Jump to content

Reuben Cheuk

Members
  • Content Count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

255 Excellent

2 Followers

About Reuben Cheuk

  • Rank
    'Salt Mine'

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    The Commonwealth
  • Leader Name
    Reuben Cheuk
  • Nation Name
    Reubenia
  • Nation ID
    60539
  • Alliance Name
    The Commonwealth

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    ReubenKC#3750

Recent Profile Visitors

965 profile views
  1. If there weren't a need to maintain good optics and convince the undecided players of this game, I would be dismissive of Roq's arguments, and address them like the unadulterated human waste that they are. Such a comment would be unproductive and unreasonable, so I will simply say this: in this thread we have a poster firing baseless assertions in what is likely a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts and gaslight those who read this forum. I'd recommend that those perusing this thread take all his comments with a grain of salt. In fact, I suggest that all readers take all comments here with a grain of salt, as it will be good practice for the future, and will have the same result as the first option: the total evaporation of any illusions as to the cogency of Roq's arguments.
  2. "The Inquisition entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to roll everyone else, and nobody was going to roll them. Against the Syndicate, micros, and half a dozen other alliances, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." If anything, I hope this reveals the folly of the 'might makes right' mentality. When one uses force as an argument, it invites a forceful response. Whether we win or not, I hope that this response shatters Coalition B's delusions about the order of things.
  3. Having an alliance about weed is not the same as smoking weed in Montana. Montana would not ban a website from merely hosting a reference to weed; it is beholden to the 1st Amendment.
  4. My sincerest apologies for being presumptuous. I hope I did not cause too much harm with my message. I'll delete it.
  5. Obviously add Avatar-style elemental bending into the game. Soldiers can now fly, with 5 soldiers having the power of one plane. Soldiers can now armour themselves in rock and travel faster using airbending, increasing their effectiveness tenfold. Soldiers can now travel on water, with 100 soldiers having the power of one ship. Soldiers now deal 10x more infrastructure damage, and the chance to destroy improvements is doubled. Munition consumption by soldiers is reduced by 90%. Obviously, this is entirely balanced, and will have no effect at all on the meta.
  6. I've gotta say it dude, I'm not the biggest fan of this comment. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it comes off as having the energy of a middle-aged male gym teacher arriving at a group of students before pausing mid-jog, and repeatedly tapping his watch and saying "Chop-chop, kiddos, quit dilly-dallying and start throwing balls." Coalition A would have gladly surrendered, had we presented our terms up front. To use an example close to home, many of us ignore the terms and conditions of consumer products. That's not ideal, but it's easy, we all do it, and it's beside the point here. Now if there was a product which banned you from reading the terms and conditions, that'd make you suspicious. That's essentially one of the issues here, because while Coalition A is allowed to read the terms of surrender, they're only allowed to read a term at a time, which essentially means they're flying blind, with no way to know the context of each term. I can think of many ways to trap and screw over someone in such a situation, which I can provide if requested. It might as well be an unconditional surrender, with how significant the negotiation power disparity is here. Unconditional surrenders, while having a place in the real world, aren't too great for a game, because of how they result in stability and consolidation. I just wanted to clear this up, because I feel like it misrepresents Coalition A to imply, even unintentionally, that they're averse to the idea of any surrender.
  7. I'm aware that the stakes here are nowhere near as high here as in reality, but it's just that they pulled the "listen to history" argument, which is what lots of online social darwinists say, despite a lot of the ideology being based on pop anthropology and junk science. As a result, I'd clocked them as being in the same camp.
  8. Heh, if anyone goes that far, I can go further and make them regret it. Catch me on Pornhub criticising Coalition B stonewalling in furry speech.
  9. I can always PM proof on Discord if someone thinks I'm lying, I guess.
  10. "lol why does starvation exist? just eat lol"
  11. So, a couple of people here have accused George of stealing $5 billion. I've combed through his bank and trade history, and cannot find anything. I do not believe that many people would so dumb as to tell such a transparent lie as this, which leads me to conclude that perhaps my search methodology is flawed. If anyone could be so kind as to provide evidence that George's heist took place, it would be much appreciated.
  12. Awful sentiment. Even if we assume your argument in the first paragraph is cogent (which it isn't), this is still an awful sentiment. Would you approve if a member of a sports team expressed positive emotions on the prospect of an opponent resigning due to poor team management? A nation deletion is the end of a story. The termination of social connections. Another person, cut off from future friendships. We should be sad when a person deletes out of frustration. I think you need to be mindful of the person behind the screen, and try not to think of the culmination of their frustration, sadness, anger and disillusionment with such relish.
  13. This is shameful behaviour, which reflects poorly on Coalition B. I'm disgusted by the power-tripping obstructionism of the negotiators. They're tasked with ending a war, not interfering with Coalition A's diplomacy. This clearly shows that B has an ulterior motive. Pre, thank you for compiling this and bringing it to everyone's attention. It's not a pleasant thing to have your allies called out like this, but it's for the better. In fighting for transparency, you've done us all a service which we should all be grateful for. I hope that in time, more in Coalition B will realise this.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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