Jump to content

Lu Xun

Members
  • Posts

    1771
  • Joined

Everything posted by Lu Xun

  1. The relevant rules are here: War Slot & Espionage Filling Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule. Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war. North Point is currently attacking the enemy of their enemy (KERCHTOG$) in such a way as to deny their enemy (BKNPO / OD+TC) the ability to deploy attackers. According to Partisan's (Prefonteen's) interpretation of game rules, the second sentence is joined with the first sentence as an "and" conjunction, meaning that the first line of "attacking someone with the intention of fighting them" supersedes the second line. This legitimizes North Point's tactic, even if given previous moderation rulings, it seems as though these wars violate the second clause. I would like to have clarification on how the war declaration rules work. For instance, sticking to the first line only, it would be possible for me to have friends constantly nuke me or naval me, when my set-up means that I take very little cash damage, even when I'm beiged, due to my low infra. This could render me extremely difficult to declare on. For instances of "war slot filling" violations, I will list a few NP targets: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=41349&display=war (Gladius, GoB bank at war with BKNPO) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=70736&display=war (Sanreizan bank at war with BKNPO, took last slot) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=41349&display=war (Imladris, used to be Valinor bank) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6286&display=war (Valinor / CoS bank) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13052&display=war (Guardian high gov) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=32050&display=war (TKR high-city fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=44276&display=war (House Stark fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=51491&display=war (TKR high-city fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9788&display=war (CoA high-city fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26598&display=war (CoS high-city fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9433&display=war (CoS high-city fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=117704&display=war (T$ bank) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24625&display=war (e$ bank) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=17961&display=war (T$ fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30061&display=war (T$ fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=28546&display=war (T$ fighter) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=25539&display=war (T$ fighter) I can go on, but there's a huge number of incidents to report. Edit: I want to highlight this screenshot which shows NP's effective intent: This shows NP's actual intent. I.e, there's a plan to give members of KERCHTOG$ time to rebuild, and they intend to "keep up appearances". In other words, there is collaboration between NP and its targets in terms of targeting.
  2. There's a lack of conjunction specifying that the former line takes precedence and the sentence only qualifies the second. Put it another way, if we go by your interpretation, it should be allowed to attack your allies and so on so forth, or have dummy blocs (treatyless). You are still aiming to beige the target because you're dumping in naval attacks / nukes, but at the same time you're preventing opponents from engaging you. Or, let's put it in another case. The Joe Baker slot fill was ruled as slot filling. But if Joe Baker's allies had launched a bunch of navals, eventually beiging him and then returning the bank held by Joe Baker to Joe baker, would this be slot filling? Applying the Kantian categorical imperative, your slot filling definition would result in chaos. The relationship between the two sentences mentioned is not an AND relationship qualifying the first sentence. It is an OR definition defining two different cases of slot filling.
  3. Here's the rough situation as it is: NP is at war with BK / BoC / Camelot since one of their new members took the BoC bank. T$ is at war with BK / Camelot. OD's (BKNPO) military control is contingent on keeping opponents out of beige and keeping them deplaned. So obviously, NP hitting T$ and beiging them, is advantageous to them as they are helping the enemy of an enemy rebuild their military assets. ==== Now, let's look again to what the rules are: https://politicsandwar.com/rules/ War Slot & Espionage Filling Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule. Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war. The rule being violated is "you are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations". NP slotting T$, beyond merely increasing the strength of BKNPO's enemies, is denying BKNPO the ability to counter this tactic by bringing someone of their own to keep the T$ opponent down. In essence, this is the same as Joe Baker getting slot filled earlier in this war (which means any time within the last year, hardy har har) to prevent others from raiding him. All wars with 3 NP slot fillers should be taken out and the parties involved warned. Wars with less than 3 NP slot fillers should also be likely taken out, as they aren't providing a legitimate reason to engage, and that they've more or less disclosed the real purpose of hitting T$ at this time. ==== Also, since why not, #banNPO2020
  4. The problem with planes is that strategically speaking, the entire updeclare mechanic is dependent on planes. Right now, you roughly have a C^2.8 nation equivalency system wherein C2.8 (50% updeclare max under ideal circumstances) determines the effective nation score, provided that you don't have things like BK prots being incompetent at fighting or certain alliances being able to deploy less than 50% of their combatants due to inactivity. The situation under this circumstance is that a force of more numerous smaller nations is always going to be more combat and resource effective than a concentrated force of larger nations. However, if you switch it, hypothetically, to C^4 because updeclares have been hard-nerfed by busting planes, then it becomes optimum for the entire game to become Grumpy, i.e, the optimum configuration is to have few nations (militarily optimal) that have cash funnelled in from many nations (economically optimal). The problem with the war system right now is triple and self-related: -Wars aren't damaging enough, and take too long to prosecute. These are related factors. If you can't damage the opponent effectively, you have to resort to member damage, which takes a long time because it's concomittant on getting people to say "PnW sucks, I'm leaving, my alliance sucks, I'm leaving". The typical solutions to increase damage don't even work because you end up with an equilibrium effect; alliances won't go to war unless they have war chests that enable prolonged warfare and rebuilding, and if war damage / costs are increased, people will just delay wars because they're expecting another 8-12 month Dial-Up War. -Wars are extremely difficult to defend against; fighting a defensive war isn't fun or it's extremely difficult to win a defensive war (BK has the notable exception of having turned the tables in Dial-Up, but it lost most of its allies and NPO had to break its coalition with T$ to step in). O -Planes are overpowered and things like tanks and ships mainly have an ancillary (tactical) purpose. But if you nerf planes, we go back to the C^2.8 problem wherein the optimum is no longer to have many nations supporting mass tiering, but a few nations in a top tier supported by peons (debt-slaves). In other words, revisions to the war system are systematic because a single change will likely break the system.
  5. It's known that AK had BKNPO milcom running the show for much of the war. Any alliance that emphasizes tanks beyond its limited tactical use (downdeclares, raiding) is a questionable one, especially since the landscape of the battlefield (KERCHTOG / KERCHTOG$ up, BKNPO down) made it so that AK couldn't exploit its tanks.
  6. The topic at question is the Apex cowardice clause. AK disbanding, first, provides a level of protection against the cowardice clause as AK didn't exit the war, it simply ceased to exist. However, BK can still spin AK as having abandoned its allies in wartime by merging into IF. But officially speaking, or in a "de jure" sense, AK didn't merge into IF, despite having more than half its members join IF. That means that AK didn't trigger the cowardice clause in any way. Or this is how IF would spin it. But of course, this is all up in the air as to how people want to do it. On a strategic basis, the current KERCHTOG$ - BKNPO balance is roughly 2.3mn vs 2mn, and that's including TCW. If BKNPO were to turn on its protectorate, TCW would promptly join KERCHTOG$ and the balance would become roughly 2.9mn vs 1.4mn / 1.7mn (I forget my precise counts and don't want to boot up the spreadsheet).
  7. The question is rather whether KERCHTOG$ hates EM as much as OD does, and whether EM is basically forced to reroll his account now.
  8. Sounds more reasonable than giving what should be an overwhelming force the ability to replane. Can we also have this for Yom Kippur? Because having a Yom Kippur war is anti-Semitic. Or better yet, let's not have the Christmas VM option and make Yom Kippur VM-able. Jokes about the 1973 Yom Kippur War aside, if you had a sincere religious reason it might be a more interesting push.
  9. The reason VM screenies became illegal was because Alex got too many bug/exploit reports about it. Then fake screenshots became illegal because Alex got too many bug/exploit reports about that as well. Are people seriously going to complain about a text field with improper formatting?
  10. It's not against the rules, unless the rules are changed or clarified in such a way as to make using text to claim that I'm in vacation mode becomes against the rules. As far as reporting me for being Inst goes, that's been a recent trend, hasn't it?
  11. You should try reporting me for being Inst instead. Please read the rules carefully:
  12. Sphinx, do you really have to be so obvious about it? glhf.
  13. Stable at roughly 181 pounds, which implies that 10 days of fasting resulted in a total weight loss of approximately 5 pounds, matching predictions by fasting experts of half a pound of fat/muscle per day. I've been trying to restart fasting, but it's been difficult because I've been trying to quit smoking at the same time. I ultimately decided to begin a fast first, then quit smoking. Targeting 3 days this time.
  14. You know just as well as I do how to permanently remove yourself from the community.
  15. @Alex Perhaps the term should be changed from "moderation as a weapon" to "rules-related blackmail" if that's your preferred definition.
  16. For reference purposes, this is the original gif: I dry-tested it on a few people while I was still operating fake nation screens. As it turns out, they didn't even notice the fake nation screens, which was the original objective, because of the disorienting background. === If you are not epileptic, and you know you're not, feel free to compare to actually seizure-inducing videos. Try the Pokemon episode, for instance. That, in my estimation, has roughly 3-10 Hz cycling between the relevant colors. This video, as a whole, is .5-1 Hz and tries to sequence into itself as a loop.
  17. I'm the accused. I specifically chose this background because I was looking for the most annoying background possible that would be unlikely to cause an epileptic seizure. The background tends toward disorientation; the stripes are clearly animated in such a way that they move, as opposed to flash. Even when enlarged to 200-300%, the gradual gradation of the colors (rainbow shades) prevents this from being properly considered flashing colors and thus triggering epileptic seizures. I suppose the background would be an issue if you were operating a motor vehicle, due to the disorientation, but does anyone play PnW and drive? How about operate an aircraft? Inb4 some whale crashes an airliner, killing all 300 people on board, because he was trying to get in attacks before his opponent while piloting a passenger plane.
  18. One of the previous functions of downvotes was as a user surrogate for the report post button and moderator action. With downvotes removed, the report post button is going to be used a lot more aggressively, and it'd be best if community standards for posting were better spelled out in the future. One way to do this would be if posts that received warns received moderator verbal warnings would receive a mod-edit stating "This post has been warned for: [so-and-so]", stating the nature of the offense. Likewise, it would also be better if posts that had report attempts repeatedly made had the report post button removed to state that the post was no longer reportable, although it would still be an option of users to report the post in the Forum Reports section. I think this change would help streamline player-moderator communication in terms of what is reportable and what is not reportable.
  19. "Mission Accomplished", but I didn't do anything even though I said I would. Any hate, any comments here? As mentioned before, we need revisions to spam rules to remove content-less "downvote-equivalents", but is there any fine-tuning that players would require?
  20. With downvotes gone, I think we need a reform of the spam rules to cover insubstantial "I like, you suck" type posts. Part of the rules already asked for these insubstatial posts to be converted to upvotes, but without downvotes we will get a glut of "you suck"-type posts. On what basis should down-vote equivalents be marked as spam and removed? The current rules, for instance, prohibit one-word posts. Can we extend this to one-liners?
  21. @Epi I have to respectfully disagree. Please check the forum rules, in particular, this section: Basically, if you want to attack someone, make a substantive post like high-end alliance leaders (Adrienne, Roquentin) do, even if it's loaded with weasel words. If your retort is basically along the lines of Akuryo (who has recently resorted to flaming and name calling against my criticism of the "Thanks" proposal, it will be reported and hopefully it will at least receive a 0-point verbal warn. Forum rules are gradually being enforced more stringently. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is resulting in an adaptation process both for the users and the mods (and GOONS, for instance, has been very aggressive in trying to get the rules enforced). The end result is, if you get what seems to be an un-substantive downvote-equivalent that triggers "flaming", "baiting", "trolling", or "name calling" rules, report it and get it warned by the mods. In the mid-term, this will result in much more work for the forums moderation staff. In the long-term, this will result in a more civil forum (even if it might be more passive-aggressive) that will not result in the same result we had this war where we had rampant OOC attacks and calls to castrate certain alliance leaders. === I think the forums is already adapting to the rules change. An initiative was originally intended to make the new "thanks" reaction into a downvote equivalent, but I pointed out that it grants positive reputation. The adaptations further needed would be: -#1, reporting contentless posts for spam. There will need to be new forum moderation rules for such things, but merely "terrible" posting is not going to trigger the spam filter. -#2, ignoring bad posters (don't feed the trolls). If someone is a political "bad poster", i.e, liked by one side and disdained by the other, you can't simply ghost them away because they will end up being shoehorned into the conversation by their own side. In other words, the "Report Post" button is the new downvote, but unlike the traditional downvote, which could be used mindlessly and with merely ideology backing it, for a "Report Post" to succeed the underlying post actually has to be breaking the rules somewhere.
  22. KERCHTOG$ has designated Thanks, which adds +1 reputation to your posting record, as the replacement for downvotes. I assume your takes will now be as hot as the sun.
  23. Thanks actually gives people positive karma. Therefore, the best way to get good karma is to troll fol thanks. But we all know my usual opinion of Prefontaine's intelligence.
  24. New poll: should NPO be B&? Vote like for yes, thanks for no.
  25. Thanks for biting the bullet, Alex, and demilitarizing the downvote system. Ironically, the best part of banning downvotes is that you can't even be downvoted for banning downvotes. Now, will someone give me a ton of ironic thanks and spike my kamras to the roof?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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