Jump to content

wes the wise

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,110

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by wes the wise

  1. Recognition of Hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    So, NADC discussed a return to blue team in private in the context of elections...So it was just chatter and not policy, right? Also, if it was to become policy, it sounds like NADC was going to come talk to Polar to discuss the matter, correct? What threat does such internal chatting pose against Polaris? NADC has been on blue team for 99.9% of their existence.

     

    PS, I've been kicking around the idea of coming back to blue team and running for senate! Will you guys vote for me? Or are you going to blow me up too? 

  2. Recognition of Hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    NADC Elections are notorious for being intense, but this is something different. Did someone leak internal NADC discussions when they realized they would lose the election?  If my assumption is correct, then I respect the right of an alliance to discuss ANYTHING they please in private.  Someone give me a rundown of what's going on. 

  6. Alliance Discord Thread

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    1 minute ago, SirWilliam said:

     

    Ah, Slack! Used it for a time while DK was negotiating a merger with Kashmir. If I recall it's a lot like Discord (except Slack doesn't have voice chat I think?). Can't remember either if Slack logs the text conversations while you're gone like Discord does.

     

    Add Kattegat please: https://discordapp.com/invite/4mRnWdN

    It does have logging, but I don't know if I used it enough to say it has voice chat or not, but I think not. I just learned of coldfront's death, no wonder I havent been able to get on IRC...I just hopped on discord, looks nifty.

  22. Kiwi rage

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Canik said:

     

    It may not be 100% white by the strictest definition of white peace but it is close. They aren't trying to impose any terms other than accepting the completion of current wars, which is next to nothing. Especially to a roguish little alliance of Fighting Kiwis. Personally, I find this fair enough. Though that may be because I don't really recognize The Flying Kiwis as a fully legitimate alliance (no offense, Wes). I feel like TFK is a roguish alliance that invites fighting and doesn't have real concern about survival or growth. That coupled with only having a few members and no strong protectors = not fully legitimate alliance in my opinion. I suspect you may disagree with this, you may say even a single nation should be treated with all the respect the largest alliances are but that's not my view things. Those nations can all join alliances for protection. If they stay out alone in the woods, they're inviting the wolves.. and trying to change the nature of that is futile. Of course I may be slightly biased since my alliance is also wolf-themed. :)

    Although I disagree with you on our legitimacy, you are pretty much correct on the rest of your assessment. Consider yourselves lucky that we are letting you off the hook so quickly. The peace are acceptable and in accordance with our charter policy of white peace to end all wars, so it is done. 

    9 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

    I look at Wes's alliance to be the same as the alliance 'Unaligned' (ideology speaking; with no real web of government / nation babysitting). Would you really attack the entire alliance over a rouge(s) sitting there?

     

    I agree with Alonso.

     

    Sure it's some fun, free, 'politically safe', cheap shots; but if you think it's for some greater good then I'll sell you a bridge.

     

    (Hang strong Wes, Kiwis fly forever!)

     

    Thank you Lord Hitchcock. I tend to agree. Part of me wants to treat these whipper snappers a lesson, but I am bound by our charter to walk away from this. 

    7 hours ago, Banned said:

    Absolutely disagree. 

     

    If one nation goes rogue and the head of state says "sure, come and get him" that's one thing.  When 3 nations do it, and the head of state takes such a "meh" posture on the matter, it's absolutely fair game to assume the alliance as a whole has become fair game.  If 2 or more isn't a conspiracy, then where is the magic cutoff?  If IRON (used as an example) with its 262 nations only attacks you with 261 of them, but their leader says "well, that other one harbors no ill will" then what, you shouldn't hit him too? 

     

    One nation hitting you is usually at best a sketchy CB, 3 nations from one AA going after your AA and your allies?  Giving the alliance that does that any kind of an opportunity to resolve the situation without bloodshed is being generous.

    Not trying to be argumentative, but weren't all 3 nations controlled by the same individual? Additionally, you were already at war with this individual prior to him residing on the Kiwi AA, correct?  That was by your charge, and eventually by his own admission. I tried to make it very clear that you all were welcome to attack those nations in question without any interference whatsoever from the Kiwis. Short of that, Kiwis won't be told nor compelled with regards of what outsiders think the Kiwis should be doing with regards to internal affairs. 

    2 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said:

     

    It wasn't such a meh posture, he said, which was not disputed by anyone attacking him and the alliance, you could attack the rogues. The only reason, let me reiterate, the only reason why they attacked was because he didn't reply to their last message, after he said they could attack. These facts have not been disputed. You don't need have someone removed from the alliance to attack them, that line of argument is silly. Say SLAP had four rogues attack us, the protectorate would come to you, and say we would like to retaliate. We wouldn't ask you to kick them out, because members who raid/rogue can still be valuable members after their mistakes. 

     

    Again, your analogy is flawed. Any civilized alliance can target those who have attacked them, an uncivilized response is to attack everyone when the alliance sovereign said have the offenders. So the right response is to attack all 261 nations instead of 262, if the one person as the leader says, yes you can attack all the rogues. Not all 262 because you can, and want to exact a pound of flesh. 

     

    It shouldn't be considered generous, it should be considered the correct way a alliance should handle it's business. 

    I've enjoyed reading your spirited defense of the Kiwis, and I think your attitude of liberty and personal choices, individual responsibility is too often missing from Planet Bob. I think you understand the essence of what the Flying Kiwis stand for. I don't think others get it, because essentially they view an AA affiliation as the nation, and the individual nations as subjects of that AA (nation). Differing views such as this are reflected in our policy decisions, and when they meet, will often lead to conflict. During my long time tenure in CCC govt, I understand where they are coming from, even if I strongly disagree. 

  24. Kiwi rage

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    I made it exceptionally clear to all of you that you were welcome to have at him/them,  any choices you made beyond that were solely up to you. I am happy with this outcome. I regret nothing. Although, I apologize if I didn't reply to all of you, I'm not very active anymore and I'm not sure who is from which AA anymore.

     

×
×
  • Create New...