Jump to content

Nizam Adrienne

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Nizam Adrienne last won the day on October 6

Nizam Adrienne had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

435 Excellent

4 Followers

About Nizam Adrienne

  • Rank
    aka Rienne/Niz/Nizamazin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location:
    Zarajen, Nazara
  • Alliance Pip
    The Knights Radiant
  • Leader Name
    Adrienne
  • Nation Name
    Nazara
  • Nation ID
    61253
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Adrienne#1306

Recent Profile Visitors

1283 profile views
  1. Nizam Adrienne

    War Links on the War Screen

    For both the person you're fighting and you though, to make it easier to compare
  2. Nizam Adrienne

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    Just for clarification, "trust that we will handle it" wasn't the offer, nor did we ever say that all cases were legit. The offer was that we'd compile our own lists, kick actual war dodgers from the alliance, and let you have your way with them. Having kept track of my own actual war dodgers this war, I know my list is longer than the one your side made, it just doesn't include the two that you did and it doesn't because I don't generally allow war dodgers to stick around long enough to reach that size. This original offer was made when we were under the impression war dodging culture as a whole was what you were after, which doesn't appear to be the case. Hear me out with the rest of this post before you go getting mad at me because I'll explain what I mean more. Also, just for transparency, here's the original counter offer: Coalition A doesn't have access to the same information regarding member reasoning for VMs that we do and so lacks the proper information necessary in order to determine if a member is a legitimate war dodger or not We all have our own methods internally for handling VM/war dodgers and we've been monitoring our own members throughout this conflict. We're willing to compile our own lists of actual war dodgers as determined by us and remove them from the AA After members are removed from the AA, you'll face no intervention on their behalf by their original alliance during the time of this war should you decide to go after them And if you wanted to base war dodging cases off more than just reasoning, we could have discussed that but instead it was outright rejected. A member's reason for entering just the first indicator I personally use when determining if someone's war dodging and the one that hit the hardest for us, knowing what we do about some of our members' reasons for not participating for the entirety of this war (all of our nations have fought to some degree). The two other major ones are my general knowledge of that person and how much effort they put in when they fight historically, which can be shown fairly easily through looking at their nation page and would be an easier, more objective look at it to add in, if that's what you wanted. When I refer to no research being done, I'm referring to historical evidence here. The research done was primarily just people that went into VM during this war and logged on once during this time. There's nothing there that addresses it being a pattern of behavior, which is what changes it from just VM users to war dodgers. I'm not suggesting anything totally insane, you don't even need to be extensive and break out old war stats or anything. Like I said before, it just takes a bit more of a look at their nation page. The unit kills for their age is a good start, for example. There's also already been an established method for identifying them through a prior war, which was even lead by a guy on your side. His criteria, when applied to our alliance, does help you identify who is and isn't a war dodger when applied to our VM users. Yes and no. This is where our confusion lied with making a successive counter term, because, while your term may be technically correct, war dodgers already has a definition within this community and it doesn't signify someone that went into VM one time in one war. I do agree with you that had they said VM users from the start we'd probably have had less of an issue because VM users and war dodgers are different things. People on your side are free to continue yelling at me and claim I'm "elawyering" and it's "semantics" but, as has been shown throughout this thread and throughout literally the last few years on Orbis, there is a difference. Your side's term doesn't address war dodgers. It addresses folks in VM and damage parity/rebuild concerns. And that's fine, if that's what you're after. Let me reiterate something I said in my first post on this thread though. This term itself isn't the reason we stopped talks. The primary reason we stopped is because we felt the other side wasn't willing to negotiate in good faith. You can say "we're the winning side and we don't have to negotiate it good faith" and sure, you don't have to, it's your decision. But that doesn't mean that we're obligated to roll over and just accept that either. So we walked.
  3. Nizam Adrienne

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into.
  4. Nizam Adrienne

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    This was one of the examples of the switching goals thing. I asked you all specifically which one was your goal - damage parity or making an example of "war dodgers" and I essentially got a non-committal "we're too big of a coalition, there are too many goals/expectations/intents" as a final response. First, Leo/Ripper stated that the goal was to get everyone under 1k infra, as Leo said above. When that was said, we thought we were starting to understand what it was you were looking for and were discussing it. Then, the next day, we get a different answer that one of the goals is "setting a precedent for strategic use of VM" or making an example of "war dodgers", which we have issues with for the reasons stated above. I can only speak for TKR when I say this but I was willing to discuss and work on something to address the damage parity/rebuilding concerns in spite of the somewhat silly implication that two 21-city nations with 1700-infra builds would be able to rebuild TKR. However, I will never agree to label the nations you wanted to call war dodgers as such, given their contributions to TKR over their time with us. They neither fit nor deserve the title. And your side's gibe that we can call them "war heroes" and the accompanying trolling rewrite of the term during the talks only reaffirms my point about your unwillingness to work with us.
  5. Nizam Adrienne

    Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

    Since there seems to be so much discussion and debate on why we walked and what exactly it is we take issue with, allow me to clarify a few things just to give you all a better understanding of where we stand at the moment. Contrary to some of the statements presented here, our coalition went into these talks with the understanding that we were not on the "winning" side and we would have to accept terms we "didn't like". Per that understanding, when talks first started and we were presented the terms document, our coalition accepted four of the eight terms nearly immediately. It wasn't until we reached discussion on the fifth term that we really started to have issues. The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers". War dodgers have traditionally been defined by this community as individuals who have an established pattern of behavior in avoiding wars, either through VMing or deserting. This is something we all recognize as an issue in the community and, per that belief, we each have our own internal methods for handling war dodgers. Our issue with this term is that, given our knowledge and understanding of our members, we fundamentally disagree with the opposition that all of the members they specifically outlined in their terms were true war dodgers. If holding war dodgers to the same standard as their non-war dodging alliance mates was the goal, no research was done to determine if there was a historical reason to classify those members as war dodgers. Additionally, given that the opposition has accepted war deserters from our side into their alliances and sent messages to our members to try and encourage them to desert, we believed the perceived intent behind this term to be misguided and hypocritical. Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected. Following the rejection of our counter offer, a significant amount of time and energy was put into trying to understand the opposing coalition's viewpoint on this term and why they wanted it, so that we could work on presenting a new counter offer that addressed both our concerns. Every time we thought we finally understood what it was they were trying to achieve with this term and started trying to work on a new counter, another opposition representative chimed in with something that contradicted the prior stated goal and we were back to square one. There was no consistent message being presented and every effort we made to understand was being met with derision and/or trolling by nearly all the opposing coalition representatives. We didn't hold much faith the discussions on the other remaining terms would fare any better if that was the environment we were going to be met with. In the end, we felt the opposition made it very clear they weren't willing to negotiate on terms in good faith. After three back to back days of discussion on this one term, we were no closer to settling the term or even figuring out what is was they hoped to accomplish. With that viewpoint in mind, we decided to step away from the discussions. If the opposition wishes to continue this discussion enough to try and spark a debate here on the OWF, we encourage them to return to the server and start up a conversation with us there. Until they decide they are ready for us to return however, we're happy to continue fighting.
  6. Nizam Adrienne

    Join the Hivemind

    They were talking about BC, I believe. I like the cute confused hippo, btw
  7. Nizam Adrienne

    War Stats - Knightfall

    There are a few alliances missing from your side as well: Orange Defense Network Goon Squad InfoWars Komando The Federation
  8. Nizam Adrienne

    The Underground DoE

    Best of luck, guys!
  9. Nizam Adrienne

    War Stats - Knightfall

    Everyone's too in awe over the gorgeous war stats website to make it anything else
  10. Nizam Adrienne

    War Stats - Knightfall

    Wow. This is super impressive, guys. Thanks for all the hard work you've put into this.
  11. Nizam Adrienne

    Per your request. $yndicate CB talk.

    Well, to be fair, the CB was in the DoW but not everyone got it, so it required a little more explanation afterwards.
  12. Nizam Adrienne

    Per your request. $yndicate CB talk.

    Monkey was an actual member for a brief period, not a ghost. And being transparent in regards to our CB when presenting it is different than not wanting to tip you off that we were hitting you.
  13. Nizam Adrienne

    Per your request. $yndicate CB talk.

    In regards to your CB itself, I’ve shared my thoughts with you privately and we’ve already decided to agree to disagree. There was one part, however, I found rather amusing in light of some additional information you decided to exclude from your post. Attempting to use these skirmishes as anecdotal evidence of our supposed lack of tolerance of “destabilizing elements” without acknowledging members of your sphere’s role in both hits is entertaining, to say the least. Your own alliance was present and included in the planning of the Nuke Bloc hit and only didn’t join at the last minute due to a miscommunication/lack of slots and Rose approached us specifically to try and involve themselves in the hit on TGH/KT, which we declined. This statement also runs with the assumption that punishing people dissenting from bipolarity was our goal, which, given your alliance’s participation in some of these, you’re fully aware wasn’t the objective. Despite the attempts of others to ascribe their own beliefs and viewpoints to our CBs, we pride ourselves on having remained as transparent and straightforward as we could have in regards to our motivations for the wars we have declared this year.
  14. Nizam Adrienne

    Welcome back Felkey! (A video tribute)

    Two separate arguments I was making in that post, friend.
  15. Nizam Adrienne

    Welcome back Felkey! (A video tribute)

    Over half our members in VM have been in VM since before the war iirc, many for the reason Micchan already stated. I believe it was literally discussed at the beginning of this war that we had 10-11 in VM. Many of the additional members that went into VM in the days leading up to war or since were advised to go into VM for personal/RL reasons. Are there members that entered VM because they got dogpiled? I don't doubt there are a few but that's for us to worry about. Your concern for our membership is touching but how we handle our VM members is our decision, not yours. And Leo, you should really check the stats before you talk shit. Of the last 5000 wars declared in Orbis, here are BK and TKR's totals. Considering we're more or less on par with you guys despite being in a defensive position, I think we have it figured out, thanks.
×

Important Information

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