Hyperbad
-
Posts
1,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Hyperbad
-
-
[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1304307342' post='2703746']
I understood that quite well. I just missed the part where CoJ turned into TPF. As you know very well the first formal declaration of hostilities came from you to MK not the other way around. If random MK nations were hitting random coj people that means your war was justified, not that you didn't declare it. Though honestly, i'm not sure why it really matters.
[/quote]
I just want to clarify what I'm reading here. Do you believe attacks sanctioned by governments with the intention of expanding ones war to other alliances is not initiating hostilities in your own opinion so long as no formal statement is made? -
[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1304306316' post='2703722']
Yeah, i'm lying ;:that's sarcasm::
It cant be that we disagree over whether your deceleration of hostility was a dow (I say yes) or a recognition of an already existing war (so says you).
[/quote]
You believe the Mushroom Kingdom hadn't initiated wars against us prior to the recognition? -
[quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637']
Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT.
[/quote]
Tell ya what I'll write out an apology myself for what acts we did do if ODN writes one themself. You first. Start by apologizing for the declaration of war and follow it up with all the acts of war your alliance has conducted against us right up to and including GAs.
[b]Edit[/b] oh yeah and also toss in your saying not nice things to and about us -
Great victory there Avalon. Well fought and it took so little.
-
I must say I do find it humorous how ODN took lessons from Athen's Blue Balls War.
-
[quote name='itseZe' timestamp='1303590054' post='2697939']
"dissident members"? So that's what someone sent over in the middle of a war to spy is called these days.
I remember when they used to be called... spies.
And we'll make sure to supply many more (orange) "juicy stories", afterall we aim to please.
[/quote]
We've actually sent no one over to any other alliances if for no other reason (though other reasons do exist) we simply lack the pool of members with which to seek out recruits from. Sometimes people just act on their own and when they present an opportunity to another party they seize it. -
[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303349050' post='2695068']
When taking my words out of context yes it could be indeed used in that manner.[/quote]
Of course the words were taken out of context of the present scenario which they were then inserted into the context of past scenarios. I'm sure it could even be applied to situations where another party says it but you would find a campaign useful because the terms presented are not of the type you're willing to accept.
[quote]I mean geeze NPO could be out of war if they just got curb stomped for a month. That's nothing right? Saying an insincere apology is a lot more harsh than that.[/quote]
Good sir, would you please direct me to where I had commented to this effect? -
[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303341221' post='2694944']
I see your point, however I can also see and understand why TFE may decide to carry on regardless. If it means sacrificing potential growth to assist an alliance its treaty partner is at war with then from a pragmatic point of view for an alliance the size of TFE it would make much more sense to carry on selling tech rather than oblige your requests (and judging by the brilliant performance dating back a few weeks from HoT on TFE's forums I can see why they may not be sympathetic to your plight)[/quote]
I was refraining from making judgement on their chosen course of action and instead chose to comment on the counter point you presented with how it leaves certain aspects open to interpretation depending upon the point of view prefered by the reader.
[quote]If your side was participating in tech deals right now I personally would have no issue with it and not just because you'd be in war mode. The reason I wouldn't have an issue with it is because I'd probably do the same thing if I needed to, it would be awfully hypocritical of me to argue against something that I would do myself. I can't speak for everyone else in our coalition regarding tech deals during war but that's my personal take on it and you can hold me to that if you feel it necessary to do so.[/quote]
I'm not the [url=http://flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm]archivist[/url] type so won't be doing that. That said if you're holding us to standards you make effort to hold yourself to then I thank you for that modicum of respect for us. Unfortunately my time here and elsewhere has severely diminished my hope in many others having that same level of integrity so am stuck with the kind of perspective which goes "I'll believe it when I see it."
[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303347552' post='2695044']
I am just annoyed that CoJ would stoop to such lows as a smear campaign over terms I would have gladly taken in the past.
[/quote]
When I read this I immediately chose to think of how else it might be applied. I began to picture those alliances who accepted viceroys saying this about those who campaigned against said practice; alliances which had accepted terms requiring document rewrites or changes to government saying this against those who campaigned against said practice; and so on. This incident of course isn't the same in severity as those I had just listed. I just think it goes to show that the statement you made by no means is telling of anything except ones perspective on what might be considered acceptable.
[b]Edit:[/b] There's a reason I don't do graffiti. I fail at tags. -
[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303324307' post='2694749']
On the other hand TFE need that money to grow. I'm sure TFE could easily find another alliance to do tech deals with but what if they don't want to? What if they actually like ODN and would prefer to do business with them?
I'm pretty sure if CoJ or any other alliance in that coalition started doing tech deals there wouldn't be any outrage coming from our side about it (probably because that would mean they would have to be in war mode
) [/quote]
The problem with casting aside the fact that tech deals with other alliances may be pursued in order to continued their present growth effectively is it throws into question the motive for their participation and whether it's solely for economic reasons. That isn't to say the one sending the shipments to nations at war are doing so with intent to support said war. In fact I can think of a myriad of other reasons but it's now known by them the effect it's having is to support the war and they become a culpable party to any acts by those they are aiding. So if one wishes to argue what you are then it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more.
[quote]Also, how would you respond if an alliance which you'd not had any contact with before approached you and asked you to stop your means of obtaining cash from your ally because it's hindering their war efforts and because of "tradition"?[/quote]
In a case like this whether I knew anything of the alliance approaching me would be of no consequence. My decision isn't to be based on personal likes or dislikes but on information surrounding the conflict. After all even the deplorable types may be victimized. The relevant matter would merely be how the war came to be which would be all encompassing of the originating incident, talks and execution. I would have to be convinced that the person requesting a cessation of trade is the victim of aggression or otherwise fighting it. Failing that - or done with a dishonest argument - would see trade continued or resumed. I don't really give a crap about tradition personally and I'd be lying if I said I would under any and every circumstance suspend a tech deal with another party who was at war. On the other hand I myself wouldn't ask someone to stop under circumstances where I would be unwilling to. In this I recognize there are times where my opponents may be swarmed with aid packates giving them a substantial edge on me in war but that's something I can live with if it means peace of mind.
Of course I've also been here on and off for nearly five years and when I wasn't here was updated semi-frequently on the flow of politics so have a developed view of the world as opposed to those who are still new to it and absorbing things. Under those cirucmstances I can't rightly say how I would respond.
What is of concern to me is with whether what was considered a norm is being over turned here permanently or only because it's of benefit to the winning party. Cause for my concern over it is over a personal desire to resist submitting to double standards. Unfortunately we won't discover which it is until tested multiple times down the road under differing circumstances. In the mean time images are reparable so if there turns out to be no double standard then prove it through attitude and behavior via consistency.
[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806']
If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too
.[/quote]
In this war I don't doubt his statement as true since a tech deal would as he stated require us to leave peace mode and in turn be ground to dust. The real test for consistency isn't where it works to their benefit but when it works against them.
[b]Edit[/b] Please note that I had rephrased my response to the first quotation in this post so as to clarify what I was intending to say. -
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302127127' post='2685721']
This war continues because DH wants this war to continue. DH are the aggressors, their sole somewhat valid reason for entering the war has long since passed.
[/quote]
They are certainly the reason this war came to be but do not hold sole responsibility for the war continuing. Terms were offered by them which if accepted may have very well ended this war.
[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302127964' post='2685726']
Here we go again. DH has offered terms. Ergo DH wants the war to end. NPO has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue.
[/quote]
By that logic the counter offers by our coalition which were rejected by our opponents suggests they want this war to continue.
The truth of the matter is negotiations have been going on for some time now. Both sides have presented offers which were declined and followed up with counter offers. Those were declined and said party would then offer counter offers of their own. This has happened multiple times now. It can be said both sides want the war to end but not to such an extent they're willing to do absolutely anything to get out of it be it agree to s status quo ante bellum or the initially offered terms.
[b]Edit:[/b] Rephrase of second sentence replying to first quote to clarify. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1302042205' post='2685006']
implying that anyone on this side chose to be involved in this war of aggression[/quote]
Those who weren't attacked did choose to become involved. The argument to be made is whether or not the NPO deserved to be attacked which I was under the impression is specifically what Borche was suggesting. Frankly, I don't think either side will be convinced after such a debate so I see it as pointless. -
[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1301941887' post='2684087']
This has been discussed and answered about sixty quadrillion times. I'm pretty sure it's even been answered to you. The answer, once again, is that the war would be over had they fought in the war. The peace mode strategy is not one that planet Bob can condone or allow to be used in future wars. Thus, we're putting a stop to it now.[/quote]
LittleRena wasn't disputing NPO's part in prolonging said conflict but is putting the blame on both parties, with an extra emphasis on this who attacked them. She would be correct to an extent as the conflict was initiated and brought to the NPO by other parties so the war existing isn't their fault at all - it's others who are the actors. Where her post falls is both sides could equally decide to end this war by giving in to what the other wishes and in this shared responsibility personal feelings on the terms are moot. Both sides are dragging it out for their own personally defined reasons.
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301942286' post='2684091']
Except, I could have sworn that NPO has lost several million NS, which means they did fight in the war. So is that DH lying again or just being retarded again? Also, when did DH think they can speak for all of Planet Bob? We get that you don't like the tactic but from what I can tell, most of Planet Bob does not care one way or the other. So please don't go wannabe messiah on us as it is !@#$%^&* and just another lie from DH.
[/quote]
It seemed pretty clear to me that Beefspari was speaking not of statistical losses or even necessarily the fight at all but the heart put into it. In a manner of speaking it is true that NPO has fought this war half-assed. Everything isn't going into it after all if nations sit in peace mode. That said, NPO having lost so much NS relative to its starting position does throw into question just what is enough to satisfy. This question gets answered by the terms demanded of them and have been argued near to death on whether they are excessive or not.
General Statement: I have no idea what people are arguing about here and never really did. So... what's the topic of discussion now? -
I am amused. Thank you OP.
-
Has a nice ring to it. I approve. ^^
-
[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1300238532' post='2665997']
"The greatest conflicts are not between good versus evil, but between all parties who think they themselves are good."
I doubt that either side handled themselves well. One by their choice of emissary, and the other by their reception of such a guest.[/quote]
Indeed. Still, given that the comments by NPO members happened on their own forums I don't hold it against them simply because it's their turf and if one should feel comfortable anywhere, it's at home. Don't like it? gtfo kind of thing. Such a policy may not be good for business but I'd consider it more or less common sense where if you don't want uncensored views and statements don't go there. -
[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1300236713' post='2665965']
While I prefer not to take sides between two groups that, in my mind, have remarkably similar modus operandi, nevertheless I do have to provide a small observation also noted by others. If it was a true desire to mend bridges or even just inform NPO of VE's current status, sending SethB was a remarkably poor decision. Surely any seasoned diplomat would have sensed warning flags going off right away.
[/quote]
Whenever this sethb business gets brought up my eyes just glaze right over and I reach for that ice pick we have in here to pluck out my eyes because it comes up so frequently and both sides are oblivious. VE felt it was necessary to send sethb over and whether others can see it as necessary after the fact is moot. They felt it necessary and so from there you go about doing so in the best manner possible. I don't know if they sought out whether it was ill-advised or not but hadn't they then they should have. Had they done so and it came back favorable I still would have used any friends members might have to gauge the attitude towards sethb. This wouldn't be normal procedure but only that for circumstances where tensions will obviously run very high. In cases where it was ill-advised you hold off on that extra step and do everything else in the mean time. When sethb got there, there really shouldn't have been any of that nonsense. Sincere feelings could be stated without going that far and if they didn't want him there they should have simply denied him a mask but then who ever masks might also have differing views and the reaction of membership isn't always predictable. -
[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1299817914' post='2659552']
[b]If you aren't prepared to make collective FA decisions you don't belong in a bloc[/b], Rok's FA decisions differed from SF, how much only recently became this obvious, but them leaving is in hindsight not a surprise what so ever.
[/quote]
Sounds like in this case it goes both ways then since none of the concerned alliances cared to compromise. -
[quote name='Burnsey' timestamp='1299709200' post='2657983']
I see a pattern of whining from the other side..
[/quote]
Both sides are whining and !@#$%*ing. It'd be amusing to me if only it wasn't so darn annoying. It makes me want to eat my own brain. -
A direct challenge to the Carlos Accords?
[img]http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii129/irishlass3375/intredasting.jpg[/img] -
[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1297667687' post='2632640']
We broke the GRL Record on valentines day
[/quote]
I thought the record was 69.96? What's GRL at now? -
Neither Pacifica nor Polaris have done anything to warrant a change in opinion.
-
[quote name='jeff barr' timestamp='1297465964' post='2629733']
If I was DH, I would be worried. It appears to me NPO is trying to do to DH what IRON did to gramlins. Whilst DH's ally, Goons, get gangbanged.
[/quote]
There really isn't a reason for DH to be worried. Gramlins was bleeding members and we lack the ratio of nations IRON had to Gramlins. Additionally high ranking nations were joining IRON of their own accord to combat the attempt to establish a new precedent they disliked. Lastly, Gramlins was politically isolated thus after IRON peaced out with the other alliances they had fought they could operate openly and without fear of attack from other parties. It [i]might[/i] have worked despite the challenges but DH is able to bank roll their fallen nations to continue the war thus questioning how successful any meat grind effort will be.
This war was never going to be won by us. Significant alliances would need to join on our side of the war but it was never going to happen. Taboos, grudges, friendships, a lack of concern or a belief in the cause all have played their part in ensuring it. Some of us have had no problem accepting the reality of our situation before even going in. -
[quote name='Tarfiel' timestamp='1296614817' post='2615393']
tl/dr...
Is there a Reader's Digest version?
[/quote]
What do you want the tl/dr of, the OP or resulting... stuff? -
War itself bores me about as much as silent nation building. Tension building up to what might be a war and the uncertainties which follow have always been of greater interest to me. So no, I won't appreciate it.
Announcement from the Viridian Entente and Avalon
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by Hyperbad
[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1304312043' post='2703859']
Hm? We had no interest in the 21 day kiddie play time ball pit that's in the works. Either there is war, or there is peace. They chose peace.
[/quote]
It's curious you'd say that when apparently it was your alliance which got all in a fit over being attacked by an alliance you declared war on.