Moridin

[quote name='Beefspari' date='23 July 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1279910617' post='2386256'] I would love to see if this logic flies anywhere else. Having someone else write your homework, do your community service, serve your jail time, as long as it's DONE right? It's also okay to lie about it. Or try to make ridiculous claims like "Well the rules didn't say I couldn't get Jerry to do my community service and then take credit for it, so that makes it okay." [/quote] Everything you listed at least ostensibly is supposed to have some sort of benefit for the person performing the task. Are you honestly trying to claim that asking someone to write an essay to get peace is supposed to benefit the author? It's a pathetic term you impose for a cheap laugh, and trying to pretend otherwise would be hilarious if not for the fact that you are somehow taking this incredibly seriously.

[quote name='Sardonic' date='23 July 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1279910146' post='2386230'] Yes, actually, it does matter, they made a mockery of the mercy board. More importantly, they lied to us. [/quote] That's fitting, given that the purpose of the mercy board is to make a mockery of the raid victim.

[quote name='Beefspari' date='23 July 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1279908991' post='2386191'] What went on was dishonesty. Someone who wasn't USSR did the terms on behalf of USSR and then lied about it. Had you actually approached me and asked if this was okay, I may have even said yes. The reason it was denied was because you did them for him, told him to LIE and NOT let us know you did it, and claim he did it himself. This is underhanded and a horrible example to be setting. You can come up with any reasons or excuses you want. It comes down to the fact that you lied and tried to cover it up and get away with it. If you had really cared and wanted to do this diplomatically and on their behalf, you would've asked me about it, not told him to lie. [/quote] Oh for christ's sake, do you actually care who wrote the damn essay? That's quite possibly one of the stupidest and most worthless peace terms ever to grace this earth. It's remarkable that you can actually keep a straight face while telling Schattenmann he is setting a "horrible example" by fulfilling a term for someone else that is, which ever way you spin it, a complete and utter waste of time that benefits absolutely nobody. If all you want is a quick laugh then it doesn't matter who wrote it, be it Schattenmann, the raid victim, or Admin himself. The fact that you weren't informed that someone else wrote the essay really shouldn't matter in the least because it's a moronic term to impose in the first place. The only group setting a bad example at all in this situation is GOONS, but then again we've all come to expect that.

Just so you know, it looks rather suspicious if you ask for a tech deal while you're in peace mode, since you won't be able to send out tech until you come out.

The practical jokes are indeed getting tiresome. I would have taken action against those responsible if I were in IAA, but that's just me.

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='20 July 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1279644860' post='2380814'] If an alliance doesn't have a strong enough stomach to tell an aggressive alliance to go swivel, and they opt to [i]disband[/i] because of it, that is probably better for them. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is, like I said, a matter of adaptation. [/quote] Wonderful, every disbandment that occurred under the NPO-led hegemony was neither right nor wrong. It is a relief to see we have abandoned all pretense of superiority to the old hegemony. [quote name='Epiphanus' date='20 July 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1279645172' post='2380825'] Besides, MK, unlike those we are being compared to, do not force people to disband their alliance. Nor is the raiding of red in any way comparable to forcibly disbanding alliances. [/quote] There is no such thing as forcing an alliance to disband. When an alliance disbands it is because they see disbandment as preferable to whatever appears to be on the horizon. Buckling under the pressure of war is certainly an instance of survival of the fittest.

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='20 July 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1279644543' post='2380805'] That's not what survival of the fittest means, Bob. It's not about might makes right; it's about successfully adapting to a set of circumstances given your environment.[/quote] It is exactly the same. Any alliance that disbands under the weight of war or terms can simply be said to not be fit enough to survive in the world in which they existed.

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='20 July 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1279644027' post='2380783'] There's a big difference between denial of the right to exist and raiding unaligned nations. [/quote] TDSM8 disbanding? Survival of the fittest! VE disbanding? Survival of the fittest! The 'survival of the fittest' line is absolutely no different from the might makes right doctrine preached by the hegemony in its heyday. It's saddening to see it preached by alliances that fought to overthrow them.

[quote name='the masheen' date='19 July 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1279608726' post='2380208'] Yeah, almost as laughable as claiming it's just to show that they're "The toughest kids on the block". I was simply pointing out that PC, GOONS, Umbrella, \m/, and MK are all friends and I'm sure they're having a good time raiding together. Having good times with your friends is a form of bonding. [/quote] No, a show of power is the express purpose of this raid. There would not be an organized raid on Red if they didn't want to show they're too powerful for the NPO to attempt to enforce the Revenge Doctrine. I don't doubt they're having a good good time doing it, but the raid was not designed as a bonding exercise.

[quote name='the masheen' date='19 July 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1279608265' post='2380199'] Aren't you making an assumption based on no real facts there? When I read this I thought organized raids of colors was genuinely a pretty good idea. It's good for bonding of allies, better and more bountiful raids, and is just all around fun. [/quote] No, I'm making a statement based on the intent of the organized raid as described by many of its participants. Claiming that this raid is a bonding exercise is laughable.

It is a sad state of affairs when people feel the need to attack the defenseless in order to demonstrate their own power. Tech raiding is never going to disappear from CN but organizing raids not even for the purpose of profit but simply to show you're the toughest guy on the block is rather poor form.

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='18 July 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1279477687' post='2377446'] That would be a first. [/quote] A second, if you recall the first year or so of IRON's existence. Good luck IRON.

The only way a [i]balanced[/i] war could occur at this point is a SF/C&G split, or at least a split within one of those blocs. Anyone who thinks that TOP/IRON/NPO together could somehow overcome SF and C&G is living off pre-Karma paranoia. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of there being an imbalanced war on the horizon though, in which case #4 is a possibility. I highly doubt the NPO is dumb enough for #1 to even be a remote possibility without SF and/or C&G fracturing first.

[quote name='Lamuella' date='15 July 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1279219644' post='2373224'] Want to bring the Initiative back together? Imagine this: There's a couple who were passionately in love. They started dating, then moved in together, then got married. They had passionate discussions, went through turbulent times, and then finally split up in a huge plate-throwing fight and an acrimonious divorce settlement. Imagine how hard it would be for that couple to get back together. Now imagine there were 12 people in that relationship. [/quote] Especially if three of them died in said plate throwing fight.

Duane Allman, most assuredly.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='10 July 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1278780155' post='2365884'] "We didn't betray you, our Emperor who has absolute power and speaks for the alliance did". [/quote] It is an important distinction, or at least would be an important distinction if DictatatorDan's assertion that Polar gov was unaware of the plan to declare war on TOP were true. While it wouldn't by any means absolve the alliance of wrongdoing (if you do in fact believe that decision was wrong), it would mean that the current government was not necessarily on board with the idea. Where this distinction does become important is in Polar's exit from the war shortly after TOP/Duckroll's declaration on C&G, where no one in Polar government aside from AlmightyGrub had any idea peace had been agreed to until after it was posted.

Something makes me doubt the sincerity of this apology. I suppose it's up to Xiphosis to determine if this is sufficient.

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='09 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1278733398' post='2365500'][color="#000000"]All the research I have done shows absolutly no indicator that any of the government knew about the TOP DoW prior to it being posted on the OWF.[/color][/quote] This is entirely false, and you should know better since you've asked me about it. edit: That is, if you're referring to the TOP DoW on C&G. If you're talking about the NpO DoW on TOP, then I haven't personally discussed it with you but it's still false.

[quote name='Fallen Fool' date='07 July 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1278547766' post='2362918'] The entire OP is written in such a way as to evoke the image of TOP as a victim of great tragedy who lumbers on anyway in order to fulfill its duty. The reality is less romantic. TOP's leader violated the basic laws of existence. In response TOP did what was expected and required by those same laws. In doing so they did not become a hero, they just kept from becoming a scumbag.[/quote] As far as I can tell the announcement is a description of the events that transpired with a bit of flavorful wording to make it more interesting to read. At any rate, even if it is something expected of a person or group, doing the right thing is still commendable, especially given the risk to their forums in doing so. While the same course of action would no doubt be expected of any alliance in the same position, it is not a position in which any alliance should want to find themselves, so a degree of sympathy is not out of place either.

By my understanding, Laserwolf or another GATO gov member actually PMed the Imperial Liaison completely out of the blue with a fully written up treaty, which is at best tactless and at worst fairly insulting. Probably not enough to warrant such a harsh response, but we (Polar) really didn't care about GATO at all at the time either.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='26 June 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1277590584' post='2351283'] I vote for Tyga. [/quote] Tyga wasn't a rogue, he was the leader of the alliance.

Kommando was easily my favorite nuclear rogue, because he actually managed to catalyze the start of a war.

[quote name='Ardus' date='20 June 2010 - 07:43 AM' timestamp='1277044995' post='2343753'] You know you were allied with the NpO when Umbrae informed Cornelius of the post? [/quote] Indeed, and that wasn't even close to the only time NPO engaged in spying on Polar when the two held a treaty. I can name at least one other instance of it, in addition to Griswalds who was a spy after the Ordinance was cancelled and who the NPO tried to install as a puppet Emperor. I have some problems with how VE has handled themselves in the past, but an NPO member really has no room at all to be accusing others of disloyalty towards their allies.

I have a question that has been bugging me for some time now. Why do you capitalize "VOX"? Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine but I can't for the life of me understand it.

Dinosaur Comics in an announcement? A treaty after my own heart. Congratulations.