Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/14/21 in all areas

  1. The Sparrow migrates by night, setting its compass to the Earth's magnetic pole and listening to the calls of its friends and compatriots to guide it home. The North Western South Region of the Far East and The Greater Unitary Republic have kept up a longstanding and friendly relationship over the course of many months. Though we've found ourselves on opposing sides more than once, we at TGUR have always found them to be professional, courteous, and friendly people. Today, I'm proud to announce that TGUR and Compass have, over the course of much discussion, come to an agreement to make our friendship official in the form of an MDoAP treaty. Here's to a coming and prosperous age! -Thompson798, Chief of Staff, The Greater Unitary Republic The Sparrow Accord Tristen [Discord13 (fooper)] Big Boss The North Western South Region of the Far East Pegleg of Velorum President Greater Unitary Republic Section I: Treaty Type The Treaty between TGUR and NWSRotFE shall be a standard Mutual Defense/Optional Aggression pact with stipulations for military action and encouragement for profitable trade. Section II: Terms Subsection A: Standard Terms 72 Hour Withdrawal Notice: If either Party wishes to terminate the Treaty, they must provide a written notice 72 hours in advance. Minimum Obligation Period: Both Parties must uphold the Treaty for no less than thirty (30) days before withdrawal can be invoked. If either party cuts ties with the current bloc, Oasis, the treaty shall be deemed an ODoAP and may be canceled by the other party without notice. Subsection B: Military Defense Clause Should either party be attacked by a force too great for them to handle alone (decided upon by analysis from both their War Department and Leader), they may call for the aid of the other party. That other party is obligated to come to the defense of the former, in the form of counters against the attacking force, economic aid in the form of granted money or resources for military buildup and infrastructure repair, and/or aid in diplomatic negotiations. Should Party A be the aggressor in a fight which they cannot win, unless Party B agreed to be a part of the conflict beforehand, Party B is not under obligation to come to their aid. An aggressor is not necessarily defined as the first person to pull the trigger, but rather the antagonist. Subsection 😄 Prosperous Trade Encouragement Both parties will work towards the betterment of each other through the prosperous and profitable exchange of resources and information. The exact form of this relationship may be worked out by the Trade/Treasury departments of both parties at any time, and does not require an amendment of this treaty. Subsection 😧 Amendment Clause Should either party come to the conclusion that a change or amendment is required, they may approach the other party with the proposed change. A 72-hour review period will take place to determine whether a change is required. Both parties must agree without coercion on any change which is to take place. Once any part of the treaty is amended, it is to stand for at least 7 days before any part is to be amended again. Section III: Penalties Should any section of the Treaty be broken by either Party, the offending Party willingly forfeits their right to Protection and willingly engages in an act that could provoke retaliatory action. Section IV: History and Sponsorship Drafted by Chief of Staff Thompson798 on January 10, 2021. Signed by Big Boss of Compass Tristen on January 13th, 2021 Signed by President of The Greater Unitary Republic Pegleg on January 14th, 2021
    9 points
  2. Congrats on your treaty! And I like that you found your way to having a good relationship and being allies despite having been opponents multiple times. Wishing you guys the best
    4 points
  3. "rigged" "cherry-picking" "lip service" "biased" "abuse" "shafted" There's valid criticism, which I have acknowledged you do include in your posts and have considered and reflected on in my posts, all which you've so casually dismissed as being nothing other than lip service. And then there's being deliberately rude and inflammatory because you're angry, which you seem to greatly enjoy doing in your posts with no acknowledgement or recognition of the sheer time and effort that goes into running any of this. And you wonder why I react the way I do? We did not have to spend two months of our lives planning and organizing these awards and I've had zero issue engaging with anyone else's criticisms besides your own. I initially engaged you to try and talk to you and get your perspective and have been consistently met with little more than derision. It's not narcissistic to want to be treated with basic respect. You might want to reflect on your posts and ask yourself what makes your posts so different than the others I've also been engaging with. I'll avoid responding to you further so as not to further derail what has been a very productive discussion, your posts included when you're not busy making jabs.
    3 points
  4. No, because that name sucks lol
    3 points
  5. As of yesterday (I forgot) Jan 7, 2021. I have played PoliticsandWar for my 6th year. (I joined cybernations on the same day because I was looking for a nation simulation game and joined several until landing on PoliticsandWar) 6 years ago i would of created my First Nation and joined the original Brotherhood of the Clouds. After playing for a bit I went inactive and eventually rerolled joining some random alliance I can’t remember the name of and then forming my first micro the Federal Union. After that I want inactive again until my reroll which is my current nation, with all the crazy stories and fun times. I would like to take this time to appreciate the friends, enemies, children in my basement, and people who’ve made my experience in PnW and interesting one. Thanks everyone.
    2 points
  6. Idk why so many people criticise two smaller alliances signing paper. If you find it irrelevant or that it irritates you, you don't have to read it Congrats on your treaty!
    2 points
  7. Well... It's kinda cheating to point out we cared about your war when our protectorate was one of the combatants in the war... Congrats to both TGUR and Compass on the new treaty!
    2 points
  8. What an exciting treaty! Two irrelevant alliances... signing an MDP they most likely won't even respect... I feel like I've seen this play out before... deja vu
    2 points
  9. Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=263802 Ruler Name: CHINA SALESMAN Nature of Violation: Inappropriate nation description. https://i.imgur.com/F5UdOzI.png Also, the in-game report system isn't working. When you click the submit report button it throws a something went wrong message.
    2 points
  10. Congrats on your anniversary @MinesomeMC. Its been one of hell of a ride, the times we crossed paths as allies/enemies or just having a good chat on Discord. Commiserations on 6 years of unsuccessfully lobbying for the inclusion of water. ;,p
    2 points
  11. I did fix this yesterday so it always rounds down.
    2 points
  12. Anyone not voting DtC for largest e-peen has clearly never met the guy. He even nominated himself for it, despite already having several nominations from others.
    2 points
  13. Only here for vote for Roq & Vein. Opus Dei, out.
    1 point
  14. Yes? Treaty web is something I check on.
    1 point
  15. Maestro when he sees people complaining about the organizers not taking their suggestions seriously... PS. Thanks to all the organizers for the hard work and time that goes into making these awards possible ❤️
    1 point
  16. I'm not sure what you mean by this? You will be able to see every single response, exactly as it was input into the form and the way everything was counted. They're not meant to be players. They are meant to be alliances. What oversight are you looking for, verification their responses weren't tampered with? No one from the awards has any reason to touch their responses, as the form automatically places their answers into the sheet. All the counting is done on a new sheet. The individuals themselves should be able to check if their responses were input correctly using their receipt from the form and checking if they match. What reason could you have for needing to know how TI or Grumpy or Rose or TKR votes specifically? You can see all their responses and be able to see how they were counted to be able to judge that. I see no reason other than curiosity for anyone other than the individual who input the responses needing to know who said what. Also, we should probably move this discussion elsewhere. This thread is for future awards, not answering questions about the current ones.
    1 point
  17. I think you posted this in the wrong forum section, but that's okay. First off, get on Discord so you can talk to people. Everyone in the community who is a somebody is on Discord. Second, ask around about private banks. There are a few I think. I don't know any so I can't help, but you should get some leads if you ask in the main P&W Discord server.
    1 point
  18. I’m the operator of Nation A. Yes, I believe I should get a strike for finding a loophole around the restrictions. I’m here to also tell you that, my brother, which in this case is Nation B, deleted his nation.
    1 point
  19. Not which alliance nominated what but all the nominations themselves and all the steps afterwards, yes. I have a full spreadsheet showing all the alliance nominations, the player nominations, the shortlisting responses, the counting, the final alliance rep votes, and the final voting results and it'll be published and viewable alongside the results. The only reason which alliance voted for what won't be shown is because we promised representatives anonymity. Ideally, they should be consulting with their alliances and some alliances are more sensitive than others about having their FA thoughts published so blatantly and also we also wanted to remove the possibility of external pressure from friends/allies ("why didn't you vote for me for this?", "why did you vote them for that?", etc) as much as possible.
    1 point
  20. Ch'you and Roberts make fantastic points for a few categories. If FA/MA/IA/EA are elbow dropped from awards, then okay, no problema. It is prone to extreme bias. If FA remains a category, maybe only FA leaders vote based on who they find diplomatic, responsive, and made 'good' moves for the year. Maybe don't allow votes within own bloc/spheres? I see how MA,IA,Econ could go away since no juan really knows the inner workings of other AAs. At best, maybe Econ could be shortlisted to 10 or so by using a metric like AA trade profit for the year. MA could be similar by using metrics like net damage /war profits to determine top 10 or so. I'm sure there are a few other metrics to use in those categories for a better picture. Not sure how to make IA work without that being polling of satisfaction from members of any given alliance. There will still be bias in final voting, obviously, but something like this kind of eliminates bias in nomination processes. Just some corn to chew on.
    1 point
  21. Aaaaaaaa yes yes yes yes yes yes pls pls pls pls pls pls gib gib gib yesthis It's always a pain since my calculator doesn't have a backlight, so I have to actually walk all the way over to the light switch to do the arithmetic 😕. This would make it so much easier to be lazy in my chair ^-^
    1 point
  22. 1 point
  23. How are we not just naming all wars Sphinx War X?
    1 point
  24. This can be taken in a few ways, and it's disturbing.
    1 point
  25. I protest! Where is my nomination of Global War 15?!?
    1 point
  26. I think the work put into the awards is overall really good - the process makes sense and would generally be deemed fair. It's really hard to get around the bias and popularity side of things. The alliances with more members will obviously vote for themselves where they can, and also purposely snub those they might be at odds with. I think that's also somewhat the challenge of one vote per top 50/60 AA - I think the representative will generally vote for those they are allied to, to support an ally versus who may actually be most deserving. Thus, a bloc with more alliances would more likely have the favorable outcome in the votes. Additionally, we do have vested interests in the outcome. If my rival is up for best alliance or best for new players, etc - that's propaganda to be used by them down the line if they win, so you might vote against them, even if they are most deserving. It's human nature and you can't really remove that aspect in how people vote, but I do think you'll continue to find the results of the representative vote lean more towards AAs/members in blocs with more ties, and the general public vote towards alliances with larger membership just due to voting for yourself/friends. I think many categories the popularity contest works just fine - like Best Member, Funniest player, best nation page, a lot of the forum stuff, etc - where people are perhaps less likely to vote in "party lines". But when it comes to the main alliance or player awards, knowing which AA is AA of the year or most powerful or who the best raiders are, etc - it seems that could potentially be more objective instead of subjective. In a perhaps ideal situation there would be a neutral panel that would review actual resumes or metrics (this person raided x amount of loot, this AA had this war performance, this AA's score raised/fell this much, etc) and come up with a less democratic selection process, taking out the biases of people voting party lines. That's a bit idealistic though, as true neutral observers in a game like this would be difficult. Perhaps a bit of rambling above, but I think the process of gathering nominations and voting to bring it to a manageable final vote works fairly well, but there are certainly a number of head-scratchers in the final options for a few of the categories as a result of bloc biases it would seem. Viewing it like the Oscars, as an example, many of these awards would be what you'd see announced and not aired on the broadcast, but the few major awards perhaps in the future there could be a little write-up as to some resumes as to why they were nominated and what might be considered (stats, opinions, etc) and have them be more prestigious to win (badge to add in-game from Alex, etc) - that's a ton more work though, so definitely would understand passing on that - but it is a brainstorm/thoughts for future thread
    1 point
  27. Best fighter includers players who may have lower cities, may have been tackled but did way more damage than they ought to have, milcom players who gave out good targets. If it was stats alone we already have auto awards for those players.
    1 point
  28. Best Flag Dual Suns Error 404 Rose The Legion The Lost Empire United Ummah
    1 point
  29. stop the circlejerk, jesus
    1 point
  30. I downvoted it because you're a hypocrite who should be a target of moderation...
    1 point
  31. Sure, fine, in your world, I guess someone who doesn't really care about the reasons for starting a war is the same as someone who's adamant about not getting into aggressive wars for no good reason.
    1 point
  32. No, I trust them because they don't go to war for spurious reasons. Boyce seems to go to war at the drop of the hat. When I asked someone in his gov why they went to war with Pantheon, the answer was that it was "Raidmas". You're too hard on yourself dtc justice.
    1 point
  33. No, it's public denials from Alliance heads vs. Boyce's word, based on who knows what. dtc, if I'm so irrelevant, why are you even responding? Corpsman, you can look away if you like. As to me, this is just something I have to do.
    1 point
  34. No, I looked at all the evidence I could find. And what I found was a -lot- of evidence that no one was going to attack Quack. Not from anonymous sources, from the heads of Alliances! Tyrion, Kaz, Ronny, the very people who run the Alliances who you claim were going to attack you. And what do you have on the other side? Boyce -.-
    1 point
  35. Not only are people reading my messages, they are -replying- to them. Not everyone feels that way on these things. And some replies are much longer than a sentence or 2. No. Its because you are a totally irrelevant person. You act as if I'm the only person involved here. This was a global war, affecting most of the active players in the game. Many may not care why the war started, but a good number do. Anyway, from your tone and the tone of others, I think I'll skip most of the rest of your reply, at least for the time being. I'll just respond to the last bit: Indeed it does. I've looked a long time for the evidence to bolster my case and bring it to be seen by the public, because I prize the truth above other considerations. I really don't think a lot of others here can say the same.
    1 point
  36. The likelihood of this happening in any given large conflict, Quack v. NPC or not, is incredibly small due to both sides of a conflict trying to show that their narrative is the absolutely correct or most correct narrative when placed in comparison against their opposition, both from an offensive and defensive position, through evidence and general spin. You may well be right. That actually bolsters my case though. Here's the way I see it- you have 4 sides here, Quack, tCW, HM and Swamp. Quack says tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack. HM says they considered it briefly, but that Swamp had suggested the idea first. Swamp, vis a vis TI and TFP, deny any knowledge of such a plan. tCW, via Sphinx, essentially says the same. So what we have now is kind of like a poker game of a very long duration. The thing is, the only side that has been ready to call from the start is Swamp. HM, and Quack seem to be fine with just upping the ante indefinitely, the ante being time and there being a lot of that. Now to be fair, Quack may not be able to get much more out of Boyce anyway even if they wanted to, especially if his evidence cards are terrible, which I strongly suspect they are. I suspect Ronny's HM leader source is in the same boat, mistaking Swamp's plans to do a defensive bloc as plans for an offensive one. I think anyone can believe that you believed that tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack, certainly before the war and quite possibly to this day. However, I think the takeaway from this is probably pretty straightforward- check with bloc FAs before going on rumour. Because attacking first doesn't guarantee you will win and in this case and also makes you out as the aggressor in the eyes of many. Finally, if what the non Quack forces are saying is true, there would have been no attack on Quack at all if Quack hadn't attacked first.
    1 point
  37. A crooked smile danced across Partisans face. Many had tried to break him. To the $yndicate mascot, past and present had become an undistinguishable mashup of callouts, wars and challenges. With each passing month it became harder for Partisan to keep apart the vivid memories of the men, women and, animals, children and furniture he had bested in fair and unfair contest. He blinked. Noise. "At last you lose. Your houseplant manipulation skills are no match for me!" Impero's emerald coat flashed before Partisan eyes as the unsavory odor of his hubris awoke a pleasant nostalgia. Impero prattled on as Partisan opened his third bottle of the night. Or was it his fourth? It did not matter. Supplies would last. The large chromium- laid door through which shiho had rushed -a hurricane of hastily barked orders- winked at parti. It was his captor;warding him from the ongoing carnage outside. How long had it been? Days? Months?- Partisan briefly entertained the thought of joining his fellow executives in sobriety, on the other side of this wretched dungeon. His gaze lingered on the door's golden screen: "Password:". Partisan had long forgotten how to log in. He probably knew the code, but his dazed mind had been too caught up in the figments its brilliance kept conjuring. Hansarius nodded solemnly as he brandished his sword. "You're a snake in the grass". It was amusing what impact his old friend's compliment years back had had on Partisan's pathway in this world. The acid burned Parti's throat. A tear welled up in Hans' eyes as his face contorted into Tyrion's wretched stature: "Your CB is invalid!". Tyrion. Or Hans-- whatever it was that Parti just saw- took to the ground and slithered under the door into the carnage. Partisan was alone with his beverages again. He chuckled at the hysterical familiarity of these wars. Vexz and Jarles entered through a backdoor Partisan had not noticed before. They did that every war. Vexz whispered something in Jarles' ear. The wailing woman never spoke directly. That honor was reserved only for Partisan's allies. Allies.... He realized it was time for the biweekly rounds. Partisan opened his ruby-laid macbook and kicked up the Quack-inc coalition channel. As he logged in he was greeted by the loud cheers of his allies and vassals. Partisan cleared his throat; the chatroom stood at attention: "Greetings. Good luck!" He turned his back to the laptop and took another gulp of his vodka.Tenages smiled at him from a distance. The ghost of his old adversary-turned friend kept him company these solitary days. Through the speakers, Partisan could hear ataraxia and dave going absolutely friggin nuts over the speech Parti had just given.Benfro had begun hurlling axes at everything that moved. Partisan's attention drifted back to Jarles, who had just gathered up the courage to speak. When he opened his mouth, parti was met with the joint voices of Ole and Victor: "We mean well", they had said in 2017. Or was it 16? What year was it now? Are we past present or future. Vexz looked upset. Partisan nodded. The rose delegation left the room, complaining to adrienne. Another sip. The password sprung to mind. He hobbled to the door: "Defiance". The door opened, revealing the $yndicate missile coordination center. Row after row of $yndicate member frantically mashing the nuke button as wave upon wav of soldier flooded against the sturdy $yndi bunkers. We'd been here before. We'd be here again.. The hamster shook its head from its treadmill: "The splits will not be organic, Partisan. There is a problematic old boys club locking down politics". "Shut the duck up roq", Partisan mumbled. Still carrying his bottle around, Partisan moved up to his throne and slammed the crystal button. A nuke with a smiling snake on it shot into the sky. Partisan took a whiff of fresh air and retreated back to his dungeon. New bottle. Room spinning. New guest. Same guest. Hegemon. Hegemon. Hegemon.
    1 point
  38. The problem with this suggestion is that a nation could end up permanently at war without wanting to be (repeated defensive wars) and never be able to leave an alliance. The game wouldn't be fun for you if you were forced to stay in any given alliance against your will, would it?
    1 point
  39. I'm very proud Mythic has gotten a sphere to change their ways and think about game mechanics. However, trying to change the mechanics in a way that will make safekeeping impossible, resulting in the oppressed side of a war to easily lose everything they have, is only good if you wanna kill the game.
    1 point
  40. Interesting idea. Except I've already thought up of 10 different ways to get around that.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.