WcaesarD
-
Posts
577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by WcaesarD
-
-
I think they stated that peace was up to \m/...
Now that is blatantly untrue. I saw Grub say peace was up to \m/, well, \m/ wasn't the group that declared war on Polaris, it happened the other way around. Grub says he's offered terms, and \m/ says they've counter-offered, well, it seems as though the burden of peace rests on both alliances there.
You know, I'd be willing to bet a good amount of money that Grub offered peace once \m/ agrees not to tech raid any more. I'd love for that to be officially confirmed or denied, and I really hope it's not true, because if that truly is the reason, then I would be ashamed to have respected NpO and Grub.
Regardless of all this, props to PC for a proper and prompt response, good luck to you. As for RoK, I hate to see my friends there caught between two warring allies, clearly the best decision is to declare on them both, then fight yourselves in their defense.
So, I'd say the whole "It's up to \m/ and PC when they get peace" thing is complete !@#$%^&*, and say that it's up to the man who started this war to end it, and not with terms that attempt to fundamentally change the nature of (a) sovereign alliance/alliances.
Also, GL, HF.
-
I applaud your decision to go to war for something that you believe in.
-
That would be the whole second paragraph where they make it clear that such conduct is common among members, happens frequently in the channel and will continue to do so – i.e. they do not believe there is anything wrong with it.
It seems to me that you're reading those two sentences a little too quickly. I don't see that said anywhere in there.
Edit:
He means this part.That part is my point, that is simply a continuation of the apology. a "Yes, they were said, but they weren't serious, and not meant to offend"
-
WC, I know these guys are your friends and thus you will naturally see the best of them. Yes, the OP claimed to be an apology, and started out quite well. But a sincere apology is then followed by some sort of acceptance of fault and ambition to not do the same bad thing again. The rest of the OP (the second paragraph) is very clear in its point that this is how \m/ roll and it's really your own fault if you get offended by it – in fact you basically make that point in your argument too.
What really comes out of it (and from you too) is that their conduct is fine and doesn't need apologising for, they're not going to change it and they're not sorry, except for the very specific case that they pissed off Polar right now and might get attacked for it.
I dunno, the apology seemed nice and sincere, not to mention to the point, unlike most of the drivel that gets put up as apologies. I can only applaud the move taken by \m/ here, and say that it's a job well done to apologizing for something that nobody should have to deal with. I don't see what the fuss is, if you carefully read the second paragraph they ACTUALLY say that the actions and words are their own, not their allies. I don't know where you got the "it's your fault if you get offended by it". They say:
\m/ is an extremely diverse alliance (No seriously) and doesn't take idle talk seriously. Since there are those that do take those sort of things seriously and \m/ does not want to tarnish the reputation of any of our allies know that this is what we do, these comments are said without hate and can be considered the foolish actions of \m/ and not our allies.That to me means "We don't mean to offend anyone, if you get offended, it is by us, not our allies" Once again, I can only applaud this statement and sentiment.
In conclusion, I think most of you need to carefully reread the OP.
Semi OOC - Edit: of course none of that takes into account that IRC is mostly an OOC tool, and you are all there by choice, in a semi-private "forum" of another group.
-
I got recruited by my RL friend, recruited my then roommate to play the next day, we've both got nations nearly 1000 days later. I've had 5-10 people join and play for at least 3 months, at least half are still playing. Never recruited anyone from online elsewhere though.
-
I wonder if I'm "that guy from MK"
Um, at least a few more months, possibly longer, who knows? I don't. I'll quit when I quit.
That guy would be "Unsure".
-
I am most certainly a FAN of this kind of move, grats on your new direction Gramlins.
-
Seriously, I know people are tired of hearing about it, but the best response is still simply "Do something about it". History has proven that the only effective response is to go to war to create change on Bob. Seriously, all of you in the peanut gallery complain about the fact that people raid, about the fact people don't go to war, and about the fact that there are too many microalliances. Well !@#$, get the $%&@ over it already, if you don't like it, then go pay attention to something else, or try to do something other than whine or be all passive agressive. Holy !@#$, \m/ raided someone! How awful!
-
A very well written announcement MHA, one of the classiest treaty cancellations I've ever read.
-
Nobody plans anything. They just do what they do.
That's why I asked their expectations, not plans.
-
Well, I was sitting here reading the OWF, noticing nation and alliance anniversary threads, (not to mention the when did you join thread) it occurred to me to wonder how long the average CN player plays for. Now, I'm sure that the average player makes a nation and 20 (or now, 25) days later, it's gone. But the rest of us, those that made it past the first month, are generally here longer. Now people leave all the time and for all sorts of reasons, but as my nation approaches 1000 days, I thought of how long I've played for, and how long I would play.
So, to the community at large, how long do you expect to play, is it a time thing, a goal thing, to the end of the world (be it Bob or Earth) or just some random number that has no definition?
If there is enough interest, I could add a poll with basic options.
-
But that's where you're wrong. This has everything to do with me. Wherever there is an injustice, rest assured, I shall be there to set everything right. In this post-Karma world it is quite obvious that you fellows thing yourselves above reproach. That is not the case, however. I will be there to voice opposition to everything you do, and I will not rest until you are a smoldering cinder, and even then not until that burning ash has been extinguished from all memory. Your injustices shall not go unpunished.
Also, I never had a vendetta. It was Sorum who started it, and Crushtania who continued it, along with the rest of the alliance. You drew first blood.
Some alliances out there prefer sanctioning to actually fighting. Seems MHA is pulling that right out of Sparta's book. Sanctioning over nothing.
Also, jadoo, I don't care about the facts of the matter so much as I do the principle.
RV, as much as I love you, you are neither Tom Joad nor John Rambo... And I don't think anyone else would say the sanctioning is over "nothing". I suppose it was military force or economic sanction to remove a ghost. Surely one is a more peaceful option, and isn't that what we all want?
-
This poll delivers a bit of insight into the average "age" of the OWF reader/poster. Also, I joined shortly after GW3.
-
I would also agree with LUE vs. NPO. Seems like it had the biggest impact of any of these rivalries yet put forth. I guess arguments could be made for NAAC/NPO, or FAN/NPO... I'm sensing a pattern here.
-
Congrats on the milestone?
Anyways, o/ SLCB.
-
Now all you need is someone in MK to re-roll with nation and ruler names of "Mushroom Kingdom" so you guys could have MK win every category, even the individual ones.
-
Congrats to the winners. MK once again shows off an astounding ability when it comes to voting, I've always admired that.
-
I can agree with blue balls war, no other.
-
Personally I don't mind clutter if it's all relevant information, and I do like having the nation count there.
I agree with this, the bullet is a nice addition, but I really like seeing nation count in there, it is usually a good indication of a lot of things, like bulking up for war, desertions, and just general flow. Also makes it easy to see how close to sanctionable member count people are.
-
To be fair, Gopher did say eastern timezone, not eastern coast... there is a difference. And the east coast of the US is all on the same tz. Of course those canucks have to be all special and get a different one, but I suppose they need something to keep them entertained.
-
Sir, in response to your Surrender terms the citizens of Huntonian send you this message:
NUTS
good day
Okay, that was awesome. Either way, I doubt the surrender terms will be accepted by many. After the last war they fought, you gotta figure most of that type are long gone.
-
Ivan, regardless of any and all of the issues, NSO's public handling and chest thumping have made me lost quite a bit of respect, and the jabs you take at the end of your OP have caused the same. I don't want explanations from NSO and friends about how they weren't meant that way, they read that way, and you won't convince me otherwise. Either way, I'm glad to see the matter firmly behind us.
-
Welcome back, good luck, hopefully it goes as you plan.
-
Best of luck to FoB.
The Following Program has been rated G
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Actually, as I've noted, their only option is to declare on themselves in defense of both.
On a serious note, I can't help but thinking it was a cowardly move by NpO (Yeah, I know they're not cowards, but a cowardly move can also be a strategic one) to not declare on PC to begin with. By allowing PC to enter in defense lowers greatly the chances that they'll bring in treaty partners, lowering the chanes of a global conflict. It also helps a lot on the PR scale. Either way, I find it disappointing.