Jump to content

Spaceman Thrax

Members
  • Posts

    1444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by Spaceman Thrax

  1. 9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

    Okay, well there's a part about you where I make the joke about you being the alpha female due to the screens that leaked about you not wanting other girls in Medellin. I just thought it was funny and referenced that incident. It wasn't intended to be misogynist.

    Oh, bud. Buuuud. Do you have any forward gears or are they all backpedaling?

    If you want to stop being misogynist, stop assuming she can't read. :P

     

    • Thanks 1
  2. 5 minutes ago, Josh of Clan Mason said:

    Let me be clear, I am NOT speaking for NG. He has no desire to make this political, it just upset him and he's taking a break. Because this happened, it was kinda a last straw for me, thus I made this post. I regret including details about Coalitions, because this thread is about the general state of the game. Anyone who has/is making this political - including me - has made a mistake. I apologize, I was simply using what caused my to post this as an example.

    Cool. I'm more than good with that. Thank you. : )

    In terms of the game in general, I'm with you, for sure.

    • Like 4
  3. 8 minutes ago, Josh of Clan Mason said:

    It's entirely possible someone in my coalition leaked the logs, but NG was pretty clear about saying that Col. A got their hands on them. Either way, we have a problem here that everyone contributes to.

    How is my coalition contributing when we receive something? You can't not receive something. The OOC stuff (what little of it there was) flatly did not release as a result of anything our coalition did. As soon as it became apparent there was OOC info mixed into the IC logs, everyone reached out to the people who did release it to get it scrubbed.

    If NG wants to try to make that a political thing against our coalition for some reason, I'll do my best to try and assume he's just upset in the moment, but that's off base.

  4. 7 minutes ago, Rygus said:

    I've been a member of KT for two and a half years, and adjutant for ET and KT for 10 months in that period of time, and I have no idea what you're talking about. No doubt you got that sort of overblown rhetoric from people like kosmo and Queen M (and the entirety of TRF for that matter), who used such rhetoric to tarnish the reputation of KT. Considering at one point our entire IA was run by Haydon, I think your understanding of how KT works is quite limited, as well as the knowledge of our past governments. Let me break it down for you if the past two wars with you and the wars recently weren't clear enough:

    KT does not give a flying pixel who you are, where you're from, what you believe. The only thing KT cares about is burning pixels, making war and good memes. It quite literally says this in our alliance description.

    "If you are unwilling or unprepared to shed blood for your fellow knights at any given moment, do not apply. If you are not active enough and do not use Discord, do not apply. If your meme energy is low, do not apply."

    You're either misinformed, lying, or your threshold for what you consider appropriate is totally miscalibrated with mine.

    An example: There's nothing "rhetorical" about your member using an in-game declaration to tell a player they know to be black they are going to lynch them. The fact that your government responded to that with "who, us!?" and blaming other people is pretty much what I meant. It would be far easier to dismiss "rhetoric" if it was clear you take that seriously.

    It's a shame. Anyway. I don't intend to debate with you any farther. I was just clarifying in case your confusion was genuine.

    • Upvote 3
  5. 4 minutes ago, Rygus said:

    What content would that be? Not sure what exactly you're implying here.

    I'm going to assume this is legit curiosity so I'll answer earnestly (if briefly) :

    Your alliance has a really bad history with racist and nazi stuff. It's not part of their overall theming, but a lot of people, including myself, feel your gov doesn't do enough to root it out.

    To their credit, I'm not aware of any of it more recently. Kosmo's upset aside I know several people in our bloc have made their stances on that kind of thing clear.

  6. Why would NPO need to join this?

    You're not really paying attention to what happened this war if you think that. They'll just reject every hypothetical that doesn't involve cooperating with BK, mislead their allies about their intent, then fabricate "intel" that they have to help them down the road. There's no reason for them to take the PR hit of actually signing BK when they know their moves are going to be coordinated.

  7. 13 hours ago, Roquentin said:

    drivel, "orange man bad"

    You missed my point I think. My point was that working from Kosmo's own premises, TKR has done more than Kosmo has, so he should be quiet until that's no longer true. That's all.

    (I'm not sure why we'd need colour commentary from someone who's gone out of their way to politically shield AK this war, though.)

    Edit: Also, thanks Cooper. Obviously you're in a better position to speak for TKR than I am so sorry for stirring the pot.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 17 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

    They shouldnt have signed up to be dogpiled by aligning with nazis. Hopefully they separate from you !@#$ as soon as possible so they can move on with their lives while you !@#$ keep getting your shit pushed in.

    You should keep TKR's name out of your mouth. They've fought both KT and AK as part of the last few months, while you have done nothing but kvetch. If you think it's appropriate to wage in game wars based on out of game ideology, go for it. In either case, you've probably reached the threshold for what you're going to get out of babbling about it alone.

    • Upvote 5
  9. Yikes.

    I very clearly underestimated how passionate the leaders of your coalition would be about defending cheating nazis. It's not a joke to me, and seeing some of you treat it like one is pretty gross.

    I'll be on discord if anyone's interested in a good-faith conversation (I think it's obvious there's a lot of false equivocating going on here?), but I think this is my sign to peace out of the forums.

  10. I don't see how this needs to be changed at all.

    Most of the arguments for removing downvotes apply for removing upvotes as well, really. And from a meta standpoint, it's pretty easy to tell when people are bandwagoning or downvoting simply because they are being goofs, and uhhh, who cares? Just let them, and think less of them for doing it. Doesn't need you to remove a feature. :P

     

    • Upvote 1
  11. 23 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

    looking at some of your coalition partners

     

    Hmmm yes good comment.

    Hah! I see you've brought out your upvote brigade. Did I hit a sore spot?

    Happening to share a coalition with certain people after fighting them is not the same as signing people who have gone out of their way to defend an alliance that basically doesn't have an identity outside of being cheating nazis.

    My point was that it took you very little time to perjure yourselves on one of the very few things you purported to care about. You're new to the game. You can do whatever you wanted, and this is what you chose. That has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you.

    And this will be the last I comment on it, because obviously you've little good faith to offer. Cheers.

     

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  12. 9 minutes ago, Alex said:

    Does no one else think that's ridiculous?

    I'm also going to look at more effective captchas, rate limiting games to one per 10 seconds or something, and better detection for scripters. But I still can't believe that popular sentiment is pro leaving baseball the way it is (completely gamebreaking, in my opinion.) And I am aware that there have been some organized downvote brigades against this post already.

    Everyone who isn't exploiting it thinks it's ridiculous. Flip the switch.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 4
    • Downvote 1
  13. 13 minutes ago, George (James T Kirk) said:

     

    I assumed / assume he was referring to Nova, if not my bad

     

    Ok well i guess I will start off with the simple factors to this.

    Firstly we did not do a investigation into Nova ourselves as multiple other parties had already done this, these investigations showed enough proof to move on, however even with that we waited until Alex posted his verdict that implicated multiple gov members. The investigation into AK was not overly large per say, however we did look into the amount of money coming into the game, the time frame and other factors and yes we did talk to the AK gov

     

    With that said it is possible the exploit was mentioned in the server, so yes i will admit it is a possibility the cheater learned of the exploit through that channel, with that said id like to reiterate my point that just because the exploit became know through our colo chans, it does not give enough cause to implicate the entirety of AK or their government. It could have been a simple conversation in the AK gov chats where Don mentioned the glitch and the cheater decided to try it. Furthermore I personally never saw AK complain about resources, its possible they mentioned it but our colo is helping anyone that may need a boost during the war, and AK had yet to mention anything to me.  Before i move on i want to touch of Nova, a large portion of their member-base did benefit from this, directly or indirectly through cities or grants where AK gov and members never saw the money (apart from the cheater) so while not all members of nova knew, they did benefit 

     

    While i understand why you may want to jump to the conclusion that the entirety of AK is guilty or their government there is no facts or evidence that could be found.  If more evidence is brought to light im sure we would be willing to reevaluate the situation, BK has not and never will condone cheating of any kind.

     

     

    P.S sorry if its structured like shit, have yet to goto sleep and my grammar is shit already 

    No worries! I still understand what you are saying. Get some rest! The game will still be bad when you get back. : )

    I think the biggest disconnect here is that you don't seem to be agreeing with me when I suggest that BK's burden of proof for NR was way, way, way lower than the one for AK, and that that's a problem when BK tries to frame their response as something that is for game integrity/because of caring about cheating. Your PR from that hit is what makes your attempts at equivocating for AK so problematic.

    Let's not pretend that your response was at all in proportion to the benefits Nova got from the exploit. You mashed up members who had gotten no grants; even if I agreed that the members who might have received some small benefit ought to have been hit for it (I don't; they lacked intentionality and the benefit for them was nothing game-breaking even if it did exist) In AK's case, you've done less than nothing (as in, you are actively defending them) about the benefits they've realized from cheating, in a mechanical sense, and that's that, for me. I actually didn't get into what I thought should be done about Nova OR AK. My argument rests more on the inconsistency in BK's answers to those questions.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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