Jump to content

ktarthan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,615

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ktarthan

  4. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [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.

  5. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [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.

  6. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [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]

  7. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [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.

  8. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [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".

  11. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [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.

  12. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [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?

  13. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    [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."

  14. Let a goon talk long enough . . .

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [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.

  15. GOONS defending the great wall

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1330391930' post='2929603']
    Of course not. I mean, the members of the mob beating on an innocent who then turn on the good samaritan that comes to the victim's aid are to be considered the epitome of courage and distinction.

    You are free to defend your members from a single innocent nation with full aid slots all you like. It doesn't mean I won't consider it wrong and pissweak of you to do so.
    [/quote]
    *BEEP BEEP BEEP* [b]ANALOGY ALERT[/b].

    Sorry, but analogies used to make a point are eternally and objectively terrible. Nations are not individuals. Raiding is not "beating on." Alliances are not mobs. Please try to make your argument in the context of nations, alliances, raiding, war, aid, etc.

    GOONS is not defending its members from the raided nation. They're defending its members from a third party intentionally taking action that could cause harm to said members. In my eyes war aid is just as aggressive an action as declaring actual wars.

  16. GOONS defending the great wall

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1330390751' post='2929582']
    Not "GOONS couldn't handle the heat of one nation." The [i]attacker [/i]apparently couldn't handle the heat of one nation. As if MONGOLS poses any threat to your alliance as a whole. You'll probably end up with spoils and reps that outweigh any damage, and have a nice large-scale raid out of it.
    [/quote]
    I think it's incredibly doubtful that the attackers (I think there was more than one) had anything to do with this. The government of GOONS operates very much on principle, and has a long history of taking similar action when it comes to war aid.

    And as long as a few MONGOLS are able to find their nuke button, I can't see GOONS recouping their damages. Not that I expect them to complain about it.

  17. GOONS defending the great wall

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by ktarthan

    [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1330388685' post='2929559']
    I don't really care about any of that. My point was that raiding someone then sooking it up when that target gets a little help is just pathetic and pissweak. I don't see that MONGOLS did a great deal wrong here. They sent aid to a nation that you guys were attacking for the reason of...well, because you could do so free from any real retribution. That nation had committed no crime other than to exist so I don't see why helping that nation is considered an act of war or anything that required reparations or for MONGOLS to dance to your beat on your mercy board.

    I though GOONS loved a good fight but it seems they are more intent on beating up old ladies and calling in the troops when the old lady gets a helping hand. Again, pissweak.
    [/quote]
    If an alliance sanctions actions which have the capacity to cause damage to the nation(s) of another alliance, that's a matter that demands attention.

    GOONS members that raid are guaranteed no special protection when they go out to raid (this is outlined in their constitution), but that doesn't mean that GOONS loses the right to defend its members when and where it sees fit, or that they should be called cowardly when they do so.

    Edit:
    [quote]So this is all because a raiding target got a few mil. in aid? That's pretty sad. Attacking the small and unprotected is cowardly enough, but I'm thinking you guys are the types to go hunting at the zoo. Can't put yourselves in danger now, that'd be too scary! [/quote]
    Yes, GOONS couldn't handle the heat of one nation they were raiding getting war aid, so they declared war on a whole alliance. How cowardly of them.

    ... [i]what[/i]

  20. Worst Leader Ever 2012

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1330132801' post='2927802']
    You realize my entire argument is Ardus was a good leader, right? :rolleyes:
    [/quote]
    Now look what you've made me do!

    Really I didn't start off to try and disagree with you, I just thought the way you changed the word "certainly" to "may" was kinda silly and I ran with it.

    I respectfully rescind (most of) my objection.

  21. Because this is apparently necessary

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330130325' post='2927770']
    Who said anything about ignoring?
    You're certainly not ignoring either I or many of the other members of alliances such as the New Pacific Order and Argent, you're just insulting them.
    Playing dumb isn't helping you out.

    You're acting like jerks and you have no real answer for your ghosting of Gramlins that was an affront meant to be a dig just as this statement is meant to belittle and mock an initially poorly written and since revised alliance policy simply because of your dislike for another alliance. You have no answer for it and continue to attack and belittle anyone who would suggest acting like a bunch of overgrown bullies is poor form.
    [/quote]
    My answers may be snide at times, but they always contain something of worth.

    In your case, you're mistaking an (alleged) lack of counter-argument as a validation of your own opinion. Against my better judgement, I'll give you a response sans the overt snideness.

    1337 has already answered for why Gramlins was ghosted. I don't see why you are asking for more. If you don't like it, I guess we'll live.

    We've made this statement (the OP) because we feel that in light of UE's recent policy we need to explicitly make known our opinions on how we will handle reneged tech deals (unsolicited or not).

    The only revision in UE's policy I've seen is that their refund process now "may" send the refund to another nation. The policy in its entirety is still badly written and the refund process has been upgraded from "brainless" to "vapid". Oh, sorry, too snide? From "completely without thought" to "almost completely without thought".

  22. Because this is apparently necessary

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330125725' post='2927729']
    I'm glad the best defense you had for me saying that while UE's policy was flawed (and since revised,) coming out with a bloc policy about how you're just awesome and the ultimate authority on everything Bob and then ghosting Gramlins just to add a little spice was a piss-poor move is a drab attempt to insult me and others and not defend your actions.

    Hope it gets you far!
    [/quote]
    "If people ignore me, I'm right by default!"

  24. Official United Equestria Policy Annoucement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1330121274' post='2927693']
    Worked as Valhalla's Chancellor before and during the war. Guess our people have their crap together better than I thought...except for trade circles of course. Please don't get me started...most people followed instructions like a well-oiled machine...some, um yeah. :rolleyes:
    [/quote]
    It makes me wonder what some other alliances are teaching their new members. Aren't tech deals a day 1 lesson?

  25. Because this is apparently necessary

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1330072970' post='2927412']
    Was UE's "policy," poorly worded? I'd say so. Did you have to be a bunch of jerks and ghost an AA or two to try to wave your appendages around?
    No.
    [/quote]
    Do you know who only does what it has to? Robots. I think you might be a robot, Myth, that has been programmed to be perpetually and aggressively off the mark.

×
×
  • Create New...