DragonK
-
Posts
479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by DragonK
-
-
@Mikey and @Insert Name Here we should all go back to Arrgh and make Arrgh great again.
-
2
-
-
-
On 7/9/2018 at 4:35 PM, RagnarBuliwyf said:
>Weak
Be a man. Hit me ya bampot.
Remember what happened last time you were howling and blowing? ?
Well at least you got a nice meme out of it ?
-
4
-
-
22 hours ago, R Johnson said:
Sorry to disappoint but you will find you won't get much loot from our nations or bank. Modular trading/banking system ftw.
Although you almost caught us with a member selling some bank alum excess to the tune of 200,000 alum. Thankfully Nordland was inactive after his attack and we killed off his ships pretty easily and broke the 1 blockade since the other two TEst nations couldn't be bothered to blockade.
True SA was a bit too poor for my taste. Luckily I AIMed higer :P
@Bezzers You were a good raid, and you put up the most resistance. Sadly, in terms of loot alone you're not the best I'm afraid. Still a solid 3/5 from me.
-
8 hours ago, HopeSolo said:
hello! i know it's a bit hard to tell from the first image, but we actually are defending in our war with TEst. SA has nothing against another fellow paperless alliance, but you gotta return fire when attacked, right?
thought we'd clear this up - yet again - that in-game activity times mean jackshit. like the last alliance that declared on us, you will always take much more dmg than you do to us. i suspect this is more of prefontaine being still really butthurt about matters from a previous alliance we both shared company in, but who knows. no one really expects any reasons for the random wars, and that's cool. no one needs politics in a political simulator, right? errr..."dynamic"? did I do that right? anyway, that's just speculation combined with a little bit of picking a fight on another paperless alliance that it can win before the war even begins based on numbers.
so, last resort boring-mode yet again, not something we wanted to rehash, pretty boring really for both sides, attacking 3v1 and get nuked/launching nukes. the lack of loot TEst will get from nations or the bank will prove to put us all to sleep, but maybe SA can have some fun fights with TEst's lower tier in the coming weeks.
cheers to everyone! and i apologize to myself and to you for having to post in the cesspool that is this forum.
Signed:
-all of Spanish Armada
I support this statement.
As a life long pirate I too decalre 5 wars with 0 military units all the time. It's the thrill of winning despite that and stealing that dosh loot that makes worth all the infra damage and unit losses.
Such as this initial infra cca. 1200
And then when you find such rich people that totally didn't steal from any bank ingame that just wanished into thin air recently:
You successfully gathered intelligence about United Front. Your spies discovered that United Front has 60 spies, $30,487,990.65, 1,717.21 coal, 2,028.00 oil, 2,011.17 uranium, 0.82 lead, 2,602.99 iron, 0.75 bauxite, 102,700.48 gasoline, 99,940.74 munitions, 91,109.88 steel, 100,000.07 aluminum, and 737,054.98 food. Your agents were caught and identified by United Front's counter-intelligence forces. The operation cost you $18,186.53 and 0 of your spies were captured and executed. Save this information; if you leave this page you will be able to see this intelligence report under your espionage notifications.You successfully gathered intelligence about The Kingsguard. Your spies discovered that The Kingsguard has 47 spies, $37,730,728.65, 30,264.98 coal, 538.75 oil, 3,627.99 uranium, 360.50 lead, 325.60 iron, 122.00 bauxite, 59,069.67 gasoline, 40,140.16 munitions, 49,705.10 steel, 19,821.44 aluminum, and 207,556.85 food. Your agents were able to operate undetected. The operation cost you $18,186.53 and 0 of your spies were captured and executed. Save this information; if you leave this page you will be able to see this intelligence report under your espionage notifications.You successfully gathered intelligence about Xandar. Your spies discovered that Xandar has 60 spies, $16,925,101.04, 0.00 coal, 0.00 oil, 7,036.91 uranium, 629.00 lead, 690.00 iron, 326.00 bauxite, 58,790.44 gasoline, 58,680.60 munitions, 60,062.25 steel, 23,708.85 aluminum, and 506,315.66 food. Your agents were able to operate undetected. The operation cost you $18,186.53 and 0 of your spies were captured and executed. Save this information; if you leave this page you will be able to see this intelligence report under your espionage notifications.And, ofc, you make sure they can't stash away that said bank anywhere else:
Launch your nukes, I'm ready:
I used to be #6 in nukes eaten, till I dropped due to lack of service. I'm currently 5 nukes away from tieing for #9 spot again.
-
4
-
-
On 7/5/2018 at 3:12 PM, MoonShadow said:
Did this not happen before then Seb and Co blamed it on someone who to this day states he had no part in the missing Cash, now its happened again this what the third time.
Alex you really should code a bank in to the game letting people deposit for a set interest rate, and letting other borrow money at a higher rate.
These private (Pirate) banks are doing a better job of o stealing your cash than Arrgh
Small Edit, would like to say people i know in AIM are upstanding, and its a shame they get marked with the stain of that bank, after all this is not the first or the last time Emerald Bank, loses moneyThat's why I keep telling everoyne bankers are true evil, not pirates!
-
2
-
-
On 6/9/2018 at 11:38 PM, RagnarBuliwyf said:
We'll show you how "weak" we are.
You've already shown how weak you are. I remeber, don't worrry. Altough if you in particular want to show me that loot again, I wouldn't mind ?
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 5/7/2018 at 1:01 AM, Curufinwe said:
Well I mean you're always have your war stats if you need to derive a sense of achievement from PW...
True, but they themselfs would become meaningless when a no life scrub beats me within a few months due to him only needed that much to get where it took me years. Look at money stolen for examle, a stat that was introduced post all war changes that were detrimental to me and my playstyle, and now you have young nations (or rather, youn pirates) like @Bluebear and @Ripper on top of if over me, just becasue it's counting stuff after I was already well past my prime. And, to add to same point, those same active nations surpassed me in city count quite easily, just becaseue there is more money now than there was in past. If they can do it, I don't see why your nations couldn't do the same. Getting to 20 citys is easy if you put your mind to it, I see no reason to change costs.
-
On 4/25/2018 at 1:48 AM, James II said:
Remind me again why I should miss someone who went around sending porn via in game messages to people (likely children)? Pretty sure that's a step beyond "roleplaying."
On 4/25/2018 at 1:58 AM, James II said:He was banned for sending porn to children in game. Not for his forum posts.
On 4/25/2018 at 3:46 AM, James II said:So you're saying Alex should allow Rozalia to send porn to kids in his game?
On 4/25/2018 at 3:39 PM, James II said:There is a delete button. Rozalia didn't have to send porn to kids to get leave the game. It was a ploy for attention and incredibly unethical. The action goes beyond roleplay. It was a dumb thing for him to do and it's sad you defend this action. You shouldn't send porn to kids, it's against the law in most countries. Quit trying to justify it.
On 4/30/2018 at 2:35 AM, James II said:Lol @DragonK making shit up. Where did I say he sent it to people under 13? Quit trying to spin it and accept your friend is a dumbass and probably not the greatest of humans.
I think this is self evident. I do use that word as people who are preteen. But I understand you meant minor in general. Which again also coveres the said group, but also extends to a bit more older group as well.
-
On 4/29/2018 at 7:01 PM, Big Brother said:
I'm not sure anything is harmful by itself. For something to be harmful, it has to interact with something that is harmed. Regardless, you do know that movies and video games do have age restrictions? They might not be enforced by the law but they do exist and they exist for a reason. It can be harmful for children to be exposed to what we call adult content in general.
You saying that it's tame and benign (lol) is really nothing but your personal opinion, which many people don't agree with and you haven't exactly proved that your personal opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Just because you're ethically cool with teenagers (aka children) watching pornography doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for children to do that, and holding that opinion doesn't hold any worth or validity by itself, it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Nor does the lack of preventative measures against children being exposed to things that can potentially be harmful to them mean that people shouldn't try to take such measures in the present/future. It certainly doesn't mean that sharing adult content with children shouldn't be condemned as wrong. You're basically saying that because kids are looking at porn anyway, sending them more porn isn't really a big deal. But that's just apathy, it just means quitting and giving up. If more parents thought like you do, I would be seriously concerned about how kids are gonna end up in the future.
Except there is a legal definition of children, as I showed you earlier. Minor = children. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. If you find using the word children or kids to be misleading, that's an individual problem of yours that I can only assume is a result of either your denial of simple facts or perhaps your failure to understand the things I've shown you. If your age is below the age of majority (which is usually either 18 or 21 and which "legally demarcates childhood from adulthood"), you are a minor and thus a child. It really isn't any more complicated than that. You can disagree with using minor and child interchangeably all you want but it would basically be the equivalent of denying the existence of gravity. Your disagreement doesn't change the truth and in this case it only ends up making yourself appear dishonest. Now, considering how easy it is for you to deny the facts, what's to stop you from doing the same should any proof be discovered? I get the feeling that you're more interested in sticking to your guns and convincing yourself that you're right than you are in actually learning the truth of things. Even if I could somehow figure out the identities and ages of every single person who received the links, there'd be no point to providing any proof if you're going to be unwilling to accept it as true. You are right about there being no proof though, so while I still consider it to be fairly likely that at least one minor received the links, I won't judge someone for an act that hasn't been proved to have taken place. I still believe sending the links to anyone to begin with was wrong and completely worthy of the ban. It was also kind of tame, I honestly expected something edgier and more megalomaniacal.
Meh.
Drinking too much water can be harmufull. You don't see them banning water. As far as I'm aware there is no PROVEN corelation between it and any harmfull effect. Using same excuse you could ban video games cause "they make you violent". Just becasuse something is legal or illegal, allowed or not allowed, it shouldn't be taken for granted. You should always question yourself, and the world around you. But ethicality or morality is hardly the issue or the matter here, but just wanted to make sure even that is on shaky legs.
It's my personal opinion based on observable facts. Which makes it more valid than the one based purely on someone's ideals of belifs. Just casue it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not better. It not having any relatively bad effect, free availablity of it as well make it less of a big issue. And that is if some of the recipents of the message were children, which there were none last time I checked.
Legal definition is major and minor. Children are not a legal term, and are more social, everyday term. Thus it's misleading, since the targeted word was minor and not children, which are similar but not sinonimus, since one can refer to pre teens only as well as all teens and even majors (just becasue you're and adult and a legal person does not unmake you from being someone's child) and thus my point still stands.
As far as my opinion goes, I know it myself the best, and I know I've changed my opinion a lot based on new relevant evidence. This might be me favouring one side here, but it's mostly to defend as equally absurd opposition trying to defame and demonize him. So yeah, using cheap tricks against opponents doing the same is not beyond me, but just casue they're cheap doesn't mean they are not correct.
Glad we both agree it's a tame but banable offense. I'm merley trying to stop people who are trying to make a big deal out of it. I never once said he shouldn't be banned for breaking the rules, I mearly pointed that some rules are ridiculous by nature, and that it wasn't as big as deal as some people trying to gather a lynch mob tried to make it out to be.
-
41 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:
So you admit you dislike this for this relates to the political side and a future war that may not happen rather than concern for idea at hand, got it.
Literally has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just attacking me personally. Lmao come back when you have something related to the topic.
You have not literaly read what they said and are ignoring to adress points made to this topic. So I'll try again.
What you're asking is not to benefit new players, but to benefit yourself. Saying it's for new players is a lie you use to get a political advantage over your opponents. So this has nothing to do with new players and all to do with politics. So answer the godamn points they made.
Even if this was about new players, it's a bad unbalanced policy that would harm older, more loyal players by devaluing their sense of achivment. Not only that but it's actually not helping the new players to get interest in the game. The game would just get easier for them while remaining same in content. The only thing you're doing is giving them easy mode that makes them think they are good until they get destroyed by elite players who actually enjoy and understand this game, and then some 100+ people delete cause the game is harder than they were comfortable with.
And besideds it's your side who lost both the war and the player base, so it goes to show that problem lies withing YOU and not the game mehanics. I'm tired of people whining and crying to @Alex every time they suck at the game casue someone else actuall bothered to master it. How many times did you have to nerf Arrgh to be able to stand on your own shaky feet? And what did you achive by it? Good, old, loyal players were betrayed and left the game, and were repalced by large number of noobs who enjoed how easy the game was, since there were almost no elite left to show them what this game was really about. I'd rather purge those new players who'd quit anyway in few months, than to keep them around for a year instead of people who've already played this game over a year. And besides, with all the nerfs done, this game isn't even hard to play, it takes around 100 wars to learn all the tricks. If you lack war experience, well, either do more war till you figure it our, join Arrgh and git gud, or ask Arrgh to raid your members till they git gud. Why is learning and adapting such a strange concept to all you losers who have to ask admin to change game in your favour? All you'll ever achive is force players like us to suffer for a month at best, make a few of our people ragequit, and then we'll adapt to it and destroy you again, and then either you or someone else will go and cry again how OP we are and how game needs to change to suit them better. And do you know what's funny? Most of those whiners quit the game after those changes failed to make it any easier for them to deal with us, and despite everything, here I am, still persiting, still adapting, and still destroying anyone crazy enough to challange me.
-
5
-
-
40 minutes ago, Ⓕurpk☄ said:
The problem I see in shrinking the city cost sub-30 cities is the implications it could have on wars. This proposition is basically just a call to make everyone in IQ into whales to accommodate for the lack of skill within their players, citing it would help everyone else to give themselves the moral high ground. Making this an altruistic argument, or one of keeping players in, is overall a false dogma laid down by the IQ hegemon. Trust me, players don't stay in this game because they want to pixel farm, I would have left long ago because such a proposition is laughable. People stay because they love the community; it's fun to engage with your fellow Orbisians.
Look, to propose that the growth factor among us minors is skewed in favor of whales and not us is a false statement. If you pursued growth in your alliance, you'd select your most competent members and supercharge them to a higher status, bringing up a few first than all together. Hell, if I recall correctly, you lot have ludicrous taxes on your base, that should have been enough capital to rebuild your top and middle brass, then bring up the shining stars among your lower rung. But to lobby Alex over lowering city costs to supercharge yourselves, then alluding to its many benefits while alluding briefly that somehow growth in this game is somehow too "prohibitive" is just absolutely devious, especially with your votemongering by flooding this forum with your bloc members. I see no reason why we should shift city prices from their status quo, and until you can change my mind, I stand by my argument.
Though, I ought to give you guys credit for trying, this realpolitik move is obviously based off of historical events where the uplifting of poorer, larger groups led to the shadowing of the head honcho, like the United States and Britain, Germany and Britain, the Soviet Union and Germany, France and again Britain, China and Japan, and soon China and the United States. I'll finish this off with a quote from Lenin which should console you, "Half a century ago, Germany was a miserable, insignificant country, as far as capitalist strength was concerned, compared with the strength of England at that time. Japan was similarly insignificant compared with Russia. Is it 'conceivable' that in ten or twenty years' time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have remained unchanged? Absolutely inconceivable."
That was well written, to the point argument, addressing all that needed adressing. What are you doing on this cespool of forum? :P
-
2 hours ago, LeotheGreat said:
At this point we have reached a stage where the difference between nations and alliances city count wise is large enough that it is stifling the game's atmosphere. As leader of an alliance of over 2500 accepted players in our history, the economics of the game have become that alliances are discouraged from investing in new players, hurting P&W's over all retention. When noobs see people with 20+ cities, and realize that it takes literal years to reach that level it hurts retention as many noobs get disheartened. City costs at the sub-20 level are simply too prohibitive in their current state to help newer players reach that level, as shown by the numerous graphs showing how most players quit early on. If there was a radical cut in sub-city 20 prices it would enable ALL alliances to develop newer players, and let them catch up to the normal player base, and increase retention across the board for all alliances in Orbis.
This in effect would have no negative impact on older players, who retain their cities they have earned, but will help every alliance when developing newer players. Everyone on Orbis benefits from increased retention of new players, and there isn't a benefit to it requiring literal years to catch up to the established player base.
This will greatly devalue a lot of old player's sense of achivment, since it took them 3 years to get to 20 citys and then some nobody noob makes it there in 3 months thanks to boost he gets from alliance and cheaper prices.
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, Johnny Costello said:
i mean. y'all attacked us. just saying.
Says an ex-Arrgh guy who just attacked people like that too. Just saying.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Big Brother said:
You're joking, right? My post wasn't my personal opinion, what I quoted about the age of majority and the legal definition of children is literally tangible evidence, not my subjective opinion. Not only are you defending an act that is in no way worthy of being defended, you are straight up denying facts even when presented with them. No one will fall for your poor attempt at relegating fact to personal opinion and it only serves to make yourself look unwilling to accept the truth.
Who's screaming pedophile? Sending children links to pornography doesn't make you a pedophile. Being attracted to children does. Please, stick to commenting on things that are actually being said or written instead of commenting on your own made up nonsense. As of right now, the main message of your posts is that you're the one full of bullshit, incapable of admitting to even the most basic truths if it means you have to admit to being wrong.
And yeah, I agree that just because something is against the law it's not necessarily bad, but this is not one of those cases, something that should be obvious. But hey, I guess you're too busy brown-nosing to develop a nuanced understanding of the morality of illegal actions before you open your mouth.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the legal definition of children, it is what it is. And it being what it is does in fact mean that you can make an argument rooted in fact and law that James II is right and Roz did actually send it to people that are underage, people that shouldn't have access to pornography and that can be defined as being children, which is not only very ethically or morally questionable, it's also possibly illegal (not that I care much about the law). But hey, it certainly wasn't surprising. Shitty people do shitty things all the time.
Perosnal opinion was directed towards other people I tagged in my reply, not you. And I'm not denying that he sent the porn or that he shouldn't be baned for it, for it is vaguely against rules, it is the fact that certaint people are trying to make it look as if he's the next hitler (not literally).
It doesn't, no. Still what I was trying to say is they are trying to make him look worse than what he really is by bringing children into discusion. (I did exaggerate there a bit, but it's not like noone did it before me in this thread, I need to make my claim as big as theirs
)
That's debatable. Porn of itself is not harmful. By same definition you could make it illegal to play violent video games, or any FPS cause it's "bad for children". Teenagers across the world google porn themselfs, and watch it on daily basis. Clearly nothing is being done against it, so why persecute a man for something so tame and benign?
There is no legal definition of children, as word childern is not clearly defined. The legal definition is minors and adults (or majors). Bringing the word children is misleading. And again, I'm asking for proof of those claims. Which minors did he send the links to against their will? Or even one of those minors that actually asked for the link?
-
2 hours ago, Betulius said:
I assume that appropriate means basically the same thing as in the forum rules, which explicitly prohibit pornography. I agree that the rules are often vague and moderation often arbitrary, but this really isn't one of those cases.
Nothing beats vague rules and arbitrary moderation. There is ofc, random updates with unwanted and untested changes. But hey, he still get's his donatiions so he must be doing something right.
-
On 26. 04. 2018. at 4:15 PM, Big Brother said:
Wrong. No one agreed that there aren't any children here, you just don't know how age of majority works, apparently. Teenagers are children, until they reach an age recognized by law to qualify them as adults.
"The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when minors cease to be considered such and assume legal control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18. The word majority here refers to having greater years and being of full age as opposed to minority, the state of being a minor. The law in a given jurisdiction may not actually use the term "age of majority". The term typically refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority does not necessarily correspond to the mental or physical maturity of an individual."
Which means that if you're under the age of 18, in most countries, you are legally a child. Of course, this in turn means that a lot of people playing this are children. Bottom line is, you're wrong and you don't really know what you're talking about. Amazing, considering the fact that you could have looked this up just as easily as I did and you could have corrected your own opinion according to the facts. Instead, you chose to spew bullshit. Gg man, lol.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/child
Word children had double meaning, it can be taken as either below the age of majority (for which word minor is better applicable) OR below the age of puberty, which is bascially before they become teenagers. So when you use word "CHILDREN" ofc most people would think you mean pre-teen, to which I agree, showing porn is bad, however we're talking about teenagers here AT WORST, as far as we know, only adults got the links to the porn! So again you either agree to the facts or you disregard all the facts and screem pedofile at top of your lungs, but we all know who's full of bullshit and who speaks the truth. And finally, while at topic of law. just casue something is against law, it's not necesarilly bad. Just google random illegal bullshit things, for instance this: http://www.kickassfacts.com/30-interesting-and-unusual-things-that-are-illegal/ to know that law is made by humans, who are all flawed and have personal interests. For instance, in Croatia, it's illegal to have gay marriage, so I should assume gay marriages are bad casue my law says it's illegal? And one last thing, it's not like I'm against him getting banned, he got exactly what he wanted and I support it. I do take issue with bullshiters like @James II who claim he sent it to children (I've got the feeling he meant those under 13 years old, but maybe he just meant minors in general?) or that waste of air @Johnny Costello who's actively killing off our brain cells whenever he replys.
That's it from me on this shitfest of comments, feel free to reply, but please provide some tangible evidnece or proof of your claims, rahter than stating your subjective opinion as if it was an objective fact.
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 26. 04. 2018. at 3:14 PM, Zeebrus said:
Ooo can I be on this chart thing too? Where would I be?
In 3rd dimension called chaos (x,y,z system)
-
Arrgh!
-
Can't wait to reck some shit again. I got shit alliances to fight in last war. Hope I get something worthy this time round.
Blood for the Blood God, Milk for my Khorne Flakes!
Arrgh!
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, souparmon said:
I mean, besideds the shitpost from being extremly long and taking half the page to quote, it was quoted at least 5 times already. If you really need to read it, just scroll up or back ffs. Just cause he deleted all of it or summed it up into nice short sentence, doesn't make his response to it any less valid.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Mitsuru said:
The age minimum of this forum and therefore in extension also the game's age minimum, is 13 years. It is not up to... - irrelevant bullshit
So with your first statment you agree that there are no children here, just adults and teenageers? Case closed.
10 hours ago, Johnny Costello said:Oh do I smell idiots all around today.
in case anybody needed some proof of the message. (mods can delete if its a violation. idk because i can never find you guys)
also i feel alot of players are going to note those who have expressed support for a known sexist and racist individual here on the forums.
so as alll social justice shall have it. the official undesirables of Politics and War.
1. Roz Wei (alliance)
2 Rozilla
3.Mad Max
4. DragonK
5.Horsecock
6. Geralt von Rivia
7. evilpiggyfoofoo
8. JamesXVI
9. Spaceman Thrax
10. Justin076
11. Lightning
12. Shiho Nishizumi
13. Theodosius (and all of Knights Templar for that matter)
14. Shifty. (stop trolling and build a city)
15. Buorhann. (get over yourself you roleplay a hippo)
16. Epi
17.Kastor. (didn't you quit ages ago)
18. Insert name here. (bro i respect you to the underworld and back but don't be out her supporting this idiot)
19. Codonian
20. Patrick Higgins (nice burn but get some class my friend)
and 21. Buorhann again. who in their right effing mind asks for porn on a nation simulation game. are you trolling or just being stupid. dude really.
also i probably should be on the list but its corrupted by my correct use of progressive and strong points to supporting a very lowlife man who hides behind his racism by calling it roleplay.
I for one am glad Roz got banned. andi feel Alex should keep banning down that list until people realize that this topic isn't going to hold any water. Roz decided to "go down swinging" is that a Fall Out Boy song or some excuse to his actions of sending P O R N out to players as a troll life trope. do you guys really support this or are you laughing behind your keyboards. seriously you can't believe this is a smart thing to put out into the world.
and don't even start on the dumb talk about how Roz is british so American law doesn't touch him. i'd bet Alex legacy that the United Kingdom has laws against the distribution of explicit content to minors. that is also defined by the ripe old age or 18 in case you forgot. yet 13 year olds play this game. andtbh are they verified well as to their age or can they lie? ifi can get a fake ID im sure a 11 year old can get on this game easy as balls.
so perhaps this is politics and wars #MeToo movement. andits time to call and stomp out the bigots and the trash this game houses. andi think our first victim has fallen. so to that i offer my RIP to Rozilla of Roz Wei. may your enjoyment be short, your roleplay continue to lack in correct thought and action and you be swarmed and mobbed by angry lesbian liberals in your most vulnerable time. Adios Amigos
I think you're confusing your own smell for other people's. Try washing every once in a while, and if that doesn't help try changing your intelectual diet to something healthy.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Hi. I'm Partisan. I have opinions and tend to like arguing about them.
With that out of the way: The point is simple: He got what he wanted. Okay, fair deal. Hardly worth glorifying or even giving any positive attention to. I think a collective shrug is warranted.
...You're bringing out another bogus argument though. "BE GLAD IT WASNT MUCH WORSE/ACTUALLY HARMFUL". No. The fact that it could be worse does not diminish that this move was in bad taste, and there's no need to pretend this wasn''t dumb for the sake of that.
It's one valid option to go down, and alltougj he woukdn't do it there do exist much worse ways to do it. Problem I have here is not lack of positive attention, but surplus of negative. Don't play dumb and ignore obvius attempts at demonizing him by retardedly trying to make it look like he's sending porn to children on purpose on daily basis.
3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:Getting banned would have meant "standing up and fighting an unfair fight to the end" if the actions for which he was banned had actually been you know... been anything other than an actually bannable offense. If it had been something in the same grey area as where roz has operated throughout the game, then yes. You might have had a point.
So... he specifically sent it to people whom he knows would not take kindly to receiving the porn. Sounds like griefing to me. Not some holy war against oppression.
You know I like you but uhh, frick outta here with yo bogus points
He could have aye. But that would lack 2 criteria:
100% chance of a ban
Actuall effort and willingness to fight on. He clearly wants to retire from it, just not on loosing note.
-
2
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, James II said:
There is a delete button. Rozalia didn't have to send porn to kids to get leave the game. It was a ploy for attention and incredibly unethical. The action goes beyond roleplay. It was a dumb thing for him to do and it's sad you defend this action. You shouldn't send porn to kids, it's against the law in most countries. Quit trying to justify it.
There is also get banned option. Deleting means admiting deafeat. Getting banned means standing up and fighting unfair fight to end. And what kids are you even talking about? Ther are no kids playing this game ( age verification over 13 needed to register if I remeber correctly) and he sent it to specific people he knew would report him, not to random mass. There were no kids who got those links. And even if they did, so what? It's not like he sent then blood and gore videos.
-
2
-
7
-
Statement on Spanish Armada's In-Game Activity & Mutual Destruction
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Tehnically speaking I'm bottom tier. I had my spys whiped out twice by t$ before this war. I didn't manage to rebuild half the number of them. Yet, somehow, despite all of that, with coordinated attacks you guys pulled off, I alone have more spys than your entire alliance combined. But hey, keep on talking. I'll smack all of you who are brave enough not to hit that VM like some 2 of your cowards already did.
Unlike you guys, I really am MAD.