Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: How does making a mistake in putting up a trade = leaking on an alliances and their opsec data? They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort. Edited December 3, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ 1 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort. Lol. Thats based on the premise that the leaks are even on the same level as mistakes in trading. One is intentional, designed so as to harm an entire alliance, while the other is literally something that can be rectified in 5 seconds or less if not for an API screwing out folks. Like literally, you're trying really hard here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort. So salty. It’s also a fallacy to imply high gov and general members to have the same level of accountability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Lol. Thats based on the premise that the leaks are even on the same level as mistakes in trading. One is intentional, designed so as to harm an entire alliance, while the other is literally something that can be rectified in 5 seconds or less if not for an API screwing out folks. Like literally, you're trying really hard here. I don't think the severity matters, if you expect to hold people accountable for their mistakes then you must do the same. 5 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said: So salty. It’s also a fallacy to imply high gov and general members to have the same level of accountability. I'm just stating my opinion is that so wrong? Meanwhile you're being aggressive (as a representative of your alliance, mind you) to someone whose been calm and to be frank not shown any signs of being salty. All these things I say are genuine concerns of mine. Edited December 3, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ 1 2 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I don't think the severity matters, if you expect to hold people accountable for their mistakes then you must do the same. The severity does matter? I would not be rolling BC for making a bad trade lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said: The severity does matter? I would not be rolling BC for making a bad trade lol. I meant it does not matter for the point I'm trying to make about setting a proper precedent. Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I meant it does not matter for the point I'm trying to make about setting a proper precedent. Once again, one can set a precedent for past actions, i.e not leaking stuff. How again does this equal to trading? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said: Once again, one can set a precedent for past actions, i.e not leaking stuff. How again does this equal to trading? To be completely honest, I really don't wish to tread through another back and forth right now, I hope you will respect that. Have a good night Shadowthrone. Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Me too. Sweet dreams, Shadowthrone. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Goodnight, sweet prince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Thrawn Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Perhaps, but would you deal with them by having them sell down infra to match whatever damage would have been done to them had they stuck around for the war? If not, then the terms are punitive and unilateral, since the VMers on your side wouldn't be getting "exactly the same treatment as [their] teammates". Either way, it doesn't look like the war is going to end for some time anyway I see, you meant that nobody was asking for money officially. Fair enough then. Wait, you mean the winning side imposes terms on the losing side and not on themselves? Thanks for clarifying that. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I'm just stating my opinion is that so wrong? Yes, it can be. You're a gov member of an alliance who's only meaningful tie is being protected by the Syndicate, an alliance fighting on the side you are currently criticizing for their terms. Not to mention the side which will possibly be the top sphere post war. Putting you're opinion out there can be a dangerous thing if it goes against the powers that be, or popular opinion. First thing I did when I saw you posting you're highly misconstrued statements which were pieced together poorly, was look at your alliance. I looked to size you up, to see if you were worth hitting. Thankfully, for you, none of your alliance nations are in my range so I lost interest. But now your alliance is on my radar, are probably on others as well. It's what happens when you come here talking the nonsense you have. You get noticed, and not in good ways. There is zero parallel between a bot which patrols the trade market for mistaken trades in to profit off of those mistakes and BC being held accountable for leaking sensitive information. You're flat out wrong. Bot's for that sort of advantage are widely frowned upon in these sorts of circles, and to claim we can simply "tell our members to take 5 seconds", is asinine. What about other nations? What if a member of your alliance lost 100M worth of resources by mistakenly clicking to post a public trade when they meant a private one, and an automated bot sprung into action to snag those resources before the person could delete it seconds later? Perhaps we just want the removal of them all together? Regardless it doesn't involve you, because it's what we want. It also doesn't have any connections to BC. You leak intel, you run the risk of paying the consequences for it. One's a conscious choice, and one's a mistake. Edited December 3, 2018 by Prefontaine 4 9 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exar Kun -George Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) Went to reply, saw Pre's response... enough said for that La Mafia guy. Now on the topic of that term, I saw someone say "TKR will give the money back if you draw art" or something like that. While they do sometimes allow that to happen, it is not always the case. For example i once messed up a 100mil trade, and within the time i could get to the trade screen it was accepted by TKR, i made a pic and got it back. However i also had a friend on here mess up a sizable trade, get taken and refused to be returned. it would be one thing if TKR's members were simply lucky picking up the trades but thats not the case, there using a bot that constantly checks for mistakes to happen for the sole reason of making a profit. This term does not just help IQ or our colo for that matter, it helps every nation that made a mistake. As for the meme terms, In fact i like some of the meme terms, sure they may not be "needed" in a IC sense but it adds a bit of fun to the game. When i first saw the terms I actually thought that there more than fair and TKR & Co would immediately accept them, turns out I was wrong. but why shouldn't people have some fun in the terms, its a game after all.... We won this one and get to make the terms but the next one we may not, as long as the terms are not absurd in nature who cares? VM nation term is more than acceptable, history has shown that not all war dodgers will be punished by their alliances simply because they can be taxed and help rebuild the alliance at a fast pace. i use punished for a lack of good wording, they are not being punished at all, their just being forced to take the same damage their alliance mates have already taken, the alliance can then choose to punish them by refusing rebuild aid or kicking them. Allowing these nations to skate by and help tkr and co rebuild fast would be counter productive to the entire war, so this term is more than acceptable imo. Edited December 3, 2018 by Pestilence 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 First, if the bot is allowed by sheepy and given how butt hurt you people are being about it I'm sure you have complained and tried to get him to ban it, why do you think it is acceptable to try and ban it yourselves? As many others have said, check your trades or learn from your mistakes. As for the VM term, I doubt you would think it was acceptable it it were being imposed on you and your alliances. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, Who Me said: First, if the bot is allowed by sheepy and given how butt hurt you people are being about it I'm sure you have complained and tried to get him to ban it, why do you think it is acceptable to try and ban it yourselves? ...because we don't like it? I'm not sure why something being allowed by the rules means it's off-limits to player regulation. 12 minutes ago, Who Me said: As for the VM term, I doubt you would think it was acceptable it it were being imposed on you and your alliances. Applied conservatively (nothing under 1k infra) and leniently (selling rather than fighting is fine), no, we wouldn't. Or at least not any more than we find losing wars unacceptable. The proposed penalties against VM users aren't unfair to them any more than the losses incurred by the war are unfair to the other nations in your coalition. We already pointed out the ridiculous number of war dodgers in your coalition on the forums; this is about destroying their infrastructure, not pointing out that they're pixel huggers for the umpteenth time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, Edward I said: ...because we don't like it? I'm not sure why something being allowed by the rules means it's off-limits to player regulation. Applied conservatively (nothing under 1k infra) and leniently (selling rather than fighting is fine), no, we wouldn't. Or at least not any more than we find losing wars unacceptable. The proposed penalties against VM users aren't unfair to them any more than the losses incurred by the war are unfair to the other nations in your coalition. We already pointed out the ridiculous number of war dodgers in your coalition on the forums; this is about destroying their infrastructure, not pointing out that they're pixel huggers for the umpteenth time. Because you don't like it? lolololol Poor babies, teach your people to check their trades if you don't like them screwing them up. If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, Who Me said: Because you don't like it? lolololol Poor babies, teach your people to check their trades if you don't like them screwing them up. If you don't like the term, fight until we're willing to drop it or force us to rescind it later. Just now, Who Me said: If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable. I just explained that it's to destroy their infra, not to punish them for using VM. The whole point of this war was to burn upper tier pixels. It's not hypocritical to not demand the same of anyone using VM on our side because, again, this isn't to punish VM use - it's to destroy their infrastructure for the sake of destroying their infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Personally, I would have told you the shove everything after article 2 but others are much nicer than I am. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Who Me said: Enlighten me please. Go back to the war before this one. You imposed terms as an alliance that offensively hit and won with a dogpile. Don't whinge when the same shit happens to you. Maybe next time you go on the offensive you'll take the W and leave it at that, you don't get to act like an innocent party in all this though. 1 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vynneis Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 5 hours ago, Who Me said: If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable. why do terms need to be self righteous bullshit where every side does what's 'fair', might as well just ask for the other coalition to impose all the other terms on themselves too. Seems reasonable. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollo Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 is it too late to add No Fat Chicks to Article III? 2 Quote STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripper Posted December 3, 2018 Author Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Freakzilla said: is it too late to add No Fat Chicks to Article III? looks around whispers We can arrange something. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 18 hours ago, Ripper said: Could you please pin-point the punitive terms? Quote All members of Coalition B must state that it is their sincerely and dearly held belief, now and forever, that Clarke did nothing wrong. This statement can be made in an announcement on the Foreign Affairs subforum of the P&W forums. This punishes the community more than anything I could ever think up. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) So a more serious breakdown of why the VM needs to happen in the opinion of our coalition. Start by taking look at these links: TCWTKRGoB TCW obviously loses the most in this arrangement, and its obvious these VM nations are the rebuild plan for their side. Allowing this to happen is simply unacceptable when addressing the economic disparity of sides. Those TCW nations can generate over 300 million a day for TCW's rebuild, something that we won't allow to happen. You can argue some of the VM is legitimate reasons, but the simple fact is it doesn't matter. We don't care if it's legitimate. I fully agree that it's their responsibility to decide if they want to keep deserters in their alliance or not. However, this occurs after we equalize the damage dealt to them, not before. The argument is we are "punishing" them, which is flat out wrong. Lets start with the definition of punish: Punish VERB Treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way. Their VM nations are not being treated in an unfair way relative to their alliance mates. All members still fighting are below 1k infra, or on their way there. In fact, most are substantially below that so VM nations are being treated less harshly. Then the argument that the winning side should do the same is also frankly ridiculous. This isn't a Global Summit building a player consensus, this is a war they lost and that's the demands for peace. We are holding their members accountable, since we don't trust them to do so. The winners can deal with their own, and owe nothing to those who lost in the most complete loss in a global since NPO's first time. Sure they can stay at war, but it's a lot harder to maintain a losing war than a winning one. If they want to keep going so be it, but it is easier to sell making sure perennial war deserters lose their infra to the winning coalition's members than protecting them to the losing side's members. Ultimately it will come down to their membership to deciding when they no longer want to protect pixel huggers at their own expense. Edited December 3, 2018 by The Mad Titan 1 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphim Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 BURN IT DOWN!! **Head banging** To Annihilation for TKR and TCW. Let them Rest In Pieces... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.