Jump to content

Ryan Greenberg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,816

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Ryan Greenberg

  8. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    "Apparently"? Do you have any proof of this, or are you just taking the OWF rumor mill as fact? And like I said, say what you will about DH but there has been change. To say that things are the same as they were before is nonsense. I have also never claimed to be good. Nor have I claimed that DH is "good." They'd probably be offended if I did.

    1.) I never said there hasn't been change. There has. It just hasn't nearly been as good as anticipated by most during Karma. Not even close.

    2.) I know for a fact that GOD held up the peace because of their ego and hatred for UPN. Do you think they just wanted to have a couple more jabs at UPN? Why postpone a peace that EVERYONE else wanted? It's almost impossible to disband, but I believe(you don't have to agree) GOD literally wanted UPN as irrelevant as possible.

  10. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    I don't know why you're looking at Xiph when you say that. GOD hasn't disbanded anyone post-Karma. While a few alliances do continue to use PZI I can't recall a case of it being applied across re-rolls since the fall of Q, either. When was the last time an alliance had its charter forcibly re-written? Or were forced to move colors?

    Complain as you will about Doomhouse's current antics or the fact that people are taking reps at all, but you must admit that in a clear and objective way things have changed and terms have gotten lighter (I mean, look at NpO's terms, for instance).

    Well....GOD has apparently attempted to disband alliances. I have never said they actually did it successfully. And IDC if NPO was worse than DH is in 2011. Just because your not worse than the last hegemony, doesn't mean you're good.

  11. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    I personally don't know the difinition of "Moralism" either. My point was is that "Moralism" was huge in the post-Karma world. You saw it being discussed everywhere, even if you didn't know what it meant. After Bipolar...the word just went away. Remember Te Moralist Front? What the hell happened to them after Bipolar?

    The only time I hear it now is when some GOONS go:

    "Duuuur....huuuuur.....you don't agree with us? Duuuuur.....huuuuur....damn Moralist".

    Even that's rare to see these days

  12. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    There was never any 'Moralist Era' in CN. That would imply the people who were against raiding were being moralists themselves. The same people who railed against \m/ and GOONS for the things they did were the people in the WCE channel talking about ways to fabricate CB's and disband/extort high reps from those raiding alliances. Moralism was a tool used by some to build support against alliances they didn't like. VE has a set of morals they play by, NpO has a set they play by, GOONS has a set they play by. But there was never once a period in which people could claim that commonly shared morals were a driving force in what defined acceptable politics in CN, therefore it is hard, if not impossible, to say that there was ever a moralist 'era'.

    All that I am saying was that the word 'Moralism' and how it used was at its peak during this time. Idc what happened afterwards.

  13. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    The reason I believe there is a Moralist Era is that I believe the peak of the outrage on tech raiding, on GOOONS/\m//PC, the whole "standing up for the little guy", a lot coincidently occured in between Karma and Bipolar. IDC whether NSO wanted it to be or not, the Moldavi Doctrine was formed during the beginning of this. 2 weeks later the IS War happened. After this you see more moral outrage against raiding and than other raids against KoN! and FoA and the outrage that came after it.

    There doesn't have to be two distinct sides for an era to happen. The Moralism we all know and love was at it's hottest during the time in between Karma-Bipolar and was a top issue to talk about it. IMO, it was a phenomenom that won't ever happen again. That's why it was so interesting.

  16. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    We're talking about exactly the same thing.

    Grub went to MK and told them that we were planning to attack in support of NpO's position. MK prepared their side for the coming assault. One of those preparations was the timely acceptance of white peace that coincided with our DoW so as to cut what was one war into two distinct wars: one which was over, and one which had just begun.

    Ingeniously played by MK. We were so impressed that we became their ally afterward.

    NpO? The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers.

    Read the original \m/ DoW in the blog. The bolded part. Read what it says. I'm guessing your one those conspriacy theorist though?

  17. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    I need to point this out for accuracy:

    Characterizing the Stab in the Back as a screw-up is ridiculous. Polar didn't trip over an \m/ corpse and the knife happened to land in our backs. Polar went against its immediate interests and the interests of the philosophy that it was representing to plant a K-bar firmly in our collective spine.

    And since I am a TOP member posting about BiPolar, Grub will invariably show up and say one of the following lines:

    1. It wasn't Polar, it was ME!

    2. Your continued whining is pathetic.

    Preemptive Response 1: The Emperor is the alliance. Quit trying to save your people, Moses.

    Preemptive Response 2: Not nearly as pathetic as any Polar war effort in living memory.

    1.) That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the white peace and the pre emptive attack happening on the same day.

    2.) u mad? Had to ask... :smug:

  18. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    You are simply titled the post-karma shake up of the powers as your Moralist Era. Ivan's post, while significant, is not proof of a moral era. It is very NSO in policy, in that is a departure from accepted precedents in that time. If there had been a great war in this time period, there would have been reps. Tech raiding continued, as it always had. NpO declaring on \m/ wasn't for moral reasons. From what i read, A \m/ember said something offense and quite stupid, and the situation snowballed.

    The Moldavi Doctrine was announced at the time when the anti-tech raiding bandwagons were getting larger. It was all apart of the atmosphere of the era. Wheather NSO wanted that or not.

×
×
  • Create New...