Jump to content

Edward I

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

206 Excellent

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

534 profile views
  1. Edward I

    Through the Chaos Comes Anew

  2. Edward I

    Through the Chaos Comes Anew

    Let's be real, it's still TOP's flag. Either way, if they turn out to be anything in the mold of TOP in its prime, they'll be interesting.
  3. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    In the strictest sense, I suppose the two motivations are "contradictory" in that they aren't the identical. However, that's not quite what Adrienne argued in here. This first quote is the starkest instance of her claiming that our motivations are irreconcilable ("don't work together", in her words): Clearly they do "work together" and are reconcilable, since we presented a term that every alliance in our coalition agreed to regardless of their motivation for seeking it. She laid out the rest of TKR's objections in prior posts: This is a bit misleading. We laid out our definition of "war dodgers", which can be referenced in the OP. It is clear it was accompanied by research, the results of which can be found in Appendix II, which is referenced in the OP, although Ripper didn't quote the contents of it. According to Adrienne, we're not using a definition of "war dodger" that is satisfactory to TKR. As I've explained above and as both myself and others have explained in numerous posts in this topic, a variety of motivations is not the same as switching motivations. While I'm sure it's frustrating and may even have been (understandably) confusing at first, we've repeatedly indicated that the variety of motivations for the VM term stems from the disparate composition of our coalition. If the label for the nations in VM mode was truly TKR's primary objection, I suspect they would have quickly arrived at the same alternative I did. Assuming I'm wrong, I suggest they refer to those nations the same way I've referred to them here: VM users. Quoted for reference: So, to directly answer your original question @Buorhann, the main substantive hangup TKR seems to have is the use of the term "war dodgers" in reference to the nations in VM. However, as I just pointed out, there's a pretty easy, pedantic way to remedy this, which is to refer to them as "VM users" (if TKR has a problem with even this, then I can't help them). Beyond that, they don't seem to have any substantive issues with proposed terms. Per the top quote from Adrienne in this post, TKR is fine with either motivation - punishing VM users or dealing damage to them - individually, but not together. Contrary to her claim, they're reconcilable in the form of the proposed VM term quoted in the OP. The fixation on the term "war dodger" has no apparent relation to the coexistence of our coalition's dual motives - it can be addressed without establishing a sole motivation for the VM term and, per Adrienne, TKR isn't categorically unwilling to agree to terms explicitly aimed at punishing VM users.
  4. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    Once again, no, the two motivations are not contradictory. If one sub-group of our coalition were demanding that Radiantsphere do one thing and another sub-group were demanding that Radiantsphere do a different thing, then they would be contradictory. Instead, our entire coalition is demanding that Radiantsphere do one thing that satisfies all our various goals. While I'm not opposed to the alliances arrayed against Radiantsphere each indicating why they're in favor of the term regarding VM users, it doesn't change the immediate situation at hand: we have indicated a course of action that Radiantsphere can take which will satisfy the demands of each and every one of our coalition's constituent alliances, regardless of each alliance's respective motivations for making those demands. TKR's present stance amounts to deflection. If TKR had said that it cannot agree to the VM term without knowing exactly why each alliance in our coalition demanded it, for their own future reference, that would be one thing. Instead, they incoherently claim that they can't agree to the proposed term or offer any counter term of their own without knowing which motivation - damaging VM users or punishing them - is the fundamental one. Obviously it's possible to reconcile those two motivations because we did it for them when we proposed the VM term.
  5. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    You don't need to; we want you to. We want you to because we value public information about other alliances' ties, because we prefer that alliances don't misrepresent the nature of their long-term strategic alliances (even by omission), and because we'd like the world to be a little closer to that ideal. We understand the limitations of what military force can accomplish, which is why we're only asking GOB to make its treaties handshakes public for nine months.
  6. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    You're confusing secret agreements with paperless agreements. Both are made out of a disdain for legalism and in the belief that formal agreements are no better, and often worse, than informal ones. However, secret agreements achieve a second goal, which is to avoid alerting rivals to the nature of your partnerships, or even their existence. The original conception of paperless agreements was for them to be just as well-publicized as traditional, legalistic agreements based on treaties. Their sole purpose was to foster better ongoing friendships and cooperation between allies. Ironically, that ethos has endured more continuously within treaties than without them: there are still many alliances that refuse to sign MDoAPs and favor MDPs instead because they feel the optional aggression clause is meaningless. Secret treaties, on the other hand, are primarily meant to obfuscate. The chief difference between them and traditional treaties isn't a lack of formality; it's a lack of public information on them. For instance, SRD has rebranded GOB's partnerships as "handshake agreements". However, to my knowledge GOB has never announced a complete list of those "handshake agreements" or said anything about what they entail other than the obvious mutual defense elements. If GOB were operating in the same way Guardian and SK or TEst and Arrgh did, it wouldn't talk about nameless friends in the abstract or avoid going into detail about its present set of partners.
  7. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    I can see how this would be confusing if you'd just seen the proposed terms for the first time. We spent weeks bashing their side for harboring huge numbers of nations in VM, many if not most of which appeared to have gone to VM to avoid the war. However, multiple people from the IQ-Syndisphere-Paperless coalition have explained - repetitively, ad nauseam - that this isn't about shaming VM users, despite our opinions of them. This is about destroying infrastructure. Either people aren't reading the thread or they're being deliberately obtuse. No, we've stated our intent to keep them from rebuilding with funds produced by VM nations. We're not doing anything worse than war does in the first place. If these nations weren't in VM, their infra levels would already be at roughly 1k per city. This isn't any more punitive than successfully waging war on Radiantsphere is. We're not demanding the VM users are disciplined or treated differently in any way than other Radiantsphere nations whose infra we're currently blowing up.
  8. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    If you don't like the term, fight until we're willing to drop it or force us to rescind it later. I just explained that it's to destroy their infra, not to punish them for using VM. The whole point of this war was to burn upper tier pixels. It's not hypocritical to not demand the same of anyone using VM on our side because, again, this isn't to punish VM use - it's to destroy their infrastructure for the sake of destroying their infrastructure.
  9. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    ...because we don't like it? I'm not sure why something being allowed by the rules means it's off-limits to player regulation. Applied conservatively (nothing under 1k infra) and leniently (selling rather than fighting is fine), no, we wouldn't. Or at least not any more than we find losing wars unacceptable. The proposed penalties against VM users aren't unfair to them any more than the losses incurred by the war are unfair to the other nations in your coalition. We already pointed out the ridiculous number of war dodgers in your coalition on the forums; this is about destroying their infrastructure, not pointing out that they're pixel huggers for the umpteenth time.
  10. Edward I

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    Something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong, yes. How so? Three of the largest mass-recruitment alliances want a fourth mass-recruitment alliance to join them in making trading more accessible. Bots that immediately accept bad trades are most harmful to new or inexperienced players. And IQ would have to reciprocate by policing its own members in the same way it wants TKR to.
  11. Edward I

    Join the Hivemind

    You didn't miss it, it's in six hours. 1:30am GMT is on November 29th.
  12. Edward I

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Serious question: when was the last time you played CN? I'm asking because this is a gross misrepresentation of the current state of the game. CN slowed down dramatically long before NPO's current stint at the top and, to Shadowthrone's point, that slowdown is likely irreversible. The primary reason for it was the introduction of a mechanic that allowed for a the linear transfer of exponentially decaying resources between players (I seem to remember you having a problem with this in another thread). The secondary reason it happened was, as Shadowthrone said, that people simply quit. Most of the players and alliances still inhabiting CN are inactive and reside there out of nostalgia and habit. If they wanted to be active again, they would disband or merge; instead, they've chosen to log in occasionally while taking no part in CN politics. This is a very long trend that manifested gradually and independently of changes in the CN political landscape, NPO-driven or not. In fact, it's arguable that CN politics would have experienced a heat death 1-2 years earlier than it actually did if it weren't for NPO's role in organizing coalitions that instigated or were the target of three global wars. If you think it's "not fair" to ask NPO to change anything about its playstyle, why do you keep attacking NPO for its playstyle? I get that you believe the proposed change would unbalance the game, but you can make that point without the ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, to echo Shadowthrone, you're reaching with that last bit. Permanently crippling an opposing party is not the only way to check its power. And, to echo my sentiments above, why the attacks on NPO? If power is so dangerous, why are you not at least ambivalent about TKR-sphere's supposed impending loss of it? Or is NPO the only actor in whose hands power is dangerous? First, your posting is getting a little hysterical. NPO can't prevent "gameplay"; to do that, we'd need to interfere with everyone's ability to log in and click stuff. Second, there you go again with the weird, unsubstantiated claims. You don't have a monopoly on gameplay knowledge, legitimate opinions, or foresight. And, even if you did, your posts would stand alone on their substance and not on the seen-it-all past you claim to possess and bring up at every opportunity. What we're denying is the veracity of your suppositions, not the pedantic self-evidence of the hyperbolic conclusion you draw from them.
  13. Edward I

    Lower Resistance Damage

    We've been pretty clear about that. Qualitatively, we want to check the runaway upper tier growth of TKR-sphere and, hopefully, reduce their dominance in the upper tiers while we're at it. Name one specific instance in which NPO clearly attempted to do this, succeeded at doing this, in which NPO's actions in service of this goal directly contributed to the death of another nation sim game, and in which said NPO actions were the primary cause of that nation sim's death. You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is on you - if you insist on attacking NPO in every substantive post you make about it, please at least furnish some evidence in support of your accusations.
  14. Edward I

    Custom Member Ranks

    You misunderstand. The proposal is to make custom officer ranks in-game, not here. For example, Shadowthrone and I would have different titles in the alliance sections of our nation info pages because, even though we're both officers in the NPO AA, he's high gov and I'm not.
  15. Edward I

    2018 PnW Awards Announcement

    It's not "dumb". The only way to "rig" a vote is to tamper with the voting results themselves, and secrecy is a necessary precondition for that to happen. Your proposed solution to a non-problem happens to be the first step towards actually rigging the vote. Voting - regardless of the motivation - is, by definition, outside the scope of "rigging". If your mechanism for publicizing the vote results is to change the settings of a forum poll from secret to public, that's probably fine (I'm not sure if this is possible since I've never made a forum poll). Otherwise, do a publicly visible poll hosted on these forums (see below for why). This is a semi-official annual event and it should happen on the official P&W forums. If there's a radio show in parallel that all are welcome to listen to, that's great. But for players who can't be online for the radio show, don't use Discord, or aren't actively playing right now (whether because they're inactive or because they're future players who haven't found P&W yet), having the annual awards documented on the forums is necessary. As Sketchy already said, the vote tallies on these questions will never be seen as objective truth, and they'll always be unfair in the sense that the voting boils down to a popularity contest. The best way to run this is to use the voting as a way to start a public conversation about the last year on Orbis. Rather than trying to artificially inject surprise into them, treat the annual awards as a forum to recognize the good and not-so-good work that's been done over the past twelve months.

Important Information

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