Jump to content

This is a brave new world we're living in


alyster
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Edward I said:

When has "we are annoyed with you about something you did" not been valid CB?

If it makes you happy, I suppose we could say all our future wars are solely motivated by boredom.

That'd be a day. NPO and not lying ?

Edited by alyster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Edward I said:

When has "we are annoyed with you about something you did" not been valid CB?

If it makes you happy, I suppose we could say all our future wars are solely motivated by boredom.

Wasn't really trying to get into a debate on the validity of given CBs. I mean, it'd be a tangent, but if it helps you understand my angle any better, my general philosophy on CBs is "while you don't need a specific reason to declare wars, you shouldn't be surprised if someone later turns your own logic back on you". Sort of a "do unto others", fundamentally. :P

So from that angle, in my response to Shadowthrone I was drawing on the tone of his own posts to say "it's amusing you think that is a valid CB, since if everyone else ascribed to that you would be screwed".

  • Upvote 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

If Sphinx's nation strike is valid, we applied the same definition here.

Except Sphinx hadn't attacked three of his five targets (if memory serves me right), alongside two of his five targets being in a protectorate of an ally. You're trying to draw an equivalence in an apple to oranges situation. It doesn't hold up as you'd like it to.

But that's besides the point. If you (this is a general "you") thought that he was breaking the rules, you should've reported him outright. Rules are meant to be enforced, not used as leverage for IC gains. 
 

  • Upvote 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Wasn't really trying to get into a debate on the validity of given CBs. I mean, it'd be a tangent, but if it helps you understand my angle any better, my general philosophy on CBs is "while you don't need a specific reason to declare wars, you shouldn't be surprised if someone later turns your own logic back on you". Sort of a "do unto others", fundamentally. :P 

So from that angle, in my response to Shadowthrone I was drawing on the tone of his own posts to say "it's amusing you think that is a valid CB, since if everyone else ascribed to that you would be screwed".

My (unenforceable, sometimes strategically imprudent) rule is that any CB is valid if a) you announce it and b) it's in-character. "Fun" doesn't count, but "we don't like you" or "this is a military training exercise" do.

Any group can develop rules or precedents surrounding CBs if it maintains them with military force or social persuasion. However, precedent seldom works as a justification for war. If an alliance thinks it's got a good CB, the additional claim that the CB is grounded in precedent rarely persuades any previously-unsympathetic person of its validity. This leaves us with the first option: military force.

You're right that a huge plurality, if not a small majority, of Orbis is antipathetic towards NPO, but I doubt that would change because of one or even several CBs NPO employed. We'd have been screwed a long time ago if the only things that mattered were the opinions of the peanut gallery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rich to hear NPO complain about other people "interfering" in their war when they did exact same thing with GG earlier

except in this case TFP actually wasnt doing anything of the sort at all

Edited by hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Edward I said:

My (unenforceable, sometimes strategically imprudent) rule is that any CB is valid if a) you announce it and b) it's in-character. "Fun" doesn't count, but "we don't like you" or "this is a military training exercise" do.

Any group can develop rules or precedents surrounding CBs if it maintains them with military force or social persuasion. However, precedent seldom works as a justification for war. If an alliance thinks it's got a good CB, the additional claim that the CB is grounded in precedent rarely persuades any previously-unsympathetic person of its validity. This leaves us with the first option: military force.

You're right that a huge plurality, if not a small majority, of Orbis is antipathetic towards NPO, but I doubt that would change because of one or even several CBs NPO employed. We'd have been screwed a long time ago if the only things that mattered were the opinions of the peanut gallery.

My point wasn't about what the peanut gallery thought so much as holding Shadowthrone to the standard he was trying to apply to TFP. I mean. Let's say I was willing to put aside all thoughts of other people's opinions (and the whole, uhhh, "keep declaring war on my ally for reasons I know to be false" thing, heh) : I would want to judge NPO on what their leaders say, and if you guys aren't accountable to your own supposed standard than I'd suggest that might be where some of your "peanut gallery" problem comes from. We could definitely go in circles on this one but generally speaking I don't mind doing it so if you want you can hit me up on discord some time you're bored? :P

I'm not sure I agree about military force. For me logical consistency and validity is totally separate from what you can enforce. You can say X and you can bash people who don't agree with X for days, but it won't make X any more true.

I think I take your point about fun. I'm a little amused you just said "the only thing I find invalid is fun!" though! Hahaha. Fun can be in character, though, and can be something that has an appreciable (albeit difficult to quantify) morale/community value.

 

Edit: We're like three tangents out probably but who cares at least it's a slightly different flavour on the whole "no u" thing. :P

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

My point wasn't about what the peanut gallery thought so much as holding Shadowthrone to the standard he was trying to apply to TFP. I mean. Let's say I was willing to put aside all thoughts of other people's opinions (and the whole, uhhh, "keep declaring war on my ally for reasons I know to be false" thing, heh) : I would want to judge NPO on what their leaders say, and if you guys aren't accountable to your own supposed standard than I'd suggest that might be where some of your "peanut gallery" problem comes from. We could definitely go in circles on this one but generally speaking I don't mind doing it so if you want you can hit me up on discord some time you're bored? :P

I mean the standard I was setting for TFP, was don't flex and hope everything goes okay and it'd be ignored lol. If you think that I'm a douche, all well and good, but feel free to hit me up on discord and we can't talk about that one there ;) 

TFP were told we'd consider their actions, specifically when they referred to taking Adrienne's commands regarding the war as interference. We offered to negotiate through it, offered to pay them to not interfere, and we got Quich flexing hard with the strong belief we were in the place to be walked over. TFP got hit for the interference, Quich being aggressive about it, was not the reason he got hit for, but certainly didn't help his case out :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

My point wasn't about what the peanut gallery thought so much as holding Shadowthrone to the standard he was trying to apply to TFP. I mean. Let's say I was willing to put aside all thoughts of other people's opinions (and the whole, uhhh, "keep declaring war on my ally for reasons I know to be false" thing, heh) : I would want to judge NPO on what their leaders say, and if you guys aren't accountable to your own supposed standard than I'd suggest that might be where some of your "peanut gallery" problem comes from. We could definitely go in circles on this one but generally speaking I don't mind doing it so if you want you can hit me up on discord some time you're bored? :P

Isn't that just another standard you want to impose on others, though? I disagree with the notion that NPO isn't self-consistent (not sure if you meant to imply it wasn't or not), but demanding that any actor maintains at least a veneer of self-consistency would require social or material enforcement if the actor in question disagrees with you in principle. Obviously self-consistency isn't a terribly controversial definition of good behavior, but all that really amounts to is an easier time of imposing costs on people who are seen as inconsistent in their actions or justifications.

23 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I'm not sure I agree about military force. For me logical consistency and validity is totally separate from what you can enforce. You can say X and you can bash people who don't agree with X for days, but it won't make X any more true.

No, it doesn't, but truth is of limited value because it's rarely acclaimed unanimously (NPO's government are liars, or not, depending on who you talk to) and because not everything is a matter of truth. Sometimes a CB, peace term, or other action is considered off-limits for other reasons. Imposing reparations on defeated, defending coalitions, for example, is frowned upon because it's supposedly wrong. Just because this isn't controversial doesn't mean it's objective truth, though.

23 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I think I take your point about fun. I'm a little amused you just said "the only thing I find invalid is fun!" though! Hahaha. Fun can be in character, though, and can be something that has an appreciable (albeit difficult to quantify) morale/community value.

It's hard to roleplay as someone motivated purely by fun, which is all "in-character" really means. If this is supposed to be a political simulator, I'd think the only plausible motivations amount to some combination of wealth, power, prestige and ideology. It's definitely possible to enjoy the pursuit of any of those, but other than in a nihilistic, "watch the world burn" ethos, it's hard for me to imagine "fun" as truly in-character, independent of other motivations.

23 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Edit: We're like three tangents out probably but who cares at least it's a slightly different flavour on the whole "no u" thing. :P

My thoughts exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

I still don’t see those logs.

I have a slight suspicion that you’re summarizing the situation to be in your favor.

 

Let’s set one thing straight before that. Being pissed at someone for being immoral =/= flexing. If you use moderation action as a blackmail/threaten tool when precedent shows that the action is 100% valid, you’re just a piece of shit.

they were posted by Roquentin earlier in this thread. i'm guessing by a lot of the replies in this thread most people haven't read them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

They couldn't read them because they were screenshots made by ants

Content set aside, the screenshots read fine?

unknown.png?width=1025&height=308

Click on any of those images, they expand to fit the screen. At-least I can read them pretty clearly on my laptop.

Edited by Dio Brando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

They couldn't read them because they were screenshots made by ants

Can confirm, I literally can't read the Quiche3 screenshot. Like at all. The others are barely legible, but that one I just can't figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Can confirm, I literally can't read the Quiche3 screenshot. Like at all. The others are barely legible, but that one I just can't figure.

Huh, weird. I could always host them on imgur if need be, but once expanded they read okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Huh, weird. I could always host them on imgur if need be, but once expanded they read okay.

Yeah, I did expand them, but they're so blurry, like they're just upscaled versions of a thumbnail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yeah, I did expand them, but they're so blurry, like they're just upscaled versions of a thumbnail.

Let me know if this works. You will probably still need to expand on one of the images, the text is really tiny in non-expanded form.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Let me know if this works. You will probably still need to expand on one of the images, the text is really tiny in non-expanded form.

Thank you! That actually did work.

Anyway I still don't see Quiche flexing so much as not reneging on a deal he'd made beforehand with TKR. Is not breaking one's deals at NPO's demand "flexing" now? Also, if the two other attackers on the TKR guy couldn't handle his air in a 2 on 1 by this stage in the war, then incompetence is 2/3ds of the problem and TFP is at best 1/3 of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>he has to air

>otherwise he's slot filling

 

Hahaha, wtf.  That's not in the rules at all.

That last screenshot pretty much sums it up.

>hit air or I report

Good fricking lord that's awful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Thank you! That actually did work.

Anyway I still don't see Quiche flexing so much as not reneging on a deal he'd made beforehand with TKR. Is not breaking one's deals at NPO's demand "flexing" now? Also, if the two other attackers on the TKR guy couldn't handle his air in a 2 on 1 by this stage in the war, then incompetence is 2/3ds of the problem and TFP is at best 1/3 of the problem.

Don’t play dumb. Everyone knows every slot counts. We don’t give a shit about their deal and if the deal is hostile to us we’ll be hostile to them. Hopefully the treasure was worth it though. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Don’t play dumb. Everyone knows every slot counts. We don’t give a shit about their deal and if the deal is hostile to us we’ll be hostile to them. Hopefully the treasure was worth it though. 

lol.

You guys are pathetic.

Threatening players with moderation reports if they don't adhere to your demands.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Don’t play dumb. Everyone knows every slot counts. We don’t give a shit about their deal and if the deal is hostile to us we’ll be hostile to them. Hopefully the treasure was worth it though. 

Honestly the CB shenanigans are a minor issue if even that. The headline is that NPO government and leadership threatens people who don't comply with their wishes with admin action. 

That is an entirely new low. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Pretending that TFP can flex.
>Pretending that anyone would take a TFP "flex" seriously.
>Pretending that TKR as a guarantor meant anything in a context where you're already fighting them.
>Pretending that a single nation living for another round would change the entire outcome of the war.
>Pretending that it's TFP's fault that your attacker selection on IC was so poor that the third slot being taken by a random completely botched the drag.
>Pretending that you wouldn't have hit TFP anyways for leaving the war early, or for other reasons that you have already used such as "being allied to an enemy is aggression."

m9AxLVP.png

  • Upvote 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Epi said:

If you read the screenshots, it's obvious Roq was being sincere. He tried several times to find some middle ground, for a neutral alliance TFP was incredibly clear where they stood. Hell if they were even attempting neutrality here, they would've accepted payment from Roq to launch the 1-2 airstrikes left in the war. It's staggering to think Quichwe or TKR put that much value in 1 member, that they'd risk antagonizing Coalition B and getting TFP hit.

This is twice TFP have been hit late in a war because they can't help but aid one of the warring sides. They're a paragon of their paradox of a name, fighting pacifists, aggressively neutral and doomed to be hurt by both.

Honestly we're talking about BK, whose been hitting people to up them stats, and NPO who uses mods as a weapon.

Pretending this was anything other than a foregone conclusion is optimistic, even for people like Illen. ?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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.