Ashland

I already asked if I could run their economy. D'economy. Also, is Jodo President?

Only if we can opt out from having to remember you exist.

Confirmed.

Right, then.

Yeah, I knew about this a couple days ago, though I got it from a different source. And, like, even if I didn't... it's obvious, right? They're a raiding alliance. They're raiding your members. Therefore they are a raiding alliance and they're raiding your members. The preventative and curative solutions to the problems are straightforward and obvious. BoC is already implementing them. If you haven't figured them out on your own (which, like, how could you not?) I'm sure BoC would share them with her allies and I would be willing to share them on a consulting basis for what I believe is a very reasonable fee. /thread EDIT: Also, scumbag Grealind

I'm currently in the process of bringing other people aboard as Partners with Cirrus. I'm going to table this for now and come back to it with them. Thanks a lot for your interest! Noted! Thank you for your patronage.

Noted. I appreciate your continued patronage.

All offers are made on a final, take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Approved. How does 7.3% sound? tiggera: Noted.

Thank you <3

Noted.

I only crave sexual attention.

I feel like you wanted attention when you said this.

I'll take a stab at this. Yeah, mines don't need power, but you have to power EVERYTHING. So if you have 600 infrastructure you need two power plants. Windmills only power 250 infrastructure. Now, if your city is small you're often better off NOT powering it and just producing resources for that reason.

1: Okay, so with Placentica's suggested system that wouldn't work. Read the OP or don't comment. It's really just that simple. And if you implemented a system where that were possible, it require a different type of loan structure. I also think you don't understand interest and the time value of money. Which is going to make you talking about loans and lending in general pretty hilarious. 3: Just more room for players to be tricked and taken advantage of/multis to be funneled. 4: You are insane! First of all your logic is idiotic. "You have a vested interest so you're wrong." Not how logic works! You're just saying random words! It's like you're just slamming your hands against the keyboard and auto-correct is trying to make heads or tails of it. 5: Lmao. "Reason why this part of the game would be bad." "Well then don't use it." Wow. If you don't see the problem with that thinking, then I can't help you. I can only put the dots so close together for you. You have to actually pick up the pencil yourself.

1: Because it doesn't make what I've said more or less true. You evaluate arguments based on their evidence and logic. Not who is making them. 2: Fair enough. It was just the guy in charge of your alliance, then, and I got your voices mixed up. I'm sorry to have slung insults during an argument with Guardian; something that they would never do! 3: How will this not inherently disproportionately benefit larger, more developed nations with more cash on hand? Such as... Guardian. 4: Oh my God. So say I'm a new nation and I need money. I now have the choice between making a donation to get five million dollars or taking a loan for five million dollars. How the !@#$ is that a scare tactic?! That's just... logic! 5: Well then address my other points. The donation point is still just true! But so are the others. And I love the irony that you accuse me of scare tactics when you basically just threatened me in your post! Prefontaine just made such a huge point of yelling at me in the main chan for acting like Guardian bullies people. And then you say something like "However, I'd watch the swagger you're walking with."? Dear Lord! And yeah, I'll admit I'm emotional about this. Just two days ago Prefontaine more or less shook me down in the main channel, got me to promise I wanted to leave Guardian alone, he promised Guardian would leave me alone, and I wanted to stand by that. And then I log in to see a topic that's more or less, "Hey, let's all talk about ruining everything that Ashland built!" And Guardian makes up the !@#$ trumpet section! This is my baby. I'm going to get emotional about it. If I proposed a suggestion limiting your ability to do your PWtools or something that you loved you would get emotional too.

Because it would reduce the demand for donations. Given that there was a risk-free way of loaning money. That's... pretty intuitive. People are going to opt for things that are free/comparably free over things that are not free. Swing and a miss. And no, what I do doesn't do any of those things because it's not automated. Another hard miss. And having an interest doesn't make my points less valid. Be intellectually genuine, address what I've said, or you essentially admit that you know you can't refute what I've said and your position is untenable. Given that you love "efficiency" maybe you should just admit that this is all a crock of BS anyway given that that's clearly where this is headed. That's three strikes. And on the topic of efficiency, why is that necessarily better? Just having automated programs instead of players would be more efficient. Why don't we do that? Why don't we just replace all player functionalities with code? So many strikes. If we're arguing by bowling rules you're doing great! Can we really say that Kappa Kappa Guardian's motives are pure in this matter, Malone? After you and Guardian's leader have repeatedly said that my bank is a disaster and more or less called for its destruction? Who's to say this isn't a see-through attempt to bring that about? The Guardian members are certainly out in force to defend it! It's quite a coincidence. Prima Facie it appears to be an attempt to meta-game by lobbying for changes to impact the politics of the game in a favorable way.

Lol. "We need a system that rewards the lazy and unskilled." How do you even exist? Placentica, you said these things: "1. And if someone has a 2000% interest loan and you take it, then jokes on you. 99.9% of players don't fall for those $1 resource scams. Lets not ruin a good suggestion based on .1% of players stupidity. You'd still have to be able to repay the loan based on your current net income, so that would limit say a 5000 infra nation from getting a $20m loan or something." So this point and this point: "4. You know what. Nothing will change the multi-issue. A loan system wouldn't even matter. If someone wants to do a multi-ring, they can funnel money right now. If you see some guy who just got 100M and 5-10 nations who took out huge loans (and how could they even pay that back), don't you think that would be a huge warning flag to everyone?" are contradictory. You can't say on the one side of the philosophical fence that players can be tricked into taking outrageous loans and that's fine and then on the other side of the fence that we'd be able to enforce multi abuse (which has huge potential) by looking for such unfair loans. Who's to say that someone tricked into taking an unfair loan isn't a multi? Or that a multi wasn't just someone tricked into taking an unfair loan? It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're wrong on: You have to be wrong on one side. They are inherently contradictory. Your inability to avoid this contradiction is a perfect demonstration of the inherent flaws with this suggestion that simply cannot be avoided. "3. If you were in a war where your infra was destroyed, then you'd just set a cap like 50% of your total net income until the loan is repaid. The math side is quite simple, just a few formulas and guidelines. If Sheepy can make a really awesome resource market, he can add one more "resource" like a loan drop down menu. Instead of steel it's loans." More things we get to add, more things that can go wrong, more things that can be used to trick the unsuspecting player with a bunch of gobbledigook. "If I'm honest having a loan ingame would provide boost your business as people would be more aware of it and how cool it is to loan/offer loans, but want the flexiblity you prob. offer." Oh, come on. You know that's ridiculous. Even so, it doesn't matter. I could still definitely recognize that this suggestion is bad for the game as a whole. Sheepy gets less money to develop with, more players get scammed, it makes cheating pay, it makes people use the forum and interact less. It's just a really bad idea. Like... all around.

Yeah we might be able to swing something like that.

Nah. 1% each day for four days is less than 4.75% in four days.

Of course there's a golden opportunity. Jesus.

Do you wanna just... come work for me instead of making new things over and over again? I admire the stick-to-itivity.

I'll take it.

I... That's not fair, he said what I said but more badass. Moooooom!