Electric Mango Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Hail the Coalition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Now this is just annoying for me but Mathers won't be doing anything like this again. It's my job to whore attention and act like a tough guy around here anyway. Carry on everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ying Yang Mafia Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 The emphasis is on the 'thus far'...the first power sphere to go certainly is interlinked, but the one prepared to jump in on their side is a couple degrees of separation away, with the exception of Argent-TOOL (that I know of; there might be more). That's what makes it somewhat coincidental (or circumstantial, or whatever); if the pressure point was different -- say, someone attacked an alliance with longstanding ties to two other blocs, like FOK -- the battle lines would be completely unrecognizable from those set up at the moment. Where I find that this cannot be considered coincidental or circumstantial is that there are many different circumstances where similar action would be taken. There are many other alliances who could have attacked TPF and the resulting action against them would be the same. I suppose those alliances that are farther away from the initial conflict have a greater argument, but even so they were quite aware which power sphere they were aligning themselves with when they made their treaties. It isn't like any of the alliances are surprised to be defending TPF or fighting against Athens and friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustakrakish II Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Anyways I wish you luck Coalition of Cowards with your Symbolic War. thats funny, cause you didn't declare on RoK, and you outnumber GOD and \m/ by a huge number, yet those two are the main ones declared on. Also notice all the offensive wars from your side. Thats right, we're the cowards. Thanks for the stats to make your side looks worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Where I find that this cannot be considered coincidental or circumstantial is that there are many different circumstances where similar action would be taken. There are many other alliances who could have attacked TPF and the resulting action against them would be the same. I suppose those alliances that are farther away from the initial conflict have a greater argument, but even so they were quite aware which power sphere they were aligning themselves with when they made their treaties.It isn't like any of the alliances are surprised to be defending TPF or fighting against Athens and friends. Not surprised, no, but it's the degrees of separation that I'm getting at...only one member of the Citadel/IRON power sphere has a direct connection to TPF, whereas every member save Argent has a treaty with at least one member of SF/C&G (that I can see), and in some cases several. There are certainly more than a few scenarios which would ultimately produce the same result, but it isn't necessarily the most organic grouping, hence the name. Edit: thats funny, cause you didn't declare on RoK, and you outnumber GOD and \m/ by a huge number, yet those two are the main ones declared on.Also notice all the offensive wars from your side. Thats right, we're the cowards. Thanks for the stats to make your side looks worse. He's a member of \m/ Edited January 2, 2010 by Schad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I prefer the name Constipated Coalition myself, but Coalition of Cowards seems better.Interesting to see the "just defenders" barely able to muster a shot. Well it'd have to be Coalition of Cowards 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) and the reason why I call them cowards (trying to make this at least a little more understandable) is because when we went to war with TPF we didn't go in there sending only a few people and I don't want anyone saying well it's a different situation they have 23 alliances, maybe a little more now, and if they're afraid to get beat than somethings up. Yeah ok it's a strategy, they have double the nations and double the NS I'm pretty sure they could take us but they'd rather stay in Peace Mode and make it look like they're declaring war left and right. It's more or less a morale booster for those in CC and in TPF, yeah ok that's fine but you wouldn't need one if you hadn't waited 6 days. I mean a day or two maybe even 3 yeah ok that's fine but you decided to wait 6 days to do it. I can understand the reasoning. I mean hell make it look like your not going but last second go, during this time you could've been helping TPF, you looked like cowards on the OWF (where all these supporters came I'll never know, oh wait you have 2,000 nations on your side) and honestly when you post a DoW on the boards well before update it's not much of a surprise anymore. And then it makes you look like idiots when you only have a few people attacking, but of course, you look like heroes in the eyes of everyone else. Ok, I'll make this simple. Coincidence held back on the attack because they know that they'll be massively countered soon. Supercompliants has much more NS in reserve than Coincidence. NAAC made the mistake in GWII and over-deployed their forces, I don't think Coincidence will do that. They know they'll be fighting soon, they are holding as much in reserve as possible. Why over-extend yourself in a war where you are at a significant NS advantage? It doesn't make sense Honestly, sometimes I really think a lot of people are just being purposely obtuse to try to score PR points. I hope to God anyway. Edited January 3, 2010 by Kaiser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Honestly do any of this even matter? People have been complaining about wanting more war for months so why don't you all just suck it up and war like a champ. Do you all care that it took them days to finally find the post thread button or are you all just happy they found it? I think for the most part that if you give it a few more days and we all can get on our merry nuke tossing ways besides I'm in no rush to have this war end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 We'll all have war enough, soon enough. I'll wait for my wars, and I won't complain once they start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougZ37 Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 "and we put most of our nations in peace mode as another strategy" Being a coward isn't a strategy, no matter how you put it. Good point. But how do you live with all these cowards you call brother? http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_dis...liance=\m/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I'm glad you summed up our foreign policy with Pixels>Friends. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 I'm glad you summed up our foreign policy with Pixels>Friends.Thank you. Defending TPF considering what they did id sum it up as Pixels>Destroying Friendships>Friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 It's all Poobah's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Defending TPF considering what they did id sum it up asPixels>Destroying Friendships>Friends Ahh, thank you. Oh I forgot one more. Pixels>Being a Lapdog>Destroying Friendships>Friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Ahh, thank you. Oh I forgot one more.Pixels>Being a Lapdog>Destroying Friendships>Friends well you guys obviously support TPF, and its actions... and its actions are sending a dummy alliance to destroy another through Sabotage (Drama) enough that it will destroy the alliance, pulling it apart, the only way to really do that is though destroying the friendship the alliance members have with eachother... By logic, and your Coalition of Cowards attempt at undermining the CB for this war, you all obviously support it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Mango Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Defending TPF considering what they did id sum it up asPixels>Destroying Friendships>Friends Deathistan, in all honesty, if IRON had not defended TPF, would you brand us as cowards? IRON was called out for not immediately declaring war in TPF's defense and now you verbally attack us for defending them. IRON is doing the right thing and the only ones that have a problem with it are the ones that already wanted to see us burn in the first place. I for one, want to thank my opponents for making this game interesting. Without conflict, this game would be stagnate and boring. Even though I disagree with much the opposition is saying, I must admit that it keeps me entertained and I admire many posters from the other side. This war has the potential to be epic and I can't wait to see what the next chapter brings. Anyways, to those in battle, and those about to battle, I salute you. o7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 well you guys obviously support TPF, and its actions... and its actions are sending a dummy alliance to destroy another through Sabotage (Drama) enough that it will destroy the alliance, pulling it apart, the only way to really do that is though destroying the friendship the alliance members have with eachother...By logic, and your Coalition of Cowards attempt at undermining the CB for this war, you all obviously support it... *sigh* Nothing I say will change your mind on the matter, so I'm not going to waste my time. That is your interpretation of our reasons for fighting this war, and so be it. It's wrong on the IRON end (I won't try and speak for every other alliance that has entered). But nothing we do pleases you. We don't enter, and we're cowards. We do enter, and we suddenly believe in killing puppies and destroying rainbows. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Walz Pants Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 It's all Poobah's fault. This is something I think we can all agree on at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Needs more metal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Needs more metal Sorry, the "metal" has been pulled from the shelves and retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 *sigh*Nothing I say will change your mind on the matter, so I'm not going to waste my time. That is your interpretation of our reasons for fighting this war, and so be it. It's wrong on the IRON end (I won't try and speak for every other alliance that has entered). But nothing we do pleases you. We don't enter, and we're cowards. We do enter, and we suddenly believe in killing puppies and destroying rainbows. You can't have your cake and eat it too. well as for being cowards, i believe LM when he stated the reason ya'll did not enter. i think it is still crap way to treaty your allies as one man, even LM, does not constitute a viable reason to not enter to defend your friends. but hey, c'est la vie. as for the whole supporting/condoning TPF in their actions against Athens, i would say that has more to do with the posts from ya'lls side stating TPF was justified due to being at war. personally, i understand most of the reasoning for ya'll entering was due to upholding treaties but even then you can publicly state that TPF was wrong in their actions while still defending them against attacks. tis not that hard and i do not honestly see what the issue would have been if ya'll did that. instead ya'll kept saying that TPF did nothing wrong, which means that you condone/support an attempt to destroy a community within an alliance in order to destroy the alliance. the only restrictions are: 1) both alliances need to be involved in a global war 2) the alliances need to be on opposite sides that is it. they do not even need to actually be on the same front (i.e. direct military conflict) for the above action to be acceptable. honestly, i am curious what ya'll would be saying had the situation been reversed and it was Athens who did it to TPF? i bet ya'll on TPF's side would be using the same arguments that we, on Athens side, did. i could also almost guarantee, that while CnG would defend Athens, their reactions would have been that Athens did wrong- i.e. see CnG's reaction to the KoN raid. that is what CC should have done but did not do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Sorry, the "metal" has been pulled from the shelves and retired. I know you'll find another way to embarrass yourselves soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.