NationStates

Posted: **Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:34 am**

Venico wrote:Being Root Admin absolutely can be frustrating if you don't have an active enough staff. If those numbers are correct there's no reason for HEM to be an admin. If he posted a thread in the technical forum and no one responded...for a month, then yeah. None of that team deserves admin. Of course he couldn't put this to a vote, he would have never gotten new admins.

"Ok so here's the motion guys, you all lose administrative powers and I get a new team who will actually do stuff. All in favor say aye?"

People are inherently greedy and protective of their position once they get admin, never understood that. I wish Hileville the best of luck in maintaining the forums for such an active region as TSP, and I also hope that people won't drag internal issues of TSP into GP in the future. As much fun as it is. =P

Ignoring of course that this is a load of bollocks, and that this has nothing to do with activity, and everything to do with Hileville facing the prospect of the admin team overruling him.

Posted: **Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:16 pm**

South Pacific Belschaft wrote:
Venico wrote:Being Root Admin absolutely can be frustrating if you don't have an active enough staff. If those numbers are correct there's no reason for HEM to be an admin. If he posted a thread in the technical forum and no one responded...for a month, then yeah. None of that team deserves admin. Of course he couldn't put this to a vote, he would have never gotten new admins.

"Ok so here's the motion guys, you all lose administrative powers and I get a new team who will actually do stuff. All in favor say aye?"

People are inherently greedy and protective of their position once they get admin, never understood that. I wish Hileville the best of luck in maintaining the forums for such an active region as TSP, and I also hope that people won't drag internal issues of TSP into GP in the future. As much fun as it is. =P

Ignoring of course that this is a load of bollocks, and that this has nothing to do with activity, and everything to do with Hileville facing the prospect of the admin team overruling him.

The events were not linked. I announced to the admin team a shakeup was going to happen over a month ago. Last night that change was initiated.

Posted: **Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:54 pm**

Cormacville wrote:
Unibot III wrote:Then SB drops a bombshell... speculation beings again over who is going to be the next MoA. I stand by my guess of Cormac v. Geomania.

I'm not running for Minister of the Army, to state this clearly for the second time now, though I hope TSP will find someone who isn't defender to run for that position. If they don't, I would obviously support Geomania over Glen-Rhodes. Hell, I'd support you over Glen-Rhodes. No offense to Glen-Rhodes but he has no military gameplay experience whatsoever.

Hey, I have some experience! I was joking, anyways.

I thought it would be obvious. I was joking on IRC a couple days ago about how I was going to run for all the positions.

Posted: **Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:27 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Cormacville wrote:I'm not running for Minister of the Army, to state this clearly for the second time now, though I hope TSP will find someone who isn't defender to run for that position. If they don't, I would obviously support Geomania over Glen-Rhodes. Hell, I'd support you over Glen-Rhodes. No offense to Glen-Rhodes but he has no military gameplay experience whatsoever.

Hey, I have some experience! I was joking, anyways. I thought it would be obvious. I was joking on IRC a couple days ago about how I was going to run for all the positions.

Honestly I didn't think you were joking.

Posted: **Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:37 pm**

The Runes ran a story on Hileville's "retirement" -- at this point that remains gossip according to Escade and was just implied by a few of Hileville's most recent posts. I doubt this story is far from over and we'll be discussing it in further detail when the facts of how the community plans to move forward are well established.

Thanks! Keep up the chatter, though.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:31 pm**

Thread closed

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:31 pm**

Thread closed

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:41 pm**

TL;DR

Good job on the piece Koth despite me disagreeing every which way I can. =P

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:11 pm**

I'm sorry, did Unibot just use the newspaper of a Sinker to advocate the increased overthrow of Feeder and Sinker governments? :rofl:

I take it Fratt has stopped pre-approving editions of The Rejected Times. Or perhaps he too advocates more Feeder and Sinker coups?

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:12 pm**

The Rejected Realms Media Corporation wrote:including the smiting of Afforess’ abomination.

Ow. I take it 10KI has no interest in resuming a relationship with Capitalist Paradise from that remark.

The Rejected Realms Media Corporation wrote:but can you imagine the uproar if a User-Created Region began linking its citizens to “How to Coup or Defend a GCR!”? It sounds like something nutty and taboo that, I dunno, Afforess might do in Capitalist Paradise.

Again, ow.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:15 pm**

I like how it sounds "nutty and taboo," but the entire article is an implicit exhortation to do it. Don't try to pass it off as something nutty enough for Afforess to do. This is Unibot-brand nutty, obviously, as he's the author.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:20 pm**

It's based off a very simple question I had the other day, "Why are there no How to Coup a GCR guides?" It's not advocating anything. I'm simply making a point: Gameplay is systematically more protective of GCRs then they are of UCRs.

It's not like I didn't know it would be a controversial article.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:25 pm**

Unibot III wrote:It's based off a very simple question I had the other day, "Why are there no How to Coup a GCR guides?" It's not advocating anything. I'm simply making a point: Gameplay is systematically more protective of GCRs then they are of UCRs.

It's not like I didn't know it would be a controversial article.

My associates and I will get to work immediately. Also to Euro: SOON

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:29 pm**

Lol.... I saw your original post Unibot....

Come on... which GCRs would you want to see get couped? :lol:

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:29 pm**

So which GCRs would you support couping Unibot?

I mean the whole article is based on the fallacy that it is easy to take an outside force and coup a GCR. It's not. It's incredibly difficult. Nearly all GCR coups have been based on an internal argument or disagreement of some kind leading someone to go rogue and rebel against the regime. Not an outright invasion from the outside with no internal component. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that modern security measures mean the likelihood of success is tiny. Over the past 10 years its happened a handful of times, when security was lax, and even then the occupation lasted only for a couple of days at most in nearly all cases.

So the whole article is a non starter.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:33 pm**

Solorni wrote:Lol.... I saw your original post Unibot....

(Image)

Come on... which GCRs would you want to see get couped?

Hmmmmm... let me see. *flutters his eyes at Rachel* Perhaps I just realized on a second reading, "most" could be interpreted wrong and got rid of the whole sentence. Who knows, eh? Who knows.

I mean the whole article is based on the fallacy that it is easy to take an outside force and coup a GCR. It's not. It's incredibly difficult. Nearly all GCR coups have been based on an internal argument or disagreement of some kind leading someone to go rogue and rebel against the regime. Not an outright invasion from the outside. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that modern security measures mean the likelihood of success is tiny. Over the past 10 years its happened a handful of times, when security was lax, and even then the occupation lasted only for a couple of days at most.

Bullshit, one player can take a GCR if the security isn't there -- and it isn't always. An occupation lasting a few days is just as long these occupations in UCRs (which require way more resources).

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:33 pm**

Ladies and gentlemen, pay attention. The great white knight of defenderdom, guardian of sovereignty, protector of native rights, wouldn't support couping many Feeders and Sinkers.

So which would you support, Unibot, those that reject your evangelism? Osiris? Osiris and Balder? Osiris, Balder, The South Pacific? The North Pacific if the NPA steps out of line much more? More than that, even?

Not even a little bit surprising that most coupers are former defenders. This is how they all see Feeders and Sinkers.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:34 pm**

Cormacville wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, pay attention. The great white knight of defenderdom, guardian of sovereignty, protector of native rights, wouldn't support couping many Feeders and Sinkers.

So which would you support, Unibot, those that reject your evangelism? Osiris? Osiris and Balder? Osiris, Balder, The South Pacific? The North Pacific if the NPA steps out of line much more? More than that, even?

I gotta say, a Unibot-led coup of Osiris would be fantastic. It would be the perfect ending to the already insane region.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:36 pm**

I would think Balder, Osiris, TEP atm... idk who else

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:37 pm**

Bullshit, one player can take a GCR if the security isn't there -- and it isn't always. An occupation lasting a few days is just as long these occupations in UCRs (which require way more resources).

Rubbish. The point the security is there nowadays. If it were possible to coup GCRs totally from the outside, people would do it, I am sure. It's easy for a powerful military to hold UCRs for weeks, months - whatever they want there is no limit. Holding a GCR would be extremely difficult. If you think it is possible, then do it, and prove me wrong. You've already stated you wouldn't oppose coups in some GCR's so obviously you have no moral objections. The reality though is you just can't do it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:38 pm**

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Unibot III wrote:It's based off a very simple question I had the other day, "Why are there no How to Coup a GCR guides?" It's not advocating anything. I'm simply making a point: Gameplay is systematically more protective of GCRs then they are of UCRs.

It's not like I didn't know it would be a controversial article.

My associates and I will get to work immediately. Also to Euro: SOON

"SOON" is the codeword.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:39 pm**

Cormacville wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, pay attention. The great white knight of defenderdom, guardian of sovereignty, protector of native rights, wouldn't support couping many Feeders and Sinkers.

So which would you support, Unibot, those that reject your evangelism? Osiris? Osiris and Balder? Osiris, Balder, The South Pacific? The North Pacific if the NPA steps out of line much more? More than that, even?

Not even a little bit surprising that most coupers are former defenders. This is how they all see Feeders and Sinkers.

Despite popular belief, Unibot does not represent the entirety of defenderom.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:39 pm**

This is why Unibot was looking for some good guides. Don't go over to the Uni side Durk. Don't do it!

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:41 pm**

The only legitimate grounds I could see couping a feeder would be (a) to civilianize it like OFO did recently, (b) to overthrow a foreign power and return the region to the natives, which to some extent Lazarus did recently.

I don't think I would consider any of the GCRs needing that.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:42 pm**

in b4 someone turns this into another OFO or PRL debate

:x

NationStates

The Rejected Times

Re: The Rejected Times: TSP Admin Shakeup - Coup?

PART ONE

PART TWO