Anarchist Empire Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) Carthago claims if they kick someone for being inactive; that person left during the war and a war dodger. (Being kicked for being inactive is the same enough, if I didn't already know the reason; he would have just claimed the member left in the middle of the war rather than admit they were kicked.) How many people can really have their lives revolve around this game enough to always be active constantly in prolong wars? Is being inactive for a bit without leaving, so not avoiding taking damage at all despite not having time to defend; worthy of labeling someone a war dodger after they kick them while stealing their bank deposits? If that's their policy anyone in Carthago who doesn't think they're going to be able to constantly be active for the duration of this war, no matter how long it lasts, might as well withdraw their bank deposit if they're allowed during war and leave now; since they're going to be treated like a war dodger later regardless of how much damage they take for the alliance. So I think that policy is insane and most alliances just put their inactive on applicant, rather than kick them if they want to keep their bank deposits. I'm interested to see if anyone agree with the Carthago definition for war dodger, anyone who fails in their obligation to constantly be active during prolong global wars? I obviously disagree, since war dodgers wouldn't be the types of members I'd want to go out of my way to have and help under almost all circumstances. I'm leaning towards the opinion, leaving Carthago isn't really war dodging because of this; since they've diluted the meaning to the point where it makes no sense for anyone who has a life outside this game to stay. Real life emergency cause you to be inactive in Carthago, what happens to your bank account. (I've also heared from allies of their allies; they hate Carthago, from before this unrelated. So seems like a bad allaince in general, not popular & they steal from members. I spy oped a nation which was sort of inactive & they had more than this guy had in the bank on them. So seems keeping their money on hand is the way to go there. Smarter to keep it on hand than put it int he bank if not always active; since raiders can't steal it all; but more they have in the bank; the bigger incentive they have to boot someone if they're not always active; so they can steal the funds. (If the money they think is worth more than the member.) I consider us defacto at war with them already, just no slot and our CB solid. So spying on them fine. You successfully gathered intelligence about Katzenzungen. Your spies discovered that Katzenzungen has 60 spies, $203,522,070.04, 26,433.05 coal, 6.00 oil, 281.60 uranium, 5,174.04 lead, 31.00 iron, 31.00 bauxite, 4,128.42 gasoline, 5,754.39 munitions, 2,934.50 steel, 3,916.50 aluminum, and 0.00 food. Your agents were caught and identified by Katzenzungen's counter-intelligence forces. The operation cost you $145,492.27 and 1 of your spies were captured and executed. Edited February 1 by Anarchist Empire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parapet Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 I do not speak for anyone or anything but myself. But the general consensus I had while playing this game was that a war dodger is someone that leaves the alliance during an active war. Now in Carthago’s defense, that definition can be heavily stretched to include people both leaving the alliance and people who become inactive. However to me, people who go inactive are not really war dodgers. War dodgers usually have self interested reasons to leave an alliance. For example, if I left my alliance to save my infrastructure, that would be textbook war dodging. But going inactive and not playing is a different situation to me. But I also have a few questions for you. 5 hours ago, Anarchist Empire said: Carthago claims if they kick someone for being inactive; that person left during the war and a war dodger. (Being kicked for being inactive is the same enough, if I didn't already know the reason; he would have just claimed the member left in the middle of the war rather than admit they were kicked.) Can I have a source or at least some credibility to this claim? Like a statement from CTO or a given definition from their training guides? It is not exactly clear to me what triggered this response from you in the first place. 5 hours ago, Anarchist Empire said: You successfully gathered intelligence about Katzenzungen. Your spies discovered that Katzenzungen has 60 spies, $203,522,070.04, 26,433.05 coal, 6.00 oil, 281.60 uranium, 5,174.04 lead, 31.00 iron, 31.00 bauxite, 4,128.42 gasoline, 5,754.39 munitions, 2,934.50 steel, 3,916.50 aluminum, and 0.00 food. Your agents were caught and identified by Katzenzungen's counter-intelligence forces. The operation cost you $145,492.27 and 1 of your spies were captured and executed. Also on an unrelated note: How did your spies get caught in a gather intelligence spy op? That’s some serious bad luck. 1 Quote For legal reasons any statement I make is always alleged 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.