Jump to content

Kriegskoenig

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

2 Followers

About Kriegskoenig

  • Rank
    Active Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    Polaris
  • Leader Name
    Kriegskoenig
  • Nation Name
    Kriegstaat
  • Nation ID
    34007
  • Alliance Name
    Polaris

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Kriegskoenig

Recent Profile Visitors

1031 profile views
  1. @Eva-Beatrice Your perceived injuries are primarily self-inflicted. You were warned of the outcome of continued behavioral issues repeatedly. You chose to ignore that warning and do precisely as you had been told NOT to do. It's entirely unsurprising to anyone with working cognitive ability that you were punished and not given yet another chance. Your inability to accept discipline and act with a modicum of humility was the final straw. Repeatedly "leaving" when you were disciplined or didn't get your way before had the effect of making your eventual departure much less unexpected, and much less unpleasant. Hostage-taking by means of making threats or implied threats is simply childish, and is unacceptable in a cooperative workspace such as PnW alliance gov...unless you're in a true 2-week micro. I personally am sorry to see you go. You were a good admin, and a good organizer. I'd have like to have seen you remain in Polaris as a resource for administrative tools and Discord management, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out in the end. Sadly, your own choices left the combined panel of government with no options in determining your fate. None of your initial actions were unforgivable, but your entitlement and arrogance--on the heels of repeat violations of direct orders--demonstrated that you simply could not be an effective contributing member of Polaris. Resorting to airing your grudges in a public, one-sided story has not helped you at all. If anything, you've simply confirmed that we made the correct choice, and our sorrow at having been pushed into that choice has been greatly ameliorated by seeing your reaction to it. I'll remind you that I could likewise air a long list of ongoing issues with you outside of the relevant one for which your admin authority was terminated, but I don't think we have any need to stoop to that level. We have no interest in inflicting damage to you personally. I would suggest that you might want to recognize your own responsibility in where you are now, and perhaps consider owning that. Seeing yourself as the victim of others doesn't lead to growth. Your worth is not determined by being a mod, being an admin, or being in government in a web-based browser game. Your worth is not determined by the number of upvotes you get on the OWF. You have value because of who you are and what you can bring to the community as a friend and a kind helper to others, if you choose to do so. We'll miss that from you. "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."--Confucius
  2. YW for the Stockholm Syndrome and the joke war declarations @MRBOOTY. ? Thanks for the beige time! Also, that was nice. You have a good day too. ?
  3. Love you guys, TUE. Keep your chin up and good luck!
  4. Yeeeep. But no, @Aragorn, son of Arathorn it was definitely a "BK man Bad" scenario, you've just brainwashed yourself. ? @Kiloist II if you're in the habit of taking what a member says as what an alliance gov thinks, that explains a lot. You can't honestly be surprised that BK members, who you had routinely trashed to their faces, despised you and wished ill on you, in spite of their returning your bank because it was the right thing to do. Personally, had I foreseen your behavior since, and the fact that you apparently learned nothing from it, I'd have suggested BK keep it. Your behavior is that of a lapdog that bites the person feeding it. @Kevanovia, I'm not coaching you on anything other than how to stop leaking. We all have core competencies, and you've indicated that you're not familiar with basics there. I learned a long time ago that it's ok to learn from others, rather than insist you know everything. See you in the war, y'all have a real nice day now.
  5. Sure thing, kid. Send me the logs, then. ? But you won't, because nobody told you, since nobody in Polaris knew what the fake info even was, and even gov wasn't told that we were leak-testing. Sorry to break the narrative.
  6. OK. Last time I'll do this with you two particular individuals over this, but let me help you with some pointers here. Don't make excuses for bad behavior. The reasons you think you have for acting out are never good enough. That's a lesson both of you will hopefully learn with maturity and long-term relationships. Now, Charlie, for you in particular. If you don't occasionally leak-test your alliance, then I'd hardly be surprised that you're leaky. If you don't leak-test your allies, especially after an obvious leak or two, you're completely incompetent. Everyone competent already knows how to do this and why, but for you and anyone else who doesn't, read Spycatcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher) Peter Wright's biography covering his work in MI5. Pay particular attention to the "barium meal test" descriptions, and you'll learn how to use this to catch a leaker in a remarkably effective way. "TGH/KT stated." Oh, Charlie. I'm sorry I have to even explain this to you...When you have a leak, to an outside group, and that group tells you that the source of the leak is someone else, why do you think they might do that? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Also, barium meal test, buddy. Nobody else could have leaked the info that BC had, because only BC was given it. Now, if you think Cynic was a BK plant to leak your intel, make you look bad, steal your bank and give it to BK, and get you kicked out of VG and rolled, well...I'm sure that's as fun as most conspiracy theories are. I do remember that BK roflmao-ed...and sent your bank back to you. Maybe they should have kept it, since you usually leave that part out. Kev, I figured you could do better, but you and Charlie seem to be attached to the same unimaginative hivemind. "Cynic ended up being a turdbag." Yeah, no argument there. BC DID put him in gov though. So that does still reflect poorly on you as gov at the time. Did Cynic have any prior history that might have indicated his tendencies? "Also Polar leaked as well." Right. So, you're really going with whataboutism and "no u" as your chosen excuses? "Polaris" couldn't have leaked, mate. Barium meal test. Research it, and you'll realize how funny your claim is. Only a very, very small group knew who was given what info. Despite the rather desperate protestation you make that the intended leak was "manufactured from" a combination of "Polar/Pacifica," you make a classic mistake here. NPO had nothing to do with the info, nor was involved. Polaris had only two individuals involved, because it turns out we actually know how to keep a "secret" secret. Yes, BC leaked it. And got caught doing so. Maybe it was Cynic. Maybe it was another of you that has an affinity for KT/TGH. It wasn't my gov, so not my problem. That was for you guys to handle internally. (Given the issues with leaks, planned departures, and the rapid deterioration of the gov group in the aftermath, it just wasn't a solid and loyal enough group anyway. I do feel for Alexio trying to keep the herd of cats aligned.) Regardless of who we want to blame in that gov for the leaks at the time, saying "it was found" (nice use of passive voice for an unsourced statement) that Polar handed out the info is delicious. The only way you'd know that, especially given that the leak was proven to exist, would be if the counter-intel operation had told TGH, which then would then have to tell you. That would have sabotaged the entire operation, obviously. You really need to THINK before making these kind of wild accusations or believing what you're told by the group that is exploiting an intel source within your own government. Don't worry though. Polar man bad, TGH man good. There was no leak, you were set up. BK hated you and took your bank by planting a BK deepstate spy in your campaign while Russia/TGH did nothing wrong... Hey! I've got this sweet bridge in Brooklyn for sale, it's a great business opportunity!
  7. It's not entirely that simple. I wasn't involved in the vote and discussion, but my understanding is that the bloc leaders determined that BC could not remain in the bloc and met with Alexio. I believe Alexio had independently arrived at the same conclusion before the official "termination meeting" and at the point of the discussion being broached I believe Alexio stated an intent to move on. So I'm not calling old BC gov liars in saying they intended to leave, I think they already knew the relationship trust was irretrievably broken, and the situation was untenable. It was basically that meeting with a soon-to-be-ex girlfriend when there have already been issues and you know she's been talking behind your back. You've already had the fight. This was the "let's meet for coffee" when you both already know it's not going to work out, and if she isn't batsh*t crazy she's already preparing to move on as well.
  8. Lol, give James SOME credit for knowing his allies. You're not ALWAYS wrong either. If even a broken clock is right twice a day, Thrax can't always be wrong, and nor can anyone else. Except maybe Akuryo and Scarf. They may just defy the laws of nature.
  9. And yet it really kinda was. James isn't wrong. Perhaps BC had previously planned to bail on VG. I don't pretend to be a mindreader. But either way, BC was in a smallish bloc with three other alliances. While in that bloc, the gov of BC, which was later rebranded as FR, (and from whence the gov has largely moved on to Soup) proceeded to: 1) Antagonize and insult, openly and deliberately, the M-level allies of your bloc partners, in inter-alliance cooperative channels. This behavior was even more aggressive in bloc channels, and was symptomatic of a general attitude of entitlement, arrogance, and lack of consideration for the interests and relationships of others. 2) Leak repeatedly, violating the trust of your bloc partners and their allies. 3) Get caught in a sting operation to catch leakers. 4) Try to blame other bloc members for the leak, which, unbeknownst to BC gov, was specifically tailored information that no one else had. (LOL) These were significant issues that effectively ended the participation of BC since it was obviously impossible to engage with any level of trust and mutual respect. That being said: --not all the issues were Alexio --not all the issues were Kiloist --not all the issues were Charlie --not all the issues were Kev But as a whole, all the BC gov issues combined to a really unpleasant situation for the rest of the bloc. Maybe Kev, Charlie, Kilo, Cynic and Alexio can all be great gov seperately, but like an ex-wife in an amicable divorce, "we're just not great together." Ironically, I was most pissed at Alexio at the time, as he was the leader of BC. Interestingly, as it went on, and BC's chickens came home to roost, he seemed to handle it much more maturely than the rest.
  10. Here's the thing: tactics often require an intentional sacrifice for others to be able to win. If that means I "lose" my war, I'm ok with that, because the team wins in the end. IMO, that's totally different than me "not fighting," it's me fighting (however ineffectual my attacks) in a strategic way to reduce enemy defenses enough for someone else to win. Do we really want to insist that you must have "intent" (subjective, must be interpreted by admin/mods for enforcement) to "win" a war when declaring? We already know that "beiging is bad" because the enemy rebuilds if it isn't done in a strategic way. I don't think Alex ever "intended" that, but that's me interpreting that I think he wanted it to be a straightforward way to benefit the "winning" nation in war, without foreseeing the unintended effects. Now, as a result of the war mechanics and incremental changes to them causing even more convoluted strategies, we ALL (except Arrgh, or when raiding) avoid "winning" wars because "winning" too many individual wars causes the large-scale wars to be extended longer. All of these counterintuitive tactics, from the first T$/Jessica Rabbit strategies, and including MaxAir, NoShip, 1-Ship, downselling, score-capping & tiering, etc., began with clever people realizing that the war system had begun to inadvertently present disincentives to operating within "normal" war strategies. They simply did math and figured out the best M.O. based on the best outcomes. At its core, this whole thing is a reflection of deeper issues in war mechanics. I'm not sure anyone, from Alex down to any alliance with complaints, has a comprehensive plan for a complete, fair, and straightforward remake of the war mechanic to make it more logical. In short, simply changing the wording to "you must intend to win" is so subjective, and impossible with the current mechanics, as to be completely unenforceable with any degree of fairness or impartiality. It would be unfair to ask any admin or mod to consistently enforce that rule in a logically defensible way.
  11. Lol. Financial advice. Buy stock in the salt mines, get rich quick today!
  12. My dear friend from Rose makes thoughtful points, rare on here these days. So I'll respond before taking off for another couple months of ignoring the OWF. 1) Dwynn suggests fair fights don't create a superpowersphere. 2) Dwynn suggests uncertainty and abundant war is desirable. I understand the motives behind your statement. I too, would like to be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally-sized opponent over an issue rather than getting into repeated globals with the entire game on a side, which require longer downtimes for preparation, and are almost always more destructive for both sides. Superpowerspheres have always limited the options in play for smaller alliances. However, psychology, political science, and economics IRL all make it abundantly clear that human nature hates both uncertainty and abundant war, especially war with high losses. We desire the ability to engage in smaller wars. That requires less protection. But as soon as ONE alliance began signing another alliance to a treaty to fight a third, that Eden was over, and we all left the garden. The slide toward hegemonic spheres is almost inevitable without adjusted game mechanics to make it less attractive. I'd agree that in a game, fluidity, change, and an ability to have an immediate, observable effect on your surrounds is desirable in gameplay to preserve interest and activity. In other words, take a large part of the politics out of the game, or reset it/level it at intervals. But I think you need a different game for that, unless Alex makes some massive changes...in which case it's already going to be a different game. Hit me up on discord if you want to talk polisci, human nature, economics, and psychology! Y'all have a fun war.
  13. Oh, the irony. Really, none of you complaining here can be taken seriously being salty about what BK does, because, save a few alliances that lean paperless, your entire group has done the same thing repeatedly, for years. But I don't expect most of you to be objective enough to grasp that. ? And seriously, has none of you ever read Von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, or Sun Tzu? Going into a "fair fight" is the utter height of stupidity for anyone that wants to achieve something beyond pointless destruction.
  14. Wait...doesn't this imply, y'know SPOILER ALERT: That Chaos+KETOGG+Rose won't be around later???
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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