis" mode could also work as a double-edged sword, anyway: many people (me included, maybe) could just decide to take a break and to put their nation in stasis, and then never remember/decide to come back. The availability of such a feature could actually cause an immediate and massive exodus from the game...

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283203031' post='2436107']A technical fix like the above would help alleviate a separate and relatively small problem, but the core problem remains the political methods employed by those currently at the top. They are simply too afraid to start something amongst themselves because they think NPO is going to come for them in their sleep, they have the mentality either that they need to "save their resources" for their imagined "Second Coming of Satan" or they are afraid of an opportunistic attack should such a war occur (The latter of which would never happen after the events of BiPolar for fear of a repeat).
<SNIP>[/quote]
I think you're overestimating the importance of the NPO. While Pacifica is still a well-organized alliance and a significant power if compared to almost any other single alliance, their tech levels are still quite low and their political positioning is still weak. I doubt that what you consider to be "at the top" are really worried of the NPO right now. There are much more significant rivals to be considered.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283143706' post='2435498']
Would the leaders of all alliances entertain the idea of having a Reparations Summit with the goal of agreeing to discuss war reparations?
[/quote]
Never, and certainly not us.

[quigon jinn]

Something else to consider is not just "how to prevent large nations from leaving" but "how to interest new nations in staying."

I've heard a lot of people complaining about a lack of new nations to be tech sellers, etc, which seems to lead the idea that people either

1) get interested, grow quickly, and soon are no longer a tech buyer
2) get bored, and quit

About the only reason I am still playing a game I am significantly disadvantaged (and will likely be 100% irrelevant in a war for nearly a year to come) is to see how quickly I can build a large nation.

I can understand 100% though how I could come to the "I have to play how long to become relevant? meh, I quit" conclusion. Most people here have been around too long to know what it's like to start new with many nations having one, two, three, or even four (I think?) years head start. It's depressing from a gameplay standpoint.

[jerdge]

Actual relevance isn't in your nation's size, though.
For instance, I can attest that your relevance is much greater than your NS, Mr. Minister...

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1283205996' post='2436159']
A "stasis" mode is a feasible idea (other games have it) but there's no need (and it's unfair) to leave a nation open to attacks with no chance to respond. To prevent abuse you can just make the "stasis mode" be not shorter than the current limit for nation sitting, which is 70 days.
For example, if one puts his/her nation in stasis, there won't be any way to have it back before 90 days.
A "stasis" mode could also work as a double-edged sword, anyway: many people (me included, maybe) could just decide to take a break and to put their nation in stasis, and then never remember/decide to come back. The availability of such a feature could actually cause an immediate and massive exodus from the game...[/quote]I think that there should be a harsh penalty, to prevent both abuse and the taking of breaks where it is not absolutely necessary. 25 days of being unprotected from war is a sufficient penalty, in my mind, to prevent abuse and just 'taking a break' and then forgetting about the game. It's not supposed to be 'fair,' it's supposed to cost something to enter into stasis, which is still better than losing your nation. And this 'cost' serves simply to prevent abuse while doing no harm if the nation is at peace; 25 days is to mimic the current timing for a nation to be deleted from inactivity, to minimize impact on the game. The main method of abuse I would see would arrive from war; you don't want an alliance flooding to stasis mode just to protect their nations because they failed to enter peace mode in time. Remember, you still have your alliance to protect your nation, and presumably the system could hide the fact that you are going away at your option, considering that unlike nation sitting you would be under no obligation to report entering stasis to anyone, which helps to avoid opportunistic attacks.

[quote]I think you're overestimating the importance of the NPO. While Pacifica is still a well-organized alliance and a significant power if compared to almost any other single alliance, their tech levels are still quite low and their political positioning is still weak. I doubt that what you consider to be "at the top" are really worried of the NPO right now. There are much more significant rivals to be considered.
[/quote]I am not overestimating the NPO, rather, my point is that, roughly in line with your language, the so-called "Super Grievances" group is grossly overestimating the importance of the NPO. My point is that they live in irrational fear every day, as a tool of control, to prevent them from attacking each other and dismantling what is a very unipolar world. They protect their position of power with a ferocity that is unmatched by anything the NPO ever did during their stay in power. They take incredibly massive reps designed specifically to keep alliances down for years at a time, while pretending that their terms are somehow 'lighter' because they are absent some particular provision. I want to avoid entering an IC discussion on things, but the impact of these collective policies is this incredible level of stagnation, it is the root cause for the situation that this thread addresses.

Edited August 30, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Un4Gvn1]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283206779' post='2436170']
Never, and certainly not us.
[/quote]

Would you explain why the Mushroom Kingdom would be against discussing war reparations?

[Sandwich Controversy]

Because no foreigners have the power to limit our freedom of action, and removing options for ourselves is stupid, basically. I'm sure most alliances would agree with this.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283212335' post='2436282']
Because no foreigners have the power to limit our freedom of action, and removing options for ourselves is stupid, basically. I'm sure most alliances would agree with this.
[/quote]
The argument that it is your sovereign right to stagnate the game to protect yourselves. IC, sure, it's a valid argument and it's a stupid thing to limit your own power intentionally when nobody can stop you. It's a stupid thing in the real world, which RP seeks to mimic. But from an OOC perspective, it is nothing but destructive to the game at large.

Your implicit point is correct, that nobody has the power to change the current situation outside of alliances in the SF/CnG blocs who are on top of the world at the moment. You truly are allowed free reign, total "freedom of action" to stomp out anything that might prove a threat, and you certainly do use that free reign. Just remember it's not a privilege enjoyed by everyone, and step back and look at the damage your policies have caused to the game and to the community.

And for the record, 64Digits and myself in particular would be willing to participate such a summit. Simply participating in a summit has no impact on our sovereignty, given that we can drop out at any time and need not sign any documents if we feel there are inherent flaws. MK's refusal to participate altogether is a weak attempt to discredit the ideas behind any such summit. Again, as I have stated, I believe massive reparations are merely a symptom of the disease, but nonetheless I am willing to address the issue.

Edited August 31, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[Ardus]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283213520' post='2436297']
The argument that it is your sovereign right to stagnate the game to protect yourselves. IC, sure, it's a valid argument and it's a stupid thing to limit your own power intentionally when nobody can stop you. It's a stupid thing in the real world, which RP seeks to mimic. But from an OOC perspective, it is nothing but destructive to the game at large.

Your implicit point is correct, that nobody has the power to change the current situation outside of alliances in the SF/CnG blocs who are on top of the world at the moment. You truly are allowed free reign, total "freedom of action" to stomp out anything that might prove a threat, and you certainly do use that free reign. Just remember it's not a privilege enjoyed by everyone, and step back and look at the damage your policies have caused to the game and to the community.
[/quote]
And we've come to the logical conclusion, that SuperComplaints is ruining the game.

So much changes and yet everything stays the same.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' timestamp='1283210309' post='2436247']
Would you explain why the Mushroom Kingdom would be against discussing war reparations?
[/quote]

Just a word to the wise, Archon, Rafael or lebubu would probably be the person to talk to in MK about that.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283213642' post='2436299']
And we've come to the logical conclusion, that SuperComplaints is ruining the game.

So much changes and yet everything stays the same.
[/quote]A particularly weak straw man argument. What is 'ruining the game' is the policies which you have enacted, and which you and you alone have the power to cease. I'm not surprised to see the MK propaganda squad descend on this thread to subvert the positive discussion being held here.

...I absolutely hate the way this issue straddles the line between IC and OOC.

Edited August 31, 2010 by HeroofTime55

[AirMe]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283214407' post='2436312']
A particularly weak straw man argument. What is 'ruining the game' is the policies which you have enacted, and which you and you alone have the power to cease. I'm not surprised to see the MK propaganda squad descend on this thread to subvert the positive discussion being held here.

...I absolutely hate the way this issue straddles the line between IC and OOC.
[/quote]

Slow your roll cupcake......What policies have MK enacted that ruins the game?

[Ardus]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283214407' post='2436312']
A particularly weak [b]straw man argument.[/b] What is 'ruining the game' is the policies which you have enacted, and which you and you alone have the power to cease. [b]I'm not surprised to see the MK propaganda squad descend on this thread[/b] to subvert the positive discussion being held here.

...I absolutely hate the way this issue straddles the line between IC and OOC.
[/quote]
It isn't a straw man at all. The "policies" you claim are "ruining the game" are basic tenets of sovereignty, powers that any alliance with a modicum of self-respect would refuse to relinquish. This is not a "positive" discussion when you claim that specific groups are ruining the game. If you want to make that joke of a claim then please, do so freely, but I and any other person with more than three firing synapses will come along and shoot you down.

Take this moment to recall that this game was at its height when terms were their most relatively barbaric--the end of Great War III to the Unjust War (WotC was pretty bad, but this was the time of peak disbandment and Legion did pay a staggering-for-the-time $700 million in reps). The argument that reparations are to blame for the game's decline consciously ignores the fact that the decline of sweeping, heavy reparations has coincided directly with the decline in nations. The primary exceptions to the decline in reparations, NPO and TOP at the end of the previous two wars, still maintain memberships fairly similar to those possessed prior to the wars and reps that devastated them.

Oh, and the bold. That's some goddamn irony, son.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283215516' post='2436336']
It isn't a straw man at all. The "policies" you claim are "ruining the game" are basic tenets of sovereignty, powers that any alliance with a modicum of self-respect would refuse to relinquish. This is not a "positive" discussion when you claim that specific groups are ruining the game. If you want to make that joke of a claim then please, do so freely, but I and any other person with more than three firing synapses will come along and shoot you down.

Take this moment to recall that this game was at its height when terms were their most relatively barbaric--the end of Great War III to the Unjust War (WotC was pretty bad, but this was the time of peak disbandment and Legion did pay a staggering-for-the-time $700 million in reps). The argument that reparations are to blame for the game's decline consciously ignores the fact that the decline of sweeping, heavy reparations has coincided directly with the decline in nations. The primary exceptions to the decline in reparations, NPO and TOP at the end of the previous two wars, still maintain memberships fairly similar to those possessed prior to the wars and reps that devastated them.

Oh, and the bold. That's some goddamn irony, son.
[/quote]It's not anything to do with basic sovereignty. It's to do with taking massive reps, specifying they can only be paid by large tech-heavy nations, and doing it with the [i]stated purpose[/i] of "keeping threats down and eliminated" - Literally, stagnating the game, in the most blatant sense.

As I have said, this stems from the manner in which SF and CnG unify themselves to create an obscene unipolar world, by making NPO and friends into a 'common enemy' and pretending that this insignificant group of alliances poses some huge threat to the both of you.

You can cite certain parts of terms and claim that they were 'barbaric' but none of them ever kept a whole opposition group entirely out of any semblance of power for years at a time, as your massive reps have. The terms against NPO and those against TOP/IRON are [i]by far[/i] the most obscene and draconian final terms to ever be issued to alliances in the history of the game. Unlike pure cash reps from the Legion, which you cite, these new reps are forced out of tech heavy nations (The TOP terms didn't specify because [i]everyone[/i] in TOP was tech-heavy). Yes, TPF and NSO didn't get crippling terms, because TPF and NSO are not giant key alliances. You took out the heavy hitters to cripple this side, and recently there have been multiple attempts to force NPO out for another curbie while they are still recovering from a war that began what is fast approaching 2 years ago. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they'd have been extorted again for millions of units of tech, all under the banner of 'justice for past crimes.'

It is your political strategy. It is an incredibly sound strategy, in fact, it is too sound, in that it becomes destructive to the game, which by some odd twist of logic will make it unsound as people eventually get fed up with the results.

This game thrives upon competition and you have selectively and intentionally eliminated it. The fabled SF/CnG split is the only thing that can solve the problem, and you work tirelessly to prevent it. Case in point: STA's recent antics with \m/. SF backed away from defending \m/, and \m/ themselves quickly cowered away. All to prevent a possible split. There is no cost to great, no ally you won't throw under a bus to maintain the new status quo.

Until you grow bored with things a couple of years down the line. Then we'll finally start to see things mixed up.

Until then, over here, we're gearing up for the next time you decide to give one of us a curbie, which really just means whenever you think you have enough of an excuse to hand another out. What else can we do? We're powerless to stop it, and we're the only targets you have in mind in your quest of irrational fear and hate. Until your cross hairs start falling on each other, the world is stuck in place.

[Stormsend]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283216955' post='2436380']
-Swing and a miss.-
[/quote]
I see the topic title and I see your posting.

Does not compute.

[AirMe]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283216955' post='2436380']
It's not anything to do with basic sovereignty. It's to do with taking massive reps, specifying they can only be paid by large tech-heavy nations, and doing it with the [i]stated purpose[/i] of "keeping threats down and eliminated" - Literally, stagnating the game, in the most blatant sense.

As I have said, this stems from the manner in which SF and CnG unify themselves to create an obscene unipolar world, by making NPO and friends into a 'common enemy' and pretending that this insignificant group of alliances poses some huge threat to the both of you.

You can cite certain parts of terms and claim that they were 'barbaric' but none of them ever kept a whole opposition group entirely out of any semblance of power for years at a time, as your massive reps have. The terms against NPO and those against TOP/IRON are [i]by far[/i] the most obscene and draconian final terms to ever be issued to alliances in the history of the game. Unlike pure cash reps from the Legion, which you cite, these new reps are forced out of tech heavy nations (The TOP terms didn't specify because [i]everyone[/i] in TOP was tech-heavy). Yes, TPF and NSO didn't get crippling terms, because TPF and NSO are not giant key alliances. You took out the heavy hitters to cripple this side, and recently there have been multiple attempts to force NPO out for another curbie while they are still recovering from a war that began what is fast approaching 2 years ago. There is no doubt at all in my mind that they'd have been extorted again for millions of units of tech, all under the banner of 'justice for past crimes.'

It is your political strategy. It is an incredibly sound strategy, in fact, it is too sound, in that it becomes destructive to the game, which by some odd twist of logic will make it unsound as people eventually get fed up with the results.

This game thrives upon competition and you have selectively and intentionally eliminated it. The fabled SF/CnG split is the only thing that can solve the problem, and you work tirelessly to prevent it. Case in point: STA's recent antics with \m/. SF backed away from defending \m/, and \m/ themselves quickly cowered away. All to prevent a possible split. There is no cost to great, no ally you won't throw under a bus to maintain the new status quo.

Until you grow bored with things a couple of years down the line. Then we'll finally start to see things mixed up.

Until then, over here, we're gearing up for the next time you decide to give one of us a curbie, which really just means whenever you think you have enough of an excuse to hand another out. What else can we do? We're powerless to stop it, and we're the only targets you have in mind in your quest of irrational fear and hate. Until your cross hairs start falling on each other, the world is stuck in place.
[/quote]

You are too far gone to even reply to. I have attempted to reply a couple of times but you have NO-U-itis and I will leave it at that.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283216955' post='2436380']
<Striking and Brilliant Political Insight>
[/quote]
This post has actually given me a great idea for a bit of satire.



Your entire "analysis" is wrong by the way.

[Ardus]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1283216955' post='2436380']
It's not anything to do with basic sovereignty. It's to do with taking massive reps, specifying they can only be paid by large tech-heavy nations, and doing it with the [i]stated purpose[/i] of "keeping threats down and eliminated" - Literally, stagnating the game, in the most blatant sense.

As I have said, this stems from the manner in which SF and CnG unify themselves to create an obscene unipolar world, by making NPO and friends into a 'common enemy' and pretending that this insignificant group of alliances poses some huge threat to the both of you.

You can cite certain parts of terms and claim that they were 'barbaric' but none of them ever kept a whole opposition group entirely out of any semblance of power for years at a time, as your massive reps have. [b]The terms against NPO and those against TOP/IRON are [i]by far[/i] the most obscene and draconian final terms to ever be issued to alliances in the history of the game.[/b][/quote]

Stopped reading right here. This claim is so dramatically over-the-top that it undermines anything else you could possibly have to say. Alliances have been forcibly disbanded, forcibly seized via viceroys, been forced to demolish wonders, forced to declare eternal allegiance, forced from the colors they call home, and been attacked for trumped up "term violations" for no offense other than simple existence over the course of history. NPO and TOP/IRON got stuck with stiff tech reps after losing their respective wars of aggression. No reasonable person in CN would back your claim. NPO & TOP/IRON got particularly pointed terms, but they [i]pale[/i] in comparison to the terms they dished out.

I'm done with this particular discussion. Have fun shaking your fist at the rafters.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Stormsend' timestamp='1283217496' post='2436393']
I see the topic title and I see your posting.

Does not compute.
[/quote]tl;dr: The stagnation is your fault. This is a statement I believe to be accurate and true, and just because you don't like it or it doesn't suit your ends, doesn't make it any less true. It's stagnation for the same reasons you guys had always blamed NPO for when it was convenient, except you've taken it to a whole new level.

See previous posts for an explanation why, I believe I started on around page 12. I'm not re-typing the arguments because you question why as if I hadn't addressed that point yet. Not that you've done it, but others had, and it's a popular tactic to get a long winded individual as myself to shut up.

[quote=AirMe]You are too far gone to even reply to. I have attempted to reply a couple of times but you have NO-U-itis and I will leave it at that.[/quote]You ask what policies I was talking about. I outline them (again) for you, detailing exactly what they are and exactly why they are causing problems. You then declare that my entire argument is "No, U." Brilliant.