Jump to content

Buck Turgidson

Members
  • Posts

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

Retained

  • Member Title
    Large Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    The space between a wave.
  • Leader Name
    Buck Turgidson
  • Nation Name
    Darwinium of Slugs
  • Nation ID
    12118
  • Alliance Name
    Human Over

Recent Profile Visitors

2554 profile views

Buck Turgidson's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (5/8)

321

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. Be careful what you wish for. That said, I would never refuse you Ogaden.
  2. PS it is nice to see Yarr continuing to follow the doctrine I put in place years ago - You can fault me for many things, but training and indoctrinating my crew is not one of them.
  3. Just a quick note to tell you all that I have initiated the global war earlier than I planned this time around. So, get your gear and head to the front lines. If your alliance leadership is asleep at the wheel, ask them who you are supposed to hit. If you think this does not pertain to you, just sit tight and someone will reach out. That is all. PS it is nice to see Yarr continuing to follow the doctrine I put in place years ago - You can fault me for many things, but training and indoctrinating my crew is not one of them. PS it is nice to see Yarr continuing to follow the doctrine I put in place years ago - You can fault me for many things, but training and indoctrinating my crew is not one of them. That said, their reaction time was slow this time. I hope this serves as a drill, because they will need it for what's coming.
  4. Well done on the NAP. There is no step more important than the first.
  5. OMG who could have downvoted my inspiring work? Surely a loveless cynic.
  6. Only the greatest and durable friendships start with a NAP. You know you have a relationship of true worth when it can be described in terms of standardized legal non-binding commitments toward each other. Erudite folk might point to [email protected]#$ Germany and the USSRs NAP in the late 1930’s, but I think most people know in their heart of hearts that the real reason that relationship did not work out was because each party felt too much raw, animal passion for the other. Some historians say that both Hitler and Stalin felt jilted by the other, not in Germany’s eventual abrogation of the treaty, but ironically at the moment of signing. They both wanted more from each other, and both settled for a NAP; both were frustrated and jealous of the arrangement. You see, USSR had a ‘special friend’ in the east, and would not give them up for the Nazis - and the latter could not be convinced even when Stalin sacrificed his military leadership and few ethnic groups in a sort romantic gesture of sacrifice and commitment to his jealous companion. In a fit of jealous rage, Hitler attacked his sweetheart wanting Stalin’s huge tracts of land all to himself, when what he really might have wanted was an ODP. Ironically, so might have Stalin. A successful NAP rests on an even tempered assessment of the other party, a focus on interests over positions, and a genuine curiosity about the other party. It is a commitment to patience, to evolution, to watching Slow TV together at some point and being content whether it happens again or not. A NAP shows that each party antes the goodwill to see where the relationship takes them, opens themselves to the potential to be hurt, and seeks to grow through the dance that is life. It is the romantic’s favourite place to be - full of hope and wonder at the possibilities and positions that lie ahead, and the tender game of manifesting such visions. Thank you for not berating the romantic who bandies such trifles as NAPs with more worth than many friends and allies do with more ‘serious’ tokens of trust and love. Cynicism may be more reliable in the long run, but even it must yield to the preservation of what it is not, if only in the forlorn hope of salvation. It is good to know we are not alone.
  7. Funny that you should mention it, but I am being bullied by Micropockyklypse. And I have single handedly held them in place and caused them to eject their leader. You may thank me for subduing those idiots. Gawd it's good to have warm barrels again. Lol you are not the defense here hahaha You need another shower man - you really stink.
  8. No one is laughing at us, it's just good fun. Go for a walk - I think you need some air. And maybe a shower. The same content from our DOE is on our alliance page, verbatim.
  9. Well given who has downvoted my OP, I think this is a very viable idea, and clearly in against the interests of those who like staying on top as a consequence of years in the game. Let's shake things up - the impact on the treaty web alone could be significant...
  10. That is the whole idea - to reduce confidence and increase the risks associated to offshore banking. It's an elegant solution to the overwhelming concentration of wealth in the hands of a few dozen players. When I quite Yarr, we had over 60 billion in cash alone, plus probably 200 billion in RSS. And only 3 of us had access to the bank...
  11. Good point - if you are beiged, you should also not have access to the bank - does that solve the problem? That's a great idea. I wonder what would happen to a 3 city nation that attacked me? All that would do is concentrate the military power in the hands of nations that meet the bare minimum to build and launch nukes. It would become some sort of populist movement, and I think all can agree that that is a terrible idea.
  12. Funny, I think it would do more the make the alliance system fluid - if you are on the losing side, you could try 5th column stuff to shatter trust in the other side's banking operations. It's very common for gov't members in alliances, for example, to award themselves gifts and such from the alliance tax revenues - right now with the whole system securely in the hands of a small number of players, the little guys don't have a chance, and that is the whole point of the suggestion. My suggestion is an anti-trust one. I am going to give you more time to think about it. You clearly don't get the point. If you don't think it is a problem, it is because you are well outside the orbit of power on Orbis. That might work as well, but good luck getting Alex to code that lol. Yes - that's the point. Think it though - if it makes it difficult to get aid to members when an officer is blockaded, how do you mitigate that to keep things running? You're almost there.
  13. I did outline how your objections fit into my proposal - the 'work-arounds' would differ, and the nature of the one chosen would determine competitive strategy. Anyhow, it seems like most people prefer to let the game settle into one where a few untouchable players have a disproportionate say on everything on Orbis. That's why this game never really lifts off, and will be the cause of its ruin eventually unless my proposals or something like it are implemented. And HAHA I just looked at who downvoted my OP - it recalls the Jonathan Swift line "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this one sign: That all the dunces are in confederacy against him."
  14. All good points, except the suggestion that random members be appointed. That would just be stupid. Alliances would have to cultivate more trusted members, and while that is a challenge, it promotes mobility in the game. I have been on Orbis for a long time, and have noted the increasing importance of capital as the arbiter of economic strength as opposed to production. While there is nothing wrong with that in principle, the effect of it is that you have a small number of players whose influence over how that capital is employed draws some pretty firm lines in the sand. It determines the shape of the treaty web exclusively these days. Now if anti-trust measures broke that up a little, the web would be more dynamic. It’s stale now and has been for a long time. All of the workarounds you mention are feasible, but that is the point - however they differentiate their strategies for protecting the bank, each alliance will have to accept some trade offs. If you are fighting, it will be an important piece of information to protect, deceive, and find out about your enemy as well. Smaller alliances can continue to use offshore banks as they do today - this literally only complicates matters for offshore banks themselves. It may be enough to discourage some of them...
  15. You can always change the officer in that case. It promotes giving people that experience and responsibility. It would help alliances not stagnate. I didn't really think of the casual players, to be fair. That said, this would probably encourage alliances to mitigate in a few ways: - stratify their membership more clearly, leaving casual players as Applicants, and committing to defending them. Citizenship in an alliance will have to be earned, and alliances would not be as bloated. - Increase the overall size of an alliance, including the Applicants, so the losses as a percent of the bank would be less. There would be more effort to genuinely recruit casuals into more active players, because people would flee pressure tactics. - It's already a broken mechanic. I founded Yarr on the basis of a broken mechanic, and what Yarr and others like them are doing is exploiting a loophole. The problem is that the effect of the game is that Orbis' economy is at the mercy of large pools of capital, rigidly controlled by a very small number of players. Not sure what the stats would say but I would estimate that fewer than 20 players control 90% of the excess capital and resources in the game. Yarr, for instance, was infiltrated by the worst kind of players, such as Pre and Seb - both known liars and backstabbers, and they have turned others. Nothing wrong with mixing it up and trying it out - by changing this smallest of details, the chance of an error is greater, so alliances will just have to manage the risks. We have been at a point of equilibrium on offshore banking for some time, just as Arrgh's move to hyperactive raiding settled the role of the pirate to a particular niche long ago. What I proposed does not stop this pattern, it just adds complexity and challenge. This is a game, right? Anyhow, in a Howard Roark moment, I am mostly pissed that my successful creation was stolen from me by underhanded cowards. How do you feel knowing that a known cheater like Seb has his hands so close to a bank, again? Or that Pre, who is a known and proven liar is as close? I had to step down as I was starting my EMBA, so let this happen - cctmsp13 and im317 have been fooled and taken advantage of, and Seb and Pre have been orchestrating what amounts to harassing me ever since I left. I hereby declare permanent war on them until they leave or Yarr is disbanded.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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