hapapants
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by hapapants
-
-
I am surprised DS of all alliances, as bastions of defense of the free market, would complain about tech deals.
Capitalism, ho!
-
ITT: people that disapprove of DBDC's past behavior continue to disapprove of their actions.
-
Hail, hail, to a CN Valentine.
/o
-
Thanks for sharing Shatt, and congrats on 8 years. It's always cool to see someone's history with the game.
And it's always fun to see a mention of the Browncoats from time to time.
-
You're the one talking of DBDC allies coming in not me. So yes I find it funny that you would suggest that.
How funny do you find it? Does it merely tickle you pink? Or perhaps it has resulted in a full-bellied laugh?
It is important for me to know these things, as I will consult your humor in the future before I make decisions for my alliance.
You miss the point, however. Why would anyone waste their time saying WTF was wrong in accepting CT while ignoring and never commenting a thing about DBDC's actions?
You are misinterpreting what "wrong" means in the context of kingzog's argument. He isn't arguing that WTF is "morally" wrong, or that DBDC isn't hypocritical - those are arguments are a waste of time and the rest of you are free to melt your brains over such things.
What he's arguing is that WTF worsened their political position by unnecessarily by accepting CT into their alliance. And I don't understand why it is a waste of time to independently analyze the merits of such decisions.
So for illustrative purposes, do you think that DBDC's actions amount to "bad" decisions? Are their actions worsening their military or political decision more than helping it? (This is of course, rhetorical, but you're welcome to answer it.)
That frame of analysis is where the argument is taking place. If you want to take it somewhere else, that is your prerogative, but don't accuse people of "missing the point" when you pull an argumentative bait-and-switch.
-
So you're suggesting DBDC have bitten off more they can chew so would call in allies? Because we all know how the peanut gallery loves to laugh at that when it happens.
How have I suggested that?
Regardless, your amusement isn't a factor in political decision-making.
-
This is just an utterly nonsensical argument when you realize what's going on. DBDC holds dual membership with numerous alliances who right away accept them back into government positions after attacking neutrals, or other alliances without any justification. Why you've never complained about that, but are here to complain about CT basically makes you a complete hypocrite.
Also, everyone does what you said makes you one of a kind these days. It's not rare. Everyone is jaded.
I don't think kingzog is arguing about the relative morality of WTF's actions (accepting CT, etc) as compared to DBDC's (dual-membership nations).
He's arguing that WTF is making a politically/diplomatically bad decision. By accepting CT, they've turned this into a deeply personal conflict while opening the doors for DBDC's allies to escalate things. And whatever side one holds in this conflict, I think they'd find this argument difficult to dispute.
-
Expected a DBDC thread.
Was disappointed.
-
A toast to a treaty, and it's good to see bonds reforged.
You said the same thing about KB literally for months and did nothing about it. Your words are about as meaningless as they are incomprehensible.
Stop being such a poopy-head.
-
Wait which king are you referring to? Did you join CT too?
I haven't joined you yet, Tywin.
^_^
-
There's something pitiable about all of this...
...watching a "king" build his house of cards, only to realize that he is the jester. -
H2BKs, you were sanctioned for tech-deal scamming.
https://www.cybernations.lyricalz.com/aid?nation1=545625&per_page=
Transactions of note:
10/7/2014 11:59:26 AM (Accepted 9 million, no payment on 200 tech)
10/14/2014 2:23:13 PM (Accepted 9 million, no payment on 200 tech)
10/19/2014 2:11:37 PM (Accepted 9 million, no payment on 200 tech)
10/20/2014 11:54:53 AM (Accepted 9 million, no payment - amount owed is unclear)
12/18/2014 1:43:07 PM (Accepted 9 million, no payment on 100 tech)
12/18/2014 6:17:55 PM (Accepted 9 million, no payment - amount owed is unclear)
12/18/2014 7:02:04 PM (Accepted 9 million, no payment - amount owed is unclear)
So basically, you owe upwards of 1000 tech to pink team alliances. This is not limited towards pink team - you also owe tech to Nordreich, Gramlins, and GLoF nations. This is also just counting deals that were labeled as such on the aid-screen. Who knows how many "Financial Assistance" aid offers were actually tech deals that you chose not to pay.
If you are interested in paying back what you owe, send me a PM on forum or in-game. Until then, you will remain sanctioned on Pink.
-
Speaking as this world's leading expert on inappropriate sanctions, I think these are completely justifiable. One doesn't have to like them, but the explanation is reasonable. (And EEjack, while I completely understand your desire that "the application of senatorial sanctions....be consistent," I think we both know that expecting any kind of consistency is hopeless. One can dream, though.)
This is starting to remind me of Frans Josef's crusade against FAN. All one-man crusades do that eventually.
EDIT: Except....I just noticed that CT is no longer a pending WTF member. This has the potential to end so well.
When you rogue a pink team senator in a politically-connected alliance, you should expect them to use the powers that they have.
This has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with the insane expectation that someone will not use the powers at their disposal to defend themselves. It's as if I were to wield a butter knife, and run up to an armed soldier. When I get shot in the face, I do not get to scream "that's not fair!"
-
To: customerservice@ebay.com
From: Hapapants@gmail.com
Subject: Auction #5423456 - Complaint
To whom it may concern,
I recently placed a bid of 9 million dollars on Item #5423456 (Authentic DBDC Government Skype Logs) on Ebay.com. It appears my bid has not been registered, and I'm here to inquire as to why. There were no previous bids on this item and my bid was well above the minimum price. I have contacted the owner of the auction (User: H2BK), but have not received a response as of yet, which is why I have sent you this e-mail.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could reply as soon as possible. This one-of-a-kind item is of great importance to me.
Warmest Regards,
Hapapants
-
I will place a starting bid of 9 million in authentic CN dollars for those Skype logs.
-
Did you take a minute to think that aligning yourself with a terrorist organization right off the bat might not be the best way to express those values?
Dramatic.
-
A question my dear Walford - why is "moralism" a superior philosophy to those you preach against?
It is the central question too, because a lot of what you have been writing boils down to...
"You are sociopaths and [insert name-calling here] because you do not see the world the way that I do."
-
You people are unbelievable. You start a war and are bleating that those you are attacking are actually going to have something to say about it other than LULz. You have been spending too much time with your toadies and sycophants.
...
These "pies" you are referring to are people. Their nations that took a long time to build up and such a short time to destroy. In your twisted minds, destruction is the same thing as creation. As sociopaths, you look at others as a means to an end, so you refer to them as "pies" to be sliced up and divided amongst flukes, fleas and tapeworms.
...
This SCM guy sounds like such a poopy-head.
-
Cuba and TBDRaiders have nations that outclasses everyone else, you mean. It's not particular hard to be a leader when you have that. Imagine if I had Cubaqueridas nation.
oyababy confirmed 2nd best leader in CN
-
I don't have a personal agenda against DBDC. I literally couldn't care one way or the other about them, I am too small for it to ever matter.
If you don't have an agenda against DBDC, why do you clamor for war against them?
-
-
You pronounced my name wrong, then proceeded to guilt me into writing Part 5 =/
-
Your question cannot be answered because none of us know.
That's disappointing. I was sure that someone so closely allied to Pacifia would have some insight into their political direction.
But why don't we speculate? A good argument can be made that the "terms" at the end of the Disorder War set Pacifia down a path of vengeance. This is very easy to see if you look at their post-war diplomatic moves and treaties. Or better yet, why not ask the folks in Polar or TOP if they regretted pushing those terms through?
The fact is, no matter how you break it down.... terms were offered to Umb. Terms were accepted by Umb. Everyone in EQ soiled their undies at the thought of having to enforce those terms, so Brehon eventually force fed a "no terms because these guys are too scared to enforce them" then you had mass elements of EQ blame Brehon for their own lack of testicular fortitude in enforcing the terms they wanted. Slice it how you want to. You cannot say "well the coalition didnt get along, so we cannot use that as an example"... We can exemplify coalition cracks in every single war. NPO ended up enforcing 0 terms on DH. Those who wanted the much more harsh terms (Valhalla and their ilk) immediately were scooped up by the same side they wanted to impose harsh terms on to punish NPO because they all wanted to pain the very thought of terms on DH as NPOs idea and NPOs idea alone.
This is what I said? I'm pretty sure this is what I said.
You're pointing to a situation where terms were unenforcable and saying "See, see! I told you so!" That is not a remotely comparable situation. That in fact, is a situation where "strong leadership" tried to force "terms" through while ignorant of the status of their coalition, and it backfiring terribly on their faces.
...which sort of backs up my argument... no?
I do know that I have been in MANY coalitions. Many winners, many losers. Never have I witnessed a large group such as this getting away with so little damage, with so little fighting, with so little care. This is the political reality that our "good leadership" is delivering. But hey, at least we all got to say "it was honorable!"
You have been in many coalitions, but you seem to have taken the wrong lessons from them.
Regardless, different members of a coalition will have different incentives. It is those on the periphery of the conflict, with the least involvement and the least at stake, than can afford to talk the loudest about punishment and vengeance.
-
Recent history? Ask NPO about recent history. You can spin it how you want, until you are blue in the face, but NPO's coalition essentially ended up giving DH NO terms. You can pontificate and debate the route that took them there, but the terms were none. The reward of that none? Terms on them for entering the next war on a defensive treaty. Vengeance need not be blind. You do vengeance a disservice by adding a faux adjective to enhance your position. I also did not say anything about "good leadership" so again you interject a term to accentuate your position. This, quite simply could have been handled, as I said twice now... "2 weeks of yy nations coming out of pM, then you can walk." When you let !@#$%bags get away with !@#$%baggery, do you call that "good leadership?"
You are off your rocker if you think Equilibrium is a good analogy to the current situation. There were no reps because the "Equilibrium Coalition" was so unstable that unity was impossible, and any desirable/effective reparations (targeted towards Umbrella/MK upper tiers) were basically unenforceable due to the military situation (Doomhouse upper-tier dominance, etc).
But let us look at even more recent history and pose a simple question: were it not for reparations in the Disorder War, where would Pacifia have ended up in this war?
Don't Call It a Comeback.
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Welcome home.