Bower3aj
-
Posts
265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Bower3aj
-
-
fail DoW is fail.
'tis ok, I watched the war screens, I know you only pulled an NPO and posted this LONG after you started attacking. Why you even bothered I don't know.
-
I'm so beating Owned-You to it (sorry Owned-You but I wanted to do this to)
Either way, I'm still not a fan of Orange-on-Orange violence.
-
finally... welcome fellow orange. It's gonna be fuuuuuuuunnnnn.
-
Oh snap, did we just do that.
My nooks will light up the nations of my foes.
Don't worry, I'll take 'em out to the bar afterwards.
-
how did we not see this before?
anyway, welcome to the sphere. Come stop by the Lodge at square-n-compass.net and say hi.
-
Well not all the posts here have been bashing \m/. There have been a few bashing Polar and \m/. A few bashing \m/. A few bashing Polar.
This thread is not one sided at all, with those 3 positions (anti \m/, anti Polar, anti both) being fairly evenly represented here.
perhaps, but how many anti-\m/ are not polar, how many anti-polar are not \m/, or PC for that matter?
in other words what are the opinions of those not fighting?
Answer that question to see what the public thinks.
-
Not at all, lets look at this thread, there are 1722 posts in this thread, tbh \m/ is not liked well enough or relevent enough to deserve a thread one tenth this size. Taking that into consideration the thread has grown to this size not because people like \m/ (most don't) or condone \m/s behavior (they don't) It grow to this size because a considerable amount of people are pissed off with Grubs action prior to and including this, that is a tremendous price. Where it goes remains to be seen.
wouldn't it make more sense that it grew to this size because people don't like \m/ and want to bash \m/? If everybody hates you as you seemingly claim that they would love to talk about how much they hate you.
-
Again, I'm not doubting that you guys would have come to war. And I think it would have been honorable for you to have done so, since you do have that obligation in your treaty.
I was commenting on hizzy saying "the tail doesn't wag the dog." The way I too that- and correct me if I'm wrong- was that he felt that the small alliance drama shouldn't begin moving larger forces. My question was, if you think that, why sign a treaty obligating you to fight over that?
ah, now I really have it. It wasn't Hizzy that actually said that, it was zzzptm. here's the full quote
We don't support any of those things. We were ready to support our allies in AZTEC, and we provided full support to them. That support was requested at the negotiation table, and it ended a needless war. We weren't going to allow this small brushfire to turn into a global conflagration.The tip of the tail should not move the lion, Schattenmann. I think we're all glad that the proper order of things has been restored.
see NV isn't allied to the 57th, they're allied to us who are allied to the 57th. their treaty with us means that they support us. we asked for their help and they delivered perfectly. The feeling is that this war was stupid and just a case of bad timing. Nobody really wanted to see this escalate. Had it been better timing I don't think you'd find the whole tip of the tail thing being said. I don't think any of NVs treaties bother them. If they did NV would cancel it.
-
I did, actually.
Which is why I addressed that in my post.
Did you listen to me?
Again, I'm not saying you won't.
I'm not really trying to bait you, honest. It wasn't really meant to be antogonistic, maybe it's spending too much time on the OWF. I am not saying, and never said, that you wouldn't do it. I'm saying, if you don't want to go to war when they have their small alliance issues, why sign a treaty that says you must?
see the end of your post shows that you didn't actually listen to me but I think I actually see where you're getting lost. So let me lay out a scenario for you. You have friends that are in a stupid war. You think the war is stupid. You have a treaty with them because they're your friends. Do you help them even if you think the war is stupid?
I hope your answer is yes
if it is then do you then cancel that treaty after the war because you shouldn't have to fight when your friends do something stupid? no, because that's the point of the treaty. To save your friends when they're getting pounded whether for a stupid reason or not. They're your friends.
-
And I'm saying that the idea that "dont let the tail control the lion" (or whatever) means we won't defend our small allies is retarded.
Just as letting a case of bad timing lead to a large-scale war is equally retarded.
no hizzy, clearly NV and AZTEC would never support small alliances. It's not like a member of AZTEC is smaller than the 57th... oh wait
-
I'm honored.
But no, seriously here. I'm saying you wouldn't defend your allies, I'm saying that if you don't want to go to war for "micro-alliance business", why make it compulsory?
you didn't listen to me did you...
are you insane? NV was more than ready to back us in any means that we needed. we needed diplomatic aid, they provided, and the war is over.OOC: honestly this is what I get for reading the OWF
they provided what they were asked to provide... so hard to get I know
-
So, you don't want to fight with your allies if they defend their smaller allies, just have them fight for you when your big-time allies are in danger?
Why do you have an MADP if it only works one way?
are you insane? NV was more than ready to back us in any means that we needed. we needed diplomatic aid, they provided, and the war is over.
OOC: honestly this is what I get for reading the OWF
-
really people?
1. if you're going to quote Kodiak at least do it right. mmk?
2. Kodiak is no longer in 57th gov. gee that isn't for any reason right?
3. no u
4. nobody won. it was a war that was supposed to happen in a greater conflict, the greater conflict ended right as this war was kicked off, this war should have ended immediately before any of BCs allies jumped in on the 57th. it didn't because 57ths leader wasn't online and Kodiak wasn't left instructions cause who honestly saw the WWE ending last night? if you weren't in the know you would have never guessed it.
5. obligatory bawing
6. profit
-
as much as I like war, this is good to see
-
If that much time for diplomacy would have been invested before starting the war... well we might have saved ourselves a lot of time.
and shilo sums it up quite nicely
-
you are free to cancel your treaty as you feel needed... not that hard... BUT, with such little evidence why did you just cancel after 72 hours like you told MASH you would?
-
M*A*S*H may well be completely innocent of leaking the info that tipped off TPF. But a couple of things need to be gotten straight here, #1 is that they would not have to leak the info directly to TPF to be the source of the leak. #2 a presence in the enemy coalition channel, following the presence in our milcom channel, at the very least, is a poor display of judgment that allows a reasonable circumstantial case to be made. When it comes to the cancellation of the treaty, circumstance is more than enough to dictate the action. Capital Crimes...murder, treason, etc, have all been prosecuted and convicted on circumstantial evidence at various times. M*A*S*H maintain their innocence, so be it. Some will believe, some will not. We cannot say for sure that they did, or that they didnt. They, also, cannot say FOR SURE, that they didnt. Because, and I know this may come as a shock to many of you, but sometimes, people lie...and sometimes, people make honest mistakes, either scenario could lead to the leaking of that information. However, in war time, you surround yourself with those you know to trust. Seeing an MDP partner in an enemy coalition planning channel, drives a dagger into that trust.
this is fair for a treaty cancellation. But not for the way that they have been treated by Athens in this thread. Such a mockery over something that, by 90% of the evidence, appears to false is no way to treat somebody you were just friends with. Also, the apparent lie to them about the cancellation reason and timing is just in poor taste. I would expect better from any alliance outside of the microsphere.
-
No I got basis. You guys were the only ones in that room that went turncoat. Almost seems obvious when you add in that fact.
went turncoat? oh you mean having their other allies talk to them about what was happening after Athens DoWed? totally turncoat...
-
So he said: "you are at war with them xD"
forget everything else you posted. You seem to agree with the above statement George. Which was said in this context
<Flonker> the q treaty says, 'fight 1, fight all'. so does c&g's charter, yes?<Flonker> so technically, yeah, they were in a state of war, just in another theatre from you
<angryraccoon|athens> every treaty does .. by that token we consider this a defencive war vs TPF
<angryraccoon|athens> you are at war with them xD
which, for those following at home, means that TPF was at war with you by technicality during the Karma war and you were at war with them. This makes any spy attempts made during this time an act of war in a war that was already happening. When they surrendered they made peace with all of Karma, not just those in direct combat. When you exited the war you did the same thing with the entire hegemony.
Thus yours, RoKs, and GODs DoWs are all in breach of the peace terms laid out after the Karma war, as every single DoW is from actions taken during the Karma war. \m/ is exempt as they didn't exist during the Karma war.
breaking peace terms ftw.
-
Again, pretending to know everything.
you know what my favorite part is? He thinks he's got you cause of your current nations age. But he doesn't actually look at it. Like how your about section says that you're back. Or how you have an efficiency of over 200. Honestly, you've grown your nation crazy fast, but that's clearly a sign that you know NOTHING about this game... lulz
-
BOWWY!!!
actually i didint rite it lol
it was acutally well ritten till we were like lets a sum rawrs and tacos lol
rawr
well I knew that you didn't do the whole thing. After all, it's still comprehendible. Nevertheless the random rawrs gave you away.
-
you are cruel
-
sigh... Kat, I should have known you wrote this upon first glance...
Congrats on the treaty AiD!
-
ok next question... TPF clearly was working towards bringing down Athens, even if the attempt to do so ended before they surrendered. And, sure RoK is allied to Athens, so they could go in with them, but that's not the reason stated:
It has came to our attention that mhawk and TPF plotted and conspired against Ragnarok.Now really... I would expect better from Hoo in this. RoK being like GOD and \m/ and attacking to back up their ally would be far more acceptable than this CB. Athens has shown that steps were actually taken against Athens, so while Athens apparently lives in some crazy world where time does some weird things, they still have something. RoK has that their name was brought up and... well... that's it. It seems that they were mentioned in the planning stages but then discarded and all effort went towards Athens.
Now, is there a single leader on Bob willing to say that they don't look at multiple options when preparing military action?
The International Marches to War
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
really? the first DoW is below
yup, that's when the forums were down for sure!