Leaderboard

As anyone who’s at least a little familiar with me knows, I’ve been a member of Polaris for over three years. I’ve been a member of the New Polar Order in Cybernations for even longer. As of a few days ago, this is no longer the case. Throughout my time in the alliance, I’ve contributed a great deal to it. I’ve made artwork for them. I created and maintained the Polaris-related pages on the wiki. I created their Discord server and maintained it for over two years. I’m not saying I was the only one who contributed to these things, but I feel it would be fair to say my involvement with the alliance wasn’t anything minor. A few months ago, we came to the decision to combine our Cybernations and Politics & War Discord servers after my initial suggestion over the summer. Again, I wasn’t the only one involved in this process. Cobrastrike took on the task of creating bot commands for the purpose of role assignment, so that gov members from the opposite game couldn’t assign roles that they weren’t supposed to. While he was doing that, I spent the whole night going through each individual channel and adjusting the role permissions so they couldn’t be accessed by those who shouldn’t see them, as well as creating categories, channels, and roles for our Cybernations members/government. The server merge took place in late August or early September, I believe. The peace that the server had experienced up until that point was quickly cut short when the !@#$ known as Terminator joined the server. By this point, I had passed server ownership onto EaTeM, while still maintaining moderator permissions as a Council Adviser. Terminator had a history of not following the rules in our CN server, and that trend continued. Multiple times, I had asked him to quit violating the rules we had in place - spamming, not listening to mods, making the server a negative place in general. Unsurprisingly, he wouldn’t listen, so I used my mod powers to delete several of his messages and mute him. That was my mistake, as I was a fool to think the rules actually applied to him. Instead of Terminator facing any consequences, I ended up being punished instead. My moderator permissions were taken away and I was stripped of my position as Council Adviser. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed off. After several heated back and forth conversations and a couple months later, I was finally given back my mod permissions and position as Council Adviser. When I returned, I discovered that the server was drastically different behind the scenes. Government members from either game now had the ability to assign any role they wanted, and gain access to any channel they wanted. My role as a P&W Council Adviser also lacked several permissions that it had previously, and didn’t even match the permissions that the CN Council Adviser role had. After bringing up the issues with how things were now, it didn’t seem like anyone cared about the possible security risks. The last part of the story involves me setting up some opt-in channels for the server, which I had received permission to do after asking like I was supposed to. The rest of gov was offline for the night, and I discovered after starting to work on the channels that I didn’t have sufficient permissions to complete them. To get around this, I temporarily assigned myself the Emperor role so I could finish setting up the channels. Upon receiving the role, I did not gain access to any channels that I didn’t already have access to. I had only received a few extra permissions that I didn’t have like Manage Emojis and Manage Channels. After setting up the opt-in channels, I took the Emperor role off of me and went to sleep. After waking up the next day and logging into Discord, I was being treated by everyone like I had just committed a heinous crime. After doing what I was given permission to do in an attempt to make the server a better place, I was treated with a vote to once again strip me of my mod permissions. Again, I was pretty upset. Despite being mistreated in the past, I was still trying to contribute to the alliance I had been in the past three years. I was pretty done at this point, so I decided to leave the server. The next day, I woke up to discover I was kicked out of and banned from the CN alliance, apparently targeted for perma-ZI, as well as kicked from the P&W alliance. My question for Polaris, that I’m finally getting around to asking - was it really necessary to ban me from a server I already left on top of everything else? I called Polaris my home for many years, defended it when I could, spent countless hours contributing to it in many ways, and I’m treated like this. I know you seem to hate being called out in public, but I guess you’ll have to deal with it now. To anyone who made it this far in the post, I shouldn’t need to say this at this point, but please don’t join Polaris. They aren’t worth it.

If you enjoyed the experience of being pushed out of the game I suggest you to join TKR so you can repeat the experience again and again

To encurearg the end 2 da DMV/Dil-Upa War, da Big Cowz r gonna poast leeks til da warr is offer. C ur naem? Explan urself! ****IMPOTANT**** IF U HAEV LEEKS, DM DA COWZ MOOOOO!!!! Da Cowz can believ u say dat

Imma be liek the goons up in here and people cant downvote me This is an inappropriate alliance name and theme as it shows support for an illegal substance in the US by federal law. And raises concern from me.

As leader of the Real Polaris, I don’t recall banning/kicking you? You must be talking about the Fake Polaris. They’re fake for a reason

Since I'm the leader of Bird Weed, I hope it's alright that I respond. Alex has stated in a previous report on marihuana references that pro-marihuana themes in nations (and thus I assume also alliances) are allowed: PnW's nation policy questionnaire includes a question on cannabis legalization, also. Bird Weed's marihuana theme falls strictly under roleplay, there are no instructions on the real life use of marihuana in Montana or anywhere else in the world. The alliance simply employs the concept of "birds and weed" for fun in the context of the world of Orbis. To make sure I'd be acting within the rules, I didn't create Bird Weed until after seeing an official statement from Alex on pro-marihuana themes, so I believe Bird Weed is a perfectly acceptable addition to the game.

War is not over. Forum got many topics about war. Forum lost downvotes. But Forum got "thanks". --Conclusion-- Forum will get my topic now then... and all you can do now is just to thank me for it... enjoy. After being totaly insane person for a long period. It is over and time to be locked in Asylum and create my own reality with pills I got. I am not fighting like I used to. I don't make people around me mad anymore. I don't receive any strikes for my bad behaviour. My activity is poor. I am just less in everything. Anyone feeling same can just join and enjoy electrotherapy, lobotomy and other cool things. (Don't expect anything great it's up to your imagination how you will enjoy in this place) I created artwork, a bit of nostalgia and my mad mind. You all have minds so remember if you don't like current reality just create your own one. Some people here are great in it. Ohhh my lobotomy starts in 15 min. I need to get prepared. Cya or maybe not

Pnw is not an American only game. Also sheepy has said nation's that have weed flags or names is not against the rules Also I understand this is non discussion forum but I provided evidence

This might seems rich comming from an Arrgh member, but @Alex i would like to suggest a 7-14 day Christmas truce, where you either turn off the war system completely, or give everyone a set number of days in beige, all after which is easier to implement. The game have turned increasingly toxic in the last few months, that can be seen most clearly here on the forum. But instead of symptom treatment(like removing the downvote button) i would suggest going directly after the source of this toxicity: the war. A Christmas truce, would allow players to take a step back from the game, and hopefully let cooler heads prevail so Orbis can return to peace. And if not, it would be possible for the losing side to rebuild troops, making the winning side more inclined to start negotiation in good faith. While the losing side would have a reason to spend ressource, instead of just collection it for the post war rebuild. If the truce where to fail in bringing forward a armistice, we can atleast bring back the fun part about warfare, the blitz, the back and forth fighting. Instead of the current status of one side just blowing up rubbles, that is worth less then bombs that blow it up. After 5-6 months of war, the longest in the game history. I would like to believe that an admin would be justified in intervening to stop actions that can be seen as harmful to the game continuously existence, overfor dwindling players numbers and increasingly toxicity and radicalisation of the players that is left.

Before Aristotle starts the arguments for his political anthropology, he remarks in the first chapter that he will apply an analytic method. The polis is a composite whole and the best way to examine it is to resolve it into its simplest, and smallest, elements25. These elements are not primarily the individuals, but the three relations of husband and wife, master and slave, and father and children (Pol., I, 1, 1252a17–23, cf. Pol., I, 3, 1253b4–8). The first set of Aristotle’s arguments proceeds from the two original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, to the household (oikia), and from there to the village (kômê), and finally to the polis. He introduces this argument with the remark that the investigation will be most successful, if it examines how its subject, the polis, develops from the beginning (ex archês) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a24). 0Many interpreters have understood this remark to mean that the first set of Aristotle’s arguments is only or mainly a genetic and historical account of the origin, and development, of the polis26. Such an account can already be found in Plato’s Republic and the Laws27. In the Republic, Plato sees the origin of the polis in the human needs that can only be satisfied through cooperation and division of labor as the individual is not self-sufficient (autarkês) (Rep., II, 369b–e). He presents an idealized history of the development of the polis in three stages, starting with the “basic” and “healthy” polis, in which everyone does what he can do best. Over time, the multiplication and refinement of needs leads to luxury and to an unhealthy way of life. This way of life is characteristic of the “feverish” polis (Rep., II, 372d-e). The excessive needs and greed (pleonexia) lead to war and an estate of warriors. In the course of their education the “feverish” polis gets purified, which leads to a “cathartic” polis (Rep., III, 399e). 1At the beginning of book III of the Laws, Plato declares that city-states must have existed for an “enormously long time” and that “during that period, thousands upon thousands of states have come into being, while at least as many, in equally vast numbers, have been destroyed” (Laws, III, 676b-c)28. The main reasons for this were floods and plagues. After the great flood most people died and only a few survived on the mountain tops. People lived “scattered in separate households and individual families in the confusion that followed the cataclysms” (Laws, III, 680d)29. The eldest member of the family ruled as a justified king. In the later development, “several families amalgamate and form larger communities”, and this is the kind of progress that leads to the origin of the polis (Laws, III, 680e ff.)30. 2Aristotle picks up some important elements of Plato’s reflections on the coming into being of the polis. Contrary to Aristotle, Plato’s idealized history of the development of the city in the Republic mentions neither the household or family (oikos) nor the village as elements of the polis. However, for both Plato and Aristotle, men who do not live in a polis cannot satisfy all material and intellectual needs and thus are not self-sufficient. For Aristotle, the polis is even defined through its self-sufficiency (autarkeia) (Pol., I, 2, 1252b29– 1253a1). In book II of the Politics he declares: “A household (oikia) is more self-sufficient than the individual, and a polis more than a household, and a polis is fully realized only when the community is large enough to be self-sufficient” (Pol., II, 2, 1261b11 – 13). In Pol., I, 2, Aristotle doesn’t elaborate the economic aspect of the self-sufficiency of the polis, which implies cooperation and division of labor. However, by mentioning master and slave as one of the smallest elements of the polis, he makes clear that slave labor contributes in a substantial way to attaining self-sufficiency31. Without the polis, as an individual, man cannot lead a fully self-sufficient life. Because the individual is a part in relation to a whole, it needs the polis (Pol., I, 2, 1253a25–27). This is, as will be shown below, not only an economic reason why man is by its nature a political animal. 3For Aristotle’s account of the origin and development of the polis, Plato’s Laws are even more important than the Republic. Like Plato in the Laws, he refers to Homer’s description of the Cyclopes and declares that “they lived dispersedly, which was the way in which people used to live in ancient times” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b23–24). “This is clearly”, as W. Kullmann rightly comments, “an allusion to an historical original state of man”32. Obviously, the first set of Aristotle’s arguments in chapter two includes at least some assumptions about the historical development of the polis. For Aristotle, like Plato in the Laws, in ancient times people lived not as isolated individuals, but “scattered in separate households and individual families”. For Aristotle, the household is the oldest natural community (koinonia kata phusin) (Pol., I, 2, 1252b13). He even quotes Hesiod, who lived around 700 BC, as a historical source to confirm: “First house, and wife, and an ox for the plough” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b11–12). In this quote Hesiod talks about a household of a poor family of peasants that is composed mainly of husband and wife, not of master and slave. Poor farmers, who play an important role in Hesiod’s poetry, couldn’t afford slaves. The ox had to substitute for the slave. Like Plato in the Laws, for Aristotle, the development proceeds from several households to the village. The children and grandchildren of one family found their own households. This is the most natural (kata phusin) form of how the village comes into being. Like in the house, in the village the eldest member of one family rules as a king. Therefore, kingship is the primordial political constitution or form of ruling (Pol., I, 2, 1252b15–22). 4The genetic and historical remarks on the origin, and development, of the polis only play a subordinate role in the first part of chapter two33. They only supplement the arguments Aristotle presents in order to substantiate his two theses that the polis exists by nature and that man is by nature a political animal. The underlying premise of the whole chapter, as will be shown below, is Aristotle’s teleological understanding of nature (Pol., I, 2, 1252b31 – 1253a1; cf. Pol., I, 2, 1253a9). According to this understanding, nature is a hierarchical order of ends, in which every living being, every natural community of living beings, and every part of a living being has a given end (telos) and a specific function (ergon). 5The first set of Aristotle’s arguments is based on his analytic method. However, instead of applying this method and presenting the different analytical steps in taking apart the polis into its smallest elements, he presupposes the analysis as already finished and takes its results for granted. He starts off from the two original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, which are the basic elements of the household. From the family, Aristotle proceeds to the village, which consists of several households. From the village he progresses to the polis, which is composed of several villages. What Aristotle presents in the first part of chapter two is not the analysis of the polis, but its synthesis out of its different elements. Th. Hobbes has called the latter method the synthetic or compositive method which is a counterpart of the analytic or resolutive method. In order to understand how a clock works, it is necessary to first take it apart, and then construct it again out of its parts34. Aristotle combines the composition of the polis out of its elements with the presentation of aspects of its historical development. 6At the beginning of chapter two, Aristotle’s declares that the investigation has to examine how the subject, the polis, develops from the beginning (ex archês) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a24). This remark does not need to be understood only in a genetic and historical sense. It can also have the analytic-synthetic meaning that the research examines how the polis begins, or originates, from the smallest elements out of which it is composed35. The first two elements Aristotle mentions are the female and the male, and master and slave. With regard to these two original communities he declares that there “must be a union of those who cannot exist without one another” (Pol., I, 2, 1252a26–27). Men cannot exist without each other; this is why they unite in the first forms of natural communities. This statement can be understood as Aristotle’s first thesis that makes it plausible that man is by nature a political animal. 17Aristotle substantiates his first thesis with the existence of two original communities that are both defined through their natural ends and both arise from necessity (anagkê) (Pol., I, 2, 1252a26). The natural end (telos) of the union of man and woman is the reproduction of the species. This original community exists by nature (phusei) in a biological sense, because it doesn’t come into being by choice, but from man’s “natural desire to leave behind an image of himself”, which man has in common with other animals and plants (Pol., I, 2, 1252a28–30, cf. 1253a30–31). The natural end (telos) of the union of master and slave is their preservation or survival (sôtêria) as individuals, which can be interpreted as a natural instinct36. As there are natural (phusei) rulers and natural subjects, they have to unite into a community which is beneficial (sumpheron) for both of them. Aristotle’s criterion for natural rulers is the capacity to “foresee by the exercise of mind”, and for natural subjects to carry out these things with their body (Pol., I, 2, 1252a30– 34). With these brief remarks, Aristotle anticipates his doctrine of slaves by nature, which is the main topic of book I37. The slaves by nature have the function (ergon) of doing the necessary work in the city. After introducing these two forms of natural communities, Aristotle argues that they are two distinct communities. The female and the slave are by nature (phusei) distinct (Pol., I, 2, 1252a34– 1253b1). This is already a first illustration of Aristotle’s doctrine that there are different forms of ruling, which he had already mentioned in chap. 1 (Pol., I, 1, 1252a7 – 16)38. 18In the first paragraphs of chapter two, the third basic element of the household or family, the relation of father and children, is only mentioned through man’s “natural desire to leave behind an image of himself”. The household or family is the “union according to nature (koinonia kata phusin) for the satisfaction of daily needs” (Pol., I, 2, 1252b12– 14). The basic household is composed out of the relations of husband and wife and of master and slave. The human slave can only be afforded by families that are economically well off. In poor families, the ox had to substitute for the slave as a slavish element is a natural and necessary part of a family. For Aristotle, there is certainly no genetic step from the relation of husband and wife to the household, because husband and wife are simply the essential parts of the house. 20Aristotle claims that the polis is a perfect community. He substantiates this thesis with the arguments that only the polis is self-sufficient and enables a good and perfect life40. The self-sufficiency of the polis means that it can satisfy all human needs and provide virtually all human goods41. Aristotle’s concept of self-sufficiency should not be understood merely in an economic sense. One end (telos) of the polis is certainly the survival or subsistence of its citizens, which Aristotle refers to as “mere life (zên)” (cf. Plato, Rep., II, 369 d). However, this is not the specific end of the polis in itself, but of all the households out of which it is composed. The natural end of the polis is the good life (eu zên) or human flourishing (eudaimonia) of its citizens. Because the polis is able to realize this end and to satisfy all material and intellectual needs, it is the perfect community. 1In the paragraph quoted above, Aristotle gives the two main arguments for his thesis that the polis exists by nature, and not by convention. After he demonstrated, step by step, that all forms of community out of which the polis is composed exist by nature, he concludes that the polis has to exist by nature. The polis exists by nature because all of its elements, especially the original communities of man and woman, and master and slave, exist by nature (phusei)42. The empirical fact that man cannot exist alone, and unites in natural communities, partly supports Aristotle’s thesis that man is by nature a political animal, which again substantiates his thesis that the polis exists by nature. In line with his argument, in the Physics Aristotle chooses living organisms, like animals and plants, as main examples to illustrate the term “by nature (phusei)” (Physics, II, 1, 192b8– 10). Contrary to artifacts, living organisms have the beginning (archê) of their changes and their existing state (stasis) in themselves and not in a craftsman’s mind. They have an internal drive (hormê) to move in space, to grow or to fade away, and to change their qualities (Physics, II, 1, 192b13– 18). Living organisms like humans, and natural bodies like the polis, persist and change from inner beginnings and internal causes43. These inner beginnings and internal causes are exactly what Aristotle understands as nature (phusis). Thus in the Physics he defines nature as “a principle or cause of being moved and of being at rest” (Physics, II, 1, 192b21 – 22, cf. Physics, II, 9, 200b12– 13). 2Aristotle’s first argument for the natural existence of the polis sheds some light on the controversial question of whether Aristotle perceives “a higher natural being in the polis” or attributes to it “any kind of substantial character”44. Though Aristotle implies that the polis has a nature (phusis) of its own (Pol., I, 2, 1252b31–32), and though he conceives of the individual as a part in relation to a whole, he seems to presuppose that essentially the polis is not something else, or more, than its citizens. In line with this, in book III, Aristotle mentions a controversy on what the polis is, and declares that the polis consists of a certain number of citizens that is enough for a self-sufficient life (Pol., III, 1, 1274b38– 41, 1275b20–21). In book II, he emphasizes against Plato’s ideal of the greatest possible unity of the polis that the polis is in its nature (tên phusis) a multitude (Pol., II, 2, 1261a18; cf. Rep., V, 462a–b). In accordance with the nomos (law, custom) of his time, he only attributes citizenship to males, which also explains why the three communities which make up the family, or household, are all centered on the man. 3Aristotle claims that the realized polis is the end (telos) of the original forms of natural communities. This thesis is the core of his teleological argument for the natural existence of the polis, which presupposes his teleological understanding of nature. Aristotle’s thesis assumes that the polis already inheres in the more basic communities, as an end. Indeed, he declares that by nature (phusei) “there is an impulse or instinct (hormê) in all men” towards a polis (Pol., I, 2, 1253a29–30). In the terminology of his philosophy of nature, the polis inheres as a natural end in all men as a potentiality (dunamis). Just as a seed has the inner impulse to grow and become a tree, through individual men the polis as a whole attains an impulse towards its realization (energeia). Though the inner beginnings and internal causes of the development of the polis lie in individual men, human beings are fundamentally unequal for Aristotle45. Neither is the impulse or instinct (hormê) to found a polis equally strong in all men, nor do they all have the ability for legislation. Aristotle praises the first lawgiver and founder of a new polis as the cause of the greatest goods (Pol., I, 2, 1253a30–31)46. Through his natural instinct and through his political ability the polis comes to be by nature47. Just as a seed needs time to turn into a tree, Aristotle understands the realization of the polis, like Plato in the Nomoi, as a historical development from the family to the village to the polis. Aristotle’s genetic, and historical, account of the development of the polis supports, and illustrates, his teleological argument for the natural existence of the polis. According to its underlying teleological concept, Aristotle understands nature primarily as the form (eidos, morphê) of a thing (Physics, II, 1, 193b6–7). The form has the source or beginning of its motion in itself and thus is both an efficient cause and a final cause. As an inner disposition and end of human beings the polis has an inner drive towards its complete realization. The polis doesn’t have this drive as a separate form or essence (ousia), but through individual men. The perfect development of man is inextricably linked to the existence of the polis. Therefore, it is the human essence or form, the logos, which drives the development of the polis and moves it to its perfection48. When a thing has realized its final end or when it is fully developed, it has fully realized its potentiality or its nature. It has arrived at its natural state, which is not only its final but its best state. The polis is natural because through its self-sufficiency it satisfies all human needs and allows man to fully realize his natural potentiality, especially his logos, in a perfect life49. Therefore, the polis and its self-sufficiency is the natural end of the original communities, which realizes itself in a historical process.

And they delete.my posts for spamming

That's fine. Don't let me waste the time you could be using to get offended by little anime girls and striking down anyone who mentions them.

I think most people would be against me arbitrarily intervening and forcing a truce upon players. I'm sure I'd screw up a number of war plans and whatnot, and likely cause more harm than good.

hahahha ur just mad about my previous comments obviously thats nazism. pffft. ur just dumb. And tho think of calling a police officer a nazi u are the most uneducated person in the world, not to mention talking about someone in my family that received a promotion. ur F@^$ed up man. only goons members do dumb stuff like this XD

There would be no need for such a secrecy and/or piecemeal release, if the terms were reasonable. /Thread.

You liked Titanic for the first half? When you play Final Fantasy VIII you like to challenge the Ultima Weapon at level 10 with only Selphie alive? When you think about sex you think about ballbusting? When you self insert in the Lord of the Rings you are that orc who blows up the walls of Helm's ditch? You liked Gantz after the Rome mission? You like trap music? You love the sound of a vuvuzela? Your favorite videogame is Smackdown here comes the pain and you use Stevie Richards? Are you polish? No need to answer because you joined P&W today after refreshing for 6 hours so we already know you are a pure masochist So join TKR the alliance that will make you suffer the most

A lot of downvotes for you and a lot of upvotes for Eva-Beatrice, I imagine. I am fully aware that there are two sides to the story. And Eva-Beatrice can be a little difficult at times from the limited amount of things I've seen. That being said though, it fits into the whole stick about how people are being treated on that side of the game. So I assume nobody here is surprised that a member of such a long time would just be discarded by her alliance over night apparently without even seeking out to her to have a discussion. gg Polaris

In regards to this post even existing where it does, this isnt soley a PnW issue if even an in game issue at all. This spread across 2 games, 2 sets of government that includes PnW Members of other AAs having decided your fate. Not just Polaris. Your work isnt and was never discounted or looked down on. What was was your blatant abuse of power within the server seen on more than one occasion. And you were removed from power before I joined PnW Govt again. You made a deal with our now retired Regent that if you were behaved for a month you would be restored. Within that month, you cried and begged for power and complained about what was going on in the server and didnt bother to state how you would change anything, just that you hated it. After our regent retired her last wish to us was that we grant you a second chance and we did with the rules of hey if you need anything just let Cobra know. You went as far as creating back doors on roles and changing bots so if you were ever stripped of power again you would still have power thinking we wouldnt notice. You then gave yourself the role of Emperor in BOTH games which is where everyone drew the line. When asked about it your answer was because of permissions it had that you needed to do one of your tasks which was accepted. The part that everyone took issue is was when you were asked why you didnt just wait for Cobra to give your role said power, your only response was "You're welcome by the way". As if you were entitled to us groveling for your help on opting in a damn channel dedicated to talking about wrestling.... It wasn't the fact that you were targeted or not appreciated for what you did. When you agreed to give power over to CN Emperor and Co. you knew you would have less power and have to act correctly and promptly. You did not do so. Instead you tried to do things how you wanted them despite talking to anyone for anything. So you were removed. This was not a soley Polaris PnW decision. As our other Govt for CN has members not even in PnW at all and in other PnW AAs as government. This post is ridiculous and should be removed. if Alex didnt remove downvotes. Id be interested in seeing this thread.

It's not against the rules to make references to "weed." Reminder, this is a No-Discussion Forum and multiple warning points have been issued.

I generally remain silent and allow internal matters to stay where they belong, internal, but I will make an exception here since Eva has demonstrated her constant need for attention. I do want to however before I get into specific details lay out that on many occasions she has been thanked for assistance with Discord and graphics, and this gratitude is no strings attached. Polaris is a community though that spans multiple games and has members across the globe. As such, there are basic rules of conduct that all members, including those in positions of authority, are expected to follow. The actions that she took against Terminator that were mentioned were not THE reason she originally had moderation permissions revoked, but it was A reason. We can debate that simple fact if you wish, but it will not change what has occurred. Phoenix made a deal with Eva when this punitive action was taken that if she could behave that after a period of a month she would be given permissions back. Following the passage of a month, these permissions were restored with the directive that she is to only worry about structure (channels/categories) and to leave the moderation of users to others. Within one hour of this taking place, she modified a role to add permissions to it. In the month that she had no permissions we moved to a system where moderation permissions were handled with roles specifically for said perms and not attached to other titles. In less than 24 hours after receiving moderation permissions she assigned herself the Emperor role multiple times. Not one attempt at asking for proper permissions was made. When questioned, nothing was seen as wrong in her eyes. These events were not one-off occurrences but a pattern of abuses of power and disregard for anyone other than herself. As such, it was decided unanimously by the government of each game that expulsion was necessary and proper to rid the community of the cancer.

Anime was a mistake.

I'm sorry that this happened to you.

Having an alliance about weed is not the same as smoking weed in Montana. Montana would not ban a website from merely hosting a reference to weed; it is beholden to the 1st Amendment.

Positive reactions are very noctorious especially with the new downvote removal. They may boost someone's ego and even make that player toxic thinking they're special because they have so many upvotes, but then get the cold reality that is this communtiy. I believe we should remove all positive reactions and maybe the system entirely. It just doesn't make sense to even have upvotes at this point, let's follow the foot steps of the CN forum and eradicate simplistic opinions for more thorough ones. We should have to type out our opinion and why we believe so without the lazy mindset. We are grown men (women dont play this, silly) so we should act like it. - MinesomeMC Man

Hello, This is just a heads up that I have disabled "downvotes" and negative reputation on the forum. It may take some time to reset all users with negative reputation to the new minimum (zero) so if you're reading this and that hasn't been completed yet, please bear with me for some time. It's been suggested many times that we revise / eliminate the reputation system, and I've finally decided to act. "Downvotes" are really just the laziest way to voice disagreement with someone, and contribute to the negativity and toxicity that is plaguing the game currently. If you disagree with someone's post, you'll be forced to type a response explaining why. Single word posts like "no," "this sucks," etc. are still spam and will still earn you warning points as they always have per the Forum Rules. Also, I've enabled the "Thanks" react to posts as well. Feel free to try it out on this post here

My interest in Polaris ended when their bank stopped giving easy loot.

Funny enough, your BS is why I left Polar.

Thanks for your personal history but we're not interested.

There are always two sides to a story.

And according to the state of Montana, weed is legal for medicinal use. Who's to say this alliance isn't full of people who smoke it legally and medicinally? Your report is a bit of a stretch, and I guarantee you're not actually offended by the alliance.

Still working on finding the exact cause of the issue.

Yeah I'm not a coalition B person. I'm just giving my opinion on how things look right now. NPO really needs to drop this "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. The rest of the world is watching, reading, and seeing what is happening. Not all of us are inherently opposed to NPO but upon viewing your actions once you achieved the upper hand... yikes.

After all that counting, you should try count how much TKR cares for your opinion.

John has a tendency to dip out of conversations whenever he sees a valid point. Easier to just run off and throw out a chippy line somewhere else. Amazing contribution to the conversation once again Milton. Thank you. I'd expected a slightly more substantiated response from BK gov in its first public outing in a while. Ah. Here we go! The last time seats at the table were requested through your official point of contact/negotiator/whatever he is today according yo y'alls ever shifting definitions was a week ago. The last time seats at the table were requested through the leaders of major alliances on your side was only a couple of days ago. BK literally got caught planning a grudge war. NPO literally entered offensively and could have sat out. "survival"

Making a poll because I think removing downvotes is ridiculous and I'm pretty confident a lot of others feel the same. Going to not make this a poll-only topic though because I want people to discuss it. Maybe I am wrong.

This account has been banned on October 8th, however I went ahead and changed his display name to Unicorns and Cotton Candy for a placement name for now.

What I'm struggling to understand, personally - and I don't speak for John in this, or anyone else for that matter - is that even granting full and unconditional benefit of the doubt, by which I mean taking your words entirely at face value... did you honestly think the 'public approach' was going to help peace happen faster? Honestly? Like, okay, even if I accept the premise that 'Coalition A wants peace, but Coalition B is deliberately stalling peace talks in an attempt to roll some Coalition A members so hard that they either disband or quit playing,' which honestly under normal circumstances I would struggle with but we're playing the 'for sake of argument' game here, even if I accept that premise I struggle to understand how the conclusion that public accusations, leaks, and otherwise making a spectacle of the process on these forums in any way brings peace closer - which, recall, is at least in theory the goal of Coalition A. The whole thrust of my admittedly realpolitik-tinged discussions of peace and diplomacy and war and the like throughout this thread can be likened, essentially, to a street fight. One person, Coalition B in this example, is winning the fight and has the other person, Coalition A, knocked down and is roundly kicking him about the midsection, probably hoping for a kidney shot, right? So if Coalition A wants the fight to stop - if they want to stop being kicked - does calling the guy doing the kicking names make that more likely to happen, or less? I just... don't get it. This is the part I can't wrap my head around. Every representative of Coalition A I've read a forum message from repeats, again and again, that they want peace. But these actions don't make peace any easier to achieve. They don't make it more likely that Coalition B is going to offer better terms, or negotiate in a manner more to Coalition A's liking. All they do is make it more likely that Coalition B members are gonna say something roughly analogous to "hey screw you, pal, don't you call us liars" and resume the bombing campaigns. It poisons the well, to mix a metaphor. Now, if the announcements and leaks were instead saying "Coalition A has determined that peace is unobtainable at this time so we're burning all our diplomatic bridges in an attempt to point out to the rest of Orbis how vile and wicked we think Coalition B is, and we hope those entities not involved in the war might decide to weigh in," then sure, I could see that. That'd be a perfectly valid and reasonable approach. It could even work. But saying "guys we really want peace" while taking actions that make peace harder to achieve - even if peace was really hard to achieve in the first place, even if Coalition B's leadership is being exactly as intransigent as you suggest - just... boggles my mind. If you really and truly want peace, find something Coalition B wants more than it wants to keep kicking you. But this? These past few weeks of forum activity? That isn't gonna fit the bill. Peace isn't something you demand. It's something you buy, and I don't think your present course of action is lowering the price. I think it's doing precisely the opposite.

Perhaps you're genuine? As a Co A line member (which includes t$) (and someone not in gov), I'd like the leaders/negotiators of Co B to consider the line members of Co B. Through the release of many Co B logs as well as posts such as yours on this very forum, there is a theme that some Co B players are not supportive of the agenda to bully Co A members into deleting. As a Co A member, I am worried about the welfare and wellbeing of Co B players who may feel disjointed from the narcissistic and immoral motivations of their leadership, and otherwise under threat of the very same bullying tactics to not stand up for yourselves. My plea today is for the leaders/negotiators of Co B, put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members. There has been a lot of posting recently about the allegation that Co A line members are willing to acquiesce to Co B terms but for our leaders, but I think that this is really just spin and displacing the responsibility of Co B to act in the best interest of their members. Please post below if you also agree that Co B should consider the welfare of their alliance members, and the overall health of the game by reviewing their approach to achieving peace.

With the removal of our sacred downvote, we must find a replacement. Clearly the obvious choice is "Thanks". From this day forward if you want to downvote something, merely give it a "Thanks".

You beautiful little ball of sass.

Maybe Alex should remove all military and war systems from 20th December to 27th December. Game can also be renamed to Politics And Temporarily No War.

You guys can't claim the "we're a coalition, there are a multitude of opinions" defense on your own actions and opinions and not extend the same, particularly when we are a more varied coalition, not being allied to one another, and there are publicly stated contrary opinions here on the OWF. Those are your words, not mine. I've acknowledged in multiple places that we certainly didn't help the situation but the decision to make this a grudge match/fight to the death was yours and is evidenced by your continued harping on two individuals as justification, the actual actions you've undertaken this war, and rhetoric from your own internals. False statement, but amusing nonetheless.

I would actually argue that's the player going into VM hiding the bank. Your argument was that the moment something is deposited it belongs to the alliance, you can make the same argument for players: that the moment it's withdrawn it's the players. I get your point that there is limited information you can read out of the game-state, but that doesn't make the solution that was applied any better. Alex could have asked EM to which alliance bank he would have liked his stuff to be sent, from the game alone it doesn't become clear whether that's the BK offshore, yakuza or Fark (his alliance at the time). Just picking the one that sent EM the stuff is a lazy solution, I don't think it asks too much to shoot someone a message if there is billions involved and I don't see this as being outside the scope of what moderation could look like.

Which snowflake complained about receiving downvotes?

Glad your word means nothing. See you soon.