Zaurg
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Zaurg
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Feel free to reiterate your rebuttal in public then. I *will* read it carefully.
It may come as a surprise to people familiar only with my IC activity, but I'm not actually 'happy' about this situation. Whatever this is, it's far and away beyond the war... which is unfortunate, since the war was honestly starting to turn around due to purely in-game efforts. (Yes, it was, don't deny that.)
Point I'm trying to make here is, moderation efforts have to be consistent and forthright, regardless of whose 'side' it 'benefits', since nobody benefits from bad moderation and everybody (at least outside of copyright pirates, character assassins, hackers, accusation abusers, cheaters and worse) benefits from good moderation. So, if this moderation is bad, show that. If this moderation is good... then which are you?
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
-
6 minutes ago, Alex said:
That's not true. It's trivial for me to sum up the tax records for GPWC nations, you can see for yourself:
Calculating resource values:
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
-
2 minutes ago, Alex said:
ITT: Lots of people who haven't read the full report yet.
What a smug !@#$
-
3
-
-
The 850 million figure is entirely fabricated. Kris provided you the logs, you nitwit
-
Alex you’re a gutless coward and frankly, stupid
-
2
-
4
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
COME ON AND JAM
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
Mate if you're gonna people to blow a fat one ya probably shouldn't roll over the second they slap you with a glove.
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.
-
2
-
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
Quote
- Forum names must match in-game ruler names. You may change your forum name once every 30 days through your profile, or you may request a name change in the Forum Name Change Request forum if yours does not match
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.
-
1
-
1
-
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.
-
15 hours ago, Zephyr said:
I think this is a misunderstanding of the forum rules: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/guidelines/
Note it says 'specific forum rules', this does not indicate that these are the only rules in these forums. If it did that'd imply that any time you're the thread creator or accused, you can go on a porn posting spree if you so felt inclined because those rules weren't explicitly included in the specific forum rules thread. Obviously this is not the case and the forum rules apply, the specific forum rules are pointing out the deviations from the normal forum rules.
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
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
QuoteThis is a No-Discussion Forum. Do notreply to topics in this particular subforum, unless you meet one of the following criteria:
- You are the topic creator
- You are the accused in the original topic
- You have specific evidence to provide regarding the report
- You are a Staff member
If you fail to follow these regulations, you will receive a Warning Point, and potentially have a temporary account suspension as-per the Forum Rules.
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.
-
1
-
2
-
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.
-
3
-
-
No planes, no worries!
-
Yes, and?
-
What verse of the narcissist prayer are we on now?
Enforcement of no-discussion rules is explicitly inconsistent with the written rules.
in Moderation Support
Posted
Good to see Alex was busy with this sleuthing rather than clarifying rules in any case.