Karoli
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Karoli
-
-
Hey, now that NPO isn't the string-pulling hegemonic power anymore, whats to stop some of you oldtimers from reforming LUE or NAAC or etc? Surprised it hasn't come up yet....
-
Black: LOSS
Blue: LOSS
Aqua:
Orange:
White:
Green: Foundation
Purple:
Maroon:
Red:
Brown: Browncoats
Yellow: FAN
Pink: LOSS
Multi-Colored/No official Color: Grey Council
-
Well, I'm not gov or anything, but clearly
should be LOSS's theme song.... -
and to pink, I'll still send you cake! I promise!
It'll just be pink cake, right?
mmmmm pink cake....
-
Yay for LOSS!!! Hurrah Blue!!!
Just to say, back in the day NAAC and LoSS were like ODN and Legion today, only on the same color. They belong on blue.No idea what this means....
-
This wasn't the time Martens betrayed NPO/NpO/GOONS, was it? I don't think so... was this the time ICP tried to join Maroon and everyone was like "WHAT" and kicked them out? I can't remember. This time last year I was fuming at some people in IRON and would shortly be leaving for NPO.
This doesn't make sense... Doitzel's nation is County Doitzel, and he isn't GATO. And there is no nation "Kingdom of Kaos." Someone is not on the up-and-up.
-
I hope we continue to see these preventative messages regarding the new spaiz. Is anyone tracking how many alliances have made such pledges?
EDIT: firsties!
-
LOSS: Good job guys.
Onward to infinity NS and beyond!
-
Wow,
So if an alliance chooses to go to war just cause it wants to or because it feels threataned, that is a sovereign action, so long as the alliance is willing to bear the consequences of its action. But if a group of alliances want their justification to be a treaty obligation against some alliance that is engaging in behavior that they have determined is "wrong" (read: because they want to or feel threatened by the "wrong" behavior), then that is World Tyranny.
Selective Sovereignty, anyone?
-
Martens, you accept the concept of national and alliance sovereignty, as well as the voluntary checks to that sovereignty that alliances and treaties represent. Everytime nations form an alliance, they are sacrificing national sovereignty to the collective. ANd every time two alliances sign a MDP or MADP they are agreeing to forgo some sovereignty in favor of increased collective security. You can accept these limits on sovereignty as overtly-stated, pre-bellum open agreements. What if, once a conflict arises, an alliance collectively decides that their sovereign choice is to support one side over another because it is their preference? That is certainly an exercise of sovereign choice, yet you reject it if it is cloaked in the propaganda of "right" and "wrong". Your picking and choosing of sovereign rights seems strange and inconsistant.
-
Damn, I shouldn't even reply, this should be locked, but I can't help myself. As probably the only CN nation that has been both LOSS and FAN, the idea of LOSS as some big bad meanie alliance would be hilarious were it not so ridiculous. I mean really, this is LOSS. These guys have been around over a year and they're small because they've been honest and forthright to a fault. Even their enemies think they're decent fellows.
Hail LOSS for fair play.
This message is mine alone.
-
Choopmeister,
Whether you are Colbert or not, you're a great leader and I love being in such a classy alliance. Hail to my Choopish Overlords!
Neutrality FTW!
So... Now What?
in Open World RP
Posted
Emperor King, may I be the first to congratulate you on your accession to Secret Emperor of the NPO. All Hail Secret Emperor King!