Aerys Targaryen
-
Posts
526 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Aerys Targaryen
-
-
Enjoy your retirement Shiho and congratulations to Gray for the promotion.
Man I missed these Syndicate forum posts 🤣 Just need to see Partisan's text walls and I'll be fully nostalgic.
-
On 9/5/2018 at 11:19 AM, Qin San Shi said:
If an alliance is going to war then I really hope I don't have to take offensive standing military into account, haha. But as quoted I'd be able to specify for that as necessary.
Note it also says the price can be paid right around war. I 100% acknowledge that there's simply some things humans are better at then programs, so this clause also suggests that if something doesn't turn out quite right (or totally wrong) in the process, then we just renegotiate the price so that whoever commissioned me pays a reduced amount, or nothing at all.
I am probably leaving a lot of room for people to scam me by including that haha. But as long as it still causes a war, I don't mind as much ?
I have a bot for this purpose. Good work on the program, but here are some of my comments.
Even if an alliance is going for an offensive war, they may or may not have max military of all types. Sometimes it could be because of strategic reasons. Do you plan to make this bot usable for successive attacks or only for the initial attack? If you want to make a bot prepare targets in alliance wars, then you need to take the following into account
1. The current wars they engage in and the progress in those wars (in case it's not the first round). A nation should at least lean towards winning the current wars (depending on the support it receives from others) before expanding to the next targets.
2. Attacking and defending nations' rebuilding capacity for that moment (this is based on how much they lost military in that day as well as their military improvements/number of cities). Attacking nations can go for slightly riskier defending nations if they are attacking just before update. If this is happening after the initial round, then you need to take their rebuilding capacity into account. If the city count difference is huge, then some couple of losing nations can turn the tide by building military twice near update. So it's useful in more than one instances.
3. As SRD said, you need to allow the facility to set priorities. Then match up highly rated attacking nation with highly rated defending nation wherever possible. Else more often than not, a high priority defending nation will have all the slots filled up and will fight unopposed in 2+ days from initial war declaration.
You can also add more features into how you match different nations. I run simulations some 1000 times, then see the percentage of immense/moderate/utter/pyrrhic/, then make matches.
On 9/5/2018 at 11:19 AM, Qin San Shi said:I 100% acknowledge that there's simply some things humans are better at then programs
What kind of blasphemy is this? Humans are the worst
On a related note, which language do you use for programming? We have a channel for programmers in PnW, we work together in some interesting projects, so if you are interested, then join us. link: https://discord.gg/FRwrZT9
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Senatorius said:
The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it
ah just to clear this one up, I was just pointing out Buorhann's timing. That text, I was replying to the part "I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal", I hope that clears up @Senatorius. May be I shouldn've quoted more properly to make the point clear
-
2 minutes ago, Senatorius said:
The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it
Oh come on, I said I was questioning his timing of this post and why he didn't say anything on previous occasions.
4 minutes ago, Sketchy said:We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible.
Can you just check the old posts before posting new ones?
5 minutes ago, Sketchy said:Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.
Fine, good day !
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:
All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say.
You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal.
Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.
3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time.
So you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".
So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.
-
13 minutes ago, Sketchy said:
Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you.
If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on.
If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both).
If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own.
Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it.
Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.
Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly.
I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.
-
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:
Holy hell dude. There is something legit wrong with you. I'm not going to keep rehashing stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to this thread's purpose.
This is how you usually respond, so I'll leave at this stage.
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:Cool. We'll keep it in mind then, but until we get to that point, as a community we have to reach a compromise on how to approach it and what criteria would make us all happy or content with.
Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from others as there's only a few here.
Great
-
1 hour ago, Sketchy said:
I think you missed my point, which is not that proposals can't be biased, its that ultimately the bias is irrelevant. Either the idea is a good one or a bad one. The motivation/intention of the person proposing the idea only says something about that persons character, it says nothing about the actual validity of the idea.
Bourhanns motivations for proposing the idea are not a strike against the idea but again Bourhanns character assuming you are correct. A criticism of the idea would be something like "this won't eliminate bias and good luck getting alliances to form a consensus on anything".
What you are doing is fighting assumed bias with opposing bias rather than just telling him why his idea is a bad one.
How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement.
How do you define good one or a bad one in this scenario? If it's biased against you, you'd definitely call it as a bad one.
Kindly check below for a reply for your second para.
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:No, I wouldn't have, but you wouldn't know. You're simply speculating it because of my opinion of you guys in the game. I have shown nothing to you or said anything to you that proves your speculation even remotely correct. Your argument is weak and you know it because the only thing you're falling back on is the timing of the thread (Even though I stated that this discussion would work towards next years).
I have, in the past, made fun of the voting myself while showing how easy it was to rig them. So yes, I'm well aware of everything you're stating about it.
I get it though, you're more focused on being butt hurt that you cannot possibly contribute to the discussion beyond pointing out that some people have bias and therefore should be completely neglected out of the conversation, despite the fact that I literally had a very good constructive conversation started with someone whom I would normally be "biased against".
I really don't see a issue with this. You're saying that we should base the rewards off of factual stats that we can pull, and eliminate the rest? I would love to see some of the topics trimmed away or, at the very least, changed to be more definitive.
There are just two (or three of you consider a tie) outcomes that can come out of this poll. One is, TKR getting the usual awards or the other thing is, Inq getting our members to vote. This is my point, try to understand it, till you saw the Inq votes, you didn't say anything, you were posting in the sub-folder of PnW awards, so what were you thinking so far? Were you thinking that, just like last year TKR members will vote for TKR and everyone will remain calm and TKR will get all awards?
In addition to the above, this is not the first time such a poll is happening, we all knew what happened in previous polls, so it's not really a secret how the poll works, yet you didn't mention a word till you saw the outcome.
Oh don't mistake me, I can very well contribute if the discussion is really civil and rational (I haven't seen such discussions so far on forums involving Inq by a EMC fellow, esp from you, thats another case), but I'll point it out when someone is going to put up some statements full of bias against our alliance, I don't see anything wrong in it.
We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.
-
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:
I mean bias is inevitable in these kinds of votes, I think the point Bourhann was referring to is that last year sheepy kind of legitimized them so now they have a certain degree of impact its probably worth discussing a way to refine the awards system in general.
Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.
So basically you can either address what is good/bad about his proposal, provide a counter proposal, move on, or continue to accuse Bourhann of bias and get nowhere, I have no idea if you want to get anywhere or not but I figured i point it out anyway lmfao.
Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not.
Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.
-
1 minute ago, Sketchy said:
Crazy idea, rather than !@#$ing about who is or isn't biased, how about you all just address the merit (or lack of merit) of the proposal one way or the other.
Its a proposal for next year anyway, by next year I doubt EMC/IQ will be a thing lmfao.
I don't think it will work as I already said, but if someone has a better idea they might as well say so otherwise maybe just say "no this is a bad idea don't do it" and move on?
lmfao
Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories.
About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)
-
26 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
I'm 35 years old working a HR job for a construction contract company that requires a lot of work before the holiday's hit. While yes I do spend a lot of time on the forums, I don't pay attention to every single sub folder on the forum. Let alone enough to catch up with the drama before I think "Oh hey, we should work on a solution to these problems if the community really wants it. Let's see if we can have any discussion."
Apparently not.
As for your latter question, I've already stated that it's silly with their suggestions to make it invalid and/or restart them.
Also, @Bot, did you miss this little statement in the OP before you started pinning bias on me?
"(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same. A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting. It honestly doesn't take much.)"
lmao this is laughable. You were in the nomination thread when the nominations were going on and we are talking about the yearly awards sub-folder here, not any other.
That little statement is fine, what I find as a problem is, the way you are bringing it up. You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work
-
3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
And I even stated that I don't give a !@#$ about this year's voting. I started the discussion for next year, or did you miss that?
Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now?
And how do you see all those people who say there should be new polls and the votes by Inq members are invalid or we rigged the voting?
-
2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
Feel free to point out the bias I showed. I can easily show every post I replied with that supports your side through this.
You didn't utter a single word about how flawed the process is, till Inq votes started to come in, then start a post saying we need to reform things, this is what I called bias. Ofc you were diplomatic like usual.
Show me any forum post that you made regarding reforms to be made about how these polls are conducted before this.
-
5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
I would've said the same thing regardless of who was spamming what votes. Hell, I would've spammed the votes myself and still created the same thread. You can still hold a discussion on finding solutions for future voting threads while still being a paranoid forum troll or a honest legit voter. Doesn't matter, and it doesn't detract from the purpose of the thread.
The fact you and the others who are constantly pointing this out, while there has been no bias shown otherwise, shows just how paranoid and/or pessimistic you guys are. You're merely reinforcing the view some people have on you guys that you keep bringing up.
Hell, some of you, who has complained about rig voting in the past had prime opportunities to contribute or start up a discussion yourself. I literally had a good conversation going, no bias, no alliance calling, no insults - but we get this.
"OH YOU WONT DO IT IF TKR WAS WINNING BUT I HAVE NO PROOF OTHERWISE TO SHOW THIS"
That's basically you right now.
What I'm doing is pointing out the bias that you (and others from EMC) are showing. May be I'm biased, just like everyone else, but tell me this, if you are genuine about any change, why didn't you utter even a single thing till Inq votes started to land? You were assuming we are not going to participate?
The burden of showing the proof falls on you, show me a similar thread that you made in previous years about how flawed the process was. You can call me anything, paranoid or pessimistic, I don't mind frankly about those names. Also, when did I ever complain about rig voting in the past? What I find disgusting is, EMC members are complaining about something which we were all doing in the past polls.
-
7 hours ago, Buorhann said:
You guys are always falling back on this. Like, seriously, over 80% of the replies has some petty passive aggressive jab about "OH YOU WANT THE WIN WAAAH".
I personally care less about the current votes. I'm looking forward to next years. This year is already screwed. Let it go.
We've seen in the past how silly it can be, and we've seen now how silly it can be.
I've been on your side of the argument before and with the current way how voting is, I'm still on that side, however - you dumbasses are making it so very hard to support. Seriously, some of you go "We've been avoiding the forums" but now? On voting, you're not avoiding the forums? So weird. Like you guys could've just mass voted as usual, then remained quiet, and just watch the salt and enjoy the drama with some popcorn, but no...
Don't get me wrong though, I'm enjoying this to some extent, but I wish all of you whiners and salt miners would've kept your cancerous posts in the other threads where it was already occurring.
Your posts doesn't look like you care less about votes. It was the same structure pnw forum was following for a few awards now, you never mentioned anything like this (afaik of in this scale), you find it a problem enough to make a post only after Inq members started to vote on, which is why I doubt your intentions. On the other hand, if TKR were to get votes like last time, you would've never pointed a finger in the process. I agree this can be improved, but not with people like you, you are always going to pick some biased approach in a diplomatic way and put it in forums.
5 hours ago, Sketchy said:I mean I see your point about validity, but ultimately its a popularity contest and I doubt you'll be able to get a community consensus on nominations so I think it should just stay how it is.
The real problem imo is some of the categories are dumb and inherently biased just by being voted on.
Best Alliance Growth: Can be mostly objectively measured, 95% of alliances in the game would just not be eligible if we were being unbiased.
Best Economic System: This can't be known by people outside an alliance generally.
Best Recruiting Staff: Same reason, Lots of new members doesn't mean a good recruiting staff, the staff could be garbage and they could be a big alliance with a popular theme.
Most Active Alliance: This can't be known by people outside an alliance generally.
Best Alliance for New Players: Also completely difficult to quantify without joining yourself.
Cutting back on some of these stupid categories that are literally only able to be voted on with bias might at least improve the awards a bit.
May be in categories like "best economic system" alliances can make it public how much taxes they are running at, how much they are receiving as taxes everyday, how efficiently they are managing, how is their econ different from others etc.., then make others vote on the options, we can expect some decent judgment from voters.
Recruiting staffs, it can be measured based on how many new members apply to each alliances. Since plenty of alliances use automatic bots to send messages, new members prefer attractive messages, some form of reply from the one who is sending messages, how well they received in the alliance etc.., (we can also have speed of recruitment bot as a criteria as well)
Most active alliance can be measured if we are measuring in-game activity. We can easily prepare a bot which logs in activity of members, see when they log in every day, how frequent they log in (same can be done for discord as well, using discord bots). So yeah, most of these things can be measured one way or another, but organizers of these events never did it in past and they didn't do it this year as well.
4 hours ago, Micchan said:I think your opinion matters because you are here reading and posting, I already said it
I don't think the opinion of some random player who knows nothing should matter, this is why I would like to see the 2018 awards with motivated options that only people who really care about the community will make (and it also gives many talking points)
Who are you to decide who is random player and who is not? Anyone you don't know becomes "random"? I don't post on forums, I don't encourage our members to post on forums, but they are part of our community, they stay in contact in discord, they interact with others. It's not necessary for others to agree to your point of view, we can debate about various issues, but calling our votes as rigging or invalid is total BS.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BigHiggs said:
I’ve alliance hopped plenty of times, my friend. I think I’ve cherry-picked the important stuff.
People who alliance hop and don't settle barely get to know anything about the alliance in my experience. What leadership positions you held and in which alliances?
-
3 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:
Well. The one time I knew someone was literally saying "vote for X", I told them I thought it was pathetic and to knock it off, even though I thought the candidate they were talking about deserved it anyway.
Syndicate membership was informed enough to see those for the suggestions they were, though: suggestions. Chola was an excellent rookie alliance (don't you think? :P). Cerberus appears to be disbanding, and Sval can't make me laugh.
I doubt it, I was in touch with your leadership (not you directly). Tell me why you are so against it? Is it because of NPO?
-
Just now, BigHiggs said:
It honestly depends on the person. However, the more educated, the better.
The point I'm trying to make is, even if you have played for a very long time, it's not possible for you to know better about other alliances. You will most likely hear things about Zodiac from your alliance mates or friends. Some where someone from TKR mentioned we just accept everyone to inflate our score, if that's the opinion you people have about Zodiac, I don't consider you (or those people) people as educated.
-
3 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:
If you view them as political parties, IQ is using a tactic they criticized in the past, which makes them hypocritical.
If you don't, or if you view the awards as a chance to reach across the sphere, or if you're a third party, or if you think it's a chance to highlight people who do things for the community, then you have a reason to be upset, which your actions have made worse.
Me personally, I didn't vote this year. I was going to do nominations just to highlight some people I thought might have been overlooked, but I was dumb and missed the deadline (maybe I'll do it later. I wanted to try and highlight people from earlier in the year, but my memory is bad hahaha). The flaws in the process were obvious to me, so I didn't participate. I didn't actively round a bunch of people up to try and ruin some more earnest people's fun though. So I think it's pretty scummy of you.
Last year Syndicate was voting for The Chola for best rookie alliance, we were voting for Syndicate/TKR on other options, I don't remember you saying anything. So why now?
-
1 minute ago, BigHiggs said:
Actually I didn’t even vote at all. I choose not to.
Alright that is fine. How about general members who voted on those options from EMC alliances? How much do you think they know about those topics?
-
2 minutes ago, BigHiggs said:
I’ve actually been here longer, nation resets and such. I’ve gotten a pretty good grasp on everything via hearing from different sides.
That is good, now can you explain how our econ works? Or how we manage new members, how we accept new members and how we recruit new members? I suppose you voted on those categories.
-
1 minute ago, BigHiggs said:
But it doesn’t just take a month to know everybody, learn about all the alliances and understand how the game works, now does it?
You have been playing this game for 252 days, you voted in those categories. Can you tell me how our economic system works? Are you really that informed about all the choices or just voting based on what you have seen so far?
-
Just now, Spaceman Thrax said:
Can you really not see why people might be upset at the idea of you telling a bunch of people who are new and don't actually take part in the global community to vote for specific things?
I'm not dismissing the points some IQ people are making here, but the way you've chosen to go about making that point, when the option of, say, offering help to the organizers to address some of your concerns, strikes me as really petty. And the tenor of comments people have made since makes me pretty confident it was borne almost entirely out of that pettiness.
You don't like the community, so you're taking a bad thing about it and making it worse. Okay guys.
People who are new, they may not be active in forums, but people read things here, they are part of our community in discord, we interact with each other. It doesn't take one whole year to get to know people. For options like, economic system or forums or recruitment or best alliance for new players category, why shouldn't members vote for their own alliance or vote for their allies? You have been playing this game for so long, so are you fully aware of every alliance's economic system/forums/recruitment/new member friendliness? You are going to vote based on what you have seen so far, the same way others are voting. I don't see anything wrong in that.
For the record, all you people wouldn't say a thing if TKR were to get a lot of votes.
5 minutes ago, Micchan said:And you can explain how can a player vote for the entire 2017 if he started playing a month ago?
The same way how you are judging other alliances without knowing anything about them. You are just picking options which you are aware of, they are picking options which they are aware of. it's not like we had a huge influx of new members in the last year which will completely overshadow the players that we got so far, so not allowing them to vote just shows your bias in this poll
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BigHiggs said:
This has to seriously be one of the absolute worst communities I’ve participated in. Like seriously it’s saltier than the pretzels I ate for lunch yesterday.
Where have you been? It has always been salty like this.
-
2
-
USC IS FORMED
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Better don't mix rl politics with the themes of alliances imo. Every nation has committed massacre at some point. This is why I miss partisan, everyone else sucks with their text wall.