ktarthan

Now this is a publication done [i]right[/i].

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1297060160' post='2623646'] Would be better if mk and umb weren't hitting us. 50% or more of our damage has come from them, not goons. [/quote] Actually, dangit. I entirely forgot about this. I tried to give benefit of the doubt [i]against[/i] GOONS in any case where there were ambiguous stats (NPO hit by many alliances, drops that looked more like a member leaving than war damage, etc.) However unless MK and Umb contributed to a very substantial portion of the total damage, the point still stands.

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1297059514' post='2623621'] Never knew you guys knocked 500,000 NS off legion, Couldnt have been CnG, No never. it was all GOONS [/quote] Oh trust me, the first 500K actually was all GOONS. Now that CnG is on the scene it's going to be dropping [b]much[/b] faster.

[img]http://i53.tinypic.com/2a5dwdx.gif[/img] Could have used a little bit more polish, but these numbers are quickly becoming inaccurate so I wanted to get it out. Edit: fixed a couple timings that were bugging me

Godspeed, TOP! o/ Or is it... TOP Speed?

The dominoes fall slowly, but they're in motion. Congrats to Athens, FOK, and PC. o/

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1297029990' post='2622696'] Apparently I'm in GOONS now! [/quote] I look forward to your retroactive application!

[quote name='Arcadian Empire' timestamp='1296970934' post='2621518'] Umm... if Legion is Worst Alliance Ever - why are we being attacked by five new alliances now? Surely, GOONs with their non-Worst-Alliance-Ever status should've been able to take us down themselves. Oh wait... [/quote] GOONS would have no problem with The Legion. However I don't think it's any surprise that we would need help with Legion, NPO, TPF, NSO, NAC, TLR, 64D, CoJ, ASU, Olympus, Invicta, and Sanitarium.

This is fantastic. =LOST=, you are our brothers, and we thank you for all that you do. To the rest of C&G, we will not forget your assistance. o/

Which of MK's allies, specifically, do you think are waiting for such things to happen before "defending" MK?

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1296842562' post='2619389'] I swear, you two coordinate your posting just for the one-two punch of your sigs. [/quote] I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wow, I am constantly amazed at the ability of the OWF to continue yammering over things that are explained within the first page or two. Aside from being completely reasonable, it's not a big deal. In fact, it's an incredibly small deal. Seriously people, just move on.

GOONS is on the way out, finally.

[quote name='WCaesarD' timestamp='1296790151' post='2618669'] You're doing no such thing until we see some admission from you stating you were engaged in a war with tpf prior to all of this, regardless of the size of the engagement. [/quote] That's literally what they are saying. They've been engaged in war with TPF. Zero people are trying to hide that fact.

[quote name='WCaesarD' timestamp='1296788780' post='2618590'] After reading that op, I came away with "we didn't need to declare to help our allies, but ML does". This seems dumb. Edit: still, good luck to umb/mk. [/quote] TPF is entirely welcome to declare war on Umb/MK in retaliation.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296781339' post='2618449'] Correct. Correct again. Aggression is not always unjustified. However justified aggression is still aggression. If the aggressor is justified in his aggression, it would still be extortion to demand payment afterwards, yes. [/quote] Fair enough, we have different understanding of what "extortion" entails. [quote] Now please note that none of this is at all relevant to the point I was making, which is simply that it is contradictory to claim not to support goons in their war, yet simultaneously announce that you are indeed supporting goons in their war. [/quote] To me it seemed like you were making more than one point, but if I was mistaken then I'll drop it and let you get back to trying to convince people that they are being contradictory.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296778382' post='2618383'] No, actually, it is not in any way based on that premise, which is indeed "flawed." Quit making stuff up. [/quote] So... okay, let me get this straight. In one post you assert that if an aggressor demands money then it is considered extortion. You also agree that the aggressor is not always in the wrong. So does it then follow that if the aggressor demands money but is also in the right then it is still extortion?

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1296772255' post='2618261'] Umm no, actually it does matter who the aggressor is. When an aggressor is defeated and pays for its crimes, it pays reparations. When an aggressor is victorious, and demands money from its victim, that is extortion. The words have well-established meanings already, there is no need to try and redefine them. [/quote] Your argument is based on the flawed premise that an aggressor is always in the wrong, so it too ends up being flawed. Also, it's silly to make a dichotomy between reparations and extortion, because in essense all reps are "extortion" as they involve coersion on the level of "If you do not surrender and pay us reparations we will continue to war you." I think it's much more genuine to simply agree or disagree with the charging of reps in a given situation. "Aggression = extortion = bad" means that you get to bypass any specific argument about [i]why[/i] the reparations are bad.

Oh good. For a second I was worried for all of the Richards out there.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1296767679' post='2618131'] The fear that they might come after you again at some point in the future, should they not finish the job this time, is palpable. Putting them under terms won't change their desire to pay you a return visit, only delay it. [/quote] The only thing GOONS fears is a future with no war. As such we will charge reps accordingly.

If the alliances who attacked us didn't want to face the possibility of reps, they should have had us sign a prenup.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1296765709' post='2618060'] About your origins, there are a proverb who says: [i]"The apple never falls far from the tree."[/i] [/quote] Something Awful has a member base that is more than 7 times the number of rulers on Bob. Trying to use our recruiting base as a firm link between GOoNS and GOONS is silly; there's likely to be more in common between any two random nation rulers as there is to be between any two random SA users.

[quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296717130' post='2617437'] Well, okay, my definition of the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning. I have yet to see any real consensus to the [i]Bob[/i] definition of bandwagoning as just about everyone gets called one at some point by someone. We all know it when we see it but do not know the actual definition. When I try to define it, it perhaps then jumps outside the scope of Popular Opinion of bandwagoning. Fine, fine. I won't call GOONS bandwagoners if it hurts your feelings. You are opportunistic aggressors. [/quote] Last time I checked the majority of Bob spoke English, and we use the accepted definitions of English words. It doesn't hurt my feelings, it's literally incorrect.

[quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296716623' post='2617419'] No, no. Just had to talk about this when I realized I was kind of vague in my post and rephrased. In [i]my[/i] definition, which is by no means the fact of the definition, bandwagoners are people who attack when they have no treaty link to attacker or defender (or no other "legit" CB) [i]and[/i] it is opportunistic for them to do so. So while Sparta went in without a treaty link, it was not opportunistic and thus not bandwagoning. So by this definition, DH were bandwagoners for attacking NPO because it was an opportunistic time for them to do so given the situation with NpO/VE. It was their way of limiting/controlling the battlefield, but is bandwagoning by the definition set out above. Now...of course, someone could say "We don't like you" is a legit CB and thus they are simply opportunistic aggressors and not bandwagoners...and I would be hard-pressed to disagree because the definition of a "legit CB" is completely subjective. So...in that case I would personally disagree, but not call it a matter of fact? If that makes sense. [/quote] Well unfortunately when your definition of a word is different from the real definition of a word, it becomes entirely useless as a word.

Wow, there are a lot of people in this thread that literally don't know what "bandwagon" means.