beep

i'd hate for your streak to end, Icey
maybe someone nice, like bsnake, could fix that for ya=)

post

your gettin' old, Bsnake:P

sure is some old folks in this thread=)

so kill 'em anyways, and be done with it
in fact, kill all the ones in the extra tag, lol
have your police help:P

yo ho ho an' a bottle o' rum!

Rico's slackin':P

just sayin'=)

Why should you help your neighbour through a rough patch when you've earned your place in life? Because it could be you next time. There are regulations in place to reduce the numbers of those that take advantage of the system. The benefit of helping those that need help outweights the cost of helping those that don't help their selves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I absolutley agree, Mapleson....I have zero issues with helping my neighbor, relatives, the couple down the street, when times get tough, or when "stuff" happens. What I do have a problem with, is the govt. threatening me with jailtime (if i don't paying my taxes) if I don't help, and help in the amount that the govt. decides I can help at.

freedom vs not
pic a side, and enjoy=)

i missed reading any admissions about giving folks money to be quiet
may i get a link or reference to that one?

zero sexual harrassment settlements.... after investigation, the rest. assoc. found no evidence supporting the claims, and payed severence settlements
30k and 60k payments are NOT harrassment payments....sexual harrassment settlements rank in the low millions by the company, and hundreds of thousands against the accused
and the last accuser made her claims while standing at the side of arguabley the most liberal legal advocate in the nation....while she was getting evicted for nonpay of her rent...and with a history of filing frivolous lawsuites


why?...cause of the assualts on his character and family?...would you have recomended he stay running, putting his wife and family at the mercy of unsubstantiated accusations...where the media consistently makes him sound guilty without reporting the dirty details?....and the masses blindly believe it?

btw, maybe he is, in fact quilty....and maybe he is not
i'm argueing that he was tried and convicted in the media....a media that did not, in fact, divulge ALL the pertinate facts
a man destroyed on heresay alone, no evidence, just hesaid/shesaid
is it not sad it's that easy nowadays?

thought i covered that part already:

you want govt control
i do not
i wish freedom, and the rewards or repercusions that go with it



the only thing govt has ever run effectively was the military, and even that has been going by the wayside lately(due to political interference, imho)

so much for inocent until PROVEN guilty.....

it's a hit on the pop charts
makes no sense that it wouldn't qualify

i could see the arguement if it hit on some other chart, but NOT the pop chart

wow Bu...really.......

Deerhunter:
i've no issue with unemployment insurance, tho the two states i've worked in stated you only got it if you lost your job thru no fault of your own....and as an employer, i've never lost a case in 24 years
if their not working for me, it was their own fault
layoffs, company's closing...that's not the workers fault, and i understand
i'm not compasionless, i just draw a clear line between the unfortunate and the lazy

and as for those "gaming" the system, from my perspective there is a majority who are doing it
i'm in food service, and i may do 20 interviews...hire 3...and be lucky to have 1 left after a month
the reasons vary, but in the end it comes down to not wanting to do what it takes to keep a job

not once did i mention a problem with taxes for roads, fire, police, sewer/water systems, national defense, etc..

socialism breeds laziness, tho, and the items above don't have anything to do with socialism

seasonal flu and toothache's killing people..LOL....make stuff up often?
every county in the US has a hospital that takes medicare/medicaid payments from the govt, it is therefore ILLEGAL for them to refuse service based on someones ability to pay

the notion that i'm somehow responsible for paying the way for the lazy good for nothing neighbor is offensive, to put it mildly
if he wants my assistance, how bout he come knock on my door and ask for it, instead of having BIG BROTHER come to my door and FORCE me to under threat of jail if i wish not to
how bout my neighbor be accountable to do better, or else the help gets cut off.....something the govt would never ever do

people want equal outcome.....no matter if they've earned it or not
merely existing doesn't give anyone the right to someone elses stuff

you want govt control
i do not
i wish freedom, and the rewards or repercusions that go with it

i've known since elementary school that the stock market is a gambling game....so i keep my money out of it
but you want me <the tax payer> to save the dumbasses who decided to gamble anyway?
fluff that
they were stupid to have invested money they couldn't afford to loose in a gamble....no different than going to vegas

the entire concept that if i bust my butt production-wise and follow the company procedures, thereby garnering raises, bonuses, and promotions...ie become financially successful; but my neighbor, who's late to work, just gets by on production level, and only does things the correct way when he thinks the boss is looking...and gets fired....how on earth can one claim he is entitled to anything from me, via taxes?
He earned his station in life, and somehow there are those out there who claim I'm the bad guy because I think he should sleep in the bed he made for himself!

No one but my family is "entitled" to my fluff....let the neighbor earn his own fluff! I prefer to help those that are helping themselves.

adam carolla acurately identifies the "occupy" syndrome
google him, and enjoy

I'm not an FA in XI either....but in a couple weeks i can pass a message to KoHeartsGPA...etc..etc...

=)

i sure miss that clan drama....




ok, not really:P

impressive

<tips hat>

FFA is more reliant on the individual knowing what to do, and when to do it
which explains the "myth" of a better warrior

in alliance, you are more reliant on well oiled and functioning leadership
it almost doesn't matter how good the individual is....if the leadership isn't coordinating the masses, the clan fails

in your thread, you seem like your placing the failure on the individuals within the clan for it's failure in that war, therebye debunking the "myth"
i'm claiming that the individual, in fact, did NOT fail......it was leaderships failure to organize and utilize the individuals as a cohesive unit that was the failure

Everyone who isn't a complete idiot
Everyone with half a brain



i'm thinking that leaves you out:P

ouch.....a good question from Dibs
case of the missing Foogl'


<tips hat>

yes, it is first the NBK police job

but since it's been clear from the get go that that wasn't happening, then i'd have had my police kill them

why?...because a tainted win is a tainted win is a tainted win
what's the point in having a tainted win????

i've seen you make logical posts, Dib

but i'm pretty sure that all 3 of them were ignored:P

because i asked fooglmog if i could resurect it, and discuss it with him, since i was off doing other things when he posted it in 2006

i chose this board for two reasons
one....it's actually about "the Myth of the FFA warrior"
two....i figured ffa folks would provide less hassle than alliance folks on such a topic being discussed
you know how the alliance boards can be:P

because none of yours were even remotely intelligent?



just sayin'.....

ya got some kind of issue you'd like to discuss, Dibs?

and for the record, Fooglmog, hers's my credentials:P

1a
RAGE
Laf

FFA
RAGE FFA
BOD
PANLV
and may as well have been part of IMP, ICD, and DWAR, as much as i played with them at various times over the early years

oh, and btw

the failure in the example you gave was a failure of leadership........

NOT warring abilities of the individuals

.....................................................
1. FFA alliances had no need for warchats. With 15 countries to a player there was no need to organize more then a handful of members at a time. Thus, dyNAsty would be unable to organize their mass of numbers into effective kill runs and their hits would be sporadic.

2. FFA players have little experience restarting. With 15 countries there was rarely any need to create new ones when they were killed. One simply continued the war with their remaining countries. Thus, the dyNAsty restart rate would be low and the restarts that were created would be ineffective. (I also know that for a time it was impossible to create FFA countries mid-reset. I do not know if this continued until the closing of FFA, however if it did, it adds to the fact that FFAers would have little experience in this area)

3. FFA players have little experience with real FA, thus dyNAsty would be unable to bring in allies. Politics are the heart of 1A, without being politically attuned to the entire game an alliance doesn't survive there. In FFA all that seems to have mattered is numbers. Thus, dyNAsty would be unable to bring any allies into this war to aid them and negate the MD/MET FS advantage.
****************************************************

1. failure of leadership, plain and simple......has nothing to do with any one player
RAGE FFA did, in fact, have warchats
was there hundreds of players in it.....not, we didn't have hundreds of players, LOL

2. i call bs......any clan i've played in in ffa restarted during wars...yes, even back in the days when numbers of countries were unlimited

3. no FA'ing? ......really think ffa'ers don't know how?
or is this an assumption because you didn't know about it:P


again, all three assumptions are based on what you saw in the 1a ffa'er clan, which was totally caused by poor leadership
NOT poor warriors

ok, where to start

lemme start with RAGE FFA

your under a total misconception as to what a "war minister" is actually responsible for in ffa
all RAGE needed you to do was to identify targets, post 'em....and..umm.......identify more targets, LOL

I mean, c'mon, really....did you actually think having rom and cele fighting for kill count, along with the likes of wack, dd, lorrie, and a dozen others getting their fair share, counts as being "a great war minister"????

i am by no means saying you were bad at what you were asked to do....but having played in 1a myself, as well, war minister in 1a is as totally different from ffa, as being a great war player is for the two servers
different requirements...simple as that
no
not compareable, really

and being good at one, does not mean you'll be good on the other server, either
can you be......yes
but it's certainly not a given


there is no "myth" about great war players in ffa
to me, it's real
just like there's bad war players in ffa
and the exact same statement fits 1a

Fooglmog
Member Jul 29th, 2006 0:26
I am, admittedly, biased against the war prowess of FFA players. This stems in large part from the fact that when I played FFA I knew very little of war, but believed I excelled at it. I even convinced others, in a fairly large FFA alliance (Rage), that I excelled at it. This falsehood obviously taints the lens through which I study other FFAers (I expect them to be as I once was).

But despite my bias, the evidence seems concrete. Netters Anonymous, an alliance formed almost exclusively former FFA players and was the largest on the server, fell like a sack of potatoes, barely putting up a fight.

At the outset of the war, I was asked by a friend, for my analysis of what would happen during this war. I stated, among other things, that dyNAsty would put out a disappointing performance. I listed the following reasons:

1. FFA alliances had no need for warchats. With 15 countries to a player there was no need to organize more then a handful of members at a time. Thus, dyNAsty would be unable to organize their mass of numbers into effective kill runs and their hits would be sporadic.

2. FFA players have little experience restarting. With 15 countries there was rarely any need to create new ones when they were killed. One simply continued the war with their remaining countries. Thus, the dyNAsty restart rate would be low and the restarts that were created would be ineffective. (I also know that for a time it was impossible to create FFA countries mid-reset. I do not know if this continued until the closing of FFA, however if it did, it adds to the fact that FFAers would have little experience in this area)

3. FFA players have little experience with real FA, thus dyNAsty would be unable to bring in allies. Politics are the heart of 1A, without being politically attuned to the entire game an alliance doesn't survive there. In FFA all that seems to have mattered is numbers. Thus, dyNAsty would be unable to bring any allies into this war to aid them and negate the MD/MET FS advantage.

On my first point, I appear to have been proven correct; dyNAsty's hits have been few and far between, achieving very little (particularly in the opening days of the war).

As for my second points, indications are that I was once again correct. While it is still possible that 40 restarts will take dyNAsty prior to the end of the reset, and reign down vengeance upon the lower ranked MET and MD countries, I find this unlikely. Baring this unlikely event, I believe we can all agree that dyNAsty's restart rate has been sub-par at best.

It is only on my third point that I appear to have been in error, but even here not entirely. It took dyNAsty a long time to get allies into the fight, they were nearly crippled before anyone else joined in. They also appear to have been unable to organize their allies to join the fight all at once. Alliances seem to have joined the war in a piecemeal manner, allowing MET and MD to cope with them individually instead of suffering a massive counter-attack all at once. So, while dyNAsty should be commended for finding more allies than I would have expected, their inability to organize their allies or bring them into the fight quickly has been a serious drawback.

Regardless, on points 1 and 2, the points most obviously relating to skill in war, the shortcomings of a majority FFA alliance were not only predictable, they were predicted.

This war is, to my knowledge, the largest of any conflicts where 1A and FFA players have fought. While this single incident cannot be taken as proof that FFA players are not, as reputation would have them, masters of war. This war, along with the fact that the areas in which FFA players would fall short in war were predicted, can be taken as strong evidence against the idea the FFA players are superior in this regard.

What was the point of this point you ask?

Quite simply, I want to hear no more tosh about FFA players being in some manner superior in the art of war. It is a myth, and it will remain a myth until you actions in game would seem to demonstrate otherwis

Fooglmog
Member Jul 29th, 2006 0:26
In the spring of 2000, I was given a position that would change my career in Earth 2025 forever. I was made Secretary of War in Rage FFA. I was given charge of all things related in killing in one of the largest alliances on the FFA server.

While in that position, I fought two wars. During these wars I posted on the clan forums stating that certain countries needed to die. And long behold, within hours they would be dead. Even the mighty UCN of 1A (an alliance I had been in only a few months before during their war with SoL) couldn't achieve kills at the rate I was achieving them. I was a master of war, and, if not the very best than, one of the best players in the game... at least as far as war was concerned.

In august of that year, unable to keep up with the number of countries one was required to play to be a major player, I left both Rage and FFA behind. My intention was to take my obvious talent for war to 1A where my skills (and reputation) would no doubt bring me to a similar position as that I had possessed in Rage FFA.

Within days of joining the 1A server I received a recruitment message from a name I recognized from FFA, Beltshumeltz. He was starting a new alliance called "Imaginary Numbers" whose whole purpose would be to bring war and destruction to whomever they desired. Perfect, I joined at once.

I didn't rise as quickly as I may have hoped. Beltshumeltz seemed reluctant to take my assurances that I was one of the greatest war leaders in the game as face value, and refused me the position of Head of War that I requested. Regardless, I made a home for myself in iMagNum.

It was here that I began to get a more real image of war. I watched as my small alliance, first under Beltshumeltz then under a succession of other leaders struggled to be organized during war. At first I scoffed at them all, knowing that I could do better (after all, look what I'd done in Rage). Over time however, I began having conversations with these same leaders I had scoffed at. I began to realize that they knew things about war I had no clue about, which in turn led me to wonder how I could run wars better then these people who were so much more knowledgeable than I.

Eventually the truth dawned on me; War is very much more difficult in 1A.

In the early summer of 2001, I became the head of War in iMagNum. A position I held proudly for 3 years. Since then, I've been in the war departments of Lust, TIE, Dominion, Vengeance, KoS and a slew of others.

During these almost six years since I switched from FFA to 1A I have constantly heard said something which I firmly believe to be a myth. The FFA players are better at war than 1A players. When I first started in 1A, I'd hear this and say "damn right". As I learned more, I began to doubt this idea. And eventually, I grew to believe that the concept was absolutely absurd.

And yet, the "Myth of the FFA Warrior" continues today. Even here, on UMET I've heard it said that the "FFA Alliances" (as in alliances in which most of the membership recently played in FFA) would win wars against alliances whose core members came from 1A. Claims such as "FFAers are crazy about war" or "love war more than anything else" seem inseparable from these claims.

And yet I wonder, where's the evidence of this?

anti-break

doesn't make sense?...then you say "every one of us wants" them to stop, yet NO ONE, SF, nor her police(if there is any, lol) has DONE anything
really?...so ignoring the problem makes it go away?
RAGE or RAGE's police would have trounced untags ang false tags simply because it was OUR war, not someone elses, and having someone else STEAL our kills was simply unthinkable

verbally claiming you want them to stop, w/o ACTUALLY doing a thing about it means you tacitly approve
simple as that

with all the kills done by untags and false tags, I'd actually say your victory is pretty hollow

just one mans' opinion=)

your not getting it, are you, Walding?

by not HELPING kill off the imposters, you LOOK like you condone and support them
every time you or others come and try to wash your hands of them you end up seeming like they are, in fact, part of some grand plan

doesn't mean it's a fair conclusion
doesn't mean it's an accurate conclusion


but it IS the perception
and perception is most of reality

be nice Rico:P

OMG
easily the biggest crock of bullfluff i've seen on these boards since i came back
don't worry, tho, i'm sure there's at least one moron who buys the angle that YOUR leaderships' mistake is the NBK polices' fault

just fluffing WOW

k, thanks

is he still around, per chance?

so it's ok if all of TKO changes tags to NBK....

IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR?


absolutely amazing!!

really?
and what tag am i in......??

back in the day, cheaters.......i mean tag jumpers...would be throttled by the policing clan without prejudice

is this not the way it is in todays earth?

every ranking ever made has a personal bias built in

this one is no different

there once was a man from nantucket.....