Verified:

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 10th 2014, 2:53:42

Rage, you may have noticed that we have fired a first shot across your bow.*

We know that you have been engaged in psychological warfare against us for years, and you've been trying to convert our coveted (and slightly aging) Tony Stark to your meddling ways. But the madness must stop! This time, you have crossed the line, stealing away our INVINCIBLE IRONMAN and trying to add him to your ranks.

So, we, The Our Thing, demand that you release our thing: The IRONMAN. Relinquish the IRONMAN, old person spittle and all, or face destruction! Give him him back to our warm embrace, where he may live out the rest of his days in the LCN Home for The Aging and Slightly Deranged.

Love,
Purposeful1
LCN President


*Our aim is a little poor these days, we may have hit a bow or two.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 9th 2014, 22:46:55

what is the specific instance of "griefing" that this thread is referring to?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 2nd 2014, 9:17:48

29k farm/oil
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 1st 2014, 5:15:42

Scribble, Trife, and I are probably the most active ATM. Servant comes and goes.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 1st 2014, 5:15:07

Wait, where'd you pull that from, Marshal?!

Wiki entry says:

President: Purposeful1 E-mail:
VP/FA: Servant ICQ: 32262071 E-mail:
HFA: Scribble Forum PM E-mail:
IA: Nuketon E-mail:


And yeah, I finally capitulated to downloading ICQ late, only to realize that it was even worse than I could have ever imagined.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 30th 2014, 12:31:12

relatively so, yes.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 28th 2014, 7:03:49

almost 17k farmer/oiler mix here
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 15th 2014, 8:10:23

I'm around too, if you need me.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 28th 2014, 14:18:36

+1 to Angel1's last post.

hawkeyee's point about making those calculations should be interesting, but I think that's less to do with the union representation so much as the ramifications of considering student athletes "employees". If they are employees, then do they get paid hourly? Are there rules about how many hours they can work in a day/week/month? How does "overtime" work? Are they exempt salaried workers? This brings up a whole host of interesting questions.

I'm surprised that the NLRB ruled in their favor, to be honest, but I'm glad they did (even if NU is going to appeal this over and over...). I went to Northwestern and had some friends who were on the team/who are a part of this particular movement. While, yes, they weren't the biggest, baddest football players, and they did get a pretty nice deal on their education, many of them did end up significantly reducing their pro chances by coming to Northwestern, and they end up risking quite a bit to continue to play. Regardless, I think it's a good thing to have *somebody* advocating for student athletes. There's a pretty big disparity in negotiating power between the NCAA/colleges that earn big bucks on sports and these students. We can complain from the sidelines that this might "hurt colleges' ability to fund their programs", but is trading the health of its (unrepresented) students for that funding really a good trade? I believe we should be having a larger discussion about making sure our universities are well-funded, regardless of the success of their sports programs.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 3rd 2014, 11:13:45

I think they nailed the ending, but if it weren't for the last three minutes, the movie would have been very disappointing.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 1st 2014, 7:35:19

Originally posted by INVINCIBLE IRONMAN:
Originally posted by Purposeful1:
Originally posted by INVINCIBLE IRONMAN:
OHHHHHHH BOY
who let him in??


Miss me? <3 <3 <3

Yeah like hemorrhoids my man
I blame this on Trifel by the way


I mean, he *did* ask me a silly question on facebook about a song, and then i logged in for the first time in a while...


Ironman, where is all your land? Are you running a commie indy again?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Feb 28th 2014, 5:55:33

Originally posted by INVINCIBLE IRONMAN:
OHHHHHHH BOY
who let him in??


Miss me? <3 <3 <3
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Feb 28th 2014, 5:55:11

Originally posted by Atryn:
Yeah, he said landgrabbing, not landtrading...

"Opting in to landgrabbing (casher)"
"I don't know who the hell to tell, but if you're a casher looking to hit another casher, consider me "opted in"."

Nothing in there about him hitting you back. So go for it!


Sounds fun. Scodey wants to play?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Feb 25th 2014, 10:28:18

I don't know who the hell to tell, but if you're a casher looking to hit another casher, consider me "opted in".

#570
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Aug 23rd 2013, 19:20:06

sent you a response!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Aug 16th 2013, 22:41:30

Hahahaha, look at this idiot *wanting* to be in leadership. You're hired!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Jun 19th 2013, 7:42:26

LCN declares war on Rival and RD, per our pact with SOL.

Just in case there was any confusion.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 16th 2013, 20:43:09

yes
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 16th 2013, 19:00:32

i'll be around the next few hours at least!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 9th 2013, 3:54:29

TTTTT
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

May 4th 2013, 23:40:14

Why is there a limit that each player may only report another for rules violations once per 12 hours? I mean, I understand not wanting spamming, but that seems a little arbitrary. I can envision more than one discovery each 12 hours, and people wanting to submit different reports for different types of rules violations... Maybe limit it more to something like 3-5 per 24 hours?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 30th 2013, 18:25:07

bbq?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 27th 2013, 0:26:50

i'm still baffled that one FA package that we told SoF about and apologized to SoF for immediately after logically leads to a FS. I explained to SoF that I had received information that LaF was FAing SoF, which later I found out was unproven. I told LCNers not to FA. One FA package was sent, and MD'ers rejected the other (few) pact offers that were sent.

As for the PDM'ers in this thread praising our downfall, a couple months ago I apologized to Tisya and TAN about our FS of you guys. We got overaggressive and misinterpreted others' intentions, and I'll freely admit that declaring war on you guys was a bad call on my part. One of the few times I've genuinely felt bad about something I've done in this game. To any of you who haven't heard it yet in PDM, I'm sorry.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 27th 2013, 0:16:11

Originally posted by H4xOr WaNgEr:
Originally posted by Dissidenticn:
Archaic says: "Its generally impossible to outrun a retal from a midfeed target, all you're really accomplishing is hurting your finish and your targets finish by forcing both of you to buy a ton of military. Doing something that deliberately hurts both sides is spiteful and rude and hence frowned upon."

I completely agree with this... and more. When you boost your defence and try to outrun a retal, well... the retal returns scale to your nw. Any clan worth their salt will be able to retal you and you'll invariably lose more than you took. On top of that, youll have a ton of new military which makes it even more difficult for you.


people manage to out run retals all the time, thus you are wrong?


Against established clans? When?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 25th 2013, 3:50:10

Originally posted by cypress:
Originally posted by Purposeful1:

The point is, neither of these reasons are the real reasons for SoF hitting us; they're just public excuses to mask their real purpose.


What is the real purpose? Pray tell.


That's exactly what I'm asking. Close as I can tell, it's to bait MD into a war while keeping LaF in the wings as backup in case the tides start turning against them. But who knows. All I know is that the reasons given aren't terribly logical. But maybe that's exactly the conclusion... these leadership decisions aren't very logical.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 25th 2013, 3:32:44

hi major!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 25th 2013, 2:53:34

When LCN signs pacts, we hold to them, because that's what we agreed to do. We don't use "out" clauses or "exceptions", because those mean that you aren't willing to fully commit to the agreement you're saying you're making.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 23:25:10

Originally posted by Pain:


im not saying whether they are right or wrong as its not my business to decide that but im guessing the FA was only part of the reason and more of it was you hitting SoF with MD.


You mean upholding our pact agreement to defend our allies against aggression? I've been called in by allies lots of times in the last eight or so years, but this is the first time I've ever heard of a multi-set grudge for holding to our pact agreements.

The point is, neither of these reasons are the real reasons for SoF hitting us; they're just public excuses to mask their real purpose.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 23:15:48

.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 23:15:14

Originally posted by Pain:

if SoF does nothing then people figure there are no repercussions for FAing an alliance SoF is at war with and they keep doing it. now people know SoF will hold people accountable and people can make the decision if its worth FAing against them. that or theyll be sure to be more careful to not leave any proof. :P



So 1 FA package that *we* told them about equals a FS against the entire alliance? I didn't know SOF's current FA policies were inspired by Imag's retal policy circa 2005!

Edited By: Purposeful1 on Apr 24th 2013, 23:17:14
See Original Post
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 22:19:54

Originally posted by iScode:
If we wanted to fight MD then why would we try and mediate a resolution on the imag/md issue so they didnt go to war?


Uh, because you want to fight them, duh.

"informed the heads"? You didn't inform me of anything--I told YOU about the FA when people started asking whether there was FA!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 22:11:32

Originally posted by ninong:
LIES, THIS IS THE REAL REASON FOR WAR:

http://forums.earthempires.com/...15&z=firefly-season-2


Alright, all is justified then.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:56:34

Originally posted by Purposeful1:
Originally posted by iScode:
trumper your not in position to be making demands...


Purp, I dont have a copy of the news feed from your admin tag but I certinly seen LCN countries allied to untags who then tagged up MD.

I had floated that idea as a spy op though, spying the admin news, but the country would have to be an admin holder, if not it would be a failed op. Would be a cool idea.

and no not trying to bait anyone into a server war.


Which countries?


screw it, we all know this is just an excuse to get MD to fight, anyway.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:49:15

Originally posted by iScode:
trumper your not in position to be making demands...


Purp, I dont have a copy of the news feed from your admin tag but I certinly seen LCN countries allied to untags who then tagged up MD.

I had floated that idea as a spy op though, spying the admin news, but the country would have to be an admin holder, if not it would be a failed op. Would be a cool idea.

and no not trying to bait anyone into a server war.


Which countries?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:46:28

Originally posted by iScode:

both alliances deserve to die for interfering imo, the fa was leadership approved and continued after they said it would stop.


Proof? Your proof is as flimsy as the other side's proof that your countries were receiving FA/market manipulations! Your only proof is our own honesty that we sent a single FA package. /facepalm.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:37:39

Originally posted by iScode:
It was much more than 1 fa package, not to mention the untags that got FA before tagging up.


Oh really? I would know. The internal LCN announcement to organize FA became public knowledge hours after it was made. There would have been pact evidence that I'm sure you guys would have brought to my attention if that were the case. There was one FA package sent by one of our leaders, that's it.

Do you have any substantiation for the argument that you're making, or are you really just trying to bait us into starting a server war?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:30:34

Originally posted by iScode:
Purp, this war has nothing to do with the grabbing issues this set, you guys openly fa'd our enemy in a close even war, you got involved where you shouldn't.


I just wished we could of included PDM in this FS for the exact same reason.


You're FSing us because we sent one FA package, openly admitted our mistake, then apologized (and we would have sent reps, too)?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 21:19:47

Originally posted by LadyJess:
If you are too small you shouldn't involve yourself in other people's wars. Did you really think SoF would forget it?


Are you referring to that FA debacle a set or two ago? Because my recollection is that MAYBE one FA package was sent in total after we misunderstood the nature of who was FAing who. As soon as we found out that there wasn't any proof of the other side receiving outside FA, we halted all plans to FA, promptly apologized for the misunderstanding, and moved on.

Rather than trying to change the subject, how about just being straight with what the real reason for this is. Is it to exercise an out clause with another alliance? Is it just for sh*ts and giggles? Is it to protest landtrading (even though LCN's a newcomer to that scene)?

I'm confused, because I've had a good relationship with SoF for a long time (despite hearing opinions to the contrary from other alliances), and I'm wondering why LCN was chosen to be so deserving of this honor.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 24th 2013, 20:46:00

what's the deal with the 2 kills?

I had (what I thought was) a nice conversation with iScode last night about the merits of outrunning retals. Now, today, some blindsiding attacks? To misuse an old Wendy's slogan... where's the beef?
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 21st 2013, 8:38:28

=(
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 9th 2013, 10:11:44

that degenerated quickly.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 4th 2013, 20:52:52

you can PM or gchat me for any LCN-related stuff.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Apr 4th 2013, 3:33:41

Originally posted by Xinhuan:
Originally posted by wari:
A) If I'm a suicider, I already have too much suicide strength. Given the batfluff crazy AB CS losses, you think I'm going to bother buying jets to grab-suicide when I can just AB a guy two dozen times to take out as many CS as I could in 50 grabs? If I were to even buy jets, just to entertain the argument, I'd take out much more CS and use less resources BRing the victim. The only case where a suicider is making landgrabs is to landgrab stockpile, and if you have enough stockpile to be landgrabbed by a suicider without enough defense to protect yourself from it, you deserve it.

(not to mention how easy it is, in comparison, to just stock warfare for the first 3 weeks, missile a trader who has no CHANCE to get SDI before 50k acres, and take out his CS that way)

B) No, a nominal increase in CS loss would not have a real effect on farmed, untagged countries. An elimination of landtrading would cripple untagged countries that are not currently being farmed quite as hard has they used to be. I've seen people here today lamenting the ineffectiveness of the C:C ghost acre changes because it penalizes bottomfeeders more than traders. You're fluffing about only getting ghosts on your first TEN freaking grabs on a country every reset? I call bullfluff.

Xin, you're smarter than this... This argument doesn't hold water.



A) The AB CS losses is another change that I highly disagreed with, and wish that qzjul would revert the change. It clearly made suiciders a lot stronger on countries that had no tanks (while it did limit damage on countries with considerable amount of tanks).

B) You try being an untagged then, and spending twice the amount of turns exploring and building acres on low BPT after being hit 10x a day. A typical landgrab might make a country lose about 1% of his CS (when being bottomfed, losses are less), so you are losing 10% CS a day if you are being farmed into 10 DR everyday. If you increase the CS loss by even just 50%, that is significant, I would have to rebuild extra CSes everyday, or spend extra turns to rebuild newly explored acres.

It's actually better off being killed as an untagged and restarting with insane amounts of CS as it is.

I'm not fluffing about getting ghosts on bottomfeeding. I'm comparing the relative effectiveness of landtrading (which requires significantly less time and effort) than bottomfeeding, the rewards does not consumerate with the time and effort spent. All-explore countries have always not finished well in NW, but that is to be expected, it literally requires no time to be one.

What you aren't realizing is qzjul still wants to protect the untagged countries being farmed somewhat, increasing their CS losses doesn't help. Increasing/reducing ghost acres on the other hand doesn't affect the untagged country in any manner that is positive or negative, it is simply additional free land for the attacker.




The CS losses also make being a techer landtrader a LOT less profitable, since you end up spending so much time rebuilding your CS as is.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 18th 2013, 17:57:22

I've been sending you irc messages, tellarion!
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 13th 2013, 0:40:03

v-tec paintball and KOS (kings of survival?) were my favorites, wayyyy back in the day. sniper paintball was alright, too.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 12th 2013, 22:06:13

Originally posted by Patience:
*blink* I didn't read the article. I'm traumatized enough already. (Seriously... how the hell do you cut off your penis with any machine related to CARPETS??? I'm gonna have to come back later and read the article.)


Looks like it's a "peeler"--a machine with steel blades used to cut carpeting core.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 12th 2013, 22:03:41

Originally posted by Trife:
Originally posted by mrford:
this is kinda like the fans suing nascar for getting hurt at Daytona, when it says on the back of EVERY ticket that by entering the track you release the track and NASCAR from all responsibility to injury.

good luck winning that one.


Putting a liability waiver on the back of a ticket doesn't automatically mean you can't be held responsible. If bleachers/stands collapse and kill people, that little warning on the back of the ticket won't save the team from having to pay out...


Adhesion contracts=> unconscionable to enforce (so the argument goes)
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 12th 2013, 5:11:01

I'm around.
Purposeful1

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Mar 4th 2013, 18:34:06

Still Kickin'!
Purposeful1