|Previous Thread:||Enterprise corps not showing (Kebir Blue)|
|Next Thread:||Executive Commandos (Little Upsilon)|
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 03:52 am |
Maybe the Security Council should be disbanded? No small group should have the power to determine which non Security Council members will be destroyed/ or robbed or blindsided. My trust in the SC drops to zero due to this case. Just because it happens on 'earth' or the real world is no excuse. Maybe a majority world vote - or none. Being able to ban a player from defense is discouraging. An alternative perhaps would be a second Council, to check & balance the 1st. Perhaps the Admins?
In this case the 'defendant' made threats because he felt threatened, but never committed a crime. Maybe pass a rule that unwanted airports in one's country can be destroyed with special forces? Once his hands were tied, the bullies moved in greedily.
Why did he had over 100M population out of protection?? Tempting. It shows he needs friendly guidance, but not having his head dunked in a toilet while 'officially' handcuffed.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 03:57 am |
I agree that a vote should not pass through the security council by 1 vote, and especially by the person who proposed the vote. So that to me was not fair to AK47, whoever this person is. I also acknowledge that Nix was not in the wrong to propose such a vote and was not being underhanded in doing so.
As to the other issue of Super, et al., I have these comments: I don't agree with ganging up on players, but having said this........... who HASN'T done this? Josias, I am writing this with no disrespect, but I find no difference in this than some of the war 'ganging up' tactics that you and your group have used in the game in the past. As Bobo stated above....even though I didn't like what you and yours did with Bobo's empire while he was unable to fight back, it was within the rules of the game. I think this same also applies to AK47.
AK47 from day 1 has drawn attention to himself, first as CrackCocaine through obnoxious behavior in the game chatroom Then as AK47 becomes a menace to other players, as we say, 'running his mouth'. What did he/she/it expect? Furthermore, I question the 'noobness' of this player. From IT's rants early on as CrackCocaine, this person seemed to have more game 'knowledge' than any noob should have. Also, if he chose to take his 160 mil pop country out of war protection, then he should expect to be fair game.
So, I really don't think SuperSoldier needs to explain himself here, nor his other 2 fedmates. But, I do need to mention this...... I don't like threats and manipulations.... such as 'join us or die' or give me your main.... blah blah.. that seems kinda lame.
I really think the issue here is about the Security Council Vote and the need to have a required number of votes for passage. Other than that, I find no wrongdoing. Perhaps SuperSoldier et al, grouped together, because jackseptic and opensesame are not seasoned warriors and was an opportunity for them to try out the war game on an 'obnoxious' player.
Anyways....... even though I have heard that I, Lorelei, was AK47's initial target, I do hope that this person, if a genuine player, will stay on and continue to play the game.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:16 am |
As for Voting
I suggested it be fixed(I proposed this several months back in a Player poll for CM/Feds evicting/adding new players). Feds, Common markets, Sec con. If only 1person votes it passes. The game bases the numbers on the amount of total votes. If only 1 person votes the game will pass or decline as only 1 of 1 person accully voted thous to the game see it as 100% vote in/not in favor.
I would 100% back any solution that made it based on the total number of vote able player. This would mean people would need to be much more active. If X amount don't vote to pass before the time limit then it fails to pass. This is how it should be. What i was trying to say Goth was that atleast 50% of people should vote for a poll
15players minimum of 7must vote.
7people who can vote atleast 4 must vote for it and 3 against it. Polls are only 2days long theres no reason atleast 4 people cant say ya or na.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:18 am |
Nix and Super.... Just to clarify, my issue is with the vote's passage with just one vote by the proponent (which in this instance just happened to be nix.) I have no issue with any other aspect of what went down or how you guys decided to deal with it. War's war, after all.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:18 am |
You know, it would be interesting if instead of a nuke ban actually making it so you can't use nukes, it sends a warning, saying that if you DO nuke (with the exception of retaliation, obviously) then you will be boycotted, declared upon, most likely nuked yourself and I believe forced to send aid to affected countries. Of course it would be very considerate if people sent aid to countries affected by their nuclear weapons anyway, but I think that forcing them to do so under threat of a complete and coordinated annihilation by some of the worlds best players would be equally effective. This would only be in the event of a preemptive strike without military or economical provocation, of course.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:19 am |
Gotcha. I agree Super.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 04:25 am |
one last thing....
If some jack*ss is tossing around nukes, let us know. Let's deal with them together.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 05:29 am |
That's one of the reasons you join a fed. So if some @$$hat decides to toss a nuke at you, you and twenty four other people can toss 'em right back at 'em.
| Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 05:05 pm |
It always used to be the case that a 'nuker' would offer compensation to any innocent person getting fallout. Like an unwritten rule. There used to be lots of things that were considered right or wrong, and it made for a far better community game. Now all most players seem to worry about is nukes. I wonder who started that eh SSRCP? You were told and warned even, but you chose to ignore me.