Starcraftmazter

I have three things to say. 1. About 90-95% of the alliances on the Hegemony got white peace. I didn't hear NpO or their buddies make any long threads about that - yet when 2 alliances get real surrender terms - which they arguable deserve, this is now a reason to cry about it? 2. The terms are perfectly reasonable. - Colour Changes - Wonder decommissions - Terms designed to be broken - Forced Disbandment - Eternal War Just some of the horrific practises which core Hegemony alliances have done, which nobody on the Karma side has done or supports. This is proof that the Cyberverse has drastically changed, and that the era of harsh terms is over. Whether people like it or not, the terms given to NPO and Echelon are perfectly reasonable and fair. 3. I find it very hypocritical that NpO speaks about changing their attitudes to foreign affairs and approaching other alliances from "bad" to "good", all while being allied to alliances which conduct their diplomacy in the said "bad" ways still, especially alliances which are led by people who have done this so notoriously in the past. Electron Sponge for example was the very person who was responsible for so much dislike towards Polaris, and now Polaris claims to have changed and yet still supports him and his alliance? And it's not like ES has changed, and then there's Ivan Moldavi as well...I mean - come on? I don't know who you are trying to fool, but you do not have the moral high ground, being allied to those who bully other alliances and send recruitment messages to their members - and that there, is something which truly is despicable.

This is not funny nor informative. Boo )):

That is an extremely narrow minded viewpoint.

I was replying to someone who said, "forcible removal of government members sucks". As nobody is being removed, I thought I would correct this individual. May not be your point - but it was his, which is why I replied to him - and not you.

Of course not...what kind of a redundant question is that.

He's not in government.

I think the people if your nation should overthrow you, please you clearly are not fit for your job.

This is an incredibly flawed analogy, because it does not deal with one's affiliation to any entity.

It's not just my opinion, if we held a poll, I'd bet you 50 tech it would be the overwhelming majority's opinion. That's pretty rich, coming from an ally and a supporter of an alliance who tried to recruit from other alliances - thereby violating their sovereignty - apparently because they think differently to them. Because TDO is not militarily experienced, because NSO would be supported by other warmongers, because this all would eventuate in a loss for TDO - if they went to war, which it would be obvious they would not, on account of their relative neutrality. You are truly mad if you think I am trying to do anything of the kind.

I would say that is not an appology for recruiting from another alliance, nor purposely picking alliances which can be considered as weak or easy targets for this kind of bullying behaviour.

If the change is from bad to good - then yes.

I understand that it is highly inadequate, an oxymoron of actions even.

To the contrary, your esteemed colleagues didn't seem to get it not so long ago, which is why I had to repeat myself. Either that, or they purposely misinterpreted me. Nor do I recall insulting Ivan - accusing him and NSO of lying isn't really the same as insulting him. And I don't see what's so ridiculous about calling people out when they do something wrong, and don't even have the guts to admit it.

Actually, I am referring to the fact that NSO chose those alliances specifically because they knew it would not come to war, and if it did, they would not lose. This is contrary to the official explanation by Ivan, claiming it was for ideological reasons. No idea what you even mean here. Nor does that look like a threat to me. Thanks, but I didn't ask for your analysis. Why do you have such a hard time keeping on topic? Clearly, you didn't read my posts. Allow me to educate you, as you read my above reply to HeinousOne.

There is no argument, there is NSO doing something wrong, and not being able to own up to it.

Nobody is stupid enough to believe that for a second. Like I said - the Cyberverse has changed, you lot haven't. You still think you can pull your imbecile stunts and fool everyone. So first it's about validity, then it's about war, then it's about relevant and then it's about context? Why do you have such big problem focusing on one line of discussion. I have never indicated that I do not know what I am talking about. You are full of garbage. OOC: Where did you get the idea that I only read a page or two? The fact that I didn't read every single post, does not mean I read the minimal possible posts. I have been following this thread as well as the two others involving similar issues for days now, and I can assure you I am versed enough with the discussions to contribute. /OOC I can see you are wrong because you are making silly and incorrect assumptions about everyone's motives, even mine.

Again, sidestepping the issues. I do believe you are both simply playing dumb. It is clear to anyone with any thinking capability that these alliances were picked because of their inability to defend their sovereignty as rigorously as non-neutral alliances. You damn well know, that had you picked any non-neutral alliance in the top 12, you would have faced a declaration of war. NSO is great at putting words in people's mouths aren't they?

Well see, that's the thing. You can't just say that our opinions are invalid, simply because you disagree - especially given most would agree with the viewpoint that your opinions are incorrect. You're just putting words into my mouth now. It's funny how you lot like to deceive and shift the discussion in different tangents. That was meant to be "relevant". See I don't think that you do...think you have it all figured out, but I can see you're wrong from a mile away.

Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties? That sir, is bullying.

See, it is you who is labelling others as world police - based on your own opinion. In reality, this accusation is meaningless. That still sidesteps the bigger issue which I described just earlier. The fact that you post here in his defence shows that you support him, whether you like it or not. You may not agree with this viewpoint, but that is indeed how it looks. See...that there is just your opinion. I believe those putting Ivan into question are correct for doing so. It doesn't take a master of politics to know that recruiting from other alliances is wrong. Ivan did something he knows would be perceived as very wrong by the larger community, and he still went ahead with it. This is what many people have a problem with, at least according to my impression. Whether they have anything to do with the specific issue or not is irrelevant. Anyone has the right to put anyone's actions into question here. And that assumes that you in fact do understand the context, and do so better than me. Yet through all that, you fail to understand why people have voiced their concern with what has transpired.

Although I haven't been following this thread religiously, in my opinion you are either missing the point or misinterpreting said comments. Yes, the specific issue was "resolved", but there is the larger problem of the fact that Ivan did this and that he thought it was a good idea. His motives are being put into question, and furthermore, people disapprove of the fact that he thinks it's okey to recruit from other alliances. Now, all of these things supersede the specific issue, which is why they are still being discussed. The reason Frostbite was mentioned, I can reasonably assume, is because you lot appear to support Ivan, and his unjust actions/thoughts.

Really...I think this is a bit too much. Nobody is manufacturing anything here, the problem is that Ivan did something utterly stupid, and he still believes himself to be in the right. This was not manufactured by anyone.

I do believe you are in denial.

You don't have to be a representative to get a good idea of most people's opinions in a discussion...

When did I proclaim to be the leader of any majority? I don't recall making any such proclamations.