Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Frawley
7 hours ago, Akuryo said:

@Roquentin Once again, obstructing your war effort is not slot filling. Get over your goddamn self. Units other than planes are a 100% acceptable to fight. Drop the tied to Rose thing, this is what, twice now Rose is at war and TFP chooses the opposite side? You really think that's a strong relationship?

Also, 1 nation =/= en entire alliance. Try again with these dumbass comparisons and make them actually equivalent. Even with that, no, doing as you described is not actually against the rules. Whether that would remain the case in the complaints to Alex following is another matter. Still not the same as the situation we're discussing.

 

@Alex I apologise for this shitshow but could you take a moment to clarify what slotfilling is for everyone. Is being uninvolved in a global war and buying a treasure from somebody who is in it, then using naval attacks to beige, slotfilling, because it obstructs their enemies attacks?

Furthermore should it be permissible for players to threaten another with reports to moderation for not complying with their wishes. ie: "you'll have to airstrike if you don't want to be slotfilling, which I'll report" <---- a paraphrase of what Roq did actually say to TFP.

Slot filling cannot exist in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with 1 to 1 battles, it by definition exists to stop people protecting themselves from valid IC wars by having mates or allies hit them.

If TFP had just said, yes we are buying a treasure and that is an act of war, that would have been the end of the conversation, but TFP wanted to have its cake and eat it too.

9 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

If you're gonna push the first reason, I'm gonna bring up t$ again ;)

At any rate, why are we back to talking about TFP? Thought we'd already hashed that one out to death a month ago. Surely we can find something new to argue about.

I assume you are talking about the treasure sale earlier in the war from Rose to t$. Where I dragged all four participating nations into a room and applied the exact same logic. t$ agreed to airstrike MrBooty, and peace out two of the wars prior to update, all of them were advised and agreed that treasure transfers during war, were either an act of war or slot filling.

11 hours ago, Blink said:

How do NPO conduct transfers then? Honestly I'm not trying to get into an argument with you but there are two opinions on every subject. If you wanted to declare and attack BK nations for loot it would not be against the game rules as they are written, as you are not allies and IQ doesn't exist any longer. The rules need a good re-write involving global wars and interference within that war. As for calling me a moron, that was just uncalled for and frankly childish. 

We don't during global wars.

12 hours ago, Blink said:

Just because there is a global war happening doesn't mean two individual nations cannot have a seperate war, they can also choose to fight the war however they wish.The fact TFP choose not to use air is smart, it's takes longer to beige via air and as we know the goal of the war was to win the treasure why should he drag out the war longer than needed just because you believe wars are fought with a single unit type? To threaten Mod reports over not choosing your war strategy is just plain stupidity. If someone not involved in the war attacks someone taking part in the war they can defend themselves however they wish. 

It's not called Politics and Air strikes....

We agree, but we are also clear, interfering with a conflict is an act of war.

12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Or rather, none of the above.  You see, the rules don't take into consideration of major warfare, just individual battles.  Those slots aren't owned by Coalition B, or rather, anyone really.  You don't lay claim to them.

This is absolute bullshit, slot filling cannot exist in the context of individual battles, it by definition applies to scenarios where people are 'blocking' a defensive slot so as to aid that person in war. TFP could either admit that it was an act of war, or it was slot filling. It is a binary decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

Slot filling cannot exist in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with 1 to 1 battles, it by definition exists to stop people protecting themselves from valid IC wars by having mates or allies hit them.

If TFP had just said, yes we are buying a treasure and that is an act of war, that would have been the end of the conversation, but TFP wanted to have its cake and eat it too.

I assume you are talking about the treasure sale earlier in the war from Rose to t$. Where I dragged all four participating nations into a room and applied the exact same logic. t$ agreed to airstrike MrBooty, and peace out two of the wars prior to update, all of them were advised and agreed that treasure transfers during war, were either an act of war or slot filling.

We don't during global wars.

We agree, but we are also clear, interfering with a conflict is an act of war.

This is absolute bullshit, slot filling cannot exist in the context of individual battles, it by definition applies to scenarios where people are 'blocking' a defensive slot so as to aid that person in war. TFP could either admit that it was an act of war, or it was slot filling. It is a binary decision. 

Basically what I see from yourself and Roq is that you are asking moderation to act upon your own interpretation of the rules, with Roq then threatening individuals with moderation action based on his own interpretation.

It's entirely inappropriate and if anyone should be warned by the mods, it should be Roq and anyone else involved simply on the basis that you are using , or attempting to use anyway, moderation in a manner to achieve an in-game objective or purpose.

If you wish to attack or be hostile to people taking up valuable slots due to them gaining a treasure by their own means, feel free to do so, blast away. Feel free to make a moderation report too whilst you are at it, but to use the implied threat of moderation action in an attempt to achieve your own ends is simply a poor act.

Also sup Frawley, been awhile. 

  • Upvote 2

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

I assume you are talking about the treasure sale earlier in the war from Rose to t$. Where I dragged all four participating nations into a room and applied the exact same logic. t$ agreed to airstrike MrBooty, and peace out two of the wars prior to update, all of them were advised and agreed that treasure transfers during war, were either an act of war or slot filling.

I actually wasn't aware of the Rose-t$ one. I was referring to the TGH-t$ one.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're free to view it as an act of war, @Frawley

I wouldn't agree, of course. But viewing it as slot filling is still false. According to the rules beige holding should be slot filling and not permitted. In that sense, what TFP and t$ did was less illegal than typical war doctrine, and treasure sales of that manner are wholly supported as legal by Alex.

Furthermore, you can view it as that, if you want. It's not a correct interpretation based on Alex's greenlighting of treasure sales, and it certainly does not warrant being used in the way it was. If you're view is that it's rule breaking you report it. The only reason I could think of to talk to someone beforehand is if they're a noob who probably doesn't even realize what they're doing is wrong.

I'ma gonna go on a limb and say TFP gov has been around long enough to know what slot filling is and that there is no excuse. Reporting people you think are rule breaking, even if they aren't in the opinion of moderation stances, is still just due diligence and not some questionable wrong doing.It only becomes problematic to me when it becomes more than that. 

Roq should have just reported it quietly, he saw rule breaking by people knew better, no excuses for them. Quichwe would've found out and still reacted as he did, TFP would still get hit, the only thing that changes is fewer pages of bourhann and roq getting increasingly unstable and vitriolic at one another.

Sounds like a net positive to me.

 

I'd like to start a new topic of complaint. NPO stop coming back online and building ships and soldiers when I try to raid. It's rude and all I want is 4000 land per city. Smh guys.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Basically what I see from yourself and Roq is that you are asking moderation to act upon your own interpretation of the rules, with Roq then threatening individuals with moderation action based on his own interpretation.

It's entirely inappropriate and if anyone should be warned by the mods, it should be Roq and anyone else involved simply on the basis that you are using , or attempting to use anyway, moderation in a manner to achieve an in-game objective or purpose.

If you wish to attack or be hostile to people taking up valuable slots due to them gaining a treasure by their own means, feel free to do so, blast away. Feel free to make a moderation report too whilst you are at it, but to use the implied threat of moderation action in an attempt to achieve your own ends is simply a poor act.

Also sup Frawley, been awhile. 

The rules are vague, and I typically like to give the benefit of doubt to players. I have no reason to see people out of this game who are not deliberately cheating, so I'll generally talk to them rather than just lodging a report.

The issue here was TFP simultaneously not accepting that what they were doing was in our view, an act of war, as stated previously, if its not an act of war to 'assist' our enemies then it must be done for some OOC reason (aka slotfilling).

G'day Charles, been a while.

25 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

You're free to view it as an act of war, @Frawley

I wouldn't agree, of course. But viewing it as slot filling is still false. According to the rules beige holding should be slot filling and not permitted. In that sense, what TFP and t$ did was less illegal than typical war doctrine, and treasure sales of that manner are wholly supported as legal by Alex.

Furthermore, you can view it as that, if you want. It's not a correct interpretation based on Alex's greenlighting of treasure sales, and it certainly does not warrant being used in the way it was. If you're view is that it's rule breaking you report it. The only reason I could think of to talk to someone beforehand is if they're a noob who probably doesn't even realize what they're doing is wrong.

I'ma gonna go on a limb and say TFP gov has been around long enough to know what slot filling is and that there is no excuse. Reporting people you think are rule breaking, even if they aren't in the opinion of moderation stances, is still just due diligence and not some questionable wrong doing.It only becomes problematic to me when it becomes more than that. 

Roq should have just reported it quietly, he saw rule breaking by people knew better, no excuses for them. Quichwe would've found out and still reacted as he did, TFP would still get hit, the only thing that changes is fewer pages of bourhann and roq getting increasingly unstable and vitriolic at one another.

Sounds like a net positive to me.

 

I'd like to start a new topic of complaint. NPO stop coming back online and building ships and soldiers when I try to raid. It's rude and all I want is 4000 land per city. Smh guys.

See above.

I don't think you can view a treasure sale, which involves:

  • A blocked slot;
  • A price to be paid to someone at war;
  • Loss of a potential treasure to the afflicted party.

As not an act of war.

Anyway I think this topic has run its course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frawley said:

This is absolute bullshit, slot filling cannot exist in the context of individual battles, it by definition applies to scenarios where people are 'blocking' a defensive slot so as to aid that person in war. TFP could either admit that it was an act of war, or it was slot filling. It is a binary decision. 

The rule against Slot Filling was put into the game due to players filling up defensive slots WITHOUT DOING DAMAGE.

The player you reported was DOING DAMAGE AND WAS ACTIVELY SEEKING TO BEIGE HIS TARGET.  Which Alex has stated in the past is a prerequisite to a legitimate battle.

 

(Again, I'm not questioning Coalition B's role in hitting TFP.  I'd have done the same too.  I wouldn't have reported the player because, honestly, he wasn't breaking any rules)

But again, you're missing other examples of other treasure selling too.  You're not being consistent, that's why I call your method of bullying that TFP player bullshit.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

The rule against Slot Filling was put into the game due to players filling up defensive slots WITHOUT DOING DAMAGE.

The player you reported was DOING DAMAGE AND WAS ACTIVELY SEEKING TO BEIGE HIS TARGET.  Which Alex has stated in the past is a prerequisite to a legitimate battle.

 

(Again, I'm not questioning Coalition B's role in hitting TFP.  I'd have done the same too.  I wouldn't have reported the player because, honestly, he wasn't breaking any rules)

But again, you're missing other examples of other treasure selling too.  You're not being consistent, that's why I call your method of bullying that TFP player bullshit.

Yo Kid

I totally agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

No, you disingenuous jerk. 

You peaced an alliance and you left truce offers dangling and declared offensives. 

Simple.

I'm actually glad you brought that up.  You're referring to Horsemen alliance, correct?  The ones who requested peace due to your lies towards them?

Yeah, I had a long argument with Alex which basically ended up with him admitting he has no awareness of the ongoing war other than "a war is going on".  Considering the battles were active up till the peace post, and that you very quickly reported those battles once peace was posted - I think that's all I need to say there.

Your asses were simply chapped that a protectorate of yours, whom you lied to, peaced out.  Sure didn't take long for those reports to go in.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
6 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

But again, you're missing other examples of other treasure selling too.  You're not being consistent, that's why I call your method of bullying that TFP player bullshit.

I gave an example above, where the same logic was agreed to by t$ and Rose.

With regards to the rule, I'll leave it to Moderation, but suffice to say, a 'treasure sale' typically involves the mutual cooperation of both parties to achieve the sale, and I think that would generally meet the loose criteria of the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Frawley said:

I gave an example above, where the same logic was agreed to by t$ and Rose.

With regards to the rule, I'll leave it to Moderation, but suffice to say, a 'treasure sale' typically involves the mutual cooperation of both parties to achieve the sale, and I think that would generally meet the loose criteria of the rule. 

Your post insinuates it was agreed to by Mr Booty, who is Low Gov. I wouldn't take policy cues from low gov personally. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
12 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Your post insinuates it was agreed to by Mr Booty, who is Low Gov. I wouldn't take policy cues from low gov personally. :P

And t$, who ended the wars and used planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

I'm actually glad you brought that up.  You're referring to Horsemen alliance, correct?  The ones who requested peace due to your lies towards them?

Yeah, I had a long argument with Alex which basically ended up with him admitting he has no awareness of the ongoing war other than "a war is going on".  Considering the battles were active up till the peace post, and that you very quickly reported those battles once peace was posted - I think that's all I need to say there.

Your asses were simply chapped that a protectorate of yours, whom you lied to, peaced out.  Sure didn't take long for those reports to go in.

You kept the wars open  despite an official peace agreement and used the dangling peace offers as shields to launch offensives, showing me you have an interest in gaming the system to your advantage and an interest in intimidating people from trying to nip the issue in the bud. You have no credibility here and your need to invoke the political aspect here simply shows the political motivation behind the making of hay. That is why your opinion is immaterial to this and you can keep banging the drums but there is no rule against doing it and making moral evaluations on me on me as a political talking point is hilarious.

This pretty much what you are saying:

If I  see someone violating a parking rule and I need to get in, I can't tell them to get out or i'll call the enforcement or it is a moral calamity.

The situation is clear the person who is warned of what is causing the violation can either choose to think it is not a violation and wait for the arbiter to arrive or comply. You are not anyone to give a verdict either way and I am not an admin or mod, so I was using no undue influence. 

The only thing I have done that could violate a rule is responding to your constant flamebait and your intentions more than shine through. So I think we're done here.

I didn't lie for what it's worth. I just didn't respond to it. It was so hilarious watching half the people who had wanted them rolled in the last war pretending they liked them.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Your post insinuates it was agreed to by Mr Booty, who is Low Gov. I wouldn't take policy cues from low gov personally. :P

 

4 hours ago, Frawley said:

And t$, who ended the wars and used planes.

Not quite sure if this is referring to what I think it's referring to, but I was never in talks with T$ or anyone about a treasure. I reported what I thought was slot filling (but  may have been just obscenely incompetent gameplay that looked just like slot filling). I was miffed at the time, but everything is cool now.

On a separate note, the same CB you guys had for TFP could've been used against the Syndicate, since they did the same thing basically. I wouldn't have wanted us to though, and I think the claim that rolling TFP was justified is very dubious at best. They lost 20 BILLION dollars fighting for your side... so arguing that them buying a treasure from an enemy and taking slots Coalition B could've used makes you guys kinda look like you didn't really appreciate their sacrifice

I don't think this is the case; I think that you saw a chance to gain morale and loot by rolling an unprepared and hapless alliance and took it. TFP is tied directly to Rose, but not to your coalition (why did they pick Coalition B in the first place?!). I agree with Frawley that CBs arent entirely necessary in this game and I don't blame you guys for attacking TFP, but like with a few of B's other claims I feel like you guys would've done the action anyway and are finding reasons after. 

Edited by MRBOOTY
  • Upvote 1

MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
15 minutes ago, MRBOOTY said:

 

Not quite sure if this is referring to what I think it's referring to, but I was never in talks with T$ or anyone about a treasure. I reported what I thought was slot filling (but  may have been just obscenely incompetent gameplay that looked just like slot filling). I was miffed at the time, but everything is cool now.

On a separate note, the same CB you guys had for TFP could've been used against the Syndicate, since they did the same thing basically. I wouldn't have wanted us to though, and I think the claim that rolling TFP was justified is very dubious at best. They lost 20 BILLION dollars fighting for your side... so arguing that them buying a treasure from an enemy and taking slots Coalition B could've used makes you guys kinda look like you didn't really appreciate their sacrifice

I don't think this is the case; I think that you saw a chance to gain morale and loot by rolling an unprepared and hapless alliance and took it. TFP is tied directly to Rose, but not to your coalition (why did they pick Coalition B in the first place?!). I agree with Frawley that CBs arent entirely necessary in this game and I don't blame you guys for attacking TFP, but like with a few of B's other claims I feel like you guys would've done the action anyway and are finding reasons after. 

You had the treasure, and I negotiated with you and t$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Frawley said:

You had the treasure, and I negotiated with you and t$

Dude I don't remember that at all :P. Was it a while ago, or are you sure it was me? I'm kinda a spaz, so it's possible I just blacked it out of my memory

MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways if people want peace I have an idea. Rose/Chaos agree to a NAP; as KETOG has to a few weeks longer for peace. Everything gets worked out fighting & NPO gets to hit KETOG by themselves a little longer to make NPO satisfied there; with maybe the few extra weeks KETOG would fight alone a drop in the bucket to how long it would last otherwise.

So are maybe simple ways it could end w/o terms possibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alyster said:

What made you think anyone would abandon KETOG?

You guys were willing to let Syndicate and all of those who entered on that front just fight Guardian/GoB if beneficial. If you guys really care about peace & all KETOG had to do was a agree to a few extra rounds; doubt they'd have a big problem with them if peace matter to them.

If you guys don't care about peace enough to do anything favorable toward side in the peace arrangement; you should probably start winning if you guys don't want to surrender & put any thoughts of peace out of your mind until you have the upper ground.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, alyster said:

a) we wont settle peace here, but you know whos will have countless hours on discord. So this is futile here.

b ) We aint Coalition B who work each on their own. 

If you guys want to all do group peace and agree on terms together; I can respect that. Although people on your side accusing them of trying to drive people out of the game when their side didn't start the war and neither side has wanted to surrender so far isn't a worthwhile line of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.