Kastor

You missed the point of page 3! Going into VM isn’t against the rules, crippling an alliance isn’t against the rules. Sheepy shouldn’t have done anything. The TUE situation is different.

F

3 "jokes" that weren't actually offensive, mostly in-character commentary, and you were wrong on all 3 accounts? Take your time next time, because obviously the 3 "jokes" you found were lacking. You always dip from threads that you lose lol. Nothing new.

1. It isn't, but I'm not going to argue with you on this because you know it isn't either and you just want to create a narrative. Ironically, telling me I couldn't sexually identify as a Polaris would actually mean that you weren't respecting my right to an identity. So which is it, are you refusing my right to identify or can I sexually identify as a Polaris? 2. I fail to see how this is off-color or a joke/reference. We attacked Queen M days later and filled her slots. That's you trying to be weird, not me. 3. Kastor's Krazy Klub is a real thing, there's an entire discord server for it. It has nothing to do with black people at all. I guess the KKK acronym, but meh, that's a reach and I didn't even realize that before you pointed it out indirectly. tl;dr: You reached on everything and came up short, try again next time.

Socialism never works, fam.

Nvm

All you've done is try to personally attack me, all I've asked is for a racist name to be removed from the game, with no penalty against the one using it.

I never attacked the person using the name, because I don't know if he used it in a negative way, he said he didn't, for the most part, I believe him. I think his avatar use is interesting along with the name. I just want the name gone from the game, which is simple and isn't that much to ask, tbh.

I could care less if you're black, white, purple, green, teal, or aqua. The "Uncle Tom" name is racist, I never said it should be wiped from history, but if I changed my name to a nazi commander, Alex would ban me on sight. The fact that he's allowed this is clear and cut disregard for what black people have went through. I'm not asking you to get banned, just simply asking for the name to be changed, as it should be, because its a derogatory term used to insult African Americans. @Alex Can I run with the name "Richard Baer" then?

Being a black person, and seeing https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/profile/8514-uncle-tom/ makes me upset. I understand it was probably a joke, but being called Uncle Tom is offensive to black people, almost everyone. Please have this person change their name, idc about a warn, I just don't want to see it, and I'm appalled that its been allowed to go in this game so long. Side Point: Where have all the SJW's who claimed that they were against this kind of thing? You rallied against me and others calling us racist but this has been allowed. Why have the mods allowed this? Do you not thing Uncle Tom is offensive? Also, since people will claim this isn't racist: Uncle Tom is the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin. The term "Uncle Tom" is also used as a derogatory epithet for an exceedingly subservient person, particularly when that person is aware of their own lower-class status based on race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/dear-white-people-stop-using-the-term-uncle-tom/2018/11/15/8a68e9c0-e84e-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.d35a25e8796e

So with this war wrapping up, and looking back at the wars this past year, we've gotten into a cycle of the aggressors winning again, but the wars being stretched out for long lengths of time by the defenders, who refuse peace until damage is equal. For example, the 2 longest wars to date were back to back, so obviously the trend we're going with is defenders forgoing long-term growth plans/patterns for short term damage to the alliances their fighting, even if its more detrimental to them in the long run. Do you think the longer wars/less growth is going to be the norm going forward?

He's talking about when they fought Rose/Paragon, and Rose and friends had like 10-15 nations with a 3-4 city advantage on Syndisphere's biggest guy so that's what he's referring to.

nah

Welp he has, he didn't do it the year Cynic did it, or the year Bezzers did it. But by all means, he has to give a public statement for me, yet again? Because that makes sense. Alex notoriously doesn't make statements, he did that one year because I wanted to up the awards(own subforum, in-game awards), I have a history of making the awards better than they were and upping the standards. I'll probably do it again in 2 years and you'll be there to rage against me, like people were in 2016.

Then don’t participate. You’re asking us to change everything. The bar for you guys keeps moving. First it was attacks on me, saying I couldn’t be counted on to do the votes right, even though I’ve hosted them before. Then it was that it was a “community event” and this was hurting the community, which was debunked by showing that more people had voted than before. Then it was that we would rig the vote, until it was shown that multipe people from different alliances were in charge and that none of that could/should take place. Now it’s that your IP MAY be given to a player, and you’re not okay with that. When people ask why I ignore your complaints, and the complaints of the people in this thread, it’s not because I don’t think some things you mention are warranted, or that I’m on a power trip, it’s literally because you don’t actually care about the awards or anything like that. You just want to complain. People are excited for the awards, they want to tune into the radio show, they want the awards presented this way. We have done everything in our power to continue with our plans AND cater to your issues. But at the end of the day, the overlying issue is that you just want to have a problem. We’re not changing the system. Any questions can be directed at Dynamic or me, either in this thread or PM. But nothing is changing. On a side note: I think it’s interesting that you were offered a seat at the table to check things out and get involved, and you, to this moment, haven’t. I think that speaks volumes about where your interests actually lie.

Yes, because changing the voting method halfway through the vote seems fair. Getting rid of the votes for the people who either don’t have forum accounts or can’t get them also seems fair. #Sarcasm “We should only allow those who are 100% informed vote- because....Democracy?”

Edward, that would be cool, if it was true. I was asked, and approved to host this year by Alex, who knew and read my ideas, and approved them. He also approved the use of a mass message to handle it. The PnW awards have always been done by the membership, not by Alex. Running to him because you’re not going to get your way isn’t going to change anything. The simple point is, the community has responded more towards this way than to ANY forum poll ever. With now over 800 votes, I can safely say it’s the biggest turnout for the PnW awards ever. There’s no issue with the votes, no issue with the site, no issue with anything. Also, I find it hilarious that a second ago, the fact that this was all NPO members was irrelevant, and now that it’s imperative to mention that there are several non-NPO people who have been upset over it. We’re not moving to a forum vote. So stop asking. If NPO so desperately wants to be included, Frawley can PMme on discord and we can discuss adding him into the group to certify election results.

Look, I’m going to just be honest. There’s ZERO chance that we switch to the forum voting at this time. The reason I feel comfortable doing this is because they’re multiple people from multiple alliances looking and trusting everything for the awards. It’s next to impossible to rig them and if anything happened, the members of the team would see it. As for NPO not being invited to help, I didn’t ask anyone, everyone volunteered. None of your guys did, so none of you guys are included. Finally, stop !@#$ing. It’s way too late, and I already said a long time ago this is what was going to be done, and in all honesty I don’t give a flying frick if random people don’t like it. This is the biggest participation ever, so obviously we’re doing something right. Please feel free to DM me about any concerns. Or feel free to post in this thread. We value the input of the community. The community at large > NPO. Sorry bud.

Sike

Hi Everyone, the official nomination period for this years Politics and War Awards is now open. Please read the guidelines below before entering your nominations. There have been a few changed categories and rules since last year. Guidelines: Please Keep your nominations to one player, post or alliance per category. Any dual submissions will not be collected. Please refrain from submitting more than one set of nominations. If a player double posts, their first post only will be accepted. If you wish to remove your nominations and change them- edit your original post. If you wish to skip a category, please enter [none chosen] into the category to signify to the event team that you have no nomination for that category. Self Nominations will be accepted this year, you can nominate yourself or your alliance as you see fit. Re-branded Alliances will not qualify as rookie alliances, and nominations for them as 'best rookie alliance' will be ignored. We also will only accept players/alliances based on their entry into 2018. Anyone who was here in 2017 or alliance that was formed in 2017 will not be accepted. Nominations- please stick to the format provided below ALLIANCE CATEGORIES Alliance of the Year: Most Powerful Alliance: Best Military: Best Rookie Alliance: Best Flag: Best War Flag: Most Active Alliance: Most Honourable Alliance: Most Improved Alliance: Best Diplomatic Team: Best Economic System: Best Recruiting Staff: Best Propaganda Staff: Best Alliance Growth: Best Forums: Alliance Most Likely to Succeed in 2019: Most Immoral Alliance: Most Controversial Alliance: Best Alliance for New Players: Most Missed Alliance for 2018: Best Re-started/Re-branded alliance of 2018: PLAYER CATEGORIES Player of the Year: Most Powerful Player: Best Alliance Leader: Most Controversial Player: Most Dynamic Player: Best Player Sig: Best Player Avatar: Best OOC Poster: Best IC Poster: Nicest Player: Funniest Player: Most Active Player: Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2019: Best New Addition to the Community: COMMUNITY CATEGORIES Best Wall of Text: (provide a link) Best P&W Forum Topic: (provide a link) Biggest Controversy: Funniest Event: Most Entertaining Discord Channel(Please don't include Slack): Best Treaty Announcement: (provide a link) Best Declaration of War: (provide a link) Biggest Meme: Largest E-Peen: Best Villain: Most Hated Poster: Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit): WORST CATEGORIES Worst Alliance of the Year: Worst Military of the Year: Worst Diplomatic Move: Most Inactive Large Alliance: Alliance Most Likely to Fail in 2019: Worst Player of the Year: Worst Princess of the Year: Worst Alliance Leader of the Year: Worst Treaty of the Year: (provide a link) Worst Forum Poster: Worst Nation Setup: Worst Fighters of the Year (must have fought in 2018? Alliance Most Likely to get Rolled in 2019: Remember- Nominations are open from now until January 5th. Any nominations posted after we have collected them will not be taken into account.

Hey guys, been pretty busy with school. Nominations will now go up on the 20th, voting will still take place January 15th. If you have any nomination categories, you can still comment below or DM me. Thanks

12/05 06:00 pm - The between Acadia and United Purple Nations has expired.

I think this would be a very valid response if "War Dodging" was an internal affair. It isn't, its always been a global one. Coalition A has every right to want to continue to hit the people who are "hiding" in VM to avoid damage, and you have every right to drag out the war to try to stop them from being hit so they can rebuild you. But that's a very valid reason for them to continue fighting. For a long time, your side has taken in people who didn't want to fight or get involved with the war efforts. Now those same people VM'd on you to avoid losing this war. That isn't acceptable. Everyone gets rolled. They can either sell down or get beaten down, however they want to go out, but they don't get to avoid a war. Especially a war that war fought over hitting and destroying those guys. Sadly for you, the CB fits the Reps.

In my opinion, Articles 1,2,4,6,8 should be accepted easily. Articles 3 and 5 are up for discussion. I see the point in hitting the war deserters, but I also believe that should be left up to the individual alliances. As for Article 3, I think those are best left out. 1. Not better, lots of people will be upset AFTER this war ends. 2. Nah, light peace terms are the best.