Grillick
-
Posts
1585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Grillick
-
-
This is the kind of response I expected right away. However, instead bel just made himself look bad, and that is now out in the public for all to see. Whilst it essentially doesn't matter about the whole neutral thing, it has shown bel, a member of gpa gov, as untrustworthy and a liar, furthermore others backed him up and I can only presume you all knew he wasnt telling the truth.
There's a reason we don't let him handle foreign affairs.
-
This suggestion would make the game much more boring for me, but I wouldn't oppose it too vocally. It's not at all unreasonable.
-
1
-
-
And in other news, that spy you just lost, Princess? That was me.
-
2
-
-
This thread is still hilarious.
Let's assume you've made your case that Belisarius used a spy operation to kill Princess Bubblegum's spies.
To that I respond, who cares?
Princess Bubblegum besmirches Orbis by willfully exploiting an error in the game mechanics to keep himself well below retribution for his raiding tactics. Furthermore, any hostile action against Princess Bubblegum is not a violation of the Agency's neutrality.
Our Declaration of Neutrality, which can be viewed here, states "Aside from the instances where Article 3 applies, GPA member nations are forbidden to initiate (or cause another nation to initiate) hostile action against other nations." Here Princess Bubblegum might say, "Ah ha! Belisarius initiated a hostile action against me! After all, that same document defines hostile action as "An actual, attempted, or threatened attack, invasion, or endeavor to inflict harm upon another nation or its property."
Not so, however, because in the case of Princess Bubblegum, Article 3 applies. Article 3 states, "GPA member nations shall remain neutral in any conflict, except in the following incidences: (i) where a Belligerent has taken hostile action against a GPA member nation or the alliance's interests; (ii) in the defense against any actual or perceived attack upon the Green sphere and/or Neutrality; (iii) in instances of Roguery within the green sphere."
Here, we have a "nation," the Candy Kingdom, which has 30 tanks for every citizen, 681 soldiers for every citizen, 2 aircraft and a spy, while maintaining a population of 10. This is not a nation - it is an army. Its existence is a threat to all civilized nations, and any action taken in opposition to it is justified by the rules of war.
Take your populist rhetoric and get out, Princess Bubblegum.
-
1
-
-
Unprovoked aggression from the 1%...
Thousands of mourners poured out today in remembrance of those gallant men murdered at the hands of underhanded thugs sent at the behest of Belisarius and GPA government. 3 men who served to defend the Candy nation bravely gave their lives in the line of duty. They gave their lives for freedom from the oppression of the 1%'ers of the world. They shall serve as martyrs to the cause of freedom from oligarchical oppression.The 1% know they can't let the little people rise up, so they've resorted to underhanded and despicable tactics. I say no more! I hope you will, too.Please condemn the tyrants...
This entire thread is hilarious.
-
1
-
-
Not at all. GPA isn't at risk.
I just know that I stopped playing one of these games because the server auto-blocked IPs if a second nation tried to log in from the IP, because I couldn't play while I was walking to/from the subway or while I was riding in a taxi.
-
1
-
-
I'm in agreement with those who support a zero tolerance level for multis. Don't allow them. Period. Eliminate the hassle, judgment calls, claims of bias, people feeling slighted and others getting away with cheating. Do some honest players not get to play together? Sure. Oh well. Game admin can't know who's honest or not and that's why you simply don't allow it. Will suck for a small handful, but that's life. It'll be better for the game overall. Stop trying to reform cheaters by eliminating their multis and expecting they won't find new ways around the id system. Stop basing decisions on trade activity and whether or not trades between matching ids were substantial enough to warrant a ban. There's no way to be fair like that. So don't bother. You'll never satisfy everyone with a decision on this so make the decision that's easier on you and the most fair to all players. No multis. Period.
That is the rule, Reagan. Each player is allowed one nation, and one nation only.
You need to clarify what you mean by "multi."
Limiting the game to only one nation per IP cuts off the game's nose to spite its face.
-
1
-
-
Shrek, the supreme leader of the green sphere, should kick all the fairy tale creatures off its
swampcolor.The swamp was here long before the Ogre arrived.
-
Did it work?
-
You may cover me with melted cheese any time.
I may just take you up on that. Everything is better with melted cheese.
-
I'm still embargoed by Casey, even though he doesn't exist anymore.
-
1
-
-
I know - I read the thread. I'm just saying maybe you should try doing it one more time.
-
Green is the color of broccoli, and broccoli is only good when it's steamed. So most the time you guys are just bad broccoli!
Wrong.
Broccoli is also excellent when it is covered with melted cheese.
-
2
-
-
Or maybe you have to type in the name of the nation you want to lift their embargo on. If that nation is not embargoed, you've wasted your spy action.
-
2
-
-
Target ships with an air strike? Have a friend naval attack him? Target ships with espionage?
-
I think your premise is false.
I don't think most players agree that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed.
It's possible that most players who voiced an opinion in that thread agree that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed, but even then, I don't think it's the case.
A significant minority of players think that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed. A significant minority of players think that inactive nations should be left alone to be dealt with as each particular alliance sees fit.
The vast majority of players don't care enough to speak up on the matter.
As for me, I fully agree with Tenages:
If alliances want to use inactives as a tax farm, as I see it, it's a completely legitimate tactic. It's got it's own set of disadvantages it causes, and the response to it shouldn't be to legislate it out of the game because some players don't like it. As long as players haven't been inactive long enough to be deleted, they should be treated like the other nations in the game.
-
5
-
-
I love getting shout outs in media! No publicity is bad publicity!
-
2
-
-
I thoroughly disagree. This world doesn't have enough whining.That sounds easy in theory but, based on what's happened in other worlds, there is always a lot more whining when the peace terms include giving a beating to the cowards who sat out the war. The last thing we need is more whining.
-
2
-
-
I think this suggestion is absurd, but I don't have a position on whether it should be adopted.
I do think, however, that having a minimum time frame for peace mode is a terrible idea. If oeace mode freezes the nation completely in time, the only requirement should be that it cannot be implemented while you are at war, or if implemented while you are at war, it does not become effective until the war ends.
-
What's that? We won't have Diabolos to kick around anymore? Denied!
Good luck Mortimer!
-
3
-
-
Uranium is pretty cheap on the market right now compared to production cost.
-
1
-
-
You use something as collateral before a default.
-
If you implement read receipts, I'd like to have the option not to send them.
-
Inactivity is not a defined term. We clearly have different definitions of inactive. That's fine.Inactivity is not logging into the game. If you are logging in and buying stuff, you are active. I know some who the time runs out and they not notice what color they are. I don't go out of my way to check my color.
Tragedy in the Candy Kingdom. GPA accused of murder!
in Alliance Affairs
Posted