Jump to content

Unacceptable Behavior


Cooper_
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

Not true. Already touched on this in another topic. That you keep bringing it up doesn't make it true.

Feel free to look at the threads I posted for Tiberius here.

Its been said by all of your leaders, especially by Leo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Feel free to look at the threads I posted for Tiberius here.

Its been said by all of your leaders, especially by Leo.

If you get logs where my names says I want you to have cancer, would you also believe that?

 

For all the dumbfrickery and amount of "ermagherd, these guys just don't get [irony, sarcasm, humor, too serious, not serious, etc.]" posts I see from you and your sheep, you sure do take everything as a universal truth when it benefits you the least.

 

Edit: And let me just point out; YES! Deletion, VM nations, alliance memberships HAVE been mentioned on multiple occasions. It's just a war stat. Nothing stops those people from just going inactive, being utterly irrelevant, until the political scene changes and they can return. It's been like that ever since I joined this game and on "both sides of the fence".

Edited by King Olafr of the Faroes

"Don't argue with members of The Golden Horde. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Probably someone on OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edward I said:

The first weeks of wars are fun, yes. Changing small facets of them for the sake of calling them different isn't a good reason to change the politics that lead to them.

In this case you're preventing the politics that lead to them from occurring as well.

Quote

The odds of change without a decisive end to this war are vanishingly small. The attitude towards Coalition B and NPO in particular has been one of overwhelming IC and OOC hostility from the moment we entered until now. We have no reason to believe the people who told us we'd be torched for "ruining" minispheres, or who think we're "breaking" the game for [insert action from last six months here] will have a change of heart after the war. So, rather than negotiating a hollow peace in the full, reasonable expectation that Coalition A will rebuild and come back to fight the same war stronger and more organized, we're content to continue fighting until we get a satisfactory one.

If you want that dynamic to change, give us a reason to agree to peace that makes that outcome unlikely.

If your diplomacy is so bad that you have made irreconcilable enemies out of enough people that you can't put together a winning coalition again, that's on you.  There are plenty of people with mixed opinions on NPO... though fewer and fewer as you drive more people to be against you.

Refusing to end this war because you've already lost the next one from diplomatic incompetence is like a little kid threatening to knock over the chess board over because they can't win. All you've largely managed to accomplish with it so far is to alienate a lot of former friends and weaken your diplomatic position further.

Quote

You have an issue primarily with game mechanics then, not us. If decisive victories in wars were easier to obtain and longer wars were harder to sustain, there would be shorter wars. If both coalitions wanted to, for instance, collectively lobby Alex to implement meaningfully low soft caps on alliance and individual warchests, I imagine the implementation of such a mechanic would go a long way towards speeding up the war cycle. Unless and until a mechanic that limits the ability of alliances to wage protracted wars is implemented, though, the social side of the game will be constrained to happen at the pace of the mechanical side.

Mechanics is definitely a contributing factor... and I've argued for some of those very changes.  But that doesn't resolve the community of any responsibility.

Quote

Game mechanics, including the structural advantages they create in conjunction with player actions, are the basis for the politics of the world. You can't possibly "miss" the politics by talking about them; at worst, the discussion will be incomplete.

They interplay with each other.  I've never denied that game mechanics play a role.  I pointed out that Roquentin was completely ignoring the politics side and ONLY talking about game mechanics.

Quote

And those wars were explicitly framed as fun, friendly, rivalry-free engagements. Soup's first war was billed as "community outreach." Surf's Up happened shortly thereafter; the belligerents were the same people who had spent so much time praising the ethos of wars like the Soup-Fark one; and they made it pretty clear that they thought Surf's Up was an example of that ethos to be emulated by others. If it was a war that had anything to do with rivalry or IC disputes, the combatants had a funny way of showing it.

Framed by some that way.  It doesn't mean there wasn't any in-game rivalry or grudges to help drive it.

Quote

Obviously we've made some headway against the perennially superior upper tier forces arrayed against us and obviously they, in and of themselves, aren't an existential threat. Coupled with the attitudes of those nations' owners and of their alliances' leaders, though, yes, they are. If the almost sole use to which those nations are put is opposing NPO's spheres of influence, why should we treat them as anything but a perennial threat? If, absent substantial long-term planning and dedication on our part, their advantage spells perennial defeat for us in wars, why shouldn't we treat them as an existential threat?

In fairness to you, some of the advantage that upper tier grouping enjoys are the products of glaring balance problems in the game's mechanics. However, that doesn't negate the social reasons for the problem - upper tier consolidation - and it doesn't change the fact that, without changes to the mechanics or a newfound willingness of upper tiers to fight one another, we have no way of dealing with problem besides going after the whales every war.

1) The people in question have never been and never will be enough by themselves to defeat NPO.  There are many more "swing" alliances.  You managed to overcome your opposition the last two wars, politically by getting allies that could help in the upper middle and upper tier, and militarily by using a larger number of middle and upper middle tier nations.  If the threat of "perennial defeat" were real you could not have won the last two wars.
2) There is always a large probability of hostile leaders and alliances becoming distracted by other threats, rivalries, and grudges.
3) The game mechanics continue to stifle upper tier growth relative to the middle tier growth, in a way that more than balances out any warchest advantages.
4) Again, whether you recognize the reasons as legitimate or not, those upper tier alliances were fighting each other before this war.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

-snip-

First, nice strawman.

Second, multiple references between multiple leaders, all being consistent with stalling talks on purpose to encourage more deletions/leavers/quitters, and even being implied very heavily here by one of the major leaders.

You must have your head in the ground, if you cannot see the actions are following exactly what they’ve stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:

Lol at all of the BK and NPO drones trying to call you immoral for even suggesting something like this could have been a possibility.

 

Shame on you BK. You even tried to get someone banned in this farce you were trying to pull.

Lol at all of Coalition A wanting peace. Maybe next year bois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't post emojis on forums without looking like some kind of spammy !@#$, so I'd just like to announce that if I could post a juice box pepe right here with nothing else in my post, and not be dinged with a warning, I'd do it.

  • Haha 2

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Edward I said:

The odds of change without a decisive end to this war are vanishingly small. The attitude towards Coalition B and NPO in particular has been one of overwhelming IC and OOC hostility from the moment we entered until now. We have no reason to believe the people who told us we'd be torched for "ruining" minispheres, or who think we're "breaking" the game for [insert action from last six months here] will have a change of heart after the war. So, rather than negotiating a hollow peace in the full, reasonable expectation that Coalition A will rebuild and come back to fight the same war stronger and more organized, we're content to continue fighting until we get a satisfactory one.

 

What an absurd claim to make.  What the hell are you smoking that Orbis are now the bad people and you're waging a war for your own survival suddenly?   The current attitude towards NPO and Col B is a creation of your own (and your allies) design.   We've watched you sit there and keep a major percentage of the game at war for 8+ months while you simultaneously attacked and beat down any one of your 'allies' that had enough of your never-ending war and wanted a return to peace for their members.   Plus, you had an ENTIRE sphere sitting there that you signed a 6 month NAP with and then you basically ignored FA wise even after the logs leaked of you trashing plenty of us.   So, from the moment you entered?   Laughable.   You've spent the past 8 months carrying out actions that have lead to where we stand now.   

 

This is your own fault. 

  • Upvote 5

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sisyphus said:

I am insecure and need my up votes to feel better about myself ?

 

1 hour ago, Dr James Wilson said:

What an absurd claim to make.  What the hell are you smoking that Orbis are now the bad people and you're waging a war for your own survival suddenly?   The current attitude towards NPO and Col B is a creation of your own (and your allies) design.   We've watched you sit there and keep a major percentage of the game at war for 8+ months while you simultaneously attacked and beat down any one of your 'allies' that had enough of your never-ending war and wanted a return to peace for their members.   Plus, you had an ENTIRE sphere sitting there that you signed a 6 month NAP with and then you basically ignored FA wise even after the logs leaked of you trashing plenty of us.   So, from the moment you entered?   Laughable.   You've spent the past 8 months carrying out actions that have lead to where we stand now.   

 

This is your own fault. 

Just a raid bro. Why so mad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think coal a dragged out the war initially. When I joined pnw, 150 days ago, the war was already over. Coal a kept fighting and dragging it out which caused people going inactive, into VM and delete their nations on BOTH sides. A more reserved attitude 150 days ago would have brought peace a lot quicker.

Since my joining alot happend, mainly to keep coal A down. Altough both sides leadership could have been more easy on the others, the boring chorus on these forums stating that BK-NPO-coal B is killing the game has at a certain point started to believe itself. 

A 150 days ago coal a dragged out the war, I bet if log leaking was a thing back then we can find coal a leadership stating something like: hang in there, lets sit this out, lets see test their patience. And thats fine, its proven succesful for coal a so far. 

BKnet being exploited to drop BK members however is just an ugly thing that understandibly coal a has no problems with. But dont act like its normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
23 hours ago, Kastor said:

Yeah, we now know based off of logs that BK is mostly broke, and a lot of alliances have depleted their funds. NPO can supplement them, but for how long? Another 1-2 maybe 3 months, but now they have a lot more wars and their "top" that was "growing and making resources" now have to engage, and being against so many people, they'll have to overextend and get picked off.

 

I don't think NPO will "lose" but I think they'll be forced to peace, whether that be a surrender or white peace depends on how long Coalition A drags this war out, tbh.

Well you also need to keep in mind the longer they remain at war the harder and the long it will take for them to rebuild infra and WC, think it will take longer than 6 months, so maybe a 3 month nap :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James II said:


Looks like all the removals were done from Leo's devices. No one hacked his account. I

 

No, they were not done from "Leo's devices." That implies the reporter of faking being hacked, and in fact, several people especially those who are anti-Black Knight biased,  accused Leo of faking being hacked for attention. However, Leo did NOT fake it, as given 

Here is proof or rather logical deduction:

Look at the timestamps in the following screenshot: 
if Leo did this to himself, then George wouldn't have banked it right away. The proof is that George banked it.

The reasoning is: 
If George didn't do it, then why he would bank Leo's resources so fast?  Also Leo was not online at the time, and does not have any technological knowledge on how to boot members through BKnet (if he wasn't a bad-at-tech caveman, he would be handling his own Bank equipment instead of giving the bank password to George). 

So it's not like the SUSPICION is baseless. 

Proofs: 

nJ4Dcaj.png

vguMo4J.png

 

 

 

However, there's no point in trying to put all the blame on Leo for "false accusing George" because there's no point (Anyone in his position would've thought that and would file a report asking Alex to *Check*. A report does not guarantee an accusation.) If George got framed then sad to hear that (although that's one hell a coincidence + the banking,)  but if George did it, then no point  in trying to hide that George did it, because not only is  pretty incriminating ^^^^^^  HE OFFICIALLY GETS TO KEEP THE MONEY. Alex would have ALLOWED the "BKnet hack" to happen since it didn't happen on-site, it happened off site so Alex thinks that's their own fault for having bad security. So basically, protect your cybersecurity for your offsite tools, guys. I support Alex's ruling, he can't investigate every single hack that happens outside of his site/jurisdiction. 

HOWEVER: I believe George "did the right thing" returned all the money to Leo, so I don't think it matters anymore and it's worth dropping it. (however, even if George didn't return the money, since this happened on BKNet, Alex wouldn't have forced George to return the money or ban George.)  

Also, someone did it. Funds don't move on their own xD unless the AI took over the world)

Edited by Yuno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You do sound mad though, I don’t know whether to hand you toilet roll or a breath mint.

Don't quit your day job, comedy doesn't seem to be your thing.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.