Jump to content

Asierith

Members
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Asierith last won the day on September 28 2019

Asierith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

2 Followers

About Asierith

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Basically Wales
  • Alliance Pip
    Carthago
  • Leader Name
    Asierith
  • Nation Name
    Ucharia
  • Nation ID
    19435
  • Alliance Name
    Carthago

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Asierith

Recent Profile Visitors

1182 profile views
  1. So preempting a planned attack on you is the right thing to do? I guess an apology is owed to Chaos, then.
  2. Best of luck for the rebuild, guys
  3. It's rather difficult to consider a war enjoyable, when the opposition's gov have made it perfectly clear that they would prefer annihilation of your community and treated you with contempt even when you were fighting for them. When you can't have an honest and enjoyable back and forth with the opposition - like we once had when we were fighting Coalition A - and the war degrades to the levels of toxicity it has, it's just all a bit boring.
  4. He does terrible things to us on the others.... like honestly asking for our input and not being a total spanner
  5. If you overhaul the existing approval system so it actually has some bearing upon your nation, this could feed into it. Sustained involvement in war causes it to decrease, victories correspond to an increase and add in a base increase to allow for recovery. You could tie the approval to things like city costs/increased delays or directly to economic output or even to military effectiveness. Hopefully it would serve to make actually winning wars a useful thing again.
  6. Excluding the recruitment bots, which have a role in improving the abysmal player retention that we're facing at the moment, I think the consensus of drawing a line between the input/output parts of the game is the most reasonable solution here. It keeps it relatively clear cut.
  7. This bot appeared to have the functionality of allowing you to withdraw things either directly from or using the account of others (ie a gov member). This is quite different from the example you described here, which involves accessing your own account.
  8. It's also often not people accessing their nation with these systems. They're using it to directly interact with an account belonging to someone else, which seems to extend beyond the reasonable grey area surrounding this sort of thing.
  9. Whilst I appreciate the desire to add a bit of artistic flair and desire for later rewrites, once again this isn't what we're objecting to. It's the way that people have chosen names without waiting for a general consensus and the aforementioned bias that they've written into the page.
  10. I'm not here to defend the incoherence that is Minesome. Equally, whilst the paragraph might have been written well, the objection here isn't to the manner in which it was written, but rather the content. The attempt to force what should be a relatively unbiased record of events to fit with the narrative you want to push. Whilst there are other examples of this, this is a particularly egregious one, hence the more public objection to it. In short, don't ruin the wiki.
  11. I think his issue is the fact that we're delving ever deeper into politicized screwing with what should be a (relatively) unbiased account of the events in question. If you wish to have fun with "creative" writing, feel free to do so in the appropriate sections of the OWF or the forum pages corresponding to your alliance/nations. It's really not that hard. As a player who took a pretty long break from this game, the wiki was invaluable in getting back to speed on some of the wars/events that had unfolded in my absence. This current attempt to single-handily dictate and bastardize this record of the events at hand only serves to ruin that.
  12. I think in this case, he's proposing directly addressing the gap in the rules that we have here. Even leaving aside the fact that systems like this mean that account information is being exchanged/collected - which in itself is a violation of game rules, banking-bots have always skirted a fine line. The impact that they have clearly had in the BK case, along with various issues surrounding game balancing and rule violation to do with your account's details, means a change wouldn't be a bad idea.
  13. Perhaps the moment has passed, but I feel obliged to to confirm this. Naturally, there was an element of our inability to sustain the war that we preferred to publicly push as the primary factor, but in reality, the primary reason for our departure was the fact that we were done up with the both the actions of the Coalition and the bloody awful attitude of the Coalition towards us - a sentiment that you were later happy to confirm, Roq
  14. This is why we can't have nice things
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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