Jump to content
  • entries
    11
  • comments
    303
  • views
    6,091

dear cn

Sign in to follow this  
Chief Savage Man

609 views

It's probably too much to ask but lets have an enjoyable war. This isn't an ideological war like the Bipolar war (the first portion at least) or Karma war and as such, it should not bring the vitriol and ideological blustering of those two wars. So instead of yelling about how PC and iFOK are cowards for not attacking one of their close friends' allies or whatever contrived arguments any of you can come up with, just enjoy the Christmas action. This goes for all of you.

Sign in to follow this  


33 Comments


Recommended Comments



I will do it anyway.

The optional part is a easy way to get out when you don't want, and mostly used by people that want to fight without no risk at all.

1283417382420.jpg

"Gee it seems like you will lose this conflict, oh well it's optional anyway so enjoy your total annihilation".

Share this comment


Link to comment

I agree lets not make this and ideological war, we don't want "vitriol and ideological blustering" so please don't even bother trying to defend ifOK and PC for being crap allies.

K thx bye

edit: radisrad ;)

Share this comment


Link to comment

I agree lets not make this and ideological war, so please don't even bother trying to defend ifOK and PC for being crap allies.

Goddammit you are dense. They would be bad allies if they put almost all of their other allies in a terrible position by attacking Int, Fark or TPE.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Goddammit you are dense.

So you do want "bring the vitriol and ideological blustering" or else you wouldn't be bringing it

They would be bad allies if they put almost all of their other allies in a terrible position by attacking Int, Fark or TPE.

What makes a bad ally is if you sign a treaty, and then don't follow it. Which, what a coincidence...

If iFOK and PC didn't want to defend NEW and only be loyal to their bloc, and in his case, the treaty partners, of the treaty partners, of members of their bloc. they should not have signed the treaty.

Share this comment


Link to comment

iFOK and PC followed their treaty. It was distinctly written not to apply to situations like this. Furthermore, I've yet to see a single !@#$@#$ member of NEW complain about it. Not one. They seem to understand their allies actions just fine.

What I have seen is lots of people who are likely to end up on NEW's side this war whining about it. Surely there's no possible ulterior motive here, is there?

Share this comment


Link to comment
What I have seen is lots of people who are likely to end up on NEW's side this war whining about it. Surely there's no possible ulterior motive here, is there?

Ofcourse the people who are cricital of IFOK and PC have an ulterior motives, that doesn't mean they're wrong. That goes both ways though, the people who defend PC and iFOK also have the ulterior motive of not wanting to see the current power arrangement shot to hell.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Goddamn the propaganda artists in PB are trying hard. Now their coming out and making !@#$ up.

Is it me or are there favorite choices "but that other side..."(that doesn't even exist) and "stop talking about it already".

Share this comment


Link to comment

Why are you blogging?

Besides, the "which clause applies to this situation" seems to be subjective so there is no winning that argument anyway.

The only thing subjective is the CB.

FEAR et al. have nowhere provided any rationale for their involvement in this war, so that leads to the conclusion that they are using the NEW rationale, which is pretty piss poor if you ask me.

Or does anyone think it is okay to attack a protectorate?

(By the way, if 'yes' then it is a clear taunt in order to spark a global war, and THEN you can't fault iFOK and PC for taking their stance, since it would only benefit those same people while most all of their own allies will suffer.)

Share this comment


Link to comment
FEAR et al. have nowhere provided any rationale for their involvement in this war,...

They did.

friends>infra

You know, the mantra CnG and MK put in place. Of course, now for them its not convenient any longer,...so ifok and pc are instructed to back down from their binding treaties.

Share this comment


Link to comment

They did.

friends>infra

You know, the mantra CnG and MK put in place. Of course, now for them its not convenient any longer,...so ifok and pc are instructed to back down from their binding treaties.

Well, I'm perfectly fine with that, but as pointed out in that thread, they were very selective in what alliances are subject to their obligation of 'mutual defense' clause. They only attacked TPE and INT, which makes one wonder why they didn't attack FARK? After all, with that mantra in place, you'd go to hell 'no matter what', isn't it? And now that's not what they are doing.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well, you know, maybe because if they did that they would worsen the strategic position of their defensive effort. They would be contra productive, actually worsen the situation.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well, you know, maybe because if they did that they would worsen the strategic position of their defensive effort. They would be contra productive, actually worsen the situation.

Again, fine with me, but they should come off their high horse then.

Apparently their friends are only worth to be 'defended' from some alliances, not all.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Apparently their friends are only worth to be 'defended' from some alliances, not all.

Apparently they actually are defending their friends, unlike ifok and pc which are told not to by their other allies.

And further more, in their dow thread you can read how they got unhappy allies as a result of their defense, so unlike ifok and pc they actually are a fully sovereign alliance making their calls on their own.

And honestly to say from my part, while FEAR's action is likely to get my alliance burned I do respect their stones and give them the horse to talk down to others. They have earn it with their stones.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Apparently they actually are defending their friends, unlike ifok and pc which are told not to by their other allies.

And further more, in their dow thread you can read how they got unhappy allies as a result of their defense, so unlike ifok and pc they actually are a fully sovereign alliance making their calls on their own.

We can speculate about that, but I doubt we'll get an answer.

And honestly to say from my part, while FEAR's action is likely to get my alliance burned I do respect their stones and give them the horse to talk down to others. They have earn it with their stones.

I am not criticizing them for going to war over it, not at all. If they feel they should then that's fine with me, my point is that this is a controversial situation and there is no one good thing one can do.

The real fault lies with NEW and them not getting over themselves.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Chief, everyone understands the position that PC and iFOK would put their other allies in.

Honestly, yes many want to see that happen to have PB and SG go at each other.

Yes, many are using PC and iFOK's or whoever's e-lawyering to e-lawyer them about being crap allies.

My main point is that many alliances that are considered elite or loyal or any other great attribute that can be bestowed, really aren't.

Many alliances on Bob are Survivalist Alliances. Not honoring a treaty to avoid putting other allies in a bad spot is not what I call Survivalist.

I call Survivalist Alliances those that whore themselves to every corner of the web in order to pick and choose where and when to enter after seeing what side has or will line up the most favorable alliances.

All alliances need to choose their friends wisely and have a clear treaty path in order to minimize situations like this. It's impossible to guarantee that even after clearing some treaties that even those kept will not conflict, but some alliances have hordes of treaties simply to be able to choose the winning side.

Any alliances that has so many damn treaties and allies with so many damn treaties all over the web are cowards.

Share this comment


Link to comment

That whole 'friends > infra' motto was a great way of uniting the MAJORITY of people to overthrow the MINORITY in power. Funnily enough it's turned into a great way of solidifying the MAJORITY of people in power and really rolling the MINORITY of people sitting in the mud.

You guys need a new strategy 'cause calling everyones morality and honour into question all the time, when it's pretty clear by now everyone's a hypocrite is just not going to work. Stop throwing yourselves onto your spears trying to steal that glorious feeling everyone had for MK in the noCB war. It ain't gonna work, my friends.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You've got it all backwards. Ideological conflict is about the only thing that makes wars enjoyable in this game. This war is nowhere near ideological enough and needs tons more hate and vitriol.

Share this comment


Link to comment

While Tromp does his best to translate FEAR's actions from "honouring the written word of a treaty" to "attacking other alliance's active protectorates" (which even NEW didn't do), it's hard to argue that this isn't an ideological war.

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...