The Crimson King
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by The Crimson King
-
-
Well this turned out interesting
-
Looking good guys
-
[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1286297358' post='2476004']
heh, i think the idea is for the rogues to get some attention, i'd say they succeeded
anyway, while i have no side in this matter i will say that placing sanctions on aqua members without good reason will get you rolled
[/quote]
Well I suppose I would have to ask if you think "I'm up in your base" is a good reason for a sanction to be laid down.
If you don't know what I am referring to check the sanction screen -
[quote name='2burnt2eat' timestamp='1286253290' post='2475532']
Fool of himself? Reading one post of yours and I can see that you continue in the footsteps of the hypocrisy of your good friends.[/quote]
Please feel free to expand on this because I honestly have no idea what hypocritical friends of mine you are referring to
[quote]
This is attention whoring how? Oh I get it. You got to put him under you. You can't rise above our leader in intelligence or common sense, so you make some far-fetched claim of attention whoring. Oh right. That's our drive.[/quote]
Please feel free to rephrase this in the English language since I have no idea what you mean by my inability to rise above your leader in intelligence or common sense. As far as his attention whoring, I will get to that later.
[quote]
We were here first.
[/quote]
Your 3 day AA seniority would prove otherwise, but far it from you to get hung up on simple facts like that.
[quote]
Oh how pretentious. Do you really think your crappy half of the members are worth fighting over? [/quote]
Actually considering you started a war with the aa, attempted to fake a leadership position, and tried to recruit people to your cause shows that in fact YOU are the one who thinks our members or AA are worth fighting over. If you need further proof of this please go back and read the eloquent post that started this thread by your dear leader whose intelligence and common sence I apparently cannot rise above
[quote]
A bunch of guys that can't handle a handful of rogues and a tiny alliance like SWAT at the same time? You must be glad that you're getting the help of an outside alliance now. But regardless, that's right; all you have is exactly this: presumptions. Rodrod never messaged your precious members. I did as a joke. Rodrod is an excellent recruiter. Somehow he can't get people to join his own AA, while getting something like eight to attack you. Explain that to me with more of your presumptions please.
[/quote]
Again please point out where anyone stated we could not "handle you" on our own. In fact what you will find if you read this thread is our membership basically saying "Naw, we got this covered" to anyone who offered assistance. So if anyone hit you it was not of our doing. So actually the only person that seems to be bawing here about getting hit by rogues is you. So to put it in your terms...What's the matter, you can't handle a small AA like Kodiak and few rogues at the same time?
[quote]
Again, we don't care about your members. We don't care about your AA. Picking on you guys is just plain fun. We actually had some of your members willing to turncoat to our side after my quick propaganda message I turned them down. We don't want them.[/quote]
Please by all means then post up the responses you got from them to verify this claim
[quote] Some on our side would complain about how seriously you and your leadership is taking this, but I on the other hand love it. If you're willing to keep on going with this dribble, I'll gladly provoke more of it for my own entertainment.
The only thing thicker than most of your egos, is the callus on your sense of humor.
[/quote]
Actually none of us are taking this seriously. For us to take it seriously you would first need to actually present some form of threat, which up to this point you have failed miserably at doing.
[quote]
Hmm, maybe you should try picking on someone your own size. Oh wait, you can't even handle a bunch of rogues yourselves or a rolled SWAT at the same time.
[/quote]
Believe I already addressed this earlier but thanks for making the same point twice in one post. It is still just as wrong the 2nd time
[quote]
How is this attention whoring? Is making a thread attention whoring? Go look at your government, who keep posting like morons when their silence would be golden.
[/quote]
Ahh, and so we get the heart of the matter. A few of you had issues with the way that some of kodiak handled themselves this cycle. So instead of just simply declaring war, you decided to get a group of people together, plan for 2-3 days, drop your aa, ghost the kodiak aa AA, draft and send out messages to the membership, attempt to secure alliance backing in your plan, and post threads that scream "look at me and how cutting edge I am in handling this situation". So if anyone is exhibiting chronic butthurt symptoms here, it certainly is not us.
I guess that wasn't milk we left in your cheerios afterall. -
[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286244234' post='2475034']
This blatant lie is completely false. I am the leader of Kodiak Corps, and my government is the only government. Judge and his imposters have decided to highjack our AA, we will not put up with it!
[/quote]
You must have a hard time with the English language so let me take this real slow for you. You made the claim that Kodiak has repeatedly attacked alliances that were engaged in other wars. I, in turn, refuted this point. Since then your responses to that post have basically consisted of "but but but...hey look at me ...I posted a thread claiming I am the leader of Kodiak...that makes me an important person". Again, feel free to address any of the points I made in my original post, or just keep making a fool of yourself with these responses. Either one works for me.
[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1286244491' post='2475061']
I dont really know anything about him. I was just pointing out that if he were truly the leader since the start of the round, he should have called Judge X out before now (since Judges posts on behalf of Kodiak should have made his leadership, sanctioned or usurped, pretty obvious). Since he hasnt done so before now, seemingly at random, it makes his case look pretty darn weak, even to those of us who don't know anything about the situation, except that we like making passing references to Cold War era Germany in this thread
[/quote]
Actually since this has not been addressed in a complete fashion I will shed some light upon the entire situation for those who do not know the backstory here.
Basically this entire "war (and I use the term loosely) began when rodrod and a few of his friends decided to change their AA to Kodiak about 2 days ago. No one in Kodiak had ever heard of him prior to this and none of them were members. In fact, had they done even a minute bit of homework they would have realized that everyone flying the kodiak AA also hails from the same alliance on another nearby planet in this realm. Basically he had decided that he was bored with the current cycle and needed a way to draw attention to himself so he ghosted an AA and sent out messages to its members claiming he was the new ruler (presumably because he cannot actually get people to join an AA that he actually sets up) and certain other existing members of Kodiak were to be rolled. Naturally this had a snowballs chance in hell of actually working since every member of the Kodiak AA actually knows each other quite well from that other nearby planet and furthermore there is no true "gov structure" within Kodiak (we kind of fashion ourselves as more the anarchist type). Had he spent 5 minutes researching this he would have realized this was doomed to failure.
Once plan A went to hell, and he also came to realize that this did not get under the skin of any of the existing members (in fact many of us were more than happy to have fresh blood to take on since the SWAT war was peacing out) he figured his last recourse at attaining the attention he so desperately desired was to come to these forums and create a thread proclaiming himself leader of Kodiak. In the meantime he nearly managed to get certain friends of his rolled who were initially condoning his actions and blew this off with remarks like "You think I care if you hit them"
So basically what we have here is a severe case of attention whoring. Nothing more, nothing less.
Edit: Punctuation -
[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286241471' post='2474907']
I am the one busting rogues here son. Go back and read the OP Plz.
[/quote]
Sorry son, but the OP has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you made that I responded to so I have no reason to go back and read it. Perhaps you should go back to the post you made that I quoted and actually address my points in it that called you out on your BS.
[quote name='Mikeyrox' timestamp='1286242481' post='2474924']
In all honesty, rodrod you don't have much of a case here that I can tell. JudgeX already posted, what, 2 or 3 DoWs? And has been the de-facto leader figure present on the owf since the start of the round. Plenty of time for you to challenge him before now
[/quote]
You do realize the rodrod and his merry group of men have not at any time been members of Kodiak and this is simply an attempt to try to draw attention to themselves while they get rolled. -
[quote name='rodrod' timestamp='1286226311' post='2474597']
Don't you know Burnt, Judge here is the most badass person in TE because his alliance beat down some alliances that where at war already. Also, obligatory
[color="#FF0000"][size="5"][font="Comic Sans MS"][center]DOWN WITH THE GHOSTS!
[/center][/font][/size][/color]
[/quote]
Please feel free to point out where we declared war on any AA that was engaged in another conflict.
We have been in 3 wars this cycle
The first was with GATO...no active wars when we hit them
The 2nd with SF....They declared on us while we were at war with GATO
3rd war with SWAT....again not engaged in any wars when we hit them.
And if you wish to consider this current rouge busting a war, then we can do that as well. But it was you who declared on us while we were at war with SWAT
But by all means do not let facts get in the way of the wonderful story you are trying to construct. -
[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285974044' post='2471560']
Everyone in this game likes to hate on the raiding alliances. We're the bad guys, we're driving people from the game, supposedly, we're cowards, hypocrites, thugs, hooligans. No sin is too great to be put on our shoulders. No action we do can be pure of motive. We can be lied to, tricked, and destroyed, and it's justified because We're The Bad Guys.
[/quote]
As others have pointed out, this statement is simply wrong. Furthermore, being that this is the central thesis from which the remaining arguments in your post are derived, it also makes the everything else after it invalid as well.
There are numerous alliances in this game who raid consistently, or have charters that condone raiding, whose actions are never called to task on these forums. You would be hard pressed to find anyone beyond the small minority of absolute hard core moralists in this game who equate an alliance having a raiding clause to said alliance being "evil". I am sure you are not blind to the fact that the hatred shown towards Goons has very little to do with the business of tech raiding itself, but rather the way in which you personally handle the raids (refusing to grant peace until they comply with mercy board terms, raiding what the community feels are established alliance, color sphere mass raids to prove political points etc). The fact that you attempted in one swift stroke, to paint the raiding activity of numerous alliances as on par with the actions of your AA by calling all raiding alliances "evil" is not only laughable, but also quite insulting to those other AA's who handle their raids in a non-abrasive manner.
The simple fact is most people do not even consider the majority of the actions taken by goons as "evil". There have been a lot of AA's both past and present who have played the proverbial bad guy with far greater success than anything you are doing. If we must search for proper adjectives to describe the actions of your AA that many rally against than words like childish and immature would be far more accurate then evil. Since your OP seems to be trying to work around the juxtaposition of terms, creating a central thesis using those adjectives (and their polar opposites) would produce an argument that would come much closer to the heart of the matter than anything supplied in the OP.
Edit: punctuation -
Good fight gentlemen. It was a pleasure
-
Actually the part about Kodiak not really taking any damage could have stayed since it is applicable in this war as well
-
Happy hunting
-
[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1284413103' post='2452685']
I find it ironic that most of the people objecting seem to be from elitist AA's, i figured you of all people would know that[b] wars are fought as much by the quality, activity and skill of the rulers as they are by the NS held by them,[/b]
having said that it really makes no sense to charge in head first against PS or tW when most of our membership can't make a check in and half of the SF council haven't even read the target list, i don't expect that SF's IA problems will you make you all go a rubbery one, they are just that, OUR problem, i'm simply saying that if you want to call this some kind of curbstomp at least wait until the stats reflect that accusation, right now, while we are winning it's hardly by a huge amount, when the target list was drawn up i tried to make sure that the NS's of our attackers matched up with the defenders as much as possible, i'm pretty sure that i was the only nation listed to attack nations more than about 250 NS below me, and i made sure that i was the only one attacking both of them targets to try keep it fair
[/quote]
So if I am reading this correctly what you are basically saying is that because you lack skill, quality and activity it somehow makes using your giant NS and member advantage to declare on 4 aa's (all of whom are either currently involved in other wars and therefore do not have the slot availability to hit you back or just peaced out conflicts) an honorable move in your opinion.
Gotcha -
I for one can hardly wait for the September 7th update so that I can henceforth roll tanks on GATO....
My post-cognitive dreams have already shown a great and triumphant victory for Kodiak! -
[quote name='chris8967' timestamp='1282768519' post='2431148']
You wouldn't have jumped in if NSO had begged you too. NPO would of found a way to avoid it, as always.
[/quote]
Well this is a rather bold claim to make.
Of course by making it one would also assume that you have the ability to provide and clear and concise historical track record in which NPO has habitually ran for cover anytime they or an ally of theirs came under fire to back up this claim.
I for one am very interested in seeing you provide this track record. -
[quote]
[center][img]http://images8.cpcache.com/product/223875208v2_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][b][size=4] The Whale Tail Accords [/center][/b][/size]
[b]Article I: Sovereignty[/b]
This Pact shall not infringe on the sovereignty of The Phoenix Federation (TPF) and The High Order of Notorious Guerrillas (THONG) and shall serve to only embody the friendship and trust amongst the signatory alliances.
[b]Article II: Communication[/b]
The signatories agree to keep open lines of communication between each other at all times.
[b]Article III: Non Aggression[/b]
In the spirit of friendship, neither signatory alliance will engage in any hostile action towards the other signatory in any form.
[b] Article IV: Protection[/b]
In the event that THONG falls under attack, TPF pledges to have their back militarily, financially, and/or politically.
[b] Article V: Cancellation [/b]
If either signatory finds that this agreement is no longer in their best interest, they may cancel the agreement with seventy-two (72) hours written notice, or immediately by mutual consent. Any violation of Article I, II, or III shall serve as cause for immediate termination by the protector.
[b]
Signed for TPF:
The Crimson King - Evil Overlord, Peddler of Death
Desperado - High Panty Sniffer
chaz9055 - Minister of Foreign Affairs
Signed for THONG:
Shakira- Emperor
[/b]
[/quote]
TPF is protective of its thong so hands off -
[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282677813' post='2429692']
Incorrect. JBone asked me how long we wanted this to go on the day we declared and I said "a few days to a week, we're not looking to crush TPF here."
However, this isn't about TPF/RoK ... I guess we'll just have to go to PM or agree to disagree here.
[/quote]
Sorry, but no. I have the logs of the conversation between you and JBone that you are referring to and at no point in time did you ever reference any time frame. In fact the only references you made were exactly the opposite and were statements to the effect of "We will duke it out for a while and then discuss peace". In fact when when you were asked directly about how long this would take or if it would escalate you told him that is was to early to begin discussing ending the war. You are free to go back and check these logs yourself or if you don't have them I can supply you with a copy.
The reason this is being brought up is because you tried to use the TPF war as an example of how what you say actually happens. IE: I told TPF "X" and lo and behold it came to pass. This is only true if you actually told TPF what you claim you did.
[quote]
Initially such a term was requested, but we decided just to end it instead of continuing to bicker over something so small that TPF would not mean anyway.
[/quote]
So if in our situation you realized that the admission of "guilt" was a point of contention for TPF, and was as small and meaningless as you claim, then why bother pursuing it all with NSO at all when you realized their view of this term was basically the same as ours? -
[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282661555' post='2429435']
TPF were told in advance that the war would only last a few days to a week. Guess what? It lasted a week.
[/quote]
Lets clear this little bit of revisionist history up shall we.
What TPF was told was that you wanted two cycles of war. Furthermore peace was also initially contingent a signed statement from us attesting to our guilt in the matter that we did not agree with (all of which sounds vaguely similar to this situation mind you). It is the latter to which ultimately we stood our ground and was eventually withdrawn, and is also what I believe the poster you quoted was referencing in their statement.
So yes, you are correct the war did only last a week. But to say that a few days of war and then peace was what was initially told to us is far from the truth.
Now that we have that cleared that up, please return to your regularly scheduled programs. -
Congrats to our allies on achieving peace
-
Congrats guys. Very nicely done
-
Welcome back my friend. I look forward to seeing the resurgence of 64D, and helping you along that path in any way we can.
Also to reiterate the point in HoT's earlier post, 64 Digits remains a protectorate of TPF, so hands off. -
Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
-
Truth be told, Moo really lost that aid money in a game of poker
On a serious note, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Pacifica and all the nations that took part in the aid effort to TPF, and a big thanks to Jasmine for setting it all up. Sorry for putting you through another month of hell JJ. Now go get some sleep finally
-
Always good to see one of our protectorates making new friends
Congrats to you both -
Congrats guys
This is good to see
OB DoW
in TE OWF Archive
Posted
Taking side bets on which aa anarchies more Abyss nations