Jump to content

Rush Sykes

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,329

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Rush Sykes

  2. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    You sound mad bro.Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

    Come on Tromp. You know me better than that. This blog has nothing to do with following treaties. This blog has everything to do with "you are dishonorable because you hit an ally of an ally, but we are strategic for putting you in that position." Its a nonsense way of masking and hiding, that the moment you sign on to side a or side b of a conflict, you empower your coalition to put every single one of your allies on the other side, in the worst position possible, but there is no dishonor in this. Its a stupid double standard. And, it is NOT a new stance for me. I preached it straight MKs face in \m/-NpO, and you know I did, you and I talked literally EVERY day back then. This is nothing new for me, and Im not mad. I am ODNs friend and ally, and I am here to say the "RAWR ODN HITTING MHA DISHONORS SPARTA" tag line is flipping stupid.

  6. Xiphosis

    Posted

    You know Xiph... For all the minuses that I give you for being in SP :P .... I give you a massive +1 for the suggestion of removing tech as foreign aid completely... I have long been a proponent of such a move, and made threads about it, and been roundly criticized for it. The other suggestion Id add to yours is limiting(in a sense) warchests by adding an increasing happiness penalty for each day you have... say.. more than a $1 billion surplus. Why? Citizens would not love a government who didnt spend money on them. It would force people to buy more infra, it would mean the loss of infra in a war is MUCH more severe because of its level costs.

  7. Rebel Virginia

    Posted

    I love NSO, but I dearly want to punch many of them in the face for being the alliance that kicked off the "we wont ask our allies to defend us, despite that they HAVE to by treaty, and its politically OK if they dont defend us because we didnt ask" era. It has warped and bastardized the meaning of mutual defense. The reason CnG doesnt suck, and the other side does? We took beatdowns for years with a smile on our faces, didnt e-lawyer out of commitments, because its all part of the game, and the cycle. The sphere at present that are using this 'Legion hasnt asked for help" tag-line are playing the "if we wait long enough, we can change the political climate:" game. The best way to change the political climate is man up, impress someone, and possibly get new friends out of the deal.

  11. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    CN has been around longer than 2008.

    Yes, but prior to 2008, CBs came rapidfire, as 50K players with larger alliances were more willing to take risks. You actually had people who would do things that actually created a CB. The problem was, the community decided that one of these need to be present into eternity, because *gasp* Admin Forbid "I dont like you and your alliance" be used as a reason for war.

  13. Jgoods45

    Posted

    The bigger men, eh.. way to show them! :P Not that it matters much but it'd seem if you didn't like an alliance you wouldn't want to be confused with them all of the time. Now folks are going to have to ask which TLR people are referring to xD Maybe it will set a new trend and we can get two NPO and two NSO AAs while we're at it :awesome: buoyancy bb

    Maybe, just maybe we arent too concerned with people getting us confused. In any given situation, where TLR arises, the individual need only ask himself if the context is good, or the context is bad. Then ask yourself which alliance is more likely to be related with a good or bad move... a CnG member, or a Legion ally. 99.9% of the time, this line of thought will clearly tell you who is being talked about.

  14. Jgoods45

    Posted

    Learn what the definition of vandalism is before you bandy the term about. At the time public statements said that tLR was the chosen acronym (hell, Rush just said it), so that is what your wiki page said. After that some intrepid anons decided not only to change the Last Remnants page, but two other other pages out of spite. This is vandalism. Look up actual wiki policy, in particular good and bad faith edits and portion of addition of obscenities before you try to claim you were vandalized again. If there was ever a problem you could have simply talked before letting people loose on the wiki. Keep a tighter reign on your members if they don't like getting banned for blatant vandalism as defined in the linked policy.

    Your argument has some fatal flaws sir. First of all, we decided, and stated as such, weeks ago, that we were going to officially use TLR. Its been stated over and over in various threads. As you saw us being change from tLR to TLR repeatedly, you maybe should have logically assumed that that was not vandalism, or at the very least come to us for some clarification before handing out bans on people who just making our wiki accurate.

  15. Jgoods45

    Posted

    Or leave it as tLR and stop being petty over an acronym that was already in use... :rolleyes: but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

    I would like to point out, at this time, that we originally went with tLR. Why? Because we are not jerks. Depsite us going with tLR, we literally still got cried to, and about, every day , for weeks, for the fact that we had TLR in any fashion to ID us. At some point, you just throw your hands up in the air and say screw it, if we are going to be whined to, and about regardless, we might as well use what we wanted in the 1st place, which was TLR. The truth is, the folks in The Last Republic, seem to think that the acronym is akin to a religious symbol used to identify them, and that anyone else using an alliance name with those intiials, are committing an attack on "everything that we have sweated to build" (that is in QUOTES for a reason.) I tried, I really did, to stick with CN history, where the 2nd alliance to use an acronym changes it in some fashion, as it is tradition. However, I gave up the fight as log after log poured into us with daily complaints that we used it in any fashion. So, I am done caring. We are TLR, and that is the end of the discussion.

  16. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Strangely, this blog made me think of the Tide(I think) commerical where one kid is standing on top of the hill, and the other kids are screaming DO IT. About 5 seconds later, a loud shrill voice starts screaming DO IT at a rapid pace and the kid dives head 1st down the hill on his belly, and the mom is happy cuz she uses Tide, so the stain will come out of his shirt.

  17. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Ironically, I think the exact opposite is more true. By and large relationships are friendly, on a person to person level, even amongst "enemy" alliances. It seems to me that all the camaraderie created throughout IRC, makes it more difficult for the political game to move, because rivalries dont feel like rivalries.

×
×
  • Create New...