Noted, and updated.



Sounds like PDMs issue. flufftards tend to attract flufftards. If you let them play with you, expect other flufftards to seek them out. If you associate yourself with stupid fluff, you generally end up dealing with stupid fluff.


[/quote]

I am in no way saying that he shouldn't be allowed to interact with the community, play, and be an admin. You're completely missing the point. I believe he should be able to do all these things. However, I don't believe he should cry that he can't concentrate on coding because of his voluntary commitments to interacting with the community and playing. He signed up for leading the alliance, did he expect not to have to do anything? If the answer is yes, that's fine, but Pang would then obviously not be realistic with himself. If the answer is no, then this is exactly what he signed up for and shouldn't cry that he is distracted from coding.

When the SOF issue was up, did SoF impede coding and should have worked to shore up the situation more efficiently/quickly? Should alliances just completely avoid doing FA with Pang for fear we might be impeding his coding and fixes for the game?

I'll reprise my example cause it has some major holes:

The guy lives in Country A which runs along the border of Country B. Country B and Country A have no extradition, and therefore no "police" that cross jurisdiction (as we have no "police" that crosses servers - however that doesnt limit us from being in either server). The man lives in Country A but decides he'd like to go to Country B and beat the fluff out of women. He does this on a monthly basis. He returns home and openly admits his beatings in Country A. However, the people in Country B only know the general vicinity of where he is in Country A. If they call him out, they know Country A won't surrender him anyway, because of nationalism and the want to protect their own. The loved ones of Country B then decide "hey fluff it, you want to protect someone who comes into our country and intentionally fluffs with people, then we'll bomb the general vicinity the person lives in." Is that so wrong if Country A has complete disregard for the guys actions in Country B? At that point Country A basically becomes an accomplice. Neither the actions of the man is correct, nor are the actions of the people in Country B launching an attack, however, Country A could just fix it by exiling the guy, doing the right thing.

This issue is as old as Team / FFA. Thomas used to get all up in arms on FFA, and it caused players to bring fluff to Alliance. And to be honest, though we defended our alliance completely when it came across servers, it was completely his fault. There's a reason many players use completely different aliases on other servers; so they don't cause harm to their other alliances if they become in the spotlight for some reason.

Let's say a man goes around his community and beats the fluff out of women. The cops come to arrest him at home and his wife is there. She valiantly defends him because he's never hit her. He behaves perfectly inside the home, though she knows he does terrible fluff outside of it. So, her argument is that he shouldn't be arrested by the cops so long as he's in the house.

Man up and show that PDM cares about the community as a whole, let your members know if they continue their fluffty actions in other servers and it brings harm to PDM, then they themselves are directly harming PDM and need to GTFO.

(For the record I don't play on Team server and have no connection to this issue).

P.S. I love it when Pang, who volunteers his time to lead an alliance, ACTUALLY has to spend time leading said alliance and then claims having to lead said alliance is hurting his ability to spend time coding the game. Pang, if you really want to spend your time fixing the game and coding, stop using up your time trying to help lead alliances. It's that simple. You cry that it hurts the game as a way to mix your game administrator position with politics to gain favor. In reality, if you decide that you're going to be an active part of the political community, you are volunteering time away from coding anyway. It's what you signed up for so don't cry about it. It's really irritating and gives people like QZ a fluffty rep when he doesn't deserve it.

Ivan's my favorite SOF FA, that's all I have to say ;P

The primary reason for this post is my bonus, due to pacting being obvious.

Contact me, fp or wharfed if you dont hear from us first!

What I actually meant to imply was that vicious cycles in the game that people chop each others heads off can indeed be broken, and can turn out to be an exception rather than the norm. Wasn't a backhanded compliment at all.

Guess the race is a little bit more classy and honorable in some sets than others.

Congrats all around.

Sorry, missed the prompt:

f you make it through both of these, then tell me... do you want these jobs in America (or your country)? Yes, I'd want to see them back in America, however I don't think this is a near future outlook as there would have to be several tax rules thrown into place on a variety of things such as trade, tax cuts for domestics, tax increases for multinationals and govt/firm/college partnerships which would establish the forces necessary for these jobs to come back to America (such as the engineering ones cited), though this in the short term could be also addressed through reform in workers who'd want to utilize a VISA to work here.

Do you think Apple is doing enough?
No. This is a case where supplier power (Foxconn) actually outweighs Apple some. Apple could find other suppliers (of assembly), of this I'm sure, however it would likely cause a loss to flexibility and responsiveness (and hence profits), due to the fact that harsh/unfair working conditions are exactly what enable such unmatched flexibility and responsiveness. In order to "do enough," Apple would take a significant capital hit. It could lessen this hit with a significant campaign for PR's sake, but it would still bite the bullet some. It's especially worrisome for Apple to take any hits because they're really just recently come into their own. It's a hugely successful legacy behind them, more one of mediocre growth until the last decade, with only a short history prior to that. They will need to establish themselves much longer in the market as a top dog before they can accept trade-offs like they need to to address these problems.

Do you think consumers should care?
Duh (sorry this question seems a little obvious unless you're a major Apple stakeholder). It takes into accord human compassion and guilt, and a realization of the true dilemmas facing countries such as mine (I'm American) and Canada, Europe, etc, that have regulations to prevent such extortion of human will to live. It also presents the problematic themes we much face for re-growth into more than service (high and low end) and finance/investment within our countries which have shipped manufacturing abroad.

Do you think our trade agreements should address these concerns?
Again, another duh question for me that can be inferred by my above statements. However, I don't believe it should be in radical form. I believe the country needs to make steps towards bringing jobs back from overseas before anything harsh comes into effect, in order to lessen the blow of an angry China. fluffing with tariffs just pisses China off and doesn't address our real problems.

Would you want to pay more for XYZ electronic product just to know working conditions were better?
I would and do (though not 100% - I have a Motorola phone. I only know about Foxconn because of extensive market research I did on the phone manufacturer's (Motorola in particular) for a capstone course). I've always been a firm believer of "Made in America," which may come as a surprise to many non-American's is not a "red neck" belief. I grew up in a very liberal household in California where value was always placed on homegrown products. Our garage is filled with only Craftsman tools - which even came under fire for not necessarily being only made in the USA, however, the point isn't so much in whether they were or were not actually made here, but the fact that there is allegiance to domestically made products to at least some level still.

-1 to martian.

I've read about Foxconn's working standards previously and felt fairly bad about the state of capitalism that lends itself to this. I'm more fueled by the fact that that same capitalism and culture within America does indeed encourage and promote this behavior. Hopefully there will be some sort of legislation passed eventually that will indeed bring jobs back to America (my biggest concern as a manufacturing employee), or at least something which holds American multinationals accountable for the working environments in their foreign supplier facilities.

Ivan - SOF vs NA was pre-EE I believe. And against your "on the other hand" comment, Collab was 45. SOL was 55. SOF was 45. If Collab didn't call anyone in, that would have been silly. Not to mention you broke pact so no one cared that it got SOF screwed at the time. There's no reason to continue a war on an "even" basis when one side obviously doesn't want to play fair. Plus, your claims dont fit any of dagga's clauses ;)

The only ones I think Collab/SancT was a part of are these two:

Set 1:
SOL vs Collab (Sanct)
SoL hits Collab with 10 days left. At least half of Collab has already destocked as TMBRs.
7 - Any alliance that hits a smaller alliance inside the final 12 days of a reset.
8 - Any alliance that hits another alliance inside the final 12 days of a reset where the defending alliance has less than 25% war countries (defined as Tyrannies/Dictatorships)

Set 2:
NaturalS (SoF) vs. Collab (SancT)
Collab FSes SOL as retribution for war in Set 1. SOL asks SOF to break pact with Collab and hit Collab in their defense. SOF retags under "NaturalS" to side-step the pact and hit Collab.
4 - Pact breaking to initiate a war.

I have whatever Traiphey has, plus one.

We've done it for a fairly long time now. It's actually not one of our more contested policies ;p

^what he said.

rofl .. trife, you crack me up <3

boner

lol @ everyone trying to recruit thombob ;p

/me throws an iron at kya.

I'm generally better at resolving issues than fudgepuppy though, since he has the cognitive capabilities of an indoor plant.

We've lost everyone's favorite innocent, sweet, gentle, kind-hearted teddy bear that wouldn't harm a fly to that dreaded world of real life.

As such, please forward any and all inquiries, issues, problems and the such only to myself and fudgepuppy.

Info's in the sig~

handled thnks

Please contact me or send me a forum message.

No one cares. Angel1 is boring. The rest of omega is okay though ;P

Sanctuary - SancT

With BigDog around, I get memories of CrazyClown/DippityDog.

Where are all the CWGers hiding!?

War activities between the four alliance have come to a conclusion as of 8AM GT today.

Big thanks and compliments to LCN on their war performance.

Good war as well to PDM/RAGE.

lar.

SPIN PANG SPIN

DANCE DANCE DANCE

That's what she said. Glad you felt the same, it means a lot coming from a guy named hanlong~

Actually, you're not allowed to respond to this thread TAN, otherwise you must self-delete.

Sorry bro, it's an unwritten law~

tl;dr

I've seen a lot of talk about whose fault this war was. Yes, it was a some Thomas' fault by interpretting our own policy incorrectly, but to say PDM was not at fault either would be a bit absurd at the least.

PDM knew there were other people to contact besides Thomas, yet I was not messaged until an hour prior to your FS by Archaic (and we hardly had believed the problem had escalated to the point where more than one point man was necessary). That break-down in communication surely can be attributed to both sides. Detmer knows how to contact me, and I him. TAN apparently is fond of me, and also knows how to contact me, and I him, but neither made any attempt to contact me or Fudgepuppy.

At this point comes into the factor of capable deduction. If PDM truly believed that we were ready for war, the theory would have been debunked by a simple couple of spy ops. It would have shown zero war prep and zero turn saving.

So, we're left with a couple reasons why PDM really warred us:
1) Showing that you have some balls in a set where netting didn't matter too much to give it up (very few netters to compete with).
2) Shoving it to Thomas, and using as an excuse a pretty typical negotation method in FA (mention of possible escalation).

Granted there are a couple more reasons, but in order for them to be true, we'd have to assume every leader in PDM was absolutely daft, and I'm not looking to talk trash in this thread, so I'd rather not waste time exploring them.

PDM may say it was to prove a point or show they wouldn't back down. Which may have very well been said simply by contacting someone other than Thomas, and working out a DNH (like PDM did with LCN just a day or two prior), or killing the offending country. Would this have likely led to the same situation as we are in now? Who is to say really? Multiple times in the last two plus years we've avoided FSing PDM because we felt it would do a large amount of internal damage and threaten their continued existence. Do I regret that now? No, not really, because each time we avoided hitting PDM, we felt it was a decision which benefitted the game as a whole by not chasing away players. It's good to see PDM continues to be an alliance operating in a very participatory way in the server/community, however unfortunate it may be that they did not push for workarounds to this very situation when the member counts were turned.

The point of the war is lost in almost any war when a larger alliance pummels a smaller alliance, because for the smaller alliance to survive effectively, it must do everything it can to win. As Detmer told me in PDM's view, "we want to win as decisively as possible" two days ago. It sounds as though PDM still feels they're the small alliance backed into a corner when that is not really the case. And surely, if Detmer's comments are the way PDM, as a whole, feels, then they must understand the rationale behind LCN becoming involved in the war, behind the KSF tagjumpers. We too want to win as decisively as possible. Is it any less honorable than hitting an alliance half your size when other avenues of resolve were avaiable? That's a question rather subjective to each individuals bias, I'm sure. I don't think PDM's actions, nor ours have been entirely honorable, to be quite honest.

It's lost on me how PDM did not know that LCN would become involved in this war though. I'm not sure whether PDM has just not been into the politics of war for quite some time and forgot, or whether they were wanting to draw LCN into conflict as well. Every set Sanct reaches out to its DPs and asks how SancT can better position itself in pacting and gameplay approach to benefit the livelihood of our allies. We have shown many times that we will come to our DPs aid no questions asked, no matter the point, so long as we are able to. SancT did exactly this last set when LCN asked to send a message to SOL, and we forfeited any plans we had for the set to do so. To think LCN would not to the same for us is either an insult to their character as loyal allies or just plain poor foresight. In my opinion, it seems poor foresight followed by the insult, considering PDM has been prodding and *threatening* them to get a pact for the last two days, but did not prior to the FS on SancT (it also probably didn't benefit PDM that the same issues which annoy SancT are the same that have annoyed LCN -- the source of the PDM DNH signing prior to this debacle).

An hour prior to hitting LCN, PDM tried for a last chance of wiggling out of what they knew would be a bad outcome for them, by trying to bring us a cease-fire (although, to someone without any authority to even sign one). TAN tried to say the point was made, but TAN knows the point is actually lost. Once LCN joined, SancTer's wouldn't be concentrated on the issue which caused the war anymore; it would become about revenge for the lost top 10 possibilities, about getting to unite with allies for what will look to be another exciting war, and about coming out on top.

For those of you that think I should come out and castrate Thomas publicly on AT, you won't get it. Thomas does FA to the SancT standard I've always asked for; playing hardball for the policies and pact webs we craft to protect and benefit our players and allies. In this situation, he made a mistake and it resulted in a poor fallout, but I, and the rest of SancT know his intentions were not to get us into war and he has acknowledge his mistake internally and apologized to our members for it. When he acknowledged his mess up to PDM prior to their FS, PDM later said it was "too late," that prep had already begun and their netting was ruined. Yet in another breath more recently, PDM had said war would have been averted if he had apologized. TAN coming to us for a CF couldn't help but make me think of that very chain of events. If TAN had requested it with a more sensible approach, admitting that the FS may not have been the best way to handle the situation, and if he had actually given more than an hours notice for the CF offer, I may have very well accepted it and been able to save LCN from having to enter the war at all.

The simple fact is that PDM has committed wrong in ways, just the same as Sanct is not innocent in this matter either, but I'm tired of seeing this image being painted as 100% Sanct's fault.

Finally, I must give a big thank you to our good allies in LCN for giving up their peaceful netting in order to come to our aid and help salvage our set from what was otherwise going to be a rather depressing last couple weeks. Thanks much guys.

So you admit that SancT raped your members?

MORAL VICTORY!!!

fluffy fluffy fluff!

Mhmmm this proves interesting. Gonna have to have a chat with ya Tan/deter. I do wish this war would have been on more fair ground, but hey, when's the last time we came out the losers in a war anyway?

Having said that, good luck out there. It should prove to be fun for us if we wall anything like we normally do.

Haters hate because they're jealous.

That's Sanctuary slander!

/me smacks my fluff* up


*fluff = trife, fp, anyone else.

lol..

dank tits

meow

zzzz

Thomas hasn't been a contact for about a month now, none of us cared to make a post about it (thinking you have to contact is pretty dissuasive from wanting to talk FA with us!)

Thomas has left because he decided he wanted to play elsewhere while we pursue a change in Sancts direction (for those who are curious).

(Oops hit enter too early - damn phone, see below)

I don't know rockman, that'd have to be established, but I'm sure we could find small consequences that may further dissuade people from doing it, such as losing their bonuses. I think the fact that they would have their work undone and country deleted alone would be dissuasion enough.

Kya - That's why the guidelines will need to be very defined. It shouldn't be a grey area where it happens all the time. It also contingent on passing 3 criteria: has to meet the guidelines, the alliance which was detagged from would have to agree that it should be undone and the game moderators would also have to agree.

The basic idea would revolve around this process for countries who were tagged, and either suicided in tag or after detagging within a set period of time:

-A set guideline is created for definition of suiciding. This would include time periods, types of attacks, feasibility of losses being regained.

-Should the country meet such guidelines, it's prior alliance leader(s) could request a "reset" of the event and deletion of the offending country (essentially the same process as a country that abuses/exposes a bug)

-The moderators on the server would evaluate whether the situation meets the suiciding guidelines - if it does, the events are reset and the offending country is removed. If it does not, the process ends there.

---

I propose this because we have many things that we did not in the past, such as an active community, ability to manipulate the game in terms of resetting/deleting countries, and an overall better resolve to improve each players in-game experience.

Obviously, there would need to be restrictions (such as how often / how many times an alliance could request it per set, as we wouldn't want it to be abused for people to "have fun", creating more work for the rest of us), and it would take time to create a definition, however this has been a problem for the game for a long standing time. One which has made many players quit over the years that we have otherwise not been able to solve.

Yeah, why the hell would hytro go anywhere else ;p

Lar lar lar.

From leaderboards for SancT:

Hits:
Thomas
Ley
Kemo
Fudgepuppy

Pop Killed:
AxA
Thomas
Xaos
Ley

Defends:
Thomas
Ley
Tross
Oxey

(though I know that ranking is flawed by definition of attack/defend)

ley for sanct~

or oxey.. sometimes..