Zaurg

Good to see Alex was busy with this sleuthing rather than clarifying rules in any case.

As far as the tax farm claims go me and Kris compiled literally the entire bank history of GWPC to demonstrate that the interaction between NPO and GWPC was less than 10% of just the monetary value GWPC moved around internally. It was clearly an appropriate relationship for a protectorate and feeder alliance

What percentage of GWPC’s wealth went to NPO, you moron? Because internal transactions not counting any out of alliance bank transactions were literally 10 times the GWPC- NPO bank transactions

What a smug !@#$

The 850 million figure is entirely fabricated. Kris provided you the logs, you nitwit

Alex you’re a gutless coward and frankly, stupid

Mao is honestly one of the best diplomats in this game. Think about it- he just established treaties with the two dominant forces in the game, making them pretty much untouchable. I doubt most major alliance leaders are capable of swallowing their pride while managing a bunch of angry members who want to fight a war they can’t win while keeping everything together like he did.

FULLY

Shoot blues everyday

COME ON AND JAM

To be fair, Mao was very courteous in all my interactions with. A couple of his now former team members on the other hand both instigated this whole thing and tried to convince him to take us on once it escalated. I'm honestly not sure what they expect to happen.

Congrats

Defining what socialism and capitalism is rather than what the best policies actually are is a bad way to go about it because every nation's political situation and discourse is vastly different. Most self identified socialists in the United States would at least be content with most of the policies within the Nordic Model (ie, literally Bernie Sanders, a self identified socialist who stated Denmark should be a model for policy). Most far left parties in Europe on the other hand would see that as a weak compromise. I think anyway the most standard definition, based upon ownership the means of production, is rapidly becoming obsolete because real political and economic power doesn't necessarily correlate with that anymore. Personally, the books that influenced me the most was the Logic of Political survival, the author of which also wrote a very entertaining and accessible summary of in The Dictator's Handbook, which approaches the likely outcomes of political and social structures from the perspective of how the leader needs to behave in order to stay in power. Basically, the more power in centralized in a few hands, the worse things get for the average person, and the more the system requires vicious and corrupt behavior by those in top to even survive and stay in power. Whether that power is concentrated in the form of a CEO who stacked the system so he isn't really accountable to his employees or common shareholders in any way, or a Stalinist Dictatorship, unaccountable power is bad and should always be minimized if you want a just society.

You could just message in game and ask for terms of surrender. What does this improve on besides making losing wars matter even less than it already does?

My specific evidence regarding this is the rules of the forum as written. The rules need to be re-written then, because Jazz is following them exactly as written. Jazz’s forum name matches his in game ruler name. His forum name is Jazz R Oppenheimer. It doesn’t say anything about the leader field within the forums profile, which is redundant anyway given this rule.

You really, really don’t have to make every thread about yourself. There have been a few cases now of people bringing up what seem to be reasonable good faith attempts to add to the discussion and follow the rules and being punished for it, with no clear consistency. It would be nice to get the admin to clarify.

Yes, that part we already discussed and wiggum said his part on. Now let’s focus on the two other examples here (which are indicative of more cases I think, though we can’t know due to lack of transparency on this forum’s software) about the adding specific evidence part.

Thanks for your input. I agree, while I think the point warning system is still very flawed, I wouldn’t really mind if it was given for the correct reason, This is the other post however, and I think it clearly fits the theme others brought up of trying to directly add to the discussion and still getting punished

That’s my point exactly. Given how strict the system can be in that even minor violations still lead to a ban, most requests (in my personal experience) for clarification/redress go unanswered and 0 point warns seem rare I expect the rules to be enforced at least somewhat closely to how they are written.

There we go. I have gotten one warning point for posting “lol” in a thread in which I was reported again for an utterly frivolous reason. I was the accused the in the topic. There is no rule that says I am obligated to engage a frivolous and frankly borderline offensive report with more of a response than it deserves. I was the accused in the thread. It’s that simple. Secondly, I added an instance of a person (noctis) spamming my own thread into a thread about other instances of noctis’s behavior that was quietly deleted without any other apparent action. I was hit with a warning point despite clearly adding specific evidence about him spamming non-discussion forums. This is even more silly since it’s clearly good faith participation. If what is being enforced isn’t what is actually written what is the point of rules anyway? Either change the rules to reflect an actual standard, correct these warning points or drop the pretense of rules based moderation.

At this point why do you expect anyone to take you seriously about your pearl clutching over in game behavior when you have defended and cheered on the unauthorized accessing accounts through alliance third party tools? It’s obviously cheating. There’s no question. Jesus get some perspective.

No planes, no worries!

Yes, and?

What verse of the narcissist prayer are we on now?