Senatorius

Why are we arguing over a war being too long? Didn't everyone say how much they love war and want more of it?

SRD is actually clinically deceased... just so grumpy he refuses to admit it

Just to clarify is the insistence on the ability to hit the VM mode people or stop false paperless alliances also for the "good of the game" ?

Ignore their ally getting attacked because the tier consolidation? I am sure there has been alliances that have said that there ally is going to win so we don't need to make it a dogpile but to ignore an ally that is going to be destroyed I don't see how that is an option. I can certainly see if Guardian did the offensive that might carry more weight. Was Grumpy suppose to sit back while IQ and tS won all the tiers easily? I am not sure... how much do you have to be winning by for it to be a dogpile? I wasn't involved in the nuke bloc thing but didn't IQ accuse nuke bloc of being part of the upper tier consolidation? Why is it when nuke bloc is part of it they are ok with it but when consolidation hurts them it becomes a problem? Edit: the wiki has the SALT war at 2.5 to 1 in terms of numbers. Not great but most of Orbis' wars have a numbers discrepancy. Wars that sit on peeps are the actual real damage to the game... weeks of not being able to do anything sucks. Wars should be frequent and fast paced we just don't do it that way( and the game doesn't reward it)

Is paper a required thing or is paperless ok? I don't fault the IQ-tS side for their current actions... it makes sense and the fighting has been fun. I think the point is really that we all do that... how do we define the gang bang? Did IQ on KT count? What about NPO's first time? Is a dogpile measured in member count, score, cities, number of alliances or skill of players?

I don't think it is fair to blame SRD for the top tier consolidation. Tier consolidation is an ongoing problem that has been built upon by just about everyone.... TEst has city requirements as well. Just about every alliance in the opposing coalition has participated in consolidation either directly or indirectly. For how many of the last wars has it been low tier vs high tier? Each war saw a little more consolidation as nations were given the option to be basically useless or join your allotted slot... and the so called neutral alliances were happy with the situation as long as EMC were attacking IQ instead of them. The paperless even took money to help consolidate the tiers by joining the winning side. We have all participated in the dogpile. Guardian is also allied to Grumpy...yet you have respect for them... Grumpy isn't forcing Guardian to be allied. Is it reasonable to assume that Grumpy might feel the same obligation to protect their friends? While an alliance leader might have an obligation to the game to make interesting dynamic moves that is such a subjective measure as to be basically useless... how do we determine what is in the long term health of the game? Did Partisan help the long term help of the game with his alliance with TKR... did Ripper in his time as Arrgh leader act as a destabilizing force and counter the rising TKR ascendancy? Did you counter the rising power of EMC when you could have helped? Papers please only happened after EMC had destroyed all other opposition. Nuke bloc was rolled when IQ was beaten down. Ultimately we are all to blame if consolidation is a problem not just Grumpy and SRD.

I haven't seen anybody in Grumpy wanting to avoid this war or upset about being rolled. We are having fun so far( the last stand is always a fun scenario). I don't understand the reasoning that we are ruining everyones fun. Grumpy exists because it is fun to fight with people that communicate ( same reason I think that we enjoy fighting alongside Guardian).With so many alliances in this game you organize a blitz and peeps start talking about how the can't be on at that time etc. We saw it with the blitzes against Guard etc lots of fighters on your side were let down by the guys that weren't logging on or were doing stupid stuff(nuke spamming). I isn't just the size of the nation that gets you entrance into Grumpy but the willingness to coordinate and sacrifice that gets you in. Our friend got attacked and we defended them as best we could. We have had a good fight so far and lots of fun. Who could ask for more from the game? TLDR.... Grumpy is having a blast being destroyed ! No one is jumping out a window because the pixels are destroyed.

Yeah I think the bath does make it worse.... the whole ordeal is just awful...and part if the peace terms might have to be that you guys now bathe him Been meaning to ask what are those growth things on SRD's back??? They don't look right ?

And he had that really off old person smell but worse.... the bath never gets rid of it.

You TEst guys think you have it tough? You don't have to bathe SRD..... he is so old...so very old and wrinkley... like a grey, wrinkled turtle without a shell... that is pain

Yes but that isn't a problem unique to fascism...communisim or religion can also lead to state sponsored terrorism. Many different nations have failed to defend or build democratic systems. Sometimes a civil war is unfortunately needed but historically civil wars have low odds of establishing fair and equal democracies. If the government is already rounding people up you have nothing to lose but usually it just turns into the ones with the power start becoming the bullies. I definitely feel that the lack of a legal process is far easier to abuse than an open and established legal process established by a democratic government.

I agree people do use the term Nazi to mean a range of things which is why the term be handled with care because it can also be used a weapon against anyone politically right of the accuser which actually undermines those who oppose actual neo nazis. I think more to the point if violence is to be used against fascists then it should be by properly qualified authorities not self appointed anti fascist movements. A democratically elected government can fight fascists and be held accountable by the people for the actions they take. Never did I think you were a far left regime or part of one but some anti fascist movements have had ties to some pretty horrific far left governments and the trouble with the movement is it lacks the accountability. Should people be expected to just take a groups word that someone is a nazi or should the accusers have to follow due process? There are definitely times when violence is sadly needed against some pretty horrible people.. ie Britain vs Nazi Germany but the government still had to explain it's actions. Everyone should be equally accountable under the law.

When talking about accusing people of anything convenience should not be a factor. If we are taking the time to fight on another's behalf we can at least educate ourselves about the issue. Not to mention as pointed out the umbrella term is fascist. It is very important to judge those who would use violence even to defend others... that is why we review police and investigate how they handle matters. It is why our laws require due process... to make sure we do not cross the line into tyranny ourselves. That is by no means certain many far left regimes round up former members of not just far right parties but also democratic groups and even union members decades after the party comes to power.

You monster

A nation of any age can not tell you who is the most immoral alliance merely give his or her opinion from what he or her has seen/heard/read etc, not to mention that the nation age restriction still doesn't force anyone to be informed about a vote. Using a objective system to produce nominations and categories will still ultimately rely on opinions and still can't answer who is the most immoral alliance. People will still likely vote for what suits them the most politically. I think both sides admit that they do that. Also that first quote was a response to your position that it is ok to disenfranchise players because it was equivalent or at least similar to preventing minors from voting. I pointed out that the matters are different due to the factor of brain development.

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

In Bourhann's defence I believe that the suggestions were for the 2018 awards and not this one. If this is correct then he is attempting to make sure the timing does not have an impact on the outcome. I also think that attributing Bourhann's desire to change the system as self serving is equivalent to some EMC's (and others) members attributing IQs success in awards as an inability to understand the issue. Attributing values or opinions to others is usually speculation.

I can't argue with that or think of a way to keep that element without having a form of community bias also involved in the outcomes of the awards. If we have a system of polling peoples opinions on matters we can not reasonably object when the poll shows an opinion contrary to what is our own opinion. I can see how people can disagree with a result but can not understand how we feel that the result fails to reflect the views of the people who voluntarily choose to vote that way. And for the whole Bourhann bias thing I to am biased (we all are) but his proposal that we try to find a method of improving our voting system for the 2018 elections is worthwhile. I don't know how to improve it as limiting voting will not improve it in my opinion but the discussion is worth having

Again to suggest that we should vote again because some people have voted "wrong" and people have missed out on their rightful award is arrogant and condescending to the voters. Who is the best ..... is subjective. If we make that awards based on objective/measurable outcomes like most members recruited or most cities built or again most damage dealt then the problem is eliminated. If we have a committee of delegates from each alliance you run into questions like why does a 10 person alliance have the same voting power as a 100 person alliance? Is the opinion of each 10 person alliance member 10 times more important? I strongly feel that objective based awards is the best option.

Keeping the awards to objective stats as opposed to subjective opinion is possibly the best we will get. Most damage done by alliance in 2018 is easier than best military. It will not be perfect as most damage done will favour the alliance that gets the most ideal war scenario (lots of targets with high infra and inactive/uncoordinated players) but it is hard to argue that they didn't do the most damage. Best military is subjective (was BKs performance the best counting the position they were in vs the position their opponents were in etc.)

Having people list why they voted for each option only proves that they have an opinion. Is that really in question?

Having a young nation however is not in any shape or form an indicator of a brain that is underdeveloped or immature as is the case for restricting votes to adults. I also believe that OWF has an age restriction to sign up ( impossible to police though).

Are we seriously talking about being so arrogant as to tell someone else that they can't vote because we don't trust them enough to understand the issue? Who would be ok with being disenfranchised because someone else doesn't trust them to understand the issue at hand?

o7 Hogwarts... gonna be fun

Except in this circumstance 'Easy Mode' has a point, as stated earlier the inability to produce the CB doesn't make sense anymore. Parts of Syndisphere already know the CB right? So they know who the leaker is and are already coming for him/her(people don't like leakers) but now instead of producing the CB to bolster your position with the neutrals and make the likes of Buorhann and Bollocks question why their allies' are lying to them, IQ continues to protect the leaker's identity from no one