ktarthan

Everything. Must. Die.

[quote name='Lord Caparo' timestamp='1331193064' post='2935412'] But ive noticed, even with the extra nations coming over, that this feels more like an even war than any other war ive seen GOONs fight in. Its been fun and i hope it continues to be! Congrats on that [/quote] Unfortunately most of the fighting nations in Kaskus are in GOONS's blindspot (above 50K). Sometimes they just need a little help pushing the meat down into the meatgrinder.

[quote name='PaladinePSoT' timestamp='1331155661' post='2935173'] No. [/quote] Down with GOONS!

I started Roguefest 2010. Give me a medal.

Voted other because you attached sentiments to the answers instead of just "Yes" "No" and "Maybe". Someone doesn't have to want their alliance to take part in something to also want to see it happen. They're obviously lazy, but it's possible. I personally do not hold any particular attachment to the "seat of power" that MK allegedly sits in at the moment. It's certainly a fun place to be, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wishes to attempt to unseat us. Now I don't exactly wish destruction upon me and mine, but destruction is the way of the world, and if it's going to happen it might as well be due to a meaningful endeavor. On the other hand, I think that everyone who isn't in my sphere is terminally boring, so I can only despair at the kind of world we would have without us at the top.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1331007002' post='2934400'] You didn't ask a real quesiton. You asked whether I had something to ask Nippy, which I asked Nippy. You'll have to forgive the organization. If not, oh well! [/quote] Actually I thought you had asked something of GOONS in general, not of Nippy. Considering the lengthy discussion you're having with Sard, I thought it was the plural "you". You also read far too much into my words; I was literally asking you for a recap because I didn't want to have to parse 3+ pages of you and Sard bickering to discern a point. (Don't worry about the recap, I'm no longer interested.)

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330992480' post='2934267'] I'm well aware you're just here to +1 [/quote] So, about my question, is that a yes or a no?

Analogies are indeed incredibly important in how we learn about the world. This is why I specifically made the case against analogies being used in arguments, and prefaced everything by saying that analogies can be incredibly useful. Also I think you missed the point.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330989689' post='2934216'] You seem to still be unable to respond. I hate to point it out but Sardonic didn't actually answer anything I had asked of you. [/quote] I have been trying to follow along and I'm not entirely sure I got exactly what you've been "asking of" GOONS. I know I'm going to regret this, but perhaps you could recap?

1) MK is ghosting GOONS because we wanna keep this fantastic pip, not to pad losses. 2) If no-one outside of GOONS's direct allies cared about them due to their aggressive nature, they'd never have been able to grow their ally base to begin with. It's not like they suddenly started being abrasive a month ago.

Give 'em hell, GOONS.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1330580973' post='2931036'] Aaaand more abuse. You're doing great! [/quote] You... you do know that he's doing it on purpose... right? Please tell me you know this.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330565528' post='2930908'] You posted a treaty then a surrender to GOONS, both from the same alliance. I pointed out that which alliances you chose to make war with and which you chose to align with this time around is still reflective of GOONS 1.0 because it followed the same pattern. Do I need to elaborate, or did you just forget what you had posted or something? [/quote] Read again. They're both surrenders. I'm pointing out the difference between the terms that 1.0 gave out, and the terms that 2.0 gives out.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330563672' post='2930889'] Of course when GOONS rerolled they wouldn't make the same treaty partners as before. That would actually have run counter to the spirit of Neutral Shoving. Instead, 2.0 followed the same [i]pattern[/i] of ally selection, as pointed out previously in the topic by Merrie Melodies. GOONS are just followers by nature, and they always seem to find someone to follow. [/quote] I don't understand how your post can be a reply to mine. I wasn't making even the slightest point about allies.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1330557399' post='2930826'] When the new GOONs acts in a manner different from the old one then I will agree and say the two are different alliances like say Grams for example. But right now? No, same morons doing the same old crap. [/quote] How's this: GOONS 1.0 [quote] The GOONS-FARK Peace Accords I. Resolution -This plan acknowledges that FARK has been kept down for so long they don't know what up is. By signing this document, fark also admits that Wil Wheaton is a biased son of a *!%@$. -Upon adoption, this treaty grants a state of peace between Fark and GOONS and all alliances fighting on behalf of or because of GOONS. II. Terms 1. Fark solemnly swears never to raise arms against the Goon Order or any of Her allies. 2. Fark must publicly state that theblitz is "a *!%@$". In this public statement Fark will also apologize to the nations it has coerced into doing tech and donation deals with Fark, knowing full well it would make them Enemies of GOONS. 3. Fark must designate 5 nations of 5,000 NS or greater from the 15 top Fark nations to send all of their post-bills income to specified GOONS, to be delivered 3 times per month. The nations may be re-chosen on the 1st of each month, but all must be above 5,000 NS at the time they are chosen. 4. Shark Week is in effect for Fark nations. 5. Fark nations may not own nuclear weapons. 6. If Fark ever takes an offensive action against us, against any of our allies, or in any way that could be interpreted as "opposed to GOONS", they will be subject to full nuclear reprisal and all perma-ZIed. At this point, any sort of peace will be eternally off the table. 7. Daemon banned member shall be installed as Viceroy of Fark and given full access and admin rights to all Fark forums, as well as veto power over all governmental Fark actions. Actions capable of being vetoed include any laws, constitutional amendments, declarations of war and foreign treaties that he feels may directly affect the Goon Order or its allies 8. Fark nations may only do Donation Deals with Fark nations or GOONS nations unless given explicit permission by a member of the GOONS Closet. III. Retribution Any Fark nation found breaking this treaty will be ZIed without a trial. If the alliance in general defaults on this agreement every Fark nation will be subject to full nuclear annihilation, forever and always, with no hope for peace. IV. Duration This document remains in effect for one year from the time it takes effect. GOONS may, at their discretion, choose to decrease the time required for any individual term or terms. [/quote] GOONS 2.0 [quote] Fark admits defeat to the combined forces of the New Pacific Order; The Last Remnants; Non Grata; Olympus; Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States; The Imperial Order; Nordreich; The Order Of The Paradox; Deck of International Card Experts; Goon Order of Oppression, Negligence, and Sadism (); Europa; and Open Source Alliance. Federation of Armed Nations agrees to end hostilities against the combined forces of the New Pacific Order; The Phoenix Federation; NATO; and AOD Brigade. Fark and FAN agree to not re-enter the ongoing global conflict on any front. These terms become effective when GOONS and NPL agree to terms that end their conflict. [/quote]

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330543332' post='2930703'] I really don't see how you mentally equate treaties with identity. Identity is entirely [i]internal[/i], and while some alliances would be, as Beefspari said, "nothing" without treaties, those alliances are nothing more than masses of accumulated strength with no distinct identity or defining characteristics other than their incompetent leaderships and utter lack of ambition. Even without the handful treaties we have, even if those treaties had never been signed or even considered, the Cult of Justitia would still retain enough character that I guarantee this topic would still happen. Of course, this may be more difficult to understand for GOONS; if you had no treaties I believe you would change your tone quite handily in the public forums, and the way you do business would change entirely. I suppose I place too much weight on the characteristics of integrity and independence. [/quote] Wow, it's been a while since I've been on the OWF merry-go-round. I really enjoyed your attempt to lecture GOONS and ex-GOONS on their own culture, but I'd like to get off the ride now.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330535068' post='2930647'] It saddens me that you do not have the excuse of youth to justify your belief in such ridiculous falsities. My old friends (now not so much, though) Jack Tarr, Mr Smyth, mpol, and the like would all disagree with you heavily here. [/quote] The possibility of "secret treaties" aside, you miss my point. FAN has held treaties in the past, so they are part of what makes it the alliance it is today. They are not an example of an "alliance without treaties".

You seem to be talking about "If they lost all their treaties today, what would they be?" Which is entirely different than "What would an alliance be without treaties?" The answer to the latter question is actually "Neutral." And look at how much fun they are.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1330479716' post='2930308'] Actually it proves your ridiculous claims of absolute sovereignty are crap, GOONS have had a master to answer to since day one. [/quote] How does it prove that?

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330477307' post='2930271'] Not at all; I'm saying you have no right to the cockiness and chest-puffing which your members have exhibited in this thread. You only get away with these things because the lulz-lovers at MK take joy in the spectacle, not out of any respect your alliance has earned for itself on Bob Wise diplomatic planning does not lead to the position GOONS is in. Your planning leaves you in the same position as GGA or Valhalla underneath Pacifica. You may get to have delusions of autonomy, but at the end of the day Daddy MK can dictate with whom you make peace, with whom you go to war, and who you must like and dislike. I pity your entire alliance for it will never breathe free air, not as long as your diplomatic planning remains "wise." [/quote] Thanks, I needed a laugh. Edit: Props to trimm below for calling it as he sees it.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1330470641' post='2930217'] GOONS' little "do something about it" strut is so reminiscent of GGA it's not even funny. Of course it's outside of most alliances' power to roll GOONS, but that is not to GOONS' credit and in believing that they deserve such credit they show that they massively overestimate their own importance. [/quote] GOONS didn't merely trip and fall into its current seat. Sardonic and his supporting government deserve a great deal of credit for starting an alliance with a cursed name and bringing it to the position of power it has today. [quote] Tech raids have always been accepted as a dirty but allowable practice in CN. It's something which alliances have permitted, but for an alliance to ensure that their nations will always have successful and unfairly one-sided tech raids is preposterous and a new low for the degeneration of society that we have seen in this era of CN. The Lord of the Flies and the God of Carnage run amuck today. [/quote] Spare the melodrama. Why do raids need to be fair?

Actually if you replace whale turds with month-old mouse turds it's a lot closer to the truth, and this really only works if it's 1930's India.

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330461670' post='2930148'] So if another unaligned nation attacked the GOON raider in my little hypothetical, then they would be attacked with the full force of GOONS, despite their lack of alliance affiliation and in spite of the principle from my previous post? [/quote] Well that's a rogue, so yeah probably? I'll leave the policy definition dance to Sardonic, but I can tell you this: If a GOONS raider starts taking a lot of damage from a raid (targets has nukes, is actually good at war, etc) and whines about it to the alliance they will be laughed at. I can only remember this happening all of one times, so it's not like it's a often tested theory, but I've always taken that to be the spirit of the "bite off more then they can chew" policy. If people think otherwise, then all I can say is "eh."

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330459992' post='2930129'] I am sure any potential disconnect between your actions and your policy is pretty minimal. But, as far as I am concerned, the hypocrisy label stands because your policy violates the principle of "If you get in over your head, then you are on your own" by drawing an overly broad exception. For instance, let's say an unaligned nation is raided by a GOON. A friend of the raided nation, who is in a small alliance and feels bad for his buddy, decides to send a single offer of three million dollars. Under the "On Your Own" principle, the GOON is on his own. Under your policy, however, the GOON is now a victim to be championed by the entirety of GOONS. That, to me, reeks of hypocrisy because the real danger is negligible. If anything, all the policy does is provide you with a ready excuse to roll the small alliance, because you dictate what is or is not acceptable reparations. [/quote] This seems to be a difficult concept for some people. GOONS does not ask for reparations because the raiders are "in over their head." As you said, the real danger is negligible. GOONS is an alliance of principle, and the principle is that GOONS does not sit back and watch while people take actions that have the capacity to cause damage to its members. The damage is irrelevant, the danger is irrelevant, the situation is irrelevant. If you attempt to harm GOONS in any capacity, they will make you answer for it. edit: I'm not in GOONS any more, and no longer speak for them. I know their policy quite well, but if anything I say happens to contrast with what they say, I defer to Sardonic's stance.

Part I Analogies can be a good thing. They can be incredibly useful in education; when trying to explain an unfamilliar concept by relating it to something familliar. This is a completely neutral action and I urge you to use them in this manner whenever you wish. You have my blessing. Analogies used in an argument are nearly always utter crap. But even when a great analogy is used, it more than likely shouldn't have been. There are many issues, but they all stem from one thing: analogies are not equivalencies. Meaning that even in a great analogy, the situations will always have differences. "Oil is like water" gives you some understanding of what oil is like if you have never seen it, but it doesn't give you the full picture. You would never want to drink oil, for instance, but it is still a "valid" analogy. Immediately, we come across what is likely the biggest reason that analogies in arguments are a terrible idea. Right now, in your head, you're probably thinking of all the ways that oil is unlike water, and all of the qualifiers that could be added to the analogy to make it more accurate and "correct". There's nothing wrong with this in itself, for at the moment, you mostly just have concern for the hypothetical person who doesn't know what oil is, and want them to have as clear a picture as possible. But now imagine there are two people addressing this poor fellow. One has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is more like water, and the other has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is less like water. We then land ourselves in a death-spiral where both sides offer more and more detailed versions of the analogy that are "more correct" while still supporting their bias. The end result is an analogy so needlessly complex and detailed that it's useless as an analogy; you might as well just be discussing the actual subject directly. And yes I realize the humour of using an analogy to elucidate my reasoning on why not to use analogies. The tl;dr: Analogies are never perfect, so they are prone to ridiculous bias when used in an argument. They are also prone to pointless back-and-forth revisions to make the analogy "more correct". This makes the analogy useless, as it'd be simpler to discuss the subject directly. Part II Pretty much everyone sucks at making analogies anyways, so don't even try. Even you, special snowflake, are at the mercy of confirmation bias.