Dáil Éireann

And Coleman, I know you're very busy and active in the game. I've learned that the last thing an emerging group of any kind should do is start a new forum. There are so many, one for every aspect of your life. That's why use of them is so down around the world, because everyone's got a freaking forum, and they all require activity.

That's why I asked Colby if we could set up the School of Individualist Studies here, so there wouldn't be one more forum to start up and abandon again. A "university" has the potential to expand and adapt. The very fact that we could start this thread in the School of Political Science is proof of this.

I'll never tell people to abandon what they're doing and come here, but I do get it that not every group needs their own unique forum for which people register, set up their profiles, and jump through whatever hoops the admins of that forum have for them every single time.

I'm not one for tip toeing around issues, boudicca. If you saw my other post in thread "Death of the National Forum" I made it quite clear that I give no consideration to pride, ego or feelings when I lay out a situation; you can ask every CP who has appointed me as MoD (from all parties), I am far from a Yes Man - my job is to express the bare reality of situations for my colleagues to make informed decisions - no Irish government has had the luxury of being naive, and those who commit hubris always fall flat on their arse. 

1) If you have to hide your opinion, you're either afraid of ridicule and know you lack a proper defence or you believe publishing your thoughts in the open would worsen a situation you wish to avoid - to the latter, providing you start the article with (paraphrasing) "Looking for discussion; I am opened minded, and in no way seek to promote disobeying the standing orders" then you'll be fine providing the first state of conditions I described isn't the factor stopping you expressing your opinion.

2) To start off: MU Commanders are on board, simply DO will automatically switch to Irish battles - unless the Commander or Captain is online to change it, a few will do their fights there. For bootcamp, its encouraged Div 1 and Div 2 players seek TP medals. Their contribution to the RW wouldn't effect the outcome in the way Div 3 and Div 4 could, and the benefits to Div 1 and Div 2 are far more significant given the lower amount of damage needed for them to reach TP medals. In short; Div 3 and 4 are discouraged to take part in RWs to allow Div 1 and 2 the opportunity. Lastly: Its not "my" idea, this was formulated and approved by PPs, Ministers and CP. 

3) Why would it be patronising? Thats the kind of rubbish I'm talking about - should I say it more softy? The substance is the same. Opposing a truthful stance because the speaker hurt your feelings is hardly objective thinking is it? It is textbook ego and pride.
I'll quote my statement I made in the School of Individualist Studies:


4) If I come across as waving my dick because I know game mechanisms thoroughly, its only because I have to make people shallow their pride before they get the message. I do not have a monopoly on skill or knowledge in this game, but did I learn by someone stroking my ego when I got something wrong? No, in front of masses, my mistakes were pointed out bluntly - or our military tactics would fail and consequences for the community would be on my head. Its not an "opinion" when it comes to game mechanisms, they are clear cut, you're either right or you're wrong. 

I concede that the resentment borne from experts in the metagame dominating the political scene is rampant in Ireland. I certainly concede when the Patriots were in their prime, they went to great effort to discourage and keep an exclusive hold on the talent and competent players of the country. But the problem arises from what you've pointed out, hurt prides taking an opposed stance, not for merit or objective reasons, but purely personal. And Ireland has paid the price for the consequences of that slippery slope! We have a generation of upcoming politicians who have not learned the metagame as if by adopting the metagame, they would be acknowledging their rivals accomplishments.
 
5) Again, I do not hold monopoly on skill or knowledge - but I am deferred to alot because I'm a willing teacher (and often keep it private). I am also MoD because no one else steps up, I would happily let someone else do it, its not a case of me thinking I'm the only one who can do it.

6) I thought it was a ILP opinion on Spain; I swore no one else in the country believed its futile to improve the odds, even if the odds are bad. I'll quote my message I sent on this topic:

You have highlighted the strategy of attrition - as I was coordinating that military offensive, I am aware of the costs needed to maintain it; it was unsustainable against the UK. Spain has higher local damage due to a larger population, RWs against Spain would cost more than against the UK - which was unsustainable to begin with. As you said, you defer to those who are informed - I am the most informed of our capabilities at this moment in time. 

MPP battles are not winnable against either Spain or the UK due to TWO's overwhelming power in local (MPP/DO) power, but no other TWO country other than the UK, can set Irish RWs as DO. They rely on elite mobile troops and mercenaries to deploy - and in that arena, TWO is not overwhelming powerful. They are stronger, but not unbeatable - we have proved that in our RWs. How often have you missed a mobile battle and just fought in the DO? Spain is no different, a smaller % of their population would deploy as mobiles. That is an improvement of the odds, and it holds better odds than Spain taking regions and us starting RWs (in which all Spain MUs could set Irish RW as a DO). When we were in EDEN, EDEN wasn't the most powerful alliance either, but it was the most coordinated - thats how it managed to win, by improving the odds at ever point possible.

The only opinion in that statement is "They are stronger, but not unbeatable" - the rest is held in game mechanisms. It is impossible to set the DO for a RW in a country your country isn't involved with - its an advantage which is perfectly usable.

Attack the substance Boudicca if you are able, the talk of ego is misplaced - there are plenty of opportunities where my expertise fails and I have to learn from it - but certainly I am confident. I've never claimed to be flawless, but obviously when you've been forced into command roles through the years I don't think its a sketch to imagine that you might pick up a trick or two on the way. 

Then re-read the post. I'm saying there are two reasons why you would not publish your opinions in public in response to your quote


I've talked about isolated opinion being the plague of the country; for all the talk about open debate etc, how do you justify sitting in isolation asserting your claims? I gave two reasons why you might not make your opinions public - 1) you're afraid of ridicule because you lack a sufficient argument or 2) you believe making your opinion public would worsen a situation and you're being mindful.  It was a question, not a statement; the latter (point 2) I said you needn't fear that providing you open an article with disclaimer that you want some open debate on the issue, and do not seek to provoke hostilities within the community.

If you cannot differentiate pride from confidence, or ego from competence, then its a futile discussion - out of all the diverse governments I've worked with, if there was ever a criticism is was that I was too honest to the point of skepticism and demoralizing; which I can't help, MoFA deals with opinions and MoD deals with the calculus of war. But as I said, if I believe my asserts hold more weight than your own, its not my ego, its my knowledge outweighing your own - you've already stated you lack knowledge in my area, the attack on my person highlights it - would you do not defer to my judgement because I've not put a fluffy lining around my words and be gentle with your own pride? If you wish to acknowledge that we have something in common, I do not hold back my opinions and assertions.


The strategy of attrition is only valid in some cases.
You're going to have to believe that I know what I'm talking about - partly because you've admitted lacking thorough knowledge and the fact I've been the man overseeing the campaign against the UK. Its not ego talking, its not pride (I certainly did not enjoy staying up all day and night supplying for each RW), there are three people in the country who have had hands on experience with the recent conflict with the UK - myself, Brian Boru and Sweet Drinker. I don't mean just fighting, shouting, publishing orders etc etc. Do you know how much it costs per million for a Div 3 merc? Given the limited availability of anti-TWO mercs, how do you get them to join your supply channel without asking for payment? With our limited MPP stack and bad international standing, how do we get help from other countries? TWO's elite mobile unit are hitting T60 every round, we lack a strong enough Irish presence to counter, what do we do? We have limited funds, what do we do? Our tanks are running out, what do we do? The UK is hiring mercs, the UK is opening drain wars, TWO is NEing our main ally and taking our support away, scammers are attempting to nick tanks from the supply channel, spies are feeding our tactics back to the UK command, saboteurs are spamming our supply channels and supply forms for Irish MUs, tanks are being removed from the Irish market and prices rising, not all Irish MUs are fighting in the same battle, some Irish are fighting against us, I've been supplying for 13 hours straight - I'm tired - where is my replacement? etc etc..

I'm not sure many people are aware of the commitment needed for a single RW, hence I'm very skeptical of anyone thinking its a simple business. But now I've said that, attrition - if you ever say "it works in rl" stop that line of thought, RL has no bearings. When we fight wars of attrition, our funds are far more likely to run out before the UK's - and because they and their alliance (I never assume 1v1, don't talk out of your arse, if I don't say UK and TWO the only assumption is that I think its too obvious to point out) outgun us and our allies in damage, they do not need to spend as much as us to equal the playing field. We spend quicker and have less to spend. These wars have been a battle of attrition, that was government's aim for the last two months, but its inaccurate to say "attrition of resources". It was attrition of UK's pride. They kept having to ask TWO HQ for aid in putting down a small country of 150 active, and each time barely managed it - TWO HQ wasn't going to put up with spending resources on keeping useless regions and they certainly weren't going to look on the UK with favour if they can't beat lil old Ireland. The peace deal came about because they didn't want to mess with TWO HQ's objectives by focusing on us.

It was unsustainable because we lacked the funds to continue it indefinitely - you are unaware of the cost, I say that with certainty because I've never disclosed the costs for obvious reason of not wanting it public for the UK to see during peace talks. You are talking around 3000 Q7 tanks and over 200 000 cc per RW in the latest battles with the UK - those weren't government funds either, unless you're sitting on a jackpot that you're willing to share, that sort of spending was unsustainable. The UK had to plunder their own reserves, but their reserves are deeper than ours. If you wanted to win a MPP battle in our current state, you'd likely need 5x that number.

I'm not talking in speculation, I was hands on. I also study battle stats using egov and battlewatcher - knowing the ins and outs of our enemy is not something you know by guessing - do you dispute?

The timing of operations is exactly what took place - but because of TWO overwhelming power in MPP battles - due to TWO holding the majority of the world's damage - when the UK attacked the US, they didn't have to set it as CoTD because 1) US barely fought back and 2) US was getting hit everywhere so the UK could focus on us with their full force. Alternatively, we also opened a RW in Wales, Poland - but Poland is big enough to deal with it without the UK taking part. During the current situations, there has been no solid drainage battle for us to exploit other than battles TWO HQ wanted the UK to fight in - which the UK response was to put those battles in public orders and then supply against our battles on #MoD because they're all about the show. You have some knowledge of tactics, and that is exactly what we would do in the UK's case but its not as applicable to Spain. 

Do you understand what I mean by local damage? UK has less citizens than Spain. Those UK citizens are mostly located in the UK, and Spain visa versa. If a RW happens in the UK, only those located in the UK can take part. Visa versa for Spain. The difference is that Spain has more citizens readily available, without movement required, to take part in the RW compared to the UK. The strategy involving beating Spain in a mobile battle (UK RW) to remove a border instead of facing a  NE and MPP battle, exploits the fact its a logistical nightmare to move the entire population of Spain as mobiles for a battle they can't set as DO. Its not 1v1 which is the factor being considered, there is no such thing, its the difficulty of coordination which is being used to undermine Spain's strength in direct MPP conflict. And comes back to the idea of local damage, a RW in Spain is going to have more static damage from the local population poured into a Spanish RW than static damage from the UK population poured into a British RW. Spanish RWs would cost more to win than UK RWs for that simple fact - if you dispute, ask France or Germany which was easier - RWing back regions from the UK or Poland.

From the other thread, I think its obvious you're unsure what "metagame" means. But I've yet to address that thread, so you'll just have to look it up. 

It was to educate.

And yes, when I have attacked your person its to point out that you're not addressing the substance of my argument and instead me (I certainly have not started the discussion talking about egos and pride, have I?). The misplaced patriotism and bubble of fantasy wasn't directed at yourself, it was a general comment I'd concluded when I've seen ill-informed players making assertions without bothering to check if their argument's foundation is built on stone or sand. Talking out of your arse was aimed at you, because you had the audacity to presume the intentions of another human being - I wasn't assuming a 1v1 conflict, and I haven't told you that I believe you're assuming this or that - I have no idea what you're assuming, I simply kept to my own knowledge.

Its a public forum. British eyes would see it if a large number of Irish joined the forum, they'd follow the activity. And if we speculate that not enough Irish joined the forum, that limited opinion pool isn't going to represent the consensus of the nation - making the purpose of the discussion void. The Irish media has housed information that we do not want Cork because of Spain, while the Brit think we're letting them keep Cork as a show of commitment to the peace deal... I think your opinion in the public view will be fine.

I've made a post explaining it more thoroughly in the School of Individualism, so no, you can just read my post. As the university purpose is to educate, I'm contributing.

I don't care if you're impressed or not, not my objective to please; you weren't as informed, I'm informing you (but you don't make it easy). I shouldn't have to appease your pride in the process, you should have the grace to accept criticism and correction; my expertise doesn't expend to economy or community based activities (Im also very reliant on the MoFA team to tell me where I can direct troops), but I don't threaten disloyalty to the country each time I'm corrected. I'm a solider of Ireland, and loyal no matter the weather or people in government. My attitude is against righteous roleplayers who play this game to fulfill their need for attention and lack the modestly to learn - I don't know you well enough to judge, but my ferocity is a safe guard in case you are.

The criteria is common sense, the "no MU policy" is just a susgestion, and is the absolute. E.G if someone applies and say something like "I wnt Irish cz so i cn PTO you looooool" and they aren't in a MU you obviously don't accept them.

Onto other news, an MPP with Bulgaria is now up for a vote. I'm holding back on my vote, waiting to see a little debate before I make a decision.