Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    29
  • views
    1,989

Oh TOP

Sign in to follow this  
Sir Keshav IV

281 views

Well,

This war has been going on for a month and a half now and we all have seen various arguments being debated back and forth on these boards and some of them are just silly. Here are my thoughts on a couple brought forward by the TOP/IRON co.

1) If we let the NpO-\m/ war run its course then we would have ended up like this anyways

I must say this has been one of the weakest arguments put forth by TOP/IRON co. so far. No this could have been entirely stopped if they actually worked for peace. That was a mistake TOP/IRON co. took. TOP, you didn't need to enter this war... You could have stayed neutral and supported IRON's growth post-war as any conflicted ally would do. In this case you screwed up a lot. This war was never about "supporting" NpO's cause, it was always to bloody CnG and you guys know that. The moment NpO and MK were against each other we lost our biggest ally who could match you guys statistically and you took the opportunity to hit us. Okay fine, you could have let that war run its course and even if we were fighting each other, in hindsight that would have probably been better then preemptively attack a non-belligerent bloc in the current war in support of "the right side." I agree you wanted to support IRON but you should have let the course of the war bring you in, not start a new on a invalid CB. Now that onto the CB-

2) CB Is justified, Moral Standards are a CB

No, it is not justified. TOP has no right to force moral standards on us. NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes. No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another. That is what Karma stood for.(Screw me I'm using the old Karma Line again) Moral Standards never have and will never be justifiable standards because everyone has their own set standard. It varies from alliance to alliance, bloc to bloc. for you guys hours of debating is what you want so be it. Do that yourselves, but thats not how CnG plays. We are a different group of players and you have no right to declare war on "community/moral standards."

3) CnG= Old Hegemony

Another weak argument brought up by TOP. The Old Hegemony, that name didn't come within six months or eight months. It took three whole years for NPO and co. to be labeled as a Hegemony. They were called such only because they hit others aggressively and then extorted massive amounts of reps. That was the characteristic feature about the old Hegemony which brought them that name. People had enough on being aggressively attacked that was what ended in Karma. In this case we are defending. However you argue, we are the defenders at the start of this war. We didn't hit anyone and then ask for reps, we are asking what we deserve to get back because of your preemptive strike. We didn't hit TOP then activate a dozen treaties and curbstomp TOP. We activated our Defense Pacts because frankly we were defending. We haven't done anything to compare ourselves with the old hegemony. We haven't aggressively hit alliances because we don't like them. It has never happened, so your argument cannot stand firm ground in this case.

And with that, I must end this post pretty quickly, lack of time..

EDIT: Screw me I know i'm late with compared to all the other war blogs, I never had time to write one up.

Sign in to follow this  


29 Comments


Recommended Comments



No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another...Moral Standards never have and will never be justifiable standards because everyone has their own set standard.

In order to have a negative or positive position, you have to accept a moral position, and thus a Moral standard. This is precisely what you've done and that is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. If you cared about someones ability to develop and mantain their "own set standard" you would not be critiquing Polaris for enforcing their own moral code. That's the beauty and the very essense of the moral freedom which you pretend to espouse, but are realistically diametrically opposed to.

Granted, I don't pretend to be in favor for said freedom either, but I'm also not the one hiding behind a false shroud of pseudo moral freedom.

Share this comment


Link to comment
NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes. No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another.

However, that's exactly what \m/ and PC and GOONS did when they declared on FoA.

You have no problem with these three alliances ganging up on one smaller alliance, with their only reason being "We're bigger than you, you can't stop us".

But when NpO declared on \m/ it's OMG, FAKE CB, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!

Sorry, but if your own argument is that any alliance can declare for any reason, the way that \m/ and friends did, then you can't complain about NpO following the same rules.

Well, obviously you *can* complain. Your side does all the time. But it makes no logical sense.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Polar declared on \m/ and got their butts spanked for it because Grub flunked common sense 101 back in the 3rd grade.

Come again? Polar got their butts spanked? Really, ROFL. How come i'm always the last one to find things out around here.

Share this comment


Link to comment
1) If we let the NpO-\m/ war run its course then we would have ended up like this anyways

*snip*

you are saying there that a ally should not support another ally. i think you're saying this because they aren't your allies but w/e. my advice, don't try to tell someone how to come to the aid of another ally.

2) CB Is justified, Moral Standards are a CB

*snip*

if moral standards aren't uphold then we'd all run amok around here calling each other names. which i think /m/ already did :awesome:

3) CnG= Old Hegemony

*snip*

you're right... CnG = new hegemony and, since we all know the people in there won't hurt a fly, they are pretty harmless. then again... how come CnG members always flood the boards with how evil the other side is and how they (the other side) deserve to be kept in eternal war/curbstomped etc etc?? :P

Share this comment


Link to comment

you are saying there that a ally should not support another ally. i think you're saying this because they aren't your allies but w/e. my advice, don't try to tell someone how to come to the aid of another ally.

if moral standards aren't uphold then we'd all run amok around here calling each other names. which i think /m/ already did :awesome:

you're right... CnG = new hegemony and, since we all know the people in there won't hurt a fly, they are pretty harmless. then again... how come CnG members always flood the boards with how evil the other side is and how they (the other side) deserve to be kept in eternal war/curbstomped etc etc?? :P

To address your first point: TOP had allies on our side as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't have aided IRON financially, but military aid was not needed. Oh and I just addressed TOP's point about how the war would have happened anyways if the NpO one continued.

To Address your second point: We all have our different moral standards. Its not in the hands of ONE or a GROUP of alliances to set the whole standard for this game.

To Address you third point: We never said we are keeping TOP in eternal war, nor have we curbstomped anyone.

Share this comment


Link to comment

However, that's exactly what \m/ and PC and GOONS did when they declared on FoA.

You have no problem with these three alliances ganging up on one smaller alliance, with their only reason being "We're bigger than you, you can't stop us".

But when NpO declared on \m/ it's OMG, FAKE CB, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!

Sorry, but if your own argument is that any alliance can declare for any reason, the way that \m/ and friends did, then you can't complain about NpO following the same rules.

Well, obviously you *can* complain. Your side does all the time. But it makes no logical sense.

Interesting, I have never heard of the GOONS/PC-FoA conflict apart from the corporation helping wrap peace up. That is a conflict I know nothing about sorry.

Now NpO was not a FAKE CB get that right. Its just an invalid justification being used.

I'm sorry, I guess nothing written by us considered logical because its not o/ TOP right? Nice.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Interesting, I have never heard of the GOONS/PC-FoA conflict apart from the corporation helping wrap peace up. That is a conflict I know nothing about sorry.

The corporation went to FoA and said "Hey, 3 of our allies are kicking your butts, but if you'll be our lap dog, we'll get them to stop". And if you don't know about \m/ and GOONS and PC attacking FoA, then you don't have any idea how this war got started.

Now NpO was not a FAKE CB get that right. Its just an invalid justification being used.

NpO attacked \m/ because \m/ and friends attacked FoA. \m/ and friends had no justification for attacking FoA at all. If you're going to say it's OK for them to do that, and argue "There are no morals, everyone should be able to do what they want", then it's hypocritical to complain about NpO attacking \m/. After all, by your own rules, everyone gets to do what they want.

You said in the OP "No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another. That is what Karma stood for." But you are arguing that it was OK for \m/ and PC and GOONS to do it. If they hadn't, then NpO wouldn't have attacked them. It was a direct chain of events.

I'm sorry, I guess nothing written by us considered logical because its not o/ TOP right? Nice.

I'm not in TOP, not in IRON, not in the war, and I think that TOP/IRON were idiots for attacking the way they did.

Share this comment


Link to comment

you're right... CnG = new hegemony and, since we all know the people in there won't hurt a fly, they are pretty harmless. then again... how come CnG members always flood the boards with how evil the other side is and how they (the other side) deserve to be kept in eternal war/curbstomped etc etc?? :P

They do deserve that, how does this translate to us being hegemonic? Especially in light of that even though they deserve such harsh treatment, they're getting a lot more leniency. They might even get off with just paying a couple hundred thousand tech.

This was not an offensive move by us, we are the defenders. If you are hegemonic for defending yourself, I think most alliances are the new hegemony.

Share this comment


Link to comment

To address your first point: TOP had allies on our side as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't have aided IRON financially, but military aid was not needed. Oh and I just addressed TOP's point about how the war would have happened anyways if the NpO one continued.

To Address your second point: We all have our different moral standards. Its not in the hands of ONE or a GROUP of alliances to set the whole standard for this game.

To Address you third point: We never said we are keeping TOP in eternal war, nor have we curbstomped anyone.

if you wish to discuss that imposing your moral standards on another is wrong, then MK should not have attempted to force their moral standards on Polaris. yet they did just that. any discussion of what is right or wrong is inevitably a discussion on morals. thus, the fact that you felt Polaris was wrong in attacking \m/ is because to you, it is some moral foundation upon which you built your perception of right and wrong.

thus, you and CnG/PC/GOONS/\m/ are all pushing your own moral standard on the entire rest of us. to state you are not is false because if PC or GOONS or \m/ or Athens or FoB or any of your other allies were to raid an alliance and another third party (i.e. not allied to the victim) alliance would step in just as Polaris did, we would see ya'll do pretty much the same thing. we could even possibly see CnG be directly involved militarily in that conflict if the third party alliance is not allied to CnG as Polaris was.

now you may state that not all of CnG holds those views, but that is besides the point since CnG would be supporting those views held by a minority using military force.

thus, this whole discussion of moral standards is in and of itself, contradicting, hypocritical, and amusing. any attempt to state that no single alliance, bloc, or group of allies ever attempts to impose their moral standards on the rest of us is logically false, since every war boils down to moral standards. the fact that CnG see nothing wrong with keeping TOP at war, even for this long, shows that morally you feel justified in doing so. you feel justified in forcing your own moral standards on TOP/Co in the process. while it is true that ya'll are in fact, justified in this, it only shows that you are forcing your own moral standards on not only TOP/Co but the rest of us, who while on your side or against you, may oppose this action for one reason or another.

yet another moral standard that CnG is attempting to impose on the rest of CN is that of "preemptive attacks are wrong". while the move by TOP/co was idiotic beyond measure, this propaganda piece is one in which you (CnG) wish all to view using moralistic eyes. you wish for everyone to state that "yes it is wrong to preemptive attack and not only the aggression showed by TOP/co should be punished but more importantly it is the act of preemptive attacking CnG that makes this action even more reprehensible" style post.

so how can you claim that CnG dislikes those who force moral standards on others, when ya'll are frequently doing it and have done it since Karma. Archon, as the "Voice of Karma", used his eloquent speech to force moral standards on others. not only Archon but many in CnG did just that. in fact, the primary reasoning for the Old Heg using Karma as some sort of beacon of community standards reflects the amount of talking from the Karma side on exactly that. Community Standards and how the "Hegemony" had broken those conventions.

so if CnG, as you state, or MK at the very least, dislikes those who force their moral standards on others- do ya'll dislike yourselves?

Interesting, I have never heard of the GOONS/PC-FoA conflict apart from the corporation helping wrap peace up. That is a conflict I know nothing about sorry.

Now NpO was not a FAKE CB get that right. Its just an invalid justification being used.

I'm sorry, I guess nothing written by us considered logical because its not o/ TOP right? Nice.

again, you impose your own moral standard on whether the CB was justified or not, while supporting \m/'s/PC's/GOONS' right to aggressively attack whomever they feel like without a CB at all. this is the entire reasoning MK and Polaris ended up at odds, was MK felt that PC/GOONS/\m/ did nothing wrong (a moral standard) and that Polaris had done something wrong (yet another moral standard) and thus, wished to impose your (MK's) moral standard on Polaris by way of getting them to give peace to \m/ instead of remaining neutral in the war.

Share this comment


Link to comment

They do deserve that, how does this translate to us being hegemonic? Especially in light of that even though they deserve such harsh treatment, they're getting a lot more leniency. They might even get off with just paying a couple hundred thousand tech.

This was not an offensive move by us, we are the defenders. If you are hegemonic for defending yourself, I think most alliances are the new hegemony.

people who say TOP&co should be kept at war forever (or until their tech runs out) are harmless?? :wacko: you sir have a wacky definition of the term harmless. i'd comment on the you being the defenders in this conflict part but... heh... it's like talking to walls. though i do see the gains (for CnG) to play that card. victimization is and always was a good strategy :P

Share this comment


Link to comment

again, you impose your own moral standard on whether the CB was justified or not, while supporting \m/'s/PC's/GOONS' right to aggressively attack whomever they feel like without a CB at all. this is the entire reasoning MK and Polaris ended up at odds, was MK felt that PC/GOONS/\m/ did nothing wrong (a moral standard) and that Polaris had done something wrong (yet another moral standard) and thus, wished to impose your (MK's) moral standard on Polaris by way of getting them to give peace to \m/ instead of remaining neutral in the war.

I think you're taking his argument to the extreme rather than looking at it from a realistic perspective. Sure we intervened in trying to prevent a conflict between our allies, but we didn't impose moral standards to the point of declaring a war.

If I read Keshav's the post the way you did, then an alliance would be at fault for defending themselves from a completely uncalled-for attack simply because they're imposing on the aggressive alliance that they were wrong for attacking them with no reasoning.

Basically, just smarten up. And stop compiling multi-paragraph posts that could be said in a few sentences.

Share this comment


Link to comment

if you wish to discuss that imposing your moral standards on another is wrong, then MK should not have attempted to force their moral standards on Polaris. yet they did just that. any discussion of what is right or wrong is inevitably a discussion on morals. thus, the fact that you felt Polaris was wrong in attacking \m/ is because to you, it is some moral foundation upon which you built your perception of right and wrong.

thus, you and CnG/PC/GOONS/\m/ are all pushing your own moral standard on the entire rest of us. to state you are not is false because if PC or GOONS or \m/ or Athens or FoB or any of your other allies were to raid an alliance and another third party (i.e. not allied to the victim) alliance would step in just as Polaris did, we would see ya'll do pretty much the same thing. we could even possibly see CnG be directly involved militarily in that conflict if the third party alliance is not allied to CnG as Polaris was.

now you may state that not all of CnG holds those views, but that is besides the point since CnG would be supporting those views held by a minority using military force.

thus, this whole discussion of moral standards is in and of itself, contradicting, hypocritical, and amusing. any attempt to state that no single alliance, bloc, or group of allies ever attempts to impose their moral standards on the rest of us is logically false, since every war boils down to moral standards. the fact that CnG see nothing wrong with keeping TOP at war, even for this long, shows that morally you feel justified in doing so. you feel justified in forcing your own moral standards on TOP/Co in the process. while it is true that ya'll are in fact, justified in this, it only shows that you are forcing your own moral standards on not only TOP/Co but the rest of us, who while on your side or against you, may oppose this action for one reason or another.

yet another moral standard that CnG is attempting to impose on the rest of CN is that of "preemptive attacks are wrong". while the move by TOP/co was idiotic beyond measure, this propaganda piece is one in which you (CnG) wish all to view using moralistic eyes. you wish for everyone to state that "yes it is wrong to preemptive attack and not only the aggression showed by TOP/co should be punished but more importantly it is the act of preemptive attacking CnG that makes this action even more reprehensible" style post.

so how can you claim that CnG dislikes those who force moral standards on others, when ya'll are frequently doing it and have done it since Karma. Archon, as the "Voice of Karma", used his eloquent speech to force moral standards on others. not only Archon but many in CnG did just that. in fact, the primary reasoning for the Old Heg using Karma as some sort of beacon of community standards reflects the amount of talking from the Karma side on exactly that. Community Standards and how the "Hegemony" had broken those conventions.

so if CnG, as you state, or MK at the very least, dislikes those who force their moral standards on others- do ya'll dislike yourselves?

again, you impose your own moral standard on whether the CB was justified or not, while supporting \m/'s/PC's/GOONS' right to aggressively attack whomever they feel like without a CB at all. this is the entire reasoning MK and Polaris ended up at odds, was MK felt that PC/GOONS/\m/ did nothing wrong (a moral standard) and that Polaris had done something wrong (yet another moral standard) and thus, wished to impose your (MK's) moral standard on Polaris by way of getting them to give peace to \m/ instead of remaining neutral in the war.

Standing by your own morals and not assisting an alliance in doing something you disagree with, is entirely different to declaring war on an alliance to force them to submit to your own moral standards.

Seriously, if you need a whole block of text to make any sense then you need to take a step back, inhale deeply, and rethink your position.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think you're taking his argument to the extreme rather than looking at it from a realistic perspective. Sure we intervened in trying to prevent a conflict between our allies, but we didn't impose moral standards to the point of declaring a war.

If I read Keshav's the post the way you did, then an alliance would be at fault for defending themselves from a completely uncalled-for attack simply because they're imposing on the aggressive alliance that they were wrong for attacking them with no reasoning.

Basically, just smarten up. And stop compiling multi-paragraph posts that could be said in a few sentences.

lawlz. i am taking his argument to the extreme? not really. i am simply using his argument against him. just because it can be used negatively against MK does not mean that it is somehow extreme in any way.

also, i am not the one stating it is wrong to impose moral standards on others. Keshav did. so in accordance with his argument it is wrong to do just that.

yeah, i am smart. i don't really need to smarten up anymore but thanks for the worry over my intelligence. as for multi-paragraph versus a few sentences, if you don't feel like reading what i write, then please feel free not to.

Standing by your own morals and not assisting an alliance in doing something you disagree with, is entirely different to declaring war on an alliance to force them to submit to your own moral standards.

Seriously, if you need a whole block of text to make any sense then you need to take a step back, inhale deeply, and rethink your position.

yet another who does not actually refute anything i state but instead attacks how i post mostly. how quaint.

first- if you think walls of texts are so bad, then how come no attack on Keshav considering his OP. hmmm.....

second- your first sentence makes no sense at all. i never stated anything about an alliance assisting another alliance. so not sure what exactly you are talking about here.

third- really- declaring war is different than doing nothing. man you got me there.

fourth- standing by your own morals is fine. never stated it wasn't. but you can still force your own moral standards on others in a defensive war. which i explained quite clearly in my post. hence the multiple paragraphs. unlike you, i back my stuff up. you just state something and that is it.

if you think your argument refutes mine at all, then you need to take a step back, inhale deeply, and rethink your position. Seriously.

Share this comment


Link to comment

lawlz. i am taking his argument to the extreme? not really. i am simply using his argument against him. just because it can be used negatively against MK does not mean that it is somehow extreme in any way.

also, i am not the one stating it is wrong to impose moral standards on others. Keshav did. so in accordance with his argument it is wrong to do just that.

You are certainly attempting to take full advantage of something he said over something he meant (and that any person with a degree of reading comprehension could interpret).

yeah, i am smart. i don't really need to smarten up anymore but thanks for the worry over my intelligence. as for multi-paragraph versus a few sentences, if you don't feel like reading what i write, then please feel free not to.

I guess what I'm saying is use your intelligence in a more productive manner.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You are certainly attempting to take full advantage of something he said over something he meant (and that any person with a degree of reading comprehension could interpret).

I guess what I'm saying is use your intelligence in a more productive manner.

drai, what he meant was underlying that everything CnG does is right and everything others do is wrong. for instance, TOP shouldn't have attacked with IRON and should have just stayed out of the war and assist IRON after IRON got beaten, CnG is morally correct in everything it does since it "lead" KARMA and, last but not least, we activated only our mdp's and such because we were defending(which i'm pretty sure is a blatant lie) and i don't care about the fact that we would have been the attackers a few days after. now, if someone on CnG's side could provide some evidence that you really wouldn't have entered the war if IRON had entered, i for one would be on my marry way. but can you, really??

Share this comment


Link to comment

drai, what he meant was underlying that everything CnG does is right and everything others do is wrong. for instance, TOP shouldn't have attacked with IRON and should have just stayed out of the war and assist IRON after IRON got beaten, CnG is morally correct in everything it does since it "lead" KARMA and, last but not least, we activated only our mdp's and such because we were defending(which i'm pretty sure is a blatant lie) and i don't care about the fact that we would have been the attackers a few days after. now, if someone on CnG's side could provide some evidence that you really wouldn't have entered the war if IRON had entered, i for one would be on my marry way. but can you, really??

no, that is not it at all. please do not speak for me unless you actually know what i am trying to state.

what i meant was that MK is forcing its moral standards in regards to preemptive attacks on not only TOP/Co but anyone who disagrees with MK about keeping TOP/Co at war any longer for whatever their reasons may be. (their=the people who disagree.)

the comment about Karma was the fact that during Karma, Archon as well as many members of MK/CnG talked a lot about morals and how NPO/Heg were evil and all that. thus that was just another example of MK forcing moral standards on others.

in my opinion, MK ain't wrong for defending itself or for continuing the war. i don't like the reps amount, but they have every right to stay at war with TOP/co. what i don't like is the pretentious attitude that MK has never forced moral standards on anyone, which given the way the OP was written gave me that impression. had he owned up that MK has/is doing just that- well then he would really have no reason whatsoever to write the op really. since he could not exactly !@#$%* at someone else while MK is doing it.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You are certainly attempting to take full advantage of something he said over something he meant (and that any person with a degree of reading comprehension could interpret).

"TOP has no right to force moral standards on us. NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes. No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another."

that is what he said. now, you take "force itself upon another" to mean an aggressive assault. yet, he is discussing moral standards and how no one has the right to force moral standards upon other alliances. this is the portion i am talking about in regards to MK. not the last sentence. so, yes reading comprehension is essential but i am not taking advantage of anything as i am going from what Keshav clearly wrote. just in case:

"NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes."

the bolded part is key and shows how i am not taking "full advantage of anything".

I guess what I'm saying is use your intelligence in a more productive manner.

i would but i don't wanna do homework right now, or chores, but am bored.

Share this comment


Link to comment

"TOP has no right to force moral standards on us. NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes. No one in this game has the right to force itself upon another."

that is what he said. now, you take "force itself upon another" to mean an aggressive assault. yet, he is discussing moral standards and how no one has the right to force moral standards upon other alliances. this is the portion i am talking about in regards to MK. not the last sentence. so, yes reading comprehension is essential but i am not taking advantage of anything as i am going from what Keshav clearly wrote. just in case:

"NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes."

the bolded part is key and shows how i am not taking "full advantage of anything".

I still think he intended his writing to be a bit more contextual than you're making it out to be which is why I said what I did.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I still think he intended his writing to be a bit more contextual than you're making it out to be which is why I said what I did.

so essentially he wanted to say it is wrong of TOP/Co as well as Polaris to force their moral standards on others while ignoring the fact that MK is doing as well as the fact that he is doing it in the OP?

i would say that is quite a bit more contextual. sorry, i don't play by his rules and according to what he posted, i have every right to speak out otherwise i would be allowing him to force his moral standard on me.

Share this comment


Link to comment

so essentially he wanted to say it is wrong of TOP/Co as well as Polaris to force their moral standards on others while ignoring the fact that MK is doing as well as the fact that he is doing it in the OP?

i would say that is quite a bit more contextual. sorry, i don't play by his rules and according to what he posted, i have every right to speak out otherwise i would be allowing him to force his moral standard on me.

He's saying we're doing it nowhere near to the same extent.

Share this comment


Link to comment

He's saying we're doing it nowhere near to the same extent.

actually you are. he never once stated MK was doing it at all. that was the point of my first post in this blog. was to point out his mistake.

Share this comment


Link to comment

actually you are. he never once stated MK was doing it at all. that was the point of my first post in this blog. was to point out his mistake.

So you're drilling him on not specifying what is likely an implication in his post...

This is why I hate the technicalities of debate on here; it all boils down to viewpoints where nobody is going to convince the other of anything. I'm not necessarily saying I'm right either, but it's so subjective and pointless unless you truly enjoy this type of banter.

Share this comment


Link to comment
NpO lost our support because it was doing exactly what we disliked, and that is force it's "standards" upon other alliances it dislikes.

We weren't trying to force our standards but a CN standard, standards that even \m/ recognized in their charter, so you are wrong unless you think that raid estabilished alliances is a normal thing in CN and attack smal alliances just because you're bigger and they are defenseless is fine.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...