Leaderboard

Vacation mode is not a valid tactic...

Account settings, in the game, not the forums. ×

I just joined. I have a major problem. There is a confetti effect on my P&W screen that makes it incredibly hard to see the upper portions of the screen. Please if anyone knows how to get rid of this let me know.

Inconceivable! Looking forward to working with you all!

GREETINGS FROM DUVASTAN! Hello, would just like to introduce myself, I am President Josiah Edward Bartlet from the nation of Duvastan, I've been here a whopping 3 days & am enjoying learning how it all works. I have a love for all things politics, diplomacy & war & had been looking for something like this for a long time. Anyway, I don't have much else to add at the moment as I'm still learning & getting settled in with SIN. I look forward to meeting you all, both off & ON the battlefield, although I think we'd all prefer to settle things from the office yes? 😆 The link above will take you to our great nation's page & below you can access our factbook (keep in mind its still very much in development), bonus points to whoever can name my fav. area in the real world by reading the information contained within it. Thank you for taking the time to read this & possibly introduce yourself. Duvastan Factbook - President Josiah Edward Bartlet - Vice President Robert Russell

The context for this suggestion is covered well in: Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable. Obviously, alliances are at the core of gameplay, and the goal here is not to stop that. But, the thinking goes, that making solo (or small group) play more viable will make the game more fun for more people, encourage greater fragmentation of alliances, improve player retention, and overall make the game more fun. So, my proposal here is dynamic war slots based on how many offensive wars that you declare. My proposed formula for the number of defensive war slots available for any given nation is: Defensive War Slots = max(Offensive War Slots Used - 2, 0) + 2 What this means is that, at a minimum, you would always have 2 war slots available. This means any two nations could still attack you at any time, which is a decrease from the current 3. This would make immediate dog-piling / winning the blitz less viable, while still making it advantageous for attackers to strike first and gain a war slot advantage. This also means that by declaring only one or two wars, you are not making yourself more vulnerable than before. If you declare 1 or 2 wars, you still only have 2 defensive war slots open yourself. As you declare additional wars, the number of defensive war slots that open up for you increases. If you have 3 offensive wars ongoing, you would have 3 defensive war slots open, making you more vulnerable to counters, and so on. Here's a table of how it would work: I know this wouldn't be the biggest change in the world, but it would reduce the number of new players, unaligned nations, and nations in micro-alliances that get raided to death and give them more of a chance to fight back. It would also obviously impact alliance war dynamics, but I am sure everyone could adjust the new meta (even if you don't really want to )

Give me 18 simultaneous wars!! Yesss!!

So I just got a bulletin taken down for homophobia and transphobia, but as always, there was no explanation behind why. The bulletin I wrote was called “My views on LGBTQ ideology.” In that bulletin, I did not demonstrate any kind of hate or prejudice, but rather expressed my opinion as a conservative Christian. However, you moderators found this intolerable and decided to take it down and give my moderation points. I am requesting an explanation as to the rationale behind this decision.

So me believing that something is wrong with someone means that I have prejudice against them?

I know this is a no-discussion forum but I want a clarification of this rule. Am I to believe that showing a dislike for a certain group of people, even if it is personal and in no way being enforced by me on others, a violation of rules. For example, if I say I am not very comfortable around group X or that I do not support group Y, would that be consider as rule-breaking? I truly believe some of the rules are very vaguely defined and the moderators use their own discretion and bias when deciding cases. At times, this leads to people inadvertently breaking rules and getting banned when the rule was never defined in the first place. The greater reason a more codified rule system is needed is because people come from different walks of life and regions with different belief systems. While I am not against moral policing enforced by the liberal west, at least I would like to know the rules I shouldn't break before being banned because my regions' traditions didn't match the western values.

Your appeal is denied.

Moderation in PNW is notoriously biased, I have experienced it plenty first hand. I didn't see your bulletin but I honestly have to believe you just based on my own experiences. If you want a worse set of mods, watch out for the forum mods. They're about 10x more biased and crazed than game mods.

Appeal Denied

You repeatedly made multiple nations over a long, long period of time. Your appeal is denied.

I feel bad about posting this one, because I think this guy's heart is in the right place, which is more than I currently feel about my own state government. And I was the one who told him he needed more people if he was going to recruit for his one-man alliance. I meant REAL people, but oh well... His new alliance is going to be named after a guy from REO Speedwagon. (Gary Dean Richrath (October 18, 1949 – September 13, 2015)[1] was an American guitarist, best known as the lead guitarist and a songwriter for the band REO Speedwagon from 1970 until 1989.) Cronin is a guy from REO Speedwagon. Alan Jackson famously does cover songs of... you guessed it.. REO Speedwagon. I could be wrong here. But anyone willing to join 43 alliances in one day is not someone who thinks the rules apply to him.

Appeal denied.

Yes, it most certainly does. It demonstrates that you believe there is something wrong with gay and trans people, or that it's something that needs to be cured, therefore clearly showing prejudice against them.

I can't get quotes from the bulletin since it seems to have been removed. However, I do clearly recall that the points you brought up were blatantly anti-LGBTQ+, claiming it was a mental illness and similarly clear homophobic/transphobic arguments.

Having read the bulletin in question, I can confirm that it was an out-of-character post that certainly showed prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community.

Well, you are correct that it is all context dependent. But you're playing an online game an if you're expressing hateful ideologies towards others, then yeah that's generally going to be against the rules. There's no reason for it here - you don't have to see or know about what anyone else is like IRL anyway, it's a nation simulation game.

Here is the rule: https://politicsandwar.com/rules/ I would say that your post qualifies at a minimum of "showing a dislike of homosexual people" which is not allowed.

I didn't issue the warning, and the warning should have had more specific detail. However, I believe that your bulletin could have and probably did make some LGTBQ+ players (IRL) uncomfortable, and there's really no reason that you needed to write that. It was more of a personal opinion than nation roleplay. This is an online game where you don't have to see or know what anyone's real-life is like, and so your bulletin which was potentially harmful and had no real relation to the game was taken down.

That is so offensive. I was not joking. You should be banned instead of me 😕

These Forum Warns are clear bias and have no place to be here a single word that contributes to a topic and the obvious arrow pointing up shows that fact im verbally supporting another support in a personal matter that does in fact contribute to the overall topic