[FIFA 2010 World Cup Competition]

Have sent the last of my owed tech to Jaymjaym and sethb and it's been accepted, so I'm free from debt

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Haquertal' date='20 July 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1279647126' post='2380882']
Ummm. ummmmmmmm. I wish reds were in my range
[/quote]
I'm in your range, maybe if I go unaligned you could attack me?

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1279646398' post='2380865']
Don't go changing those goalposts with an attempt to make this about all tech raiding ever now.
[/quote]
I had made all the points I'd wanted to make about the actual topic on hand. But you're right, the thread can stay with the topic of how you're attacking innocent nations over a grudge against the NPO and I'll take the tech raiding thing elsewhere.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1279645988' post='2380855']
Except we aren't raiding thousands upon thousands of nations.

~and with that the cards all

fall

down~
[/quote]
I didn't realise you'd kept count. How many nations have you raided since the turn of the year?

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1279643814' post='2380776']
Individual nations don't have sovereignty. It's in the CN Bible.[/quote]
Even when there are thousands upon thousands of them? Why, of course! Because no matter how many independents there are, you can destroy them for sport and use them as pawns in your political games because they have no desire to pack together like wolves and assert their own will on you, as you do to them.

Your CN Bible was written by cowards and bullies and rather than revising it, you enjoy nothing more than following it. Oh well.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1279643424' post='2380756']
There are other ways of answering an insult than full scale war, you know. If the nations in question don't want to be raided then all they have to do is join an alliance - GDA or TDO are always options for nations that do prefer to do their own thing and they wouldn't have to worry about being raided ever again.
[/quote]
For one who screams about violations to his own sovereignty you're rather quick to trample all over other people's. Let me ask you this: why is your sovereignty as an alliance worth more than the sovereignty of thousands of individual nations?

Do not attempt to dismiss me as a silly moralist either, like others are doing. I know I have morals, I'm proud of them, and I'm happy to share them with you rampant brutes in the hope of some form of enlightenment.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1279643180' post='2380745']
Why are you campaigning for NPO's destruction?
[/quote]
I don't think they'd be destroyed.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1279642929' post='2380734']
I can only assume that it never occurred to us that our sovereignty was being infringed on in this manner before now. There have been other things happening in CN over the last two years you know!
[/quote]
If the insult to your sovereignty is so grave, why aren't you attacking the NPO? Your current victims are not at fault at all, they're just easy prey for bullies.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1279642233' post='2380713']
On a more general note, MK and many more alliances have been raiding "innocent" nations for years, so using the whole "you're slaughtering bystanders" argument is a bit silly. This is what we do - the fact that this Safari is coordinated between multiple alliances, or that there is an actual political reason behind our campaign doesn't make it better or worse.
[/quote]
Sorry, but it does make it worse. Instead of piecemeal individual nations from your alliance destroying smaller innocent ones for loosely-sanctioned alliance sport, you've stepped it up a notch and organised a co-ordinated hit with your fellow vagrants on those nations, purely because you didn't like the way NPO had worded a new doctrine. So please, save me the lies, because you haven't always been this petty and this pathetic.

The small unprotected nations have gone from mere victims to pawns in the silly game you've decided to play in order to insult the NPO, in lieu of the requisite support or bravery to outright attack them man on man.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1279640536' post='2380669']
You missed the part where we chose not to recognize it.
[/quote]
Well, it's seeming at the moment like the new Revenge Doctrine has a fair amount of support, so I look forward to seeing how far you're willing to push this.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1279640105' post='2380651']
I think enough justification has been given in this very thread. This is not about us wanting to destroy nations for kicks, it's about showing the NPO that we do not recognize their renamed Revenge Doctrine (yes, the one they weren't allowed to re-enact as part of the surrender terms they signed) and that we won't allow them to dictate who we raid and who we don't. If we have to lay waste to the entire red sphere for them to get it, then so be it.
[/quote]
If they're breaking surrender terms, why aren't you DoW'ing them? The only reason I can see that you'd attack the entire sphere before the NPO is that you do not have the support for war over this (rightly so) and you don't have the balls to carry out your convictions in your own right. It's far easier and takes less bravery to slaughter some uninvolved and innocent nations, and you can enjoy the 'victory' of sticking two fingers up at the Revenge Doctrine.

Which is kinda weak, if you ask me.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='20 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279639237' post='2380628']
Anyone who thinks this is anything but a reaction to a terribly thought out foreign affairs decision needs to re-examine the world we live in.
If Red Dawn had used a different name, say something like “Department of Red Public Defenders” and dropped language like “protection” and maybe stated “will seek to get you peace” I doubt we would even be having this discussion.[/quote]
I've re-examined the world we live in in light of your comments and it's apparently more pathetic than ever. MK and it's cronies have a problem with NPO's wording, and their response is petty and cowardly attacks on red nations who are completely uninvolved? Wow.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='20 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279639237' post='2380628']
The difficulty here is that so many like to declare them “worse” than the old hegemony. Really, what kind of reaction to that do you expect?[/quote]
I've actually seen more of the opposite; people criticising the new hegemony's actions are met with 'at least we're not the NPO' more often than not. It can be seen in this thread with Penkala's 'response' to pezstar.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1279639049' post='2380623']
I'm dying to hear it.
[/quote]
I'm sure you are. How long are you planning to use the "NPO did worse, so we're okay" line of defence? It feels as though it's dying as we speak but obviously you instead to keep beating this particular dead horse for a while longer. I guess it's easier than actually justifying your own actions and taking responsibility for your behaviour.

[Red Raiding Safari]

[quote name='Penkala' date='20 July 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1279637655' post='2380578']
Raiding unaligned nations is worse than viceroys. Quit being a drama queen Pez.
[/quote]
Trying to get people to judge your benevolence against previous, and now defunct, NPO standards is pretty silly because those standards were so low that exceeding them in itself is nothing noteworthy. It's getting boring listening to you patting your side on the back for not implementing viceroys, when you're still operating below a line of decency. Viceroys was way way way down below that line, but does that mean that everything above is fine? Obviously not. You can still be dicks without implementing viceroys.

It'd just be nicer if you set your own standards, instead of defaulting to the 'at least we're not quite as terrible as the NPO, judge us on those long-dead standards please' stance any time you get called on your crap.

[Are the NPO still the bad guys?]

[quote name='Banksy' date='17 July 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1279406961' post='2376361']
It doesn't look like you've reached out to try and change your image, rather you are preserving the old one by keeping to the same, reduced, circle of friends.[/quote]
The NPO is a unique, distinctive and hard-headed alliance, and I get the sense that the more pressure there is from the outside for them to change their culture to fit with how you'd like them to be, they more they will dig in and hold on to their identity for dear life. Okay, so they generally appear to be more cold and detached socially than other alliances, but I like that there is at least one alliance whose members are able to post regularly without the many try-hard attempts to be a part of the cool crowd that come with the posts of members of certain other alliances.

And sure, their government doesn't repeatedly court and suck up to your government like others around the world do, but that's hardly surprising given the alliance's recent history. If they're trying to reduce the chance of being played or betrayed again, having a group of dedicated and loyal allies surrounding them (no matter how small in number or strength) and sticking to their corner could be considered a better strategy than wading into false relationships with those who quite possibly still (yes, [i]still[/i]) hate their guts.

These characteristics are the things that make them who they are and, whether you are comfortable with them or otherwise, they provide at least some level of diversity on Bob. There's certainly no need to be afraid of their ways to such an extent that you are consumed by paranoia and feel compelled to demand changes in person and policy.

Obviously, I'm not a member of the NPO and I'm not anything like close enough to the alliance to speak with any certainty on their actual positions - if you want that, read Branimir. These are just my uninformed and purely speculative opinions on how things seem to me, only offered because the NPO is apparently becoming the focus of discussion once again (god knows why!).

[Your Favorite Nuclear Rogue?]

All the ones who do it for themselves and don't feel the need to attention seek about it here.

[Announcement from Supergrievances]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' date='16 July 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1279294446' post='2374516']
That said, I received a nice apology from Londo in which he explained how this came to be. It always takes some guts to own up to a mistake so as far as i'm concerned this "issue" is over and done with without hard feelings.
[/quote]
Guts? It should be second nature to the guy by now. He can add this one to the long list of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73807"]apologies[/url] he made previously for acting like a bit of a dick.

Interesting last sentences in that thread, though. "How easy it is with strength to disregard our high ideals. That ends today." I wonder if he'll reflect upon whether he's lived up to his own words as he takes his hiatus.

[GOONS Announcement]

Oh boy?

Good luck catching this sad act, GOONS.

[Announcement from Supergrievances]

On a scale of 1-10, how close would you say that the signatories of C&G and SF are with each other (overall)? 10 meaning you're all BFF and hell will have to freeze over before the wartime coalition breaks, 1 meaning that the two blocs only roll together for power and don't really like each other.

[Declaration of War]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 July 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1279146251' post='2371678']
If you are unhappy with the outcome, unhappy with the fact Valhalla have dealt with it, go take your nation and alliance buddies and DoW on GOD/GOONS/Kronos. Really please do!
[/quote]
And what would be the point of that? Throwing a few nations into a raging fire achieves nothing. It's far better to get into minds, influence people and attempt to secure a lasting change in attitudes, don't you think?

If you truly believe that the best way of expressing feelings of distaste is to immediately declare war (regardless of any existing circumstances) as though you are some sort of primitive imbecile then I have to say that I feel nothing but pity for you.

[Declaration of War]

Then you will cease to focus on my replies, presumably in the same way that you'd ignore the posts of an irrelevant body of commentators.

[Declaration of War]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='14 July 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1279117509' post='2370914']
well, that all depends on what the criticism is, how much there is of it, and where it's coming from. Criticism from people I'm allied to is one thing. Criticism from people connected to the situation is one thing. Criticism from people who have made being irrelevant into an art form is quite another.

Strange that you think this is damage control. Personally, I only just noticed this thread and found the whole thing funny.

Plus, we do everything possible to direct attention [i]towards[/i] our dumb antics, thank you very much.
[/quote]
Sure, sure. In fact they're [b]so[/b] irrelevant that a comment from a peanut gallery member was the first thing you focused on, despite having seven pages of replies (not to mention the actual topic of discussion in the OP) to choose from when forming a reply. You even went as far to say that the moralising of these people was "the very best thing" about this type of thread. Those aren't the words I'd use to generally describe an irrelevance.

So yes, it's damage control, and to say that you do everything to draw attention to your idiocy is plainly false when only moments ago you were attempting to create a 'hey let's all laugh at that crazy peanut gallery' sentiment, and now you are engaging in some pedantic game about nation creation dates. Shouldn't you be talking about your dumb antics?

[Declaration of War]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='14 July 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1279116763' post='2370903']
the very best thing about this sort of thread is the peanut gallery moralizing from the sidelines. I have to say that in any international incident, my first thought is "Quick! What do MCXA think about this? This is [i]vitally important![/i]"
[/quote]
You think so? I prefer it when a member from one of the criticised alliances inevitably swans in post-criticism and issues the same tired one-liners about the peanut gallery in the hope that it'll deflect the attention away from their alliance's dumb antics. [i]"Don't worry chaps, we're getting slagged off, but it's only those little fellows from the peanut gallery, right? Right?!"[/i]

Classic.

[Declaration of War]

[quote name='Viking' date='14 July 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1279116312' post='2370888']
I never claimed to be sophisticated.
[/quote]
Then we are agreed that the only people who find this funny are moronic simpletons, and those with a brains will be scoffing and shaking their heads disapprovingly.

[Declaration of War]

[quote name='Viking' date='14 July 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1279115188' post='2370874']
Maybe it's wrong to you. That's cool, don't laugh. I find this whole situation hilarious, and the reaction you and others like you are having regarding the situation adds to the humor.[/quote]
HAHAHAHA an alliance prepared for war on the basis of rumour AHAHAHAHAHAH. And people aren't laughing!?!?!!! HAHAHA WHAT IDIOTS.

Or not, because alliances prepare for war on the basis of rumours all the time. There's not really much that's funny about this stunt, it's stupid and childish more than anything. Xiphosis and his cronies can feel pleased that people take them seriously (or did, anyway), but for everyone else it's should represent low-grade humour at best.