OT: Cyber Nation - Page 90

capnq · #**891** December 4th, 2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

inigma said: You mean to tell me that the Space Empires crowd hasn't banded together to one alliance?

We did, back when this thread started.

But over two-thirds of the membership bolted during the last crisis. The ones who stayed were the people who weren't emotionally invested enough in their nations to care whether they got wiped out by the predator states.

narf poit chez BOOM · #**892** December 4th, 2007, 10:27 AM

Ah, politics. You can learn everything you need to know about it in elementary school.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #**893** December 4th, 2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:

Quote:

Atrocities said:
You have never been in an alliance so what do you know? Rules and such.. Don't attack nations in other alliances, good sportsmanship rules, and a generous aid program. Why fear that?

Considering that I'm in the WP right now, saying I've never been in an alliance is an inaccurate statement...at least, it sure seems like an alliance to me?

Also, I have checked out the recruitment pages alliances spam a person with, their rules, etc, and have found them to be more restrictive than I'd like. Therefore, I believe I am in a position to comment on the state of big alliances, thank you very much!

What makes you think we are exactly the same as those big alliances? Yes, we have rules, but they are not restrictive. Mostly, we're trying to help each other out wherever possible.

Atrocities · #**894** December 4th, 2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:

Quote:

Atrocities said:
You have never been in an alliance so what do you know? Rules and such.. Don't attack nations in other alliances, good sportsmanship rules, and a generous aid program. Why fear that?

Considering that I'm in the WP right now, saying I've never been in an alliance is an inaccurate statement...at least, it sure seems like an alliance to me?

You are wrong, WP is not an alliance.

Quote:

Also, I have checked out the recruitment pages alliances spam a person with, their rules, etc, and have found them to be more restrictive than I'd like. Therefore, I believe I am in a position to comment on the state of big alliances, thank you very much!

Again you are wrong. By your own definition, you have proven that you have NO experience at all. So I ask you, name some. Name what these "rules" that you don't like so much are? What alliances have you checked out? I have been in four alliances, WP, The Legion, IRON, and now OCS. In all of them there were no restrictive rules... Name one rule that you think is restrictive? Go ahead, put your accusations to print so they can be verified or debunked.

Atrocities · #**895** December 4th, 2007, 04:50 PM

And for those of you in the WP with short memories, it was OCS who saved you ALL from being ZI'ed (Zero Infrastructure)by Wolfpack a couple of months ago. A lot of people, especially those in Wolfpack, couldn't understand why General Jangles and I went out on such a limb for you all. GJ did it because I asked him for help, I did it because I was once a member of WP. Those nations that have joined OCS over he last couple of months have been given nearly 40 million in aid. Not a lot but enough to help them get going. The aid is given out on a regular basis. We offer 500k to new members as a sign up bonus, 500k to any one who referrers a new member, and 1m via our Infrastructure Aid Program. (We want all members to be at 1k infrastructure within a few months of joining.) To date those who have attacked our member nations have been dealt with harshly, and we have many allies.

Our Alliance rules are up front, don't tech raid active nations, nations in alliances, nations we have agreements with, or nations in the same team color. Don't steal from us, be polite, and have a good sportsmen attitude when engaging in war. The only one that might be considered as restrictive is that we require all nations within the alliance to be on the same team color. We do this for two reasons, unity, and the happiness bonus you get for trading with other alliance nations.

Now if that makes us an evil alliance then so be it.

capnq · #**896** December 4th, 2007, 05:25 PM

OK, I'm Officially Fed Up.

Quote:

Atrocities said: [The WP] are so small that they are classified as rogue and therefore open game to tech raids and pissed off nations looking for easy scores. [...]

You have never been in an alliance so what do you know? [...]

You are wrong, WP is not an alliance. [...]

Rules and such.. Don't attack nations in other alliances, good sportsmanship rules, and a generous aid program. Why fear that?

One of my objections is exactly this kind of CONDESCENDING ARROGANCE.

Before the attack on NarbozaLand, the WP was at peace for over three weeks. The last tech raid that I can recall a member of WP launching was before the war with the Wolfpack. Yet WE are labeled a "rogue alliance" because we haven't published a pompous public charter, and prefer not to interact with people in the festering cesspool that is the C N Forums, while larger "established" alliances, who use tech raids to enforce the protection racket that they try to recruit new members with, aren't even publically criticized (partly because they're known to respond to public criticism with overwhelming military force).

I do not have the same goals in the game as you do. I don't even define success in the same terms as you seem to. Stop assuming there's only one way to play this silly game.

Quote:

Name one rule that you think is restrictive?

Loyalty oaths. Suicidal mutual defense pacts with "sanctioned" alliances. Mandatory membership in a particular team has been the dealbreaker for almost every alliance that's tried to recruit me.

One reason I'm not interested in OCS, in particular, is that I frankly don't trust the good judgement of their leadership, as evidenced in this very thread.

What ticks me off the most, though, is that I seem to have become the de facto leader of WP, by virtue of being the only member willing to respond to attacks on allies with military force. I HATE feeling forced to assume this responsibilty.

As my first official act as WP's new leader, I hereby formally request that Atrocities, Strategia, and anyone else so inclined, STOP TRYING TO RECRUIT FOR YOUR ALLIANCE IN THIS THREAD. If you insist on sniping our members, at least have the courtesy to do so in private communications.

AndyCarnegie, CEO of Fiducia and President of the WP, God help us.

(And if I've hurt anyone's feelings, be thankful that I had the self-restraint to not post the obscenity-laced rant that I caught myself composing over lunch.)

capnq · #**897** December 4th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said: And for those of you in the WP with short memories, it was OCS who saved you ALL from being ZI'ed (Zero Infrastructure)by Wolfpack a couple of months ago.

The OCS (which BTW, is now a "protectorate" of the Wolfpack) acceding to the Wolfpack's blackmail demands is one of the reasons I don't trust your judgement.

Quote:

have a good sportsmen attitude when engaging in war.

If you're so keen on "good sportsmanship", why don't YOU do something about this protection racket? I'm sure the WP isn't their only victims.

Atrocities · #**898** December 4th, 2007, 05:44 PM

Hey capnq, I was not being condescending and I would hope that you would know that by now.

And for the record, I am not trying to recruit your 7 members. Believe me if I were recruiting them, they would already be members of OCS.

Quote:

Loyalty oaths. Suicidal mutual defense pacts with "sanctioned" alliances. Mandatory membership in a particular team has been the dealbreaker for almost every alliance that's tried to recruit me.

Hey I hear you about the team color thing. Oh well, it is a turn off for many people. But all because you dislike it doesn't mean its a bad thing.

Quote:

What ticks me off the most, though, is that I seem to have become the de facto leader of WP, by virtue of being the only member willing to respond to attacks on allies with military force. I HATE feeling forced to assume this responsibilty.

And this is why I say that WP is not an alliance... No real leader, no one willing to work together, no cohesion, no loyalty, just a group of players sharing a name that amounts to giving a license to any nations to tech raid you all.

Quote:

One reason I'm not interested in OCS, in particular, is that I frankly don't trust the good judgement of their leadership, as evidenced in this very thread.

Ok so what you're saying here is that I should not have saved your asses from Wolfpack. Well O-kay then, from this point forward the protection that I have been extending you is hereby suspended and you my dear friend are on your own.

Enjoy the pounding.

Renegade 13 · #**899** December 4th, 2007, 05:48 PM

In respect for the rest of you who probably don't care to hear me figuratively screaming back and forth at Atrocities, well...you may wish to skip over this post. Also contains a response to capnq. Or read it for your amusement, your choice!

As you can probably tell, I'm a little grumpy today.

Quote:

capnq said:
What ticks me off the most, though, is that I seem to have become the de facto leader of WP, by virtue of being the only member willing to respond to attacks on allies with military force. I HATE feeling forced to assume this responsibilty.

I am sorry you've been put in this position capnq. As you may know, I was tech-raided into oblivion on my original nation, and ended up starting over (after getting raped by 3 nations on a continual basis). If not for the fact that I'm still far too low to be of any use, I'd have been happy to help out when other members are attacked.

Also, thank you for addressing most of the points I was going to make to Atrocities.

Atrocities, to be honest, I thought better of you than to come in here with an attitude such as you have evidenced in this thread.

WP is an alliance, as an alliance is defined as a grouping of nations banded together for mutual assistance. We are a group of nations, and we are banded together or mutual assistance, therefore we are an alliance. The fact that we don't give two ****es and a [censored] about 'formal relations' with other alliances or any of that BS does not make us any less an alliance. Please don't even try to object to the logic of that argument.

Oh, and I don't recall anyone from WP asking for the assistance of your oh-so-mighty alliance when we were being attacked. As far as I know, we all knew that there was a chance some griefers would jump on us since our alliance was 'too small' and couldn't offer sufficient resistance to tech-raiding *******s. So please don't come in here and act all high-and-mighty about risking your own necks to defend us. No one asked you to.

I have been spammed by so many "come join our alliance, we're the best, you just have to follow these rules, blah blah blah" messages from so many alliances that I can't recall specific names off-hand. Now, I know you'll take that as an admission that I simply don't have any names since there are none; please don't be that foolish. It simply means I don't give a [censored]. I also don't need to specifically mention any rules that I object to, as I object to ALL of them that would attempt to change whatever style I choose to play the game with. It is a game, and as such, I don't want to deal with a bunch of bull**** rules.

Renegade 13 · #**900** December 4th, 2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
And for the record, I am not trying to recruit your 7 members. Believe me if I were recruiting them, they would already be members of OCS.

Enjoy the pounding.

The bolding was added by me for added emphasis.

From this response of yours, I take it you are one of those alliances who enjoy beating the crap out of nations then sending them messages saying "hey, if you join us we'll stop beating the crap out of you! Good deal eh? Oh, and if you don't we'll pound you into the ground just for the hell of it. Have a nice day!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that surely is the impression I get from this post.