kulomascovia
-
Posts
1,513 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by kulomascovia
-
-
[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1285001294' post='2458988']
I asked to show people what this is the biggest difference in the morals of tech raiders now to what they used to be.
A actual fight? I would assume that the nation that was attacked would see it as a fight not just a simple dilemma as you try to portray it as, a nations created destruction and havoc on another and to say they escalated it by defending themselves is tunnel vision at its best.
[/quote]
Furthermore, it's rather interesting to note that once the victim started fighting back, the conflict was no longer a "raid" but became a "fight" and the aggressors would be justified in doing whatever they wish to the victim. -
[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285000757' post='2458981']
And in return of those options they get protection.
I'm not seeing the problem here.
[/quote]
The notion that unaligned nations have "choices" to not get raided and that it is their fault for not taking those choices is an inaccurate assessment since it doesn't take into account the costs involved in making those choices. Is it a nation's fault for not choosing to relinquish its sovereignty or its economic freedom in order to avoid getting attacked for no apparent reason? If that's the justification for raiding, then I would say that it is indeed morally wrong. -
[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1284998154' post='2458948']
This thread is about the morality of raiding. It's not about GOONS. Please don't derail this one.
On the topic of raiding, I think it's fine. There are no laws against it (at least none that encompass the entirety of planet Bob), and wars are a standard part of this place we live. Those that don't wish to be raided have plenty of options, such as alliances or peace mode.
[/quote]
Alliances and peace mode are not "plenty". Furthermore, these "options" either restrict the economic or the political freedom of unaligned nations.
[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1284999406' post='2458968']
Yes, nothing. The raid escalated from a raid to an actual fight by the target, and a nuke was used to minimize damage. The person knew what they were in for and rather than seek peace in some form they fought back knowing that nukes could and would be involved. If you'd like to discuss the morality of using nukes that's fine, I only ask you do so in PMs, because again that's not what this thread is about.
[/quote]
"Minimize damage". It's a rather interesting euphemism for cowardly attacks upon unaligned nations. -
[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1284870241' post='2457757']
Looks like somebody else needs the prewar numbers.
Duckroll 136000 NS. Ave NS about 2600. Nukes about 30. 52 Nations
Aztec and BW 132000 NS. Ave NS about 2900. Nukes about 15. 43 to 45 Nations (Granted the top Aztec was a ghost)
[/quote]
The only advantage they had was average nukes. Furthermore, more growth = less warchest, so it's easy to defeat/anarchy them with your lower average ns and nukes.
The point in my previous post was that in this case, it would be fine for smaller alliances to attack Duckroll even though it is at war because Duckroll has the advantage and they are not being countered. It's like a tech raid. I don't know about you guys but my favorite part of war isn't the part where my target just fills up one of my slots.
[img]chrome://dictionarytip/skin/dtipIconHover.png[/img] -
[quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1284845198' post='2457481']
What do you mean your members? Are you the leader or in gov? If so, perhaps it wasn't the [i]best[/i] idea to attack another alliance who's already at war, wouldn't you agree?
[/quote]
Yeah, they should have known better than to attack an alliance engaged in a massive tech raid. Shame. -
I actually read through this edition for a change and I have to say, I'm pleased. Very entertaining.
-
[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1284673157' post='2456020']
Why would they spend 60 bucks for a few maps if Halo sucked? If you're willing to spend that much money for just a few maps, then the game must be pretty awesome.
[/quote]
Either that or they're pretty dumb. -
This is kind of pathetic.
-
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1284581536' post='2454974']
a cultural icon for the types of people we fight against.
[/quote]
I don't see how Metharge can be seen as an icon for innocent unaligned nations. -
[quote name='potato' timestamp='1284549636' post='2454661']
As it is the case with every vote and/or election, non-participants don't count.
[/quote]
Which means that we know very little of what 98% of the CN population thinks about Legion.
My point is that Legion shouldn't really care about what these polls say as the participants are negligible compared to the overall CN population. -
[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284514484' post='2454205']
It's been pretty fun actually. Still, on a personal note, it does suck-major that 318 (at current count) think that Legion deserves the WAE title.
But what are you going to do? Cry about it? Nah, if anything this shows that we have a megaton of work to do in getting those attitudes changed.
[/quote]
Wow, that 318 people. That's 318 out of 21245!
That's like 1.5% of the CN population. 1.5%!!!!
You have a lot of work ahead of you legion. -
[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1284518239' post='2454287']
I see it ironic that we're trying to give rules to a "tech raider".
[/quote]
What's ironic about that? -
Glory Bump!
-
I am pleased to see this return.
-
Good luck with your [s]tech raid[/s] war.
-
I don't think these are the only ones.
-
[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1284395040' post='2452363']
The fact that he got you to rogue us is what makes him a GOON hero.
[/quote]
Your heroes are rather shallow. -
[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1284398600' post='2452430']
Uh, excuse me? We don't force people to join us.
[/quote]
You attack the unaligned and force them to join established (and not just any alliance; an alliance that is well protected). You do indeed force assimilation upon unaligned nations and alliances. And those that support your activities support this forced assimilation as well. -
Indulging in this "competition" will only serve to legitimize it. This thread wasn't a very good idea.
-
[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1284338835' post='2451785']
I've seen the election results announcement I'm posting in response to, yes. And no, it's not at all evident that by wording it "erection results" they're looking to amuse Andre27 or anyone else who feels so aggrieved by a harmless title.
[/quote]
I believe by posting it on the OWF, they are posting it for the convenience of the general population of CN. As part of the target demographic, I'd say Adre27 should be able to air his grievances. If it wasn't meant for the entertainment of the general population, then Farkistan should refrain from posting announcements. -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1284264698' post='2450610']
Some of those alliances weren't even in the MK competition as they weren't nominated. As for the OOC/IC divide, it is perfectly acceptable for a player to think an alliance is the 'worst alliance ever.' If this competition were completely IC then alliances like TOP and the NPO would surely have lasted much longer in the competition on MK's boards.
[/quote]
Of course it is acceptable for an individual to think that a certain alliance is "worst alliance ever" in IC or in OOC. The problem is that this is an OOC contest that uses IC justifications. Players judge according to whom they are treatied or with whom they are enemies, a rather IC reason. Then they extrapolate these thoughts into OOC and vote. It's this muddling of OOC and IC that I dislike. What I would suggest is having a standard by which players can vote. Something akin to a rubric that is either IC or OOC. -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1284264297' post='2450603']
Stop bawwwing everywhere.
[/quote]
What does this comment have to do with anything I was talking about?
[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1284264546' post='2450607']
We are hypocrites, but we are also talented, skillful, cunning, charming, and supremely arrogant. Even more so, we can back up our arrogance with our WRC's and warchests. Where as those we ridicule and mock are far from that and couldn't hope to scar a fly let alone pull a midnight blitz.
[/quote]
The fact that you have a better military in CN doesn't really explain why you partake in such a behavior. Are you saying that you're jerks because you can be jerks? -
[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1284263271' post='2450581']
That's what the 3rd poll is for. Many of the alliances there didn't make the final 16, and a couple weren't even nominated for the initial 64.
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. -
[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1284263144' post='2450576']
Most topics on the OWRP are IC. But I don't see you whining in them.
And the competition was announced on the OWF so everyone knew about it.
[/quote]
That's because I don't have the time to point out every IC discussion in the OWRP. This was sort of a glaring example of taking IC too far.
News From Yesterday
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
The pirate day summary was quite funny.