Jump to content

SpacingOutMan

Members
  • Posts

    6,596
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpacingOutMan

  1. I log in when starcraftermazter tells me my nation was deleted and dropped trades. lol I remember being a pleb in 2006, getting destroyed during GW2, trying returning after GW3 but being unable to due to the nation create lock. Joined CSN in April 2007 or something like that once the lock was off. Mein gott it's almost been 10 years that I've had this nation.
  2. Ah, so a meta-game has returned to the OWF: who can hail PPF the hardest.
  3. Good luck to everyone involved, though I feel like this should have happened before this last war -- I won't presume to know the inner workings.
  4. ಠ_ಠ Have I just been inactive or are all of you oldies starting to post again?
  5. It's almost like nations like Bubbler Nation left to go back to their actual alliances or something. :frantic:
  6. That's a lot of treaty cancellations in one announcement. Hopefully it pays off for you guys.
  7. While this is certainly true and I agree that ambiguous terms in a contract are enraging... I highly doubt that the four aforementioned groups would feel the need or even want to re-enter. Conversely, if it's for good cause (i.e., someone starts raiding an ally of theirs) then I guess that is beneficial to them. Meehhhh. Either way, congratulations on peace. [i]Finally[/i]. What an ugly war that was.
  8. Ah, you had no problem with it until they hit your former alliance and suddenly had a change of heart. lol That's some serious spin on throwing a tantrum.... unless you have evidence, but you do not. Either way I'm sure Cuba is going to enjoy getting closer to maxing out his national cemetery (he might even need a second one for all those casualties...). I also anxiously await for his response because I'm sure it'll be more than enjoyable.
  9. Sorry, but the misunderstanding here is yours. Just war theory requires CBs to meet a specific set of criteria to be considered justified by the international community. There has never been a convention or remote consensus on Bob on what does and does not constitute a "just" CB. Likewise, just war theory does not validate or invalidate the CB itself; in that respect, it is logically agnostic to validity since justification =/= validation. Thus, without going into the minutia of copy and pasting definitions, a CB can be valid so long as it is logically consistent. Moreover, you presume that just war theory has a monopoly on military ethics; it does not. Concepts such as consequentialism, realism, militarism, and pacifism all use the identical concept of CBs with different perspectives on justification. Again, all of these theories are agnostic to the logical validity of the CB; they are only interested in the justification of the CB, which widely varies dependent on your school of thought. So while "I don't like you so I am going to kill you" may not be justified to you, it may be justified to others depending on their predilections. More importantly, however, is that regardless of your school of thought, the CB is valid because it is logically sound. It harkens back to the ancient concept of proschemata: fear, glory, and self-interest. There has been no convention or remote consensus on Bob delineating strict justifications of CBs either, so your argument is untenable to begin with.
  10. The best part about this thread is not only are people trying to bring back faux outrage over the validity of certain CBs, but also completely misunderstanding what a CB is. "I don't like you, so therefore I declare war on you" is a valid CB folks. There is no international/interalliance convention defining "appropriate" causation for war, therefore practically everything under the sun qualifies as a valid CB.
  11. Already happened. http://cybernations.lyricalz.com/war?nation1=169031 They agreed to a NAP between themselves after their war. EDIT It's also worth noting this particularly fun stat (not against Dulra but just in general): 11.83 damage inflicted to taken ratio (which is based on what seems to be unreliable stats going back further than 2013?). http://cybernations.lyricalz.com/destruction?nation=323642 That's some heavy stuff there. Either that's Cuba instantly deleting nations or people just not fighting back...
  12. I see. You guys orchestrated them peacing out in order to gain an advantage in the inflicted damage competition! You scumlords!
  13. I guess people forgot about the previous OBR-DBDC title fight.
  14. So what I learned ITT: Cuba is a bad leader... who managed to navigate DBDC from its infancy to a group of mega-nations... raided dozens of alliances unabated... generated beneficial treaties for themselves and their allies... has maintained a constant tech supply despite pitiful attempts at seller embargoes... make practically all non-DBDC upper tier nations look they are running around with their heads chopped off during amateur hour at the karaoke bar... and doing all of this while being all out of bubble gum. Yeah, sure, definitely some "worst leader ever" material there.
  15. *shrugs* TOP carefully avoided fighting AZTEC in the upper tiers, which was the war I was personally hoping for. But, then again, this thread isn't about us now is it? Good luck WFF! Look forward to more tech deals with ya'll in the future.
  16. Okay, so all the vitriol aside... Is everyone happy on the progress they are making towards their National Cemetery? :D
  17. Did we just establish a new world order in one post? Yay for the circle of life.
  18. Unfortunately I can only say that I've only delivered something controversial by proxy. :( You monster.
  19. Oh. This thread is still going. Liveliest thread since Dajobo's announcement, go figure how touchy this tech deal topic is.
  20. Oh derp, yes indeed. Still, would be cool to see some more of the super oldies return.
  21. Oh neat. To cap it off, now we just need El Bruc to come back. :v: Also... Hoo, then Slayer... who's next!?
×
×
  • Create New...