Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Näktergal

  • Rank
    Lysandra Sidéral - Fallen Angel
  • Birthday 07/16/2006

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mirador, Näktergal

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2
  1. [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1317342533' post='2812247'] Does this mean the world can now assume the entire Polar/Legion part of the treaty web no longer exists? Because that's what it looks like right now. We've had Legions protected forums spilled onto the OWF, UINE rolled, and now UPN Rolled, and nothing can seem to get the frozen north to budge.[/quote] Considering we've basically entered a period of CN politics wherein diplomacy is a farce and most CBs are bad jokes at best, and it seems perfectly obvious that any number of people would like nothing more than to throw a few more punch
  2. [quote name='Nestea' timestamp='1313180398' post='2778768']Nak from the FCC[/quote] My ego-sense is tingling! I'm still around. I'll probably be here until the digital sun of CN dims down to little more than cold cinders. I have a long history of never knowing when to leave a sinking ship. I only pop up on the OWF like once every 6 months or so these days, though. I'm in Créole now, and I spend most of my CN-related time hanging out on our alliance forums and making snarky comments about everything. [quote name='ControlVolume' timestamp='1313181800' post='2778792']Do you also g
  3. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1312404708' post='2771131'] now you can go back to 2 more 'fun' filled years of being irrelevant and isolated.......yay? [/quote] I tried being relevant, it wasn't any fun. Sitting on our porch and yelling at people to get off our lawn is way more enjoyable! [quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1312410490' post='2771185'] And here I bet that up until now, they didn't even know that their sole purpose of being here and running their nations was to entertain chefjoe. [/quote] Actually, we made that our secret mission statement about 16 months ago, w
  4. [quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1295665682' post='2590528'] Kind of funny to see people believing me when it benefits them and then claim I'm lying when it paints them in a bad. You're all pathetic.[/quote] To be fair, "believing" blatant lies or ignoring obvious truths when it's convenient and then loudly proclaiming them to the world when it isn't describes something like 75% of all politics that have ever happened in CN. And probably at least half of the various CBs that have been used over the years. It's hardly a new phenomenon, and has little to do with you personally - if anything,
  5. [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1293645089' post='2557436'] I missed your posts. [/quote] I forgot my password for a few months. Just remembered it again. Shame I can't go back and comment in some of the threads I've seen in the past that I wanted to post in but couldn't.
  6. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293633950' post='2557306'] It's hardly being set, I think that's been the case as long as it's occurred; might makes right 'n' all that. [/quote] Ehh, it's kind of unrealistic (if not opportunistic) to view it that way. Honestly, I'd say it's more a case of when you engage in something that is generally seen as being pretty dishonorable in wartime by a majority of the rest of the world, you kind of forfeit the right to complain when your enemy turns around and does the exact same thing back to you in retaliation. Balancing the pans isn't even remotely as b
  7. [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1286889494' post='2482317'] Article 2 is kinda interesting, being a kind of intel supremacy clause. Oh well; it's not like the bloc members have traditionally been in the habit of signing PIATs anyway, but this agreement really would make them pointless. [/quote] It's hardly the first bloc with some sort of "priority" clause of that nature. And if one or more alliances involved eventually wound up withholding info in support of an outside ally, it wouldn't even be the first bloc where one or more members completely ignored said priority clause when they
  8. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286582843' post='2479219'] Pretty much this. Getting flamed on the OWF isn't [i]that[/i] scary, certainly not something that should put an alliance (and its MoFA, whose job it is) off posting.[/quote] Whether or not it SHOULD scare any alliance out of posting and whether any given alliance feels they actually accomplish anything of substance by posting - and whether or not whatever they accomplish is even remotely worth the hassle - are two entirely different things. This CDT issue obviously has its own unique spin (ie, it's already been said they wante
  9. [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1286569881' post='2479077'] I look forward to a glorious future of unannounced wars, treaties and surrender terms. [/quote] Considering the current state of the game, that might actually be an improvement. If nothing else, things would be more interesting.
  10. [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1286568312' post='2479061'] I disagree, this is merely the natural progression. Originally, announcements used to contain the reasons why the announcement was being made, along with a lengthly treatise on their feelings about their decision. However gradually the reasons became shorter and more vague, until eventually they simply morphed into the classic "Reasons communicated in private" or "you know why". We have simply gone that next step further and now the announcement itself has been "communicated in private". [/quote] What you are saying doe
  11. [quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285004392' post='2459040'] Raiders look to exploit others resources for personal gain, although it requires attacking the other person, while trades and aid are done without there being an attack. Thus, traders and aiders are cowards as well, yes? [/quote] Yes, because a pre-arranged deal where two parties share resources and both profit is [i]EXACTLY[/i] the same as an unprovoked attack meant to extort resources from someone so that one party can benefit at the expense of the other. The terms "symbiotic" and "parasitic" come to mind here.
  12. I think raiding IS morally wrong, but I also think that morality in general is just about the last thing any alliance of sufficient size is going to weigh when deciding whether or not they should do something. Community standards notwithstanding (and community standards =/= morality), as long as their is tangible benefit to the practice, and the consequences seem minor, there will ALWAYS be people more than willing to happily crap all over other people for their own benefit. This is just human nature in general. Basically speaking, a Tech raid is just about the nation-level equivalent of a
  13. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1283546152' post='2440685']Large AAs aren't shrinking because they're being looted of members by a plethora of micros, their loss in membership is directly correlated to the massive loss of nations that [i]even exist[/i].[/quote] The saddest part is, even if it [i]were[/i] true that the main reason why there are no 1000-member alliances left in the game is solely because the available membership is now diluted across a far larger pool of available options, it still doesn't alter the fact that people are confusing cause/effect here. It wouldn't be the cas
  14. [quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552180' post='2440769']We are just one, controlled by Archon. Now that you're done being "witty", do you have anything to add to the conversation? C&G isn't just one alliance because we're completely different[/quote] Congratulations - you just figured out the point he was making. The reason why C&G is multiple alliances - namely, that each one has its own unique culture, identity, history, and means of viewing the world - is not somehow trumped by the overlying fact that they share similar political beliefs. In the same sense, while various ne
  15. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I don't think Admin should do anything I ask of him. I was merely suggesting what people's opinion are regarding my comment.[/quote] You asked what people thought, and then immediately followed up by pretty clearly indicating your own stance in multiple posts that followed. I'm merely doing the same and pointing out why I disagree with the idea of admin not "allowing" any sort of political viewpoint, let alone neutrality. You obviously seem to believe that the sheer existence of neutral alliances is somehow detrimental to the game
  • Create New...