naTia

I think I deserve some recognition for locking down the 3 or less city tier. Praise me.

inb4 it comes out that kastor leaked it

o7 The True The Polar Khan

We're making a new Mensa HQ

Oh nice, I've done all I needed to do then

And to think I had guessed we were just going to reform Mensa

I think what you have stated indicates an understanding of (and subsequently the motivations behind) becoming the largest nation/alliance in the game. It is clear to me, and I'm sure many others, that the leaderboards, nation score, alliance score, and such representations of progress are benefited by an aversion to war. What you are getting flak for is not about whether or not it is wise to invoke large alliance wars, but rather whether or not it is fun and worthy of our collective time. What this post represents, at least to me, is a plea to make this game less about preservation and political stagnation and more about friendly, interactive competition. What I believe Pre is asking for is a change of heart regarding the culture and mindset of the game. Thus, I believe, it is impossible to try to determine what would be best for one's nation and simultaneously best for themselves. While it may seem the most obvious to find nation score paramount to personal enjoyment, I implore you to reconsider. I understand that you need to build a nation to play the game, and that sometimes the downtime isn't too exciting, but when I think back on my time spent in this game, I can barely recall my decisions in building my cities. I can barely recall how I came to max production or commerce. I can barely recall what I was thinking as I waited for the hour to change. I especially don't remember the nitpicky mechanics of the game, but what I can recall are the war times. I remember the lead up. I remember the declarations. I remember feeling strong emotions whenever I saw my enemy's stupid little icon. I remember trying to outfight in the game and outwit in the forums. OWF fights were petty, and sometimes they weren't so light-hearted, but goddamn were they fun. I remember staying up until 4 AM because @$%&ing Keegoz wanted to catch our enemy off-guard. I remember hating his guts for it, but respecting the play. Even more importantly I remember what I did in those times to help those around me. I remember how desperate I was to make a difference in a war; all the time forgetting that all that mattered was I had someone's back. Then, when tensions fell and everyone's nations were destroyed, I remember playing video games with those I called my enemy just hours previously. Stupid Pfeiffer and his pesky clan of Dio-lovers, but damn did he put up a fight in Rust. To me, that is what makes this game. What I am trying to ask of you, and anyone, is to find meaning in this game outside of the score of your nation. I think we may find ourselves having more fun than we realized we might.

My takeaway and something I've felt since the EoS war on TAC - you don't need the strongest casus belli to start a war. There is nothing shameful in aggression, and it makes the game more competitive. An increase in fighting will serve to increase the value of your pixels far faster than waiting for your next city ever will. Hail to fighting.

Dw I got you covered fam

GPA represent what few care to agree with - being boring in an online game. Pacifism isn't inherently bad, but god does it make you seem insufferable when you say "we're just here to build and defend ourselves". If you don't wish to play politics or go to war, so be it, but nobody will be there to defend you.

Come at me, I got landmines galore!

tbt murder in candy kingdom starring belisarius and pbg

I will unleash the fury of raw european uranium

1v1 me nukes only

Remember that time guardian rolled gpa and were all like "hey guys look at us we definitely have a legit cb" and everyone was like "okay lol" and then gpa died and now mensa is guardian because everyone likes to hate gpa.

Just Mensa Server things <3

I think it's true that in Western media, foreign people aren't given the same coverage that Western citizens are, but what we have to keep in mind is that ISIS, only as an example, is an institution with an even lower value of human life than ourselves. Anyone who does not agree with their message must be slaughtered, as is the case with the many fighters they have "made an example" out of. As a result, ISIS is treated as a terrorist organization, meant to incite fear and target people who they do not agree with (So yes Moreau, we can call them terrorists). Just as this definition applies abroad, so does it apply in the Western World. Granted, I have a US-centric view, but I assume most of the Western World considers attacks on specific people as a means of furthering a cause to be terrorism (Oklahoma City Bombing, Boston Marathon Bombing). These people are treated in the harshest of manners (Death penalty, maybe an appeal in the Tsarnaev case but you get the idea). So when bombings occur in the Middle East, the highest of precautions are taken. Keep in mind, most of these countries are still an active warzone. Just as many murders in large cities such as Chicago go unreported, so too will murders in an active warzone. Just as murders in an active warzone not caused by Western influence go unreported, so too will murders caused by Western influence go unreported. We bomb these places not because we don't care about lives, but because the threat posed by appeasement-like neutrality to lives around the world is greater than the threat posed by targeted bombings. Places like France and the United States are not active warzones, so bombings targeted at civilians, and not combatants, are particularly heinous. In WWII, civilians died when bombings occurred all over occupied nations, but that is the nature of war. The problem is, our new threat is an idea, not a state. We have employed our best method of fighting such a threat, but this is a different war. Terrorists do not declare sides, and they do not differentiate themselves from the civilian population. They simply do not care who dies when we attack them, and what we call civilian deaths are their version of propaganda. This is an age of new warfare, and as sad and tragic as the deaths around the world are, they do not occur because we 'don't care'. They do not occur because 'browns are treated differently'. They occur because they are necessary in fighting the evil that plague them. Nobody claims that it is any more wrong to kill a 'white' than a 'brown', but it is very fair to claim it is more wrong to target non-combatants than combatants.

Subforum or riot

Boo TLF sucks <3

I suggest a dedicated subforum for Rust for PC. Currently we have about 8 pnw players and a couple others on the Mensa HQ server.

Sounds like good grounds to add illicit money printers if you ask me

Well if it's the government they'd have to hit a reserve, in which case it'd take out gold. Unless you use a currency not backed by gold so idk why they'd have gold. Maybe they just also bombed the value of your dollar, unbeknownst to you.