Bavaricar

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1285470280' post='2464834'] If we're going to brading about concepts like 'global law' then the NPO can't exactly use this as a legitimate argument here. All other colour spheres aside from Pink have agreed that these nations are rogues. "Global law" seems to be agreeing with GOONS. [/quote] The decisions of a majority of senators are now "legally" binding on the others? That's some world court you've divined there. Once a majority of senators have spoken, all other views are unacceptable or...[i]illegal[/i]?

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285469027' post='2464815'] If true this isn't a lie but me being misinformed. If you can explain who and when I'll agree with you. But we haven't done this in recent history, for as long as I've been around, which is at least six months. [/quote] I think the alliance was called FOA. I think it was kind of a big deal.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285467376' post='2464796'] Yes it does say this, but we have literally never done this.[/quote] Another lie, spin, whatever you want to call it. [quote] We'd have to sell it to our allies, and we've never had to. [/quote] In fairness, you no longer have that ally.

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1285466723' post='2464778'] Instead of trying to egg us on with posts of no substance, how about you read the posts where we and other alliances' officials have stated that Schattenmann's data is blatantly false and proved it? If Schattenmann is so right, how come he refuses to give out dates for his data? He has an obvious agenda and is far too biased against us to be a credible source of information. [/quote] Probably because I see where he made adjustments and you still want to dismiss the whole report since it does not and never will meet the goon standards of scientistic rigor.

I visit it and I appreciate your efforts. It's also quite informative to see how much or how little is actually new news from day to day.

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285465530' post='2464753'] The only spittle-filled protests I see here are the ones that take months to "research" then inevitable turn out to be demonstratively false. [/quote] Do you ever get tired of just switching someone else's words around in your "counter" arguments? I notice that practice constitutes the overwhelming number of your alliance's posts around here. Maybe try thinking up an answer using your own words some day instead of just rearranging those of the post you think you are answering? Because, really, I stopped paying much attention to most of your alliance members' posts many days ago and that makes me a sad panda since I really do like reading good counter arguments.

While all of these are potentially good themes, I also like themes that are easier to relate to real world politics since they usually (but not at all always) are easier to relate to in this game's politics. Religious, communist, nationalist, dictatorial, democratic or even just generally pro-freedom or pro-order alliances are interesting to me since they are alliances everyone can understand without being a member of that alliance. They also are great at what I think of as natural thematic recruiters since it seems like it might be easier for one to decide if he wants to join a fantasy-based furry alliance or a more generally labeled liberty loving or authoritarian alliance. With that said, I will have to admit that most of the fantasy- or shooter-based alliances also have to approach political questions just as everyone else does, it is just harder for a newer player to recognize quickly what life would really be like in such an alliance. In other words, I think my conclusion is probably that you can make any theme work since the demands of the politics of the game are going to be the same for all alliances, no matter how cool its theme is on paper and in forums roleplay.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285435347' post='2464347'] It's not particularly new. I always argued pre-Karma that NPO's allies were more to blame for the state of things than NPO. Do you honestly think that MA and RoK would have let GOONS's high arrogance in raiding slide if MK hadn't been behind MK? [/quote] Indeed, it's interesting how the more things change the more they stay the same. Seeing the goons (and others like them also from the old hegemony) pull their new enabling power structure down to their level and shape it again to its purposes and bad behaviors, it's almost as if the old hegemony was never really overthrown. Also, quite an interesting report. Experience tells me the more spittle-filled protests from those you expose we see, the closer we know you are to the truth.

By now, I think most fair observers are used to the goons never expecting to be held to the words they spout on these forums or even the word they might give in private. Like most others here, I'm also very accustomed to the many goons who bandy about here daily saying anything just to say something contrary or mocking and then to say the exact opposite a moment or so later. But now seeing this behavior spread (or appear again?)among the leaders of some of their more freshly redeclared allies is quite something.

Well, I've learned one thing from this topic. The goons are pretty much holy roller [b]moralists[/b] when it comes to the discussion of "rogues." When there is no common agreement on what numerically constitutes an alliance, be we Jims, Umars or even Janovas, we are all rogues.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285201650' post='2461547'] By pretty much every single alliance that has any diplomatic connections. Stop playing this little semantics game of yours, you aren't winning any points. [/quote] When you can't come up with an answer you like, you evade the question and belittle the debate. That's what happens when you realize you really don't believe in the might makes right system you serve.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1285200214' post='2461518'] Edit: Wait what? This doesn't make sense. Let's back up for a second. A rogue is an unaffilitated nation that acts aggressively (ie: an act of war) towards another entity (generally an alliance). That's what a rogue is! I don't care what other wishy washy definitions you want to attach to it, that's the common accepted convention. [/quote] Commonly accepted according to who? The most organized rogues who wreck the nations [b]and alliances[/b] of the less powerful?

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1285199804' post='2461511'] Part of being a rogue is being unaffiliated with an alliance, so... there goes that! [/quote] And that right there is the fundamental flaw underlying you and your allies' arguments here regarding the OP's standing in this arena. A right or even wrong acting nation, depending on how one views the author of the OP, is automatically wrong by Planet Bob definition simply because he will not fall in line with the mob (aka alliance) mentality. What, I ask, are alliances without a commonly agreed upon body of international law? They are all rogues.

[quote name='Heinlander' timestamp='1285199375' post='2461496'] What international laws have we broken? [/quote] I think you know there is no international law here, just mob rule. That's why it's pointless to call anyone a rogue since if your alliance were held to similar standards it also would fit the definition.

A rogue is merely an unpredictable actor or one who does not abide by international law. By either standard, the GOON alliance is a good example alliance. What is that simpering I hear, you say there is no such thing as rogue alliances on Bob, only rogue nations?

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1285198160' post='2461458'] It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate. Raiding cannot be considered defensive. [/quote] Looks like done in one here. Excepting of course that some alliances consider every offensive action they take as defensive regardless of common sense, such as the GOONs running around trying to send aid to everyone with a FAC to see who might be aiding Methrage.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285197754' post='2461442'] I don't think you quite "get it". In this world, the nations shape the rules, official and not so much, that we all abide by. Messr. JimKungIl has violated the rules that have been established by the alliance discourse, and is thus a rogue. What you say is a lot like someone saying "just because this nation is in anarchy, if someone loots your house and kills your family you aren't allowed to round up a posse for revenge because "looting" and "murder" are absolutely empty terms. [/quote] Given your premise, yes every nation is potentially a rogue, alliance member or not. An alliance member's participation in a "posse," be it ad hoc or by "treaties," further reinforces this point.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1285196682' post='2461422'] Yes, you are a rogue. [/quote] In a world with no law, the term rogue is an absolutely empty term. His nation is no more or less a rogue than yours is.

Bullying someone in "private" is better than doing it in public?

[quote name='Dr Beefstupid' timestamp='1285135739' post='2460721'] Interesting sense of humour you have there. So after you got beaten down to a shell of your original size, why did you switch to an alliance even smaller and more insane? Just for kicks? Is that part of the joke? And then you sit back and laugh because no matter how badly you got your teeth kicked in, your opponent hasn't managed to completely demolish the friends you left behind. I guess you had to be there. [/quote] I was never an actual member of UOKMB. As for getting ground down, rebuilding from the aid you waste and getting ground back down, just to do it all over again like you goons seem to take great pleasure in... well, this can go on in perpetuity... as sardonic promised me here when I said I would never visit your "mercy board." Now with this public bullying of JimKongIl we see just how very desperate you are to flex your allies muscles like you used to do, muscles you don't possess and [i]never have possessed[/i] in your own alliance.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1285134984' post='2460706'] I actually prefer watching GOONS sleuth out two out of two (possibly three out of thee) secret aid packages sent to Methrage [i]on the first try[/i] while we trounce two small AAs of rogues so hard that we have to find and aid newbies with no war experience to fight nations with nukes and large improvement/wonder sets. But you know, I guess it's a matter of perspective! [/quote] I only have 6 improvements and my nation has ranged from 250-600 infra throughout this little war. with no nukes or even the dream of nukes. Of the 6 goonies I've met on the battlefield, you and your allies have spent over 20 million and counting... for what... to knock me down to zero infra? Now I see why you are trying to bully someone else for another 90 million.

Watching the goons run around in pursuit of who might or might not be aiding one nation leader while they and their allies waste wave after wave of 3 million war aid packages to their nations fighting a 4 and an 8 member alliance is the ultimate in comedy. Please do continue this show of goonie prowess.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1284785052' post='2457032'] Discover it? I dare say, good sir, I already expect it. At least a philosophical stance, no matter how riddled with double-think stacked upon a shaky dubious foundation, that promotes some sort of ambition is a refresh change from the limp milquetoast 'live and let live' crap that most groups of cowards embrace. [/quote] As much as I am tired of flipping the same old [i]anarchy or order[/i] coin, well said and I agree.

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1284784625' post='2457023'] Why does this keep coming up? Maybe I'm not picking it up so could you point out the posts where I order people around? I stated my opinion, but just because I don't agree with you that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you what to do. [/quote] Once upon a time disagreeing with someone in an alliance like mrcalkin's meant you were a rebel or dissident. Nowadays, disagreeing with someone like mrcalkin makes you an oppressor. It is a curious rhetorical technique. As to my opinion on the OP, same thing.

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1284759037' post='2456780'] "I just bought a transit pass. I now have freedom of transportation." "I purchased a drink from a vending machine. I have freedom from thirst." "I paid rent on an appartment for next month. I have freedom from the rain." And so on, and so forth. None of these things actually provide me with any significant freedom, despite what the english language allows me to construct. [/quote] Your examples actually are good illustrations of some of the most significant freedoms necessary for the pursuit of the so-called "higher" freedoms. If i have no transportation, how can I get to my job to earn a living to pay my bills. How can I get to my doctor who does not make house calls. How can I get to the plaza to pass out my campaign brochures and give my speech? If I have no means of obtaining water or nourishment, the only freedom I will enjoy is that of dying from dehydration or starvation. If I do not have the means of providing myself with shelter, it will be quite hard to focus on any of those "higher" unnamed freedoms you find to find to be more significant. Of course, nothing you say is ever meant to be taken at face value, so I don't even know why I chose to reply to your words.