I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.
Advertisement
by Yokiria » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:51 am
by Jar Wattinree » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:55 am
by Myrth » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:07 am
Wycliffe wrote:ITT: Myrth declares that the best reason he can give for dispassionately removing Pacifican natives to speed up the new leader's ascendance is "because I said so".
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:29 am
by Airengard » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:58 am
by Yokiria » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:45 am
Jar Wattinree wrote:Yokiria wrote:I see you're hiding behind technicalities. There are a lot of things that the game does not define that do exist within it. Griefing is one of them.
I look forward to your objections to every single raiding community that ever has existed or will exist, then. Say, there's even a mechanical definition for it. Oh right, it's called Defending.
Pierconium wrote:What is your ‘definition’ of griefing?
Pierconium wrote:I created one earlier today as well:
Griefing - the act of disagreeing with another nation on Gameplay, thus causing them grief.
Seems just as legitimate.
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:58 am
Airengard wrote:I see a lot of shit slinging, a lot of attempts to stir up drama and more importantly, somehow managing to completely ignore people like Old Hope in favour of stirring the previosly mentioned shit.
The ‘issue answerer’s and roleplayers’ you’re crying tears of blood for were barely there. Many (if not most or all) of them were literally just logging in, not even touching the issues. But because it is convenient to your rethoric, what might as well be ghosts have now become very important and oh so wounded members of the community. Your arguments become less and less coherent as time goes by...
Old Hope wrote:RiderSyl wrote:And I'm going to take a minute here for some self-awareness. I know that Cormac and I are your usual voices from the peanut gallery of this forum. This time, though, there's really something serious there. We aren't crying wolf, there's an actual wolf here. If TBH did this, or any other UCR, they'd be universally condemned forever. This is a lot of innocent players getting kicked out of their home. Check into it for yourself. This is something that shouldn't go unnoticed just because of who's pointing it out.
That's wrong.
If TBH would eject(not ban) all nations who aren't active in their region no one whould be surprised. Nor would most people have anything against it.
The reason is simple: These people weren't active in the community, they can always come back if they are suddenly interested in partipiciation in The Pacific(they weren't banned), and the place of residence has no effect on being able to answer issues. "Over 100 nations were ejected" sounds bad, but isn't, really.
by Airengard » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:58 am
Armaros wrote:Airengard wrote:I see a lot of shit slinging, a lot of attempts to stir up drama and more importantly, somehow managing to completely ignore people like Old Hope in favour of stirring the previosly mentioned shit.
The ‘issue answerer’s and roleplayers’ you’re crying tears of blood for were barely there. Many (if not most or all) of them were literally just logging in, not even touching the issues. But because it is convenient to your rethoric, what might as well be ghosts have now become very important and oh so wounded members of the community. Your arguments become less and less coherent as time goes by...
Ah, lovely, a half assed attempt by someone who probably doesn't even know what's going. Now, please tell me, why should we believe anything Old Hope says? After his last time (that I'm aware of) talking about NPO related stuff, he threw around 3 mountains of complete bullshit.
Yes, because you completely know that for 100% sure. I'm sure you checked upon all 130 something.
Puppet, please go back to hailing Pacifica, because that made more sense then this.
by Big Bad Badger » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:00 am
Cormactopia Prime wrote:Pierconium wrote:We wouldn’t know, the membership of the APC seems so changeable these days, how would we even find out their opinions?
And yet I remain in the Pacific.
Yes, you remain in the Pacific, where the NPO today ejected 135 natives for no reason. Let's stay on track here. I know that's difficult for you to do, because it turns out you're not very good at defending the indefensible, which is why you constantly deflect and try to talk about other things.
Why does the NPO believe it's okay to indiscriminately eject natives who have done absolutely nothing to warrant ejection?
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:36 am
Airengard wrote:Armaros wrote:Ah, lovely, a half assed attempt by someone who probably doesn't even know what's going. Now, please tell me, why should we believe anything Old Hope says? After his last time (that I'm aware of) talking about NPO related stuff, he threw around 3 mountains of complete bullshit.
Yes, because you completely know that for 100% sure. I'm sure you checked upon all 130 something.
Puppet, please go back to hailing Pacifica, because that made more sense then this.
Aaaah, nope. I would call your attempt half assed. You first relied on an ad hominem attack to dismiss a logical argument. If he had been rude or something, I'd maybe consider the ad hominem acceptable, but nope. You couldn't dismiss what he said, so you attacked his character. Truly the mark of a demagogue there. Then you proceeded to make an argument that relied on information you did not have and could not confirm by yourself. I did in fact check every single one of them. What I said is confirmed, most if not all are pretty much ghosts. There is doubt about 1 or 2 but even those barely have any activity so it's probably them just doing their monthly login and going 'Oh, might as well click a single issue'.
You consistently failed at using any decent logical argument and then proceeded to dismiss my opinion due to being a 'puppet' which I am in fact not you self righteous prick. Must be easy to live when you can disregard any opposition as being a puppet.
by Airengard » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:49 am
Armaros wrote:Airengard wrote:Aaaah, nope. I would call your attempt half assed. You first relied on an ad hominem attack to dismiss a logical argument. If he had been rude or something, I'd maybe consider the ad hominem acceptable, but nope. You couldn't dismiss what he said, so you attacked his character. Truly the mark of a demagogue there. Then you proceeded to make an argument that relied on information you did not have and could not confirm by yourself. I did in fact check every single one of them. What I said is confirmed, most if not all are pretty much ghosts. There is doubt about 1 or 2 but even those barely have any activity so it's probably them just doing their monthly login and going 'Oh, might as well click a single issue'.
You consistently failed at using any decent logical argument and then proceeded to dismiss my opinion due to being a 'puppet' which I am in fact not you self righteous prick. Must be easy to live when you can disregard any opposition as being a puppet.
Because I'm totally known for attacking people's character when I disagree with them.
Or maybe I would be if calling people out on writing posts full of IC bullshit is attacking someone's character. Calling someone a self righteous prick on the other hand...
If you truly checked every single one of them, good on you and I retract what I said about it then, although I still dont think kicking people out who dont do any harm other then just being there is very good.
One last thing: if I see someone I've seen only once or twice before making arguements that obviously suits someone's agenda, I usually assume it's a puppet. You're wrong to believe I "dismiss anyone's opinion" by thinking they're a puppet. And you can check my posts for that too.
by The Seeker of Power » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:14 am
Cormactopia Prime wrote:Elegarth wrote:Someone please show me an official document, treaty or guide that says that Cormac's opinion defines what is legitimate in this realm? I thought the delegacy defined it, but who am I to follow Max rules? *rolling eyes*
I take it you're fine with ejecting 135 native nations for no reason but to burn influence? Disgraceful.
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:18 am
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:19 am
Airengard wrote:Clearing nations with high influence, inactive and with a risk of being puppets can be useful for regional security, but that is starting to enter into a whole other topic. In the end no one was really harmed as they weren't banned, so if they become active they can return to the Pacific or go to any other region they feel like going to.
Assuming everyone new is a puppet is a really shoddy stance as it alienates newcomers and instantly sets their opinion of yourself as negative, but whether to keep doing that or not is up to you.
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:20 am
Armaros wrote:Airengard wrote:Clearing nations with high influence, inactive and with a risk of being puppets can be useful for regional security, but that is starting to enter into a whole other topic. In the end no one was really harmed as they weren't banned, so if they become active they can return to the Pacific or go to any other region they feel like going to.
Ah yes, because with the amount of endorsements (350?) you really are threatened by a bunch of roleplayers and issue solvers.Assuming everyone new is a puppet is a really shoddy stance as it alienates newcomers and instantly sets their opinion of yourself as negative, but whether to keep doing that or not is up to you.
Welcome to gameplay. And I don't particularly mind people having a negative opinion of me when my region is officially at war with theirs.
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:37 am
Pierconium wrote:Armaros wrote:Ah yes, because with the amount of endorsements (350?) you really are threatened by a bunch of roleplayers and issue solvers.
Welcome to gameplay. And I don't particularly mind people having a negative opinion of me when my region is officially at war with theirs.
And removing inactive non-WAs is now the hill the APC wishes to die on because everything else has collapsed.
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:40 am
Armaros wrote:Pierconium wrote:And removing inactive non-WAs is now the hill the APC wishes to die on because everything else has collapsed.
Lame. You've kept saying the APC is dead for weeks now. Get something new. And aside from that, downplaying the fact you just kicked out over 100 nations who didn't pose a threat in the slightest does not erase the fact you did for no reason.
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:54 am
Pierconium wrote:Armaros wrote:Lame. You've kept saying the APC is dead for weeks now. Get something new. And aside from that, downplaying the fact you just kicked out over 100 nations who didn't pose a threat in the slightest does not erase the fact you did for no reason.
Why do I need anything new? The APC is dead practically speaking, if it could ever have been said to be fully alive. It has no means of attacking the Pacific and will never be able to destroy the NPO. It is a failed concept.
We did it for a very specific reason. And? What is the APC going to do about it? Are they going to declare war on every feeder that ejects nations now?
What about when regions within the APC eject all nations in a region and destroy their history? Weird.
by Myrth » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:08 am
Armaros wrote:Pierconium wrote:Why do I need anything new? The APC is dead practically speaking, if it could ever have been said to be fully alive. It has no means of attacking the Pacific and will never be able to destroy the NPO. It is a failed concept.
Ignoring the fact it's quite the thing to be attempting to bring down a GCR government. As you, of all people, probably know quite well.
by Yokiria » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:36 am
Pierconium wrote:Yokira, can you specify how a nation sitting in the Pacific answering issues (or not answering issues as a lot of those nations are just sitting and not even doing that) is different than a nation sitting in TRR answering issues? Just curious.
Pierconium wrote:Simply because you subjectively have ideas on what is a ‘better’ way to burn influence doesn’t make it objectively so.
Pierconium wrote:We decided to investigate the highest influence inactive non-WA nations and remove them. There was nothing malicious (another subjective term) about it.
Pierconium wrote:Just because you have fabricated a definition of griefing that doesn’t actually exist within the game doesn’t mean anyone else has any need to adhere to it or pay it any mind when carrying out the functions of the region.
by Bhang Bhang Duc » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:57 am
Myrth wrote:People have been threatening to bring down the NPO for years.....<snip>
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.
RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.
Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:06 pm
by The Seeker of Power » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:21 pm
by Armaros » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:06 pm
Pierconium wrote:Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:It’s been one of the few constants in this game. Someone starts a movement to destroy the NPO, nothing happens, repeat ad nauseam.
It is somewhat humorous that the argument against success is that it is ‘hard’ and then they comment that I know something about it being difficult. I can’t recall a time when I ever failed at anything in this game, including taking down GCR governments. Too bad it is too hard for them.
Also, hello.
by Pierconium » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:22 pm
Armaros wrote:Pierconium wrote:It is somewhat humorous that the argument against success is that it is ‘hard’ and then they comment that I know something about it being difficult. I can’t recall a time when I ever failed at anything in this game, including taking down GCR governments. Too bad it is too hard for them.
Also, hello.
Except for keeping the NPO outside of subversive activities.
Also, that's an interesting statement there. Never, right? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=419561&p=32235673#p32235673
And I never said "too" hard. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement