Solomon Ben-David

Why are you declaring war? Oceania is at war with Eastasia; it has always been at war with Eastasia

Frankly, I would participate in this, but I feel a little sheepy. What the heck, I might as well with a lively Aurora. Hopefully this Eclipses the other puns, the Advanced Mechanics of my Ideas might just edge out the rest.

After this post was made, it seems that the first is somehow not showing up anymore.

Hi again- I have been hard at work finding multis, and it seems I have found another. PnW check: Nation links: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271238 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=277879 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=277892 Thank you, have a nice rest of your day

This one's a big one, looks like they've been banned for multis before. Photo of the multi checkers below. multi link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=271682 Nation Links: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271612, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271682, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271488 (already banned), https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271303 (already banned), https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271474 (already banned), https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=271475 (already banned)

I'm aware, these were members (Plus, the war logs would say "Rose Applicant" instead of Rose)

What was I trying to do?==>Ensure stated alliance seniority and actual seniority matched, they didn't What happened? ==> Alliance seniority does not line up, this is a recurring issue looks like. I have three case studies, I'll post screenshots at the bottom. Any other relevant information==>See the case studies/screenshots below Links/Screenshots==> To affirm this, I used the wars for seniority, which will show what alliance the attacker/defender is in at the start of the war. Luckily, these don't line up with seniority. The following case studies (Thanks to both of these fantastic people for bringing this to my attention, you guys are awesome): 1. Zadia (LilKhi2x) Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=268539 War screen: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=268539&display=war LilKhi2x's alliance seniority reads 4 days, meaning that they have been in the alliance since February 7th. However, when you look at the bottom of the war screen, you see the following: This is as far down as the war screen goes, but it shows that they have been in Rose since at least February 3rd 2. The New Republic of China (A_Shanghaiese) Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=267177 War screen: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=267177&display=war The same goes here, but I'm not going to post screenshots, as that would make this post excessively long. However, A_Shanghaiese's seniority is 6 days (February 5th), but their oldest war was on January 29th, and it says they were a part of Rose then. 3. Tzion (Solomon Ben-David aka yours truly) Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=210945 My nation has been in Rose since May 11th, when I created it. It says my nation is 275 days old on the nation page; however, my alliance seniority reads 231 days, 44 days off. It would be much appreciated if this bug could be fixed. Thanks!

Hi- So we encountered an applicant earlier (https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=269965, unique id check: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=269965) that told us that they and their brother both played when we asked them why they shared the same network with https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=250070. We decided to take their word at it, and asked them to verify, citing that they are between 13 and 18 and they'd rather not send a picture of themselves because they're "not comfortable sending pictures of me to a dude on the internet" (their words). Their application was up to standard, so we let them in. However, they left the server and deleted their nation about an hour and a half after joining the alliance. We are unsure of their other discord account, but the account they joined us with was Arbaitska#3490. Below is the screenshot of the multi report: I think that's everything, but I might be able to answer more questions if you have them (that's to sheepy). Logistics#2110 Appreciate it

First off, you don't need 6 coal power plants. One can power up to 500 infrastructure, so you need two of them. Next, you might want to buy a bit of coal on the market to jump-start you. This, along with decreasing the amount of coal mines you have (because they need coal to work), should get you set up nicely. You can also check if you're losing coal (which I'm assuming is the most likely case) on the Revenue tab (between Projects and Military in the sidebar)

Note: DMed and sorted, apologies for the false alarm.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=267561 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=267177 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=267561 Seems like a possible multi, might want to check it out. Appreciate it.

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=250929 (also https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=250727, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=250831, and https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=262030 due to the nature of the voilation) Leader name: New personbyebye Nature of the violation: Multi, has these four accounts linked to the ID 250929, as evidenced by the multi checker, which a screenshot of is attached. You can go to the link to see it as well: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=250929 Cheers, have a nice day.

Now this...this is what the people want. Best idea I've seen yet

Hi- Earlier today, I was having a heated discussion with someone about what counts as "using moderation as a weapon". The rule is quoted below. "Using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is against the rules and punishable by a nation strike. An example of using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is threatening to report another player to an Administrator or Moderator unless they comply with your request or demands. If someone is in violation of the Game Rules, you are obligated as a player to notify a Game Administrator (through in-game Messaging.)" I was arguing that this was open to interpretation. For instance, if a player reported a bunch of people based off of an unclear rule, this would run the risk of moderation action. It could be a misuse of reporting, as if the rule proved to be different than what the player thought and they reported a bunch of people falsely, they would get a moderation strike. The player's point was as follows: "i know how to interpret it because alex has elaborated on it previously. in fact reading the rule in-game it makes that clear by giving you an example of blackmail." What is the scope of this rule? Is it just for blackmail or is for a wider range of moderation misuse?

Hello there! DUN d-d-dun dun dun DUN d-d-dun dun dun DUUUUUUUUUUUUN I'm coming from you loud and clear through my semi-deteriorating mental state with some (possibly half-baked) ideas! (Please tear them down if you wish, nothing matters anymore!) Right, the ideas. Alright, so these ideas come in the form of projects! 1. Colonialism It has certainly been mentioned/asked about/shot down before, but I think it'd be a really interesting idea. We just need to balance it right. Here's a few ideas: Pros (Why would you get the Colonialism Project?) Would allow for someone to obtain a larger variety of resources. Would be super neat to show off/add to a country's lore (if they wish to have a detailed lore-yes I do have one and it's excessive but don't judge, I just have too much free time) Would allow for more interesting projects (I'll be throwing these down below) You can choose where new cities go (old cities would be in the same continent). This would be available as a dropdown menu in the "create new city" page. That's pretty much it! Cons (Why would this project not be super OP?) This project obviously targets whales, so the cost would be relatively high. Currently, I'm thinking it to be comparable to Space Program. Here's my thought (Feel free to argue these values; they're estimates): $50,000,000; 2,500 Uranium; 10,000 Oil; 2,000 Iron, 2,000 Bauxite; 10,000 Gasoline; 20,000 Steel; 15,000 Aluminum; and 50,000 Food. These are based off of the values seen in Space Project and lightly comparing it to needs of colonialism. You would be able to establish cities in that continent (it would/should show the continent in the city info page), but the cities would only be able to produce the resources in the continent they're in. (So, if a city's in North America, it would only be able to produce coal, iron, and uranium. If it's in Europe, it would only be able to produce coal, iron, and lead. So on and so forth.) You can only have cities in two continents. This project requires CCE, UP, and ITC to build. If you have any suggestions regarding this balance, feel free to add in! 2. Mars/Moon Base (This would be two separate projects with similar outcomes) This is something that I started playing around with after I started fleshing out the above project. This idea comes from the fact that the game date is supposedly 2058, so we should have something like this (or maybe because we're currently in the middle of our 16th global, none of us should exist). Requirements: This requires Colonialism, Space Program, Telecommunications Satellite, and Moon Landing to build (that's a lot, but I feel as if it would be worth it on this scale.) The cost of this would be $500,000,000; 1,000,000 Food; 25,000 Uranium; 25,000 Gasoline; 15,000 Aluminum; and 35,000 Steel. This is expensive, but again, if the nation have the 4 aforementioned projects, this should be a large amount for a project, but manageable. What you would get: First, status, because you can say that you have an expensive project Second, this would add an extra "continent" to your list (Mars, Moon). These would offer either a larger variety of resources or entirely new resources, depending on how much effort Alex wants to put into this. This would be very similar to Colonialism. I think these would be interesting ways to add a new spin on the game, as this would certainly change some upper-level strategy. I'm open to discussion on this, but feel free to tear this project apart so I can figure out ways to improve these ideas! Quick note: None of this was passed by Rose. I'm proposing this as a random nation, so please don't yell at any other Rose member for me proposing this. My words are not Rose's words. I know that's pretty obvious, but I just wanted to explicitly state that. Just in case.

No, you cannot. This is because each continent is limited to its own resources, so there is a fair bit of strategy when looking at continents. It wouldn't be as effective if you could have territories on multiple continents.

ah, I must've overlooked that. Thanks for the clarification!

Looking at the nation in question, I would report it for hate speech. This is Nazi imagery, and this should be reportable. However, it's not against the game rules, so while I wish I could report it, I can't because it's not against the game rules, and the game rules should be updated to include this. Note (this is also the edit): I have been told that hate speech is reportable, but it is not in the game rules (which it should be). While I don't agree with telling this nation to delete itself, I do agree that this nation should not be welcome.

Agreed. These would be great graphics. However, I am a bit worried about Spies because that could compromise alliance security.

No. The current range system will already do that if you don't keep max military (Note: Current system is you can declare from +75% to -25% of your range). If you're less than 16 cities and a c20 can attack you, that's because you have other factors increasing their score, especially if they're max military. If you need military, there's always beige and preparing, which can both get you to max military.

When the teacher sets a page limit instead of a word limit so you do 72pt font

Spooky Surprises?

^^ What Zoot said. Also: There are too many nations; it would be impossible to represent everyone when there's a limited amount of space. It'd be much harder to redesign and would set back a ton of other necessary improvements (Hey Alex, your suggestion box isn't working when it offers to rate!!!) It would impact customization. I wouldn't want my nation to be pink because my alliance is pink, I like the navy and white I have in my nation. You can change your nation color to your alliance color if you want. I like using the exact map as a way to "make a map" of my own nation (impacting some lore) Continuous land holdings would not be good, as it impacts how the game is played. I like being able to change continents if I want to produce a different resource. Again, 20 hex pieces is WAY too much for the amount of nations, especially nations that are set up and abandoned. Generally, there are just too many changes and this would change the game into something it's not.

Seems oddly topical; I wonder why...

US (at least, in Boston) has this issue as well.