Stonewall Jaxon

I don't believe you have room to tell us jack !@#$ at the moment. Please try again later

I did not realize all five SF members were attacked. My apologies; I've been inactive for the past week for [OOC] OOC reasons [/OOC].

I did not desert you. I defected. There's a difference. Oh I'm sorry, I meant bandwagoning on a personal level. Anyway, which five treaties were you referring to, exactly?

Likewise. I'm stunned you're not refeshing your stats screen, crying, wondering why you picked the wrong side to bandwagon onto. Also, I lol'd

I see the Corporate lawyers are busy here, selectively applying the generic language of all treaties to a few ones.

May your carefully selected enemies of opportunity tremble beneath the weight of your paper sabres! o/

My scabbard has been cast away. Onward to victory, or death!

I highly doubt the Corporation will utilize their ODP. It would not benefit their stats.

Polaris prevails. Onward to glory Audacity, audacity, always audacity.

Thank you, Starfox, I was actually about to post a topic with the same main point. We say life under Pacifica was so oppressive, but now, even without NPO watching over us, we have oppressed ourselves just as badly. We are now all forced, for our alliances' survival, to live beneath the iron fist of a false moral code, which robs us of our rights as sovereign alliances. And some may be right in that most moralists, when "crusading for justice," are only seeking a reason to justify their own political gains, but quite frankly I'm sick of having to wait for a "CB" to pop up before a long-awaited war can start.

I still don't see what the problem is here. The "aggressors" decided to attack FoA, and nothing stopped FoA from defending itself. It was a completely fair competition, with nothing out of line or cheating occurring.

The first thing I thought when I read this was

Honourable: NpO Immoral: N/A Amoral: NPO Isolated: Grey Council Entangled: FOK Powerful: MK Incompetent: MHA Nice: Who cares? Mean: Blech Friend: Polaris Enemy: CSN Respected: GATO Annoying: Athens, RIA, Fark, CSN, Dark Fist, MK

Who signed a what now? Never mind that ODPs inherently exist, congrats anyways!

Excellent grouping. I think these two alliances are the truest soulmates I've seen in my lifetime.

B. is the obvious choice. When you sign a defensive (or even offensive) treaty with another alliance, you trust that alliance to behave in a manner that you would approve of as an ally. If they do not act in a manner that behooves you, then you should never have signed the treaty.

Oh ye who lay thine faith in thine pixels!

And when did that !@#$ you're speaking of happen? Years ago? Jeez, Starfox, I was right there with you in Vox, but there's a point when you have to accept victory and recognize that the Pacificans of old were punished for their transgressions. Now, I'm sure you complained plenty when Pacifica failed to protect you (as we can all see), so why can't they bawww a little when their protectors fail them? By accusing them of a double standard, you are inherently creating a double standard. Or did I just !@#$@#$ BLOW YOUR MIND?

Except he didn't say that a CB never expires; he was mocking Athens for saying that. This may surprise you, but most of what Sir Paul says in his "tabloid" is tongue-in-cheek.

The key is indiscreetly[/i] to be a "cold war," hostility should openly be taboo. It seems to make no sense, but with a little thought, it makes perfect sense. Either that or I'm going bat!@#$ insane.

I feel like the closest thing we had to the Cold War was Polaris vs. Pacifica. They maintained "friendly" relations, but in the background indiscreetly built separate, rivaling spheres of influence to top one another.

I proudly do not participate on either side of that rivalry. Do I get a prize?

NPO vs. Fate as the Karma War neared would be an interesting idea to pitch, but since "Fate" is not really an alliance, I'd have to say pre-war NpO vs. NPO was the most exciting rivalry. Sibling rivalry. *chuckle*

What lead you to attack NSO's economic system, anyway? In our defense, we haven't had much time to oil the machine. I contended we should've had "Best Alliance Growth" because any alliance that went from nonexistence to a heavily popular player on the world stage is, quite frankly, better than you.

Wait, why is "Best Alliance Growth" only measured, in the minds of MK members, by numbers? You know, an alliance is more than its pretty pixels.