Are you trying to claim NM is a netting alliance?

I suspect that the tea party may have peaked a bit early. I suspect that when the tea party House fails to deliver any more than the Obama House, that it may be a little tougher for the Glennbeckians to rally a lot of support in 2012. It will be made even more so if some crackpot like Rand Paul sticks his foot in his mouth a few times.

I mostly voted for Obama because the thought of electing a 127 year old man that sang 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' at a press conference sent chills down my spine. My biggest gripe with him is that he is a fluff. If you had given GW the majorities that Obama had in the house and senete during his first year in office - Halliburton would have been running Medicaid and we would have 'liberated' Mexico.

Blackmamba, FYI - its a myth, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. They waste just as much money in different ways.

This thread has a lot of interesting thoughts, from the different sides' point of view. There was certainly a point where war alliances started pacting each other more and gave up grudges that had us fighting each other set after set for years.

The trend I noticed was that most netting alliances reached a point where they wanted to net at all costs, so they would pact at the last second in order to avoid being called into a war to help an ally. Before then, most would help out occasionally either directly, or with FA, and in return the war alliance would help keep people from attacking them while they netted. This trend of late pacting became surprisingly common, and left many alliances wondering who their allies really were. From SOL's perspective we reached a point where we had no alliance we could count on to stand with us. We then began talking to our long time enemies, trying to do simple pacts to avoid the exact same war set after set.

What we found doing this, was that it was those same alliances we used to hate that were most willing to work with us. While other netting alliances we'd been pacted to for years would try to stick every possible retal in that was written in a pact, another alliance might be willing to only take 1 retal over an obviously mistaken, failed grab. While an older "ally" would go out of their way to sign those pacts so that they'd never fight with or FA us, our old enemies were sometimes willing to help. While the old allies would retal before ever talking to us, the onetime enemies were in contact after each hit, trying to keep things working out between us.

This is a hard game to play in without any allies, and the biggest reason the warring clans started banding together, is because the leaders of most netting clans you couldn't count on for anything, or trust with any information. Now at the time there were a lot more alliances so there were still enough warring alliances to form sides, but now with the game shrinking that becomes harder and harder.

I often think of something Norcal once told me about leading. You don't make a pact with an alliance, you make a pact with the leader of that alliance. A pact is only worth as much as the person behind it.

It's a tough game to change up alliances in with so many leaders out there that don't talk to each other as much as we all used to.


Dragon

Great post Viceroy, we'll all accomplish a lot by personally insulting each other and focusing on the type of rhetoric used instead of the actual ideas.

I don't know what every single player does on every single server. However, I do believe that both of you play in MONSTERS on the alliance server? I remember MONSTERS raising a big stink on the boards after dibs suicided, banning dibs from the alliance and explaining that "this isn't our way".

Yet, here is your friend/clanmate ViLSE bloviating on this board about how he plays primary only to suicide on other players. For some reason, you don't have a problem with this.

This is one of the major problems facing the community today. As an admin, I'm going to do my best to fix this problem. This is the code of ethics I follow as an admin of a free online text game:

1) Don't use any admin only information for personal reasons or to cheat.
2) Care about the game and try to fix problems.
3) Try to grow the game.

These are the ethics that some people expect me to follow:

1) Use my free time to adjust variables in a php file to fix all of the game's problems.
2) Be respectful or don't comment while the players fluff on the game, each other, or the admins.

It's ridiculous, self-serving, and entitled. Not everything can be fixed by writing lines of code. We encourage new players to play in primary or the other individual servers to get a feel for the game. When players who have been around forever treat the server like a joke and play only to ruin the fun of others, what do you think the new players are going to do?

The game is free. That means that the customer isn't always right. It also means that I don't expect every player to contribute positively to the game. Can we at least try to all have neutral contributions? It would go a long way towards restoring my belief that caring about the game and speaking to the players is preferable to Mehul's way of doing nothing.

It's a team server. I know that you like to put multiple tags together and bully other tags so you probably don't get what that means. There can only be five countries in a tag. When you kill all of the original countries in a tag, you then have to kill the restarts.

If all you can do is throw around labels and make up conspiracy theories, there's really no reason for me to post here. The next time you get tagkilled by people you don't know, just assume that I was behind it. At the very least, I'll certainly be cheering them on.