Jump to content

Treaty


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I guess when all three Orders don't fit you, gotta go and make your own hist101.png

 

If you're taking this to mean that somehow we're now "on your side", you are so far beyond the point of no return in your sanity that no amount of medication or therapy can bring you back.

 

We signed a treaty with Non Grata.  Not Doombird Doomcave.  Not Supernova X.  Protip: smug satisfaction only really works when you actually have something to be smug and satisfied about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some consider it in bad taste to leave your alliance and immediately have something bad to say about them.


i don't really see why it's in bad taste to be straight up about things, especially since this is the treaty that caused him to choose to leave the alliance. i have bad shit to say about everybody. if you don't have anything bad to say about a person or grouping, you don't know them well enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really see why it's in bad taste to be straight up about things, especially since this is the treaty that caused him to choose to leave the alliance. i have bad !@#$ to say about everybody. if you don't have anything bad to say about a person or grouping, you don't know them well enough.

 

I actually think I agree with you on this.  Just because you have some bad shit to say about someone, doesn't necessarily mean you should.  Sometimes common courtesy is the better and more practical option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why, because I joined Doomsphere first?

I view the signing of Oculus & now this to represent the further diminishing influence of Doomsphere, rather than the strengthening of it.

 

If Oculus was beholden to Doomsphere, Doom would be the hegemony. However Oculus is an entity of its own and could get away with rolling most alliances who are part of this Doomsphere you perceive yourself to be part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd call it a respect match, but hey, the OWF thinks what it will so don't let me rain on your collective hate parade  :popcorn:


When you hit someone in the next little while and you drag Polar in with you, I'm going to repost the shit out of this. Edited by Margrave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really see why it's in bad taste to be straight up about things, especially since this is the treaty that caused him to choose to leave the alliance. i have bad !@#$ to say about everybody. if you don't have anything bad to say about a person or grouping, you don't know them well enough.

 

I don't think I really need to spell out how making a statement in public isn't the same as respectfully disagreeing.

Edited by Master Holton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I really need to spell out how making a statement in public isn't the same as respectfully disagreeing.


because people take this !@#$ way too seriously and have anger problems?

$%&@ everyone except me

especially you <3 Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're taking this to mean that somehow we're now "on your side", you are so far beyond the point of no return in your sanity that no amount of medication or therapy can bring you back.

 

We signed a treaty with Non Grata.  Not Doombird Doomcave.  Not Supernova X.  Protip: smug satisfaction only really works when you actually have something to be smug and satisfied about.

Here I am agreeing with a Polar...Junka..just step back..you greatly overvalue yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I really need to spell out how making a statement in public isn't the same as respectfully disagreeing.


I think you do need to spell it out. Colour me intrigued, but I think a public statement is very capable of being respectfully disagreeing. Very much like a public statement can be disrespectfully agreeing or just plain disrespectful or just plain respectful -- or even neither. A public statement can carry absolutely any tone it's intended to carry.

I have to respectfully disagree with your public statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I really need to spell out how making a statement in public isn't the same as respectfully disagreeing.

Quite honestly, I'd be quite happy to see everyone's opinion publicly. The world needs more public opinion, stand on your soapbox and preach, every single one of you reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because people take this !@#$ way too seriously and have anger problems?

$%&@ everyone except me

especially you <3

 

:wub: Glad to have you back in the world.

 

Here I am agreeing with a Polar...Junka..just step back..you greatly overvalue yourself...

 

Yes... Yes... Let the Blue flow through you...

 

I think you do need to spell it out. Colour me intrigued, but I think a public statement is very capable of being respectfully disagreeing. Very much like a public statement can be disrespectfully agreeing or just plain disrespectful or just plain respectful -- or even neither. A public statement can carry absolutely any tone it's intended to carry.

I have to respectfully disagree with your public statement.

 

This is actually a good example of respectfully disagreeing. :)

 

Quite honestly, I'd be quite happy to see everyone's opinion publicly. The world needs more public opinion, stand on your soapbox and preach, every single one of you reading this.

 

Meta-discussion - I would be excited to see more out-in-the-open politics happen. It's really a shame that the most interesting stuff happens between less than 100 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meta-discussion - I would be excited to see more out-in-the-open politics happen. It's really a shame that the most interesting stuff happens between less than 100 people.


The implication here is that it's the same grouping of people who always make the most interesting stuff happen but I don't believe that to be the case. Many moves are reactionary by the largest bodies, especially recently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A common enemy can be a powerful force in uniting alliances, its very possible both are using each other for a mutual goal. Where that goal lies is yet to be see, but if Oculus' goal is to establish themselves as the current Hegemony without leaving any doubts; I can imagine where this is leading.

Indeed a common enemy can be a powerful force in unification of alliances. However when dislike for one another exceeds the amount of dislike for that common enemy things become more difficult. That, and not recognizing who that enemy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication here is that it's the same grouping of people who always make the most interesting stuff happen but I don't believe that to be the case. Many moves are reactionary by the largest bodies, especially recently.

I'm of the opinion that if we were to do in public what is decided in back channels on IRC or Skype, we'd live in a far more interesting world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...