Why are you reading this?

Thank you for this, hopefully now both sides will stop with this nonsense.

You're a coward for posting this blog.

Panfilo is a coward

Well said, Lamuella. Unfortunately, I doubt the PR slingers are going to take these words to heart. What cowards they are.

I agree completely with this blog. Nevertheless, in the PR war, as in advertising, emotion wins out more than reason. I suspect it will continue to happen on both sides.

For my part, it's basically impossible not to want to say horrible horrible things about Legion. :3

Deal with it?

u mad?

What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.

I mean, you know, your previous blog kinda runs counter to this one.

I can totally understand charging reps in the event of an unprovoked attack or a bandwagon. But, you know, those of us with treaties, who had an obligation, why is GOONS seeking to punish honor?

It was one of the things I was happy to see largely done away with after Karma, being fined for having honor. You know?

What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.

I mean, you know, your previous blog kinda runs counter to this one.

I can totally understand charging reps in the event of an unprovoked attack or a bandwagon. But, you know, those of us with treaties, who had an obligation, why is GOONS seeking to punish honor?

It was one of the things I was happy to see largely done away with after Karma, being fined for having honor. You know?

Don't !@#$%* about this. You and your allies are guilty of the same thing. Change yourself before you try to change others.

Don't !@#$%* about this. You and your allies are guilty of the same thing. Change yourself before you try to change others.

In an ancient era, perhaps.

I've personally gone to the two entities who I ever charged from (Something that was done under the ill direction of the Old Hegemony, mind you) and apologized for those instances; One day when I'm not at war I'm going to outright repay what I took. And I'm never going to do it again. See, I have changed.

Regardless, it hasn't happened since Karma, and those who did it paid their dues in that war. It's been 2 years, it's incredibly thin for you to bring up ancient past to justify acts done today.

Its in the GOONS charter (Or some other document) that GOONS is asking for reps from anyone who attacks them, IIRC.

Well said Lamuella, well said.

What I am curious to know, however, is why GOONS has elected to reward cowardice and punish honor, by charging reps from those who entered on treaty.

hey, you see that point where I said the word "coward" was massively overused?

and that point where you agreed with me?

a very quick addendum to this:

The fact that I don't think the use of peace mode is by its nature cowardly doesn't mean that I think the way the NPO side are using peacemode is particularly good tactics.

In the early part of the war, where they peacemoded everyone except those in range of GOONS, that wasn't a cowardly tactic, but it wasn't an effective tactic either. The people who joined this war stated they were joining with the aim of protecting NPO, and then proceded to do absolutely nothing to the people who were causing the greatest amount of damage to NPO. The purpose of a counterstrike is surey to neutralize or negate the initial strike, and the GOONS dogpile really did nothing of the kind.

Later uses of peacemode, such as Legion's placing of 99% of their NS into peacemode, also strike me as sincerely bad strategy. Opting out of the war doesn't thwart your enemies, it just lets down your allies. In terms of day to day effects on their allies' cause, Legion might as well have surrendered, with the added disadvantage that as time goes on and their allies obtain peace, a larger and larger pool of combatants are waiting for them to leave peacemode.

I don't think this is born of cowardice, just ineptitude.

Honestly, I wish people would just wage PR campaigns that make sense. Repeating shrill insults twice a day a thread does not help your cause. It actually makes you and your cause look very bad.

Most 'strong' words - cowards, honor, hypocrites - don't even have the same strength as they're just so badly used in propaganda. I find it a little funny that some people actually got their propaganda spot on the first time, but then degenerated into so much trolling that they nullified the original effect of their own propaganda. Credibility is the most important thing in playing the PR game, and trolling is the fastest way to burn your own credibility.

hey, you see that point where I said the word "coward" was massively overused?

and that point where you agreed with me?

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.

Yep, this blog is correct.

This war isn't like Karma, where the Coalition of Cowards moniker actually had some truth behind it.

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.

OK, let me try again by giving a one sentence summing up of my position about "cowardice"

"People should shut up about 'cowardice' because it's boring as hell"

thus, your earlier post about us "Rewarding cowardice and punishing honour" or whatever the hell you said, was boring as hell.

Regardless of circumstances, calling someone who is fighting a 'coward' is just silly. They may be fighting because of a treaty, an insult, an unprovoked attack or the desire to hop on a bandwagon. The important thing is that they're fighting.

The real cowards are those who duck a fight when they really shouldn't. And thus I consider 'cowardice', in terms of CN, to be something that is highly individual. An alliance may adopt a cowardly policy with respect to backing up an ally, but that does not necessarily make them all "cowards".

In those instances where alliances have refused to honor treaties for one reason or another, we have seen many cases where individual members have opted to defend their friends rather than stay 'loyal' to their alliance. There have also been occasions when members of various alliances have stayed within their group while criticizing their leadership over a lack of resolve. Thus, "coward" is misapplied when used to refer to an alliance.

I realize that this is all a matter of semantics. Then again, that would describe most disagreements on Planet Bob.

My use of "coward" applies to any alliance who might have chosen to neglect their treaty obligations. I can't think of any in the DH/NPO war. But theoretically, if there were, they wouldn't be charged an Honor Fee by GOONS, only those who honored their treaties are getting charged.

"Alliances that don't attack GOONS don't get charged reps."

Yes, that is quite accurate.

Regardless of circumstances, calling someone who is fighting a 'coward' is just silly. They may be fighting because of a treaty, an insult, an unprovoked attack or the desire to hop on a bandwagon. The important thing is that they're fighting.

The real cowards are those who duck a fight when they really shouldn't. And thus I consider 'cowardice', in terms of CN, to be something that is highly individual. An alliance may adopt a cowardly policy with respect to backing up an ally, but that does not necessarily make them all "cowards".

In those instances where alliances have refused to honor treaties for one reason or another, we have seen many cases where individual members have opted to defend their friends rather than stay 'loyal' to their alliance. There have also been occasions when members of various alliances have stayed within their group while criticizing their leadership over a lack of resolve. Thus, "coward" is misapplied when used to refer to an alliance.

I realize that this is all a matter of semantics. Then again, that would describe most disagreements on Planet Bob.

I agree with this.

Disagree with Lamuella's revised position, as it serves as a claim that cowardice simply doesn't exist, as opposed to the idea that it is simply being misapplied to participants in the current conflict (I initially thought his position was the latter).

wow, that's like the third time in a row that you've misinterpreted my position. You should probably quit now before you hit four.

Why exactly did you think it was a good idea, in a blog post about how accusations of cowardice are becoming frightening boring and poorly used, to start whining about entirely imaginary acts of cowardice?

Quite obviously I never said that cowardice doesn't exist. I even gave examples of behaviour I considered cowardly. However, I also said that accusing others of cowardice was irritating when there are many other accusations to use, especially when you use the accusation poorly. I've no idea why you used this as an opportunity to jump on a soapbox about "cowardice" for the nine billionth time in your life.

Sometimes I don't know why I bloody bother. This is Cyber Nations, of COURSE a blog post that starts "of all the words thrown around in this war, I think the most irritating must be "coward"" is going to degenerate into HeroOfTime making ludicrous accusations about GOONS. Hell, a discussion about which restaurant serves the best baby back ribs is going to degenerate into HeroOfTime making ludicrous accusations about GOONS.

Oooooh, there was this place called "Uncle Pete's" near my town that sold REALLY GOOD baby back ribs. I didn't care for their mashed potatoes though.

Ball's in your court HoT.

He's just trying to star in another "It's That Guy!"

Well I guess it makes sense if GOONS considers cowardice to be a positive trait. But then you'd be wrong on that point as well, because it simply isn't, not in a moral sense, not in an honor-wise sense, and not even in an economic sense.