Jump to content

Moridin

Banned
  • Posts

    4,592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Moridin

  1. What both you and your fellow Polaris members that have tried to answer me in this thread have failed to realize is the following:

    1. I never disagreed that the name change was a stupid move

    2. I never disagreed that SCM's actions reflects on his alliance

    3. I did disagree with the punishment, considering SCM is not a part of FIST... (As you said it yourself, go for the root of the problem)

    4. I did disagree with the definition you guys seems to be using for espionage. I wonder if I could get an official response once more that you do indeed consider this action espionage when SCM did not try to obtain any information at all?

    And Moridin... Such an intelligent person as yourself should have realized a long time ago that personal attacks instead of attacks on the argument itself is a sure sign of losing a debate.

    If you had actually answered my pretty straightforward questions, I might have replied with a simple "Thank you" and that would have been it. However, it seems clear now that this is impossible for your bunch, since you obviously lack the information needed to prove or disprove me.

    And you're resorting to flattery. Charming. If you disagree with our definition of espionage that is your own problem, because you aren't going to get anywhere arguing over semantics.

    As for the punishment, I will repeat, once again, and for the last time - an alliance is responsible for its leader's actions. SCM was leader of FIST when he impersonated our Minister of Peace, and thus FIST is responsible. They might get let off easier due to SCM's resigation, but that does not completely absolve them of blame.

  2. Just being allowed to live doesn't justify immediately liking somebody. Also, don't attack a person, attack their argument, I'm tired of this stupid "OMG I'm going to post something clever about your past/attack your intelligence." I'll admit, I was guilty of that a couple of times (with Spakistan and Vir), but it really needs to end.

    There is a difference between liking someone or something, and holding respect for them. To bring up probably the most obvious example from the Cyberverse, Ivan Moldavi was, and still is widely respected as an oustanding leader, even by the same people that disliked him because they ended up on the wrong side.

    I would attack his argument, except that has already been done for a dozen pages of this thread. For some insane reason I do not understand, people in the Cyberverse today seem to always absolve an alliance of blame when their leader acts in an idiotic way and brings the might of foreign powers tumbling down upon them. There was a time when as a world we recognized that a leader represents an alliance, and that a leader's actions are an alliance's actions. Why is that suddenly untrue?

    This thread has been characterized by people spouting the same ignorant trash time and time again, and despite clear and logical responses I continue to see the same tired old argument repeated. It is at this point that there it becomes clear attacking the argument does not work, and one simply must attack the root of the problem.

  3. Personally, I think that there should be a set amount of treaties an aliiance can have. Only 1 MADP, 2 MDoAP, 4 MDPs, etc. or something along those lines. Would force alliances to put alot more thought into their allies and how the game would be connected from it.

    Also, lol *points to sig*

    Excellent, and now to enforce it. We'll need a large bloc of alliances to do this... oh wait.

  4. Got bored again huh guys? Honestly, you declared war because of a guy who acted on his own and who's own alliance denounced his actions? Get real. I'm out, but to appease you guys, I'll go down with a fight. Peace out.

    Did you by any chance read the OP?

  5. NEW also is comprised of Singaporeans, it's the foundation for their alliance, and they'd have just as much motive as the GUN Singaporeans to take issue with OCuK's flag. The only difference is members of GUN were apparently more vocal about it.

    Nonetheless, the IP thing is pretty sketchy at best.

    Being "more vocal" is a massive understatement. GUN was the alliance threatening OcUK over this, the alliance being quite hostile in regards to the flag. It follows logically that they are the ones who would take action.

×
×
  • Create New...