Jump to content

Rush Sykes

Members
  • Posts

    3,329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rush Sykes

  1. Cortath sure does love playing king. Also, any particular reason the NPO still considers Ordo Verde an 'enemy' alliance? <_<

    I was wondering this myself....Im pretty sure that according to surrender terms, NPO is a protectorate of OV, and the coalition as a whole. Funny how Cortath mentioned semantics.

  2. Alright, so Here's another few questions for the world at large....

    • What drew you to your alliance?
    • Why have you stayed in your alliance, what makes it better (in your mind) than maybe a larger alliance?
    • Why, in your opinion, do people "hop" alliances?
    • What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    1) After the AE-FINAL war, FINAL was seeking a legit protectorate, Londo and Camelot gave us that. When the noCB war happened, the newly merged alliance of Athens(Camelot plus HotU), were my favorite people on the game. Somehow, a 2/3 vote by the FINAL trium, was no enough to send us to war in defense of our protectors, so most of us resigne FINAL, and fought alongside Athens. Best political move I ever made.

    2) We were allowed to be part of building Athens into what it was. Many former FINAL have served at various times in GOV positions. We feel as though we have had a hand in making this alliance what it is. What makes it better? Forged in fire. There is not a tighter group on all of Bob. That is a fact.

    3) People hop alliances because loyalty on Bob is fleeting.

    4) Significantly slower than the top running speed of a Llama, I can assure you of that.

  3. Yes, that's the basic counterargument.

    We covered that a long time ago. Since then it's mostly been me making jokes that your buddies don't understand. ;)

    So then, your little conclusion that this was an act of war was a joke? I am pleased you have seen the folly of your ways. Now take responsibility for your members' education, and dont try to pawn it off on the rest of the planet.

  4. Frankly, I don't think that's the point. I'm not interested in the identity of the person who sent it; most of our alliances are quite large, and there aren't many people who know the names of every single member of Invicta, never mind all of the Purple Unity alliances. I'm interested in the alliance of the person who sent it, which isn't in the box.

    It wouldn't be hard to put in the messages "Michiel de Ruyter is the Stickmen candidate for Purple Senate." It's not there.

    It also wouldnt be too hard for your members to make a couple of mouse clicks, or send a PM to their own alliance leadership. Start with the man in the mirror.

  5. Because the box saying who it is sent from totally doesn't identify the person. Are you really saying your members are that stupid?

    What it boils down to is, they do not want to take responsibility for the their members' passive understanding of what is going on. If they are that easily fooled, it is quite simply the fault of nobody but their own leadership's inability to educate their members. If less active members of Athens made this mistake, I, for one, would view it as a failing of Athens education department (love you Medtech, this is a WHAT IF!).... And not as an act of war, a breach of soveriegnty, or any one of anothe dozen bad things you could call it.

  6. I have to correct you here a bit. Your initial argument was:

    +

    LOL, I am glad you posted this my FAN friend, I missed both of those tidbits. Its hilarious to equate a senate a vote with target lists to incite a war. Absurd really. And the little thing at the end, that these messages constitued an act of war, are you flipping kidding me? WAR? Seeking a senate vote? Because they didnt ID who the candidate was? Purple is the lulz.

  7. The very notion that (one leader of a nation contacting a leader of another nation and seeking common ground on a democratically elected position) <-- this....constitutes a breach of ANYONE'S sovereignty, is absolutely foolish. Contacting someone is not a violation in any way, shape, or form. If an alliance's(or bloc's) leadership is so inept that they cannot motivate their members to support their efforts, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I applaud the efforts of Stickmen for trying to educate the rest of Purple, that NO, their little bloc does NOT have an admin given right to hold sway over the purple senate.

  8. I agree. It was for revenge. We (TOP) wanted no part of that.

    Believe it or not, I totally get that. But what elitists, like TOP and NPO of that time fail to be able to do, is look back in hindsight, and say "wow, these guys really were &#33;@#&#036;%bags fom their perch". Echelon, when it came to dealing with small alliances, were combative, disrespectful, dismissive and abusive. They threatened on more than one occasion. Yet, all of this time, they sat in the good graces of the elitists. Terms for them were never going to come at TOPs behest, and if TOP entered that front thinking differently, then it was a foolish move.

  9. Like 2 weeks after we wanted peace to begin with...

    Kicking Echelon around extra because of a grudge against AB...

    Perhaps it was kicking Echelon around a little extra because maybe after years of Echelon exuding not their own strength, but their allies strength...against others to effectively stroke their own egos, that the majority of Karma felt that they were one of the alliances who deserved an extra beatdown. I know for a fact that this was a prevelant thought among many. Its actually quite simple, if you dont want revenge exacted upon you for random acts of &#33;@#&#036;%baggery, dont commit said acts. Echelon did it for years, and their terms should come from those exacting the vengence rather than those who were tied to them at the hip a month earlier.

  10. Jack Diorno, the collective membership of Sparta is disappointed to have never awoken to this form of serene entertainment.

    You have to understand sir, that Jacks drug trafficking and love-spreading poetry writing makes it nearly impossible for him to have time in a day to spam a poem to a 600 member alliance. Perhaps we can have him starta(haha, I liked that) poetry thread in your embassy.

  11. Why are we always expected to apologize for our attitudes, while hoardes of wrath-filled anti-raiders go on a rampage throughout our thread, attempting to demean us at every step? We don't attack people for not liking our policy. Those that respectfully announced their disagreement with it were treated in kind. It's people like RV and this Sykes guy that attempt to steamroll us with their hatred for the GOONS name, and then subjective types like yourself, that keep us on our toes. You have no intention of looking at us without a filter.

    Please do not insult the general intelligence of leaders on Planet Bob, by insinuating that dissenting opinions is not what you wanted when this thread was posted. This a policy pertaining to un-aligneds about un-aligneds, as you have said to so many other alliance reps in this thread "this does not effect you." Know what, you are right, it doesnt. Hence there was no need to post it, and make it public. Yet you did. You did so knowing how the thread would play out. Please dont play stupid and pretend like you didnt. That is what this post intended all along, was to stir up controversy. The only thing Im not sure of is, now that it has, is your bawwing about those who dissent real or fake. It doesnt matter to me. Your entire alliance still lacks a pair.

  12. Your extrapolation is stupid. There is a difference between the bravery in going against the norm and the idiocy of suicide, and no amount of puerile baiting on your part is going to make us forget that simple fact. In fact, in following with your argument that we should lead by example, you too should lead by example and post the pain series as an attack against admin and his forums, then no one could doubt your fortitude in the slightest.

    So then , you do not consider it suicide for a raider to attack a nation that is capable of beating the raider. Instead you consider the raider to be a victim because the defender isnt as weak as he was supposed to be. And you call MY extrapolation stupid? Seriously?

    Edit: And thank you for proving what nippy proved. My lack thereof assessment, right on target. Carry on.

  13. Advice for the future....quit crying about policies that neither affect you nor your alliance.

    Advice for the future....quit acting like your opinion matters.

    Advice for the future....no need to state how much your advice is worth...we already know.

    In other words...Lack thereof was appropriate. Thank you for conceding the point.

  14. Wow, you really have TRUE testicles! :o

    I'll tell you what....you change your AA to 'none' and I'll show you who has TRUE testicles, big boy.

    See, the difference is here, I am not the one who likened this policy to a reward for those who have a pair. Your AA did that. If you had a TRUE pair, my AA would not matter, and you would embrace your testicular fortitude(although here I think lack thereof is more appropriate) and let your alliance reward you for having a pair. Advice for the future, and this comes free of charge.... Do not draw metaphors into policies, unless you can embody the metaphpor.

  15. I know you're trying to start something yourself with your quit impassioned yelling (OOC: Caps used to be internet speak for yelling, although sometimes people forget that now-a-days. I think, though, that when IC it might be the only way to indicate volume of speech, as compared to italics or bolding which are used to indicate either tone or emphasis.), but as has been pointed out GOONS is simply stating their policy of "aid(ing) whatever un-aligned nations (they) wish to aid in whatever circumstances (they) choose". It sounds like someone yelling to get their point across is most likely the one lacking testicles; it sounds like this is their way of having a pair; and it sounds like they are keeping a level head about it despite the uproar roaring around and at them.

    You would have a 100% valid point, and I would concede the point had it not been for the fact that they themselves, within this thread, made the statement that this policy is intended to reward those who "have a pair." That is their words, not mine. And I find it exceedinly hypocritical, that they want to reward someone for "having a pair" while their "own pair" remains untested despite the fact that they deem "having a pair" as worthy. If all of this "having a pair" is so appreciated by them, then they should unzip and swing their pair in front of the world. Of course, they wont do this, because, much like the poor raided victim in their little "policy", they dont seek a beatdown. The only difference is, the poor raided target will get a beatdown. And this gets hailed. Bob is indeed a sad place.

×
×
  • Create New...