Cincinnatus
-
Posts
1382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Cincinnatus
-
-
It's true, an agreement is only as good as the honor of the people making it. The same is true of any form of treaty, and it's been shown already that more than one MDoAP is worthless at the end of any given day. I imagine in the interests of intellectual consistency, it would follow that you are against all forms of treaties?
I would say that treaties only formally recognise the level of trust placed between two alliances. If the trust goes then the treaty itself is worthless. The fundamental foundation of a treaty isn't the actual treaty itself but the trust which exists between the alliances signing it.
Probably why I don't have an issue signing an NAP with NPO or anyone else, if we uphold our end and NPO upholds their end then there is nothing to worry about. If someone decides to act against the spirit of the treaty itself then the treaty itself is void.
-
Not sure what you expected. Denying reality to suit your current argument doesn't get us much. Particularly considering this is the tS that swore seven ways from sunday only a few months ago that NAP's weren't worth anything.
I am actually concerned that anyone could possibly think a NAP offers any protection at all to be honest. The key concept of an NAP is trust in the other party or parties to the agreement to uphold the specific clauses.If the trust goes then the NAP itself is void.
-
1
-
-
The NAP lasted 13 minutes roughly.
-
Reason = Explaination
Incentive = Motivation/Encouragement.
The second half of your sentence is exactly what I am saying - there is no INCENTIVE because neither side sees a net benefit. There are lots of "reasons" like being bored though
Kind of amusing to see a post making reference to specific definitions whilst also possessing a notable spelling mistake in the first line.
-
Edit: double post
crappy australian net
-
Sam Hyde belongs in NPO with the amount of times he makes reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).
-
2
-
-
The best thing about the whole Roz Wei-NPO situation is that NPO really tried to talk down to us like we were lesser than they were. They also thought we'd pay them $90m. I wonder if they do this to others.
Logs please
This is hilarious, whatever happened to this principled stance against reps?
-
RIP NPO non existant whale tier
Judging by the economic principles espoused by NPO in this topic including 100% taxes and having members "pay" for cities they have already paid for via their own taxes before being able to leave the alliance, I think the reason for NPO's non-existent upper tier are readily evident.
This is why commies can't have nice things.
-
The number of people trying to convince NPO that paying reps is more efficient than fighting it out really says something. I mean, if you are convinced that the enemy is digging their own hole, why would you help them out of it? Let them burn. Unless of course, their defiance is starting to make you feel uncomfortable. Which is some sort of moral victory for them.
Oh, well. I'm from Rose. Now back to rebuilding and preparing for our next unsuccessful blitz.
I think it is more so that we realise NPO is the only alliance in that sphere capable of presenting a future challenge and we are doing everything possible to make sure the next war is more of a challenge than this war.
-
1
-
-
The one lottery where everybody wins.
Except Kastor
-
Convince Roz Wei to kick him and you can form a line to kick his ass. It's a long one.
Fraggle should turn it into a lottery, whoever wins gets a chance to roll him.
-
I'm legimately getting sick of your shit.
Please cease protection of just him.
Please
-
Syndicate should change their forum pip gif to raining salt instead of money.
This. 100% this.
-
I wonder if you're posting memes because you have no real counterargument. And your meme doesn't even make any logical sense.
Anyways I have better things to do.
I predict well have 50 pages of cringe for everyone to see.
Probably signifies how much effort I want to put into rebutting your gibberish.
-
1
-
-
There it is, the memorised one-liner text post lol.
Anyways we will not hand over money because we know if we did, then we would be crippled at the next war. No wonder you guys want to get back at us because of losing at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).
Too bad so sad
-
3
-
-
Just admit it. Deep down you're truly salty for losing in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and are looking at every chance to get back at us even during peacetime.
The bridge called, it needs its troll back.
-
Nothing is hopeless. It'd merely be foolish for us to adopt conventional strategies to a situation in which conventional strategies aren't useful.
I can assure you, NPO's current situation is very conventional as is the optimal solution.
-
Lol. We did. A mutually acceptable solution wasn't reached. Where do you think this 800mil number came from?
I believe it would come from 10 days of taxes.
-
-
He's not half as wrong as you seem to think, though.
Per the Alliance Power Rankings, on the day that Proxy began, t$ had 53 members, and Rose had 94 members. Average scores were roughly comparable at the time, and Rose had around a 30% advantage in nation count. That seems to support his stance way more than yours.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled dumpster fire.
Forgot about that topic
-
Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.
Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.
Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.
Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.
Against rose I think we (tS) at the time had 40 or 50 members, I think it was a high 40 (48 is coming to mind for some reason).
After the TEL merger we only had I think a membership in the mid 30s. Both tS and TEL before the merger had membership accounts around 20 and not all of the TEL members merged into us.
-
What if the one defeat was Alpha's multiple month suicide fest against tS? Would you fault members who left Alpha after that?
Also thanks for the praise to TEst. Solid leadership can only take us so far. We've got some kick ass members.
To be honest, I found fault with the Alpha members who remained in Alpha during that entire war. Literally defied belief that any reasonable person would allow themselves to remain in an alliance being led by a leader who made the decisions steve and his fellow leaders made both before and during that war. Loyalty is a two way street in my opinion, if the leadership isn't rewarding the loyalty of the membership by taking reasonable decisions for the betterment of the membership itself then members sticking around out of blind loyalty is really achieving nothing else but the enabling of poor leaders to continue making poor decisions.
I certainly wouldn't have deemed any Alpha members who left during the war as deserters and so on, I would have just regarded them as people making the correct decision in looking after their best interests because their own leaders clearly weren't performing that duty which is their sole duty.
-
This is like the dumbest argument you could make. UPN did a lot of purging fairly recently and it just meant a reduced member count. There wasn't some improvement in overall activity. Just kicking people doesn't change anything and it's very wrong minded. There was a reason for it and it was probably beneficial in terms of avoiding bank raids and such, but it didn't make them elite or anything.
It's time to stop acting like you have some formula going that others could just simply implement with ease. In your alliance's case you basically ported the most active people from several (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances(inb4 no connection to MI6/Sparta) and actives from Tournament Edition and other places. TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.
Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy.
Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that. Simply losing isn't a criteria of judgement for anything. It's a really weird attitude you have here where winning is the only thing that matters. Like I said, it's bizarre seeing this perspective from you, but power or rather the notion of having it can get to people. I mean, no one forced Tenages to step down for having his backstab leaked which ended up resulting in a total loss and he was a celebrated leader of your sphere for a very long time.
With your other post, it's just so funny since it seems like you're somehow so upset that not everyone is just subscribing to the '"WINNING IS EVERYTHING. SUCK UP TO TS TO AVOID LOSING" mantra you're preaching here.
I would love to see a post from you which doesn't make a reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways),
Anyway, moving on because I don't feel like wasting my time discussing a game which has no bearing whatsoever within this war.
TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.I personally believe TEst is as potent a force now as it was before the sparta merger. Then again, I thought TEst was pretty fearsome before Pref even joined it and when Phiney was the original nation killer on Orbis. I would say TEst's influence now is directly attributable to the work Pref and others have put into it and not just the result of random chance. Or do you really think having Sparta, an alliance which had considerable stats in its own right, merging into another alliance is just a piece of random luck? TEst's influence is a direct result of their membership requirements, policies and particular style of leadership, it isn't some miracle of sheer luck but a result of the effort put into the alliance and the reasoning used in deciding the alliance's direction.
Responsible leadership achieves superior results. poor leadership achieves poor results.
Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy.
I actually somewhat agree, members who leave after one defeat aren't generally the sort of members you want. This is different however from members who leave after repeated defeats which can be attributed directly to the mistakes of their leaders time and time again. If the leadership won't take steps to rectify these mistakes or step down in favour of new leaders who will provide better outcomes for the membership then voting with their feet is the only real and reasonable option for a member to take. The sole purpose of an alliance's leadership is to look after the best interests of the members, if the leadership cannot provide this then why should a member stick around only to keep getting rolled repeatedly just because one or two of their leaders refuse to take an alternative course of action?
Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that.I will let Partisan elaborate on the drama which occurred after he trusted Cynic with certain intel last year. If I remember correctly Partisan himself was ready to step down and left it to the membership to decide his fate. We stuck with him after Impero annoyed a few of us by demanding we replace him and made it pretty clear to Partisan he had to fix his mess or his head would roll.
Not recommending anyone start sucking up to tS, far from it. What I am recommending however is to not keep repeating the same mistakes and then crying rivers of tears when you keep getting the same result over and over again.
Quit this constant whinging and blaming everyone else and get to work on improving your own sphere, I strongly doubt anyone is buying this faux outrage you are conveniently flooding the forums with, it's unbecoming of a Pacifican leader and l won't bother writing much more on it but instead I will just paste what Aza posted previously on the matter.
I'd talk about it further but it's a waste of time because I don't believe any of the complaining about it to be sincere, it's just a form of stonewalling because you don't want to take the economic hit of paying reps. I can't blame you for not wanting to pay reps, I personally don't like reps, and I could respect rejecting them on the principle that reps shouldn't be a thing in this world. But the insincere whining is unbecoming and makes me not at all sympathetic. -
I just read 19 pages of this crap and all I got from it is that commies gonna commie and Roquentin's tears could end California's drought.
-
4
-
Dear BK and NPO
in Orbis Central
Posted
The believably of my or anyone else's word is really based on the specific people who either believe it or not with reference to past events and so on.
Example, If Frawley agreed to a NAP, I would trust him to stick to the spirit of the treaty completely. If say Roq agreed to an NAP, I would trust him to publicly uphold the spirit of the treaty and in private begin plotting for the next war attempting to deliberately take advantage of the delusion of protection offered by an NAP thus making the NAP agreement itself entirely void.
End of the day, not everyone is going to agree with everyone else in regards to whether one person should be believed or not. We all have different opinions and competing interests at the end of the day and a person I regard as being honest and forthright may be called a sneaky scheming liar by someone else. That isn't something extraordinary but just reality at the end of the day.