Micheal Malone
-
Posts
892 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Micheal Malone
-
-
I never could see why Thorne was so popular, he always struck me as a more..."bland" version of myself.
Chron-lite, if you will.
Although I lol'd too when I read that.
You mean less sufferable and self-stroking?
-
I liked the Sparta purge... I got some tech out of that deal... Good times.
-
Figured this one might come handy in your arsenal. Enjoy the war!
-
i must ask, since we weren't directly addressing Invicta, what made you feel that you had to get involved?
Because it's Haf and he figures since he had to come from under his bridge to goto the store for some food that he'd stop on the OWF and make a few posts.
-
Are you serious? You (and FOK) are entering a war that is NpO vs \m/. And 'good allies' don't have to escalate a small skirmish into a major war which does far more damage – if FOK had provided mediation and advice, PC would be sitting at peace right now, and probably so would \m/ (though they claim not to care about that).
The next alliance that you choose to raid despite your charter and the will of the community would lose.
CAuse this worked so well when MK attempted it, amirite?
-
140-odd wars for 80-odd nations? Yeah that's pretty much covered.
Yup, 142 wars, 64 defensive. Shockingly covered.
And Mordd? Yup, he's afk to RL, surprise he's in peace mode! *gasp* Not that he was every really Orion...
You know, the way you keep attempting to dig on Orion, someone might say you're bitter about something. I'm not quite sure what it is, maybe... this?
Btw, in case you didn't hear. I disbanded Orion. Anyone here is iFOK. Kapish? I mean, you could oh... I dunno... do something about it. But we know you'd surrender again then too.
Yeah, looks covered to me.
-
Yup, we could have. We didn't. More fun for everyone!
-
NSO wasn't on us when we rolled. Maybe you should get your time line in order.
He's referring to the fact that FOK rolled mid-day and iFOK rolled update. With NSO in between.
-
Crystal clear kameraad! So... uh... since you're so friends with FOK why are you not defending them from NSO again?
EDIT: My question is why did you activate an aggressive part of your treaty instead of the defensive part?
So we're back to this? Complaining because we didn't play our hand the way you thought we would? I can't tell for certain as I'm not part of that decision making process. But here's my guesses... We went aggressive. It's pretty simple when it comes down to it. While it was easy for us to rally our troops to go aggro, what with Grub's motivational speeches etc, it's probably quite a bit harder for you to rally your troops for an aggro war. And your ally's troops, and their ally's troops. Hence why the moment we didn't hit NSO, Ivan and his gang began goading anyone they could to attack. It's always easier to gather support for defensive actions.
Clear?
-
I can't seem to find any treaty between Stickman and FOK
... or did you guys all merged to iFOK? If that's the case then I'm sorry for the mess on my part 
If not, then Stickman is just engaging in a war of aggression, with no real CB given... cool!
I've explained this once before to someone also confused. It kinda goes like this:
FOK & iFOK, we're close, ya know? Like REAL close... So, we roll together... everywhere. Now iFOK & Stickmen, we're REAL close too... so we called Stickmen and said "Yo... kegger... grab the beer pong table, lets roll."
tl;dr MADP & MDoAP. Chaining treaties, what ya gonna do? I do believe someone once said bring it, and someone else said I don brought it already yo.
-
Corrected that for you
. (Polaris allies only entered the war after FOK declared on us activating themselves an optional clause to roll the polar dudes.)Ahh, so you just decided to attack those Polar dudes out of nowhere, crystal clear.
Yup... I mean it's not like we're treatied or anything.
But then again... Grub did set a precedence, right? -
Yes casue hiding in peacemode untill your nation deleted due to inacitvtivy is me being stupid and lettingu get away with it. Freelancer fail 1
I'm sad...
You came to the kegger to party, and appear to not want to dance. Seriously though, more coming I hope? -
Hi! Welcome to the party! I'd ask you if you were thirsty but it is pretty much BYOB at this point. Did you bring some? I could certainly use something to drink. Enjoy the party, maybe you can save me a dance?
-
Yay! More wars for the blood god! Or something similar. Have fun blowing up pixels, I'm sure we'll have fun returning the favor.
-
Welcome to the party GOD!
o/ Xiph!
-
Actually, they joined in after the initial request to keep this limited, was not fallowed and FOK went in guns blazing.
NSO respected NpO's decision to keep it limited and did not join the original conflict towards which the request was directed. Once FOK joined, obviously enough, conditions changed and NSO had treaties to hold.
Calling NSO out for escalating things, is ridiculous.
Because \m/, PC, and FOK had more NS & Nukes than Polar, amirite? It would have been a unilateral curbstomp at this point? Is that why NSO joined in? Or was it because it STOPPED being a curb-stomp?
Edit for clarity of my point
-
<snip>
so in my opinion, there is a moral obligation to try and stop this precedent of being allowed to raid alliances over a certain number (in my opinion that number should be 2) because otherwise, all we will see is new alliances being raided over and over and over and over again until someone else steps up.
but hey, we may have gotten rid of the old Heg that destroyed alliances for no reason, why not start a new tradition of destroying alliances by having them constantly raided instead. tis so much easier too since there is no CB to argue over.
Comparing this to Heg is silly. To be honest, you've lost the argument when you try to put an arbitrary # on what is an acceptable alliance size before it's offlimits to techraiding, for multiple reasons;
1) You'd have to get everyone to agree on said arbitrary #.
2) You'd have to get everyone to agree on changes to that #.
As you're aware, what is considered the "norm" escalates as time progresses. Avg infra, tech, warchests, etc. Inflation of the system with less and less wars causes these #'s to rise. As does the "size" of what is considered an actual community participating alliance. Because remember, Grub claims to be enforcing community standards.
Either you're for tech-raiding, or against. Attempting to justify it by placing a "well it was only such and such amount of people or NS" is laughable. Using an example to demonstrate my point:
You're walking past me on the way to the podium and I see you have some money hanging out of your pocket. I deftly swipe a $5 (or some small denomination of whatever money you use). Did I steal from you? Of course I did, did the amount of money or amount of money you had make a bit of difference in whether I stole from you?
Now, on your way back from the podium, you see Archon swipe a $5 from someone you've not seen around the stage before... Did he steal? If so, why is it ok for some of your allies, and not for everyone?
-
Really?
I'd like to hear this story in full, then.
Perhaps ask your ally? You know, the one you came to defnse of?
-
I didn't know we Sith were playing World Police.
Well, if those of us opposite you are supporting \m/'s choices by proxy... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or does that not fit here because of some Sith force power.
-
No, I'm simply asking why MK was able to get Athens to back off, but decided that \m/ wasn't worth the effort of getting some kind of punitive action secured, while fully aware that Grub was serious about his threats (again).
What made the two situations so different? I'm sure you guys could have done more to stop this war from happening than you did, but didn't for whatever reason. Hell, securing anything would have been a complete improvement over the results MK had to show for whatever diplomacy they attempted.
So you're saying you had a spare World Police costume, wanted MK to play dressup, and they didn't only attempting to try and talk you OUT of said costumes?
-
It's not like this is a first time thing. You all were more than happy to placate Grub when Athens pulled this crap. What made \m/ not worth the effort?
Could you point me to the announcement where MK signed a treaty with \m/? I must have missed that one.
-
Fair stance.
-
Not my best but lack of sleep and all...
-
Indeed, after following this for 17 pages I must say my initial outrage has dissipated now that we have moved past the 'gut reactions' phase of this discussion here. However I just cant shake this feeling that this treaty was signed for reasons other than those stated. Indeed every alliance does operate differently and every leader views the world differently based on their past experiences. My past experiences, for example, leaves me suspicious of this treaty. If this doesn't end up affecting on which side, or how soon Vanguard gets involved, then I will wish you all well and congratulate Vanguard and the Stickmen members on building a friendship of such a level.
I look forward to sharing laughs afterwards then.
... or did you guys all merged to iFOK? If that's the case then I'm sorry for the mess on my part 
. (Polaris allies only entered the war after FOK declared on us activating themselves an optional clause to roll the polar dudes.)
You came to the kegger to party, and appear to not want to dance. Seriously though, more coming I hope?
Announcement from \m/, Poison Clan, FOK! and New Polar Order
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
B... S.... screw all the back slapping... this was as bad as WWE 1.