Cobalt
-
Posts
687 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Cobalt
-
-
[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 February 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1265611274' post='2168390']
Fighting noWedge.
Not much has changed.
[/quote]
[quote name='Xiphosis' date='08 February 2010 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1265611854' post='2168404']
Cute, but I'm not the one allied to Valhalla.
[/quote]
As cute as the back and forth is... enough.
[img]http://www.ducatimonster.org/gallery/data/1845/ruler.jpg[/img]
Just whip 'em out, measure, and be done with it. -
[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='04 February 2010 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1265278394' post='2158632']
We are not cowboys.
[/quote]
speak for yourself. yee-haw! -
I'm just wondering if anyone can actually see my post. I suppose raiders bringing up defunct points is pretty typically though.
Here ya go:
While this must be comforting for those who describe themselves as amoral, that is an absurd statement.
I don't describe myself as amoral, but it was meant to be an absurd statement, so I think we can call this one a draw
Those opposed to tech-raiding are typically from varying alliances, people I think of most prominently are Death, Bob Janova, Bzelger, Randominterrupt and scores of others I can't think of right now, who have been consistently opposed to tech-raiding for as long as they have bothered to post on these forums regardless of their political affiliation.
... I said nothing about techraiding, and to group the whole "moral" vs "amoral" conflict we're all apparently having into "techraiding" vs "anti-techraiding" is a little simplistic. Those championing "morality" and "justice" have been around for a while, and its not just about tech raiding. For instance, I personally do not approve of techraiding, and do not and have not done it myself - however I would not say I'm a moralist. To continue, I really don't know where you pulled raiding from in regards to my comment, apparently you learned some tricks at magic camp.
Alliance leaders may cynically exploit community outrage in order to justify their own schemesAgreed... notice how this falls in with my point; those claiming to be moral really just want to justify their actions, regardless of how truly just their actions are. To think anything, anywhere is black and white, good vs. evil, moral vs. amoral is naive at best - there will always be shades of grey. In the end you just gotta hope you went with the lesser of two evils because you probably won't have many opportunities to choose "good" as it were.
which in my opinion is probably what Polaris is doing, but the posters usually labeled as Moralists have always opposed raiding for differing reasons- damage they feel it does to the community, disgust at the hypocritical rhetoric of "do something about it," empathy with the raided, past experience, being a member of a small alliance or unaligned themselves... the list goes on.And here's the meat. What we're really dealing with here is the CN use of the word moral (and its buddies 'morality', 'moralism', and the now accusatory 'moralist') and not true meaning of the word. Just like in any political or social situation, words take on different meanings depending on who uses them, when they use them, and how they do. In a current context, a "moralist" probably doesn't define themselves as such, they are defined as such by another party. Feel free to disagree, but I'd say my definition was fairly accurate from that perspective.
I fall in the category of "all of the above reasons" for condemning raiding, and as such I'll back any alliance whose victory means a blow to the practice of tech raiding.Congrats, see GGA to get your medal
Regardless of the goals behind Polaris' attack, the war is clearly being waged on the basis of the validity of raids upon alliances constituting a valid CB.Firstly, I'm going to take this time to say the entire concept of a "valid CB" is absurd. If your entire alliance wants to attack someone, hell... go for it. As a community we've developed this mentality that aggression is some sort of foul, and that you must wait until you can fulfill some undefined burden of proof that you were wronged enough to go to war over it. It has reduced our world to an entire playground of kids yelling insults at each other, but everyone's waiting for someone else to throw the first punch. If you want techraiding gone, and are willing to fight to see it gone - fight to see it gone. Its like we're all siting around trying to figure out how we can do what we want without breaking the "law" - when there is no law to break. The only real rules and regulations we have to follow are the rules of forum conduct, and those we impose upon ourselves internally. Do what you want. I realize this basically boils down to "might makes right" but lets be serious - outside of the internal workings of an alliance, CN exists in a state of anarchy; the only "right" and "wrong" is what you can back up militarily, whether by your self or through treaties. Somehow we've all become servants to the "law" of public approval, and that's terrible. Do what you want, do what you think is right.
Certainly, that is what the tech-raiders seem most upset about. As someone who wants to see raiding eradicated, I'm all for attacking alliances who view tech-raiding other alliances to be tolerable. And as such I'm for the defeat of the coalition that has congealed around \m/.I think the "tech raiders" are concerned about a greater power than themselves wanting to eradicate them... a valid concern. They're mounting their ideological defense from inside the same court of public approval that you seem to be mounting your attack. You should probably also consider that as much as you think techraiding is wrong, they think it is right. I doubt they sit in front of their computers saying to themselves "lets go be morally bankrupt" (morality here used by its actual definition, not its CN definition).
Guess that means I'm feigning "outrage" so I can feel I'm on the side of "truth, justice, rainbows, unicorns, and baby woodland creatures."No, you're not feigning, you seem to be actually outraged - which I'd actually say is worse, especially given that this is an OOC forum. IC outrage is fine. So, have fun with your rainbows, unicorns, and woodland creatures - just know that the other side probably thinks they have them too... how many wars do you think have been fought in which both sides thought god was on their side?
Enjoy.
-
"Moralism" as practiced here, has absolutely nothing to do with actual morals but feigning moral outrage at every turn so the player can feel they are on the side of truth, justice, rainbows, unicorns, and baby woodland creatures.
-
Haven't yu already discredited yourself by acknowledging that everything you spouted in vox was a load of crap used to manipulate the same mindless masses you want to wake up here?
this. It brings to mind a certain story about a boy and a wolf
-
o/ and all that jazz.
-
Mostly Harmless Alliance: Powerful
The Order of the Paradox: Dominant
New Polar Order: Proud
Independent Republic of Orange Nations: Lurking
Sparta: There
Orange Defense Network: Changing
Fark: Chilling
Green Protection Agency: Menacing
New Pacific Order: Waiting
Viridian Entente:
FOK: Confident
The Order of Light: There
Viridian Entente:Hypocrite
Aww, you're so cute when you're bitter.
-
I think it would be better to base the generation names off the political climates of the time rather then a solid year. For example mentioned above the year 2008 is called Generation Vox yet Vox itself, while it had a large influence, wasn't involved in the majority of the year and instead Generation Vox would better describe the time between WotC and Karma war.
This. Plus, if you were going to do it by year, CN's rhythm is based more on the academic year rather than the calendar.
-
Have fun man. I always enjoyed our chats back in the NADC days.
-
Karma in and of itself is something of a misnomer due primarily to the fact that it has constantly had crap attached to it that was never once stated by the majority (maybe the occasional person in Karma stated that crap) on the Karma side. add to this the fact that many alliances that fought on the Karma side did not fight with Karma but for a specific alliance instead. Polaris is the prime example of this.
so "Karma" itself means something different to many alliances. for example, NPO and the Heg alliances have listed that Karma means no reps ever, light terms all the time if not white peace all the time, no aggressive wars ever, and crap like that. something that Karma itself never stated. to those who fought with Karma it was about acceptable terms versus the draconian terms offered previously. white peace for alliances that only entered due to honoring treaties. aggressive wars acceptable so long as the CB was legit (this of course will always be a subjective matter) and so on.
as for cold wars, i would say that the GPW-GWIII era saw the longest Cold War that did flash hot twice. it also showed proxy wars being used to create a global war (i.e. Fark-LUE treaty that was announced after GOONS hit Fark).
the period preceding the Karma war was a psuedo-Cold war in that diplomatic efforts to form a coalition were underway but nothing could truly be overt without risking premature destruction by the power of the time.
Now, we have rising tensions between 2 sides but since the two sides are still shifting, the next mini-war may not evolve with the same exact sides as now though most likely they will be quite similar due to the treaty web.
Rarely do I find myself agreeing with your comments, apparently this is one of those rare instances. You've got it 100% right this time.
I'm not sure it is possible to "win" in cybernations without conflict.Its entirely possible, and more often than not when the dust settles from conflicts, you realize that the actual battle was more just going through the motions so that the end result, which was predetermined through diplomacy and careful planning, could come to exist than an actual deciding factor in the outcome.
I find that on planet bob, not only is the pen equally or more mighty than the sword, but the sword stays sheathed until the pen decides the time, place, and outcome. To continue the analogy, it seems the key to victory is to either be doing the writing yourself, or hope your side contains better authors.
-
Community does not equal alliance
Actually, I would say community is what defines an alliance
-
first nation was December 8th, 2006... I need a new hobby
-
You're missing my point. I am saying it is quite silly for reformed and formerly disbanded alliances to pretend they have been a continuing entity for all this time. FAIL was originally formed in December 2007. If I recreated in right now should I really be able to claim, and believably, that FAIL has been around for two years? No. If can't do that, however, why should IAA, \m/, or VE?
Well, personally I don't think most alliances that disbanded and reformed should be on there. VE for example, was only disbanded for a couple months, in which time splinter alliances were formed which came back together to reform VE when the time was right - as I've said in a previous threads; VE maintained its membership, government, attitude, values, and general culture after its reformation. Internally, the disbandment period is looked at as a dark transition period in the history of the alliance, not a gap in the record.
Memory isn't as sharp on this one because I really don't know much about them, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a very long period between IAA's disbandment and reformation, and again I believe they were re founded by their government/original members etc after not to long a delay.
\m/ on the otherhand, disbanded and did not reform for more than 2 years. I'm not judging them as an alliance, but in terms of "are they the same now as when they disbanded" the answer is clearly no. The same applies to any other alliance which is merely shares the similarity of flag and name with their predecessor.
And really Bilrow? "Its confusing for new players"... come on now, you can do a better job than that of covering your personal bias. Its like trying to hide an elephant under a cocktail napkin... you're not fooling anyone.
-
I was in the NADC from the sidelines. Biggest disappointment was Legion and ODN not doing anything. I wanted GUARD to get in there to, but there was no hope in that happening.
Me too, but the point of GUARD was kinda sorta to *not* get in there, so I guess that worked.
-
On or before July 1st 2008, Rishnokof was Ragnarok Lord of Information.
Or do you have to be triumvir/emperor to be considered government in Ragnarok?
The horse. It died. Stop beating it.
-
Warbuck's Defense Strategies:
- Hacked
- Sarcasm
- Lack of Photoshop Skill
- Lack of IRC Skill
- Can't edit a text file
Am I missing anything?
- Hacked
-
Well, I mean this was one of the reasons many were happy to see you go. You'd think that if you were gonna come back to the game, it'd be with a better attitude. Of all of the alliances that have disbanded, I was happy to see You and GOONS go. Now, on some level, you're both back. I would respect each of you more if you had pulled a FAN and just stuck around in peace mode until you could get white peace. Instead, you gave up and decided to come back years later. Now, instead of coming back on some positive level, you're doing the same stuff that got you where you were when you left the game. Seems like decent strategy. Way to win..
- everyone's always complaining that everything's so boring now and how "things were better in the old days"
- \m/ is an alliance from "the old days"
- you claim \m/ is doing things the same way they did them in "the old days"
Sounds fantastic to me. I'm not going to pretend I was a fan of \m/'s resurrection, but if this new rendition is doing things in a pre-UJP War manner, more power to 'em.
- everyone's always complaining that everything's so boring now and how "things were better in the old days"
-
I just want :thumbsup: back
-
Looks like someone came and pulled the plug for you, before you had the chance. You can go back to your hole now, make sure to take the rest of your members with you.
You are very relevant and people care about what you have to say. The world exists for your pleasure, and your good opinion and approval are all a man could ever hope to attain.
There, is that what you're looking for here? Can we now be done with your silliness?
-
Very well done, CN Alliances. You have officially permitted bad faith, fake CB's, dogpiles and other acts by the black hats to succeed. You had the chance to make the world a better place and you fluffed it. White peace? Why? Not all fish deserve to be put back in the pond. Some fish deserve the brick in the face.
Terrible day.
Hang your heads in shame.
that is all.
-
God 57th, what did you really hope to accomplish by preemptively attacking?
Think about what a preemptive attack means, then don't ask stupid questions.
-
Has anyone considered that warbuck wasnt the one who changed it? Anyone who he leaked the logs to could have added it in order to make the logs seem more important. (although resorting to hacking claims does in my mind put more suspicion on warbuck)
Wow, someone thinking rationally and considering realistic scenarios ("zomg they hacked my irc logs!!!!!" doesn't quite cut it). Somehow I get the feeling this is what happened.
Really, the only thing we do know is that Warbuck had to have leaked the logs initially, as it seems Hoo sure as heck wouldn't have disseminated that conversation out of the goodness of his heart, regardless of "the line"s existence.
-
Good stuff. I got a chuckle out of NATO's DoW - very obviously faked logs and all that jazz. Glad you two could talk it out with civility and class. Just like to point something out though:
[5:56pm] wentworth[NATO]: There is a continued threat in existence in RoK then Sooner. Regardless of Rish being gone or not, RoK still may be conspiring against us, there is no evidence to prove otherwise
A giant flying microwave flew to earth on an asteroid made of cotton candy and created the first one-celled organism, thereby initiating the cycle of evolution which has forged the world as we know it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise, and now we both sound ridiculous.
This phrase needs to be removed from political discourse. From an argumentative standpoint it is just a way of trying to use a lack of evidence as a point of evidence - a practice which screams of desperation and grabbing at straws. If you have proof regarding an issue, great. Use it. If you do not have evidence, but also do not have anything that proves otherwise - you still have nothing, so give it a rest. Its kinda like making a mountain out of a molehill, without the molehill.
[/rant]
edit: would like to add that the above rant has nothing to do with the Rok/NATO et al. situation, just my issues with the phrase "there is no evidence to prove otherwise" and other statements of similar meaning.
-
] <Warbuck[ADI]> I'll unban you from #ADI- talk to ss23 and see if people can hack the .txt file
^More sarcasm... actually DID ask him though cause I wanted him to say no. But he said yes, remarkably.
[02:30:30] <Warbuck[ADI]> so, either it was there to begin with or it was placed there[02:30:50] <Warbuck[ADI]> either way, I'm going to have my IT friends redo the security on my computer now
^If at this point you don't see my sarcasm, you are a lost cause.
I'm a lost cause. I can see how the last one could have been sarcastic... but in context... not so much.
Fake edit... just realized I'm 15+ pages late... meh
The Amazing Immorality Race
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Oh look, personal opinions on a subjective abstract topic presented as empirical data. Whatever could be wrong with that.