King DrunkWino

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1265137049' post='2153568'] I'll tell you what.. if RoK is true that they wish to remain friends, and they don't come in in 48 hours (or whenever) to attack NpO, or to attack NSO, then I'll apologize. Until then, don't try to feed me !@#$ and tell me it's ice cream. [/quote] You were rolling with CSN for a while, if my memory serves me correctly, right? Then you have to realize how much the alliances that make up the SuperFriends feel about backing up each other. It's the same as Polar and the Sith. They'll back up their boys to the end against anyone, anytime, anywhere and for whatever reason. Maybe they start fighting and maybe they don't, but don't think for one second that if they do fight it isn't for the exact same reason that Polar decided to back up the NSO.

[quote name='bkphysics' date='02 February 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1265136684' post='2153546'] In 48 hours RoK will be entering the fray then I assume. A very unfortunate announcement. [/quote] Perhaps, but honestly, would you blame them if they did?

RoK, you folks are in a rough spot. I feel for ya and know you'll come out the other side.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265136150' post='2153519'] If NpO wanted in they could have said they like their allies in NSO most and that is the treaty we choose to honor and that would have been understandable from an alliance in a tough position. They did not do that though they came in and made cries of how they were played and how everyone else is an opportunist which is a load of crap. I like calling people out when they are full of crap and, that in fact is usually my favorite part of war, so I am enjoying this don't worry about me. [/quote] This I agree with. We know Polar puts the highest value on the NSO. It's not a bad thing, everyone has friends after all, but everyone also has best friends that they would go to bat for against anything. It's not some tragic flaw and it's not everyone else being opportunistic. Playing that card, did you really have to throw that down on the table? Going to war to back your best friends is cool, dropping a blame card on everyone else isn't so cool.

[quote name='mpol777' date='02 February 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1265135863' post='2153515'] There seems to be some confusion. I'll clear it up later, but suffice to say folks can stop arguing the various scenarios you've come up with as to the motives and methods of FAN. You're just making it all more complicated than it really is. Stay tuned. [/quote] Why even bother clearing it up? I mean, this particular hootinanny turned into a free-for-all royal rumble match anyway. Might as well just say frack it, we ain't telling you jack except that we just happen to enjoy blowing stuff up and since you didn't get an invitation you decided to crash it. Besides, tell me it's not amusing to see all the theories.

[quote name='Lancer' date='02 February 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1265135467' post='2153500'] If you are implying that our treaty with you makes no sense and is pointless, then this all makes sense. This isn't the first, second or even the third time NpO has put us in such a position. Sad that we held that treaty in such high regard. [/quote] You have to look at it objectively. As you say, there has been multiple times that your two alliances have been on different sides of issues. Apparently, you like each other in order to pledge to defend the other, but your going in different directions. Clear your mind of negative emotions and the solution will present itself.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1265135232' post='2153493'] Also who am I ignoring? [/quote] Me. I need a hug.

[quote name='bzelger' date='02 February 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1265134975' post='2153482'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79201 Things get buried fast these days. [/quote] I know, right. /and thanks for that.

[quote name='elborrador' date='02 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1265133730' post='2153449'] i can't wait to burn God to the ground. it is unfortunate that RoK is allied to alliances such as GOD but when you attack NSO you also attack Polaris, and you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. [/quote] I agree, the second GOD declared war on the NSO... ...wait, I musta missed that. Been a crazy few days and all, could somebody point me to GOD declaring on the Sith? /seriously, no foolin' I missed that one //also, try to emulate the class of your Emperor.

[quote name='Lafayette' date='02 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1265134115' post='2153467'] Is it rude to answer a question with a question? Were we all not taught to some extent the merits of the Socratic method? [/quote] If Socrates were reading these forums, he'd ask for more hemlock.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1265132852' post='2153423'] Obviously they attacked pre-emptively. But that's the point. It was pre-emptive, not unprovoked. C&G were in reserve to support the war against NSO, which IRON were never going to be happy with. [/quote] You do realize that if TOP and the gang had NOT declared offensive operations, then this entire thing would have been over and done with when Polar and \m/ agreed to white peace, right? Which, I guess, is a pretty frackin' good reason not to go around declaring offensive operations in a war against folks that are uninvolved, since, you know, the main theater of operations could very well be concluded before it gets to that point. [quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1265133005' post='2153427'] The treaty web has been a mess since before time itself, karma did nothing to change things, and to have alliances sign treaties at the drop of a hat, merely because someone expresses a little bit of interest while not once thinking "would this actually make sense? or would this just be to feel more secure and make things stupider for everyone on planet bob?" is just asking for trouble. The only reason that alliances right now are in a "tough position" is because they were stupid enough to sign treaties that made absolutely no !@#$@#$ sense to them in the first place. MK does it a LOT. RoK does it even more than MK does. NpO does it too. Every major alliance does it, because they're all crows, and treaties are shiny objects that they must collect. They're compelled to collect them for no other reason than they're shiny, they don't need them. [/quote] Lordy do I agree with you. Folks need to keep in mind not only their goals but the goals of treaty partners. If'n ya don't, well you get what we have here, a complete clusterfrack. Me, I ain't surprised one bit that if Polar had to chose a side that they'd back the NSO. If it were STA instead of the NSO, the same thing would be happening. In fact, it would HIGHLY surprise me to see a situation where any one of those three alliances were in a war and the other two not be right there. I'm not Sith, nor Polar, nor STA'er; I can just read. Anyone who can read should have been able to figure out that little fact of Bob for months now. If I'm in RoK, yeah maybe I am a bit ticked, but then again, Polar got put in a tough spot and basically had to do SOMETHING. I also note that Grub in the OP when out of his way to be as cordial as one can be to GOD and the SF explaining what he felt like he has to do. Now all the "GOD is dead," sigs that Polars are so happily sporting kinda contradict that, but it's war and fun little propaganda just happens to be part of it. If I have any advice to share here it's this: Shut the frack up and enjoy the wars. You'll probably have a lot of fun and might actually cement some sort of friendships on the field. After it's over and you've shaken hands (unless the victor wants to be a dumb mother fracker and drop loads of reps,) head home, let things cool off a little and maybe, just MAYBE, you'll have discovered that the bonds of war have forged a friendship that's actually worthy of paper.

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1265132003' post='2153401'] Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you have to throw common sense out the window. You're better than that, .. at least you try to make it seem like you are, anyway. Most people know better, but, you still should at least try to keep up appearances. [/quote] Ya' know, you've been a guy I enjoy reading for quite a while. I got admiration for your style and commitment to your ideals. That kinda stuff don't change dependent on what side of a silly little war your on, but c'mon man. You're much better than to drop down to the level of taking personal shots at folks. /'cept PC. That one I get totally //I can only hope that when this Silly War ends that folks will sit down and take some white-out to the treaty web. It's high time we realized that making paper with everyone that kinda likes you isn't the best idea.

[quote name='omfghi2u2' date='01 February 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1265067688' post='2151384'] FAN has friends? I thought they just hated everyone. Despite what others may think, FAN is one of my favorite alliances. At least top 3. Roll tanks roll. o/ FAN -omfg [/quote] It could just be a case that FAN hates some people less than others.

[quote name='Sargun' date='01 February 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1265082506' post='2151991'] I endorse this suggestion wholeheartedly. [/quote] That makes two of us. The world is good when FAIL rides.

[quote name='Bob Sanders' date='01 February 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1265085604' post='2152145'] Well gee, I guess we could release all our discussions at the next meeting of the [size="4"][b]foreign[/b][/size] target picking oversight committee. [/quote] Are you saying that you have a domestic target picking oversight committee? Cause that sounds like it actually might be kinda cool to be honest.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='01 February 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1265084294' post='2152081'] Why would a "D" be relevant, you're thinking "oA" or "A". FAN attacked, IRON, Valhalla was obligated to defend. [/quote] Well, by that thinking, wouldn't Valhalla be on the hook for a bit more?

[quote name='Omniscient1' date='01 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1265074450' post='2151655'] Then why didn't you declare on Dark Fist [/quote] Did you *really* not get that one? FAIL NOW! FAIL FOREVER!

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='01 February 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1265058655' post='2151032'] I think we agree but "harsh", when it comes to money and tech, can vary. That said, the NPO were formidable antagonists partly because they cultivated the image of an "evil empire" by imposing harsh terms. Remove these terms and I doubt so many alliances would have rallied against them. Heck, I doubt Vox would have existed at all. A villain that does no real crime is a Disney toon. I think reparations are useful for this game's politics. [/quote] It's a fine line, sure, but there *is* a line.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='01 February 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1265056883' post='2150967'] Harsh reparations make for great vengeances in the long term. They give a good reason to go to war and works as a rallying cause for the concerned alliances. Tight-knit communities exist often because they suffered together. It gave them a purpose, the sense that their comrades counted on them, etc. Also, from a strictly IC point of view, it makes sense that the victors demand some kind of reparations. Reparations aren't necessarily bad. Aside from viceroys and EZI, that is. [/quote] If you cripple an alliance with harsh reps, then you can't expect them to be in a position to make good on vengeance. The thing about being mad about something is that you need to let it out as soon as you can, otherwise it festers like an open wound and it ends up hurting you more than the target of your rage. Reps that are lenient enough to let the guys you were fighting get back up again fairly quickly means that they are going to be able to bring the fun times around again. Seriously, I cannot wait until the NPO can get back in the thick of things. Say what you will about them, but they know how to play the role of an antagonist. Look at Ivan and the New Sith Order, they know how to play an antagonist, hell Ivan is a master of it. The game needs its antagonists, otherwise it's a fairly boring place. It's kinda like pro wrestling in that way. Heels win and get titles not to get the fans all ragey, but because if the heels never won then the pro wrestling bis would have little entertainment. Yes it makes sense to get some sort of reps in some situations. It just doesn't have to be the type of reps that neuters a group that could potentially come back and bring your alliance more fun a bit later down the road.

To be completely fair, the alliances that fought under and carried the Karma banner weren't fighting to create a utopia. They were fighting to destroy what they saw as a cruel and despotic world. They succeeded in that goal as the power structure of the pre-Karma game was knocked out. The trick is, what the game is to become afterward always in the hands of the players. It doesn't matter what alliance you're a part of. You can always raise your voice and tell your friends, leaders, alliancemates what kind of way you want to play the game. People listen believe it or not. Plus, if you're in an alliance that =/= what you believe in, you can always just say "Hey, it's been fun but the fit isn't that great for me and you so I'm moving on. Good luck and all that." You might be surprised at how much respect you'd get from being both honest and civil like that. But I'm digressing a bit. This is supposed to be an opinion on why piling on big reps ain't a good thing long term. Forgive me, I find myself washing down my muscle relaxers and pain meds with whiskey for a little extra ommph nowadys, so it's easier than ever to get rolling off the track.

Why did you delete such awesome idiocy?!

'k I THOUGHT I hit public poll but I failed it.

These threads and the propaganda threads that pop up every war are my absolute favorite reads.

A bit earlier, Rebel Virgina started up a little discussion in the OWF that basically dealt with the folks who now have political power in the game of CN. It was about the old question of harsh reps. Now, a lot of folks tend to laugh off Rebel Virginia as a dude that just kinda hops around doing whatever he feels like doing with the fact that he does it with a certain style being his only saving grace. Frankly, I don't really care if people agree with that or not. However, it was the fact that it *was* a Rebel Virgina post that got people sidetracked. With that in mind, I'd like to stroke my ego a second and re-post one of my few serious replies that you'll ever see in CyberNations: Please folks, for the love of everything, if you're a leader of an alliance give that some thought. I know the backroom plotting part of the game can be fun. I played that a little bit for a while after all. Think about how unfair it is to the common member of your alliance though. They don't have the opportunity to play in that realm of the game after all. They get their kicks though the wars and whatever fun your alliance develops. Don't screw them over by making it so that your potential adversaries are either to crippled to fight or don't want to risk being crippled so they don't fight. Seriously, enough with the BS. The time has long past that we, the players, have the sole responsability to make the game fun for all. Crippling alliances and communities takes away from ALL of us, you included. Let's start again and let's do it right this time. I'm even sticking up a public poll so folks can see point blank where their friends stand with this question.

Life always gains new meaning when the sharks swim in to play. [img]http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/40/takkacover.jpg[/img]