namukara
-
Posts
509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by namukara
-
-
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?'
-
3 minutes ago, Sardonic said:
Shark Week is a GOONS tradition. I would expect nothing less, and nor should anybody else who are living in our world. I can assure you it will be applied fairly to bad posters of both coalitions.
Countering is a TI tradition. I would expect nothing less, and nor should anybody else who is living in our world. I can assure you it will be applied fairly to raiders from either coalition or none.
I.e.
Raid people, get countered. That's how shit works around here.
-
3
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, CandyShi said:
They’re probably purposefully acting stupid to deviate from the OP/point of the thread.
Do you mean the fact everyone knows they're talking rubbish, their narrative has been proven wrong and they have no rebuttle to it aside from vague deflections and whataboutism? Yeah, it's been the NPO strategy since 2002: same shit, different game.
-
23 minutes ago, Archibald said:
Chill, Candy. As much fun as it is picking on your alliance and their obvious tendencies, you're small potatoes compared to TMC.
TMC? When did they get involved in this? Do you even know who you talk to, or are you just so used to nobody taking notice of you it's never really mattered before?
-
5 minutes ago, Archibald said:
Imagine literally being given the NAP you want and deciding it's actually bad because ~what if~
jesus christ.
"These terms are ~unreasonable~"
woah it's almost like the side that loses will have to swallow some bad pills who'd have guessed that's how war works???
It's almost like you don't know who you're responding to. I'm from Farksphere. The only NAP involving us was one I was massively opposed to.
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
59 minutes ago, Tiberius said:Coalition A: "We want different wars, not the same sides"
Coalition B: "Here have 12 months NAP so we dont have to have the same sided wars for a year"
Coalition A: ? thats ridiculous.
Personally the terms aren't really that ridiculous and as Hodor says everything always starts at the extreme and gets negotiated.
I read the 12 month NAP as 'we really want a free run at farksphere, you're not allowed to help while we try and push another alliance out of the game.'
-
1
-
8
-
11 minutes ago, Karl VII said:
Funny how everyone here is willing to be cool with gorge, former BK high gov who was willing to be part of BKs supposed strategy until he got caught stealing, that's when he discovered his moral integrity lmao. Come on guys, are you even serious? Can you do anything and then just post BK bad on the forum and everything's cool?
See my previous post. Nobody is saying anybody is a saint, they just want you to answer the accusations. You appear unwilling.
-
4 minutes ago, Karl VII said:
Hey aren't you the guy who rolled his own protectorate? And who brags on his alliance page about making people quit? Get off your high horse.
Does your coalition have anything to offer than whataboutism? Explain why you think it's acceptable to try to drive hundreds of players from the game, or explain how your actions do not equate to that.
-
2
-
-
You're saying exactly what I told Fark leadership throughout the start of this war, again when they attacked TFP, again when T$ were dragged into this. The NPO and BK do not care about the game, only their place within it. They do not care about other communities, or whether they survive or not. Members of Coalition B have been seen on this forum openly bragging about getting members to quit, and the rest of the coalition has not disassociated itself with these remarks. If not agreement, it has shown passive acceptance that that view is an acceptable one within their discourse. These alliances don't have your best interests at heart, and this war, and how they have conducted themselves during peace negotiations, shows it more clearly than any other evidence that could be presented.
-
1
-
-
If you willingly let Marberman be your alliance heir you probably deserve whatever happens next. He's Marberman. This is what he does.
-
1
-
-
That sounds reasonable. Now can you get to it so I don't have to pay through the nose for lead?
-
10 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:
All these 3 way treaties between NPO, GOONS & one other alliance are kind of funny.
It's like the NPO has this slightly sad little brother, who they're trying to help get more friends.
-
1
-
[Bloc] A new power is rising
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Hi TCW,
So goons just attacked your allies.
Thought you might like to know.
All the best,
- The conflicts screen