Glad to hear that. I also appreciate your technological knowledge which is vast (I kinda looked up your posting history,sorry). Oh, and @Salvos_Rhoska, “NO, THIS IS NOT ANOTHER OF MY ALTS”…
1 Like
vs
First you said “infobox where players must”
Then you claimed “never said the box was required”
You claiming you never said it was required (you did, with “must”) is a lie and false.
Own it.
Wasn’t this about like 1 million posts ago?*
Surely we’ve moved onto other issues by now. Like someone has lint in their belly button or something of similar criticality.
'* 1 million may be a slight exaggeration
1 Like
No, its recent.
You said you would call people on falsehood and lies without bias.
I said I would hold you to that.
Do so now then.
PS: Its within the last ten posts, disregarding irrelevant gish.
I think you’ll find that isn’t even close to accurate.
What I said was that the issue of not considering the use of locator agents by nullsec groups to track enemy FCs, was no surprise, since it isn’t something many people need to consider at all.
I indicated that issue was of such little importance that if someone raised a similarly unimportant issue of mechanics use and you hadn’t considered the possibility, I’d also point out how that wouldn’t be a surprise, so not a failing on your part.
This, “he said what on what character” is nothing similar.
Wrong issue.
Read below:
vs
First you said “infobox where players must”
Then you claimed “never said the box was required”
You claiming you never said it was required (you did, with “must”) is a lie and false.
Ok, wrong issue.
Still thought it was like a million posts ago. Apparently it was much less.
Knock yourself out. This thread will go to complete ■■■■ fast now, so time for me to go look for another thread.
1 Like
Wardec discussion HERE.
The “Salvos doesn’t understand things” thread is over THERE :
Helping Salvos Rhoska catch those evildoers
I feel sorry for the moderator who will have to do overtime because @Salvos_Rhoska doesn’t really get it…
So you will not hold to your claim, that you would impartially call out lies and falsehood as I demonstrated above regarding Majors claims in his posts.
Im not surprised.
Your attempts to conflate with “million posts ago” and “another issue” are transparent and weak.
Quote where I wrote that Salvos.
In the absence of that, my understanding of what I wrote is just a couple of posts up.
Whatever Scipio.
Its clear to me you are a dishonest poster.
Im not surprised.
Nowhere, even once yet, have you addressed the lie in Majors posting.
Go ahead and go elsewhere.
The one thing I’m not, is dishonest.
So I’ll go find the quote and post it myself, since you can’t (as your claim doesn’t exist).
Then I’ll gladly call out a liar and it is you.
Edit:
This post is the start of the issue:
This is the specific one where I wrote it wasn’t a surprise:
This is the one where I wrote that on a similar issue I’d take the same view, even if you were the one that didn’t know about the mechanics:
Nothing at all about calling people out for falsehoods or lies. Purely about not everyone knowing everything about the game and that’s no surprise, no matter who it is on some mechanics issues.
So, I’m not dishonest at all and you clearly are a liar.
2 Likes
See below:
vs
First you said “infobox where players must”
Then you claimed “never said the box was required”
You claiming you never said it was required (you did, with “must”) is a lie and false.
Address that lie.
This thread is spiraling off topic like a Sharknado.
That’s still flying during a war, just in a different area.
Teaching someone to only risk what they can afford to risk is a problem… got it… so everybody should spend as much as they can to fit bling bling ships they’re not used to flying and can’t afford to replace so you can blow them up and they quit faster due to not having anything?
War decs still have an issue. They are the only event in the game that you can decide to force onto someone else and they can not decide to force you out of it.
It’s actually pretty funny if you consider this thread.
We started with accountability for ceo’s and other people, switched to the one piece there is no accountability for, and then it’s degraded into who can insult who faster and more often to end the topic.
Saw a non-structure solution in another thread. If you declare war… then don’t fight… it ends. Which really makes sense if you think about it in those terms alone. Is a war that nobody has ever fought a single battle for really a war?
Yes, I suppose.
A Cold War.
Wardec mechanics are a separate issue to what people do with them, or the capacity of CEOs to wage them or defend their corp against them.
Psychological warfare could be one way?
Wars are mostly fine wth the exception of better tools to incentivize hunting over hub camping, evading decs by creating new corps constantly or dropping to npc, and maybe some kind of win condition. There are other issues and points to consider but those are my big 3.
1 Like
Same ones here. Hunting has no incentive as a defender. Evading (both as attacker and defender) is effortless. And the “win” condition is non-existent on both sides.
So what if the cost to continue a war was based on you actually fighting it?
Kills make the cost go down, losses make the cost go up, and doing nothing just makes concord mad and demand a bigger bribe?
The Cold War was fought with proxies
I.e. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and many more…
So a forum war…
1 Like