Jump to content

twocledore

Banned
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by twocledore

  1. To be honest, even though it is a quick turnaround, I did put some thought into this. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine, but it is genuine.

    I am guardedly optimistic, but this drama is just a spectator sport to me. Just saying what I would expect in the same situation. If you want to change anyone's minds, keep up the good work you started here.

  2. This is quite a whiplash from statements and conduct from you just... less than an hour ago? I have a feeling the statements in this post will be regarded as being on just as shaky ground as your temper and your alliance commitments (2 in 2 days, you are making good time aren't you?).

  3. So you are now admitting you are looking to remove alliances from the game. This very thing that KARMA stated it was against. Hypocrit much just wondering.

    Rather than admit fallibility, always attack based on statements the other party never made. It will very much increase the likelihood of leniency.

  4. However, the act of imposing terms in and of itself violates what I had thought Karma stood for.

    I'm surprised so many people believe that the entire point of Karma is to take down a few alliances' NS, declare mutual peace and return to a state of hegemonic monopoly. Mercy and stupidity are concepts with important differences.

    Any proposed reps our way would be incredibly confusing since about 20 alliances are at war with us. More than 15 offensively attacking and I think 2 defending from out declarations, although NSO isn't having to do much defending, a constant state of Nuke anarchy didn't really allow us to roll out much against them.

    ... And I think that the preemptive complaints of not getting off scot-free are a counter-productive exercise.

  5. stuff.

    MK has a good deal more spinal fortitude than the sort of folk you seem to be used to. A quick glance at the history of the alliance attests to that if you question it.

    You're really grasping at straws with this year old issue - yes, MK did have an unpopular (within, especially) raiding policy and no, it didn't last long. We had no reason to fear being "rolled" for it, and we didn't ax it to satisfy the imaginary external pressure you presume. When a policy of ours (say, sticking by our partners [what a novel idea]) comes under fire, we have never been ones to back down because Cybernations told us to.

    And thanks for the horn tooting but MK was not the embodiment of what the UjP stood for. I would say that was GOONS. Apologies to fellow MK'ers who feel otherwise :awesome:

×
×
  • Create New...