Tomcat

[quote name='AVFC1' date='15 June 2010 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1276618220' post='2338303'] Our attempts to impress NATO, NSO and IRON have thus far been fruitless. Any tips? [/quote] You haven't filled their threads with pages of these o/

I came here from FacePunch during the very first FacePunch cybernations topic all the way back in November of 2006. That one obviously wasn't as successful as this one has been, apparently.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='10 May 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1273530860' post='2294010'] [color="#0000FF"]What do you find so funny? That I enjoy what I do? I suppose that is more than what can be said about some others, for whom this has become like a second job (or their job even). They spend so much time worrying about their alliance's growth and survival that they've forgotten how to have fun. They get together in little security nets with others that prevent anything interesting from happening. NPO and Co. was guilty of it, and now Karma is. You had the opportunity to change the way the game is played. You had a chance to truly, and dramatically, alter the power structure, instead of simply changing the face of it. You had the chance to do so much, but once the NPO was removed you decided the job was done. Really, no matter how you put it you people truly are no fun. You don't even know the meaning of the word. You are unimaginative and unoriginal. I do hope the NPO returns. They made a terrific antagonist. As I have said many times, Cyber Nations is a game. You need to play a game against an opponent, since a game you play by yourself really is quite the bore. You also want a good opponent. Tell me, do you think a world class soccer team wants to play against some small county's youth league? Not really. It would be slaughtering the same team over and over, always knowing the results. That's not fun because there is no challenge, and the result is always certain. But that is what the NPO wanted, and what I criticized the government for doing then because it did kill the game. I suggested letting the old Aegis/League rebound and get a shot. Or maybe not, and turn on our allies instead. Give us a new team to play against. One that was fresh. And like the NPO back then, Karma is resistant to that idea. For that reason you do not deserve to be on top. It has always been a belief of mine that those on top have the responsibility of keeping the community fresh, or at the very least not prevent others from doing so. Although I have been critical of Grub's action in the last war, I do appreciate his at least doing something to shake things up. Stir the pot. That is more than others have done. Unfortunately he made some errors that rendered his efforts futile and only strengthened the grip of the boring on this world by putting any potential competitors at even more of a disadvantage. But never the less what Grub tried to do is what this game needs more of. NPO did contribute to the decline of the game since the end of GWIII. I am sure all of you Karma folks can agree on that, but what you refuse to acknowledge is that you're doing the same thing. Not through unbalanced matches, in which the victory of one was always certain, but through the fact you do nothing at all. You give nobody, other than former enemies, a reason to want to take you down. And quite frankly you should. You should try to play the bad guy so that someone else can be the good guy. Do some injustice. Do some unspeakable evil. And I do not mean that in jest. You won't though. You do not want to risk losing your power and security. I wouldn't expect anything more of you, however. You people always were unworthy of having power not because you abuse it but because you don't use it at all. So like it or not, NPO's contributions to the game's decline are in the past. For the moment they are innocent. It is your fault now, and you are the ones to blame. You've had plenty of time to do something interesting. What is your excuse for failure?[/color] [/quote] So the reason why you hate those who you now believe "rule" planet bob, is because they aren't bad enough guys? Sounds like you're going out of your way looking for new enemies.

^^^Hey that's my avatar Very nice.

So this is like CNARF 2.0? This idea is like 4 years old. It didn't work back then either.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='28 March 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1269829886' post='2239712'] Grub: I promise not to honor my treaties with C&G. TOP: You seem like a trustworthy guy. We will make an incredibly risky gamble based on your promise. I still don't get it. [/quote] It still has me scratching my head. TOP based their entire sneak attack on CnG off of the premise that NpO would betray their allies.

[quote name='silentkiller' date='27 March 2010 - 04:31 AM' timestamp='1269693079' post='2238217'] Congratulations, would you like a medal now? [/quote] Is that an offer?

At the very least, that I got you to lower yourself off that high horse long enough to mention my name is good enough for me.

I'd say it's a close call between Prodigal_Chieftain, Ivan Moldavi, Electron Sponge, Rebel Virginia, Jack Diorno, and the entire membership body of the NSO.

[quote name='youwish959' date='18 March 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1268979414' post='2230079'] (Regarding iFOK) No kidding, at least we are our own alliance, not some runoff backwards $@! [/quote] Yeah it's a good thing that the New Sith Order was a totally original alliance idea and not based on any previous existing alliance(s).

Awesome Congrats GATO, I can't think of an alliance that deserves to be sanctioned more than you guys do, considering what you have endured.

TOP is the CN equivalent of somebody who punches a guy in the nose and then refuses to pay for his medical bills

[quote name='Haflinger' date='28 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1267390146' post='2208764'] They hated you guys for opposing heavy terms for Hegemony alliances during the Karma War. [/quote] Yeah that's pretty unlikely. I'd think it would be more something like: TOP has been around since 2006 and despite always being a relatively small alliance, they had connections to big powerful alliances and got to join in on the winning side of just about every war since then, all the while collecting obscene amounts of tech.

Personally I think Cheladas are gross as hell. I couldn't take more than two sips of the stuff. I guess you'd have to be a bloody mary fan to like it.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='25 February 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1267163977' post='2204533'] [color="#0000FF"]This policy is nothing new.[/color] [/quote] So then what was the point of this announcement? Is FAIL trying to create a new record for most OWF topics created in 30 days?

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='25 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1267163823' post='2204531'] War makes good drama up to a point. But eternal war is just as boring as eternal peace. And a better CN means that more players will be attracted to CN and they will bring fresh new drama with them. Rather than rehashed reruns of the dramas of GW1 & GW2. Imagine a world that has politics and drama as fresh and dynamic as it was back then, that is what a better CN will bring. [/quote] This war has been the closest thing to GW1 since...GW1. Everything after GW2 was just the hegemony curbstomping ex-league alliances and/or backstabbing their former allies and meatshields. This is the first war since GW2 where the outcome wasn't even remotely certain. And it was fun as hell.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1267154503' post='2204322'] [b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b] Anyone in our position would feel the same way, so don't play that card here.[/quote] Fair enough. [quote] [b] NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]This is a good one, Fark DW on us for their treaty with FOK. [b][/quote] Who did you declare on in support of IRON? [quote] NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]NpO doesn't have a treaty with IRON, but we do. Again nice try.[/quote] That was my point. NpO honored the treaties that they had, and did not honor treaties they did not have. [quote][b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]First it was only one ally.(IRON) [b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b] We did but because of treaty [b]obligations[/b][/quote]Obligated or Optional? [quote][b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]I have no problem with that, NpO signed a treaty with them so they have to follow suit just as we did.[/quote] Fair enough. [quote] [b] So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]I'm not made about that at all. What makes me upset is that with all the alliances that attacked us they chose to defend us on only one front and poorly.[/quote] On what other fronts were they obligated to defend you? And have you considered that they may have had their hands full already considering they had been fighting on so many fronts already? [quote][b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]See above.[/quote] The points stands that they were obliged to defend their allies in CnG. They've been obligated to defend a lot of people, including NSO. [quote][b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]We didn't support the attack on C&G. They had their own coalition planning. Also how about Polaris' allies in C&G that had their allies attack us? Wouldn't that have put NpO in a precarious position as well?[/quote]Of course. But which happened first? The attack or the counter attack? You made a DoW on the same night as the coalition that attacked CnG. Were we all mistaken to believe that it was to support the attack on CnG? [quote] Now that I have proven you wrong, please leave with your tail between your legs thanks. As for the links, go find them yourself. [/quote] Well I certainly do have something between my legs but I've never had it called a tail before, though i suppose i can see the resemblance. Props for actually responding to the points I made instead of just dismissing it all in one sentence. I know putting effort into debating is hard but I do appreciate the effort.

I would respond to your post Doctarigh but it appears that is was already addressed a number of pages ago in this thread so heres a one sentence response with no real content instead. I can play this game too.

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1267151637' post='2204244'] No point to argue with someone that had one goal in this announcement, and that was to attack our alliance. Also nice one liner to you to my good sir. [/quote] Well, if i'm the second wrongest man in history, it should be pretty easy to show me why. If the answers to these statements are so simple and obvious and everybody knows them, why can't you just state them? I came into the thread with a write up about what was apparent in this announcement. That you won't even bother to give me more than a one sentence response speaks more to the idea that you just would rather not let this thread go somewhere that you don't want it to go, which is ironically, back to the topic this thread was initially supposed to be about. [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1267152129' post='2204267'] actually, almost all of those have been addressed through the 48 pages of thread. read it all and you will have the answers you seek. the fact that you have not seen these points addressed shows that you did not read this thread. [/quote] Then why not just state them here if you know they all have been addressed and stated in this thread?

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1267151350' post='2204237'] Anthony that would mean he would have to look for info, and not spew crap that he can think of from the top of his head. [/quote] And actually responding to my arguments might actually force you to write more than a one sentence reply. I know, we both live in a tough world. ^^^ wow you beat me to it

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267151045' post='2204221'] There's 38 pages of people explaining how it [i]really[/i] is. Take some time to read it. [/quote] Could you link me to the posts that refute these statements: [b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b] [b] NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b] [b] NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b] [b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b] [b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b] [b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b] [b] So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b] [b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b] [b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b] I'm not seeing these points being addressed, but if I've somehow missed them you're welcome to link me to the responses to these statements.

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1267150505' post='2204204'] UR WRONG [/quote] Well then i guess you won't have any trouble refuting what I said. Tell me how it [i]really[/i] is.

It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace. First of all, NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON. NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly. NSO. Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty. You backed up your ally (IRON) in their attack. NpO backed up their ally (MK) in their defense. So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties. You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack. That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.

The thing is, prodigal chieftain truly was the only good leader the GGA has ever had.

Clementines are as legit as it gets. By the way, anybody ever notice how weird tangerines smell?