Jump to content

Rooman33

Members
  • Posts

    948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rooman33

  • Birthday 11/04/1985

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Viridian Entente
  • Nation Name
    Rooland
  • Alliance Name
    Viridian Entente
  • Resource 1
    Iron
  • Resource 2
    Pigs
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    War Doves

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    rooman33
  • Website URL
    http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=100319
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta

Recent Profile Visitors

839 profile views

Rooman33's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. I endorse the GOP-ness of the OP. Very clever. Also, o/ VE
  2. Sad to retire our AA. Happy to reward VE for their years of support. O/ GOP O/ VE O/ Green
  3. Well, it's a much better looking crop of leaders, that's for certain. Happy to see the alliance in such good hands. o/ GOP
  4. Actually, it's because he continues to buy back his losses and I didn't (or haven't, yet). Much in the same way that the DBDC AA has masked its losses by adding new members throughout the war. But you're right, I won't be bigger than I was pre-war. Oh drat.
  5. Yep. Significant damage despite him downdeclaring 100k NS and having two other top 15 nations fighting me alongside him. Though not as significant as Tim. I'm curious, is this state of denial driven by an outright hatred of the GOP or of me, or is it hinged on some belief that your "power" in this world depends on people fearing your super top tier? If the former, we get it - you don't like us. No one cares. If the latter, I'm not sure pinging me - to keep bringing up the fact that your "elite" downdeclared by 100k NS and still took heavy damages from a "bill locked" "noob" nation - is doing you any favors. For folks who love warfare, you sure do cry a lot. Why don't you all just sit back quietly and enjoy the rest of the war, ey?
  6. The point was he took significant damage despite downdeclaring well over 100k NS on a nation that should have been bill locked already ;) And Tim only edged me out in damage by a margin of 55% to 45% - despite the fact that he downdeclared 100k NS and nuked me every day (though I didn't nuke him every day) - all, again, with no warchest. Yeah man... I sure am awful at fighting. Bones down-declared after two rounds of fighting (the first where I helped wipe out MQ's top two nations, the second where I managed to deal significant damage to DBDC's top two nations despite their significant NS advantage) while I was already fighting off two top-15 nations - and then they all failed keep me out of PM. We already dispelled the "lulz, your only damage was through nukes, noob" myth earlier. I think I only had 16 nukes nukes hit my six enemies over the three weeks of fighting? Something like that, I'm too lazy to go back and count again. Whatever the figure was, it accounted for far less than the damage I dealt (~200k NS). Besdies that point, knowing this ridiculous argument would come up again, I grabbed some screenshots of my last day of fighting with Cuba and friends (which was tricky because they tried to delete my successful attacks before I could capture them). Whoops, looky there. A seemingly "bill locked" noob - not only managing to buy and launch nukes from zero, but doing damage through GAs as well. Man, they sure schooled me in the ways of war! Then there's the little fact that despite the fact that I had no money, and that I wasn't nuking each of them each day, and that 4/6 of my battles were DBDC downdeclares of 100k NS or more, I dealt out about as much damage as I took (from start to finish). So, um, yeah. Yay warfare. But, please, don't let the facts and context obscure your trolling.
  7. I fought so "horribly" that you and two of your top-10 cronies took significant damage from me, and in some cases were only just barely able to edge me out in damage, despite your 100k NS advantage (each) and the fact that I should have been bill-locked a week before you declared on me? Hahaha! You guys crack me up. Hey everybody, look what a terrible fighter I am! Hahahahaha...
  8. I will give our opposition this, they have absolutely outflanked us on the OWF proxi troll front. You, sir, are a riot. Also, hey look at all this "limp-wristedness."
  9. That's a lovely diatribe of personal insults, but your arguments hold no merit. I don't think you've managed to string two accurate statements together throughout this entire thread. It seems your only purpose here is to insult me and the GOP. Seems to me a lonely, unsatisfying existence. But to each his own.
  10. That's the kind of thinking that got DBDC into its current mess. ;) Our politics and stances are the same they've always been. If you're only just now noticing us, or realizing we mean what we say, then that's on you. If you want to "raid" us, that's on you too.
  11. How are we defining "treaty," exactly? Because if it's just a mutual agreement between two or more parties, the GPA had that for years too with other alliances signing their DoN. But treaties in this world have always had a more elevated stature - stating what political actions the alliances must support of/for one another. We've actually railed against the "absurdity of treaties," particularly chaining ones, for years. Our agreement with VE doesn't really fit into the classical mold of a "treaty." All we did was restate which aspects of our soft neutrality could, at our discretion, benefit VE. All they did was reiterate their willingness to extend their protection of us beyond the dissolution of the United Jungle Accords. Call it a treaty if you must, but neither of these statement/stances from either of us changed anything. And certainly neither tether us to VE's politics in any way. So, in our opinion, it doesn't violate our softline neutrality. All we did by involving ourselves in this conflict was put into action policy that has been public record for years. If that changes the way certain alliances chose to see us, so be it. For us, nothing has changed. We are exactly the same alliance we were before the conflict as now, with exactly the same stances. We're nothing if not remarkably consistent, transparent, and honest. As to the definition of neutrality, that's been an ongoing debate since forever. We have always maintained that being neutral means being untethered to the politics of others. Our involvement in this conflict changes absolutely nothing about our stance, our politics, or our neutrality. The endless back-and-forth in this thread has done nothing but try to smear me, the GOP, and our motives. But who is this aimed at, exactly? The folks who liked us and hailed our decision still do, and the folks who never have never will. But please, by all means, let's continue this endless March to "last word" three weeks after the OP. This is totally a great use of our time.
  12. Winning? A desire to fight on our own terms? To not have the conditions of our fight dictated to us by bullies? Three weeks of fighting against an enemy who for most of that time has had more than twice our avg. NS? I dunno, take your pick. We're fine with it. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees, etc.
  13. Ah, so you can't reference a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. Thanks for making my point. We entered to defend neutrality, as you noted. And, therefore, our own interests (see the 3+year old DTOM we referenced in the OP). And so your earlier statement that GOP "is the only alliance still pretending to have entered to defend TDO" is completely false, because we've never said we entered to defend TDO. You seem to have a real problem reading words as they appear, and not as you'd like them to - that's true both of MQ's obvious, broad "jihad" on neutrality, and of our transparent reasoning for involvement.
  14. Please link to a single instance where we've said we entered to defend TDO. I'll wait.
×
×
  • Create New...