Stonewall Jaxon

For the most part, it's because we've your reactions from the inside. It's always wildly entertaining

Wait, weren't you Athens at some point? I swear I'm starting to think I'm the only one who hasn't gone senile with CN age. Our new slogan should be "CoJ: Remember when you hailed us?"

Having been with NSO for a while I a can agree on the "loyal but problematic" bit (though I prefer the term "entertaining" to problematic), but I'd replace "ungrateful" with "castrated."

In their defense, they were a valuable friend until BiPolar castrated them completely

You never fail to deliver. I feel as if you now what GOONS' role in world affairs has been and always will be, and your posts are similar to a Napoleon complex about it

That may have been true long before the Sith one was even born, but seeing as the Orders' recent(ish) history has been defined by Polar's backstabbing of the Sith, the never-ending Pacifica-Polaris grudge (one of the largest impediments to the progresses of each Order in recent memory), and a general castration of both Sith and Polar, I'd have to say I feel sorry for all of the Orders in some way right now.

This is too long overdue. I wanted this back when I was in NSO, and that seems like ages ago. Back when Lennox was here, RV was still funny, and I was fairly convinced Jrenster and I had two highly contrasting ideas of the meanings of most English words.

I support this wholeheartedly. Who looks after the kitties in your park, though?

How disappointing. Until next time, I suppose

I now await excitedly the upcoming Neutricide

The sovereign alliance of Dixie mourns the loss of our secret treaty with FAN and hope to get to fixing our long-standing relationship soon.

If this turns out to be a new treaty I will be very unhappy

Where did all f your competent government members go?

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1345393220' post='3023487'] 4) He changes the subject by going into a generic "MK is bad" post. [/quote] You said yourself you'd gladly debate anyone who has issues with MK and doesn't just compare them to the NPO "hegemony." Schattenmann has done this. You asked for that "change of subject" and now you're complaining that he did so? In my opinion it'd be easier and more productive if you took him up on his offer.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1345351868' post='3023394'] My point was about the staleness of "old hegemony" and "new hegemony" comparisons, which you failed to address by moving the goalposts. I was arguing against those stale comparisons, not against criticisms of MK in general (I'd obviously argue against those, but on different grounds). My whole point has been that if people want to criticize MK, it should be on the merits of our actions, not on stale equivocations to Karma era stuff. [/quote] You might want to read that post again. I mean really [i]read[/i] it. The way I read it, it came out like this: 1. Schattenmann lists the various foul behaviors of MK 2. Azaghul says "My point was about how if you want to attack MK, attack based on MK's merits, not its merits comparative to NPO's" The thing about it is, he did.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1345308634' post='3023158'] The [i]legacy of Vox Populi[/i] threads are obviously meant to make people think about Karma and are thinly veiled excuses to equate the "new hegemony" with the "old hegemony". The reason I frequently talk about this subject is because you, Altergo, and others frequently talk about this subject. I never initiate the conversation. [/quote] Your idea of the motivation behind these threads is part nonsense and part legitimate. There is no political agenda in remembering Vox Populi. However, those who remember Vox fondly enjoyed its time because they believed in its principles, so naturally talk of Vox will lead to conversations regarding how those principles are being carried out today. You, me, and the rest of the world know that many individuals today rode on the coattails of the Vox movement and now sully the very name of the movement by standing against its principles. Any former Voxian should know that there is something wrong with the state of affairs these days, and I think the rest of CN knows it too, so it's only right we should address it when we remember the days when we had dreams of a glorious and free tomorrow.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1345273848' post='3023079'] Jesus Christ, Kwell. I hope it's all an elaborate ruse, tbh. [/quote] I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this thought...

[quote name='Nobody Expects' timestamp='1345211117' post='3022787'] You make the mistake of thinking the OWF can change hearts and minds, you also make the mistake of thinking the OWF is relevant to the politics of CN. [/quote] Once upon a time popular opinion was a prize to be won. Now, the few of us who remain in this world are more partisan; no amount of convincing is going to sway more than 1% of CN's favor toward a player or alliance. You're probably right now, but back in Vox's day you would be very wrong.

In the blog section of the forum, I just lost 15 minutes worth of text because when I went to submit a reply, where my reply should have been was just a notice that said "no permission." From now on I will C+P my drafts before submitting them, but beyond that, why does that happen? I'd love to find out what I can do so that my every post doesn't have to get submitted twice because my "secure key" didn't "match" something or other.

I just spent 15 minutes typing out a long response, only to get a "no permission" thing from the forum. Sorry, jerdgy. EDIT: In short, CBs used to serve the purpose of political justification for a war. IMO, the definition of a CB is an action committed by the defending alliance which allows the attacking alliance to assert that the defending alliance committed the first aggressive or unconscionable act and thus should be the one held responsible for the war. What a good CB really does is give alliances who do not want to defend the defending alliance a chance to save their skins without facing too much embarrassment. The inverse is also true with bad CBs (see: Karma War). Now, however, the political dynamic of PR in CN has been lost because all that remain here are the partisan core members of alliances, meaning that no amount of logic or good posting is going to sway the fate of an alliance or war over time.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1345156439' post='3022537'] 1. No, that's not what I said. I think Roq's recent phase wasn't his brightest moment but he has proven in the past he had what it takes to make a great leader. 2. You show me an intelligent and we can discuss it. I excluded Schatt because we both know he's being a contrarian for the sake of it and Starfox because, tbh, it's easy to say "look what an intelligent post of mine!" before getting either personnal or dirty. [/quote] 1. I can see that; I know of him primarily as his recent persona, so I never really encountered a Roquentin capable of leading people. Perhaps it's that his management and analytical skills are perfect for leading the oppression but he lacks the power of persuasion to be the revolutionary? 2. I'm still wondering what kind of post you're looking for. So far this thread hasn't gone so badly for either side. Would the post have to be in the Schattenmann style- a long OP detailing an elaborately well thought-out "gotcha," or as he has termed it, ~The Callout~? I'll be the first to admit that is a special skill of his that really can't be found anywhere else but maybe a Doitzel post. Is the definition of "intelligent" that the wording has to have adequate diction, that the point contain historical examples and conform to proper structure depending on the proper way one should make such a point, or simply be something above a simple, vitriolic and nonsensical insult? To me, an intelligent post for this public arena does not necessarily have to be a masterpiece; all I expect is civility. If a post makes any type of point, good or bad, with honest intent of discourse rather than an attempt to insult or debase someone else in the forum, then it's acceptable to me. As a sidenote, the writer in me tells me that the only truly talented poster these days is jerdge. His posts should be the model for all of ours, though admittedly his GPA membership allows him to post without the partisanship the rest of us often require.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1345151307' post='3022512'] Those "5" people are the most vocal of our opposition: show me an intelligent post that opposed us that isn't Schatt's (yours don't count). The problem is that because those "5" people spam the !@#$ out of us, any form of political discourse -if that only exists here- will be overtaken. You, the opposition, need proficient leaders. Both in terms of words and of political knowledge. People like Roq, Xiphosis or Delta could have taken that role but they seem to have taken a step back if not faded away completely. I am sorry to tell you this but the face of the anti-hegemony crowd is a moron. As for your prediction, one can only hope so. [/quote] 1. Please don't tell me you're lamenting the drop in Roquentin's activity on the grounds that his posts were of such a great standard. 2. Show you an intelligent post? Care to define the search parameters a bit more here? Once I know what I'm looking for I'm certain I can find many examples of attempts at intelligent discourse from people who are not Schattenmann and Starfox. To say that such posts don't exist is a bit of an over exaggeration.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1345153143' post='3022515'] What? The dude was saying that we are basically felons and how we are the boogeyman and how we [b]should[/b] be repressed because otherwise we would come back with a vengeance. Thereby implying that felons have a inclination to come back with a vengeance, just like NPO would. There was no social commentary. This is stupid and you know it's stupid and you even said it doesn't hold up. It's much more apt to use nations or corporations to compare to alliance in this case. And when I said "rest of us" I was clearly saying how most people aren't going to listen to you on this matter until you have something to back it up. I don't know why I had to explain that to you. [/quote] Why is it you and I always seem to end up speaking a different language? It's like we can take the same English words and read something completely different. Anyway, I don't think this is worth pursuing any further in this topic, and I can tell you don't either, but I didn't make any assertion on this matter, so there's nothing that I need to prove (unless you can find some sort of hypothesis or assumption I brought forward, in which case I'd gladly explain it to you). I simply entered to correct you on your unimpressive rebuttal to the point that "everyone can agree that their past behavior influences how others should treat them in the present and future," which was made by kwell. Nobody said that NPO is the same as before, but rather that they can't be trusted with the same power again lest they become what they were before. Please, for the love of admin, read what somebody is saying instead of spinning other's posts into the points you'd like to argue. Also, if you could kindly tell me what you think it is I said so that you can tell me what you're refuting, that'd be great because as it stands now, you're making no sense

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1345131913' post='3022437'] If you're going to make analogies, you need to have the relevant pieces of logic line up. In this case, we are discussing the mental inclination of felons to stick with the same behavior before and after prison. This doesn't hold true for an alliance because alliances are constantly changing personalities and inclinations. It's more apt, in this case, to compare an alliance with a corporation or a nation. [/quote] Nobody was discussing the mental inclination of felons to stick to the same behavior. The original analogy pertained to society's treatment of formerly incarcerated felons to make it impossible for them to take advantage of their status as free men to commit the same crimes over again. Also, when you're posting alone in a thread, you can't invoke mob psychology and use terms like "the rest of us." It just seems a bit delusional.

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1345127195' post='3022422'] Well a convicted felon isn't consisted of hundreds of players and a government that has changed several times since he was convicted. This is why if you don't know how to properly make analogies, you shouldn't do it. [/quote] The analogy of NPO to a felon might not hold up, but the idea that Pacifica exists today on a probationary status definitely does. You were released from MK's custody on good behavior, and now as long as you toe the line, you won't get rolled again. It's pretty straightforward really. Also, it's no uncommon nor unreasonable in analogies to treat alliances as singular individuals, since that's how they behave on the global stage.