Namukara
-
Posts
522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Namukara
-
-
4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
I mean, you can just look at who's on the other side and it's a lot cognitive dissonance holding it together while we've always had to deal with these types of situations and extra vilification. The fact that we finally reciprocated the ill will on the same level doesn't mean we started this trajectory. Epi's posts. I'm mainly talking about KERTCHOGG/tS/ We don't really have an investment in the other people.
Or how about Commonwealth said anything and the assumption by that was they'd do something anyway?
It's TCW's fault it will be prolonged even more because they literally pulled the worst possible move for peace in attacking us and the NP stuff. They could have easily deescalated things.
Prior to your attacks on TMC there was next to no reason for Farksphere to enter the war.
The fact that you still attacked TMC, despite it being plainly evident that they had a treaty with Fark, and that Farksphere honours its treaties, is proof positive that you had a desire to bring us into the war. This being the case I cannot accept that OD attacks on allies of TCW, who they knew TCW had an obligation to defend, were not intended to bring TCW into the war.
I am not fighting you because I hate you. There are NPO members I regularly chat to, I know people in your alliance from other places it exists. I am fighting you because whatever respect I have for the NPO, I have far more love for a game I have invested time and money into playing. The fact that the NPO has, for the duration of its history across multiple games, failed to realise that these sorts of activities only persist while there is an effective opposition to one group is not the fault of those fighting it. The fact that we realise that our communities are more important than our pixels is also not our fault, however it is the reason I will not stop fighting until OD's attempts to crush any meaningful alliances which could present any threat to them ends.
Peace is in your interest. If you go for it, the game survives and so do you. If you don't go for it, the game dies or you do. I see, however that you've made your decision. Enjoy the battlefield, I'm still smiling.
Rant ends
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:
Pick a winning team next time.
I am. I think rest of the world is going to win.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:
IC: Of course I want my alliance to win, it would be silly if I didn't, given that I run an alliance of close to 200 people, all playing for various reasons "winning" is a quantifiable goal that can unite my members for a common cause.
OOC: Please ask @Prefonteen @Kevanovia or @Cooper_ it's quite apparent my OOC/IC behavior is different and am generally a likable person who wants people to have fun in this game. Just because a lot of players can't discern from OOC/IC is not really my problem, tbh.
If you truly want people to have fun in this game, here's what you should do.
Stop cooperating with those who don't to keep peoples score down. BK and NPO want to kill this game, and as someone who's invested considerable time and money in it, that's something I don't want to see. Use your nations to hit BK's low tier, there's a place for anybody in our coalition.
-
OD is pretty fash honestly.
If they were a real life organisation, the way they act would see them meeting several criteria on Britt's identifiers of fascism checklist, specifically numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 14.
Have I missed any? See for yourself here:
-
1
-
-
Enjoy peace.
But remember, if ever you tire of it, that according to the IQ new law of treaties, a treaty actually means nothing. Therefore, although you have signed your NAP, feel free to rejoin when it suits you.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Rosier said:
you surrendered early in the war and now you want back in? and you're not even a gov member.
this seems wrong
@Sir Carlo @Creed Mallory confirm?
Perhaps if the NPO cared about its own treaties, others might start as well?
We've got a 6-month NAP that's still running, what did goons think of that?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Cypher said:
I’ll be honest, at this point in the war everything is fair game. I’m glad it’s happened to BK rather than any other alliance.
As someone on the same side as you, no it isn't. Hacking is not 'fair game'
-
3 hours ago, Leo the Great said:
Smh people wanted total war, but appear to have buyers remorse.
I do like how people think tcw and a bunch of micros will do what kerchog couldn’t lmfao
These micros being:
Alliances 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 23 and 28
Outside of farksphere, we can add 3, 12, 13, 17, 22, 27
That's half the top 30.
-
1
-
-
What is that delightful smell in the air?
Is that the NPO burning?
((ngl I can smell fire irl, going to have to check that out before the fire alarm goes off.))
-
4 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:
North Point? More like No Point.
Don't act like your alliance contributes anything lol
-
1
-
2
-
-
Hi TCW,
So goons just attacked your allies.
Thought you might like to know.
All the best,
- The conflicts screen
-
7 hours ago, Akuryo said:
Alot of them don't care. Most people see a nationsim looooong before they see a political sim. Nor do they have the time or interest to run those politics.
The average membership will hate X Alliance because their government does. They're not entirely clear on why their gov hates them, but they're pretty sure it's a damned good reason and those guys probably deserve it.
Meaning that the point you missed in a political simulator, is that for it to be accurate, the majority of people have to be the equivalent or everyday citizens in the real world, who know just enough to get angry but not enough to know why they're angry or why their guy is right. ?
Idk who you voted for, but I tried to vote based on which alliances I thought deserved the awards. Hell, I think I voted for the NPO in one category.
-
Isn't it sad that some alliances feel the need to tell their members who to vote for?
Why do they do that, is it possibly so they can stop the possibility of a few members disagreeing with alliance leadership and someone deserving actually getting it?
Thanks for coming up with such a good system, Hope. I'm sorry the NPO and friends got so butthurt about it because they couldn't game it. Hopefully the 2020 awards will be organised according to a better system that alliances can't game. Either that or NPO/Goons/whoever the frick else is so insecure they feel the need to game a popularity contest realise that some people are better than them and that some of their members disagree with leadership. Or that those alliances are not a part of the game in 2020, which I must say is the most appealing option.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Michaellaneous said:
"We're gonna make a discord but it's gonna be better, with lots of racism and NO GOONS ALLOWED."
As much of a surprise as it may be to you, people have reasons unrelated to racism for not liking goons.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Quite surprising, I thought those alliances were incompatible forms of toxic. Both toxic you understand, just in...very different ways.
-
2
-
-
I like the first one, but I'm opposed to the second. Larger alliances already exploit micros, let's not formalise that.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Matthew The Great said:
So basically Alex seemed to pull what would be the most unpopular decision so far on the forums at least, and made that decision disabling downvotes so people wouldn't be able to show their discontent easily.
With his most recent decisions it seems Alex would like to kill the game also.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
idk about you Alex but I'm not sure that the toxicity was caused by downvotes...I think it's caused by the people actively trying to kill the game.
-
1
-
6
-
7 hours ago, Sardonic said:
Civility is liberal hogwash and I'm glad it's gone. Embrace materialism!
Do you think it's okay to force people from a game they've invested time, effort and sometimes money in for your coalitions own ends?
If not, why do you share a cause with those who do?
-
What I'm seing from my position of reading things, talking to people and shouting is this: what's happened is a complete breakdown in civility, from both sides.
I'm not going to try and say anybody is innocent, or that leaking logs containing personally identifying information is acceptable, it completely isn't. However, when one coalition is coming from a position of actively trying to drive people out of the game, something is seriously broken.
This is a browser game, and wars in it should be conducted like what they are, activities in what should be a light-hearted game. Trashtalking one another is fine, it's all in the spirit of good sportsmanship to chat shit about your opponents; however, when you're trying to drive people from the game or are leaking personal info, it needs to stop. This war has gotten horribly toxic, and does not reflect what a game like this is supposed to be. Right now I think a white peace is the only way that both sides can put these things behind them, rebuild, and try to make things better in the future.
This is a small community of generally good people. Let's not ruin it.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, AppealDenied said:
So if we listen to everything NPO tells us to do, we're shills. If we don't listen to everything they tell us to do, we're abhorrent amoral people who should be stomped from existence
Neat.
I think perhaps the NPO might find this resource useful. Goons clearly have some issues that require fixing in that department.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/making-time-for-books-at-home
-
1 minute ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:
Not sure how "making kids do embarrassing shit for your own personal jollies is wrong" can't be understood by GOONS here.
I'm sure if you keep trying to "gotcha" buorhann it'll all make sense though.
Lots of things can't be understood by goons very easily, it seems. I'm wondering if a reason might exist to explain why goons have problems with some basic concepts, if someone can think of something that might explain it please do let me know.
-
The leaks were deleted before I could see them, but I'll only say this regarding the OP.
You had an opportunity to change the dynamic of this war, and you almost went for it. You had people warning you that IQ would be likely to attack farksphere following the conclusion of the war when their was nobody to oppose them, and you ignored it. You were warned by members and allies alike that coalition b could not be trusted, and you ignored them.
I don't think you can take any form of moral high ground on anything. I was utterly, utterly disgusted when you refused to enter the war, and it was at that point I started looking for another alliance. I care little for the reaction of members of Fark or the alliances related to it to this post, because I have always spoken in a fashion I saw as correct, and I believe certain things must be left into the open.
The things some are willing to sacrifice for pixels...
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Marxalot said:
I really hope they try to counter shark week
e: unless it stupidly reignites this dumb dead and boring war for another 3 months oh god
We didn't know who they were either until they decided to make a point of being incredibly edgy.
Enlighten us, what is an acceptable response to you deciding to raid a member as part of 'shark week?'
Unacceptable Behavior
in Orbis Central
Posted
With regards TMC/Fark relations, you were probably not the best placed people in the world to judge that, that would be tmc and fark. Given the response, I think it is clear that it can still be expected that other alliances have a very different idea with regards treaties than NPO: i.e. we think they mean something.
Any structural advantage that our alliances have over yours was entirely self-created. It is your insistence on set builds and the inability of your members with more economic ability to expand that has created this situation for you.