Jump to content

Micheal Malone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    892

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Micheal Malone

  1. So, iFOK...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    This discussion is still going on? Shouldn't you be more worried about things other than the senate? Like your hemorrhaging NS? One might also begin thinking about your PR stance, as your membership has been crying about the # of alliances on them. Perhaps there's a reason so many were eager to hit you?

  3. So, iFOK...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Bob Janova' date='07 February 2010 - 05:01 AM' timestamp='1265547667' post='2166735']
    Yeah I don't see that either. It looks like an unjustified sanction (and no-one from iFOK has justified it), but I don't see the link to PZI.
    [/quote]
    I'm not quite sure why or how it needs to be justified. The explanations were given. You can agree with why we did it, or you can't. This thread, and the "moral outrage" as well as the implication that we're practicing E/P ZI is beyond stupid.

  4. So, iFOK...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Micheal Malone

    [quote name='Alterego' date='06 February 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1265470066' post='2164532']
    Red next, their masters will want to kill off NPO once and for all after this.
    [/quote]
    I just want to make sure I got this right....

    We're New Hegemony.
    We're an alliance full of rogues.
    We're in a bloc that has a rogue alliance (us me thinks you implied?).
    AND...
    We have masters.


    Talk about over-achievers. We should probably take some time to cool our jets.

    NinjaEdit:
    [quote name='Alterego' date='06 February 2010 - 07:32 AM' timestamp='1265470333' post='2164542']
    How does being attacked make the victim a rogue?
    [/quote]
    Because one cycle of wars is an entire nations history. I'll make a note of that.

  7. So, iFOK...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Haflinger' date='06 February 2010 - 05:52 AM' timestamp='1265464332' post='2164369']
    [b]The problem is quite simple: sanctioning tiny nations who don't understand how the world works on the one hand, and on the other, it's not a rogue.[/b]
    [/quote]


    [quote name='Haflinger' date='06 February 2010 - 05:59 AM' timestamp='1265464776' post='2164383']
    Yes, the reasons are that you don't like them very much.

    I didn't say they were n00bs, I said they were tiny. I know, a statwhore like you doesn't see the difference there.
    [/quote]
    No... you didn't say the word n00bs, but you certainly implied it. If only Jorost would listen to me... By the way, could you relay a message to him? I've got the logs, they will be leaked eventually.

  8. So, iFOK...

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Micheal Malone

    Sorry I'm late to the party, I was busy doing hegemony stuff. Eating babies and what not, yarrr...

    But seriously, you needed to call attention on the fact that we dealt with what we felt needed to be dealt with? Are you upset that we didn't consult you first and let your senator do it? I bet that's the real reason... We swiped a senator seat long enough to do what we needed. How bout that?


    Edit:
    See Jorost... this is the type of stuff I was talking about in our private communication.

  9. Purple Curbstomp

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='michaeru' date='06 February 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1265455056' post='2164239']
    "34,536.479 (My nation strength is: 55,803.281)"

    No can do. Not that I would have, seeing how my loyalty to my current alliance greatly overshadows my desire to attempt to kill others' but fail miserably only increasing their :smug: value.
    [/quote]
    I'm your huckleberry, just lemme know when I pop out of peace mode :ehm:

  10. Imperial Decree - New Polar

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Good on you Grub. About time you honored your treaty, and even in the face of all this adversity and knowing you'd take the flack for it. A shame that you're going to resign, which shows that you obviously don't believe in the choice you're making. Take care when you re-roll, or if you're done for good have fun in the Real World.

  14. Invicta rides to war

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Micheal Malone

    [quote name='James Wilson' date='04 February 2010 - 04:04 AM' timestamp='1265285095' post='2158699']
    Your Declaration makes no sense my friends :(. Valhalla was attacked by FAN and Nord...neither whom are in CnG.
    [/quote]


    [quote name='AirMe' date='04 February 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1265288830' post='2158736']
    C&G never attacked Valhalla. Way to screw up a DoW. No one minds you entering the war, but at least get the circumstances that you are entering under right.
    [/quote]
    I'm not sure what either of you are talking about.... I don't see anywhere in the DoW that he states C&G did. His DoW states allies of C&G did... which is entirely true. DT attacked Valhalla, and Nor rolled in with them via treaty. Way to screw up a post :P

    On topic o/ NoR, break their spirit which they claim cannot be broken!

  15. A Discussion on Treaties

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    The problem with this line of thinking is that people are so set on whether it's aggro/defense that they then spin their aggro war into a defensive action when they're countered. Treaties need to be simpler, more akin to the shortest treaty ever between FOK/iFOK. We stand by each other, simple. People should know where we stand now. However, you remove all the clauses etc, there's nothing for the e-lawyers to try and work with. In the end, people just boom boom, pow pow, pixels kabloowie! I love the smell of confusion in war....

  16. The most F'd up war ever?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='Saber' date='03 February 2010 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1265193420' post='2156206']
    It may be the game reset it needed. Lot of problems of inflation would go away if this war lasts few weeks/months.
    [/quote]
    Not really, everybody still has all their wonders etc... The road back up the stats mountain is a ton less difficult with those... What would be keen is an in-game way to destroy your enemies wonders.... THAT would be amazing.

  18. Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Micheal Malone

    [quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 09:47 AM' 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.


    Indeed, although the fact that RoK were already in that position in this war means that this re-entry doesn't really make things any worse. [b]Considering SF have deployed against Polar (again through no obligation but through a choice of sides) the same argument applies to SF as it does to C&G: they chose to be opposed to Polar, not the other way around. GOD was already in the war on the side opposite to Polar even before the TOP/IRON entrance.[/b]
    [/quote]
    Bob, really? For someone who has intricate knowledge of the treaty web you are talking nonsense. So it is now SF's fault that Polar [i]knowingly aligned against[/i] one of SF's allies? And it's SF's fault that they were then put opposite by honoring defensive treaties? I'm just trying to understand the spin you're using. Could you enlighten me? I'm going to work, but I look forward to having something entertaining to read when I return.

    Edit: Change of words to italicized.

  19. Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='D34th' date='01 February 2010 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1265097409' post='2152809']
    What's the difference of NSO redeclare agains FARK? They already stated that they did it to not oblige their allies in Terra Cota to defend them



    What possessed us? NSO are allied with us, you guys attacked them and then do not gave peace to them when our war ended, need more explanation?



    All I can read here is: See Mk we are better friends than NpO please cancel on them and be only friends with us.

    Do you really need that to get friends? lol
    [/quote]
    That's funny... I read his quote as someone saddened by the situation. It's something akin to having to tell your bestfriend that their spouse has been lying to them and cheating on them. Not something you enjoy doing (usually, lol), yet something that you feel you have to say.


    [quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1265103438' post='2152883']
    Interesting that you would believe your treaty with NpO would give all your allies a free pass to attack NpO's allies without retaliation. Some support your giving NpO when you're completely disregarding their treaty commitments, why should they care about yours?
    [/quote]
    [quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1265104737' post='2152902']
    People can stop complaining that NpO declared war here, I'm sure you wouldn't of been willing to leave PC behind in war where they come to your assistance. Same concept here.
    [/quote]
    On this... I'm not sure what to say. If I'm misinterpreting immediate history, Polar declared war on one of their allies ally. That move, combined with the arrogance and obvious uncouth posting of both sides alienated/severed those ties for most people it seemed. Polar then secures peace, ending hostilities for \m/, PC, FOK! and itself. In the unprecedented speed, and once again lack of foresight for his allies, Grub managed to alienate/anger even MORE of his allies. Polar DID leave the Sith behind in war.

    I agree with the statement earlier in this thread. While I don't agree with Polar's choice in defense of NSO's [i]aggressive[/i] war declaration over other [i]defensive[/i] war declarations, it's logical that Polar made this choice. The treaty between MK and Polar appears dead to both parties and only words on a paper at this point (with exceptions of course). While they are attempting to salvage relationship with another ally who had begun to doubt them. They could have attempted to obtain peace for NSO in another fashion, but entering the war again that was a symptom of their own actions, is... understandable. A bit hindsighted to re-enter instead of staying the course to begin with, but a proper move in an attempt to reaffirm their bond with NSO.

  21. Naval Blockaded still?

    in Report A Bug

    Posted

    I took a gander and couldn't find anything on the subject through a cursory scan.

    When blockaded during war if you don't collect, then the war is concluded and peace agreed upon, the blockade is still in place. Would it not make sense that since the war was concluded that the blockade is lifted? I'm not sure if this belongs in the bug or suggestion section, as it might well be a bug if it was intended to be lifted at peace. However, if it currently is working as functioned, then I would make it a suggestion that since hostilities have concluded, shouldn't all hostile actions which include blockades?

×
×
  • Create New...