Jump to content

feardaram

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by feardaram

  1. [quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1339709582' post='2983979']
    [b][u]PLEASE NOTE THAT I WILL ADMIT TO ALTERING THE QUOTE TO CLARIFY WHAT WAS NOT SAID AND TO SEE WHAT I ALTERED JUST LOOK FOR THE BOLD AND UNDERLINED PART AND SAYING BECAUSE I TRY TO BE HONEST [/u][/b]

    Came across this one and had to say something about it.
    [/quote]you are wrong. dave93 deserves our help. it is with heavy hearts we respond with force.

  2. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339704174' post='2983870']
    You are not 'within your rights' to interfere with the judicial process of another alliance, which is what a ZI sentence is, or to interfere with a declared war between a nation and an alliance, unless you're falling back on 'might makes right' in which case I'll call QED on the 'New Hegemony' point.
    [/quote]
    or, being equally moralist as what you are suggesting is proper decorum, we sought to relieve the injust oppression being asserted on our dear friend dave93. we were willing to put everything on the line for him when others were not. you just sat by and watched them sentence him to ZI without a morally sufficient reason. you've become what you've consistently spoken out against. this is a sad day, when supposedly good men sit back and do nothing. you've changed.

  3. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1339703509' post='2983855']
    @potato: yes, 21.06 is before 21.09, but not very much – if you find a public declaration of ZI posted within five minutes of an applicant moving to your AA, you should reject that applicant. That's if the ZI sentence was the last edit in that post, the notice could have been posted much earlier.

    But this is not a main point, because your alliance accepts that you knew that Dave was ZI-listed when you accepted him into your protection ("Dave since has applied to MK, and given how blatantly ridiculous this ZI sentence is, we have chosen to accept him to our applicant AA": the OP), and because the material evidence of the ZI (the active wars) were declared well beforehand.

    ed: @tamerlane: No, whether Dave is a spy in your eyes or not is [i]not[/i] the point of contention, just another area in which MK is wrong (and, frankly, I don't believe you actually think that). The point of contention is that you should never accept into your protection a nation which is at war with an alliance without clearing it with that alliance first.
    [/quote]friends > infra

  4. [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339701939' post='2983825']
    People tell people !@#$%^&* all the time and acting on or considering it all would be a tedious waste of time. That's why, up until now, it has fallen to alliance leaders to pass information between themselves to distinguish real issues from false ones.

    But I guess, from now on, we all must keep in mind that every communication from a member of MK needs to be treated as if it came from Archon himself.
    [/quote]
    i see you've resulted back to those unwritten rules and a lack of common sense to support your argument. common sense dictates that when someone you're attacking says "hey guys i'm now under protection" you stop for a second and think about the situation. saying it's tedious and a waste of time to do so is moronic and can result in your alliance getting crushed (this can serve as a case study).

  5. [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1339701212' post='2983813']
    So from now on I should assume every member of the Kingdom is an official representative of Archon?

    Good note.
    [/quote]
    or you could use common sense. if someone tells you something, gov or not, and your response could very well result in your whole alliance getting attacked, you might want to give it some consideration and/or pass it up the food chain.

  6. [quote name='askani the rotund' timestamp='1339700602' post='2983802']
    I concede that CSN could have reached out,But that doesn't excuse the fact after accepting a nation under attack that MK chose to not tell anyone.
    [/quote]
    just because a post wasn't made on the owf doesn't mean they weren't told. they were clearly made aware and could have checked into it further if they at all cared.

  7. [quote name='Hyperonic' timestamp='1339698385' post='2983758']
    No, you are just crying and whining about people not buying your poor justification.

    "well if we nuked an applicant people would be mad at us :(:("

    People in your own alliance have admitted you did nothing to avoid this. And yet, you've been spending the last three hours continuing to propagate what no one, [i]including your own allies[/i], believes.

    You are rightfully known as scum. Deal with it.
    [/quote]
    we shall.

  8. [quote name='Blooddraken' timestamp='1339698256' post='2983753']
    MK screwed up on this one. You can't spin your way out of it. It was on MK to make sure Dave's pity routine was legit. They didn't.

    Maybe CSN should have contacted MK before the nukes. I don't see why, but even if it's true that they should have, the first responsibility was MK's. The ball was in their court and they dropped it, and now are whining that CSN took the ball and did something they were perfectly justified in doing.
    [/quote]
    i don't need to spin my way out of anything. you are certainly free to disagree. we aren't whining about anything. in fact, i personally think this is great. fun stuff.

  9. [quote name='askani the rotund' timestamp='1339698081' post='2983746']
    It falls on MK because they offered him protection despite his ZI status.Yes CSN could have tried to verify his membership,But to say MK has no culpability in this is incorrect.
    [/quote]
    sure, i'll generally agree with you. both alliances made choices that have ramifications. csn didn't HAVE to nuke my buddy dave. MK didn't HAVE to declare on csn. but we all did. either party could have reacted differently or backed down.

  10. [quote name='dejarue' timestamp='1339697814' post='2983738']
    Hah.

    I've been notified by targets I was attacking that I was going to get sued if I didn't stop. Should I have hired a lawyer? After all, we should apparently take with 110% certainty what our targets are trying to claim to get out of being attacked.


    You're heading way off the deep end here. I can't help you with whatever is happening in your brain, sorry.
    [/quote]
    only if you really thought getting sued was a possibility and/or you even cared. and i'm glad to see you like to apply your logic to one situation but then completely throw it out the window in other similar situations.

×
×
  • Create New...