Bower3aj
-
Posts
265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Bower3aj
-
-
GLOF have no friends.
you're just jealous
-
OH NOES! what ever will us oranges do?
honestly, another group that wants to kill orange and picks ODN as its first target? I feel bad for ODN, the idiots always go to them first when they want to kill our sphere.
-
Took you long enough to announce this Hizzy. I honestly thought this was done a long time ago.
Anywho, we rocked before and we rock even more now. Welcome to our new brothers at RoA
o/ AZTEC
o/ RoA
o/ NV
o/ 1TF
o/ The Lodge
-
o/ orange.
Orange is a stable sphere, and senate seats don't really mean anything since we don't fight each other. So free elections are all good and fine.
-
o/
I've always held a special place for AiD. Glad to see that they can stand on their own two feet now. Well done guys, well done.
-
this makes me sad... oh well, I'll just get back to waiting for a war... sigh
-
OK, I think I see where this has derailed, so let's try and rebuild ModusOperandi's actual objection from scratch.
"Now, the only problem I have with it is if an unaligned nation applies for membership to alliance x, and is being tech-raided by nations financed by GOONs and GOONs refuses to stop the financing.. that is a declaration of war imo."
As near as I can make out, he's talking about a situation where the following happens:
1) Unaligned nation A attacks unaligned nation B
2) Unaligned nation B joins GLOF
3) GOONS aid unaligned nation A
speaking as myself and not an alliance government member, I can't see how this is a situation covered by the pro-piracy act. I don't foresee us aiding an unaligned nation who is at war with someone we consider to be a recognized alliance More usually what we will encounter is this:
1) Unaligned nation A attacks unaligned nation B
2) GOONS aid unaligned nation A
3) Unaligned nation B joins GLOF
Now, in this circumstance, the aid would have been sent to an unaligned fighting an unaligned, and I don't think GLOF would have any place in holding GOONS culpable for support offered.
It's possible that we could get out our scalpels and split hairs to a point where aid was offered when a nation was fighting an unaligned but not accepted until after the nation had been accepted, but if we are getting down to an issue this small then I swear to god I'm going to start crying.
None of the above was me speaking in my role as member emeritus, by the way. Personal opinion entirely.
wow... just... wow
I can't.. believe the words...
This is exactly what I was saying...
it almost hurts to say... I agree
whew, now that that is done, this is what I spelled out. Gee, once we got past the insulting and a GOONS member states his opinion it turns out we're on the same page. Bravo good sir
I owe you a beer.
-
Wow, you're really clever with the le sigh thing...it really adds to every post you make.
Actually, no, I'm just distracted by all the sighing going on. If having to repeat yourself is getting annoying, by all means, stop posting 'le sigh' or 'sigh' or any variation of this useless demonstration of emotional fluff.
thank you for adding to the conversation and not totally proving what Hizzy has been saying... again.
Modus said that in direct response to the situation lamuella described. There is no twisting, you can check the quotes yourself if you want to, I linked them all for convenience in my last post. In case those words are too complicated for you, however, I will once again reiterate and dumb it down for you:First statement: "What if AllianceA accepts NationA while NationA is in a war with GOONS? GOONS stands down right? idk"
Second statement (me): "No, that is an act of war by AllianceA and we will respond accordingly."
Third statement (modus): "If GLoF accepts NationA while NationA is in a war with GOONS, GOONS better offer peace immediately or we will go to war and watch GOONS burn."
There was no lapse between those posts, nothing taken out of context. Mine was in direct response to the first and Modus's was in direct response to mine. Then your government had to slap his wrists and issue a statement saying that you would not actually do what Modus said you would.
Above all, this sort of backpedalling and "I don't think he actually meant exactly what he posted." is the exact reason for the distrust of GLoF and why we remain alert and watchful. Every diplomatic incident with your alliance has resulted in one or more GLoF members giving at least two contradicting accounts of the events that occurred.
See, where you went wrong was where you said "you can check the quotes yourself"... I did! didn't expect that one did ya?
See you're explanation stops short, because, like any propagandist you used a half quote instead of the whole thing. The full situation laid out was this:
I'll try then
it only matters if GOONS continues to aid the unaligned nation that is attacking the ( now new) GloF member because GOONS would now be aiding a raid on an aligned nation, that salithus put GOONS responsible since aiding aligned nation tech raids is a big no-no
but otherwise in my logic it would fine unaligned raiding another unaligned nation is fine ,unless another alliance(s) have declared all nations of said color is under their protection which would also cause GOONS problems.
also if glof accepted a nation that is at war with a goon member, and said nation is not under any zi punishment for past transgression the goons member would really have to peace out, then again this sort of a grey area and I am unsure how another alliance would deal with such a matter.
See the actual situation is Nation A raids B, and Goons help A out. After said aid is done, the Lodge accepts B, and then Goons re-aid A thus aiding a raid on an aligned nation.
See the difference? it's very slight but it's there. Either way though nation A is not a part of GOONS or any other alliance. GOONS sending aid to it would be of no consequence to us. The nation is still unaligned and would be handled as such. However, post acceptance aid would probably be viewed differently, but would also probably just end up having us ask that you cease aid to the attacking nation as the defending nation would be under our protection.
And just to clarify, I think there is a huge difference between accepting a nation at war with an alliance and accepting a nation in a war with an unaligned nation.
I've seen the latter happen, against me, before I joined the Lodge and was a very trigger happy ruler.
-
and how do these things compare to accepting a new member with a pre-existing war against another alliance?
le sigh... ok, again... having to repeat ourselves on this issue is getting semi-annoying. no where, does the Grand Lodge of Freemasons say this. Hell, I don't even think MO says it. I think you are twisting that one quote into something that it's not. He said attack a new member of ours and burn, right after he says attack a member of ours and burn... notice how in both cases they are MEMBERS of the Lodge, and seeing as how the Lodge does not accept nations at war with an alliance it would be pretty hard (also known as impossible) for your question to even happen. Now would you please stop slandering our name by accusing us of things that are baseless?
-
Modus already addressed this but I feel that I can add something
You said
Excuse me, I was going to leave it with Owned-You's concession, but since you want to keep rehashing this out, here is the exact quotation in question on these forums, typical of the rumors that reached me:And, if you are so naive as to think that my only source of information is these forums, well, good luck.
and no, I doubt that is your only source of information, but you apparently need to get new sources.
anyway, you also say you were going to leave it with Owned-You's concession... then let me point this out to you
Just to answer your question, no it wouldn't. However, based upon your statement you've made a gross misinterpretation of the character quality GLOF and ourselves have if you are to believe we'd drop treaties over something as trivial as this matter. We don't sign documents unless we intend to stick to them to the death, Polaris herself is well aware of it. We burned along-side her when we could have easily taken the easy road out years back. But, I don't want to stray too far off-topic so I'll drop the matter; unless you want to continue it.With all that said, I can understand your position of preparing for a potential conflict. It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia. My initial statement was intended for those whom continue to believe a conflict may be brewing, or in fact would like to see one occur. To reiterate what I said earlier to those misinformed or misguided individuals; a conflict will not happen nor would it be conceivable.
and for full effect:
Modus:
Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn.
Owned-You:
It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia.
now for real easy to understand terms
Modus:
we protect our brothers
Owned-You:
we protect our brothers
Case closed... thank you
-
Because it would be the first war started over something meaningless and the first treaties dropped in preparation for war?
E: Keep in mind that those rumors were well before GLoF's government posted their official position and policy clarification and while several GLoF members were threatening to "burn down" GOONS while stating that they spoke for GLoF.
le sigh... really? May I refresh your memory as to what the 3 Masons that have posted in here have said
My opinion is my own, as being a founder and having achieved the third Degree, I enjoy the right to speak as a Freemason and an individual; that liberty is afforded to all who sojourn on our path.So why do you think you can tell me what I can say on the OWF?
If you're attempting to intimidate me its not a very pressing concern.
I am Bower... I speak for the nation of IXOYAE, I know it's difficult to get, but I am not my alliance, I am merely a cog in the greater system.clarification: I speak for drunken state only and not the Mason's as a wholeI totally see where we said we spoke for the alliance.
but also:
Just to answer your question, no it wouldn't. However, based upon your statement you've made a gross misinterpretation of the character quality GLOF and ourselves have if you are to believe we'd drop treaties over something as trivial as this matter. We don't sign documents unless we intend to stick to them to the death, Polaris herself is well aware of it. We burned along-side her when we could have easily taken the easy road out years back. But, I don't want to stray too far off-topic so I'll drop the matter; unless you want to continue it.With all that said, I can understand your position of preparing for a potential conflict. It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia. My initial statement was intended for those whom continue to believe a conflict may be brewing, or in fact would like to see one occur. To reiterate what I said earlier to those misinformed or misguided individuals; a conflict will not happen nor would it be conceivable.
Thanks to Owned-You again for trying to get the truth out there. It's really freaking hard to do.
I would like to add though that not only has NV burned for NpO, but the Lodge did as well, albeit indirectly.
-
Just to add some enlightenment to the situation should this rumor persist. GLOF has been allied to NV for a long-time, they are one of our closest allies, Polaris have been equally allied with us for a long-time and equally close. We also are allied with MK and close...as such the chances of any "Wars" erupting over this dispute are rooted only in fictional dreams of drama. We are all tied together one way or another, and these ties wouldn't be severed over a slight dispute over conduct and decorum.
This is true. Any rumors of the Lodge declaring war are absurd. We are, and always have been, a defensive alliance, so whoever whispered that we were on the war path was blatantly lying. But I don't actually believe that anybody was really saying these rumors. We only ride to war to defend ourselves or our allies.
But thanks to Owned-You for pointing this out.
edit: salithus beat me to the response... sigh... you know very little of the Lodge and her allies if you would expect anything like that to occur here.
-
come stop by were always waiting for some visitors at The Lodge
we've got some fantastic beer just waiting to be had
-
I think that would be more for the Anti-piracy act people... not us, but thanks
-
Thank you GLoF gov. for posting this, although it would mean a lot more of you could reign in your illegitimates.
le sigh... ok, here we go again. We have no gag orders. Sorry there buddy. We're all legitimate because we elect our worshipful Grand Master, thereby making our voices heard.
-
I love my Umbraillures. GOONS would rather know the true feelings of an alliance's membership than be blinded by an insincere apology. The important take-away here is that:
- GLoF members are prone to take immense liberty with the truth, even as far as their own alliance's policies, so be wary of any promise they make or "fact" they cite.
- Even with the obviously poor showing they made in the other thread, especially with threats made against GOONS, they still try to subtly vilify us with their diction.
While, as I stated above, we are thankful for the clarification, we are in no way closer as alliances.
This is our governments policy. I always speak for myself. We're glad to give you this clarification. The membership didn't even know the clarification was coming until it was posted. This is our gov speaking for the alliance.
Now that said, I never saw an apology, I saw our policy spelled out to avoid it being twisted into something that it's not.
There is some other issues too. But maybe I should give you a pass here. Your alliance is relatively new, and still quite small so maybe you don't know. Nobody with any experience in the world is wary of our promises. There's a reason that we have never had a large number of treaties. Before we sign a treaty we look to see what the alliances past is in keeping their end of the bargain. We always keep ours, so we are very careful with who we pick. If the Masons make a promise people know it will be upheld, ask any of our allies. There's a reason The Lodge unified OUT without even being in it.
Also, did you just accuse the OP of attempting to vilify you? That's a sad accusation to make. Stop making far reaching cheap shots and take what we say as it is.
But alas, our gov says their thing and you bring up what two out of 121 members had to say. Of course, maybe I should thank you. Last time Modus and I posted in the same thread we were at opposite ends, so at least you unified us
- GLoF members are prone to take immense liberty with the truth, even as far as their own alliance's policies, so be wary of any promise they make or "fact" they cite.
-
alright... Since GOONS consistently reads what I say as something totally different I'm done in here. Anybody following along can see that. I'm done in here. Reasonable people can see through your lies. I'm out to entertain some very nice company. Go ahead, say that this post is something that it's not. It's only what I'd expect out of you.
-
If you don't speak for him, then how do you know he's not speaking for your alliance?
our Government speaks for the whole alliance. He is a respected member, but he does not dictate policy, and neither do I.
ummm... he didn't offer peace until after he applied and we told him to. Until we stepped in he was acting on his own free will against an aggressor of his nation. We advised him to offer peace which he did. Until this point the GOONS member was the only person to offer peace.Who in GOONS complained because someone only fought back? The only issue remotely close in this is one where peace offers had been made by an unaligned nation who subsequently made more attacks. Offering peace and then attacking is a no-no whether you're a scrub pubbie or the leader of a top 12 alliance.So, both of you are speaking for your alliance and have highly contradictory views of what GOONS's rights are (:protip: you are correct in that we have the right to continue attacks on any nations we are engaged with).actually I don't see a contradiction. I see him saying, lay a hand on our member you will burn. I would agree with this. If you attack us, you will be destroyed. I said you have the right to attack non-aligned nations, but we certainly won't like it. Different statements are different.
EDIT: Holy e;fb batman. Bower, your head will probably be spinning from that for a few days. I recommend alternating hot and cold every 15m for an hour, then take a break for an hour. Repeat as necessary.again, this would only make sense if you actually pointed out anything note worthy.
And just so people get it. Saying that attacking us would lead to us attacking you is just so blatantly obvious that we need not be government members to make a statement for the whole alliance. That's just silly.
-
You should learn what words mean. Not having an expectation of assistance is not the same as a universal refusal to give it.
According to your buddy ModusOperandi, you'll declare war on us next time - and we would just love for you to ignore our right to continue attacks at our discretion.
Oh look, I've pointed out your reading comprehension failures twice already, in one post. How is this working out for you?
Common decency includes issuing orders to nations in alliances besides yours without consulting their governments first? I'm glad to hear that's common practice for GLoF.
Too many non sequiters in one post. Are you really to the point of grasping at straws already?
We are always available to provide laughter at your expense. Please PM lamuella for details and rates.
^this equals fail... there's only one reasonable part of it and that is the "not having an expectation of assistance is not the same as a universal refusal to give it." You're right, it's not the same, but you can't complain when people fight back because you guys obviously realize that it can happen, and will happen, and is legitimate.
as for my reading comprehension, I fail to see any good example where I did a poor job at understanding your words. Apparently you supposed that I was to comprehend that in your response to an older post of mine you were responding to something Modus said. I can't read minds. If you quote me, you should be responding to me. Quote him if you want to respond to him. Either way, Modus does not speak for me, and I do not speak for him, and neither of us speak for our alliance. We speak for ourselves.
-
Alright so let's just go down the checklist here.
By your own admission you:
+Agree with the sentiment that it's okay to attack somebody who has agreed to peace out, effectively breaking a ceasefire just because the raided is due some sort of "recompense" for his trouble
You know, I really like you guys. If you weren't around I wouldn't have something to laugh at like... your charter: "Should a GOONS member bite off more than he can chew and get beaten up while attacking an unaligned colony, he does not have an expectation of backup from other colonies" So by your own charter, the thing that governs your alliance attacking in the way that he did is fine. In practice it's just pretty words that hold no weight. The only reason that I can see that you would disagree with your own charter is to spare your precious infra.
+Specifically seek out unaligned nations being attacked by aligned nations for recruiting purposes, force the attacking nations to stopwe have always disliked raiders, and were very glad when our closest allies banned tech raiding. We will offer a hand of mercy to any being attacked without cause. Because of the nature of tech raids, MOST people are more than willing to peace out of their aggressive war. We don't ask for reps, we just say take your new found tech and take on another target. There is no forcing anybody here. If you didn't notice, despite your lack of respect to our MoFA, we still respected your right to continue to attack the nation, even though it pissed us off.
+Accept nations into your ranks who are at warreading comprehension is something that you lack or just disregard. I never said that. You either can't read or are just putting words in my mouth to make me sound stupid to people who don't feel like reading what I said and are hoping that I won't call you out on it. If it's the latter than it won't work.
+Don't have the common decency to wait until the war is over before injecting yourself into the situationthe common decency. A nation applied to join our alliance. We would like to accept him, so we try to broker peace for a perspective member. This is actually a common practice, and can really not go against common decency.
Cry me a river, it's not not like the unaligned are using the tech for anything important.also, looooooooove this post. what it amounts to is the following "the guy being raided could have been honorable and taken peace after being attacked without cause" ----> "the raider could have been honorable and not attacked him without cause" ----> "baw! we'll throw the word honor around and mean nothing by it, but it doesn't matter because tech only magically does important things when it belongs to a nation flying an AA."
thank you for the laughter and joy.
-
This is not complicated,so repeat slowly after me:
He. Attacked. During. Negotiations. With an Outstanding. Peace. Offer.
Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?
I will only use one quote, because, as we've all see, all GOONS members like to shovel the same crap over and over. Mind you reading my first post would indicate that all of these responses are nothing but veiled lies. Since GOONS apparently can't remember what actually happened (hell the one guy admitted to not knowing the situation since he had yet to even see the logs of the conversation). Here's what happened. GOONS raids a nation. GOON guy offers peace, guy being raided says "now why would I let you off for attacking me?" an proceeds to fire CMs back at GOONS guy. A recruiter notices the war and offers to help the nation being raided get peace if he applies to join the Lodge. Said application is then posted, our MoFA then goes to talk to GOONS .gov and gets a guy who admits that he's no longer .gov but is still apparently more than eager to make demands of another alliance with all his pals snickering in the corner.
Now, if GOONS would like to change their time-line to reflect actual history that would be good. I also don't think GOONS understand that we checked to make sure that the CMs were fired off before we went in to talk. Otherwise the situation would have been different and would have been handled differently.
-
well then. I believe there is a problem in this thread concerning the GOONS and Modus. Modus is right, he has every right to speak his mind here. We do not restrict such things as speech. What I am very displeased with is that GOONS members (presumably government members as they rag on MO for not being listed as gov on our wiki... which he wrote... but that's besides the point)... anyway, that GOONS members are sitting here, seeing MO say that he is his own individual, and is free to speak his opinions, turn and insult the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Now let's cut out all of this B.S.
I am Bower... I speak for the nation of IXOYAE, I know it's difficult to get, but I am not my alliance, I am merely a cog in the greater system.
We have now accepted the nation that you raided. The one that you raided, and then were blatantly disrespectful to our MoFA who came to you requesting that you peace out of the war so that we could accept the nation in question. You refused to talk to him, because, rather than take his word being the head of FA, decided to misinterpret a poorly written message by a non-government member. Once again, our gov speaks for our gov, not us random members. Strange I know. Anyway, after kickbanning him over a simple matter, you said that the nation in question was going on you EoG list for fighting back during a tech raid, which not only goes against your own charter, but is a ridiculous notion to start. Add to it that he fought back BEFORE he applied to our alliance, where he was informed to stop fighting in order to speed up the peace process and you get a pretty lousy system that is running GOONS.
You are a despicable breed. You lack honor, and encourage greed. You are our opposite, and that will be your downfall. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but rest assured that someday you will find yourselves against the Knights of our Lodge. Mercy characterizes the Supreme Being, and in such, we shall leave all mercy to him and in such show you none. The Masons swords are strong, and we will meet you in the field of battle one day. You will bring upon your own downfall and we shall eat a feast on our battlefield have cleansing this world of your kind.
-
HAIL HAIL!
I'm glad that I could help in our glowing ambitions!
-
I don't know CommanderJohn so I have no idea if he is himself a redneck. If he is one, does that make it OK? If he isn't it clearly is not OK. So I hope the answer to the question is "no" otherwise you are employing a double standard. However, [ooc] if the answer is "no" then I hope you send angry letters to foxworthy, Larry the Cable guy, etc. I also hope that you send letters to Chris Rock and... well every comedian out there just based off of the principle of the matter of making fun of their own groups.[/ooc]
The Phoenix Federation Response to war.
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Going to throw this in here, and not because I like defending TPF or anything but... Since ZH was founded by TPF albeit secretly, than they were kinda like a sleeper cell of TPF agents. Now follow me here, if ZH is a sleeper cell for TPF, and ZH ended the mission, than TPF ended the mission. So... what would have been acceptable. ZH ending it and then TPF going "no you don't quit you're fired!" or something like that? Just wondering.