Leaderboard

I am going to keep beating the dead horse of the goals being not contradictory. SOME of the alliances care about damaging everyone equally, SOME want to show that war can not be escaped. Both these goals are served by the term presented. The dichotomy of these goals is irrelevant in the nature of demanding them sell to 1k. All of the diverse coalitions' goals are served by that whether it be due to pragmatism or precedent setting (which has already been set by Guardian and TKR before).

Arrgh! Following the TKR manual, since you are pirates, have no military and no alliances to protect you, we will just use you for training our new members and perma-war you, even if you don't attack us at all. Edit 1: It's amazing how you forgot to add in the flag Tesla, an alliance with which you have an MDP, but you didn't forget to add GOB, an alliance which is "paperless". Edit 2: I am glad you get to experience the pirate life. It's the best kind of play-style in the game (for an individual).

Alliances that are trully paperless, have no treaties whatsoever. They can have friends and they can collaborate with others (see CoS, TEst, SK and Arrgh in this war). However, they can as well attack the next day the very same alliances they supported the day before. Paperless are fluid. Then, you have "paperless ties" (we even get the oxymoron term "paperless treaties") - ties that were never made formal in any way: either in an attempt to hide them or due to them just appearing and not being something formal or set on stone For the first case: Since Sparta hit GOB, it has been proven again and again (and admitted by their members) that GOB and Guardian are allies. Indicatively, at this war, you can see that Guardian didn't get assistance from two of its MDPs, but did get assistance from GOB, with which, supposedly, it has no official ties. That's a secret paperless treaty. For the second case: Paperless ties may just appear due to the nature of two alliances, their history, circumstances, etc. For example, Arrgh and Typhon have/had a similar play-style and it makes no sense raiding raiders. Naturally, the two alliances didn't hit each other and cooperated indirectly. That's a natural, unofficial tie created by the environment. Regarding the participation of the trully paperless to this war, this is no treaty, as there is just a temporary agreement set for this specific war. For example, CoS attacked SK a few months before this war, but SK assisted CoS to its front (against Tesla) in this current war.

Me personally on the Grumpy term... the point I'm hoping gets hit with that one is "if you are going to unflinchingly tie enough upper tier alliances together that you are effectively making an upper tier version of IQ, you should at least take ownership of the fact that you've done that rather than purport to be paperless." It hasn't really been debated as far as I know, but that's where I'm coming from, at least.

In the strictest sense, I suppose the two motivations are "contradictory" in that they aren't the identical. However, that's not quite what Adrienne argued in here. This first quote is the starkest instance of her claiming that our motivations are irreconcilable ("don't work together", in her words): Clearly they do "work together" and are reconcilable, since we presented a term that every alliance in our coalition agreed to regardless of their motivation for seeking it. She laid out the rest of TKR's objections in prior posts: This is a bit misleading. We laid out our definition of "war dodgers", which can be referenced in the OP. It is clear it was accompanied by research, the results of which can be found in Appendix II, which is referenced in the OP, although Ripper didn't quote the contents of it. According to Adrienne, we're not using a definition of "war dodger" that is satisfactory to TKR. As I've explained above and as both myself and others have explained in numerous posts in this topic, a variety of motivations is not the same as switching motivations. While I'm sure it's frustrating and may even have been (understandably) confusing at first, we've repeatedly indicated that the variety of motivations for the VM term stems from the disparate composition of our coalition. If the label for the nations in VM mode was truly TKR's primary objection, I suspect they would have quickly arrived at the same alternative I did. Assuming I'm wrong, I suggest they refer to those nations the same way I've referred to them here: VM users. Quoted for reference: So, to directly answer your original question @Buorhann, the main substantive hangup TKR seems to have is the use of the term "war dodgers" in reference to the nations in VM. However, as I just pointed out, there's a pretty easy, pedantic way to remedy this, which is to refer to them as "VM users" (if TKR has a problem with even this, then I can't help them). Beyond that, they don't seem to have any substantive issues with proposed terms. Per the top quote from Adrienne in this post, TKR is fine with either motivation - punishing VM users or dealing damage to them - individually, but not together. Contrary to her claim, they're reconcilable in the form of the proposed VM term quoted in the OP. The fixation on the term "war dodger" has no apparent relation to the coexistence of our coalition's dual motives - it can be addressed without establishing a sole motivation for the VM term and, per Adrienne, TKR isn't categorically unwilling to agree to terms explicitly aimed at punishing VM users.

This is going to be hard to write… It’s been around 200 days since I first started. Almost became a New Pacific Order member but was messaged by a member of the newly found alliance called United Hoods. The alliance grew some more and I became an officer, The Secretary of State to be exact. It was fun being able to talk to everybody and I was promoted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Heir to the alliance. I wanted to stay that way since I didn’t like absolute power and I liked my leader enough. I’ve helped with treaties and keep foreign relations with other alliances. I thought I was a pretty decent representative. I tried to be the nicest I could to anyone unless provoked of course. I would say people liked me and respected me enough. ~Creed Mallory Six months ago my friend invited me to play this game. Having nothing better to do I decided to make an account. I wasn’t interested in all of the big alliances, I wanted to be in an alliance that was small enough so I could learn the basics of this game. I ended up joining The Mighty Atlantic, while it didn’t last long it was a home for me. I was the Economics Captain and the designer of our alliance. I felt really loved there. A few weeks after the downfall of TMA, some old members created another micro alliance called The Crimson Entente. In the Crimson, I felt like I could be a shining light in this dull community and I was for a while till things started to go down hill. I don’t mind if you bother me in-game but when it comes to personal life that’s where I draw the line. So I’ll be removing myself. To all the people who have supported and helped me I want to say thank you. ~Freya Recently, someone paid another individual to find personal information about me. They even went as far as to attack my girlfriend and threaten to release information on the forums if I didn’t send $50 Million to the Camelot bank. Yes. They threatened my personal life for in-game money. I’m not pointing fingers, and I truly don’t believe it was Camelot who did so. I don’t put the blame on them as I received help from people like Bill Rice and TheShadow and I respect them for that. I’m still going to investigate on who the slimy culprit is, but as of now, Freya and I will be leaving the game and removing ourselves from the community. I have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. No game should go this deep as to personally threaten to harm someone, or even pay someone to. For that, I condemn whoever was behind this. I will still keep in contact with the friends I’ve made. They’ve been supportive of me my whole time playing the game and for me to just start out and help build an alliance to the Top 50? That’s an achievement in my book. I wish them well in building United Hoods even larger to...let’s say, Top 30. I hate to leave my position, I had an important job that got us out of a lot of scuffles and helped us make more friends. You’ll probably forget about me in the future, this whole thing might not even matter to a lot of you, but for the people that do care: Thank you. ~Creed Mallory MVPs (Creed Mallory): All of United Hoods (Past and Present Members) Skitzbro Xea Asierith Slw122 Imperial.RoughNeck ElBarto666 and Animation Domination Ukunaka and Empire of Moonlit Sakura JordyHamsVII Jane and The Revolutionary Front Epimetheus The $yndicate Tl;dr Freya and Creed Mallory are exiting the game due to a personal attack on us.

I'm late to this, but I figured I'd add that if someone did go into VM in GoG upon war start I would aggressively advocate them being kick-rolled regardless of whether or not they had a good excuse. I don't call the shots, but I think there's a convincing case to be made that they should be kick-rolled even if they DID have a good reason and even if they could prove it. The very appearance of impropriety constitutes impropriety. The appearance of weakness constitutes weakness.

Who wants to write paper treaties? not me, no thanks, a simple i got your back, if you got my back handshake agreement is good enough for grumpy.

??? it's been fun, but blackmailing someone over a game is not ok. hope you stay safe, dude

Bots that take action for players are strictly against the rules. However, I know a number of players have devised bots that do things like alert a Discord server when a war is declared, or a lucrative trade is offered. So long as the script isn't actually accepting the trades, but just serving notifications, I don't have an issue with it (there's really nothing I could do to prevent it anyway, unless you all want captchas on every page.)

No, I simply saw your page of incompetence and noted it as such. But by all means, go through all of my posts. I encourage you to actually read them (though apparently that is a difficult task for you) as you might just learn something.

I appreciate the response, but here's where I'm coming from. TCW was on your side regardless. I know you also tried to make agreements with tC. So. Putting intentionality aside in why you got the people you did, it's still clear that you would have "your side" be at least Guardian, TKR, tC, Grumpy, and, via TKR, TCW/Tesla. That is a virtually unassailable, IQ-like upper tier grouping. To counter it, we had to get the jump on you, use virtually every available alliance remaining in the political sphere, AND still initially lose. Some elements of IQ claimed they didn't want to result in such a game-stifling grouping when they made IQ, but that didn't stop them from doing it.

I would like to remind everyone that this is a game and that pixel huggers are the most pathetic breed of humans in this game. The principle of the thing is; everyone would have been rolled and the winning side feels like the losers should force the VMers to have the same damage as the rest of the alliance. Why are we still discussing this? How petty are people over pixels?

I 100% agree and if it becomes clear that anyone in GoG went into VM soon before or soon after the war began for *any* reason I would advocate as strongly as I could for their being kicked and rolled. I'm not in gov, but as a member who did his part and fought in the war that's what I'd believe. And I think it's a slap in the face to members who did their part to do otherwise. If you don't have time to log in 3 minutes a day for months you shouldn't f***ing be playing, should you? So do the honorable thing. Delete and save us the gas and munitions.

There's a difference between people who dodged war, and people who had serious outside commitments and contacted their gov for permission. Not all VMers are war-dodgers.

I see it as contradictory too. Even so, it'd help clarify the stances of the three different sides in the coalition as well, so TKR and their allies will know what to expect come the future after the war and how to adjust their FA game. I may discuss this verbally on my show, but there is (at least to me) a difference in how to approach alliances that are set forth in doing either "blanket damage" or "punishing legit dodgers". For example: If NPO, BK, TEst are pushing for blanket damage and Rose, Syndicate, CoS are pushing for punishing legit dodgers - then it would allow TKR and Friends to know exactly how to approach any of those alliances in the future if a conflict comes around and they're on the victorious side against them (Or what to expect if they're working alongside with them). It would also let those sitting on the sidelines watching the expectations from these alliances as well. Personally speaking, I'm awfully curious about how this will be settled.

You're confusing secret agreements with paperless agreements. Both are made out of a disdain for legalism and in the belief that formal agreements are no better, and often worse, than informal ones. However, secret agreements achieve a second goal, which is to avoid alerting rivals to the nature of your partnerships, or even their existence. The original conception of paperless agreements was for them to be just as well-publicized as traditional, legalistic agreements based on treaties. Their sole purpose was to foster better ongoing friendships and cooperation between allies. Ironically, that ethos has endured more continuously within treaties than without them: there are still many alliances that refuse to sign MDoAPs and favor MDPs instead because they feel the optional aggression clause is meaningless. Secret treaties, on the other hand, are primarily meant to obfuscate. The chief difference between them and traditional treaties isn't a lack of formality; it's a lack of public information on them. For instance, SRD has rebranded GOB's partnerships as "handshake agreements". However, to my knowledge GOB has never announced a complete list of those "handshake agreements" or said anything about what they entail other than the obvious mutual defense elements. If GOB were operating in the same way Guardian and SK or TEst and Arrgh did, it wouldn't talk about nameless friends in the abstract or avoid going into detail about its present set of partners.

It's a shame she struggles so greatly understanding such basic and plain concepts. Shamelessly attempting to grandstand using such nonsense is unbecoming of your station.

*bump*, this needs to read by everyone again.

Hello this is the former EMC, we just had a rebrand and now we are a pirate coalition, you can notice it by the fact that we are always at war and we target big inactive nations without having an army and with low infra Since we are now pirates I'm here to pretend, even from alliances we are not at war with, a white peace and unlimited NAP where you can attack us only if we attack first #givepiracyachance

One part is to make sure the negotiations are transparent and the members of both sides know how things are. The other part is that I thought it would be more interesting (for the community as a whole) having a discussion here. As I said, all discussions here are not part of the negotiations. You should (or, more specifically, there is no reason that you shouldn't), because you enjoy discussing things. That's a purpose of this thread. Offering you something to discuss.

Dang, I guess your failure in school means you are responsible for the death of the Middle Class.

You know, Pre, Leo, and Ripper have basically said all that I was going to, so I merely submit this interpretation of our term. Being rolled for being outrageous douchebags is basically all of IQ's wars though ?

Quoting the terms served to TGH/KT at the previous war, terms that your alliance and TKR within the coalition of that war supported: "- CB Validations (recognize their legitimacy to pursue this war) - Thalmor apologizing to Queen M (for OOC reasons) - Buorhann apologizing to Felkey - TGH flies a flag by custom design of TCW for a month (Without us knowing, TCW got a similar term in this war!) - KT flies TRF war flag for a month - Knights Templar place 2 pictures on their alliance page for a month (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625344983007252/image.jpg, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625371939799050/image.png) - KT puts TRF war flag on their alliance page for a month - KT puts up a text "Revolution was here" on their alliance page for a month - KT puts an image on their alliance page of TRF pissing on the KT flag on their alliance page for a month - KT/TGH write a glorifying story about TRF and Queen M on the OWF" I thought you liked ending wars with white peace. Probably that's the case only when you are losing. I didn't know about the terms till yesterday, but now I am not surprised at all that your side did accept Articles I, II and III, at least at the beginning of the negotiations. Such kinds of terms were already familiar to you. Although ours are less "punishing".

So a more serious breakdown of why the VM needs to happen in the opinion of our coalition. Start by taking look at these links: TCW TKR GoB TCW obviously loses the most in this arrangement, and its obvious these VM nations are the rebuild plan for their side. Allowing this to happen is simply unacceptable when addressing the economic disparity of sides. Those TCW nations can generate over 300 million a day for TCW's rebuild, something that we won't allow to happen. You can argue some of the VM is legitimate reasons, but the simple fact is it doesn't matter. We don't care if it's legitimate. I fully agree that it's their responsibility to decide if they want to keep deserters in their alliance or not. However, this occurs after we equalize the damage dealt to them, not before. The argument is we are "punishing" them, which is flat out wrong. Lets start with the definition of punish: Punish VERB Treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way. Their VM nations are not being treated in an unfair way relative to their alliance mates. All members still fighting are below 1k infra, or on their way there. In fact, most are substantially below that so VM nations are being treated less harshly. Then the argument that the winning side should do the same is also frankly ridiculous. This isn't a Global Summit building a player consensus, this is a war they lost and that's the demands for peace. We are holding their members accountable, since we don't trust them to do so. The winners can deal with their own, and owe nothing to those who lost in the most complete loss in a global since NPO's first time. Sure they can stay at war, but it's a lot harder to maintain a losing war than a winning one. If they want to keep going so be it, but it is easier to sell making sure perennial war deserters lose their infra to the winning coalition's members than protecting them to the losing side's members. Ultimately it will come down to their membership to deciding when they no longer want to protect pixel huggers at their own expense.

I would like more something like this So I don't have to open their nation page to see their units

can i vote for best p&w meme

From my understanding of it, either 1. Someone in Camalot without banking perms (aka no power) did it. 2. Someone is trying to use past ... differences to their advantages to spark a conflict The reason I come to this conclusion is for a few factors. Firstly why would you dox someone and make them send the money to your own alliance bank so it would get you caught and prob banned? Next the money was returned, so the player who did it was either not in Camalot or did not have banking perms to intercept the money... aka non gov. Not to mention the talks ive had with a few people, Creed himself stating he thinks Camalot had nothing to do with it. However if it turns out they did for whatever reason, im sure the leader of Camalot would be happy to deal with the issue, providing there is proof, additionally im sure BK would never stand for actions like this by our protectorates... @Thanosis free to reply if he wishes, but im sure he will say about the same thing I am now. On a side note, its not impossible someone is trying to use this to start a larger war, T$ and BK have already shown we are willing to stand by our protectorates and throw down if needed. The idea could have been to frame Camalot, get them hit and cause BK counters so T$ would have to counter our counters.

If I told the people that compliance is to be expected, I wouldn't have a hand shake agreement with them. But as long as I run grumpy, my word is the best I can give, and if I said I got your back, then I got your back. (See this war) If the other side doesn't see it that way, then I guess we reevaluate and move on if necessary. Paper doesn't force compliance as we have seen many times.

yaassss

EMC is both a bloc as well as a concept. BK defected from Obsidian Order in part because of conflicts with TKR, as well as desires to play "hard mode".

The interesting part of this is the TKR-sphere has lost massively and stopped even fighting back for the most part. The IQ Coalition's primarily issue at the moment is we have more people available to fight than slots to be filled. Our banks are still pumping on a moderate level vs the normal level while theirs are not. The longer they prolong this situation the worse it gets for them. These are the terms, when you feel you've been sufficiently beaten, accept them.

This is sad. Whoever did this should feel ashamed of themselves.

I'm really sorry that this happened to both of you and it's sad to see you go. If either of you or anyone else has any ideas and/or proof on who did this feel free to contact me and I'll do my best to make sure action is taken on those responsibile.

That's a line nobody should cross.

You seem to be under this delusion that Radiantsphere could actually dole out that damage in any period of time less than months due to their position.

We're a group of collectives. Those collectives have different goals, and even inside of those collectives there are different goals as well. There's more than one reason behind it, and depending on whom you ask you'll get a different reason. In the quote of mine you have I even said "for me, maybe not for everyone". It's the main reason I'm in favor of it. If you ask me why, that's what you'll get. If you ask someone in IQ you might get "so you all take x damage" etc.. etc.. You can call them whatever you like. The classification is irrelevant, they're under the same blanket regardless. As I previously stated whether the VM was legitimate or not they're all subject to the same result. Since there is no differentiation between actual dodgers and the ones you don't wish to see labled as such, there's no need for a differentiation is our classification of them; the result is the same. It'd be like saying all people who have last names starting with the letters A-M get $50 and all people who have last names starting with the letters N-Z get $50. We're just saying all people who have last names starting with A-Z get $50 because there's no reason to separate the two as they are beholden to the same outcome. It is your alliance, you are free to keep them at war as long as you want to protect yourself from labeling those nations as war dodgers.

Yes, it can be. You're a gov member of an alliance who's only meaningful tie is being protected by the Syndicate, an alliance fighting on the side you are currently criticizing for their terms. Not to mention the side which will possibly be the top sphere post war. Putting you're opinion out there can be a dangerous thing if it goes against the powers that be, or popular opinion. First thing I did when I saw you posting you're highly misconstrued statements which were pieced together poorly, was look at your alliance. I looked to size you up, to see if you were worth hitting. Thankfully, for you, none of your alliance nations are in my range so I lost interest. But now your alliance is on my radar, are probably on others as well. It's what happens when you come here talking the nonsense you have. You get noticed, and not in good ways. There is zero parallel between a bot which patrols the trade market for mistaken trades in to profit off of those mistakes and BC being held accountable for leaking sensitive information. You're flat out wrong. Bot's for that sort of advantage are widely frowned upon in these sorts of circles, and to claim we can simply "tell our members to take 5 seconds", is asinine. What about other nations? What if a member of your alliance lost 100M worth of resources by mistakenly clicking to post a public trade when they meant a private one, and an automated bot sprung into action to snag those resources before the person could delete it seconds later? Perhaps we just want the removal of them all together? Regardless it doesn't involve you, because it's what we want. It also doesn't have any connections to BC. You leak intel, you run the risk of paying the consequences for it. One's a conscious choice, and one's a mistake.

I mean there is definitely a disparity in who's in a position to post unilateral demands. If I was doing the negotiating I might entertain the idea of making it bilateral, but that would take a lot of negotiating give-and-take probably. A long time ago, in Silent, I pushed a similar term calling for a larger nation to be hit because the war hadn't gotten to him yet. Some people were upset, saying I singled that nation out, and it's not a totally invalid view, but I looked at it more as a price to be paid for ending the war before our side would have otherwise wished to. ...it's all negotiating, at the end of the day. If you don't like something, propose a counter for it or keep fighting. ... it just occurred to me that this time I'm going on a stupid, historical digression, it's actually in the spirit of the original intent of the thread. Go me!

Oh hello. I was wondering when someone would try and bring this up. First off, I'll note that I made the nothining terms literally by myself, and this dodger term was presented by an entire coalition. I could certainly go on about this, but I think it's important to note that when I hit those people, I used a variety of means like troop kills and nation age (like I actually made a point-based system, like a true nerd) to try and separate "people who use vacation mode" from "people who systematically try to avoid war, placing an unfair burden on their alliance mates". I don't have a problem with people using vacation mode for vacations or whatever... all the more power to them. It's when it becomes a pattern of behavior that it bothers me. I have a bit of trouble imagining how anyone could have gotten through a month+ on tkr's side without having taken fairly significant damage, though.... a month is a long time. So it should be a nonissue, in theory.

Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another.

The Internationale will follow the actions of the Corporation and the Allied States and conduct a containment and blockade of all trade coming from or to Rokkenjima because of the acts against humanity and the many suffers they caused all over the Asian sphere and so they had to be stopped and prevent of such actions repeating. All vessels going towards Rok or from will be detained or sent back or be annihilated if they avoided their sentence. The English channel is undergoing inspections of all vessels which are not Mog[Corp] or of the Allied States while the rest of the nations vessels will undergo inspections and the ships will undergo the procedure already mentioned. The same is happening in the Northern and Asian waters with Naval forces in the Asian theatre being increased. "It is a relief that finally more nations are coming to combat against a state out of touch with reality and which brings nightmares to many unprotected nations of the world with no reason except sick personal interest. It is finally time to get rid of a threat to the free man and I invite all other nations to join in this blockade, even though to this day I wonder how that state manages to mantain that large of a military and still be able to peform such expensive actions, but even though that is not the matter, the matter is that our cause is to break the Rok people and their leaders. This was Premier Comrade Corbyn of the Internationale"

Such a dictatorial move. Has there been any talks about this in the community to agree upon as it is clearly an attempt to be able to get your claims up out first, and apparently that expansion of territories has a significant meaning to you as a person, an egotistical one, like the abnormal military numbers. But that is not the matter and I wouldn't want to insult a part of the community even though I am sure you wouldn't do as such, and even though off topic I return to the matter at hand. The rule was clear before, if its midnight in your (the individual) timezone, you could expand and it wasn't all evolving one players. Why dont we use Natalias timezone as a marker, Mogars or mine? I just think that because of the large now competition expanding to Asia because of your own actions it will limit your expansion. And also I'like @Alex to have a talk about this with all of us, an unnecessary drastic change of a rule on which no one complained about and now it works in your favour or benefit.

Honestly, why do people even trust Cynic anymore? He's stolen hundreds of IRL dollars from previous gaming communities, continues to rat out friends and acts like a victim when he's been caught. He's quite literally one of, if not the worst IC and OOC players in PnW.

Basically all I'm getting out of this - horribly placed DoW on a Micro - is: Y'all like fortnite - a lot. #virgins You reference things that happened years in the past - including using my old name, which most people already know I was the speaker. lmao - I guess you really mined for that salt. Y'all like to puff your chest for hitting micros...who have already been hit and act like its some insane victory. You're literally a 21 year old kicking a 5 year old in the chest and saying you won. Lastly, as per usual - your PR game is weak AF - you look like a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob and its honestly hilarious. Picture below: The Island member in the GoG Storm. What a gentleman and a scholar.

I’m enjoying myself immensely

Episode 8: Because being together is enough The eighth episode appeared in Mar 14 2017 as an answer to a Lordaeron announcement at the "Alliance Affairs" section of the forum. It depicts the merge of the British Empire to Lordaeron.