saxasm

It isn't tyranny at all. It is the Red man's burden to guide and civilize the lesser spheres. That you do not see that your freedom is only truly attained once you've accepted the rightful and enlightened rule of the Red man does not mean we are the ones who are currently depriving you of it. If a child hurts itself to spite its parents, is it the parents' fault or the child's? If you were only to accept that your freedom is best achieved by getting an NPO viceroy, things would be a lot easier for all of us. (OOC: I'm starting to regret my choice to RP an unrepentant sphere-racist in this thread, because it makes for some truly awful posts. Sorry.)

I think this thread makes it abundantly clear that Invictans aren't truly Red, but just a Red-tinted Purple. They are a blood-sucking octopus on the Red sphere, subverting it from within, trying to turn its citizens against each other. They do not themselves produce, and look jealously from their infra-grubbing ways at the glory of the NPO society. Since they are unable to themselves achieve greatness, they fear and envy our power, and wish to destroy it. Their big-P envy leads them to construct these theories to weaken the minds of the proud Red sphere, as they cannot touch our mighty and wholesome nations with their emasculated blood-sucking nations. #Patriotic-Pacificans-Against-The-Invictaization-Of-The-Red-Sphere #TheRedPill #Anti-NPO-is-a-code-word-for-anti-Red

You're getting this all wrong. It's about ethics in cyber warfare. #PacificanRights #AntiNPOisaCodewordForAntiRed

Congratulations to DS and SPaTR, and vice versa.

Congratulations on your treaty. Also,

You said "issues with other alliances", not "causing a global war". Your alliance is far too useless to manage to do that. In case you need more examples of your alliance running around stirring up issues with others, I seem to recall that time you yelled about attacking SNX, or whatever that whole mess was about. There are plenty of examples, though I don't doubt that you'd prefer those stayed quietly unspoken of.

It is good to see a peace on this front. Congratulations to our allies, friends, and acquaintances on their peace. o/

Hm? I've never claimed that I or my alliance has "no issues with outside alliances". That would be a pretty hilarious thing for me to claim. I just found it funny that you claimed that II% has "no issues with outside alliances", when it's less than a month or two since you last declared a war for no sensible reason at all. Your description of your alliance was a bit off from the reality the rest of us perceive, which is what was so funny.

Alliance Name:III Percent :facepalm:

I'd probably say some micro with a decently large and respected protector who is able to protect you. You won't be plagued by raiders to the same degree as weaker micros and unaligneds, and you won't have to fight major wars.

I feel so appreciated.

Here are the nominations, and here is the python script I used. Given your initial comments in this thread, it is probably better than your macro. Edit: I'm working on cleaning the nominations list up, removing duplicates and invalid answers and such. This will take a while... Edit2: Finally done. Some cleaning left to do for someone else, such as hunting down cut-off links, and the IRC quotes nominations wound up getting cut off, so they may have to be added.

Wouldn't this logic seem to imply that it is perfectly okay to send tech to nations in DT that are out of range of Fark, since those nations won't be fighting Fark, either? Or does your warped logic only apply to RIA?

You keep making this claim, and yet I see no evidence for it. Given how many disagree with you on this assessment of their reputation, perhaps you could explain the basis for it? Otherwise this will just seem like self-serving slander, which I am sure a moral paragon such as you would never engage in.

We're nearing February. Someone should really get around to making the polls and stuff for this. I want to see who wins what, okay?

I'm growing a strong hatred of OWF debates on DBDC. That's one, at least.

Keep on saying that. One day, someone might believe you.

I'm very sorry to see this. Good luck to all of you, wherever you may go. Tywin, you're a bloody moron.

Are you sure that it is "dignity", and not just plain pride? Pride is, as you might be aware, not a virtue. Excess pride only hurts you. You'd be much better served by getting peace and then rebuilding your position -- not just nation-wise but also politically -- instead of keeping this fight going for some disordered sense of "dignity". I'm not suggesting that an upper tier is the end-all-be-all of an alliance. However, being in the micro-tier with slowly depleting warchests does cripple your ability to protect yourselves and your allies. Despite all your narrative, in the end, a nation at 1k infra cannot sustainably send out aid. Perpetual war strains all your resources, not just the NS of your upper-tier nations. (Who by now aren't upper tier any more...)

I find it interesting how Polar is implicitly admitting defeat in all of their rhetoric about "low-tier alliance" and "content to be at war forever". You claim that you can't be defeated, yet underneath your rhetoric you admit to having been defeated already. The purpose of an alliance is to provide stability for its members, to through cooperation tame the anarchy of being unaligned, and allow growth and production. At least that is, at some level, how most of us see an alliance. Through giving up some amount of freedom -- the freedom to declare wars at random, for example -- you gain the freedom to do all the other things we do on Bob. Further, alliances sign treaties in order to further help each other achieve this stability they desire. They give up some freedom in choosing their wars, in order to instead gain some protection from the aggression of others. Treaties are [OOC: at least in an IC context] only worth as much as they fulfil this purpose. No one would sign a treaty with an alliance unable to work with others, since treaties require cooperation to not make the alliance a liability. Given all this, how are we to interpret the statements Polar members are making of waging eternal lower-tier warfare? Aren't they giving up all the things they gained by being an alliance in the first place -- no more protection from random wars, no more opportunity for growth. Beyond the label of "New Polar Order" on their nation, it seems Polar nations would not truly be in a very different situation from the unaligned nations in their tier. If they grow, they are destroyed by raids, and if they don't grow, they might very well be destroyed anyway. Additionally, it seems that Polar, when they state that they are "content to be at war forever" are giving up on their treaties, too. They are giving up the ability to help their allies in any conflict those allies may get dragged into. A treaty with an alliance stuck in an eternal war would be a useless treaty -- one party cannot possibly aid the other. How does Polar's allies feel about Polar being willing to give up all the strength they pledged to their support in order to fight a pointless war achieving no political goal? I don't know what others think "defeated" means, but accepting the loss of all these things and pretending it does not bother them does seem like a defeat. If Polar weren't so foolishly prideful, they would admit this defeat, surrender, and rebuild their alliance. Accepting your own undoing isn't doing you or your allies any favours.

I believe Int entered on some Aftermath alliance, actually.

Technically, not interacting with anyone does mean you treat everyone the same way. Also, for the purpose of the rest of the CN, the distinction you're making is rather academic. Neither signs treaties, ergo, they're both largely outside of the political game.

Don't be silly, Tywin. You know very well that the DBDC people who post on the OWF are not at all unable to spell and make quite coherent posts, unlike the moron who started this thread. I'm a multitasker. I can mock more than one person at a time. :D

Oh, don't worry, we're still mocking you. :)

I'd care more if I had any idea what was going on.