Dutch East India Company Announcement

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

No offense to the MDoAP but, TAC and TAC's allies are kicking your a**es and yet your still risking your score..... wow

[Taliburn]

Why is everyone getting upset that TAC started fighting a war against a bloc?

 

I thought declaring war on one is declaring war on all.

original response -And you really know what your talking about right?

 

edited response- After re-reading it i see the sacasticness in your statement

Edited October 26, 2014 by Taliburn

[Taliburn]

I'm fairly certain that's because they never signed the bloc agreement. Pub said on IRC yesterday that TAC doesn't have a treaty with II.

come on you know to present logs when quoting what someone else said, or it never happened..

Edited October 26, 2014 by Taliburn

[Geronimo]

I'm fairly certain that's because they never signed the bloc agreement. Pub said on IRC yesterday that TAC doesn't have a treaty with II.

Confirmed ! II doesn't hold any treaty with TAC. We aren't interested to getting involved in this war and want to make it crystal clear that we would love to stay neutral.

[Ayayay]

I don't remember that, I remember people saying that and hearing them say it but I don't recall agreeing with it. 

But as of last night TAC still didn't want TSG to come in, this might change things and obviously I wouldn't blame them.

 

And that's the real problem here. People seem to have that horrid mentality from different universes where it is better to go alone or "Burn for your allies" instead of just using them. I've been a member of UPN since 2009 and had my fair share of burning or sitting from the sidelines as allies had fun. No more. This game is to young for such nonsense and it is aggravating that it already exists. I fully expected TSG and TEst to not stand by while TAC burned but I was wrong. There is still time for them to help their allies, I hope they do not continue to disappoint Orbis.

 

Also

o/DEIC

Edited October 26, 2014 by underlordgc

[Pubs Dignity]

Don't need em

don't use em

[Niklaus]

And that's the real problem here. People seem to have that horrid mentality from different universes where it is better to go alone or "Burn for your allies" instead of just using them. I've been a member of UPN since 2009 and had my fair share of burning or sitting from the sidelines as allies had fun. No more. This game is to young for such nonsense and it is aggravating that it already exists. I fully expected TSG and TEst to not stand by while TAC burned but I was wrong. There is still time for them to help their allies, I hope they do not continue to disappoint Orbis.

 

Also

o/DEIC

I am guessing they will use them. When it is time to rebuild. No need to use more force than necessary. Though now with entry of DEIC, I may prove to be wrong. But still I doubt they will be asking their allies to enter the war this soon or enter the war at all.

[George W. Bush]

you might want to read the announcements a bit better. EoS declared war on taC. VOC/UPN then followed suit and activated their Aggression part of their bloc treaty with EoS to declare war on TAC

 

either way, looks like ball is in II/TSG court

 

edit: doesn't TAC/II/TSG have a bloc announcement thread? can't seem to find it :/

Any info about the "bloc" is now untrue. Those who thought it was true is because Nathan I is a dingus and leaked the information about the creation of the bloc.

[Hereno]

Keep using that approach and you will soon run out of your human 'tools' (*) to use. Some people use it and I despise them, especially the fact that they try to cover it up by putting up some sort of persona of a well-intentioned human being. At-least, you are better than them in that regard but the consequences will be same for you, just quicker.

 

 

*That's what temporary, on-need basis, disposable 'friends' are called, in Machiavellian terms

 

 

Coming to the main topic -

 

I am not seasoned enough in politics to lecture anyone on any sort of political move (war being one of them) they make, after all leaders of an alliance know what's best for them and their alliance, but I think if EoS wanted to use all its resources, it would have been better to do so at the start, not in this way, with allies slowly coming in for help, one after another. In my opinion, done the way it has been done makes the pre-empt war take a direction similar to what would have been the case if EoS had been attacked first, with allies coming in defense later on to help them out. But I guess as long as it serves their purpose, doesn't matter the way it is executed.

 

being flexible != being disloyal

 

real pragmatism deviates from pragmatism

 

are you guys really this ignorant or what 

 

If you truly expect this to be the situation then you are sadly mistaken. We told them not to come. They aren't "standing by" to watch us suffer. They aren't in the war because we asked them not to, we know exactly what you guys wanted to do. You are trying to knock out the threat, and you feel that TAC's allies and TAC are the threat. The fact you believe we had been actively plotting against TC for war just proves that you guys are terrible at acknowledging city builds and basic military stats. We had about half the military of EoS before all of this started, you expected that military to be a threat to you guys over there in your nice cushy bloc?

this post gets a like from grendel but none of mine did?

 

bias as !@#$

[Pubs Dignity]

Hereno you can do it a couple more posts and I'll buy whatever you are selling

Edited October 26, 2014 by Carter0912

[Placentica]

Why is everyone getting upset that TAC started fighting a war against a bloc?

 

I thought declaring war on one is declaring war on all.

Is that honestly what DEIC are telling you?  Just do some research and look at the warscreens.  EoS attacked TAC, then multiple EoS members said it would be 1v1.  Fine, good match, it'll be fun to watch.  Then a VoC said the same that EoS could handle itself. 

 

Finally when EoS was getting beat, UPN had two people jump the gun, then UPN lied about the attack on TAC, even after no one believed them.  They continued to lie and destroyed any credibility they might've had.  And then VoC joins the fight after saying it wouldn't.  That could get you up to speed.  If you want more info come to #guardian.

 

This is the alliance and bloc you are in.  This is the stuff they try to pull.

[Clarke]

Is that honestly what DEIC are telling you?  

No

 

And then VoC joins the fight after saying it wouldn't.   

I never said we wouldn't, one person may have said it but it was disinformation that I do not approve of.

[Phiney]

I never said we wouldn't, one person may have said it but it was disinformation that I do not approve of.

 

That one person is your minister of foreign affairs... Either stand by your ministers or pick better ones.

[SoS]

Remember when this was supposed to be a 1v1? Yeah, that didn't last long.

When opportunity knocks...

[Ayayay]

-snip-

Zots, c'mon man. Are you really that dense?

[Saru]

Zots, c'mon man. Are you really that dense?

 

... Woah. He's Steve Buscemi? No wonder he was being purposely obtuse. It explains it all. Can't believe I took his bait. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

The aggressor should only fight a war they can win, since they get to choose.  Looks like EoS overestimated their own abilities and chose poorly.  Calling on allies to help doesn't really seem wrong or anything, merely indicative of a failure to properly plan their war, unless it was always the plan to bring in reinforcements in a staggered fashion.

[Niklaus]

being flexible != being disloyal

 

real pragmatism deviates from pragmatism

 

are you guys really this ignorant or what

I did not use the word 'disloyal' in whole of my post. If anything, you yourself implied it when you declared that you cannot be trusted. If a person cannot be trusted, it would follow logically, such a person cannot be trusted to be loyal. Anyway, that's not what I was meant or addressed in my post, I did not even address the trust part. I warned you, according to whatever little experience I have, that following an approach which focuses strictly on the benefits which can be extracted from a relationship rather than focusing on developing a meaningful relationship itself, will hurt you in the long run. Because you will eventually face some decision which isn't practical as far as your alliance's interests are concerned but what you decide impacts your ally greatly. Then you can either ignore your interests for time being and support your ally and most likely earn an actually loyal friend in the end or you can be practical, see only your interests and decide according to that.

 

Maybe I am ignorant as apparently, according to what you seem to be implying, I cannot understand the difference between being practical and loyal and being Machiavellian and untrustworthy but my ignorance has worked pretty well for me till now so I am going to keep it that way.

 

Or perhaps, you aren't totally driven by self interests and that motto or whatever it is just an exaggeration to look different, to impress someone because certainly, I find it a little difficult to digest that when time comes you will actually betray someone's trust if need be but I am not gonna risk it.

 

Everyone breaks someone's trust at some point or other but somewhere you just have to draw the line. One cannot live simply for oneself, somethings are done just for sake of your relationship with the other person.

[Grillick]

Nothing you just said argues against a selfish, pragmatic outlook on political relationships. It's just a question of how long your perspective is. The longer view you take, the less things "done just for sake of your relationship with the other person" appear to really be so.

 

If your relationship with the other person provides value, then doing something for the sake of that relationship is in your own self-interest. If your relationship with the other person does not provide value, then doing something for the sake of that relationship that harms your interests is foolhardy.

[Niklaus]

Nothing you just said argues against a selfish, pragmatic outlook on political relationships. It's just a question of how long your perspective is. The longer view you take, the less things "done just for sake of your relationship with the other person" appear to really be so.

To be honest, I have no argument to offer that would work for everyone. Personally, playing this game with the outlook Hereno described would make the game dull for me. Changing your 'friends' because the political climate is more favorable for you if you break ties with them would take a considerable amount of fun out of the game for me (not to mention the PR my alliance would lose, the backlash, etc), especially if they stood by you in your bad days. There is already another realm which has the brand of politics you described, if you want to see the disadvantages of this approach, have a look at it. You will find several advantages, too though depending on how your moral compass operates. While, it is fun in its own way, I'd want to see friendships based on something more than just political advantage here where alliances stand up for each other, their first consideration being that they are friends and not whether they are bound by some piece of paper which can be manipulated easily by pointing out its loopholes.

 

I accept a pragmatic view of political relationships as a valid way of playing the game but I don't have to like it. I feel any alliance leader should have the eye to see the practical, pragmatic side of things but the decisions he takes should be taken after consideration of certain other things as well. For instance, if someone stood by you in your difficult times, if you see a tough situation arising from them, instead of doing the easy thing of distancing yourself from them, it would be more commendable and praiseworthy if efforts are made to get them out of it or at least if they have to face their adversary, stand by them. I believe my idea of pragmatic politics is not different from yours, if it is then my reasons are not worth much.

 

Moreover, its one thing to see practical side of things and quite the other to have no scruples while breaking someone's trust (especially if your support matters a lot to them at some moment). It is like taking it to quite the next level. That is what I was arguing against in my previous posts and you will find the relevant arguments in there as well.

 

If your relationship with the other person provides value, then doing something for the sake of that relationship is in your own self-interest.

A relationship's value (speaking in terms of gameplay) does not always need to be something tangible like economic or military support. It can also be the joy and satisfaction gained from playing the game along with like-minded people, who are loyal to you and will stand by your side in case of a rainy day. Usually, both tangible and abstract rewards are derived from assisting an ally. There can be some negative value derived too, resulting from the interaction.

 

 

Going philosophical about it, humans can never be selfless. There is always some self interest involved, be it inform of some tangible gain or some other abstract gain such as a feeling of joy or the feeling you get after you do something good. But that's not most people use the term in their daily life. In daily conversation, I would consider someone who is doing something for someone else without some material gain or only for his personal satisfaction and that something benefits the other person as selfless just because his interests don't involve some tangible gain.

 

 

If your relationship with the other person does not provide value, then doing something for the sake of that relationship that harms your interests is foolhardy.

Value in what sense? Tangible or abstract?

 

Using the same example I earlier used, helping out a friend who helped you in times of need, even at the expense of your pixels or political capital would be the honorable thing to do even though it may not be the pragmatic thing to be done. After all it is just a game, the stats are just letters and lines of code. They can be recovered. Nations can be rebuilt. But the feelings of loyalty and camaraderie such an action would stir up in your ally cannot be achieved any other way.

 

Edit - We should probably get a new thread for this if we are to continue with this.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Niklaus

[Shellhound]

This dude just wrote a book. Unfortunately there's no pictures so I won't be reading.

[Niklaus]

I had no good pictures handy

 

I'd give tl;dr version but my wall of text has made me sleepy so good night xD

[Saru]

To be honest, I have no argument to offer that would work for everyone. Personally, playing this game with the outlook Hereno described would make the game dull for me. Changing your 'friends' because the political climate is more favorable for you if you break ties with them would take a considerable amount of fun out of the game for me (not to mention the PR my alliance would lose, the backlash, etc), especially if they stood by you in your bad days. There is already another realm which has the brand of politics you described, if you want to see the disadvantages of this approach, have a look at it. You will find several advantages, too though depending on how your moral compass operates. While, it is fun in its own way, I'd want to see friendships based on something more than just political advantage here where alliances stand up for each other, their first consideration being that they are friends and not whether they are bound by some piece of paper which can be manipulated easily by pointing out its loopholes.

 

I accept a pragmatic view of political relationships as a valid way of playing the game but I don't have to like it. I feel any alliance leader should have the eye to see the practical, pragmatic side of things but the decisions he takes should be taken after consideration of certain other things as well. For instance, if someone stood by you in your difficult times, if you see a tough situation arising from them, instead of doing the easy thing of distancing yourself from them, it would be more commendable and praiseworthy if efforts are made to get them out of it or at least if they have to face their adversary, stand by them. I believe my idea of pragmatic politics is not different from yours, if it is then my reasons are not worth much.

 

Moreover, its one thing to see practical side of things and quite the other to have no scruples while breaking someone's trust (especially if your support matters a lot to them at some moment). It is like taking it to quite the next level. That is what I was arguing against in my previous posts and you will find the relevant arguments in there as well.

 

A relationship's value (speaking in terms of gameplay) does not always need to be something tangible like economic or military support. It can also be the joy and satisfaction gained from playing the game along with like-minded people, who are loyal to you and will stand by your side in case of a rainy day. Usually, both tangible and abstract rewards are derived from assisting an ally. There can be some negative value derived too, resulting from the interaction.

 

 

Going philosophical about it, humans can never be selfless. There is always some self interest involved, be it inform of some tangible gain or some other abstract gain such as a feeling of joy or the feeling you get after you do something good. But that's not most people use the term in their daily life. In daily conversation, I would consider someone who is doing something for someone else without some material gain or only for his personal satisfaction and that something benefits the other person as selfless just because his interests don't involve some tangible gain.

 

 

Value in what sense? Tangible or abstract?

 

Using the same example I earlier used, helping out a friend who helped you in times of need, even at the expense of your pixels or political capital would be the honorable thing to do even though it may not be the pragmatic thing to be done. After all it is just a game, the stats are just letters and lines of code. They can be recovered. Nations can be rebuilt. But the feelings of loyalty and camaraderie such an action would stir up in your ally cannot be achieved any other way.

 

Edit - We should probably get a new thread for this if we are to continue with this.

 

For what it's worth, I fully agree with this post.

[ooohu]

To be honest, I have no argument to offer that would work for everyone. Personally, playing this game with the outlook Hereno described would make the game dull for me. Changing your 'friends' because the political climate is more favorable for you if you break ties with them would take a considerable amount of fun out of the game for me (not to mention the PR my alliance would lose, the backlash, etc), especially if they stood by you in your bad days. There is already another realm which has the brand of politics you described, if you want to see the disadvantages of this approach, have a look at it. You will find several advantages, too though depending on how your moral compass operates. While, it is fun in its own way, I'd want to see friendships based on something more than just political advantage here where alliances stand up for each other, their first consideration being that they are friends and not whether they are bound by some piece of paper which can be manipulated easily by pointing out its loopholes.

 

I accept a pragmatic view of political relationships as a valid way of playing the game but I don't have to like it. I feel any alliance leader should have the eye to see the practical, pragmatic side of things but the decisions he takes should be taken after consideration of certain other things as well. For instance, if someone stood by you in your difficult times, if you see a tough situation arising from them, instead of doing the easy thing of distancing yourself from them, it would be more commendable and praiseworthy if efforts are made to get them out of it or at least if they have to face their adversary, stand by them. I believe my idea of pragmatic politics is not different from yours, if it is then my reasons are not worth much.

 

Moreover, its one thing to see practical side of things and quite the other to have no scruples while breaking someone's trust (especially if your support matters a lot to them at some moment). It is like taking it to quite the next level. That is what I was arguing against in my previous posts and you will find the relevant arguments in there as well.

 

A relationship's value (speaking in terms of gameplay) does not always need to be something tangible like economic or military support. It can also be the joy and satisfaction gained from playing the game along with like-minded people, who are loyal to you and will stand by your side in case of a rainy day. Usually, both tangible and abstract rewards are derived from assisting an ally. There can be some negative value derived too, resulting from the interaction.

 

 

Going philosophical about it, humans can never be selfless. There is always some self interest involved, be it inform of some tangible gain or some other abstract gain such as a feeling of joy or the feeling you get after you do something good. But that's not most people use the term in their daily life. In daily conversation, I would consider someone who is doing something for someone else without some material gain or only for his personal satisfaction and that something benefits the other person as selfless just because his interests don't involve some tangible gain.

 

 

Value in what sense? Tangible or abstract?

 

Using the same example I earlier used, helping out a friend who helped you in times of need, even at the expense of your pixels or political capital would be the honorable thing to do even though it may not be the pragmatic thing to be done. After all it is just a game, the stats are just letters and lines of code. They can be recovered. Nations can be rebuilt. But the feelings of loyalty and camaraderie such an action would stir up in your ally cannot be achieved any other way.

 

Edit - We should probably get a new thread for this if we are to continue with this.

To summarize this with something a friend of mine once said in a distant land... friendship is power. Those without em will find themselves in a bad place on rainy days... but those with them will find a shelter ready to shield them from the troubles of the day until the sun rises once again.

[Grillick]

Value in what sense? Tangible or abstract?

That is for each person to decide for herself.