NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello. Some of you know me better than others, but those that do probably know that I can put up with something for a certain about of time, and then I moan about it in RPs and finally go mad and make some kind of spam-ish satirical thread that gets locked (example (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369740), and another one (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346914)). So here follows some of my rants and gripes in no particular order, for you all to comment on and such like:

1) People who declare war on godmodders / n00bs:

Ok, now I understand that you want to help NS by ridding the world of godmodders, and I understand that you're an 800m nation and the godmodder / n00b is small 8m nation. There is, however, a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS flaw in your logic: The godmodder will godmod! So, your amazing post on your fleet assembling and heading to war is all for nothing because it'll only get hit by "Invisible stealth SCRAMjet missiles" in a one line post, and you'll end up ignoring the guy anyway. It isn't worht the effort - just quietly ignore them.

2) "Crazes"

Generally on International Incidents, someone will come up with an idea and half a zillion others will copy it. Ie. The 'What do you think of my nation?' craze that went on a couple of months ago and the ' commits [insert human rights abuse]' threads that are going around now. It's just boring and unimaginative.

3) "You're a small nation, I'm a big nation. You are dead."

This is the worst of all the things Im listing, in my opinion. Population counts for way too much in nationstates. Has no one heard of the British Empire? A tiny number of people controlled a huge amount of the world. In reality economy counts for far more than population, and unless you're frightening or all-consuming your population will be a massive hinderance as mantaining order, communications and public services will become nigh-on impossible. When you reach around 600m people you can fight off most people if you RP it well enough anyway.

4) 5% Militaries

It's not so much the 5% military that bothers me, but the whole massive peace-time army thing that everyone seems to have going on. What, exactly, is the point in your 30,000,000 man militia? A force that huge would be impossible to co-ordinate and HUGELY expensive. There are also reasons why governments dont arm huge numbers of people anyway, ie the risk of rebellion, and the massive increase in gun crime, as well as the economic hurt.

5) Massive group alliances

I hate these things. Whenever anyone wants to do anything against another nation, the other nation says "Back off, I have the [insert several alliances here] behind me!" and so the other nation says, "Oh yeah? Well I have [insert more alliances] aswell, you know". And it suddenly turns into an uncontrolable and pointless WWIII (or whatever war we're on now). I know you could call me hippocrit saying Im in these things, but if you're not you get killed in NS. Simple as that.

6) My technology pwnzorz j00!!

I understand and like the idea of some nations having better tech than others, but there are... certain players... who techwank to an amazing degree. This includes tanks with masses of armour all round, which then still claim to be able to move, and vague descriptions like "The missile can strike from outside the enemy's range" and "armoured against 140mm shells" meaning that whatever the enemy claims to have, you can just say, "Well I didn't say that my armour could protect against an 'RHA value', I said it could protect against 140mm shells of any time. Anytime. Ever. So j00 die." or "I dont [i]care that you use home designed missiles rather than Harpoons and Exocets that actually have a decent range, this missile can fire from "outside of your range", whatever that may actually be.

7) OOC aminosity

So many people when at war take a dislike to the opposing players. This has happened a lot around Holy Panooly and Huzen Hagen for some reason, but it happens a lot in general. If this does happen in an RP, just stop and ignore the whole thing, because all you'll get is OOC comments / flaming and godmodding.


I cant think of any more but I might add some later. Enjoy.

I couldn't agree more Praetonia. It has been tempting to make a transition to the NS forum.

1) People who declare war on godmodders / n00bs:

I think, with all respect, that such people are trying to educate with n00bs, in the manner of operation richeious smackdown. I myself, for example, attempted to rp with FWS, out of only good intentions.

Everything else I agree with.

Yeah, I agree.

Although, hopefully you guys don't think of me as a techwanker considering virtually all my military is home designed stuff.

I'd move over to NS, but I've got a good RP going on now, and this is the only good place for my tech threads. Just doesnt feel right posting them in NS.

Tag. I agree fully. Your Point 6.) hit me well.

"The ten man squads are usually just equipped with Lee Enfield .303s. The corporal and sergeant may have a sten gun"

"You know thats hopelessely useless in urban fighting."

"I know, but I want to have fun."

"Your men will be decimated"

etc etc. Some people just don't get, its fun to lose >=D. IMO, anyway.

Well, I do agree, except for the 5% military part.

My army is considerably large because of the amount of warfare I have been put through and lost.

I agree wholeheartedly with a couple of these. In particular, number 3. I HATE it when countries 1) haughtily boast that just because they're a 3 billion pop country and you're a puny 1.3 billion pop country that they'll beat you. Wrong. There are RL examples of countries that lost to or were held off by smaller countries (the Soviet Union by Finland, in 1939, Great Britain by the United States in 1812 are two that come to mind). I especially hate it when a "larger" country acts OOCly like they won't accept a loss to a "smaller" country. If you were "outsmarted," learn from it and move on.

Number 7 is also frustrating to me. Granted, I've had my share of OOC animosity with a certain couple of RPers (which is why I have hard ignores on those two), but RPing is supposed to be about fun. Even if I ended up "losing" to Sdaeriji in our quasi war, I'd have a lot of fun telling the story behind it. There's been no OOC animosity between us that I can figure. The cooperation between us is making for the times when we RP a better set of storytelling.

I can't say too much about crazes because I was caught up in the "Do you like [insert country name here]" craze. But it's frustrating when you come up with a concept that you think is original and you spend a lot of time thinking about and coming up with the storyline and you turn around and see a lot of bad imitations of the thread you spent a good deal of effort creating.

I agree, Sarzonia. I did the "Do you like my nation?" thing too, but Im trying tos top following crazes now...

@Momanguise: They NEVER achieve anything. How many times has Sephrioth been invaded then come back to life somehow? 5 or 6. How much as his RP improved? Not at all.

@New Empire: NS tech is fine, in fact I prefer it to RL tech, but if a nation is going to design something then DO IT PROPERLY. So many NS people make tech with no problems whatsoever, and in other cases *cough*T-98s*cough*DA*cough* the designs are just plain wrong.

If you can't do it properly then buy from storefronts or use RL tech.

One other thing about tech that bothers me: Just because someone has better tech doesn't automatically mean they are going to beat a country with inferior technology. If you've got a primitive energy laser system and you somehow figure out how to turn it on an unshielded orbiting platform, you can still destroy said orbiting platform. Also, a stab from a bayonet can kill someone just as well as an AK-47 can or a disruptor rifle carried by a Romulan can.

It's not about the kind of toys you play with. It's about knowing how to play with them.

and the massive increase in gun crime



In Switzerland, every adult male is REQUIRED by law, to keep a military grade, fully-automatic rifle, or a submachine gun, in his home... What is their gun crime? Very, very, small. Much less than the USA. It's cultural differences and such, not the availability of weapons.

and in other cases *cough*T-98s*cough*DA*cough* the designs are just plain wrong.

If you can't do it properly then buy from storefronts or use RL tech.


What the heck is your problem? The T-98 tanks can almost never cross a bridge (without it being damaged or reinforced to prevent damaging), they bog down so easily, they can move at less than 30 miles, and they have a gas mileage of 5 gallons per mile... Are those not weaknesses?


The entire campaign in Zaire and Zambia was a failure because of the T-98...


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344532

In Switzerland, every adult male is REQUIRED by law, to keep a military grade, fully-automatic rifle, or a submachine gun, in his home... What is their gun crime? Very, very, small. Much less than the USA. It's cultural differences and such, not the availability of weapons.

OOC: Ya I lived in Switzerland for 3 years and DA is absolutly right. I mean you see teenagers on their way to training riding bikes with uzi's and assault rifles strapped on their backs, but there is virtually no crime.

OOC: I think what alot of you guys need to realize is that alot of what's done is simply how people choose to play the game. Granted, the boundaries of originality are rarely breached, but I believe alot of people in I.I are really trying. Look at I.I 8 months ago, then look at it now. You'll notice a huge change for the better.

I'm going to use myself as an example here.

Some of you that know me know all too well how I operate. ICly I'm very arrogant and look down on everybody in the world because my leader feels that AMF is superior to all. He may very well be right in some ways, because I've put in the time and effort into becoming that I am.

OOCly I have the utmost respect for everybody and go out of my way to help peopel when they need it, and I never go around talking to people in condecending manners. It's all perspective folks, I think alot of times IC and OOC feelings tend to intermix, and that's when there's trouble.

And yet the US has several times more gun deaths each year than all of Europe put together...

Anyway, DA your tank is, IMO, way too light and fast for what it has. I dont think it could even move to be honest.

As for the tech thing, yes a disruptor will kill you just as dead as an AK-47 but the AK is much, much less accurate and can't burn through walls. Im not saying that OMG uber tech always beats lesser tech, but it does help a lot. Still, it doesnt OMG pwnz0rz j00 like some people thing it does...

OOC: I think what alot of you guys need to realize is that alot of what's done is simply how people choose to play the game. Granted, the boundaries of originality are rarely breached, but I believe alot of people in I.I are really trying. Look at I.I 8 months ago, then look at it now. You'll notice a huge change for the better.

I'm going to use myself as an example here.

Some of you that know me know all too well how I operate. ICly I'm very arrogant and look down on everybody in the world because my leader feels that AMF is superior to all. He may very well be right in some ways, because I've put in the time and effort into becoming that I am.

OOCly I have the utmost respect for everybody and go out of my way to help peopel when they need it, and I never go around talking to people in condecending manners. It's all perspective folks, I think alot of times IC and OOC feelings tend to intermix, and that's when there's trouble.

OOC: I've never actually posted in any other Forum in NS, how does the pure NS forum differ from II?

One thing that annoys me is how some people will automatically assume your advances based on your nation's age. That's part of why I purchase tech (the other part is it's easier to backwards-engineer something than invent it yourself). The surprise some people get is well worth it.

Now, the point about weaponry is why I mostly stick with projectile weapons. They're easier to maintain, cheaper, more resource-efficient in certain areas, lack a telltale power signature that anyone can create sensors to find, and a grenade remains an effective weapon for clearing a large room no matter what tech level you are. That, and there's nothing like the sound of a hammer being cocked or a shotgun being pumped for pure intimidation.

One other thing that annoys me is people assume newer is better. Yes, your phaser rifle is effective at stopping soldiers. But so is my sniper, armed with a regular sniper rifle, at 500 meters away. And his gun doesn't have a problem with electrical current dampeners causing it to not work. Nothing like pulling the trigger and having nothing happen.

And, yes, a lot of the stuff on that list annoys me, but I'm still willing to join alliances. But there are times I act outside my alliance, and that is part of how I am.

OOC: I've never actually posted in any other Forum in NS, how does the pure NS forum differ from II?


OOC: BIG difference. NS is for more of the character RPers, advanced space nations, and smaller scale RP. I.I is basically war, alliances, and storefronts.

OOC: I've never actually posted in any other Forum in NS, how does the pure NS forum differ from II?
Hmm... well I think there is a lot of snobbery on this issue. A lot of the NSers Ive spoken to think their forum is better and has better RP, but it's really just quite different. There are fewer wars and more character RPs compared to II on NS.

@DLE: I dont use phasers, they're future tech. It's just an example.

Actually, I was making a point about even modern nations assuming they will be victorious because they have newer tech.

Hmm... well I think there is a lot of snobbery on this issue. A lot of the NSers Ive spoken to think their forum is better and has better RP, but it's really just quite different. There are fewer wars and more character RPs compared to II on NS.

@DLE: I dont use phasers, they're future tech. It's just an example.

OOC: Hmmm, although I enjoy one once and a while I find charcter RP's altogether boring. Controlling an entire nation allows many more possibilities, but also, as you say, allows for many more problems and unknowns. But thanks for the information, maybe I'll go post there at some point in the future, just to break things up a little.

Hello. Some of you know me better than others, but those that do probably know that I can put up with something for a certain about of time, and then I moan about it in RPs and finally go mad and make some kind of spam-ish satirical thread that gets locked (example (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369740), and another one (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346914)). So here follows some of my rants and gripes in no particular order, for you all to comment on and such like:

((The Island of Rose: Dame right, why should they lock those things.))

1) People who declare war on godmodders / n00bs:

Ok, now I understand that you want to help NS by ridding the world of godmodders, and I understand that you're an 800m nation and the godmodder / n00b is small 8m nation. There is, however, a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS flaw in your logic: The godmodder will godmod! So, your amazing post on your fleet assembling and heading to war is all for nothing because it'll only get hit by "Invisible stealth SCRAMjet missiles" in a one line post, and you'll end up ignoring the guy anyway. It isn't worht the effort - just quietly ignore them.

((The Island of Rose: Eh, I'm an exception. When you get attacked 18 times by n00bs, you tend to develop an intense hatred for them. But yeah, I try to help usually, but now I just whip out da cane.))

2) "Crazes"

Generally on International Incidents, someone will come up with an idea and half a zillion others will copy it. Ie. The 'What do you think of my nation?' craze that went on a couple of months ago and the ' commits [insert human rights abuse]' threads that are going around now. It's just boring and unimaginative.

((The Island of Rose: Thank you sir! Those things are getting boooooooring. What's wrong with peace?))

3) "You're a small nation, I'm a big nation. You are dead."

This is the worst of all the things Im listing, in my opinion. Population counts for way too much in nationstates. Has no one heard of the British Empire? A tiny number of people controlled a huge amount of the world. In reality economy counts for far more than population, and unless you're frightening or all-consuming your population will be a massive hinderance as mantaining order, communications and public services will become nigh-on impossible. When you reach around 600m people you can fight off most people if you RP it well enough anyway.

((The Island of Rose: I'm mixed here. I mean, the bigger guy can win if he can take million of casualties.))

4) 5% Militaries

It's not so much the 5% military that bothers me, but the whole massive peace-time army thing that everyone seems to have going on. What, exactly, is the point in your 30,000,000 man militia? A force that huge would be impossible to co-ordinate and HUGELY expensive. There are also reasons why governments dont arm huge numbers of people anyway, ie the risk of rebellion, and the massive increase in gun crime, as well as the economic hurt.

((The Island of Rose: THANK YOU!!!!!! THANK YOU PRAETONIA! I have 0.3% of my population in the Armed Forces. And these people have 10% peacetime armies. That's brutal on the economy, I don't care who you are! Damn, have you ever heard of the United States? Small Army, excellent equipment. But I disagree on the last part, every adult in TIoR has to own a gun. And we have no gun rate. That's due to fear of castration of course.))

5) Massive group alliances

I hate these things. Whenever anyone wants to do anything against another nation, the other nation says "Back off, I have the [insert several alliances here] behind me!" and so the other nation says, "Oh yeah? Well I have [insert more alliances] aswell, you know". And it suddenly turns into an uncontrolable and pointless WWIII (or whatever war we're on now). I know you could call me hippocrit saying Im in these things, but if you're not you get killed in NS. Simple as that.

((The Island of Rose: Bah, I tend to stay away from things like that.))

6) My technology pwnzorz j00!!

I understand and like the idea of some nations having better tech than others, but there are... certain players... who techwank to an amazing degree. This includes tanks with masses of armour all round, which then still claim to be able to move, and vague descriptions like "The missile can strike from outside the enemy's range" and "armoured against 140mm shells" meaning that whatever the enemy claims to have, you can just say, "Well I didn't say that my armour could protect against an 'RHA value', I said it could protect against 140mm shells of any time. Anytime. Ever. So j00 die." or "I dont [i]care that you use home designed missiles rather than Harpoons and Exocets that actually have a decent range, this missile can fire from "outside of your range", whatever that may actually be.

((The Island of Rose: I do not care if your cannon is OMG UBER BIG! If it comes out of a barrel it can kill you. If it has steel, it's hard to sink. Too heavy, slow. Too light, fast. Apply these principles and your war RP will be wonderful :D))

7) OOC aminosity

So many people when at war take a dislike to the opposing players. This has happened a lot around Holy Panooly and Huzen Hagen for some reason, but it happens a lot in general. If this does happen in an RP, just stop and ignore the whole thing, because all you'll get is OOC comments / flaming and godmodding.

((The Island of Rose: I consider people who hate guys OOCly nerds. It's the Internet, sticks and stones... bitch.))

I cant think of any more but I might add some later. Enjoy.

Another thing that gets me is the RL Earth RPs. We're above this. Ask someone to make a map, hell I have, well Hallad really, but meh. Bah, I ran out of ranto. The rant drink.

Oh and another thing:

STOP DECLARING WAR ON EACH OTHER!

How hard is it to have character RPs? They are simple and much more fun and can tell a better story. I prefer AMF's character RPs then his wars. Come on folks, let's calm down for abit and character RP. God, besides, your nation cannot keep going to war..!!

And the ((The Island of Rose__________)) are my comments.

OOC: Why don't you add numberwanking? Many an RP has been ruined by "OMFG PH34R MY COC- 99999 MILLION MAN AMRAY!111 RAWR!" and the like. Numberwanking often occurs when the player is too caught up in winning or maybe because (s)he can't write well, they think a big army will make it all better.

*Applauds*
Very nice.

II and NS are just polar opposites of each other. I can't stand either anymore. Too much war in one, too much arrogance/self-involvement in the other.

OOC: BIG difference. NS is for more of the character RPers, advanced space nations, and smaller scale RP. I.I is basically war, alliances, and storefronts.

Hmmm. I play in both, and haven't found much difference, save scale. NS is more character, II more alliance and nation level, but they're both fun.

I'd add a gripe about unrealistic "internal agreements with government".

NOBODY in the history of Man has managed to get 100% of the people to go along with them, ever. NOBODY has ever managed to completely stamp out dissent. And yet, we have nations that have absolutely no problem with whatever program their "glorious leaders" come up with, regardless of how brutal, inhumane, bizaare, whatever.

Uhm, no. If you have a population that is not used to constant death, there are going to be soldiers who will have a problem firing on the battlefield. If you do have a population used to constant death, you have far greater chance of rebellions because now they don't fear what the government can do to control them.

If you're xenophobic, your people are going to have a problem with your allies from the same xenophobia, and joint missions become even harder. When you get people over that xenophobia and able to work with your allies, you counter your ability to control through xenophobia!

Then there's the "I have 100% tax so I spend it all on military" bologna. Ok, you get all the money - now you have to provide all the public works and services, or your people begin dying in droves. That means a greater percentage of your economy is going towards things like plumbing, food, shelter maintenance, etc. Yes, you can be the Soviet Union. Their buildings tended to sag in the middle and were just short of worthless as shelter; as a result, their people hated them in groundswell, the army was just short of mutinous - including lots of defectors and spies being "home grown", winter was horrible all around... and they still had to spend tons on human resources just because if they didn't, they'd face an all out revolution!

That'll do for now.

Number 7 becomes a problem when you end up talking to a person on AIM or something and learning some dark stuff about them and that their beliefs aren't just RPed, but what they really believe. Example is DA.

Finally someone that agrees with me, numbers DON'T win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Official OOC Response

Get over it.

Finally someone that agrees with me, numbers DON'T win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you mean "finally"??? Lots of us agree with "numbers are a part, but not the whole". ISRAEL comes to mind IRL - it constantly beats the crap out of larger armies.

Official OOC Response

Get over it.[OOC: Was that REALLY necessary?]

[OOC: Was that REALLY necessary?]

((OOC: Apologies, but like Praetonia, some things about II bother me too. Namely, people who gripe about things they hate in II. If you have a problem with certain things, you can always just not pay attention to them.))

[OOC: Was that REALLY necessary?]

No, but he bumps his post count that way. ;)

Official OOC Response

Get over it.


Official Statement from The OOC Ministry of The Island of Rose:

Blagona!
-Minister of OOC Affairs: Me

A few things:

Great Britain by the United States in 1812

The War of 1812 is largely viewed as a stalemate, and I believe it's more of a British (more Canadian) victory than an American one. Neither side gained any territory, but an American attempt at Canada was repulsed, so I consider it a Canadian victory.

Then there's the "I have 100% tax so I spend it all on military" bologna. Ok, you get all the money - now you have to provide all the public works and services, or your people begin dying in droves. That means a greater percentage of your economy is going towards things like plumbing, food, shelter maintenance, etc. Yes, you can be the Soviet Union. Their buildings tended to sag in the middle and were just short of worthless as shelter; as a result, their people hated them in groundswell, the army was just short of mutinous - including lots of defectors and spies being "home grown", winter was horrible all around... and they still had to spend tons on human resources just because if they didn't, they'd face an all out revolution!

The 100% tax rates bother me, because there's no way that a country could be able to maintain any kind of economy with that kind of a rate. If the government takes everything, what's the point of working (or, better yet, what's the point of living there)? Not everyone will be mindless sheep who will do everything the government tells them to do, and even if the government forces everyone to work and gives them "food stamps" in return you are a) going to get many, MANY workers who will not put in a good day's work because they see no incentive to do so and/or b) eventually, someone's going to snap and start a revolution. I could probably see a nation with a 60% tax rate AT THE MOST because then people would still get to keep a good chunk of their money, but once it gets to 70, 80, 90% it just gets ridiculous. In those cases I'd rather assume the government is heavily in debt due to all their spending and needs to HEAVILY re-organize their finances or face a revolt of some kind, because the government is spending too much. (yeah, I know, my rate is at 90%...I'm trying to bring that down...and in my defence, I have a new Emperor, so cut him some slack, he's just starting).

If anyone can point out a FUNCTIONING economy where the tax rate is above 60%, then maybe I'll accept these ridiculous rates- otherwise, I'll just have to assume the government is heavily in debt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and another thing that bothers me is when there's people who claim that "you can't have (insert RL nation here) because someone else has it!" (I distinctly remember the thread where the St. John's Hospitalliers claimed Malta). It's freeform- if someone else wants to create an Earth-based nation they do have that right. If you want to recognize that claim, then do so. If not, then leave it be. I had thought about joining Earth II when it came up, but because I wasn't particular enough I lost out on what I wanted. Then we had so many Earths pop up it was not even funny. So I just decided "to heck with it. I'm on my own Earth" and left it be. I just assume my country has the ability to traverse several Universes so it can communicate with the NS world (fantastic, yeah, but I need some way to communicate, plus I want to have some fun too).

My point ends with there's just no point in getting worked up about a fake world. It's our own imagination- either accept it or move on.

[/end rant]

Official Statement from The OOC Ministry of The Island of Rose:

Blagona!
-Minister of OOC Affairs: Me

NS Registration Fee: $0
That Response- Priceless.

I'd add a gripe about unrealistic "internal agreements with government".

Actually, it is realistic. It just depends on the government. It's kinda hard for a Dictator to disagree with himself, after all. Everyone else there are just puppets to do the work for him.

I'd add a gripe about unrealistic "internal agreements with government".

Actually, it is realistic. It just depends on the government. It's kinda hard for a Dictator to disagree with himself, after all. Everyone else there are just puppets to do the work for him.

Uhm, George - NOT EVERYONE IN YOUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT ANYTHING.

Clearer?

You will always have some sort of internal dissent. You will always have some sort of problem. Someone will always be open to bribery. Someone will always think your government - regardless of how well intentioned - sucks rocks and deserves to die.

You're a dictator. Great! Think all those clerks think you're wonderful? How about everyone in housekeeping? Every single secretary? What about those other members of government who want your job?

Espionage can happen because dissent is rampant, because no one agrees with everyone ever. Period.

You have 100% tax rate, I can bribe with food, clothes, simple things that make life more worth living. (If you really want, I could cite where tribesmen have been bribed to spy on their leaders with a handful of candy). The more distant the "haves" from the "have nots", the more problems you have, and the more you need to pacify the "have nots". Bread and Circuses becomes Cable TV and microwave popcorn, but the need remains the same.

So no, it is not realistic that an entire populace agrees with a government 100%, 100% of the time. Period.

Lovely. I get to shoot fish in a barrel with a thermonuclear ICBM.

Please, people, make sure you actually know what you are talking about before you try to characterize my nation.

Uhm, George - NOT EVERYONE IN YOUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT ANYTHING.

What does this have to do with whether or not my government agrees with itself? Answer: NOTHING. Try sticking to what you are trying to argue.

Clearer?

This has provided much insight. And proved you didn't do your research before posting what actually amounts to uninformed opinions about my nation.

You will always have some sort of internal dissent. You will always have some sort of problem. Someone will always be open to bribery. Someone will always think your government - regardless of how well intentioned - sucks rocks and deserves to die.

Yes, I do have internal dissent. Most of my problems have an external source at this point. And people are free to hold what opinions they will. I have no indoctrination program to tell people what to think.

You're a dictator. Great! Think all those clerks think you're wonderful? How about everyone in housekeeping? Every single secretary? What about those other members of government who want your job?

Well, this is pointless. 1) I'm keeping them from being under more repressive governments and do not try to tell them what to think. Considering the economic boom currently going on, the lessoning of terrorist activities after an attempt on my life failed, and the amount of jobs my current projects are going to create, I think most of their disagreements won't amount to enough to cause any problems. 2) Since you apparently didn't bother to read it, let me restate it: I am the government. Everyone else involved in government actiivities are employees of the government. And that even includes the ministers. 3) Most of them don't want my job. Their current positions keep them from getting shot at. The few that do won't try anything as long as danger from external sources exists, but that is for other reasons.

Espionage can happen because dissent is rampant, because no one agrees with everyone ever. Period.

1) Yet again, nothing to do with whether or not my government agrees with itself.
2) I don't require them to agree with me.
3) This really has no effect upon my ability to rule.

You have 100% tax rate, I can bribe with food, clothes, simple things that make life more worth living. (If you really want, I could cite where tribesmen have been bribed to spy on their leaders with a handful of candy). The more distant the "haves" from the "have nots", the more problems you have, and the more you need to pacify the "have nots". Bread and Circuses becomes Cable TV and microwave popcorn, but the need remains the same.

This is where you proved you have done no research on me and, thus, are wasting my time. Also, this still has nothing to do with whether or not my government agrees with itself.

1) Tax rate of 8%.
2) Economic dominance in both my region and my planet.
3) I probably produce good of a better quality than you at the same price.
4) Economic boom, unemployment below 4% at the time of this posting.
5) Free economy structure, with some government controls.
6) Corporations are encourage to flourish.
7) Well-funded and well-armed police force.
8) Rising civil freedoms.
9) 1 fingerbone (my currency) = $1.57
10) The other choices would either fall in a week without my protection or are far beyond corrupt (planet-wise, which is not the same as my NS region).

I don't forsee many problems resulting from this among my people.

So no, it is not realistic that an entire populace agrees with a government 100%, 100% of the time. Period.

This, once again, has nothing to do with whether or not my government agrees with itself. And you'll never see any of my news posts claiming the populous does agree. In fact, most don't mention the populous at all.

So, you really have no arguement against me that amounts to anything proving your original point, which was the idea that no government agrees with itself.

So, you really have no arguement against me that amounts to anything proving your original point, which was the idea that no government agrees with itself.

Aha - this is where you failed to understand.

"No NATION and it's people will go along completely with any GOVERNMENT" was my original point.

Here is sentence #2 in my original post:

NOBODY in the history of Man has managed to get 100% of the people to go along with them, ever.

Do reread it. Your commentary would then need to be changed as you entirely missed the point I was making in the first place.

A few things:



The War of 1812 is largely viewed as a stalemate, and I believe it's more of a British (more Canadian) victory than an American one. Neither side gained any territory, but an American attempt at Canada was repulsed, so I consider it a Canadian victory.
If the British had "won" the War of 1812, the United States would have had to make territorial concessions that they didn't have to make largely because of victories like the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Lake Champaign and because the British couldn't take Fort McHenry. The result of the war was essentially a status quo antebellum treaty.

Besides that, I didn't say the United States won its war against Great Britain. I didn't say Finland defeated the Soviet Union. Finland lost, but it was practically a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union. Finland survived after giving the Soviets all they could handle.

THAT was the point I was making: The bigger, more powerful country doesn't always win the war against the smaller country.

And it suddenly turns into an uncontrolable and pointless WWIII (or whatever war we're on now).

World War 6. We started with WW3, so that an NS WWI wouldn't get mixed up with the real thing. The last true World War, WWV, was way back when my main nation, Tiburon, was a wee n00b, about 1 3/4 years ago.

Although, the escalating conflict between the ToY (and supporters) and Arda (and supporters) could have sparked the biggest war in NationStates... practically everyone was involved in that...

<Pointless post by Neo-Tiburon>

Just a point on the "not everyone in your nation goes along with your decisions," thing, NS is an IMAGINARY game, this is not RL people! As AMF said, his leader thinks everyone besides his people to be inferior, My leader is an ardent national sovergnty freak, and frankly, I've tried persuading people that not everyone in their nation goes along with their leader's decision, but then it hit me...it's free form role play, they are the only ones who control their country so they make the decisions whether their people are all supportive of their government or not, some people may not like it, but hey, they're just tryin to have fun. One last comment, Nation States is meant to be fun, with some relations to the real world, but still totally shaped by the minds of the player, take a look at the ad for it on jolt, "Oppress your people, be a ruthless dictator, be a Roman republi" or something like that...

Aha - this is where you failed to understand.

"No NATION and it's people will go along completely with any GOVERNMENT" was my original point.

Here is sentence #2 in my original post:



Do reread it. Your commentary would then need to be changed as you entirely missed the point I was making in the first place.

Actually, I got it. Most of it I was ignoring. My first reply hinted that I was ignoring it and taking only that first sentence and my interpretation of it. As you can see, I prefer to quote what I am replying to.

Now, you're probably wondering why I set that whole thing up. It was to demonstrate another thing that annoys me: People assume dictatorships are bad. I've taken my nation from a small group of people trying to rebuild millenia after the fall of the empire that placed them there to becomming a nation which will be around for the forseeable future.

Sorry I used you to do it, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. That, and it felt good to utterly lose an arguement.

Keep in mind I didn't bother reading all of this thread so take my comments how you like it.

I think some of the problems that crop up is this; players who give themselves weakeness in order to perhaps create a better story or to try and be as "realistic" as possible pull their hair out when they encounter those that don't.

Now, it's all well and good to say "Yeah, you can just choose who you want to play with" but I think that's a band aid answer. In other words, it doesn't always help when you are trying to expand beyond the people you usually rp with.

One other thing about tech that bothers me: Just because someone has better tech doesn't automatically mean they are going to beat a country with inferior technology.

It's not about the kind of toys you play with. It's about knowing how to play with them.

I think the Viet Nam war proved this better than any real life example I can think of.
The technology you have does play a part, but your tactics matter a lot more.

Actually, I got it. Most of it I was ignoring. My first reply hinted that I was ignoring it and taking only that first sentence and my interpretation of it. As you can see, I prefer to quote what I am replying to.

Now, you're probably wondering why I set that whole thing up. It was to demonstrate another thing that annoys me: People assume dictatorships are bad. I've taken my nation from a small group of people trying to rebuild millenia after the fall of the empire that placed them there to becomming a nation which will be around for the forseeable future.

Sorry I used you to do it, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. That, and it felt good to utterly lose an arguement.


So, basically you were acting like a n00b and wasting my time.

:rolleyes: :headbang:

How many people have posted the exact same thing as you did Praetonia? I remember reading dozens of posts like this, from bunches of people.

So, basically you were acting like a n00b and wasting my time.

:rolleyes: :headbang:

Or I misread what you had intended and was trying to cover my ass.

How many people have posted the exact same thing as you did Praetonia? I remember reading dozens of posts like this, from bunches of people.

AAAAHHHHHH!!!!! It's BACK!

YAY! :D

Agree on most, not with the military size part (I don't have a 5% military even, not even a 2.5%). Some nations with frightening econs, enough people, and a roleplayed martial history can set the grounds for huge militaries. 5% is too much though. I think that at most 3%.

Otherwise, really good thread.

Negative. Just reading whilst breaking.

The War of 1812 is largely viewed as a stalemate, and I believe it's more of a British (more Canadian) victory than an American one. Neither side gained any territory, but an American attempt at Canada was repulsed, so I consider it a Canadian victory.




can't resist...must challenge statement...A British Canadian assault on the US was repulsed as well, and the war signified that the US was fully done with being a part of Britain to the world.

Either way, it doesn't matter - this is the wrong forum for talks about the war of 1812. Go over to General (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)

What the heck is your problem? The T-98 tanks can almost never cross a bridge (without it being damaged or reinforced to prevent damaging), they bog down so easily, they can move at less than 30 miles, and they have a gas mileage of 5 gallons per mile... Are those not weaknesses?


The entire campaign in Zaire and Zambia was a failure because of the T-98...


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344532
1) It's not slow enough to be a weakness. There are modern tanks that are considered top-of-the-line, yet are still slower than it (Merkava 2 for example), and others that have the same speed (Challenger 1, Challenger 2)

2) Armor is too much. You cannot suddenly double ballistic protection. That has never happened except over a period of decades, even counting WWII. For the record, in mid-WWII, the maximum for a decent tank was about 250mm. It moved up to 500mm only in the 1970s, and still hasn't quite reached 1000mm for ballistic protection. Improvements have always been gradual (look at a list of armor levels for various tanks over the last half century and this becomes obvious).

3) As I have repeatedly stated, side armor is never more than 30% of frontal, and usually 20% or less. Rear armor, 20% or less, always. Top and bottom armor cannot be that thick due to weight restrictions. Hence, it is impossible for a tank to be immune to antitank mines and top-attack weapons.
The only ways to have the same protection all-around is to have something that's like 15x15m with all sides greatly sloped, or have solid 2m thick walls on every side. Either way, any idiot could see it wouldn't work.

4) Claiming it's immune to any weapon, but can kill any tank with one shot, is what's known as a godmod. People tend to ignore stupid things like that.


I'm sure anyone could guess what annoys me.

4) Claiming it's immune to any weapon, but can kill any tank with one shot, is what's known as a godmod. People tend to ignore stupid things like that.


I'm sure anyone could guess what annoys me.



Ooc- It is not immune to aerial attacks, anti-tank mines, C-4 bundles being tossed under it. The tracks being knocked off, ATGMs at the bottom rear armor (sit in a sewer, pop out of the manhole and fire) or ATGMS against the top. It has weaknesses, but I don't know of a single tank that can take a T-98 or T-98W in a tank vs tank (my main gun on their front armor, vs their main gun on my front armor) fight.

Ooc- It is not immune to aerial attacks, anti-tank mines, C-4 bundles being tossed under it. The tracks being knocked off, ATGMs at the bottom rear armor (sit in a sewer, pop out of the manhole and fire) or ATGMS against the top. It has weaknesses, but I don't know of a single tank that can take a T-98 or T-98W in a tank vs tank (my main gun on their front armor, vs their main gun on my front armor) fight.

OOC: Hence, GodMod.

And my T-105As wouldn't take you on "front armor", they'd run around you and shoot you in the side or back. Front armor is always heaviest.

Finally, sure - do I get to choose ordinance? Ok, I choose an ACROTHERM anti-tank shell. Now that you're covered in vaporous tacky thermite... your tank is melting, burning thermite is pulled into the engine (boom)...

NOTHING is immune to everything. And your tank would move at about 5mph, have 5 mpg, not sufficient power to turn the turret effectively...

Now do you get it?

7) OOC aminosity

So many people when at war take a dislike to the opposing players. This has happened a lot around Holy Panooly and Huzen Hagen for some reason, but it happens a lot in general. If this does happen in an RP, just stop and ignore the whole thing, because all you'll get is OOC comments / flaming and godmodding.




Heh, this reminds me exactly of something that went on for a few months on an off-site RP forum a while ago. I think I have some links, if anyone's interested:

Where it all started (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1629139#post1629139)

Some other RP. Can you feel the love? (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=86392)

RP judge thread (hijacked by massive fight) (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89762)


There's like millions more but they're mostly the same as those.

If the British had "won" the War of 1812, the United States would have had to make territorial concessions that they didn't have to make largely because of victories like the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Lake Champaign and because the British couldn't take Fort McHenry. The result of the war was essentially a status quo antebellum treaty.

Besides that, I didn't say the United States won its war against Great Britain. I didn't say Finland defeated the Soviet Union. Finland lost, but it was practically a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union. Finland survived after giving the Soviets all they could handle.

THAT was the point I was making: The bigger, more powerful country doesn't always win the war against the smaller country.

I understood your point, I just don't agree that the War of 1812 was a stalemate. I think of the two sides, British Canada got the better end of the deal- the U.S. stopped invading Canada forever- thus why I think Canada won that war. Winning a war doesn't necessarily mean you force territorial concessions- it just means enforcing your own terms, and Canada was clearly able to tell the U.S. "you can't have us". I agree the War of 1812 wasn't a very decisive victory- the U.S. handed the British some pretty bad losses- but judging which of the two sides got the better of the deal, I think it was Canada for stopping an invasion.

Heh, this reminds me exactly of something that went on for a few months on an off-site RP forum a while ago. I think I have some links, if anyone's interested:

Where it all started (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=1629139#post1629139)

Some other RP. Can you feel the love? (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=86392)

RP judge thread (hijacked by massive fight) (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89762)


There's like millions more but they're mostly the same as those.

My goodness...

Well, if he changes the speed / gas guzzling ratio a tinsy bit his tank will be fine - it will have to be outrageously expensive per tank, so just get a couple of faster tanks and run circles around him. This is not a quality tank, so it should be very easy to take down.

I understood your point, I just don't agree that the War of 1812 was a stalemate. I think of the two sides, British Canada got the better end of the deal- the U.S. stopped invading Canada forever- thus why I think Canada won that war. Winning a war doesn't necessarily mean you force territorial concessions- it just means enforcing your own terms, and Canada was clearly able to tell the U.S. "you can't have us". I agree the War of 1812 wasn't a very decisive victory- the U.S. handed the British some pretty bad losses- but judging which of the two sides got the better of the deal, I think it was Canada for stopping an invasion.



My goodness...

Enough about the War of 1812, go make a thread about it in General and duke it out there, please.

Well, if he changes the speed / gas guzzling ratio a tinsy bit his tank will be fine - it will have to be outrageously expensive per tank, so just get a couple of faster tanks and run circles around him. This is not a quality tank, so it should be very easy to take down.

Uhm... that's what I was doing.

I don't mean to make a protracted argument on the War of 1812...I just make it a habit of responding when I'm called to do so. I was also just making a side comment anyway- it's not like I made the 1812 argument as the basis for my entire post earlier in the thread. Karakas and Sarzonia (and not to rag on them, I'm just pointing things out) decided to make posts that were entirely in response to what I had said about 1812.

Besides, it's not like this thread has suddenly become one about 1812, and it's not my intention to do either.

Ooc- It is not immune to aerial attacks, anti-tank mines, C-4 bundles being tossed under it. The tracks being knocked off, ATGMs at the bottom rear armor (sit in a sewer, pop out of the manhole and fire) or ATGMS against the top. It has weaknesses, but I don't know of a single tank that can take a T-98 or T-98W in a tank vs tank (my main gun on their front armor, vs their main gun on my front armor) fight.
You dont understand, and you didnt when you spoke to Chardonay about this. We aren't saying that it's godmodded because it's immune to things, we're saying it's godmodded because the amount of armoured protection and (as well as, but not because of) the speed ARE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (read the capitalised bit a few dozen times before replying).

7) OOC aminosity

So many people when at war take a dislike to the opposing players. This has happened a lot around Holy Panooly and Huzen Hagen for some reason, but it happens a lot in general. If this does happen in an RP, just stop and ignore the whole thing, because all you'll get is OOC comments / flaming and godmodding.


I cant think of any more but I might add some later. Enjoy.

could you clarify this for me, do you mean me and HP hate everyone else or everyone else hates us? not that i take it personally, just wanted to know.

OOC: It's usually mutual, ie with Credonia, NATO etc. Im not having a go at you, Im just pointing out that it does seem to happen

OOC: There's the "we're IC enemies" thing, which isn't that bad (its good to have a consistant enemy)... and there's the "I'm going to hound you OOC for IC things" event, which is rotten.

OOC: There's the "we're IC enemies" thing, which isn't that bad (its good to have a consistant enemy)... and there's the "I'm going to hound you OOC for IC things" event, which is rotten.[OOC: You can usually tell the difference between IC animosity and hostility that creeps into OOC.

I can think of two great examples of people whom I RP being hostile towards but we are anything but hostile OOC. I can also think of one great example of someone against whom I had both IC and OOC hostilities. There is definitely a difference in RP quality when the hostilities are limited to IC interaction.]